70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

Started Feb 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
HSway
Senior MemberPosts: 2,662
Like?
Re: Why not a 100-400/4.5-5.6?
In reply to inasir1971, Feb 3, 2013

inasir1971 wrote:

I'm not sure what need this fills.

At f/4 it's not a fast lens by any means. So for subject isolation or for indoor shooting of sports events you would be better off with an f/2.8.

For reach, 200mm isn't much. Adding a 2x TC will take it to a 140-200mm lens and it would be f/8. That would mean it is compatible with AF only with the latest bodies, but only them and then with limited AF coverage. Stopping down 1 stop would place you well into diffraction territory so that would be less than optimal for cameras like the D800 and D7000 - even more so for the new crop of 24MP DX cameras. f/8 is also very slow for wildlife shooters who might find it difficult to get the shutter speeds needed.

Finally, it's not cheap particularly given that the pricey lens foot isn't included.

Wouldn't a better performing and updated AF-S 80-400 have served the needs of the likely users better?

Hi,

true.

There is a gap crying out in the nikon’s line-up. 120(150,200) –400 variable f5.6 modern high quality VR lll lens would make for a fine and much needed plaster on it and a great tool for enthusiasts.

Not sure though, what made you mix it with 70-200/4 lens. And why you decided the teleconverters are a crucial link between them. Many 70-200 users will just use the tcs to make use of their lenses’ potential and extend on their usability. "For reach" argument looks to be part of that view, too. I am buying 70-200 lens for its 'range' same as I bought the 50/1.8g or the other zoom lenses. It’s one of the most famous Canon lenses, I guess the most used telephoto lens.

If you want more 'reach' you need a longer lens. – the mentioned f5.6 zoom for example – yes, I understand. I hope for others that Nikon will make something there soon.

"Is not cheap". Look, Markus from PZ rates its price/performance at 5 stars. I know these guys turn each € five times in their hands in this very sense. I think that’s correct. I myself foresaw this lens will be a success. I glimpsed somewhere it’s not sealed. That makes Nikon charging really a possible maximum even if was at the canon’s current price. The problem is, it’s a stellar Nikkor performer, 70-200/4 VR lll compact design lens. Who wants/needs/can afford it will pay, there is nothing else in that range and value-performance ratio available. A little side note maybe as well. If I wanted to match the gloom of your previous speakers at the top of the thread, I could have painted 70-200/2.8 VRll in pretty gloomy colours from my side of things and from the lens’s own ones. But why. Why on earth, speaking half-truths is just no joy.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow