F4 is not F2.8...some thoughts

Started Oct 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: F4 is not F2.8...some thoughts

Shotcents wrote:

I'm a little surprised by many of the comments here with the release of the new 70-200 F4 VR. Regardless of what you read here do consider the following:

1) The lens is a fairly slow F4. This is not only about low light shooting. The biggest issue with the F4 limitation is that you have less control over depth of field. The 70-200 2.8 (and also the 80-200 2.8) are well regarded for their portrait ability. This is NOT only about bokeh; it's also about having part of a face or flower fall elegantly out of the focused field. The 70-200 F4 will not be as good as the faster lenses in this respect. Naturally bokeh will also be of lesser quality.

2) VR only matters when things aren't moving and in those cases using a tripod with VR OFF will yield better results anyway. F4 and VR won't do what the 70-200 2.8 can do.

3) If the focal breathing of the 70-200 VRII is a bother then consider the VRI version.

4) As for the size weight factor, I respectfully disagree that the 70-200 F4 is much of an improvement. It's bigger than the 24-70 2.8 and that is NOT a fun lens to take on a trail. If weight/size are serious issues than the 70-300 VR is lighter and has more reach. I seriously doubt the new 70-200 F4 will best the 70-300. They're both slow lenses and my 70-300vr can swing with my wonderful 70-200 VRII in some situations. Pixel peepers will cry otherwise; shooters know the real story.

5) At least for the moment, the Nikon 70-200 F4 price is a cold slap in the face. It's overpriced by about 250 dollars and not including the foot (and charging an arm and a foot for it) is really sad. Just because price gouging Canon does the same does not make it "okay."

6) I really don't know what folks are talking about when it comes to sharpness. My 70-200 VRII is beautifully sharp wide open. Stopped down the improvement is mainly in the corners, but subtle because it's just always sharp. I expect the 70-200 F4 to be sharp. Stopped down to 5.6 it may be sharper than the 70-200 2.8, but that is pretty meaningless since the former is insanely sharp as it stands. An improvement has to matter to the image. Still, the main point of the 70-200 VRII is that you can shoot at 2.8 all day long.

7) If you use 70-200 type range for shooting landscapes of various types, then I see it as viable. Beyond that...no thanks. It's an overpriced optic stacked against a Canon lens to gain more market share. If I was given one on Sunday I'd sell it on Monday.

So that's my view. If you see the lens as a winner that's fine. It's fun having choices. I dumped my 24-70 2.8 for a 24-85vr and some primes. Some folks would undoubtedly question that, but it suits the way I shoot. Getting back to the 70-200 F4 at the very least I'd wait for the reviews!



Yet, what you do here is comparing apples with oranges, ...no comparison should exist should there?

If you need 28 f1.4 then f1.8 isn't enough, if you don't f1.8 is plenty... if you need 300 f2.8 then you don't need f4, if you don't, there is no reason to buy f2.8... that is obvious to anybody... and more, ....you did with your 24-70 what I think I will do with my 70-200VRii (I will wait to try the lens first).... Because I have 85mm f1.8 and 105mm VR, I will buy back my 180 f2.8 and replace the heavy zoom with a more flexible one.... I think...

-- hide signature --


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