Nikkor 70-200 F4 discussion

heartyfisher

I have used it on my 4 camera bodies .. no problems .. D610, D7000, N1-V1, S5pro

donaldejose

One of the good things about camera bodies coming out now with higher ISO ability is the opportunity to shoot with f4 zoom lenses instead of needing the more expensive f2.8 zooms and the ability to shoot with f1.8 primes instead of using the more expensive f1.4 primes. This weekend I will be doing a lot of portraits with LED constant lighting at f5.6 and around ISO 2,500 with a D750. I don't think the images will suffer visibly at all from the higher ISO because I don't expect any to be printed larger than 8x10. We will see. If possible these days I would like to work more with LED constant lighting and higher ISOs. I love to be able to preview the lighting in live view as I adjust it before the shot and when it is right switch over to OVF. My 70-200 f4 makes a stunningly sharp portrait lens if you are doing headshots because you can remain a very comfortable distance away from your subject and still crop closely for a tight head and shoulders shot. Many people think 85mm or 105mm is the perfect portrait lens and it is if you are doing waist up shots. But for head and shoulder shots I prefer using around the 135mm range.

spraynpray

85-135 has always been the 35mm standard for portraits since film Donald.

donaldejose

Yes, although most often you don't see the 135mm included in a list of portrait lenses these days. The nice thing about using a 70-200 zoom during a portrait session is being able to use that entire range for waist up to headshots without changing lenses. Unless you are going for a certain look where only the near eye will be sharp I don't use f1.4 through f2.8. Mostly I am using f4 through f8 to keep the whole face sharp so the 70-200 f4 is not limiting in that regard. In fact, I have not and don't think I will purchase the 70-200 f2.8 lens. I have the 85 f1.8, the 105 f2 DC and the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art if I want to more shallow depth of field. Actually, I find that I often use the old 35-135 AF lens which is not as sharp but that is ok for portraiture because it tends to hide some facial imperfections and sharpens up when used at f5.6 or f8. This old lens can be purchased for less than $100 now and they are strongly built to last a long time. It gives a portrait photographer the perfect range for full body to headshot. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF35135mm/index1.htm

Vipmediastar_JZ

@donaldejose I'm usually shooting the lens at 200mm

I feel what you say about not having a sharp lens for portraits especially if they have blemishes, pimples, etc..
My recent mistake using the N 105mm 2.8 for some makeup/beauty shoots. The subjects choosen by the MUA were not the ideal candidates. Photoshop and the Frequency Seperation technique helps in this case.
I should have used the Df vs the D810 because that alone adds another whole level of skin enhancements.

thanks for the feedback @heartyfisher I will test the lens a bit more. I did find some other people on DPR with the same issue. I started to see flash randomly not firing and now the lens not focusing after receiving it back from the service advisory adjustment.

Vipmediastar_JZ

"Zoom lenses not having such shift are called para-focal, and are common in movie / video designs which is why the best ones are so expensive"

The 70-200f4 is one.
Now how does one achieve keeping the focusing while you zoom. I tried it and if I zoom the focus needs to be re-aquired. maybe I did it wrong.

Ironheart

The term is actually parfocal, that will help in searches:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parfocal_lens
The reality is that no lens is 100% parfocal, it's just that the error becomes so small as to be indistinguishable. In the case of the 70-200 f4, it is considered parfocal at distance, but not close-up:
@SqamishPhoto said:
"The new 70-200mm f4 from Nikon is nearly parfocal except for close distances and not through the full range of the zoom. I misstated earlier. I believe that the VRI 2.8 lens is parfocal and the VRII is not."
- See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1616/tele-zoom-70-200mm-f4-vs-f2-8/p2#sthash.eJZMhrEK.dpuf

Vipmediastar_JZ

I focused on something faraway maybe 50ft at 70mm and then 200mm. I'll retest from 70mm to maybe 150mm so that I can figure out which range of the zoom it is parfocal.

@Ironheart thanks for the additional info it sure helps to understand this more.

heartyfisher

@donaldejose : re the 35-135 3.5-4.5 .. it says its AF not AFD will it work with my D610 ? I can get my hands on one of $50 :-) may be worth a play ?

Ironheart

@Vipmediastar_JZ, what's actually happening with the 70-200 f/4 is that the DoF is masking the varifocal (opposite of parfocal) nature of the lens. At greater distances, say 100', and smaller ranges of zoom, say from 80-150, the focus will change just as much, but the greater DoF will mask the shift. In the olden days zoom lenses were all parafocal, but they had much smaller ranges, weighed a ton, and were slower, we were taught to zoom all the way in to focus and and then zoom back out to frame. This is arguably better than focusing at the wide end and then zooming in, since the focus shift, if any, will be magnified, vs, focusing at the narrow end and pulling back where any focus errors would be much less noticeable. Try it!

With the advent of modern AF, lens designers have decided that the heavier, more complex, parafocal designs are not needed, and have made smaller, greater range, and less complex designs the norm. The exemption to this is cine lenses, where varifocal would ruin the shot, and weight and cost are not issues.

donaldejose

Concerning the old (and "unsharp") 35-135 AF lens I mentioned above (and heartyfisher can get for $50) here are some portraits I took with it on a D750 under LED constant lighting and higher ISO. These photos have been post processed and the eyes sharpened. Some may think it hits a sweet spot of not capturing every pimple and yet still retaining enough detail to sharpen up the eyes.

PB_PM

Looks good to me, many of those old AF lenses are underrated IMO.

heartyfisher

Thanks for the info .. nice images !

Vipmediastar_JZ

@Ironheart A quick test did the trick. Zooming in at 200mm-Achieving focus and zooming out kept the focus point active. Thanks, I was doing it backwards.
Is this where the focus and re-compose technique came from?

manhattanboy

@Vipmediastar_JZ, what's actually happening with the 70-200 f/4 is that the DoF is masking the varifocal (opposite of parfocal) nature of the lens. At greater distances, say 100', and smaller ranges of zoom, say from 80-150, the focus will change just as much, but the greater DoF will mask the shift. In the olden days zoom lenses were all parafocal, but they had much smaller ranges, weighed a ton, and were slower, we were taught to zoom all the way in to focus and and then zoom back out to frame. This is arguably better than focusing at the wide end and then zooming in, since the focus shift, if any, will be magnified, vs, focusing at the narrow end and pulling back where any focus errors would be much less noticeable. Try it!

With the advent of modern AF, lens designers have decided that the heavier, more complex, parafocal designs are not needed, and have made smaller, greater range, and less complex designs the norm. The exemption to this is cine lenses, where varifocal would ruin the shot, and weight and cost are not issues.

This is an excellent write up. The only parafocal zoom I have shot with is actually a Canon (the 24-105 L).

On an unrelated note, I broke down and opted for this lens (the 70-200f4) over the 80-400 as it appears sharper and will largely be mated to my 810 to allow the 300PF to move to the 7100. This would be my ideal set up with the 810 covering from 70-300mm and the 7100 covering 450 or ~600mm. The temptation for me of the 80-400 is a one lens/one camera set-up, so hopefully I don't regret my continuation with a dual camera set up...