Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 vs f4.

[m1964]

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.

Exactly what I think- I could not see the $1000 difference between the 70-200 F/4 and 70-300 VR. I'm not a pro, so what is good enough for me may not be for another person...

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

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.

Exactly what I think- I could not see the $1000 difference between the 70-200 F/4 and 70-300 VR. I'm not a pro, so what is good enough for me may not be for another person...

The 70-300 VR is very slow focussing in comparison

 

[paulski66]

You either need the extra stop of light gathering, or you don't. It's that simple.

If you don't really need the extra stop, save the $ and the weight and get the f/4. Otherwise, go for the f/2.8.

Me, I need the extra stop. And for the record, I think the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII is the best lens I own; it never disappoints.

 

[russbarnes]

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.

 

[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.

Exactly what I think- I could not see the $1000 difference between the 70-200 F/4 and 70-300 VR. I'm not a pro, so what is good enough for me may not be for another person...

The 70-300 VR is very slow focussing in comparison

That is a very good point which I neglected to mention! I think the 70-300vr is fantastic value though if those flaws don't bother you. It still focuses fast, just not pro lens fast. And if you don't have a body with good AF to couple it with there's no point anyway.

 

[solamnus]

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.

--
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes" Marcel Proust
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.” Groucho Marx

Im not an expert by any means. I have tried the F4 and own the 2,8 and i use the 2,8 a lot and it is one of my most trusted lenses now. If im doing something i get payed for or some more "serious" shooting i bring it because i know how versatile it is and that it gives me very good pictures , sharp, nice bokeh, good colors. Awesome lens. ONLY downside for me is the weight. So if i was traveling i would never bring it. Just as simple as that. I wanted the F4 as well, but for now i had to choose and went with the 2,8 and im happy i did. For traveling i would probably be very happy with the F4 version.

Good luck, and whichever you choose i think you will get a great lens.

Here are some examples from last year.

























/Martin.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/109301155@N05

 

[chuhsi]

Easy. If you need f2.8 for DOF or higher shutter speed, get it. Otherwise, the f4 wins on every other dimension. It's a spectacular lens.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

There is a good chance an updated 70-200E with 4.5 stops VR will be announced within 2 weeks at the opening of Photokina.

This could complicate your decision.

If VR is important to you right now the f4 has better VR than the current f2.8.

 

[m1964]

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.

Exactly what I think- I could not see the $1000 difference between the 70-200 F/4 and 70-300 VR. I'm not a pro, so what is good enough for me may not be for another person...

The 70-300 VR is very slow focussing in comparison

I did not see any difference but I used both on non-moving subjects.

However, my 70-300VR has no problems tracking my daughter dancing. jumping, etc.

 

[Iain G Foulds]

... If you have the money, buy the 70-200 2.8 (either one).

... I have owned the 70-300, 70-200 F4, and 70-200 2.8 MK1. The 70-300 is a very good lens, no complaints. The 70-200 F4 is an excellent lens. I liked it. It will depreciate upon purchase, and you will not get near your purchase price upon resale.

... However, the 70-200 2.8 is a serious lens. I loved it. It will not depreciate. It is built like military hardware. It is not a plastic lens like the F4. It is worth whatever you will pay for it.

 

[m1964]

... If you have the money, buy the 70-200 2.8 (either one).

... I have owned the 70-300, 70-200 F4, and 70-200 2.8 MK1. The 70-300 is a very good lens, no complaints. The 70-200 F4 is an excellent lens. I liked it. It will depreciate upon purchase, and you will not get near your purchase price upon resale.

... However, the 70-200 2.8 is a serious lens. I loved it. It will not depreciate. It is built like military hardware. It is not a plastic lens like the F4. It is worth whatever you will pay for it.

 

[Iain G Foulds]

... 1964: Should have put that in... All Nikon lenses.

 

[mrgs1]

70-200mm f2.8 will depreciate. All lens will except for a tiny number say 300mm f2. 28mm 1.4 to name a couple.

 

[Westmill]

I read something not so long ago about DOF between these two lenses. Because the 70-200 suffers so badly from focus breathing, getting down to just 135mm at the long end at the close focus distance, while the F4 version goes the opposite way. The end result was they both produced about the same amount of shallow DOF at portrait distances, despite one being F2.8. Interesting at least

 

[Capt Vijay]

Exactly my thoughts and experience. Haven't used 20mm as I use tampon 15-30. I don't miss the 2.8 as f4 gives sharper images, is lighter and hardly any difference in bokeh. For low light I use either 58mm 1.4g or 85mm 1.4g. I am not an action shooter so cannot comment on f4 for sports.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

I read something not so long ago about DOF between these two lenses. Because the 70-200 suffers so badly from focus breathing, getting down to just 135mm at the long end at the close focus distance, while the F4 version goes the opposite way.

You seem to have read something that was wrong

On a detail the f4 "breathes" but nothing like as much as the f2.8.

What some miss is that any change of equivalent focal length in close up is "off-set" by a widening of the aperture used to take the photograph. The aperture stays the same physical size when the angle of view changes.

As most know using a wider aperture for the same angle of view reduces the depth of field.

 

[vockman]

The F4 is my most satisfying Nikon Purchase since the D700 came out. It is a joy to use and is easy to carry around.

 

[Danny W.]

... If you have the money, buy the 70-200 2.8 (either one).

... I have owned the 70-300, 70-200 F4, and 70-200 2.8 MK1. The 70-300 is a very good lens, no complaints. The 70-200 F4 is an excellent lens. I liked it. It will depreciate upon purchase, and you will not get near your purchase price upon resale.

... However, the 70-200 2.8 is a serious lens. I loved it. It will not depreciate. It is built like military hardware. It is not a plastic lens like the F4. It is worth whatever you will pay for it.