Landscape photography- a waste to sell my 70-200 f2.8 to buy a lighter F4 version of that lens?

[jm31828]

I have a Nikon D850, and I shoot landscapes almost exclusively- generally including taking my gear out on hikes to get to the locations where I want to shoot.

I bought a used like new copy of the 70-200 f2.8 VRii lens back in January. I love the lens, it's fantastic- but I find myself often debating on whether to leave it at home on some hikes due to the massive size and weight- especially when it's in my pack along with my Sigma Art 24-70 lens and my Sigma Art 14-24 lens that I use much more often.

I paid $700 for that lens in January.
I was not very well informed when I bought this, not realizing that the f4 lens was equally as good image quality-wise, and I should have bought it at the time, for the smaller size and weight, not to mention saving some money.

My local camera store has a copy of the f4 lens that looks like new, selling it for $479. I am finding I could sell my f2.8 lens to MPB for $600.... not bad, I'd come out ahead sort of, other than the $100 in value I lost since buying the f2.8.

Size and weight-wise it's a no brainer to make the move. However I feel a bit of guilt selling off this f2.8 lens so soon and taking a $100 loss.... so my question to all of you is- is that trade as "worth it" as it seems to me considering that I only shoot landscapes? Is there any down side I may not be considering, any potential reason that even for landscapes (which does include forest/woodland shots) I may be smart to keep the f2.8 since I already have it?

I've done plenty of reading on the specs and reading reviews about how the sharpness and overall image quality is equal to the f2.8 on this one, but I am just covering my bases, wanting to see what the thoughts are here between these two lenses and whether it's worth it to essentially pay a $100 premium for the f4 on this trade.

Thanks!

 

[Simon Stuart]

What will be the overall weight saving on the body and three lenses though? 10%?



the image quality isnt the same, they may be equally sharp but the 2.8 will make images the f/4 cant in the same circumstances.

if it were me I’d just leave the big lens when doing landscape but then I’m a wildlifer toting a 200-400/4 around

 

[jm31828]

What will be the overall weight saving on the body and three lenses though? 10%?

the image quality isnt the same, they may be equally sharp but the 2.8 will make images the f/4 cant in the same circumstances.

if it were me I’d just leave the big lens when doing landscape but then I’m a wildlifer toting a 200-400/4 around

What sorts of differences in image quality would you be referencing?

And on your last statement- leaving the big lens when doing landscape- for me that would mean always leaving it, as I’m always doing landscape unfortunately.

I really like the lens, but the size and weight is a bit unwieldy. But, you do have a point- by the time you add up the weight of the gear in total, it is less than 10% savings. Great way to put it, I guess.

In general, for landscape photography, if size and weight are set aside, is there any benefit to the 2.8? Is there something about the lens that is still superior?

 

[Simon Stuart]

What will be the overall weight saving on the body and three lenses though? 10%?

the image quality isnt the same, they may be equally sharp but the 2.8 will make images the f/4 cant in the same circumstances.

if it were me I’d just leave the big lens when doing landscape but then I’m a wildlifer toting a 200-400/4 around

What sorts of differences in image quality would you be referencing?
And on your last statement- leaving the big lens when doing landscape- for me that would mean always leaving it, as I’m always doing landscape unfortunately.
I really like the lens, but the size and weight is a bit unwieldy. But, you do have a point- by the time you add up the weight of the gear in total, it is less than 10% savings. Great way to put it, I guess.
In general, for landscape photography, if size and weight are set aside, is there any benefit to the 2.8? Is there something about the lens that is still superior?

The 2.8 can give you better background separation vs the f/4 given the same circumstances, that may be useful or irrelevant to your style.

 

[Michael Benveniste]

Size and weight-wise it's a no brainer to make the move. However I feel a bit of guilt selling off this f2.8 lens so soon and taking a $100 loss.... so my question to all of you is- is that trade as "worth it" as it seems to me considering that I only shoot landscapes? Is there any down side I may not be considering, any potential reason that even for landscapes (which does include forest/woodland shots) I may be smart to keep the f2.8 since I already have it?

Whatever you spent on the 70-200mm is a sunk cost. Instead, ask yourself this: "Would I rather endure hauling around an f/2.8 lens or would I rather use an f/4 lens and have $121 in my pocket?"

I have nothing against the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR-II. I paid full retail for mine, took it to an auditorium, unboxed it in the "green room," and got my first magazine cover while shooting the event. I still have it and am in no hurry to upgrade. But if it's the wrong lens for you, sell it now. There's little chance it'll be worth more in the future.

 

[jm31828]

Size and weight-wise it's a no brainer to make the move. However I feel a bit of guilt selling off this f2.8 lens so soon and taking a $100 loss.... so my question to all of you is- is that trade as "worth it" as it seems to me considering that I only shoot landscapes? Is there any down side I may not be considering, any potential reason that even for landscapes (which does include forest/woodland shots) I may be smart to keep the f2.8 since I already have it?

Whatever you spent on the 70-200mm is a sunk cost. Instead, ask yourself this: "Would I rather endure hauling around an f/2.8 lens or would I rather use an f/4 lens and have $121 in my pocket?"

I have nothing against the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR-II. I paid full retail for mine, took it to an auditorium, unboxed it in the "green room," and got my first magazine cover while shooting the event. I still have it and am in no hurry to upgrade. But if it's the wrong lens for you, sell it now. There's little chance it'll be worth more in the future.

