Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 vs f4.

[Richy6771]

I have been looking into buying the Nikkor 70-200 mm lens. I just can't decide if I want to spend an extra +- $700 to get the f2.8. I know many of you eschew the data provided by DxOMark analyses, however the f4 is rated sharper by the metric they use. Is it worth that much money to get an extra stop of light gathering ability? I actually am enamored with the sharpness of the f4. Do any of you experts have any thoughts? TIA.

 

[chipmaster]

There is weight, price and sharpness.

Dont discount Bokeh and most important f2.8 allows you to half ISO or shorter speed which is priceless for low light action versus some measurbator score from some site. I guarantee that at Rio the 2.8 was there more than the 4.0 lens, LOL

 

[labalaba]

I find it hard to believe that the 70-200 f2.8 is not sharp enough and believe you are over-thinking this. Instead of alleged sharpness differences (and are you sure DxO is comparing sharpness at the same apertures, not both lenses wide open?), in fact the major difference between these lenses is that one of them has f2.8. If you are confident you will not miss the wider aperture then you can consider the f4 (which I own) for the advantages of price, size and weight, at the cost of possibly less weather sealing and overall robustness. One is not 'better' than the other they are just different. Get the one you need.

 

[Rolf_52]

I have been looking into buying the Nikkor 70-200 mm lens. I just can't decide if I want to spend an extra +- $700 to get the f2.8. I know many of you eschew the data provided by DxOMark analyses, however the f4 is rated sharper by the metric they use. Is it worth that much money to get an extra stop of light gathering ability? I actually am enamored with the sharpness of the f4. Do any of you experts have any thoughts? TIA.

 

[Rolf_52]

..or to put in another way...if you don't need high shutter speeds for action or shallow depth of field for portraits or creative stuff....go with the f4 ...it's a stellar lens

 

[ata3001]

You wouldn't be able to see any difference in sharpness, & the f/4 is only 1 stop slower than the f/2.8. If you need 2.8 then get that one, otherwise save yourself $700. I was testing them side by side know for a fact that the f/4 lens image stabilization is hands down superior to the current f/2.8 version. I can handhold the f/4 version for 1/15 sec @ 200mm & get consistantly sharp images. I couldn't get any with the f/2.8 at those settings. If you shoot sports or weddings, the f/2.8 has slightly better blurred backgrounds at f/2.8 & with sports will better stop the action. It comes down to your intended lens useage.

 

[Prosophos]

I previously owned the f/2.8, but this time I wanted a lens that was lighter and more portable for daylight use, to be used mostly for my kids' baseball/sports (for low light situations, I knew I could use some of my prime lenses instead).

Here are a few images with the 70-200 f/4:

A couple of additional points:

1. I find the 70-200 f/4 to have acceptable sharpness wide open at f/4, but my copy really starts to shine at f/4.5.
2. I find nothing lacking in the bokeh of this zoom.

Cheers,

—Peter.

Prosophos.com



--
Peter
www.Prosophos.com

 

[Jim Trunck]

I have had both. Sold the 2.8 and kept the 4.0. My main reasons for going with the 70-200 f/4 are size and weight - smaller in size and definitely lighter in weight. The image quality of both are excellent. The bokah difference is minimal. The less price helps in decision making too. I don't miss the 2.8 model at all.

Good Shooting,

JIm

 

[too old for this]

Is it worth that much money to get an extra stop of light gathering ability?

How much do you shoot wide open?

The f4 is a fine lens, smaller and lighter, and I strongly suspect you will be very pleased with one.

 

[GlobalGuyUSA]

I have been looking into buying the Nikkor 70-200 mm lens. I just can't decide if I want to spend an extra +- $700 to get the f2.8. I know many of you eschew the data provided by DxOMark analyses, however the f4 is rated sharper by the metric they use. Is it worth that much money to get an extra stop of light gathering ability? I actually am enamored with the sharpness of the f4. Do any of you experts have any thoughts? TIA.

If I had to do it over again, I would get the 70-200/4 VR in a heart beat, over the 70-200/2.8 VR II. Why? Weight/size. There is nothing wrong with the 70-200/2.8 VR II. Its just not a joy to carry, that's all. That's all.

The light-gathering ability never really came into play; the bokeh does. HOWEVER, I'd still rather have the 70-200/4 VR + an f/1.4 to f/2 Prime Lens in my bag (carrying 2 lenses) than carrying the 70-200/2.8 VR II.

Honestly, though, these days I use the 300/4 PF VR + an f/1.4 Prime + the 20mm f/1.8 (or the 18-35/variable depending on situation). Those lenses are a JOY to carry and damn good.

Regards,

--
Sincerely,
GlobalGuy

 

[Tony Lau]

I have been looking into buying the Nikkor 70-200 mm lens. I just can't decide if I want to spend an extra +- $700 to get the f2.8. I know many of you eschew the data provided by DxOMark analyses, however the f4 is rated sharper by the metric they use. Is it worth that much money to get an extra stop of light gathering ability? I actually am enamored with the sharpness of the f4. Do any of you experts have any thoughts? TIA.

 

[TSWD]

You need to rank the following features by priority to you and then you can decide.

Aperture (2.8)

Build (2.8)

Weight (4)

Size (4)

Price (4)

Autofocus speed (2.8)

Bokeh (2.8)

VR effectiveness (4)

Focus breathing (4)

IQ is probably not the way to decide - both are good. The F4 maybe sharper across the frame than the f2.8, but the f2.8 has lower vignetting and distortion. There are also lot of reviews such as Thom Hogan or Photographylife which will help you more than DXO.

I went for the F4 because I have fast primes at 85/180/300mm and was looking more for a landscape / general purpose lens. I’m very pleased with it for those uses. The only thing that does not do well for me is portraits with challenging backgrounds. Up to me to compose better or use another lens!

 

[AT Miami]

I wanted to love the 70-200/4, but could not. It provided only a marginal improvement in IQ over the 24-120/4 in common range, and the extra reach was not worth switching lenses in the field for me. The 70-200/2.8 affords additional possibilities, such as improved night time street photography, and fast moving objects photography, and so on. Also, its images have the proverbial "pop," which the F4 counterpart lacks. It also has the highest build quality among the Nikon lenses I own. By wide margin.

If I did not have the 24-120/4, having a 70-200/4 could have made sense. Otherwise, it is partially redundant.

 

[Bird pics]

As always the best lens is the one you have with you and for a lot of folks (or old farts like me) the f4.0 is going to leave the house more often than the 2.8. Even the f4.0 and a prime or two would make the whole kit easier to take along.

Steve

 

[Prosophos]

Nothing wrong with the bokeh, sharpness ,or colour rendering of the Nikon 70-200mm f/4.

—Peter.

Prosophos.com

--
Peter
www.Prosophos.com

 

[NikonShoot3r]

I wanted to love the 70-200/4, but could not. It provided only a marginal improvement in IQ over the 24-120/4 in common range, and the extra reach was not worth switching lenses in the field for me. The 70-200/2.8 affords additional possibilities, such as improved night time street photography, and fast moving objects photography, and so on. Also, its images have the proverbial "pop," which the F4 counterpart lacks. It also has the highest build quality among the Nikon lenses I own. By wide margin.

If I did not have the 24-120/4, having a 70-200/4 could have made sense. Otherwise, it is partially redundant.

My thoughts exactly...the 2.8vrii is an exceptional lens

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

I wouldn't decide on sharpness, but on weight, VR, size, ability to use lower ISO.

One way to look at it is that the 2.8 is not nearly twice the price while gathering twice the light.

The f4 is ~700 grams lighter and 27mm shorter. That makes it a lot easier to handle and carry around.

I bought the 2.8, but I wanted the indoor lower ISO and the 77mm filter was nice for using the same filters on other lenses. And the price difference was smaller at the time I bought it.

Keep in mind you don't get the tripod collar with the f4. If you need that (e.g. to make panos with gimbal head), the price difference shrinks considerably. For normal photo's, the lower weight of the f4 makes you don't need a tripod collar.

 

[Antal I Kozma]

Hi,

I have the f4 version. I didn't have need for f2.8 in this range. Also, the lighter weight and decent magnification ratio of this lens is more in line of my needs. I spend a lot of time in the back country and this lens serves me better there than the f2.8 version would.

Outdoor photographers make better use of this lens while indoor photographers would prefer the f2.8 one. So, if you will use the 70-200 range for butterflies, flowers, scenery, turtles on the log, etc.... then the f4 version is the better choice. On the other hand if you shoot weddings, concerts and similar indoor events then the f2.8 version will serve you better.

Many outdoor photographers, myself included, prefer the lighter f4 version. I often have a peak at the gear page of other nature photographers before I make a purchasing choice. I checked out the gear collection of John Shaw, a highly regarded nature photographer, before I committed to the 70200mm f4 lens. When I saw that he uses it too I had no more reservations and bought one for myself. I never regretted me decision and the lens has served me well every time I packed it.

Best, AIK

http://naturephototrail.com

 

[millsyc]

What do *you* need though? Are you expecting a lot of low light? Using it with a crop sensor? Don't need to travel light? F/2.8 anyday, it provides more flexibility. I have been using the f/2.8 with my d7100 for the last 6 months and am absolutely loving the images, but unless I *need* the IQ or DOF, in good light I don't notice any appreciable difference vs my 70-300vr at comparable zoom lengths.

I think for a lot of people the question is not only why the f/4, but whether their needs justify the fixed f/4 apeture and build quality vs the 70-300 vr. If you're careful and keep it at or below 200mm, it is also fantastically sharp, but you have a less sealed and less well built lens.

 

[Nick Edwards]

Until I got my 300mm f2.8, I used my TC2.0III with the 70-200 f2.8 a lot, for bird / wildlife photography.

400mm f5.6 is still quite acceptable (although I'd often step down to around f7), whereas a minimum of f8 is pushing light gathering and the AF capabilities of any of the camera range.

If you never want to use a 2x TC, then this is obviously not an issue.