Nikon 70-200 F4 vs F2.8 , anyone tested ?

Correlli

Found the review on photozone.de.

Quote:

The 70-200 VR II increases the field of view with close focus. This is not uncommon, in fact any IF lens does this to a certain degree, but only a few do so at a similar amount. At minimum focus distance (MFD) at 200mm the 70-200 VR II provides an image angle equivalent to a 135mm lens.

GhostRider117

Found the review on photozone.de.

Quote:

The 70-200 VR II increases the field of view with close focus. This is not uncommon, in fact any IF lens does this to a certain degree, but only a few do so at a similar amount. At minimum focus distance (MFD) at 200mm the 70-200 VR II provides an image angle equivalent to a 135mm lens.

That's indeed something I've read numerous times about the 70-200mm VR II. Test pictures show clearly a significant difference with the 2.8 VR I (who doesn't breathe as much), though the 135mm is a guess more than anything. Remember however that this only becomes significant as you move closer to your subject. I own a 18-200mm VRII, which exhibits the exact same behaviour (wouldn't call it an issue, but you need to be aware of it and use it).

It is indeed a characteristic of IF lenses, though the extent to which they behave like that can range from unnoticeable to dealbreaker.

From what I've read, the 70-200mm f/4 basically doesn't breathe (not significantly at least). Comparison shots show it is significantly better than the 2.8 VRII on that criteria.

The breathing issue on the 2.8 VR II is a dealbreaker for me, but I'm not yet sold on the f/4. I'd rather wait for more (reliable) reviews. In particular, build quality, AF speed, and subject isolation are still question marks for me. Though knowing the way I usually behave, I'll end up with the f/4... unless Nikon releases a f/2.8 VRIII which really is 200mm at close focus ;-)

Golf007sd

N Photo Mag article on how do you choose.

Msmoto

Have I missed something on this thread? Is there a failure rate with the new 70-200mm f/4 tripod mount?

[Deleted User]

Not at all - officially, but there have been suggestions here that the part of the lens barrel where the tripod mount fixes is somewhat light-weight. It's great fun - we've even had people doing experiments with lasers...

[Deleted User]

The breathing issue on the 2.8 VR II is a dealbreaker for me...

Why?

JJ_SO

Not at all - officially, but there have been suggestions here that the part of the lens barrel where the tripod mount fixes is somewhat light-weight. It's great fun - we've even had people doing experiments with lasers...

Well, we could continue to bore people into coma with discussions about noise at 50 ISO, but once lasers were modern. So why not give it a scientific touch instead all that guessing, suspecting and supposing?

[Deleted User]

Well, we could continue to bore people into coma ...

Mission accomplished...

Msmoto

So, no one has an actual report of a failure of the 70-200 f/4 tripod foot, huh?

JJ_SO

I don't get it - you're asking seriously, aren't you? I could see up to 5 times bigger movement on most of my heads, when I used the collar instead of fixing the body with lens directly to the head. I consider that as a failure, especially at that price, reported it to Nikon and they "pass it forward to the design department" haha, and if I want to get the money back, I should ask the dealer. It's the first and last time I bought original collar of Nikon. Some of the other accessories also benefitted from my prejudice, OEM stuff should be better adapted than 3rd party accessories. Meanwhile even I had to come to other conclusions.

Msmoto

I have to laugh for a moment as I was researching the tripod collar issue. When I went to Ren Kockwell he stated about the tripod collar, he does not use these and suggested not purchasing it. He even stated he connects the camera directly with the tripod and does this even with his f/2.8 zooms.

Wow....I cannot imagine attaching the tripod to the camera with a 70-200mm f/2.8 out front. That is IMO an excellent way to pull the tripod mount out of the body.

Now, back to the issue. I have not found any reviews yet which state the tripod collar is not good, but a lot suggest it is a bit pricey.

JJ_SO

How much people really do night shots with this lens? If you mount it to a monopod and use the collar for what i can do best - turn the camera round the lens' axis and maybe "forget" to switch off the VR, I cannot imagine one would have problems at the usual shutter times. Which go as long as 1/20 with that gorgeous lens. It's so bloody easy to prove. Switch off VR, use the collar, based on a good tripod/head combi and take the shot at 1/15 at 200mm. Nikon says in the manual to turn off the VR when using a tripod, but nothing about mirror prerelease.

As for the 2.8 directly via body mounted - I would not do that either, maybe on a D3 / D4 but the other bodies are too weak. Actually, keeping the focus on the vibration source, it does make a lot sense to do so although Ren already's doing it. But of course, not for longer teles.

What I'd suspect as to be better is that thing: http://www.manfrotto.com/telephoto-lens-support which has several disadvantages, as lens changing no longer easy, the tin construction, the fuzz with quick release plates, the restriction to IF, some (okay, most with extending tubes) zooms can't be used with it and more - but for very sure, this is worth half the prize of the crappy Nikon collar and gains double the stability at minimum.

GhostRider117

The breathing issue on the 2.8 VR II is a dealbreaker for me...

Why?

Well, because I don't want to find myself with a 2000 bucks 70-135mm f/2.8 whenever shooting closer than infinity. But maybe that issue has been exaggerated, that's the problem with Internet. However, considering I just saw my dealer has finally received the f/4, I think I might go there and give it a try and compare with an f/2.8 to see if it's really that bad when using it rather than looking at lab tests I like the build of the 2.8 (and I find the f/4 a tad pricey, in comparison, or at least with my usual dealer: EUR 1950 for the f/2.8, EUR 1200 for the f/4, so I guess around 1400 with the collar)...


@ Msmoto: I wonder if following Cockwell's advice would mean a pulled tripod mount, or a solid tripod mount but a pulled... F-mount!!!

PB_PM

Did you actually shoot with the VR2? I rented one for a month and took over 3000 shots with, never noticed focus breathing in real life situations. Yes it is there, but you have feet. I've also used the VR1, althought not as much and I honest didn't see a huge difference, but then again I usually don't shoot subjects that are less than 2m away.

Tabazan

I have to laugh for a moment as I was researching the tripod collar issue. When I went to Ren Kockwell he stated about the tripod collar, he does not use these and suggested not purchasing it. He even stated he connects the camera directly with the tripod and does this even with his f/2.8 zooms.

Wow....I cannot imagine attaching the tripod to the camera with a 70-200mm f/2.8 out front. That is IMO an excellent way to pull the tripod mount out of the body.

Now, back to the issue. I have not found any reviews yet which state the tripod collar is not good, but a lot suggest it is a bit pricey.

Er ... yesss, F2.8 directly on the cam ... and your baïonette looks like onions rings , ha , ah, ha ... well, er, sorry ... Bloody Ken.

But with the F4 no use of tripod collar (or a Canon copy - seems like the exact same size - at 15$ on Ebay)

[Deleted User]

Well, because I don't want to find myself with a 2000 bucks 70-135mm f/2.8 whenever shooting closer than infinity. But maybe that issue has been exaggerated...

Just a bit - a great deal in fact. Question: Do you believe everything you read on the Internet?

But back to your original comment - you stated that the 'breathing issue was a deal breaker' and I wondered why? This has nothing to do with any nonsense regarding a supposed "70-135 at anything less than infinity" - I have both lenses and I've never noticed any real difference, but then what do I know.

JJ_SO

I have to laugh for a moment as I was researching the tripod collar issue. When I went to Ren Kockwell he stated about the tripod collar, he does not use these and suggested not purchasing it. He even stated he connects the camera directly with the tripod and does this even with his f/2.8 zooms.

Wow....I cannot imagine attaching the tripod to the camera with a 70-200mm f/2.8 out front. That is IMO an excellent way to pull the tripod mount out of the body.

Now, back to the issue. I have not found any reviews yet which state the tripod collar is not good, but a lot suggest it is a bit pricey.

Er ... yesss, F2.8 directly on the cam ... and your baïonette looks like onions rings , ha , ah, ha ... well, er, sorry ... Bloody Ken.

But with the F4 no use of tripod collar (or a Canon copy - seems like the exact same size - at 15$ on Ebay)

Why do you people don't do your maths? A D4 is 1340 grams, a 70-200 is 1470 grams, so nearly equal weight. If you use the tripod collar, the bayonet has to deal with exactly the same weight relations, because on the other side of the bayonet is a body of nearly 3 pounds, with flash even much more. The Nikon bayonet can carry much more weight than you think. And just because Ren Kockwell is himself, that doesn't necessarily mean, he's wrong all the time. And as well the tripod mount can take much more than three pounds lens. Another question would be if the bayonet's springs can hold the lens in an ideal axis, but that goes to some other lenses without tripod collar as well.

8-|

Msmoto

Actually, the physics is the issue I would struggle with. Most of the weight of the lens is about 6-8 inches out in front, whereas the D4 body is only about 2 inches from the lens mount.

donaldejose

You could always use two tripods for a long and heavy lens but that is cumbersome.

[Deleted User]

I've just received the famous Chinese tripod mount for the 70-200 f/4 (which I'll be the first to admit I'll probably never use...) and I have to say aside from the fact that the painted lettering is not level, it's extremely well made and fits the lens like a glove. I'm not going to 'test' whether or not there's slack on the tripod etc. that just doesn't interest me - if I do ever use the thing, I feel sure it'll do what it's designed to do.

(In an effort to drag this thread, kicking and screaming, back to photography...)
I spent the evening photographing two concerts yesterday - the majority of the time with the 70-200 f/4. The example below was shot wide open, hand held at 1/125s with crap stage lighting...


More than the definition etc. which is perfectly adequate, I think this shows how well the auto-ISO handles the lighting (obviously easier for me to comment having actually been there :-) )

JJ_SO

Actually, the physics is the issue I would struggle with. Most of the weight of the lens is about 6-8 inches out in front, whereas the D4 body is only about 2 inches from the lens mount.

Partly you're right. The distances between the center of weight are different. But to calculate the different forces, you can use just these centers of weight. Anyway, I don't worry about the bayonet of the pro bodies.

JJ_SO

@darkslide: great shot. Doesn't seem to me, you miss the f/2.8 much?

[Deleted User]

@JJ_SO Not for this sort of stuff. I love shallow depth of field for 'people' shots, and frankly the difference (f/2.8 v f/4) is so slight that it comes down to what's comfortable to lug around a concert venue. If I had any doubts as to the IQ of the f/4 then I wouldn't be using it

Tonight will be interesting too - 'modern' flamenco - lots of movement (and noise to hide the D3s!!) - results tomorrow...(if anyone is interested)

Msmoto

@ darkslide

Right on! You nailed this one and it demonstrates to me the new 70-200mm f/4 is a great piece of glass.

@ JJ_SO

I agree about the use with the D4, Most likely the weight is not an issue. With the D600, of which we have seen the front mount break off the camera, I would be hesitant to stick the lens out there on its own. And, I think what Ren said, could be misinterpreted especially by a non-pro body owner and have a disaster occur in the right circumstances.

Tabazan

I have to laugh for a moment as I was researching the tripod collar issue. When I went to Ren Kockwell he stated about the tripod collar, he does not use these and suggested not purchasing it. He even stated he connects the camera directly with the tripod and does this even with his f/2.8 zooms.

Wow....I cannot imagine attaching the tripod to the camera with a 70-200mm f/2.8 out front. That is IMO an excellent way to pull the tripod mount out of the body.

Now, back to the issue. I have not found any reviews yet which state the tripod collar is not good, but a lot suggest it is a bit pricey.

Er ... yesss, F2.8 directly on the cam ... and your baïonette looks like onions rings , ha , ah, ha ... well, er, sorry ... Bloody Ken.

But with the F4 no use of tripod collar (or a Canon copy - seems like the exact same size - at 15$ on Ebay)

Why do you people don't do your maths? A D4 is 1340 grams, a 70-200 is 1470 grams, so nearly equal weight. If you use the tripod collar, the bayonet has to deal with exactly the same weight relations, because on the other side of the bayonet is a body of nearly 3 pounds, with flash even much more. The Nikon bayonet can carry much more weight than you think. And just because Ren Kockwell is himself, that doesn't necessarily mean, he's wrong all the time. And as well the tripod mount can take much more than three pounds lens. Another question would be if the bayonet's springs can hold the lens in an ideal axis, but that goes to some other lenses without tripod collar as well.

8-|

Sorry, no. In maths,yes, in physics, no. Equal weight is not all ...

Remember :
Traction is not the same at the point of junction if you stick 2 compact blocks the same weight to each other than if you stick one compact block with a long thin block the same weight (leveraging, to name it). And yes the baionette is quite delicate, not in itself but (once again) at the point of junction.

I never said Ken Rockewell is wrong, I just think it's not a good advice to tell people use (quite) big lenses that way. IMO.

But people are free ... ;-)