Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR

<p>Have any 70-200mm f2.8 or 80-200mm f2.8 owners made the switch to the Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR? If so can you tell me how you like or dislike the change? Also, can you post some 70-200mm f4 VR wide open samples? <br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>In my case, I didn't switch. Instead, I added the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR for the occasions when I need a smaller and lighter zoom. Both versions of Nikon's current 70-200mm AF-S VR lenses are excellent. Which one to get depends on whether you need f2.8 or not. In other words, if you shoot weddings, parties indoors without available light, the f2.8 version has some clear advantages.</p>

<p>I have this folder to accompany of my review of the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR for photo.net. All images in there not showing the lens itself were captured with that lens: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1047321</p>

<p>I also used that lens wide open with the D750 to capture some images at the symphony, posted to recent Nikon Wednesday threads. Even though it is a dim venue, I prefer the f4 because it is a much smaller lens and is therefore less conspicuous:</p>

<ol>

<li>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dA43</li>

<li>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dCRk</li>

</ol>

<p>These are the images:</p>

<ul>

<li>http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dA4f-555357884.jpg</li>

<li>http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dA4h-555357984.jpg</li>

<li>http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dCRm-555859984.jpg</li>

<li>http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dCRo-555860084.jpg</li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

<p>I've used both, but bought the f4 version. The single stop just wasn't worth the size and weight (for me). Image quality from either version is excellent.</p>

<p>I sold my 80-200mm f/2.8 AFD when I bought the 70-200mm f/4 VR. Much happier with a lighter lens on the camera, particularly since it's a sharper one that has astounding VR. I worried when I made the change that the f/4 aperture might make autofocus difficult when shooting indoor events, but haven't found that. There are always fast prime lenses in my bag for events anyway.</p>

<p>I made the switch from the 70-200/2.8 VR (not VR II) to the 70-200/4 VR just this week. I had been toying with the idea for some time but waited until a good deal presented itself. It's a compromise between the bulk, weight, and speed - and while I am sure there will be occasions when I miss the speed of the f/2.8, there will be many more when I will have the f/4 version with me when the f/2.8 would have stayed home. <br /> It was the same when I had the choice between the 80-200/2.8 and 70-180/4.5-5.6 - I used the latter a lot more (and not only because of its close-focusing capability) than the 80-200. When I traded the 80-200/2.8 for the 70-200/2.8 VR about 2 1/2 years ago, it was with the hope that the VR would make me use it more (and it did) - but the size and weight of that lens meant I mostly was used at special occasions and rarely for general shooting. Now, I will either have to make do with the f/4 or use a 85/1.8 and 150/2.8 when I need faster. In any case, I switched because I couldn't find a good reason that warranted keeping both the f/2.8 and the f/4 versions around.</p>

<p>I actually made the 80-200/2.8 to 70-200/2.8 VR switch shortly before the f/4 version was announced - had I known about that lens then, I very likely wouldn't have gone for the f/2.8 VR back then - and saved some money in the process.</p>

Can you post wide open shots from all three wide open? And happy Easter.

<p>Manual, exactly what type of differences would you like to know, e.g. sharpness, depth of field? Which focal length are you interested in, like 200mm?</p>

<p>There is clearly going to be a difference between f2.8 and f4. f4 will have more depth of field.</p>

<p>There has been a lot of discussion about how the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII is a little short on the long end, i.e., the effective focal length is actually only around 168mm. Have others here experienced this and does the f4 lens exhibit the same characteristic?</p>

Well it depends on how close you focus; at infinity the f/2.8 II is close to 200mm but upon close focus it loses focal length. Many other zooms do a similar thing. The 70-200/4 however is much closer to 200mm at close focus and achieves 1:4 magnification whereas the f/2.8 II is around 1:8 if I recall correctly at its closest focus distance.

 

I have both lenses and of these two, I use the f/4 about 90% of the time, reserving the use of the f/2.8 to circumstances where f/2.8 is necessary; many indoor and night event situations are like this. However, f/1.4 and f/2 primes may often yield better results in those situations than the f/2.8, provided that one is willing to accept the risk of sometimes not getting the shot with a prime.

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3933636">Richard Sharpe</a>, you are describing the "focus breathing" issue that is common among zooms. The official focal length of a lens is always measured at infinity. At infinity, all of these zooms are 200mm on their long end. However, at their minimum focusing distance, some zooms lose more focal length than other. This is especially serious for the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II.</p>

<p>In my 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR review, I have an image showing the subject size for various Nikkor lenses at 200mm:</p>

<ul>

<li>Review: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-70-200-f4-ed-vr-af-s-zoom-lens-review</li>

<li>Comparison image: http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16797873-lg.jpg</li>

</ul>

<p>It should be clear that the clock is the smallest captured with the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II, thus it has the shortest focal length. But that was from about 7 feet. In real life photography, subjects are typically much farther away and therefore the difference is a lot smaller; the closer the subject to infinity, the smaller the difference is.</p>

<p>A few months ago, we had this thread that discussed this topic very thoroughly: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cysZ<br>

And there are a couple of fairly technical reference on why 70-200mm/f2.8 lenses are designed that way: mainly to reduce the number of elements and their size during focusing, thus speeding up AF:</p>

<ul>

<li>Bob Atkins: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_breathing_focal_length_changes.html</li>

<li>Pierre Toscani, if you have a lot of time to read plenty of details: http://www.pierretoscani.com/echo_telezooms_english.html</li>

</ul>

<p>Back to the OP, do you still have other questions?</p>

I sold my 70-200 f2.8 VR1 for the new f4. I really appreciate the lighter weight. Its also a great at focusing quickly and accurately. The one stop I don't miss-- especially upgrading from a D7000 to a D750. Focus breathing if it exists doesn't bother me because I don't think about it and never will. I never used the VR2 and I loved the VR1 but I got tired of its excessive bulk. The f4 is a great lens.