Nikkor 70-200 F4 discussion

heartyfisher

Had a look around and there was no thread on only the 70-200 F4

Found some older 70-200 F4 discussions and F4 vs F2.8 threads, but just wanted to start one just for this nice lense.

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=11519&page=4
http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1616/tele-zoom-70-200mm-f4-vs-f2-8#Item_66 = which resulted in me buying the lense !

.

Escape from the canola fields!


Love the Bokeh !
D610 & 70-200F4 at 200mm F4

spraynpray

My favourite lens. If only they were all as good! Particularly the 'save your ass' VR. =D>

Photobug

Love the image @heartyfisher. Nice bokeh.

As an owner of the 70-200mm F2.8 I love the pictures I get with it. But have to admit i rarely use it wide open. I don't know any users of the 200 F4 so I will follow this forum to learn more about the F4. Got to do that because of friends that ask me about what lens to buy next.

heartyfisher

Had a play with a friends 28-300 on my D610.. its a nice lense for general photography. but I am glad I stuck with my decision to use my 18-140 in DX mode for that functionality. The 70-200 F4 is really outstandingly sharp !! I think I have decided for my rare wide angle requirements that my 18-140 is sufficient for now.

This review from photographylife ! .. http://photographylife.com/nikon-70-200mm-f4g-vr-incredible

I had a look at the DXOmark for this lense and it shows that my D610 is seriously limiting it! on the D800E it gets 30pmp !! I think a 36MP sensor may be in my future with this lense !! (More likely a DX Pro camera..)

Golf007sd

Nikon's line of F4 lenes are all outstanding,

spraynpray

Nikon's line of F4 lenes are all outstanding,

I have yet to be convinced about the 24-120 even though I wish it were as good as the 70-200. The copy I tried was 'meh'.

Golf007sd

@spraynpray: I'v had the opportunity to play with the 24-120 f4 a few times. It performed just fine. The only thing was that when I looked at the image on the computer, for some reason the images just did not do it for me. Kind like how PitchBlack feels when he shots with the 24-70. I cannot explain it but the image just lacked something...

Having said that, Nikon is confident with this lens enough that they have bundled it as a kit with the new D750....go figure. :-?

heartyfisher

Nikon's line of F4 lenes are all outstanding,

I have yet to be convinced about the 24-120 even though I wish it were as good as the 70-200. The copy I tried was 'meh'.

Had a look at the charts and reviews of this lense (24-120). its weakness is at around 85mm where it is not very sharp. Maybe you were using it at that Focal length ? at F5.6 all focal lengths sharpen up nicely...

spraynpray

Nikon's line of F4 lenes are all outstanding,

I have yet to be convinced about the 24-120 even though I wish it were as good as the 70-200. The copy I tried was 'meh'.

Had a look at the charts and reviews of this lense (24-120). its weakness is at around 85mm where it is not very sharp. Maybe you were using it at that Focal length ? at F5.6 all focal lengths sharpen up nicely...

Yebbut hearty - you don't pay an f4 price for an f5.6 lens. If it were as sharp as the 70-200 f4, I'd happily buy it as the DX 16-85 equivalent. The 16-85 had a great range but it also was 'meh' in terms of performance. I suppose I'll have to go for the 24-70 (17-55 DX equivalent).

heartyfisher

Nikon's line of F4 lenes are all outstanding,

I have yet to be convinced about the 24-120 even though I wish it were as good as the 70-200. The copy I tried was 'meh'.

Had a look at the charts and reviews of this lense (24-120). its weakness is at around 85mm where it is not very sharp. Maybe you were using it at that Focal length ? at F5.6 all focal lengths sharpen up nicely...

Yebbut hearty - you don't pay an f4 price for an f5.6 lens. If it were as sharp as the 70-200 f4, I'd happily buy it as the DX 16-85 equivalent. The 16-85 had a great range but it also was 'meh' in terms of performance. I suppose I'll have to go for the 24-70 (17-55 DX equivalent).

yebbut :-) , its only weak at around 85mm. the charts show that 24-50 it is good at F4. 70 and 120 is ok in the middle. although from 70-120 I would probably go to F4.5 and check for myself if its ok. All lenses have weaknesses, if you can avoid 85mm at F4 if you need sharpness, this lens should be great. From 24-50 its really sharp at F4. Would be nice if someone who has this lens could check 70-120 at F4.5 for us.

