Nikon 70-300 VR vs Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR

[whoosh1]

Is there any review which compares these two lenses? I know Mansurov's is extremely glowing about 70-200 f/4 VR (including vs 70-200 f/2.8 VR II) but he does not compare it directly with 70-300 VR. Also I am getting slightly skeptical of Mansurov's mostly gravitating toward newer introduced lenses - folks will be more likely to buy newly introduced lenses after seeing a positive review (and click the links to B&H for that lens). I also know that photozone has a great review of 70-200 f/4 VR and a so-so of review of the 70-300mm VR - but photozone does not do direct comparisons.

 

[bocabum]

Hi,

I have owned both lenses. For three years I owned to 70-300 lens for 3 years. Pretty good lens for the money. Pretty good from 70-250mm range.

A month ago I bought the 70-200 f/4 and no comparison in terms on IQ and handling. I use it mainly for nature/birding. I have used it with the TC 1.4x and the results are very good. This gets me to 280mm. Granted not the same as 300mm but with much better IQ than the 70-300.

I recently sold the 70-300 since I was confident I would not miss this lens.


Hope this helps.

Regards, Scott

 

[JohnLux]

I would always prefer the newer 70-200/4 VR instead of the much older 70-300 lens:

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#70-xx

 

[Photophanatic]

I second what Scott (bocabum) has said. I own both lenses but find myself using only the 70-200 f/4 VR as it is so much better in all respects. Am using it on both my D700 and D800 with outstanding results. The 70-300 showed acceptable image quality on my D700 but not on my D800 where it's optical shortcomings at the long end of the zoom range became obvious. Hope this helps.

 

[dwa1]

bocabum,



How is the AF speed of the 70-200 f4 and 1.4x TC combo compared to the AF speed of the 70-300 VR (no TC of course)?

Wayne

 

[bocabum]

Wayne,

The AF speed is very good, no worse than than 70-300. I do not recall any hunting either.

Thanks, Scott

 

[dwa1]

bocabum wrote:

Wayne,

The AF speed is very good, no worse than than 70-300. I do not recall any hunting either.

Thanks, Scott

That's good to know Scott. Thanks for the reply.
--
Wayne

 

[whoosh1]

Thanks Scott (bocabum) and Photophanatic!

 

[mf999]

I do BiF and trying to decide between the 70-200 f2.8 or the f4.

I presently use the 300f4.

My main concern is autofocus speed and sharpness.

 

[Stacey_K]

Photophanatic wrote:

The 70-300 showed acceptable image quality on my D700 but not on my D800 where it's optical shortcomings at the long end of the zoom range became obvious. Hope this helps.

Hmm I would think the 70-200 at 300mm would be even more "shortcoming"

 

[clarnibass]

Photophanatic wrote:

The 70-300 showed acceptable image quality on my D700 but not on my D800 where it's optical shortcomings at the long end of the zoom range became obvious. Hope this helps.

Can you clarify something please. Are you saying that if you take a photo on the D700 with the lens and then an equivalent photo on the D800, then either print (at same size of course) or post it online (at same size of course), you would be happy with the photo from the D700 and not from the D800?

If this is correct, is it because you got higher expectation now with the D800 and the 70-300 lens just doesn't match what you want?

If this is not correct, in what way do the photos disappoint you now with the D800? Is the quality from the D700 now disappointing to you?

I'm asking because I don't really understand.

 

[JurassicPizza]

I purchased the 70-200 f/4, sold the 70-300, and never looked back. Just returned from my first vacation using the f/4 and I'm very happy with it.

Image quality, build quality, and handling are all leaps and bounds better on the f/4. I may wind up selling my 70-200/2.8 VR too because the new lens is that good. It makes me want Nikon to make a 24-70 f/4 of comparable quality (better than the 24-120), because the 2.8 is such a beast of a lens!

I haven't used a 1.4 TC much on the lens outside of some simple testing to confirm that image quality wasn't dramatically worse -- for reach I use a 300/4.

 

[mf999]

have you taken any action shots in low light conditions?

If so how fast is autofocus vs. 70-200 f2.8?

What camera did you use?

 

[bocabum]

JurassicPizza wrote:

I purchased the 70-200 f/4, sold the 70-300, and never looked back. Just returned from my first vacation using the f/4 and I'm very happy with it.

Image quality, build quality, and handling are all leaps and bounds better on the f/4. I may wind up selling my 70-200/2.8 VR too because the new lens is that good. It makes me want Nikon to make a 24-70 f/4 of comparable quality (better than the 24-120), because the 2.8 is such a beast of a lens!

I haven't used a 1.4 TC much on the lens outside of some simple testing to confirm that image quality wasn't dramatically worse -- for reach I use a 300/4.

 

[mf999]

how is it in low light outdoor conditions?

 

[bocabum]

mf999 wrote:

how is it in low light outdoor conditions?

Hi,

I have no taken photos in low light outdoors conditions so cannot comment. I do not foresee a problem with this lens but you may have to use a tripod depending the lighting conditions or increase the ISO to get a faster shutter speed.

Thanks, Scott

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

If you like to focus close up the 70-200 f4 at 200 mm gives more magnifications than the 70-300 at 300 mm.

Adding a 1.4x converter to the 70-200 gives more magnification - close to the legendary 70-180 macro at 180mm.

 

[WindwardHaole]

Adorama and others have refurbished Nikon D90 bodies for about the same price you would pay for a TC-1.4E II. Except for the extra carry load, you give up nothing in AF efficiency, and I assume, image quality compared to a TC.

 

[dwa1]

NikonHaoleboy wrote:

Adorama and others have refurbished Nikon D90 bodies for about the same price you would pay for a TC-1.4E II. Except for the extra carry load, you give up nothing in AF efficiency, and I assume, image quality compared to a TC.

But remember, the D90 does not have the AF Fine Tune feature. Another (later) DX body that does have AF Fine Tune would be better.

 

[brianric]

NikonHaoleboy wrote:

Adorama and others have refurbished Nikon D90 bodies for about the same price you would pay for a TC-1.4E II. Except for the extra carry load, you give up nothing in AF efficiency, and I assume, image quality compared to a TC.

Not going to get the DR, and IQ at high ISO compared to FF.