Nikon 70-200 f4 on D7200

Hiker

Anyone have this combo? Looking to replace my 70-300 G. Yes, I know I'll loose 100mm, but that's ok. That will open up me getting a 200-500!!

Jeff

Ton14

Yep, great combo. I wanted a good quality 300mm (€ 2000.-), changed my old D300 for the D7200, much cheaper solution. Had the 70-200mm F/2.8 VR II, but that lens became too heavy for me. In LR I saw that I used f/2.8 about 10% from all the photo's with this lens, most of the time for the shutterspeed, that was my trigger to change.

I get the same quality with this 70-200 f/4 VR lens on my D600, AF is very quick and great DOF. Switch the D7200 to 18 - 12 and you still have 4800 x 3200 dimensions, more then enough for A3 prints. With the TC-1.4 you don't need the 200-500 and it is the same f/5.6

heartyfisher

I had the D7200. Very nice with my 70-200 F4. It was my very fav combo. Now I use it with my D500 :-)

Works well with the TC17 too .. slightly softer as expected but still very very good!

D7200 + 70-200 F4

spraynpray

I use it on my D7100 and it is a really good lens. I sold the 70-300G VR to get it and have never regretted it. The VR is amazing too.

Hiker

spraynpray said:

I use it on my D7100 and it is a really good lens. I sold the 70-300G VR to get it and have never regretted it. The VR is amazing too.

I asked my local camera store about selling my 70-300 and they flat out said NO! They didn't want it. Oh well..

Capt_Spaulding

Did you try KEH? Sooner rather than later I'll probably try to sell mine.

FreezeAction

I carry this combo on every outing along side a D810 for wider things. Right now I'm waiting on a L bracket to mount the D7200 in portrait mode to use for stitched panoramas using the 70-200f4 for distant landscapes. I'd rather use the 70-200f4 than the heavier 2.8 lens unless after dark events.

For landscape use this lens is supposed to be sharper than the 2.8G. After a calibration or two of different focal lengths I will make a panorama and see.

" alt="" />

Ton14

The 70-300mm I bought with my D70, on my D300 a little bit better results, but it peaked on my D600, logic of course, because it is a full frame lens. It is a good lens you can use one a second body later or so, better think before you sell it.

HankB

I don't at all mind the extra size and weight of the 2.8 on the camera (I might actually enjoy the heft)....BUT I suppose if I had a 4.0 instead, I might have room for another piece of equipment in my bag. I am not running out to get a 4.0, but I certainly see its merit.

Hiker

The 70-300 is a nice lens, yes. Especially for the price I paid! But I'm willing to give up 50mm on the long end to get a sharper lens all around. Anything above 250mm is just not sharp, no matter how much I stop it down. The most I've stopped it down is f11 above 250mm. If I need anything above 200mm, then there is the 200-500!! Again, I wish Sigma would bring back the 50-150mm f2.8 WITH VR!!

Hiker

Ton14 said:

The 70-300mm I bought with my D70, on my D300 a little bit better results, but it peaked on my D600, logic of course, because it is a full frame lens. It is a good lens you can use one a second body later or so, better think before you sell it.

The only reason I would sell it is to go towards the purchase of another lens. If I were to buy the 70-200 f4 then the little money I received would help offset the price. I would have little use for a 70-300 if I had a 70-200. But at the moment I'm being patient and hopefully there will be a Black Friday sale of some sort.

Ton14

Yeah Hiker I agree, to change the 70-300mm for the 70-200mm f/4 is the best way, you get a much better and faster lens and keep the 70-300mm for collecting dust only is not a good idea.

spraynpray

Exactly why I changed my 70-300VR for the 70-200 f4. Never regretted it, fab lens.

Hiker

spraynpray said:

Exactly why I changed my 70-300VR for the 70-200 f4. Never regretted it, fab lens.

Waiting, hopefully, for it to go on sale during the holidays. Was going back and forth between the 70-200 f4 or a Sigma 24-105 f4. But I think I will get more use out of the Nikon. And then there is a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 for sale on another website for $550. Sigh..

spraynpray

A word of advice about the 18-35 @Hiker, they are not so good as reviewers said. My mate has had two breakdowns and it misses focus too much. CA is poor too. If I were you I would swerve it. I have the 24-35 Art which is superb and so does he and loves it too.

Hiker

spraynpray said:

A word of advice about the 18-35 @Hiker, they are not so good as reviewers said. My mate has had two breakdowns and it misses focus too much. CA is poor too. If I were you I would swerve it. I have the 24-35 Art which is superb and so does he and loves it too.

Oh, I'm not biting on that. I haven't seen any negative reviews on that lens. But for my use it may be sharp, but with no VR it's worthless to me. And I already have a Sigma 17-50 that I'm happy with for now.

spraynpray

Your choice of course, no skin off my nose.

Hiker

Due to an unforeseen issue with the house and fighting with the insurance company, any GAS has to wait. When I buy something I will let everyone know. Sigh...I HATE insurance companies!!!!!!!!!!!!

spraynpray

There is a very large club of insurance company haters @Hiker, welcome to it!

WestEndFoto

Hiker said:

Due to an unforeseen issue with the house and fighting with the insurance company, any GAS has to wait. When I buy something I will let everyone know. Sigh...I HATE insurance companies!!!!!!!!!!!!

I use Chubb. They are more expensive, but usually very easy to deal with based on feedback from other people. However, even with them, a lawyer I know has had a hell of a time.

Capt_Spaulding

Speaking of very large clubs in the same sentence with insurance companies gives me an idea

Hiker

Thanks for the smiles guys! The Insurance adjuster totally missed the mold, the same mold he had to climb over! My better half took pictures and sent them to the agent. They sent a check for $98. for the mold damage. One estimate is for that clean up is $3,200., the cost of a new D850.

Capt_Spaulding

Hiker said:

spraynpray said:

I use it on my D7100 and it is a really good lens. I sold the 70-300G VR to get it and have never regretted it. The VR is amazing too.

I asked my local camera store about selling my 70-300 and they flat out said NO! They didn't want it. Oh well..

I ran the 70-300 past the folks at KEH and for a "like new minus," with caps, case, and hood, their initial offer is $136. Just an fyi.

Hiker

Capt_Spaulding said:

Hiker said:

spraynpray said:

I use it on my D7100 and it is a really good lens. I sold the 70-300G VR to get it and have never regretted it. The VR is amazing too.

I asked my local camera store about selling my 70-300 and they flat out said NO! They didn't want it. Oh well..

I ran the 70-300 past the folks at KEH and for a "like new minus," with caps, case, and hood, their initial offer is $136. Just an fyi.

B & H gave me a decent quote of $140. At first it was $50 until I mentioned it had VR. Still, I have to put all GAS on hold until I fix the water damage that the insurance company won't cover...

heartyfisher

Latest Falcon9 launch shot with D7200 + 200 F4...