70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

Started Feb 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shotcents Veteran Member • Posts: 4,472
Re: Why not a 100-400/4.5-5.6?

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?


The 80-200, 70-200 VR1 and VRII were really all we needed. I only saw people asking for a slow 70-200 online.

The 80-400 update is what most are now waiting for. I was so miserable when I tried the 70-200 F4 (It's just like the Canon version I had) and uninspired that I ordered a Tamron 70-300 VC!

I sure hope they update the 80-400 soon.


 Shotcents's gear list:Shotcents's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D800 Nikon D5200 Nikon D5300 Nikon Df +11 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow