Hands-on with the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR

The new AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR is a compact, fixed-aperture F4 zoom designed for use on Nikon's new generation of FX format DSLRs. Smaller in all dimensions than its more costly F2.8 cousin, the slimmed-down $1400 lens has been long-awaited by Nikon users looking jealously at Canon's venerable EF 70-200mm f/4L IS  USM

Dpreview is at the Photo Plus Expo tradeshow in New York, and we were given an exclusive opportunity to get our hands on a pre-production sample of the new 70-200mm. Although we weren't able to save any images, we were able to get a feel for the handling, the AF speed, and the efficiency of the claimed 5-stop Vibration Reduction system.

Starting with the handling, the first thing that you notice when you pick up the new lens is how small it is, relative to Nikon's flagship F2.8 variant. Slimmer, lighter, and smaller in all dimensions, the new 70-200mm F4 is a genuinely portable optic, and in terms of handling, an ideal companion for one of Nikon's smaller FX DSLRs, like the D800/E or recently-announced D600. Something that's easy to miss in the spec-sheet is that the new lens has a filter thread of 67mm, compared to the more common 77mm on other high-end Nikon zooms. This makes it slightly but noticeably slimmer than Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR zoom; compared to Canon's equivalent model, it's about the same size, but around 90g / 3.2oz heavier. There's no official word on exactly how weatherproof the new lens is, but there's the usual rubber gasket around the mount, which makes a water and dust-resistant seal between camera and lens.

On a D600, focusing feels all but instant (despite the insistence of Nikon reps that the sample we used was 'unfinished') and the zoom action is smooth and well-damped. Because all of the lens movement (focus and zooming) is internal, the lens' dimensions never change. 

The new AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR is comprised of 20 elements in 14 groups, and features a constant aperture of F4. Internal zoom and focus means that its length doesn't change when zooming or focusing, and the closest focusing distance is 1 meter. 

The tripod mount ring is an optional extra - yours for just $224.

Smaller in all dimensions than the more costly F2.8 70-200mm, the new F4 zoom is slimmer than the AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR and about half as long again. It features a 67mm filter thread, unlike the more standard (for high-end Nikkors) 77mm.  Mounted on a D600, the combination is  surprisingly compact and very well-balanced.

In common with several recent high-end Nikon lenses, the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR features a Nano Crystal coated element, which should reduce flare and internal reflections. Although not as versatile in poor light as its 2.8 cousin, the new lens features an improved Vibration Reduction system which Nikon claims should be able to deliver up to 5 EV of stabilization, potentially allowing you to get sharp pictures at shutter speeds as low as 1/6 sec at 200mm. Although this can't do anything about subject movement, it should greatly expand the usability of the lens in marginal lighting conditions. 

We weren't able to save any images, but from a very quick test Nikon's claims of a 5-stop vibration reduction don't seem entirely unreasonable. At 200mm, hand-held, we were able to get consistently sharp results from shutter speeds at least as low as 1/15 sec, which matches the best lenses we've tested in the past. Impressive stuff, and we can't wait to get a production sample in our offices for full testing. 

Samples Gallery

The AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4 ED VR arrived in our Seattle office a few days ago and since then we've been shooting with it as much as possible. We've put together a gallery of 34 images, shot with the new lens mounted on the 36MP Nikon D800. As well as straight-from-the-camera JPEGs, we've also converted several Raw files, and have made 'to taste' adjustments for best results. We're hoping to review this lens in early 2013, but until then, here's a preview real-world samples gallery.  

AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4 ED VR Preview Samples - Published 5th December 2012

There are 34 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. A reduced size image (within 1024 x 1024 bounds) is provided to be more easily viewed in your browser. As always the original untouched image is available by clicking on this reduced image.

Comments

Total comments: 258
12
dlmvegas
By dlmvegas (9 months ago)

You're all saying that Nikon is gouging people for the tripod mount ring yet you are ordering the thing. If people don't buy one of those things then maybe Nikon will get their head out of their rears and re-think the price. No way I will pay the price. For what they are charging for the lens it should be part of the package.

2 upvotes
mmullen
By mmullen (Dec 10, 2012)

The out of focus areas of the samples shot at f/4 look really bad - I would call it "smeary". That's in comparison to the Canon lens. The f/4 shots also show poor handling of the color - especially in the slightly OOF areas.

I think a lens in this focal length range might need a fluorite element to fix the color and bokeh. Doesn't Nikon use fluorite?

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Dec 14, 2012)

Nonsense. There are only a few images where you can see bokeh at all - the pink flower, the leaves, and the rusty metal hitch. They look smooth, with no nervousness, and nice round bokeh balls without any outlining.

All that said, an f4 lens lens is not going to give you quite as good DOF control as the 70-200 2.8, even with portraits as with the excellent image of Amadou, this new 70-200 f4 VR is going to be an awesome lens.

2 upvotes
CreamJuicy
By CreamJuicy (Feb 5, 2013)

Rubbish! Broken has been excellent on my copy.

1 upvote
Gregg Humphrey
By Gregg Humphrey (Dec 6, 2012)

nice test and images, but why all static subjects? No action shots, or wide-open, shallow DoF images ?? I like the smaller dimensions and weight of the F/4 VR, but not at the cost of action and shallow DoF capability. And $224 extra for the tripod ring is obscene, Nikon is really gouging on that one imo.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Dec 6, 2012)

Bear in mind that I took delivery of this lens on Friday afternoon.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Dec 14, 2012)

The tripod collar is $199.95. I just bought one and am taking delivery of the lens today.

As far as the samples, there are quite a few shallow DOF shots, and the images look fantastic. I'm not sure what else people need to see with this Nikkor lens as the early tests around the web have all been positive and the chances of this being a bad lens are next to nil.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
CreamJuicy
By CreamJuicy (Feb 1, 2013)

Could somewone please tell me why I would need a tripod collar with this lens? It seems pretty stable to me to just mount the camera on the tripod. With my 80-200, I needed the tripod collar but with the much lighter weight of this lens it seems unnecessary. Am I missing something?