At the moment I am also considering another lense to complement my 70-200 F4 as my primary lense and I have several options.
I am hoping that I can make it a 2 lense kit.
1) 24-120 F4 VR Nikon
2) 24-70 F2.8 VC Tamron
3) 28mm F1.8 Nikon
4) 24mm F1.4 Samyang

spraynpray

I like the idea of a 2 lens kit and the Tamron is my likely second lens. I don't find them 'rewarding' to use in terms of feel, but they have VR and perform well apparently. I'll buy one to try when the time comes most likely.

KnockKnock

I'm curious, full-frame, 200mm, how far away were you from Homer on this shot? Thinking working distance.

I've been doing more food photography, learning a lot, DX with the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, so 75mm equivalent usually cutting DoF to about 3-4 inches at f/2.8, working 3-6 feet from the subject, reflectors on the table stands with strobes, camera on tripod. The problem is that I'm not leaving the food stylist or chef any space to work.

I need help with the math on what lens would allow me to move back another 3-6 feet and slice the same 3-4 inches DoF. That'd open up the main front working space. I think doubling the focal length would give me the doubling of distance, so 150mm equivalent. But would that require the same f/2.8 to maintain the 3-4 inches DoF? Sounds like the 105mm f/2.8 Macro.

I'm trying to rationalize the 70-200 f/4 because it's more flexible, but I'm losing a stop right? I'd have to back up further and shoot at 200mm at f/4 in order to cut the same DoF, no?

I'm that kid in math class hunching over to the smart kids for help with his homework.

spraynpray

KnockKnock: Get Dof master on your smartphone. It's free, easy and answers all these questions.

If I were you, I wouldn't be working in the same space as the chef. For the reasons you stated you need a clean, clear, well styled place to do your bit and show the food off to it's best advantage - more like a studio than a kitchen. Going for limited DoF is great for style, but if you are showing the food off to its best advantage, you should consider f11 or stacking so it's all sharp. The different focal lengths only affect your working distance assuming the same framing, so if you are happy with the sharpness of your 50, then stick with it. If not, consider a 40mm macro as they are cheap and sharp. I have the 60 and I find it too long for table top photography in some spaces, but never too short.

YMMV hope this helps.

heartyfisher

the 70-200 f4 gets very close.. spec says 3.3 feet but it seems a bit closer i have not measured.

oh its cropped quite a bit too ... homer is about 3 inches tall. maybe 2.5 inch.

spraynpray

Also bear in mind that telephotos are not designed to be at their best close focused. Macro lenses are.

Ironheart

I'm curious, full-frame, 200mm, how far away were you from Homer on this shot? Thinking working distance.

I've been doing more food photography, learning a lot, DX with the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, so 75mm equivalent usually cutting DoF to about 3-4 inches at f/2.8, working 3-6 feet from the subject, reflectors on the table stands with strobes, camera on tripod. The problem is that I'm not leaving the food stylist or chef any space to work.

I need help with the math on what lens would allow me to move back another 3-6 feet and slice the same 3-4 inches DoF. That'd open up the main front working space. I think doubling the focal length would give me the doubling of distance, so 150mm equivalent. But would that require the same f/2.8 to maintain the 3-4 inches DoF? Sounds like the 105mm f/2.8 Macro.

I'm trying to rationalize the 70-200 f/4 because it's more flexible, but I'm losing a stop right? I'd have to back up further and shoot at 200mm at f/4 in order to cut the same DoF, no?

I'm that kid in math class hunching over to the smart kids for help with his homework.

With your 50mm @f/2.8 on a DX you get 3.48 inches DoF at 56 inches from your subject
With a 100mm @f/2.8 on a DX you get 3.48 inches DoF at 112 inches from your subject

Double the distance, double the focal length, all else is the same.

Parke1953

@KnockKnock Maybe use a table in there dining room.

KnockKnock

Thanks everyone. Yes, thus far we've been doing the shooting in the dining room, sometimes with a white seamless, sometimes on a coffee table if the wood grain is good. Chef's still like to give input on details, even though it's variably helpful, and no, I really don't want to setup in the kitchen.

I've seen food shots where everything is stunningly in focus. Not sure I like the style. It's more of a studio look than the editorial look we've done so far. That plus I'm just infatuated with bokeh at the moment - I might grow out of that. It's true that 4" DoF leaves half of a dish out of focus, and 5" wouldn't be a crime. I like setting the front "curtain" of focus at the front lip of the subject (food) and the rear curtain at the top of the subject. Everything else washes out. We've been doing cookbook recipes and some dishes are more photogenic than others - kind of like people - so limiting DoF is just to draw they eye to the pretty parts. Maybe with very high end work, the subject is so perfect that focus stacking would awe the viewer with every bit being tack sharp.

The DoF Master looks interesting. I don't see where to put in Nikon DX. But it clues me in to numerous online calculators. And yes, the interesting thing to me is that DoF remains the same. I suppose perspective changes as well.

Back on topic, Nasim's review of the 70-200 f/4 makes it sound surprisingly good at near focus work. And the working distance flexibility would be great, trying to clear the tripod away from the table. Thx again.

spraynpray

@KnockKnock: Just tap the camera symbol top right and select the 23.7 x 15.7 APS-C radio button from the pop-up and you're done.

Photobug

Restating what I said in the D750 forum...the Nikon representative I talked to today agreed that the 300 F4 is long over due for an upgrade. He confirmed that the 300 F4 will include VR but doesn't know when it will be introduced. When I said 2015 he smiled and repeated, he has no confirmation on the release date.

He also confirmed that the lens collar on the 300 F4 and 80-400mm lens are in adequate and agrees that the Kirck and RRS collars were superior to Nikon's collars.

Nikonsince1974

I have a 80-200 f/4 AIS and it is remarkably sharp. It holds up quite well against both my 85mm f/1.4 AIS and 105 f/1.8 AIS, both of which are legendary lenses.

manhattanboy

Restating what I said in the D750 forum...the Nikon representative I talked to today agreed that the 300 F4 is long over due for an upgrade. He confirmed that the 300 F4 will include VR but doesn't know when it will be introduced. When I said 2015 he smiled and repeated, he has no confirmation on the release date.

He also confirmed that the lens collar on the 300 F4 and 80-400mm lens are in adequate and agrees that the Kirck and RRS collars were superior to Nikon's collars.

The existing 300f4 is very sharp...just bigger and heavier then I would like. I doubt I will upgrade if a new one is introduced unless they can keep the price less than $2000 and preferably less than $1500, but I seriously doubt it. What would be awesome is a 400 5.6 VR... give us something that might even pull the Canon folks over to the dark side


Regarding the 70-200 f4, how much is a good price on this lens?
I am thinking about it to pair with the 810, but am hesitant to pull the trigger knowing Nikon has thrown huge lens rebates on combo purchases for this lens. Likely just shoot the 810 with the 85 1.4 glued on until a sale comes up on this lens...

SquamishPhoto

@manhattanboy

I don't imagine that you're in Canada based on your screen name, but Im selling mine for under $1000 if you're interested in buying a used copy.

Photobug

.....The existing 300f4 is very sharp...just bigger and heavier then I would like. I doubt I will upgrade if a new one is introduced unless they can keep the price less than $2000 and preferably less than $1500, but I seriously doubt it. What would be awesome is a 400 5.6 VR... give us something that might even pull the Canon folks over to the dark side

Regarding the 70-200 f4, how much is a good price on this lens?
I am thinking about it to pair with the 810, but am hesitant to pull the trigger knowing Nikon has thrown huge lens rebates on combo purchases for this lens. Likely just shoot the 810 with the 85 1.4 glued on until a sale comes up on this lens...

I agree with your assessment of the 300 F4. Based upon recent upgrades and new prices, it appears that when Nikon upgrades lens they really bump up the initial price to recover engineering and start up cost. When this lens is upgraded it would not surprise me if the price is just under $2K. If it's more I am going to be drawn to the current model.

B&H sells the 70-200 F4 for $1397 but are out of stock. The collar is an extra $170. Not sure what the RRS collar is priced at. A good clean 70-200 F4 lens under a grand would be a good deal. Just my opinion.

spraynpray

You will not be disappointed with it. The IQ is very good and the VR is the best I've tried.

heartyfisher

its a gem isnt it.. cant see why anyone would sell it ;-) .. My old D7000 AF works nicely with it :-) makes it hard for me to sell my D7000 as NAS feed for D7200 !! lol