70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8

Started Nov 15, 2012 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
pinkydeh Regular Member • Posts: 108
70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8

which will be better for sports in low light.

i may be too previous as the F/4 not yet being used but really would like to know

I using d300

(ps i started this thread in the mikon lens forum but think we all roam in only a few forum that we prefer)

Nikon D300
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
PRW_Photo Contributing Member • Posts: 668
Re: 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8

I can't think of any advantage that the f4 lens gives you in that situation.  Low-light sports is one of the more demanding scenarios, and sometimes even f2.8 doesn't offer enough light-gathering capability.  Go for the 70-200 f2.8G VRII.  If that is too much money, get a used 70-200 f2.8G VRI, or one of the 80-200 f2.8 versions.

Paul Wossidlo

www.PaulRichardWossidlo.com

n057 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,801
Re: 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8

pinkydeh wrote:

which will be better for sports in low light.

i may be too previous as the F/4 not yet being used but really would like to know

I using d300

(ps i started this thread in the mikon lens forum but think we all roam in only a few forum that we prefer)

If you are going to work in low light, you want the most light gathering capabilities - and that means 2.8.  The extra stop could mean the difference between shooting at 1/60s and 1/120s, and that might be anough to make a better shot, or increase your keeper rate.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +6 more
Marvin Thomas
Marvin Thomas Senior Member • Posts: 2,854
Re: 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8

I am shooting (American) football with a D300 and 70-300 VR lens.  Look at my 9-page gallery.  http://www.titansnapshots.com/Games/Wheaton-College-2012/24515362_37ZQG8#!i=2165231439&k=SjKtczb and about page 9 the sun sets.  You can see a loss of color.  Our football season ended 3 days ago, so I am now trying to sell my D300 and put the money toward a newer body with higher ISO capability in preparation for next year.  I would like a faster lens, but I don't think it will help as much as having a faster sensor.

 Marvin Thomas's gear list:Marvin Thomas's gear list
Nikon D5100 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR +10 more
Kerry Pierce
Kerry Pierce MOD Forum Pro • Posts: 19,141
Re: 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8
1

Marvin Thomas wrote:

I am shooting (American) football with a D300 and 70-300 VR lens. Look at my 9-page gallery. http://www.titansnapshots.com/Games/Wheaton-College-2012/24515362_37ZQG8#!i=2165231439&k=SjKtczb and about page 9 the sun sets. You can see a loss of color. Our football season ended 3 days ago, so I am now trying to sell my D300 and put the money toward a newer body with higher ISO capability in preparation for next year. I would like a faster lens, but I don't think it will help as much as having a faster sensor.

Well, a stop of real light is much better than a stop of higher ISO, IMO.  You're shooting at f/5.6 with that lens, assuming that you're always shooting at 200 to 300mm.  You could gain a stop by going to the 300 f/4 and 2 stops if you could go to the 70-200 f/2.8.

The d7000 has better high ISO performance than the d300, but not 2 or 3 stops.  You could get better high ISO performance with an FX camera, but then you are looking at spending a lot more money for longer lenses to go with it.  The d800 is about equal to the d7000 for high ISO performance in DX mode.  The d600 may be better, but is only about 10mp in DX mode.  Neither of these FX cameras have the performance of the d300.

You're looking at the same issue that many of us have already been looking at.  Until Nikon brings out a replacement to the d300, there just isn't a good alternative.

Kerry

-- hide signature --

my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 Kerry Pierce's gear list:Kerry Pierce's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC +15 more
azguy
azguy Veteran Member • Posts: 7,596
Re: 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8

If you want to shoot in low light, or have portraits with bokeh, the 2.8 is a much better choice.

pinkydeh OP Regular Member • Posts: 108
Re: 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8

from the little that i know the bokeh is not that signocant a difference between 2.8 and . whats been getting me is this new VR3 that nikon has on f/ lens with 5 stops. wow  though for sports i going to nes that fast shutter speed

PRW_Photo Contributing Member • Posts: 668
Re: 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8

pinkydeh wrote:

from the little that i know the bokeh is not that signocant a difference between 2.8 and . whats been getting me is this new VR3 that nikon has on f/ lens with 5 stops. wow though for sports i going to nes that fast shutter speed

Your initial post specifically asked about low-light sports.  Bokeh does not matter.  VR3 isn't going to stop action.   The f2.8 will give you better results.

Paul Wossidlo

www.PaulRichardWossidlo.com

Chester S Parks Contributing Member • Posts: 559
Re: 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8

I've been shooting my grandson's hockey games with my D300 and a 2.8 70-200 VR and getting fantastic shots. I set the shutter to 1/1000 minimum and use auto iso. This combination plus some post processing yields good results.

It only make sense to go for the 2.8 in the conditions you describe.

westcoasthd
westcoasthd Contributing Member • Posts: 581
Re: 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8

The only reason to buy the new f4 lens over the older VRI is size. Optically from early reports the f4 lens should be very sharp, but you have less flexibility with TCs. They will cost the same almost the same with a foot, so the f4 version would have yield the same quality with out stopping down and that is very difficult to do.

greenmanphoto Senior Member • Posts: 1,418
Re: 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8

There's another reason to consider the new f4 over the older f2.8: lens warranty of a new lens versus a used lens. Unless you can find a new VRI f2.8 so you have the warranty, then that's a consideration, IMHO. YMMV.

Sam

westcoasthd wrote:

The only reason to buy the new f4 lens over the older VRI is size. Optically from early reports the f4 lens should be very sharp, but you have less flexibility with TCs. They will cost the same almost the same with a foot, so the f4 version would have yield the same quality with out stopping down and that is very difficult to do.

-- hide signature --

Sam B.
D200, 16-85mm, 35-135mm, Sigma 10-20 f3.5 N8008s, Gitzo 2531, Induro DM-01 ballhead
Certified Texas Master Naturalist
Proud WSSA Member #260!
www.flickr.com/photos/sibeardjr
www.doormouse-editions.com

 greenmanphoto's gear list:greenmanphoto's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD +10 more
pinkydeh OP Regular Member • Posts: 108
Re: 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8

sorry i was responding to azguy about the bokeh (no significant improvement in bokeh between  2.8 and f4.  i'm just looking not worrying so much about bokeh or action in low light

but what about things like portraits would it be better to get 2.8 or f4.

Don't need to ask about landscape as i know the F4 rules there since most times

i shoot those at minimum f8. F4 is lighter as well

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads