70-200 f2.8 AND f4 anyone?

Hi all,

Does anyone own any variant of the 70-200 f2.8 AND the f4 version? Do you find them so redundant as to be pointless?

 

My Tamon 70-210 f4 is in the shop. I love the lens. Light weight, etc. It's not as sharp as I'd like to I sent it in to be looked at. Now I find myself going out for a trip (poor planning) soon and might want/need a 70-200 ish lens during that time. I have the funds for one (the 70-200 2.8 S, as I've gone mirrorless) but...will I then never use the f4?

 

Curious if anyone has both and found use cases. Obviously if I'm just out and about the f4 weight is a reason to have it but enough of one? Thanks.

I used to own the latest AF version of the 80-200/2.8 and the Micro-Nikkor 70-180/4.5-5.6 at the same time - the result was that the 70-180 was the much preferred, more versatile lens and the f/2.8 version only got taken out when I really needed the f/2.8 (which, in all fairness, was rarely). I eventually traded the 80-200/2.8 for the 1st 70-200/2.8 VR version and sold the 70-180. Again, rarely finding the need for f/2.8 and loathing to haul the heavy lens on trips, I traded it for the Nikon 70-200/4 - and I couldn't be happier. That said, this is strictly my experience - for others, the f/2.8 lens can be indispensable. But it sure sounds like that you are happy with the lighter f/4 version.

 

In my case, the 70-200/4 fights with the 80-400/4.5-5.6 for its place in the bag when going on trips as taking along both never appears to be a good idea.

 

In your case - why not rent a 70-200/2.8 for the trip and see how things turn out?

Dieter - good point. Renting makes sense. I always forget about that option (partially because I had a bad experience once with renting but I shouldn't write off the entire possibility because of that).

 

Thanks.

In my case, the 70-200/4 fights with the 80-400/4.5-5.6 for its place in the bag when going on trips as taking along both never appears to be a good idea.

This used to be my struggle, too, between the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 80-400. After the 70-200 consistently got left on the bench, I sold it and never missed it. Now I am in mirrorless and redoing this over again with the 70-200 S lens + 1.4 and 2.0. It seems fine for now as the tele converters are excellent and there is no 80-400 on the Z roadmap.

Does anyone own any variant of the 70-200 f2.8 AND the f4 version? Do you find them so redundant as to be pointless?

The 70-200 f/4 version is much lighter and the reviews are great. I hope there will be an f/4 version for mirrorless. Alternatively, you may want to consider the 80-400 too.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Mary Doo

there is no 80-400 on the Z roadmap.

There is a 100-400 on the roadmap and I think it will be released this year.

 

I owned the 70-200/4 for Sony E-mount but gave it up for their 100-400. Sometimes, I find myself wishing for the Tamron 70-180/2.8 - simply because it is about the same weight as the Sony 70-200/4, is shorter, and costs less despite being one stop faster. No OSS though - one has to rely entirely on the in-camera sensor stabilization. So far, I have resisted the temptation - because I can't really make a good case for owning the Tamron.

 

This used to be my struggle, too

On several occasions, I found the 70-200/4 mounted on the D500 to be the perfect companion to the Sigma 24-105/4 mounted on the D810 - perfect FOV transition and a range of 24mm to 300mm FOV FX-equivalent.

There is a 100-400 on the roadmap and I think it will be released this year.

Think it should work if I use the 24-200 S but not the 24-70. So the continuous range would be: 14-24 => 24-200 => 100-400. But now the 200-600 would have some duplication somewhere and one of them will sit on the bench. :eek:

 

We'll see...

The f/2.8 is great in LOW light, but it has a cost: $, bulk and weight.

It is one thing to hold the lens for 5 minutes in a store, but totally another thing using it on a 5+ hour shoot.

So, like @Dieter Schaefer , I went with the f/4 lens. While the f/4 lens is a stop slower than the f/2.8 lens, it is HALF the weight of the f/2.8 lens.

However, if you are young and physically in good condition, then just the f/2.8 would be an option.

 

If you shoot often in LOW light, that 1 stop faster could be important.

You have to determine the needs of what and how you shoot.

 

Now, as to having both f/4 and f/2.8 lenses.

Yes, there is a case for it.

The standard carry might be the lighter f/4 lens, then for low light or shallower DoF, you would use the f/2.8 lens.

Or, flip it around, and the standard lens might be the heavier f/2.8 lens, with the f/4 lens use where the smaller bulk and lighter weight are more important.

 

I do somewhat similar in m4/3. I have the smaller/lighter (and cheaper) non-pro lens, and the bigger/heavier pro-lens. Which lens I use, depends on the conditions and requirements of the shoot. If I need small/light, I choose the non-pro lens. If size/weight is not an issue, I choose the pro-lens.

I use a Tamron f/2.8 70-200. Tamron, because it was what was available at a good price when i was looking for such a lens. And it really is 'plenty good'.

I'm not really an event or stage photographer, but i was asked to help 'the locals' out a number of years ago, and i did. Used it often since, for local and other events. And for long afternoons and evenings, And though it, like the Nikons, is double the weight of a f/4 lens of similar range, i do not find it too heavy at all. No, i wouldn't mind a bit less weight. But, not too much less. I find, weight (or mass rather) also helps stabilize the lens, which is quite useful for this type of work (always handheld). (Same, by the way, with medium format gear. for handheld use, a heavy motordrive camera provides a more stable kit than the same without motor.)

 

I carry two cameras for this sort of chore. One with a Nikon wide to short tele zoom, one with this one. Plus a rarely used 12-24 mm wide zoom, so i'm able to cover anything between 12 and 200 mm's fields of view. The 70-200 mm is, by far, the most used, of course.

It all fits in one medium sized camera bag, or in an everyday commuter type backpack. All together is a bit heavy, yes. But still not too uncomfortable i find. For other outings, my general walkabout bag contains the same kit less one camera body. Carry it for days, without too much complaining.

Maybe it helps that i have experienced worse using medium format gear. A single body, with prism, an extra magazine, 6 lenses, some small accessories, all cramped into that same medium sized camera bag... I don't know what you're complaining about, "bulk and weight"... ;)

 

I do appreciate the f/2.8 widest aperture. Often, stage lights are more than bright enough. But yes, i think you do need it. Light changes dramatically, frequently and fast, and that extra one stop does make a difference. And not just in keeping ISO down to relatively low noise levels, but also to separate using shallow DoF.

I have the first version 70-200/2.8VR, the 70-200/4VR, and the latest 70-300/4-5.6GVRAFSwhatever. The f/4 is technically the best lens of the 3 by a noticeable amount, but now I use it the least.

 

Many don't think the first version 70-200/2.8VR is good enough for FX, but I like the "flaws" it has for portraiture. It is good enough for low light sports, also.

 

While putting together a light, minimalist kit for a trip that would involve much walking while carrying everything, I found that the 70-300 offered a bit more reach, small size and weight vs the f/4. Optically, it is decent, plenty good enough at 24MP FX, and something of a bargain, IMO. I have not tried it on 45MP yet.

 

Occasionally, I look at and think about replacing my Version 1 2.8 with the latest version III. Optically, I am sure it is great. But I think I would rather have a 105/1.4. I did try my friend's version II 70-200/2.8, it seems like a slightly faster but the same thing as the f4 I have, just bigger, heavier, and more expensive.

Edited March 25, 2021 by robert_bouknight|1

Just to add, the 70-200/4AFS VR I have is very good. If I wanted uniform image quality across the frame for, say, nature, this would be the choice in my lens inventory.

 

I just don't shoot nature.

I used to have both f/2.8 and f/4 telezooms but with the latest f/2.8 FL I came to the conclusion that it was better than the f/4 in several areas: image quality, VR, and autofocus, and flare resistance that I wasn't any more using the f/4. I loved the f/4's portability and it was great for shooting for many hours in the studio, much less heavy on the arms. However, the f/2.8 FL is also reasonable to handle because it's less front heavy than its f/2.8 predecessors, and as it doesn't have the focus breathing of the VR G II version, it meant the f/4's advantages were no longer as clear for me. Finally, I had some VR issues with the f/4 where the lens didn't function as expected in the cold (sub-freezing temperatures) and it meant I was less keen to keep it.

I have both Nikon 70-200mm lenses. My f2.8 version (G) is not the latest model and I use it mostly when I need to blur backgrounds or when I know that I will be shooting in low light situations. I purchased the f4 version after the f2.8 as I wanted something smaller and lighter for travel. Regarding image quality I cannot tell any difference between the two lenses. The f4 version is so easy to zoom and use t: it is the one that I use most of the time.

Thanks for the help, all. Interesting contrasting opinions. I'll make up my mind soon on the 2.8.

I'll make up my mind soon on the 2.8.

I can say I'm very v.happy with the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 S lens...;)

My Tamon 70-210 f4 is in the shop. I love the lens. Light weight, etc. It's not as sharp as I'd like to I sent it in to be looked at.

 

I hope you sent the camera along with the lens. Tamron will adjust the lens for sharp focus with your camera and can do so at many points unlike AF fine tune done in the camera by the user. They did it for my 70-200 f/2.8 (the pre-G2 A009 model). It made a considerable difference in sharpness. I also sent them my 24-70 f/2.8 G2 after going cross-eyed trying to fine tune the focus using the Tap-in console. As the Tamron representative told me, "they have software". Both lenses are now spot-on on my D750. BTW, when it came time to decide whether to purchase the Nikon 200-500 or the Tamron 150-600 lens, Tamron service versus Nikon service was the deciding factor, for me. I am very happy with my Tamron 150-600.

 

To your original question about choosing an f/4 lens or a 2.8, I was faced with the same decision when I purchased the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. My choices were either the Tamron or the Nikon 70-200 f/4; both were in the same price range; the Nikon 70-200 was almost twice as expensive. Since I took many pictures in low light with flash, low light performance was a factor. The f/2.8 lens would auto-focus in low light conditions where the f/4 lens would not. It was a matter of how much light the camera was getting.

The 2.8 Nikkor has long been a favorite of mine and for some reason I seem to have two now. It’s very handy when I need a faster lens in low light and has a quality to it I don’t find in others. I have a manual focus f/4 as well and it’s quite good. I prefer it on older manual bodies.

 

Rick H.

I used to own the latest AF version of the 80-200/2.8 and the Micro-Nikkor 70-180/4.5-5.6 at the same time - the result was that the 70-180 was the much preferred, more versatile lens and the f/2.8 version only got taken out when I really needed the f/2.8 (which, in all fairness, was rarely). I eventually traded the 80-200/2.8 for the 1st 70-200/2.8 VR version and sold the 70-180. Again, rarely finding the need for f/2.8 and loathing to haul the heavy lens on trips, I traded it for the Nikon 70-200/4 - and I couldn't be happier. That said, this is strictly my experience - for others, the f/2.8 lens can be indispensable. But it sure sounds like that you are happy with the lighter f/4 version.

 

In my case, the 70-200/4 fights with the 80-400/4.5-5.6 for its place in the bag when going on trips as taking along both never appears to be a good idea.

 

In your case - why not rent a 70-200/2.8 for the trip and see how things turn out?

I have the same 70-200 you refer to and I loved the images from it but it's just too heavy to lug around for any length of time. I really would get a sore back from that thing.

Another option is to combine a 70-200mm f/4 zoom with a couple of faster primes, such as an 85/1.8 (or 85/1.4), 135/2 and/or 180/2.8. The zoom gives you flexibility in a relatively lightweight package. The primes give you a faster aperture (even faster than 70-200/2.8 zooms) for low light and greater DoF control while still being lighter and more compact than the fast zooms. The only thing you give up is the ability to zoom with the faster aperture, but if you can plan ahead and choose the appropriate prime, with a bit of "foot zooming" and some cropping you should still be able to frame the subject as required. This sort of combination was popular in the days when pro telephoto zooms had a max aperture of f/4.5 or f/4.

I use to have the f2.8 IS version and it was a very impressive lens although huge and heavy. I mostly used it for weddings and when I was shooting Marathon races. The lens was so big and obtrusive I hesitated to take it out for casual photography. I winded up selling it because I really needed the money. A few years later I purchased the 70-200 f4 Non-IS version after reading a review by Ken Rockwell. The f4 version looked like a Toy compared to the f2.8. Not that he build is bad but compared to the f2.8 which is built like a tank. That lens only lasted me 6 months before I decided to trade it in for the 70-200 f4 II. I was just missing too many shots with the Non-IS. The 70-200 f4 is compact relatively light but sort of LOUD! The gyro inside the lens makes an annoying clicking sound when it engages, something the f2.8 did not do. As far as image quality, the images appeared to me to be about the same as the f2.8. Sharp and contrasty. The f4 does not come with a tripod-mount so you have to purchase that separately. It also does not come with a case(at least mine didn't) . It is not as prestigious as the f2.8 but it takes damn good pictures. I really didn't have any problems blurring out the background.That goes with most tele lenses, blurring the BG is not an issue with lenses 70mm and over. The thing about the f2.8 is that even wide open, that lens was Sharp !

Another option is to combine a 70-200mm f/4 zoom with a couple of faster primes, such as an 85/1.8 (or 85/1.4), 135/2 and/or 180/2.8. The zoom gives you flexibility in a relatively lightweight package. The primes give you a faster aperture (even faster than 70-200/2.8 zooms) for low light and greater DoF control while still being lighter and more compact than the fast zooms. The only thing you give up is the ability to zoom with the faster aperture, but if you can plan ahead and choose the appropriate prime, with a bit of "foot zooming" and some cropping you should still be able to frame the subject as required. This sort of combination was popular in the days when pro telephoto zooms had a max aperture of f/4.5 or f/4.

 

People often refer to the f/4 zoom lenses as a compromise. In a way, every lens is a compromise, but I always thought that way more of the f/2.8 zooms. They are quite big, heavy and expensive, and the aperture is only big-ish. They're not as convenient and portable as a zoom lens with a smaller maximum aperture, and not as fast as a prime lens. I personally chose the path of having a couple of moderate aperture zoom lenses combined with some fast primes.