70-300vr instead of 70-200 f4

<p>Hi all,<br /> I want the 70-200 f4, but price is a consideration. How much in terms of IQ am I giving up by going to the 70-300vr? Cameras used are D700 and D80, use - travel and fine art. I could buy the 70-300 now, but the 70-200 would have to wait a few months. I'll be retiring in 6 months and need a medium telephoto. I've used the 70-200 f4 previously (rented) with excellent results. I had also considered the 180 f 2.8 prime, but probably not. It looks like either of the two zooms.<br /> Thanks for your comments.</p>

<p>Gene</p>

<p>The main issue is that the 70-300mm AF-S VR zoom is close to f5.6 at 200mm, so you lose one stop of light. If you use that lens indoors or at night under dim light, it can make a big difference. In fact, having f2.8 on the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR also has a huge advantage over the f4 under such conditions. When there is more light entering the AF system, AF is faster and more accurate under dim light.</p>

<p>whats wrong with a used 80-200 2.8 or 70-200 vr1?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>whats wrong with a used 80-200 2.8 or 70-200 vr1?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe the fact that they are a lot heavier than the two lenses the OP is considering? And the VR 1's well-documented corner weakness towards the long end of the focal range?<br>

Due to its size and weight, my 70-200/2.8 stays home a lot - it just isn't a lens that travels easily. <br>

Re: 70-200/4 vs 70-300/4.5-5.6: in terms of IQ I doubt there is a lot of difference - it comes down to convenience (reach to 300mm (where the lens is weakest) vs being "limited" to 200mm but at about 1 stop faster.</p>

<p>I agree that the real difference is f-stop, not IQ. Build also.<br /> <br />I rented the 180mm f2.8 and got better results with my 70-300mm at 180mm because of VR. Now, circumstances differ and VR is not always helpful.</p>

<p>I didn't entirely follow your intent for the lens. When you say travel you might benefit from the lighter 70-300mm. When you say fine art, do you mean making art or photographing art in a dark museum or a well lit studio? If it's the dark museum answer I suspect you will be happier with f4 than f5.6, and even happier with f2.8.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Actually I probably should have said folk art instead of fine art - ethnographic photography but the display is in a fine art venue. Generally speaking I'm in good light, but need to be discreet, which is why I had considered the 180 prime, but some have told me the AF is slow. </p>

<p>Gene, I have the 180mm f/2.8, and indeed AF is sluggish; but in good light on a D700 not that slow really. My AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 is a bit faster; I wouldn't use the 180 for sports but for things that move at normal speeds, the 180 can do it (on the D700 at least; never used it on a D80).<br>

In terms of optical quality, in my opinion the 180 is a gem, plus it's not overly large nor superheavy. If you could try it in a shop near or similar, I would certainly do so.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>lighter 70-300mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's only a 105g difference between the 70-300 VR (745g) and the 70-200/4 (850g). The 70-200/4 is also about 3 cm longer (a slightly slimmer).<br>

Given the 2-3x difference in cost - this is actually a surprisingly tough decision to make. In particular, since there are also third-party 70-200/2.8 options that cost about the same as the Nikkor 70-200/4 - but of course will be heavier. But lower CA, somewhat higher IQ, better built, and non-extending barrel would likely tip the decision in favor of the 70-200/4 over the 70-300.<br>

In the past, I always wanted a 70-200/4 and envied Canon users that had the choice between two (with and without IS). Now that Nikon has one with a quite hefty price tag, I wonder why I was clamoring for one.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Gene,<br>

I recently bought the Nikon 70-200 f/4 after I sold to Adorama my beloved 70-300 VR after 7 years being shooting with it. The 70-300 VR is a great lens and never let me down, but it was not that fast, especially, for indoor photography. I needed either a f/2.8 or f/4. I had the money to buy the state-of-the-art Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II but after an extensive research and a lot of reviews, I decided to go with the Nikon 70-200 f/4. <br>

Why ? Because soon, I will buy either the Nikon D7100 or the expected D7200 and either one, will allow me at least, one ( or more ) ISO stops over the D300 that I got so, combining either camera with the Nikon 70-200 f/4, in practice, I am not loosing the stop that I should gain by buying instead, the 70-200 f/2.8. ISO will compensate that stop between f/2.8 and f/4. <br>

But also, the main reason I decided to keep this lens ( Nikon 70-200 f/4 ) was among other things, that it is sharp as razor blade even wide open and at the longest focal range. The VR works excellent and so far, after more than a month being shooting with it, I have nothing bad to say about it. Yes, I am loosing 100 mm that I had with my previous 70-300 VR but, I am also planning to buy a teleconverter, the TC-14EII or TC-20EII, so my focal range will drastically increase. <br>

I also bought long time ago, the 80-200 but I returned it. First of all, is lacking VR and it was front focusing, so I decided to return it. If you buy the Nikon 70-200 f/4, you will not be disappointed at all and I can guarantee you that. <br>

I do not know how to insert a pic here ( I think that photo.net changed something here ) but I will find out how to insert a pic and I can show you how sharp this lens is and help you to make a decision. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I cropped that image almost to a 100%. This shot was taken at the Air Show in McDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida 2 weeks ago. I put this lens to a test that day. I decided to shoot in Aperture mode ( something that I usually don’t do ) to keep the Aperture at f/5.6 the entire day, which it is, one stop above the widest aperture of this lens, so it should not be that, really that sharp. It should be sharper at f/8 but again, I decided to go with f/5.6 because I wanted to give it a test so you can tell me if it is sharp or not. <br>

With 200 mm, is impossible to get that close. I wanted to rent the Nikon 80-400 VR to obtain better pictures, but at the last minute I decided not to. My intention was to give my lens, the Nikon 70-200 f/4, a good test on the field and against rapid moving objects. Let me know if you have any question. Simply, I am impress with its performance. </p>

<p>Here is another shot. </p><div></div>

<p>You can see even the face of that guy. The pic was cropped almost to a 100%. Shaper than that ? I don’t think so !! </p>

<p>... and this one was shot at f/4 at 200 mm ... </p><div></div>

<p>I used the 70-300 mm on my D300, and shortly after going to a D800 I sold it and bought the 70-200 mm f/4, and I've been very happy with it. I liked the 70-300 mm, but the 70-200mm f/4 is most likely a permanent fixture in my bag for landscape, and general use. it is about 1/2 the weight of the 70-200 f/2.8 Nikon, mentioned as a possibility in earlier posts, which as a retiree, immediately ruled it out as a travel lens. To me, the 70-300 mm lens is a great value and I would agree with Dieter's remarks about a high price for a "somewhat higher IQ" for the 70-200 mm, but I think the build quality, the extra one stop, (which on rare occasions allows me to use a teleconverter) combined with my thought of this being a "keeper" lens lead me to the choice of the 70-20 mm f/4.</p>

I'm going to date myself with this, but 1960's underground comic guru, "Mr.Natural," "Use the right tool for the right job"!

Looks like I ain't going to do this on the cheap, I'm going to have to go for the 70-200 f4. The price is very high, but if I go

for the 70-300, I'll be doing a lot of second-guessing. I like the fact that the 70-200 does not extend when zooming -

means less dust.

<p>I have owned both the 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 and the 70-300VR. I travel extensively. While I really liked the 70-200VR, it is a big, heavy, and bulky lens to carry around, especially compared to the 70-300VR. The build quality was outstanding, but you pay for that with weight and bulk.</p>

<p>I'm really impressed with the image quality and color rendition on the 70-300VR in the 70-200 range, and I still get good quality in the 200-300 range if I'm using a tripod, though past 250mm or so the corners get soft. I bought a used, but mint 70-300VR for $300, compared to the $1,800 for the 70-200VR1. I've seen place like Adorama and B&H selling refurbished 70-300VR's for $300-$400. For a travel zoom, it's really hard to beat the 70-300VR at that price!</p>

<p>I would recommend going with the 70-200/4. The VR 70-300 is a nice lens <em>for the price</em> and it's ok at its short end but towards the long end the image gets softer and also the autofocus isn't all that precise e.g. I found that tracking approaching subjects is not that good. I have only briefly tried the VR 70-200/4 and I liked the handling of the lens and the resulting image quality a lot. Photozone, which I consider one of the most reasonable lens review sites, gives the VR 70-300 2.5 stars for optical quality and the 70-200/4 gets 4 (out of 5) on the D3X. There aren't many lenses they rate higher than 4.</p>

<p>Can anyone that owns the 70-200 f/4 tell me how close it comes to <em>actually</em> being a 200mm lens? I ask because a brief encounter with Tamron's 70-200 f/2.8 VC lens revealed that it fell quite a lot short of delivering a true 200mm magnification, which is what I really want - not 180mm or thereabouts. Compared to a 70-300mm set at 200mm, a 200mm prime and to an old 70-210mm AF Zoom, I was being robbed of at least 10% magnification at around 5 to 6 metres focus by Tamron's offering.</p>

<p>So, how close does Nikon's 70-200mm f/4 come to delivering a true 200mm at what I'd call a "normal" working distance of 5-10m (15 - 30ft)? I'm not at all interested in whether it gets close to 200mm at infinity focus.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can anyone that owns the 70-200 f/4 tell me how close it comes to <em>actually</em> being a 200mm lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rodeo Joe, didn't we just discuss this topic a few days ago, on March 30? <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cTxZ">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cTxZ</a><br>

First of all, a lens' offical focal length is measures when focused to infinity. The question is how much focal length a lens, typically a zoom, loses when it is focused to some close distance. When I tested the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR a little more than a year ago, I captured images of my clock at home with four different lenses, from about 2 meters away:</p>

<ul>

<li>70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR</li>

<li>70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, version 1</li>

<li>70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, version 2</li>

<li>200mm/f4 AF-D Macro</li>

</ul>

<p>Only the newer 70-200mm/f2.8 has serious "focus breathing" issues, and even that is not a big deal in my opinion. The 70-200mm/f4 and 200mm/f4 macro give pretty much the same image coverage/focal length at 2 meters, about 7 feet.<br>

Back to the original question, my feeling is that the lens Gene really wants is the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. Optically, it is in a different league from the 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR. Unfortunately, so is the price. And if you need the tripod collar for the 70-200mm/f4, it is an optional item at extra cost.</p>

<center>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00c/00cUEP-546759584.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="555" hspace="5" vspace="10" /></p>

</center>

<p>Gene I have a Nikon 180 2.8 I use with my D610 I find it focuses quite fast enough for what it is I recommend it highly............</p>

<p>Jut want to mention that I picked up the Vello tripod bracket for my 70-200/4 and it is rather nice for the price ($50). Easy-on, easy-off, solid, and it can be reversed to balance better when a TC is used. Rotates fairly smoothly and locks solidly. But remember, this is not an ARCA foot, it's 1/4" tripod socket only. Still nice, I recommend it.</p>

<p>I compared these lenses quite carefully, albeit at close focus distances. <br>

Between 70-200mm, stopped down, center sharpness is similar, certainly by f8 and probably by f6.3. The 70-200 image still 'looks nicer', to my eye, but there could be some bias in that judgement.<br>

At 300mm, the 70-200mm + TC1.7EII is sharper than the 70-300, at the same f-stops.<br>

<br />From 70-200mm, at wider apertures, the 70-200 is sharper than the 70-300.<br>

At f4 the 70-200 is obviously the only choice.</p>

<p><br /><br /></p>

<p>Thanks Shun. The "shrinkage" of the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII zoom-Nikkor you've shown is similar to what I saw in Tamron's lens, and is really totally unacceptable to me. The main use I'd put this lens to is stage photography, where the focus would be around 5 to 10 metres away. I really don't feel like paying big money for a so-called 70-200mm zoom that's going to shrink to under 180mm at that kind of distance. It's not like I'll have the option of doing much "foot zooming" during a performance. And after all, my old Sigma AF 70-210mm f/2.8 could keep its magnification throughout the focus range - so why can't a more modern design?</p>

<p>I measured the Tamron 70-200mm lens against 3 other 200mm lenses at just over 6 metres focus distance. By my calculation the Tamron was barely equivalent to a 175mm FL. So IMHO, there's <em>no way</em> it could truly be a 200mm lens even at infinity. And who uses a 200mm lens at infinity anyway?</p>

<p>The 70-200mm f/4 looks much better in this respect from your illustrations, so that may be an option. Pity it's one whole stop less than what I've been shopping for.</p>

<p>Edit: The "old" 70-200mm VR 1 zoom-Nikkor looks like it might be a good fit to what I want as well. Pity that neither Tamron's nor Nikon's lens designers appear to be able to measure 200mm accurately these days.</p>

<p>According to the measurements here.. http://www.lenstip.com/371.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_70-200_mm_f_4.0G_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html</p>

<p>The 70-200 f4 is sharpest @ 5.6 in the centre and 8 at the edges at pretty much all focal lengths.</p>

<p>Depending on your subject matter, shutter speed and required DoF, 5.6 looks splendid.</p>

<p>To refer to the post about Nikon lens innovation.. how about the f4 treatment for the 80-400mm...it would save them from having to update the 200-400mm f4..:-) Might be a bit of a handful though! Gimbal mount anyone?</p>

<p>The loss in focal length going from the original VR 70-200/2.8 to the Mk II at close distances is more than compensated by the superior sharpness at f/2.8 of the newer design; you still get more detail with the new lens wide open even with the loss of magnification than with the old lens wide open. Thus it is a good trade-off in practice. Of course you have to do the cropping in post but that's life. What is important is the quality of the final image, not so much how one gets there. Also, the 70-200/2.8 II has excellent autofocus, with perhaps the best AF performance of all my lenses. The only thing that I don't like about this lens is that at longer distances I don't find the bokeh as nice as that of the old lens (or primes). But overall it's one of the most useful lenses that Nikon make.</p>

<p>200mm can be used at long distances for e.g. landscape photography:</p>

<p>https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/12156538694/<br />

<p>These event photos are is with the 70-200II at 200mm at f/2.8</p>

<p> />

<p>although the distance isn't technically infinity it's still quite long.</p>

<p>If you get the original VR 70-200/2.8, be prepared for soft results at 200mm, f/2.8, and a tendency to flare and ghost in prolific amounts when shooting towards light sources. But I think it has more consistently nice bokeh than the new version. </p>