70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

Started Feb 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
jhinkey Senior Member • Posts: 2,813
Re: Why not a 100-400/4.5-5.6?

Shotcents wrote:

jhinkey wrote:

Shotcents wrote:

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


When you are saying "we" to whom were you specifically referring to? Because your "we" did not include me. And were else besides online did you find people to talk to about wanting a f/4 70-200 or not?

I have the 80-200AFS and 70-200AFS VRII and I certainly wanted a slow, high IQ, excellent VR, great build 70-200/4. In fact I bought one I wanted it so much . . . .

Well, the "we" applies to folks I know.

The 80-200 is a great lens. The 70-200 VRII is better in almost every respect than the F4, which I've seen 1st hand.

So, why did YOU want one? Just curious.


I bought the 70-200/4 because f/4 is fast enough for me in the vast majority of times I use such a zoom AND the 70-200/2.8 is too large and heavy many times when I go hiking/backpacking.

I used to have a 70-300AFS VR, but after trying 3 samples to get a non-optically defective one I found myself not using it much because the VR was hit or miss and the IQ for landscapes was not that great - the 70-200/4 is significantly better.


 jhinkey's gear list:jhinkey's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Panasonic LX100 Nikon D800 Sony a7R II Panasonic G85 +27 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow