Would you sell your 70-200 f2.8 VRI for the 70-200 f4 VRIII?

Started Oct 24, 2012 | Discussions
rsjoberg Contributing Member • Posts: 550
Re: Would you sell your 70-200 f2.8 VRI for the 70-200 f4 VRIII?

No. I'm currently adding a 35 f1.8 as an alternative to carrying my 17-55 f2.8 around everywhere. I would probably be inclined to supplement my 70-200 f2.8 with a 180 f2.8 or borrow my wife's 70-300 if I could pry it out of her hands.

 rsjoberg's gear list:rsjoberg's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Nikon Coolpix A Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +5 more
Mako2011
Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 24,583
Not so much

kayone wrote:

Leuf wrote:

If they made one without VR I would probably buy it in addition to my VR I. VR is basically useless to me since I use this lens on moving subjects, but everyone else has got to have it apparently. I cannot see essentially trading my VR I even money for the f/4. In any event I would wait to see what Tokina does with their f/4 next year.

Not to sound patronizing, but you know that's why the 70-200 2.8 has the active VR mode meant for VR of moving subjects and panning shots, right?

Active Mode VR is not meant for moving objects but for the camera moving different as in when shooting from a boat or other moving platform.  Panning mode also adjusts for the type of camera movement of the lens and not the subject though it will help in an actual panning shot if the panning technique is really good to begin with....it will not help though in Leuf's situation though unless he's looking to get a sharp background.

Shaun_Nyc
Shaun_Nyc Senior Member • Posts: 2,279
never

kayone wrote:

So I currently own the as mentioned 70-200 2.8 VRI, which I've used on/off for the last 3 years. I purchased it for a great price from a local who had no idea how to shoot w a telephoto. Either way, I've made good use of the lens but can definitely recognize the limitations of the older VR1 system when shooting and full length telephoto under adverse action or lower light conditions. Also the vignetting at 70mm on a FX camera is still obvious.

I can probably sell my 70-200 for more than what I paid (was sold to me for ridiculously cheap) and while prices for the 70-200 2.8 VRII haven't dropped enough to be attractive enough to me, I'm contemplating making the switch to the 70-200 f4 when its released. I was always envious of Canon shooters who had the lighter weight f4 option. I'm expecting newer and better optics compared to my f2.8 VRI and obviously smaller and lighter which is a plus. Also this new lens is still compatible with my 1.7xTC so that is a bonus as well.

The difficult choice is obviously giving up the f2.8 for f4, so I'll lose some shallow DOF, but on a FX, i'm pretty happy with the degree of bokeh at f4 with the right backgrounds and the massively improved VRIII I wonder will give me a boost in lower light that I lose with the loss of f2.8.

I'm now currently shooting w D700 and D600 bodies

What do lens fanatics think of this choice?

what makes you think the bokeh from the F4 & Vr1 will be similiar at F4 ? Do you find canons F4is bokeh nice ? really ?

-- hide signature --
 Shaun_Nyc's gear list:Shaun_Nyc's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Nikon D50 Nikon D3 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +10 more
Onetrack97 Senior Member • Posts: 1,953
Re: Would you sell your 70-200 f2.8 VRI for the 70-200 f4 VRIII?

kayone wrote:

Onetrack97 wrote:

The 70-200 f2.8 VR1 was not sharp to the edges on a full-frame camera. It made my full length portraits unacceptable, and that's shooting on a tripod with cable release and mirror up.

How unacceptable? I sold my VR1 before the VR2 existed. I bought a 200 f2.0.

I now also have the 70-200 VR2, it does the job well.

So, if you're full framed, I'd go with the new f4.0. Otherwise, the VR1 is probably OK.

Yes, I still have the 200 f2.0. It's still amazing.

-- hide signature --

Scott

I'm not surprised that a dedicated 200mm f2 would be tack sharp and a great lens. How large is it compared to a 70-200 2.8 I or II?

The 200 mm f2.0 is actually 0.1" shorter, but much thicker and almost double the weight.  When you put the lens hood on, it does get the attention of others unless you're at a football game.  I never take my hood off, I store and carry it in a Glass Taxi case.

You can hand-hold it but that depends upon your size and strength.  It does have lightning fast focus and for events, I pretty much leave it wide open all of the time.  For portraits, it's also great stopped down but so are lots of lenses.

-- hide signature --

Scott

 Onetrack97's gear list:Onetrack97's gear list
Nikon D3 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon D7100 Nikon D810
OP kayone Regular Member • Posts: 316
Re: never

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

kayone wrote:

So I currently own the as mentioned 70-200 2.8 VRI, which I've used on/off for the last 3 years. I purchased it for a great price from a local who had no idea how to shoot w a telephoto. Either way, I've made good use of the lens but can definitely recognize the limitations of the older VR1 system when shooting and full length telephoto under adverse action or lower light conditions. Also the vignetting at 70mm on a FX camera is still obvious.

what makes you think the bokeh from the F4 & Vr1 will be similiar at F4 ? Do you find canons F4is bokeh nice ? really ?

No personal experience with the Canon F4s since I've only shot with Nikon.  Since you're familiar can you post some samples from your F4 lens?

Funky Doobie Regular Member • Posts: 131
Re: Would you sell your 70-200 f2.8 VRI for the 70-200 f4 VRIII?
Vertigon Senior Member • Posts: 1,430
Re: Would you sell your 70-200 f2.8 VRI for the 70-200 f4 VRIII?

One reason I am glad this lens is coming out is so that the price of the 200 mm F2 .8 VR II might drop. Whichever way you look at it, the choice for Nikon users is expanding.

Does anyone here have a link that outlines the difference between the two vibration reduction systems?

Arree
Arree Senior Member • Posts: 1,535
Re: Would you sell your 70-200 f2.8 VRI for the 70-200 f4 VRIII?

wcowan wrote:

Red G8R wrote:

My 70-200 VR1 is simply one of my best lens and would never trade it for either the new F4 or even the f2.8 VRII.

Absolutely my position too.


-- hide signature --

William Cowan
See some of my photos at http://www.radiantphotograph.com

Feel exactly the same.

 Arree's gear list:Arree's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
SpaceDoc Senior Member • Posts: 1,475
why should I?

can't see any reason to do so!

SpaceDoc

.

Jim Bond Forum Member • Posts: 89
Re: Would you sell your 70-200 f2.8 VRI for the 70-200 f4 VRIII?

NO WAY My 70- 200 2.8 is one of my best lenses.

1984Landcruiser Regular Member • Posts: 319
Re: Would you sell your 70-200 f2.8 VRI for the 70-200 f4 VRIII?

No.  The new f4 lens is overpriced and you get to pay extra for for a tripod collar.  I'll stick with my 70-200 f2.8 VRI and carry the 70-300 VR when I need something lighter.

David - a Colorado Nikonian

oking23 Regular Member • Posts: 267
Re: Would you sell your 70-200 f2.8 VRI for the 70-200 f4 VRIII?

Absolutely not!  My 70-200 (2.8)(VRI) performs wonderfully on my DX cameras.

 oking23's gear list:oking23's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +18 more
wasserball Veteran Member • Posts: 4,072
People are nuts.

I cannot think of any pros and cons that is worth switching lens. A lot of shooters here think any slight advantage one lens has, if there is one, will make them a better photographer. I don't think so. It's your brain that captivates the image that result in the picture, not the slight advantage of one lens over another. I'm not saying I know it all, but learn about lighting and composure. That will make you a better photographer than any slight advantage f4 has over the f2.8.

You got me on a rant now.  If you are a landscape photographer, do you think you will ever be as good as Ansel Adams?  Any equipment you currently own is thousand times more capable of what AA used.  Why does he have better pictures?  He has patients to wait hours for the right moment in light. to get in the right position to take his pictures.  He doesn't shoot from the window of his car.  He doesn't snap 100 pictures to get one.  I hope you see the point I am making.

 wasserball's gear list:wasserball's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Nikon D3S Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G ED VR II +4 more
OP kayone Regular Member • Posts: 316
Re: People are nuts.
2

wasserball wrote:

I cannot think of any pros and cons that is worth switching lens. A lot of shooters here think any slight advantage one lens has, if there is one, will make them a better photographer. I don't think so. It's your brain that captivates the image that result in the picture, not the slight advantage of one lens over another. I'm not saying I know it all, but learn about lighting and composure. That will make you a better photographer than any slight advantage f4 has over the f2.8.

You got me on a rant now. If you are a landscape photographer, do you think you will ever be as good as Ansel Adams? Any equipment you currently own is thousand times more capable of what AA used. Why does he have better pictures? He has patients to wait hours for the right moment in light. to get in the right position to take his pictures. He doesn't shoot from the window of his car. He doesn't snap 100 pictures to get one. I hope you see the point I am making.

This has nothing to do with being a better photographer, its for practical utility reasons of being smaller, lighter, and thus being used more often.  Stop making up things I never said or putting words in my mouth.  That is a bad habit of internet ranters.

OP kayone Regular Member • Posts: 316
Re: never

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

kayone wrote:

So I currently own the as mentioned 70-200 2.8 VRI, which I've used on/off for the last 3 years. I purchased it for a great price from a local who had no idea how to shoot w a telephoto. Either way, I've made good use of the lens but can definitely recognize the limitations of the older VR1 system when shooting and full length telephoto under adverse action or lower light conditions. Also the vignetting at 70mm on a FX camera is still obvious.

what makes you think the bokeh from the F4 & Vr1 will be similiar at F4 ? Do you find canons F4is bokeh nice ? really

You haven't responded, please post samples from your Canon F4 please.

wasserball Veteran Member • Posts: 4,072
Re: People are nuts.

exactly what I said. The little advantage you claim, smaller, lighter, more useful. Those will not make you a better photographer. So, to you if Nikon comes out with a 2nd edition that is lighter than the first you will buy it? The reason the current lens f2.8 lens is heavier is because it is a f2.8, more glass, therefore, heavier. If you tell me you don't need the f2.8 I can accept that. But to trade it for the f4 is total nonsense.

 wasserball's gear list:wasserball's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Nikon D3S Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G ED VR II +4 more
OP kayone Regular Member • Posts: 316
Re: People are nuts.
1

wasserball wrote:

exactly what I said. The little advantage you claim, smaller, lighter, more useful. Those will not make you a better photographer. So, to you if Nikon comes out with a 2nd edition that is lighter than the first you will buy it? The reason the current lens f2.8 lens is heavier is because it is a f2.8, more glass, therefore, heavier. If you tell me you don't need the f2.8 I can accept that. But to trade it for the f4 is total nonsense.

Where did I say the reason I want to get a smaller, lighter lens = is to become a better photographer?  Once again, please stop making things up and trying to internet troll. It's pretty transparent.

And if it makes you happy, yes, I don't need the f2.8.  Are you satisfied?

wasserball Veteran Member • Posts: 4,072
Re: People are nuts.

yes, go get the f4.

 wasserball's gear list:wasserball's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Nikon D3S Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G ED VR II +4 more
Oatmeal Stout New Member • Posts: 8
Re: People are nuts.

Kayone, I have read your post carefully, and understand your question fully.  You are wondering if the Improved VR at F4 will compensate for the loss of speed and therefore give you the same result as shooting at F2.8 with VR1, only with a lighter, easier to handle lens.  I am also wondering the same thing.  Unfortunately, we have to wait until actual product is in peoples hands and we can get an informed response.  I will most likely buy the 2.8 version myself as I have no Issues with the extra size and weight, but if the results are similar or better and I can save $600ish, then it becomes something to think about.  Have fun shooting...

bimmerman Senior Member • Posts: 2,403
I'm keeping mine...

I've recently sold all my Nikon DSLRs and most lenses including the 17-55/2.8 and 16-85VR but for some reason I just can't part with the 70-200VR1. I don't really know why but maybe it's sentimental reasons. I can still use it to shoot film with my F2AS and F4.

Well, other reasons I can't think of is perhaps it is F2.8 and that might offset the advantages of the newer and better VR3 to some extent. Also, F2.8 can afford you higher shutter speeds against the F4 and we all know VR3 is still not telekinesis and does nothing for moving subjects.

While the VR1 is not as light as the new 70-200/f4, it's lighter than the f2.8VR2 to some extent. Oh, and it does not focus breathe like the VR2. And how about Bokeh? It's definitely better with F2.8.

Downsides, yes, it's not that sharp at F2.8 and really shines only at F4 and better still at F5.6 and that would be advantage 70-200/f4 for it's portability. But I wonder if the new lens is tack sharp at maximum aperture.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads