Whats wrong with the Nikkor 70-200 4.0 VRIII ?

Since it came out there were quite low interest even though it were indeed heavily requested by many NIKON photographers which wanted to have a simillar lens like the well known Canon 70-200 4.0
I hoped to see some good photos and also some sport or action pictures taking with that lens.
And I expected that some professional which have both the 70-200 2.8 VRII and 70-200 4.0 VRIII would have done a quality check and provide a useful eview about there likes and dislikes.
Is there anything wrong with the lens eventually not addressing current expectations? I have
interest to purchase the lens using it with my D800E.
If possible please show some of your best pictures taken with the Nikkor 70-200 4.0 VRIII.

Thanks

--
Stefan

There is a good review on the Grays of Westminster web site by Simon Stafford - http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/newsitem.php?id=360&pg=1&mem=&arc=0

Thank you

--
Stefan

I'm not sure where you get the idea that there's not a lot of interest in this new lens. So far, there is very little availability for it. It's brand new. Moreover, it's somewhat on the expensive side if you include the tripod collar. Not many who intend to buy it have been able to buy one yet, either.

Secondly, most of us understand that web posted images are a terrible way to determine most anything about the optical quality of a lens. A compressed 8 bit lossy Jpeg viewed on the average 6 bit or 8 bit uncallibrated monitor tells you almost nothing in the small dimmensions used online. Many are waiting on good reviews by reliable sources. So far, the few that are out are pretty positive.

I think buying this new lens is a good choice if you can use the f/4 speed and don't need f/2.8. Many who buy a mid telephoto like this also use it for portaiture work outside where the f/2.8 becomes very handy. In the studio, it wouldn't matter so much but a tripod collar would, of course.

Again, just buy it if you can find it and need it. I'm just starting to see it available recently. I'll have to decide if it is a better choice for me than the current 80-200 f/2.8 I currently own. VR is not that important for moving subjects like sports or wildlife. However, the f/2.8 is important.

--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

I had no glue that there is still limited availability. Will wait now until more reviews will be out. Thanks for your comments.

Cheers

Stefan

--
Stefan

My friend recently bought the new 70-200 F4. He still had his older VRI and I own the VRII.

He ultimately returned the F4 version because he shoots people, sports and events where F4 was a limiting factor. The lens is very sharp, but slow glass is slow glass. It is better than the VR1 at the corners, but that does not mean much to a lot of shooters not doing landscape. It suffers from much less focus breathing than the VRII version. It's hard to fault the optics-truly excellent. But we found fault with the F4 and price!

Another interesting point is that we had a MUCH cheaper Tamron 70-300 VC on hand and it was VERY close to the F4 Nikon over the same range. My only issue with the Tamron (I was impressed enough to order one for myself) is the VC is slow to engage.

The 70-200 F4 lens is very good. I think Nikon would sell twice as many if they bundled it with the tripod foot.

I'm still waiting for Nikon to make a great 70-200 lens. The VRI has weak corners. The VRII has focus breathing. The VRIII is only F4.

C'mon Nikon! Pull it together!

Robert

Hi. I can understand the need for this particular lens. It's long overdue really. I have to admit though, at the present advertised prices there is not a chance that I would buy the F4 over the F2.8. Who-ever decided to sell the tripod collar as an accessory (and an expensive one at that) should consider the implications of that decision. It would appear that some of the manufacturers are hell bent on ripping potential customers off.

As it stands there would be no incentive for me to consider the F4.

Cheers.

RTF.

There's certainly been a lot of interest expressed in this lens, but at least in the U.S. availability doesn't seem to be an issue.  B&H, Adorama, and both my local camera stores have the lens in stock.

Writing about this lens is free; paying for one is a different matter.  I doubt I'll buy a 70-200mm f/4; given the gear I already own I can't see the 70-200mm f/4 offering me $1400 of additional capabilities.  I suspect many other 70-200mm f/2.8 owners feel the same way, and I also suspect many people who had expressed interest in this lens were hoping for an unrealistically low price tag.

Finding time and opportunity to use a lens such as this one is a different matter still.  For many of us, it's more the season for friends and family photography than for outdoor sports and action.  Nor would this lens be my choice for indoor sports despite improved high ISO performance from recent camera bodies.

Finally, I think that many people are adopting a "wait and see" attitude.  The perception, rightly or wrongly, is that Nikon's been having "teething problems" with recently released products.  The subject line "what's wrong" may reflect such fears.

It's too early to know how well the lens is selling, and only Nikon knows if it's meeting their sales goals.  For the consumer market, variable aperture 70-300mm lenses replaced fixed aperture f/4 models as the telezoom of choice a couple of decades ago.  Whether the 70-200mm f/4 can escape the shadow of the f/2.8 models for prosumer and professional use remains to be seen.

--
I miss the days when I used to be nostalgic.

It's a superb lens. Light, solid and sharp. I don't care to measurebate and have better things to do that pixel peep so I don't pay too much attention to chart shots etc.

Here's a couple of samples at 200mm @ F4 on a sunny, winter's day in December. Very minor PP with only exposure and contrast adjustments. I am very happy with the results.

I should mention that I owned and returned the 70-200 2.8 VRII

Shots are on a D700.

--
What you know imprisons you

it's a excellent, light alternative to the 2.8 VRII.  of course, if you need f2.8 you won't buy the f4 version, but as it is it's excellent.

some sample shots:

http://jordanpaw.zenfolio.com/nikon70200f4

--
http://opienc.wordpress.com
'when 900 years you reach, look as good you will not'
-- master yoda
http://jordanpaw.zenfolio.com

...than the f2.8 versions.  But, a bit too pricey.  The f4 will be my travel/landscape tele zoom.  The f2.8 is still for bike races, triathlons, portraits and self-defense.

maljo



D800 + 70-200 f4 VRIII at the Wharf

If by 'unrealistic' you mean $100-200 which is what the old Nikon, Canon & Minolta versions go for now, you're right it's nowhere near it

f4 is something that DSLRs at 1600+ can scrape by with at indoor events for the amateur crowd, and the noise they'll get is part of what will differentiate them from the pros.

I shoot landscapes and street scenes, not sports or action. The decision between the f4 and 2.8 was a no brainer...I mounted both lenses on a D600...even though I use a tripod 90% of the time, there is no way I would lug the 2.8 around in the mountains or desert. As has been said many times here, they both have their place.

So because it's not been massively publicized there's something wrong with it? How typical!

I have one and with two evenings (one drizzly, one freezing cold) and not much in the way of light or subjects, I was still able to shoot enough to say this is a WOW lens.

I came over from the boys in White in 2008 to the Dark Side. I felt that Canon simply couldn't get the art of new bodies down without doing a Microsoft test: you know, releasing them to the public to do unit/beta testing. Plus, while Canon had the high ground in glass, they simply were not keeping up with body tech. I sold my 40D for the D300. Instant body superiority.

And that's where it ended.

The Boys in Black fans felt that variable aperture, consumer-grade build lenses were the cat's meow. I was appalled. I left a Tokina 12-24, Canon 24-105/4L, Canon 100-400L and a Tokina 10-17 plus a 580EXIII flash. My first buys were the Nikon 17-55/2.8 and 105VR. Two superb lenses!

But I wanted my 24-105/4. And my 100-400. I was sadly disillusioned. On the one hand, the Canon 17-55/2.8 made me shiver (picture nails on a chalkboard) every time I touched it's $1000 cheap build and felt the lens extend under its own weight. Plus, the lousy, failure prone implementation of IS on those EF-S lenses... where the Nikon version just left you amazed. But without VR. I like VR. You can argue and say what you want, but you can't argue about whether I should like it - and I do.

The 105vr macro was another stunner. Those first days with Nikon, 51 focus points - accurate focus points, I might add. The two new lenses. The 921k dot LCD. It was like a dream. Till I really started looking at Nikon glass. 70-300VR is praised all over. Really? A plastic variable aperture consumer lens? Wha...?? The lack of a 'pro' designated series of lenses. Huh??

And, for me, the most devastating... no constant f4 series of lenses. No group to buid a 10-12mm to 400mm group on. All hopefully with stabilization. I was dismayed. Like being a kid on Christmas and finding your brother Timmy got the train set AND the Batman cape (I still haven't forgotten Mom and Dad!).

In three years, that's pretty much all changed.

Nikon offers, even if they don't advertise it, a pro series of lenses. They offer, from 12-400mm, a pro line of f4 lenses. I have come to the conclusion that the 70-300VR, especially in the hands of the experienced, can produce spectacular results. I have my 10-20 Siggy, to be sure. I'll probably pick up a 16-35/4VR or 12-24/4 in the near future. I have the 24-120/4VR and love it. As much as my 24-105L? Who knows? Can you compare love without them side-by-side? Not easily. And now, you dare question the 70-200/4VR???!! Blasphemy!!

My two nights of shots (even some in near dark in my living room shot with and without flash) are incredibly sharp and detailed. Massively detailed. It is a solid winner. Can't wait to go out in the sun today.

--
The Mad Prophet - philosopher, cyclist, herper and photographer

I didn't get this bit. D300 might have half a stop advantage in hi-iso performance, but what bewitched you about it enough to ditch all those lenses? The extra buttons or the AF points?

Actually, I was thinking of statements such as "it won't be cheap enough for a lot of people if it creeps towards the $1000 dollar mark." 

I own an 80-200mm f/4 AI-s, for which I paid just over $100.  It was a very nice lens for its time, but its time was 30 years ago.  I "chipped" it for use on an IR-converted D70 -- here's one of my wife's shots using that combo:

--
I miss the days when I used to be nostalgic.

The biggest problem with that lens is that it does not exist. Nikon has to release Nikkor 70-200 4.0 VRII before doing the VRIII.

The 70-200 f/4 lens uses 3rd generation of VR technology, but the I, II, III at the end of the lens name refers to version of the lens, not VR inside of it.

The only problem I can see is that this lens is brand new so availability is low.  The price is too close to the 2.8 and let's face it.  We all know the price will drop over the next few months.
So you'd have to be absolutely desperate for the f4 to get it now at this price rather than either wait for the price to fall or just go for the Sigma f2.8/used VR1

So maybe that is what he meant... "what is wrong in this lens name" ; )

I only see a news announcement for the lens along with some comments on the announcement. Where is the review?