Is the 70 200 f4 a compromise lens?

Started Mar 21, 2013 | Discussions thread
neighkon
Regular MemberPosts: 208
Like?
Re: Indeed
In reply to brightcolours, Mar 21, 2013

brightcolours wrote:

kiirokurisu wrote:

bobcat3610 wrote:

I was interested in the 70 200 f4 but the reviews largely agree that its a little soft at 200mm. I can't help but think that this lens would still leave me longing for it's bigger more expensive brother.

What reviews? Most I've read, and my own experience with the lens, shows that it is in fact slightly better at the long end than the short. Let me be clear: this lens is not a 'compromise' in image quality.

I do not remember reading reviews that state that the 70-200mm f4 VR is "a little soft at 200mm".

Must have been SLRgear as I avoid that nonsense entirely.

I think Popphoto recently did a review on this too and found that the f4 is not as sharp at 200 as the 2.8 and has a little bit more distortion.

I considered the F4 for my D600 but then they announced the Tammy 2.8 VC and had great reviews and better OS than the VRII, not sure how the OS compares with the F4. So I decided not to get the f4 and to wait on the VC to be released in the US but then the VRII went on sale plus with free tiffen filters and expodisk so I said why not jump on it.

Just got mine a few dats ago, as for the weight, that is the first thing that I noticed on the 2.8. I didn't mind its size but its definitely heavy! Now I know why people were wanting a f4 lens!

Something else to consider among the other points that people raised, I shoot indoor basketball and currently with a 85 1.8G wide open at 1/500 I have to be at 6400ISO, so an F4 is not going to fly but can get by with a 2.8.

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