0 upvotes
dlmvegas
By dlmvegas (9 months ago)

I agree. Lighter and smaller than the 2.8 counterpart. Who would need the overpriced tripod ring to begin with.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Dec 5, 2012)

How many of the pics in the sample gallery were taken using a tripod?

I see a bit of camera shake in a few but most seem really sharp....

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Dec 5, 2012)

You don't see camera shake in any of them. Only one was shot with a tripod - the model aeroplane.

0 upvotes
fad
By fad (Nov 29, 2012)

The lack of f4 zooms for Nikon kept me a Canon user for street photography until the D3s came out and made me pull the trigger for its low light capability.

At this point, Nikon has better lenses for street, at least for me, plus the ever sweeter 14-24/2.8 for other uses.

Now Nikon has the advantage with 24-85G, street usable 28-300, street usable 85/1.4G. Plus, in daylight, zoom ranges are extended with the cropping ability of the D800.

Ironically, Canon bodies finally seem to be up to snuff on focusing and low light shooting. But I know of no compelling advantage over the Nikon bodies for street shooting.

0 upvotes
Londongal
By Londongal (Nov 15, 2012)

I'll purchase the Really Right Stuff tripod mount ring instead.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Dec 5, 2012)

Looks like it might be around the same price, actually - close to $200 at least :(

0 upvotes
PatrickP
By PatrickP (Dec 6, 2012)

I bet almost everything from RRS would be better made and more sturdy than Nikon's.

0 upvotes
MikeMiami
By MikeMiami (Nov 8, 2012)

quote "The tripod mount ring is an optional extra - yours for just $224."

I'm sure China will soon take care of that!!!

5 upvotes
b33g33
By b33g33 (Nov 2, 2012)

You had me at F4

0 upvotes
OOPSOS
By OOPSOS (Oct 30, 2012)

Have I read it right or my poor vision/english?. The tripod ring mount = $224 extra?

1 upvote
Mike CH
By Mike CH (Oct 31, 2012)

Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. Scary price for an accessory. Not that Canons are that much cheaper, but still...

0 upvotes
kayone
By kayone (Oct 31, 2012)

At the same time, many 3rd party manufacturers much made cheaper and more appropriately priced tripod rings. It's not some complex machinery that is difficult to reproduce. I wouldn't give two cares about Nikon's exorbitant price as I'll just wait for the $30 version to come from China.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 1, 2012)

If you think it's OK for others to copy intellectual property of other companies, produces it with dirt cheap labor, and resell it via Ebay, then go for it. But then don't complain when ALL the manufacturing and jobs are gone from your country, and once great economies crumble.

As long as Nikon keeps creating great gear, I have no problem paying for it, and when I buy this lens, I'll buy the dedicated tripod collar for it. Call me crazy.

I have no problem buying originally designed, produced and created Chinese gear. My Chamonix 4x5 camera and Benro Travel Angel are quality, designed and made in China products. But I'm not into the whole knock-off culture. I'd rather pay for the original as it just feels wrong to copy.

5 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Nov 3, 2012)

intellectual property? how intelligent it is to design a lens collar? i totally agree with you in principal but this piece of dumb accessory doesn't need to be this expensive. I could buy this thingi if its even double the price, but on the name of brand label charging roughly 10 times more is completely unfair.. yes you can label us the reason for bad economy or all the evil on the planet, but i guess these unfair prices are the reasons why we are reaching there at the first place!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
stad55
By stad55 (Nov 7, 2012)

@ Marike6 - Not much intellectual property in a tripod collar. If you think I'd be getting off cheap buying a competitor's collar, let me leave you with this thought - if it were me, I'd rather pay $300 for a tripod collar by ReallyRightStuff because it would be worlds better than Nikon's offering. They already make tripod collars for many Nikon lenses, even most of which come with a collar when you buy them, but RRS's collars are so much better that folks buy them to replace the junky collar from Nikon.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (Oct 30, 2012)

"hands on" with a LENS?! What...... ?!!?!?!
How about actually testing some lens instead of producing useless stuff like that? We didn't have ANY review since (excellent) Zeiss 24mm f/2 made ages ago.

C'mon! dPreview team, you can do better then that!

4 upvotes
Gregory J McConville
By Gregory J McConville (Oct 28, 2012)

Be sure to accurately read through all the assigned characters (letters and numbers) for all the related lenses. You can get the Canon equivalent (minus IS) for $600 (check BH Photo). I paid $400 for mine about 12 years ago and it's still taking tack-sharp photos. That makes "IS" an $800 option, and I've never found it to be neccessary. My photos of night time HS football games are wonderful. And because of the lighter, non-IS weight, it swings much more fluidly. Does Nikkon have an equivalent lense? It think both companies are gouging the price for IS.

4 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Oct 29, 2012)

Nikon still makes the inexpensive 80-200 f/2.8 for those who don't want IS.

Some applications call for IS, and it seems that in those cases this 70-200 f/4 has *damn* good IS.

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Oct 29, 2012)

The Canon 70-200/4 and 70-200/4 IS are two different lenses optically. Presumably, that's the reason for the price difference. Either 70-200/4 is good, but the IS is pretty spectacular even with the IS turned off.

3 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Oct 29, 2012)

@abrasivereducer

Exactly.

Not to mention both of those lenses are pretty long in the tooth age wise wich is part of the reason they go for such a great price. If Canon came out with a 70-200mm f/4 IS II lens it would probably be around two grand.

People are acting like canon made a non IS and IS version at the same time to give people a choice. They didn't. The IS version is the successor and improved replacement for the non IS version. Canon was just nice and smart enough not to discontinue the old non IS version and keep selling it for a bargain to people who couldn't afford the new, better IS version.

2 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Oct 29, 2012)

I think it is more about cost than quality. Not say that the new is not good, it's just lower cost to make and provides the same results or better.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
1 upvote
pinkydeh
By pinkydeh (Oct 28, 2012)

Wow i like this lens already

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Oct 28, 2012)

And "iif it were a woman, you'd date it." we imagine. Don't lose your time, Marike6 is already on this love affair... but I guess if you can pay the price, you will get your turn though !

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 29, 2012)

Joking != love affair. But I can think of a lot better hobbies that forum temperer of enthusiasm.

2 upvotes
balico
By balico (Oct 28, 2012)

.."potentially allowing you to get sharp pictures at shutter speeds as low as 1/6 sec at 200mm. Although this can't do anything about subject movement, it should greatly expand the usability of the lens in marginal lighting conditions."

When shooting non moving subjects in low light it is best to use a tripod!?
I understand the "Should greatly expand usability", but my idea is that although VR can be handy in some situations, it is mainly marketing and for people who don't (want/can) bring or use a tripod. Although this new lens sounds like a nice option, the 1 stop advantage of the f/2.8 is worth the extra money.

0 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (Oct 28, 2012)

let me guess which lens you have...

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Oct 29, 2012)

Best? Maybe, but very often not possible or practical. Tripods are banned in many public areas and inside most public buildings, and personally I hate travelling with them if I can avoid it, especially on planes.

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Jan 12, 2013)

Without paper thin DOF and bokeh - how on earth am I going to let people know I have an expensive full frame camera and expensive lens?

:-)

0 upvotes
Robert Soderlund
By Robert Soderlund (Oct 27, 2012)

For me, "bokeh" usually translates into "censored, i want you to see this only". This is only my opinion since i do not want to spoon feed people subjects and mostly i tend to follow realism over expression, i want people to see and choose the appropriate subject in a photo. There are of course situations where the picture would get too cluttered without a certain spot focused in on. I find this f/4 a welcome addition over the gap that exists currently (2.8-5.6), enough lux power without going heavily into fast sport territory while keeping the size/weight down a bit.

How it actually performs is another story, looks damn good on paper!

4 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Oct 27, 2012)

Oh my God ! There is another person on this planet who feels like me about the "bokeh" obsession ! Thanks dear Robert, photography is much more than showing just one thing heavily underlined in order to make it appear more sexy.

1 upvote
Denis of Whidbey Island
By Denis of Whidbey Island (Oct 28, 2012)

One might infer from these comments that you also find deliberate composition censorship. Unless, that is, you're teasing us with a heavy dose of irony.

3 upvotes
Teila Day
By Teila Day (Oct 28, 2012)

When I look at a small bird photograph taken by a 300 f/4 vs. a 300 f/2.8 lens wide open, or when I look at the difference in the texture of the bushes behind a subject, the lens zoomed to 35mm or so, when using a 24-105 lens at f4 vs. 24-70 lens at 2.8... I ask that you *please* "spoon feed" me the better (smoother) looking/textured background regardless of how isolated the subject looks.

I also like how a lens focuses better under many conditions and the increased brightness of the viewfinder with the gaping 2.8 (or faster) apertures.

I think it's about time Nikon got on the ball and brought forth an f4 version of this lens.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Oct 28, 2012)

To Denis of Whidbey Island : the way you introduce the discussion is interesting but I must say the logic is uncomplete.

Your comparing the bokeh-thing to composition is not totally exact as composition is the fact to "cut in the reality" which is unavoidable as one cannot take a picture of the whole world, while bokeing is a volontary way to over-extract a subject from its context. As an act of exaggeration it has to be compared to its diametral reverse: the will to take a picture of as much things as possible, which lead us to the fish eye lens.

In one case -the hyper-focusing on one single suject- and in the other one - the attempt to take a 360o picture - we're talking here of sorts of specialization in photography that have both their raison-d'etre but are second to main considerations: the quickness, the sharpness, the stabilization, the flare issue, the reliability in the long term of one lens.

Bokeh is important, but not the most important thing for a lot of photographers.

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Oct 29, 2012)

Bokeh is useful if you can't choose your own background, but it is not a panacea for all things artistic in photography. However if the background or foreground has to be OOF (because you are using a long lens in low light at max aperture) at least it should look nice - ie smooth as opposed to full of nasty artifacts and hard edges.

So it does matter, even if its not an artistic choice.

2 upvotes
stad55
By stad55 (Nov 7, 2012)

Maybe you don't know that "bokeh" does not mean "out of focus". Most people take it to mean that, but most people are WRONG. "bokeh" refers to the quality of the out-of-focus areas, not how far out of focus they are. Don't feel bad, it's a common mistake.

0 upvotes
BOB
By BOB (Oct 27, 2012)

I tried this lens at the PhotoPlus Expo today. Very nice! Very fast focus and very sharp. Can't wait till it hits the street. #1 on my Christmas list!

1 upvote
Lisa O
By Lisa O (Oct 27, 2012)

I looked at this lens at Photo Plus this week. Light, smooth, focuses fast and close. Can't wait to get one!

0 upvotes
Pixel Judge
By Pixel Judge (Oct 27, 2012)

Nikon FF 70-200mm F2.8: 205mm (8.1in) long, 54oz.
Nikon FF 70-200mm F4: 179mm (7.0in) long, 30oz.
Panasonic m43 35-100mm F2.8: 100mm (3.9in) long, 12.7oz.

Mmmm.....Which one to buy???

1 upvote
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Oct 27, 2012)

Well that depends. The Panasonic m43 lens will be sharp but you won't get the DOF possibilities of a FF lens.

0 upvotes
camerashopminion
By camerashopminion (Oct 27, 2012)

And you'll have trouble fitting it on one of those lovely Nikon FF bodies.

4 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Oct 27, 2012)

Depends on what sort of camera you've got.

0 upvotes
olyflyer
By olyflyer (Oct 27, 2012)

I couldn't use the Panasonic at all and in fact, on my camera even the 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 gives me better DOF than the 35-100 would give on the M43. Never the less, which one to buy is a stupid question unless you have both a Nikon FX (or DX) camera and an M43. The systems are not interchangeable, so you have to buy the one that fits your system.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Oct 27, 2012)

N 70-200/2.8, 54 oz,
N 70-200/4.0, 30 oz,
P 70-200/5.6, 13 oz,
assuming 40-50 dollars per oz,
45 * 54 = 2430 dollars
45 * 30 = 1350 dollars
45 * 13 = 585 dollars

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 27, 2012)

The build quality of the Panasonic lens is not up to the level of the two Nikkors, and I find $1500 to be much too expensive to the 35-100 2.8. Of course if you shoot m43, it would be better than the Nikon lenses with a Kipon adapter. Easier anyway. But on m43, I'd rather a Oly 75 1.8 and 25 1.4 for the price of the one Pany zoom.

1 upvote
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Oct 29, 2012)

These kind of comparisons are dumb. You are comparing apples and oranges.

The Panasonic is not nearly as good as the Nikkor, and way overpriced for a m43 lens.

Plus the maximum aperture of the Panasonic is 100mm/2.8 = 35mm while the maximum aperture of the Nikon is 200mm/4 = 50mm. So the Nikon will get you better subject isolation.

1 upvote
PLShutterbug
By PLShutterbug (Oct 27, 2012)

"Fixed-aperture" in the first sentence is not accurate unless you mean that this lens can only shoot at F4. I think the term is "constant-aperture."

2 upvotes
babola
By babola (Oct 26, 2012)

Some good coverage on Photo Plus Expo, also comparison photos with the older f/2.8 sibling:

http://prophotocoalition.com/index.php/dcarr/story/nikon_launches_new_70-200_f4_vr_-_hands_on_at_photoplus_expo/

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 26, 2012)

This new lens is so sexy, if it were a woman, I'd date it.

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Oct 26, 2012)

Don't exagerate, please ! Moreover, by the shape, I would say it's a boy.

4 upvotes
Jan Dolezal
By Jan Dolezal (Oct 26, 2012)

Yep, no lens is as sexy as my black swan (AKA the 70-200 2.8 VR I) ;-)

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 27, 2012)

Whatever. Just being silly.

1 upvote
hydrospanner
By hydrospanner (Oct 29, 2012)

Bodies are girls, lenses are boys.

I thought everyone knew this...

0 upvotes
smileblog
By smileblog (Nov 1, 2012)

Canon L might be a lady.

However I think none of Nikon's would be a girl. It's too rugged-looking :-)

0 upvotes
luxborealis
By luxborealis (Oct 26, 2012)

My initial reaction was "What a rip-off" $224 more for the tripod collar/mount - that make the total package over $1600. To compare it to the $2100 ƒ2.8 - the extra $400-500 is worth it.

If they were to just make the tripod collar included in the lens, economies of scale would drop the price well below $200. It tells you that in this case, Nikon is more about marketing and price points than photography. I know they are in competition with Canon, but really, this is petty.

HOWEVER - The lack of a collar is also a general comment on photography. Fewer photographers these days are willing to go the extra mile by using a tripod. By far, most who buy this lens will never use a tripod or monopod. Are VR and higher really that good that a tripod is no longer needed? For some work, yes. For most, photography is a weekend hobby that doesn't warrant the additional quality possible with a tripod - so why bother including a tripod collar when most won't really need it.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
babola
By babola (Oct 26, 2012)

I kind of share your frustration, however unless this lens is used on the smaller polycarbonate-build Nikon DSLRs like 3000 and 5000 series, you may not actually require a tripod collar...it's not a heavy lens and should balance very well in a setup where the camera is attached to the tripod, not the lens.

0 upvotes
ADMint
By ADMint (Oct 27, 2012)

I agree with the first part...it's petty. And your HOWEVR part confirms the pettiness of it. Either sell it with the mount, or no mount at all, but to have to pay an additional 220+ bucks for something that should come with the lens is rather ridiculous and does seem petty.

Seems Nikon has lost its mind with regards to its add-ons and accessories… the Motor grip for the D800, the Wireless transmitter for its high end cameras. Add to that its refusal to sell parts to its consumers.

Yeah, petty is pretty much on point in describing them.

2 upvotes
acassino
By acassino (Oct 27, 2012)

None of the Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L zooms has ever included the tripod collar. That includes the first version (which did not have IS), introduced in 1999. The raison d'etre for these f/4.0 zooms is the same pro quality as the f/2.8 zooms but with a lot less weight & bulk. Photographers that do serious hiking and climbing really appreciate such a lens, especially because they often still need to carry a tripod.

Nikon has needed a zoom in this category for a very long time, and I, for one, am very glad to see it!

1 upvote
Bevardis
By Bevardis (Oct 27, 2012)

Canon 70-200mm F4L and quit flimsy 350D combo worked fine on tripod for me. Handling of lens can be slightly improved by using the collar, but it is definitely not crucial.

P.S. 3rd party collars will become available with time. You can get one for Canon for as little as $15

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
camerashopminion
By camerashopminion (Oct 27, 2012)

I think that saying using a tripod is a matter of being willing to go the extra mile is a bit daft.

0 upvotes
GarysInSoCal
By GarysInSoCal (Oct 27, 2012)

With the 3rd generation VR in this lens with a 5 F-stop range... who needs a tripod collar?

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Oct 29, 2012)

If you are going to use a tripod you are better off buying the 80-200 f/2.8 anyway.

1 upvote
Hansplast26
By Hansplast26 (Oct 26, 2012)

I think this lens is overpriced (like many nikon lenses), yet it will sure sell like hot cakes. For a fraction of the price you get the very decent Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, for field work this lens will do just great.

1 upvote
Paul Guba
By Paul Guba (Oct 26, 2012)

My experience is they are more expensive because they are better. With 20 element, 14 groups this in not a kit lens its a pro lens that is at f/4.

3 upvotes
babola
By babola (Oct 26, 2012)

The Tamron lens you're referring to is a consumer grade lens.
The new Nikon 70-200 f/4 is a semi-pro grade.
Apples and oranges.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 26, 2012)

The difference is the Tamron is a variable aperture, slow f5.6 at the long end, and is not that sharp of a lens. I've used the Tamron 70-300 VC. It's not a bad lens for the money, but this new lens from Nikon or the Canon equivalent are in different leagues.

1 upvote
taotoo
By taotoo (Oct 26, 2012)

Quite, I dare say at the long end, wide open, it will be apples and oranges.

1 upvote
Hansplast26
By Hansplast26 (Oct 27, 2012)

I'd recommend you to read the photozone.de review of the Tamron lens. and as said, for field work it will be enough for most people.
Personally for an F/4 lens i would not spend so much money. a typical example of an over hyped product.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
GeorgeD200
By GeorgeD200 (Oct 27, 2012)

Saying that a lens that transfers only 50% of the light at longer focal lengths is "just as good for field work" is a thin argument at best.

1 upvote
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Oct 29, 2012)

Not a fan of the Tamron's micro contrast, bokeh and color rendition. It might do just fine, but the Nikon will do 10x better.

0 upvotes
CreamJuicy
By CreamJuicy (Feb 5, 2013)

I'm sure you're basing your assessment of something being overhyped on your actual experience and knowledge of the product.

0 upvotes
dlmvegas
By dlmvegas (9 months ago)

My case in point is the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 lens. Got it Tuesday and returned it Thursday. This turned out to be you get what you pay for. It was only $1250.00 but wide open too soft and too much edge softness at the other apertures.

0 upvotes
luka3rd
By luka3rd (Oct 26, 2012)

Stop using "all but"... it was never used until some months ago on this site...
It is absolutely unclear idiom and very hard to put in context on such a technical site as this one...

2 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Oct 26, 2012)

Sorry but this "all but" is a very old way of speaking: 1598 for it's first (known) occurence ! Cf: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/all%20but

The meaning of the term - which is "almost" - should be clear if you speak standard english, otherwise I understand you're in a sort of maze looking for the exit.

0 upvotes
taotoo
By taotoo (Oct 26, 2012)

If you read the surrounding words (the 'context') - it's obvious.... the thing focuses quickly.

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Oct 28, 2012)

I am happy and familiar with "all but", but I am 40 year old native english speaker from an english speaking country. I don't know if Luka3rd is or not, but I suspect that a lot of english as a second or third language people "all but" may not be a clear idiom.
I suspect that some native english speakers may forget about the other use fo the idiom - "all but" also means "second to last" (from the game of cribbage, where you are all but one hole from the last hole.

2 upvotes
neznalekk
By neznalekk (Oct 29, 2012)

English is not my native tongue and I confirm I was confused from the "all but" idiom. Actually I understood that as opposite of the proper meaning (all except vs. almost - adv.). Anyway I understood from the context afterwards that something does not fit here.
However it is just my problem - and I am glad that I could learn something new. There are thousands of translators on the internet to help me.
I totally do not agree with the argument to make expression poorer and unified so that everyone can understand (although it is nice that someone cares and proposes that...).

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Oct 29, 2012)

The ultimate revenge of Europe on England will be to force us to adopt American English ;)

"All but" means the same as "very close to" or "as near as makes no difference" but is perfectly correct English and more concise and entirely precise.

So instead of policing other people's use of English, why not learn a new phrase that's already part of it and improve yours?

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Oct 29, 2012)

I'm still trying to figure out what makes a lens sexy? Does this happen when you combine it with the collar? I also don't understand how software can be powerful. Can it tow a trailer?

1 upvote
Blaise06a
By Blaise06a (Nov 16, 2012)

I'm also very confused by this "all but". I have been working in an English environment for the last 20 years.

0 upvotes
Apewithacamera
By Apewithacamera (Oct 26, 2012)

meh......

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 26, 2012)

If you know anything about Nikon, you'd understand that this is THE lens people have been asking for for years so it's doubtful that the majority of Nikon users share your indifference.

6 upvotes
russbarnes
By russbarnes (Oct 26, 2012)

Yes, yet another reason to shoot full frame with Nikon and leave Canon behind. I can understand why you would find that very difficult to take Ape :)

6 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Oct 26, 2012)

Congratulation Marike6 to how you gave a meaningful answer to an insignificant post. I don't understand how some of us seems to consider a mooing an intelligible way to give ones opinion. Frankly speaking, it's beyond me.

4 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Oct 29, 2012)

Actually, being an Ape With A Camera, the OP presumably does not have much linguistic skill and was actually saying that the lens looked as good as a banana, in other words very good indeed.

I think we should not be so quick to write off comments from lower primates.

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (Oct 26, 2012)

Enough about the tripod collar. It is actually priced competitively for a QUALITY tripod collar and besides Canon does the exact same thing. You want a cheap lens with this level of optical design and quality then that has consequences. One of them is the tripod collar sold separately to keep the cost of the actual lens down. If Nikon had released the lens with the collar included but $200 more expensive everyone would be complaining that the lens was over priced.

9 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Oct 26, 2012)

It IS overpriced as it is.

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Oct 26, 2012)

I don't complain the lens is overpriced - because I consider it is a reasonable price that is in direct relationship with a very high quality product - but yes, I complain about the overpriced collar because I don't think such a part should be that expensive. It's not so backbreaking to make a collar or is it ? But in that case, I would like Nikon (and Canon) to explain us how the making of this simple accessory requires an expensive process that justify the price. It's not a space-trained kevlar spare part after all !

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Oct 26, 2012)

I work for a manufacturing company, and can tell you we would not sell a part like that any cheaper. Raw castings, machining, finishing, inspection, shipment overhead, plus an appropriate margin. You have to remember they will not sell hundreds of thousands of these things. Sure you can make cheap knock offs, but they will not have the quality obvious in a close up photo of the collar. Nikon is not including it because they realize not all shooters will need it with an F4 lens, and it keeps the price down.

3 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Oct 26, 2012)

Yet Kirk that sells much lesser collars than Nikon itself is able to produce a collar for the heavy 80-200mm f2.8 AFS sold less than $160 while this Kirk collar is made in the USA not in China or in a south-east nation where production costs are much much cheaper than in a G7 country. Does Kirk production is "cheap" or "fragile" or "botched" or "detrimental" to the camera ? Not at all. When there is a will, there is a way...

0 upvotes
RFC1925
By RFC1925 (Oct 26, 2012)

I first thought you meant inferior quality but then realized that you meant 'fewer' with 'much lesser'.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 26, 2012)

@WilliamJ
So the Kirk lens collars are $160 and the RRS $195. Of course, if they were as much or more than the dedicated tripod collars nobody would buy them unless they were dramatically better. Photography in general is expensive. An Arca Swiss camera plate from RRS is around $60, and L-bracket $150 so the price of the dedicated Nikon collar is pretty much in line with the market prices for pro gear. If you think photography is expensive, try getting into HDSLR video and have a look at Zacuto or Red Rock Micro rigs. Machined aluminium, especially of a custom nature, is not cheap. I get the RRS catalogue. The gear is beautiful, but my goodness, it's not for the fient of heart.

2 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Oct 26, 2012)

To RFC1925 : thanks for the rectification.

Marike6: you're right, photography (at this level of gear) is quite expensive, but I think it could (should ?) be more affordable. See the full frame which were so ruinously expensive just five years ago and how they became more reasonable with the D600 and the 6D. To sell "cheaper" but in large quantities is the key to survive nowadays, especially when a japanese brand trades materials that are made in China or south-east nations.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Bevardis
By Bevardis (Oct 26, 2012)

Amazing quality, portability, speed, and price make Canon 70-200 F4L an amazing lens. F2.8 quality at lighter package for a fraction of the price- how better does it get? This lens is good enough argument to choose Canon rather than any other system, or, rather, was.

I believe Nikon 70-200 F4 will be just as good. If I was a Nikon guy, today would be a great celebration. Congratulations and happy shooting!

6 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Oct 26, 2012)

"We weren't able to save any images, but from a very quick test Nikon's claims of a 5-stop vibration reduction don't seem entirely unreasonable. At 200mm, hand-held, we were able to get consistently sharp results from shutter speeds at least as low as 1/15 sec,"

Well, this is not even 4 stops, is it? Where are 5 stops here?

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (Oct 26, 2012)

How do you know what shutter speed Barney can manage with a plastic cup in one giddy hand and a new lens in the other? :-)

3 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Oct 26, 2012)

For longer focal lengths, I tend to be overcautious with the 1/focal length rule, so I typically shoot an unstabilised 200mm lens at at least 1/250sec. Five stops down from 1/250sec is 1/15sec.

5 upvotes
earlymorninglight
By earlymorninglight (Oct 26, 2012)

Barney, 1 stop down from 1/250sec is 1/125sec, 2 stops 1/62sec, 3 stops 1/31sec and 4 stops 1/15sec. So peevee1 is correct, 1/250sec (or 1/200sec, rounding off) to 1/15sec is 4 stops down, not 5 stops.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Oct 26, 2012)

Quite right, my apologies. Tired brain. My findings on performance still stand though. Consistently sharp at 1/15sec, and impressive sharpness, if not 100% of exposures, a stop or so slower than that. So the claimed 'up to 5EV' seems very reasonable.

2 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Oct 28, 2012)

funny thing is, at least 5 people (and counting...) 'like' the idea that "five stops down from 1/250sec is 1/15sec."
:)

2 upvotes
NickBPhotography
By NickBPhotography (Oct 26, 2012)

Those who talk about weight should bear in mind that this is only a 200mm lens and the F/4 Aperture will means you could only mount a 1.4 teleconver tops (providing you can indeed mount a 1.4 teleconverter – if not looked into the specs). Though it will depend on your personal circumstances/working practices, I personally always find myself working nearer the 200mm end of my 70-200mm F/2.8 VRII. The 70-200mm F/2.8 VRII is both larger and heavier, but with a 2.0 Teleconverter III you can have a portrait/Sport lens and a wildlife lens in one (with no discernibly drop in image quality). This surely beats carrying two lenses around, even if it’s a much cheaper and lighter 70-300 VR.

0 upvotes
jfarinha
By jfarinha (Oct 26, 2012)

Very interesting lens, indeed.

But everybody compares it with the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR II. Me, I own the Nikkor 80-200 2.8 (last iteration model).
No VR, no nano, but a superb lens! And it was, until now, the only real alternative for the big, heavy and expensive 70-200 VRII (I don't usually buy third-party lens).

Please don't forget to compare this new 70-200 4.0 with the 80-200 in your future review.
After all, today, the 80-200 is still in Nikon's catalog.

3 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (Oct 26, 2012)

I second this. The most interesting comparison for many Nikon shooters will be between the new lens and the venerable AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED – now just over 800 euros brand new from the usual Hong Kong suspects.

If the Tokina 70-200 mm f/4 ever arrives that will be an interesting option too.

3 upvotes
John Gerecht
By John Gerecht (Oct 29, 2012)

I've got an AFS 80-200 and I've always had a serious vignetting problem at all focal lengths and apertures. It's VERY sharp, but I'm want to have a serious look at the new lens to see if it vignettes. If it doesn't, I'm probably going to buy it.

And when I got the 80-200 I immediately took off the collar and I'm not sure I can even find it again. I also find it VERY heavy if I'm doing a lot of shooting.

I've always found it interesting that the 70-200 is such a popular lens when the 80-200 is almost the same focal length. Other than the obvious competitive Canon lens, why did they make it in the first place?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
philchan
By philchan (Oct 26, 2012)

Cool, wonder where it is made.

0 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (Oct 26, 2012)

As I said elsewhere in these comments, it’s made in Thailand. (You can see the ‘LAND’ of ‘MADE IN THAILAND’ in one of Nikon’s press release photos).

Of course what matters is how good it is, not where it’s made. But I understand your curiosity about these little details.

0 upvotes
zeev kirshenboim
By zeev kirshenboim (Oct 26, 2012)

Barney,
When a full review of the D4 will be published?

0 upvotes
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Oct 26, 2012)

I dont see the problem with tripod collar. This lens is lighter then 24-70 2.8 which is mounted on tripod via camera.

This 70-200 f/4 can be mounted on tripod with out tripod collar, mount it on camera, and then on tripod.

I miss the point, whats the big deal? Would you like it more if it was included but costs 200 more to begin with? I like the way to have options.

3 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Oct 26, 2012)

First off the 24-70mm is a much shorter lens. If you compare the 70-200mm f4, 24-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8 VR you will find that the length differences between the two 70-200mm versions isn't a lot while the 24-70mm is a much shorter lens.

There is a good reason that no 24-70mm f2.8 lens on earth comes with a tripod collar either as an accessory or even a third-party maker.

A tripod collar isn't just for better stability on a tripod. You can even turn the camera into a landscape of portrait position by rotating the whole camera without removing it from the tripod.

5 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (Oct 26, 2012)

Is there a white (grey) version of this lens too?

1 upvote
Peter KT Lim
By Peter KT Lim (Oct 26, 2012)

Yes, but the name call Canon.

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Oct 26, 2012)

Talking about lenses color, I prefer the black ones because it reduces the risk of reflection when you shoot through a window. But I wonder why there are not camo lens or at least dark green ones like the famous Sigma big monster 200-500mm that would be just perfect for birders (to be seen, The Big Year which is a movie about guys who... are birders : http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi862297113/ ).

0 upvotes
arqomx
By arqomx (Oct 26, 2012)

it's a bit disappointing that you have to pay extra for the tripod collar, while Tamron gave the collar and the hood for free..

4 upvotes
YHN
By YHN (Oct 26, 2012)

Tamron does not give these items for free, they have included it in the price of the lens.

9 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Oct 26, 2012)

200mm lenses need tripod collars pretty bad. even if cannon does it too 200 dollars extra for something shoulld not only be included but built in and is frankly somthing that sould cost like 50 bux is pretty messed up. Again i am aware the cannon one works the same way but 2 wrongs don't make a right

4 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Oct 26, 2012)

The Tamron is not a 70-200 f/4 like the Nikon and Canon. The Tamron is an f/2.8 lens and like all of them, does include a collar. I'm not sure what it should cost until I see one.

Moreover, I'm certain both RSS and Kirk will offer alternative solutions which may be both better and less expensive. Nikon's collars have not been that good over the past few years, allowing too much flex.

2 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Oct 26, 2012)

The lens collar for a 80-200mm f2.8 AFS costs about $160. If Kirk was pleased to make a collar for this new lens at that price, the deal could be good for both, Kirk and the buyer.

Note: the Kirk collar is made in the USA not in China nor in Thailand nor in Vietnam, yet it's cheaper than the Nikon one that is surely made in Thailand or in one of the previously given countries. There is something weird here !

1 upvote
photogeek
By photogeek (Oct 26, 2012)

If it's anywhere near as good (not to mention better) as Canon's f/4 (which I owned, years ago in non-IS incarnation), the lens will be a hit. I'd rather have a 70-200 that I won't hesitate to put into my backpack instead of the one which doubles as an exercise weight.

4 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Oct 26, 2012)

That indeed will be interesting to see. I am really curious if they (Nikon) managed to beat the f/4 L IS USM. If yes, big BRAVO (I own both the f/4 L USM IS & f/2.8 L USM IS II and those are incredible lenses indeed)! Funny thing, (at least some) "Nikon users"" desire this 70-200 f/4, and (at least some) "Canon users" (including me) desire the 14-24 f/2.8G ED from Nikon... that I consier to be an incredible lens. Cheers! :)

2 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Oct 26, 2012)

The 70-200mm f4 was announced way back in 2007. Lens design hasn't stood still and I am sure an optics manufacturer of the caliber of Nikon will be able to at least match if not exceed the IQ of the Canon 70-200mm f4 IS lens.

1 upvote
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Oct 26, 2012)

2007 is not that far away. On the other hand for the 70-200 range the f/2.8 L USM IS II has no equivalent on Earth. So Nikon has work to do. Cheers! :)

0 upvotes
Sandeep Patil
By Sandeep Patil (Oct 26, 2012)

MTF chart looks to be really promising. Lets hope the production samples delivers the same.

2 upvotes
abi170845
By abi170845 (Oct 26, 2012)

Looks great, I'll be getting this lens for sure.

0 upvotes
jp1958
By jp1958 (Oct 26, 2012)

Hang on to your f/2.8 version. You will most likely miss the bokeh of the f/2.8.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 26, 2012)

Search the Canon 70-200 f4 L on Flickr and you see tons of images with beautiful bokeh. This new Nikkor with it's 9-blade diaphragm and better close focus abilities than the f2.8 VR II will have no problems producing pleasingly smooth bokeh.

1 upvote
57even
By 57even (Oct 26, 2012)

Looks OK but need to see performance reviews and probably wait about 3 months for price to settle down (and other tripod mounts to come out).

I can't believe it does perform on a par with the (very good) Canon equivalent, so it's just a matter of when for me. Will keep the F2.8 version for use with the 1.7X teleconverter.

1 upvote
sean000
By sean000 (Oct 26, 2012)

Sweet looking lens, but I think I'll keep my much less expensive AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 for now. It doesn't have VR, but I mostly use it outdoors where I have little trouble getting the fast shutter speeds I want anyway.

3 upvotes
Fotoman53
By Fotoman53 (Oct 25, 2012)

No way would I trade my 70-200 /2.8 VRII for this lens. Might have considered it if I was still using the Sigma I use to have or had neither. What I really want is an update of the 80-400 VR. Nikon is purposely dragging their feet on that one. Maybe it still sells well or they are afraid many pros would pass on their expensive 200-400 F4.

0 upvotes
NickBPhotography
By NickBPhotography (Oct 26, 2012)

Have you tried the teleconverTER 2.0 III? Can't tell its mounted on my 70-200mm VRII except that it weights a little more, is a little longer, and my aperture reads F/5.6. Really is that good! Tried a Sigma 50-500mm OS, and the Teleconverter 1.7, but had I brought this first I'd have saved myself a lot of expensive trials (Sigma 120-300mm was tempting but its massive unsurprisingly).

0 upvotes
camerashopminion
By camerashopminion (Oct 26, 2012)

With all due respect Fotoman, I don't think replacing the 70-200 /2.8 VR Mk2 was something Nikon expected people to do with this lens!

4 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Oct 25, 2012)

What's the point of "hands on preview" about a lens that is a very well known lens format, offers nothing out of ordinary for current times, no sample pictures and it is pre-production sample other than product endorsement and hype. I can understand a preview about a new camera since there may be many more variables compare to a very well known lens format.

7 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 26, 2012)

This isn't a preview (nor does it claim to be) - it's just first impressions and a chance to actually show something more than manufacturer images.

13 upvotes
camerashopminion
By camerashopminion (Oct 26, 2012)

I found it interesting to see the scale of it against a body, far more useful that just reading everything in millimeters or inches.

2 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Oct 26, 2012)

By the way Mr. Butler, why did you delete my reply. There was nothing in it other than a little bit of satire posted on Oct 26, 2012 at 13:20:32 UTC. I think this site deserves the fan boys and the bickering goes on between them, nothing else is allowed

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
martinsnap
By martinsnap (Oct 25, 2012)

at last! i have been waiting for this optic for a long long time, i even considered switching to the C word!

1 upvote
mbrobich
By mbrobich (Oct 25, 2012)

What a gogdamn joke $224 for a tripod mount makes it $1624 complete. I think Nikon is shooting itself in the foot. Sigma kills it !!

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 25, 2012)

The Canon one has a list price of $210 on top of a $1200 lens, so it's not so mad. Coincidentally there does appear to be a thriving industry of third-party alternatives for the Canon one.

7 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (Oct 25, 2012)

Amazon has a collar for the Canon for about eight quid:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-compatible-Tripod-Mount-70-200mm/dp/B004Y1TUN4

Expect similar options for the Nikon, plus really good (but expensive) models from the American machinists like RRS and Kirk.

2 upvotes
Steve_
By Steve_ (Oct 26, 2012)

@ R Butler - 1 screwjob + 1 screwjob = 2 screwjobs, not zero.

Were Canon or Nikon wiser they wouldn't let those third parties have any part of the pie, nor needlessly antagonize current and potential customers.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 26, 2012)

I agree entirely.

0 upvotes
rtogog
By rtogog (Oct 25, 2012)

Look nice combo.......compact!!

1 upvote
JohnyP
By JohnyP (Oct 25, 2012)

Looks like a joke to me.

Same price as a gently used f2.8 and same size as some f2.8 zooms in same range. For example Minolta HS G APO f2.8 80-200 is same size and costs less than this f4.

I wish they had something similar to Minolta's famous beercan - 70-210 F4 (Leica design) and price of $150 on used market (which would probably mean $300-600 if it was available new.

2 upvotes
GabrielZ
By GabrielZ (Oct 25, 2012)

I agree, it does look a bit chunky for an F4 but that might be because it has internal zooming.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Oct 25, 2012)

Half the weight, and price will probably settle down a bit.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Oct 25, 2012)

umm no. a gently used vr f2.8 is like 2 grand

6 upvotes
LKJ
By LKJ (Oct 25, 2012)

I suppose in a manner of speaking a discontinued lens could be considered to cost less...

0 upvotes
metacircular
By metacircular (Oct 26, 2012)

Nikon's beercan equivalent is the Nikon 70-210mm F/4 AF (screw drive, c. 1986).

0 upvotes
Saffron_Blaze
By Saffron_Blaze (Oct 25, 2012)

The 70-300 was often reported as good as the 70-200 in that range. How will this be any advancement given the cost differential?

0 upvotes
camerashopminion
By camerashopminion (Oct 27, 2012)

I believed that hype until I got my D7000 and found it to be a bit lacking. It was sharp enought for my 12mp body, but 16mp made the difference far mroe apparent. I'd been HOPING this lens would fill the void - shame about the lack of weather sealing. Fingers crossed on the upcoming Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC (or winning vast sums of money to justify buying the Nikon)!

0 upvotes
TOF guy
By TOF guy (Oct 27, 2012)

Whoever reported the 70-300 to be as good as the 70-200 should ease on the beer. The 70-200 is sharper, has noticeably more contrast, has better bokeh and is faster.The built is more solid as well. On the other end it is heavy expensive less versatile for its zoom range. Each one has its uses and strengths.

0 upvotes
ScottRH
By ScottRH (Oct 25, 2012)

Looks great! It will be a nice Christmas gift for my son.

0 upvotes
HSway
By HSway (Oct 25, 2012)

Appreciate the spontaneous report Barney. It’s not only refreshing but the lens also deserves full attention. I somehow doubt the AF won’t be a first rate with the production sample.
Hynek

3 upvotes
Total comments: 258
12