Thanks, that makes perfect sense.
I suppose if the F4 was a big step down I would have a valid reason to feel more concerned about that sunk cost- but with the F4 being so equal IQ wise, and the vast improvement in weight/size, it's making sense. I already know, as noted, that I am purposely leaving it at home on some hikes due to not wanting to haul so much weight/such a bulky lens.

 

[Simon Stuart]

Think about it some more, you seem to be flip-flopping on whether the weight difference is a real <10% or a “vast” change, normally I think that means some more thinking required.

All the best whichever way you go, for sure the value of both lenses is shrinking.

 

[jm31828]

Think about it some more, you seem to be flip-flopping on whether the weight difference is a real <10% or a “vast” change, normally I think that means some more thinking required.

All the best whichever way you go, for sure the value of both lenses is shrinking.

Yeah, i definitely come across that way.

I don't think realistically I'm flip flopping. I think the weight difference will be real and noticeable- I was just taken aback by the mention that it was only 10%.... but as I thought more on it, I realized it's still substantial, and translates to a better experience simply when carrying the camera with the lens attached.

I didn't like the sunk cost of the $100 I'd lose by selling the lens now to MPB, and having to buy a tripod collar for it- certainly can afford it, just am cheap that way, hating to waste money.

But I appreciate all of the advice- it seems clear that the F4 is the way to go, and in the long run would be easier to use and I'd be much happier with it.

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

Let me approach this from another angle. Why the 70-200 for landscapes? F2.8 or F4, it seems the wrong application for the lens. (Especially the F2.8 version).

What focal lengths do you find yourself using when shooting the 70-200 for landscapes?

I found my 80-200/70-200 f2.8 lenses to basically be handheld event lenses. The F2.8 in particular for indoor sports.

Landscapes - tend to be wider angle than 70mm, but I'm willing to learn here. Are you pulling the lens out when wildlife comes by?

When I'm out in the field, I've often carried either the 80-400 (now 100-400) or a 500pf. Both are about the size and weight of a 70-200f2.8. I used my 70-200 so little that I didn't buy a z-mount version when I moved to mirrorless. The 100-400 gets the nod instead.

For weight reduction, I can see the 70-200 (it's tiny!), but it seems even more of niche lens than the f2.8 version. Too slow for indoor sports. Does fill the gap between 24-70 and 200-500 without adding too much more bulk.

But if shooting landscapes and not wildlife, how about a nice prime? (Plenas are nice for landscapes!) 105z macro is surprisingly light, though one might guess that from the 67mm filter size. The old 180f2.8 is light.

 

[afoton]

What will be the overall weight saving on the body and three lenses though? 10%?

10% or 5% weight saving doesn't matter, the weight saving is 0.7kg. That means more lightweight packing, or more of any other stuff for the same packing weight.

the image quality isnt the same, they may be equally sharp but the 2.8 will make images the f/4 cant in the same circumstances.

if it were me I’d just leave the big lens when doing landscape

Thats what I also do. I have both 70-200mm/2.8 and 70-200mm/4. I use the f/2.8-lens only when I need f/2.8. The f/4 is one of my most used lenses.

For landscape only, I would not even consider to carry the f/2.8.

 

[Richard D Jacobs]

my thought thoughts were exactly the same as PXHCraig.

Purchase a wide angle lens for landscapes.

Richard

 

[Simon Stuart]

What will be the overall weight saving on the body and three lenses though? 10%?

10% or 5% weight saving doesn't matter, the weight saving is 0.7kg. That means more lightweight packing, or more of any other stuff for the same packing weight.

But the OP IS looking to reduce weight so the reduction is important, and low bang for buck IMHO. YMMV.

the image quality isnt the same, they may be equally sharp but the 2.8 will make images the f/4 cant in the same circumstances.

if it were me I’d just leave the big lens when doing landscape

Thats what I also do. I have both 70-200mm/2.8 and 70-200mm/4. I use the f/2.8-lens only when I need f/2.8. The f/4 is one of my most used lenses.

For landscape only, I would not even consider to carry the f/2.8.

 

[jm31828]

What will be the overall weight saving on the body and three lenses though? 10%?

10% or 5% weight saving doesn't matter, the weight saving is 0.7kg. That means more lightweight packing, or more of any other stuff for the same packing weight.

But the OP IS looking to reduce weight so the reduction is important, and low bang for buck IMHO. YMMV.

the image quality isnt the same, they may be equally sharp but the 2.8 will make images the f/4 cant in the same circumstances.

if it were me I’d just leave the big lens when doing landscape

Thats what I also do. I have both 70-200mm/2.8 and 70-200mm/4. I use the f/2.8-lens only when I need f/2.8. The f/4 is one of my most used lenses.

For landscape only, I would not even consider to carry the f/2.8.

Just an update- you are right that my primary concern was size/weight.

I did end up picking up the used F4 lens (like new condition, it appears it was never used).
I took it out this weekend and though it's a bit of a noticeable difference in the overall weight of my backpack, the biggest difference is when actually using it on the camera- so much less bulky and heavy, such a joy to use.
On top of that, image quality is no worse at all than the bigger F2.8- in fact it is razor sharp, even hand-held.

I don't use this focal range all that often in landscape photography, but there are always a couple of shots I want to take at that range, to get closer to something, to compress a scene, etc. It's really valuable for landscape.

I'll be selling my 2.8 to KEH, they have given me a nice offer on it, so I'll get about what I paid for it 9 months ago when I bought it used.

 

[monte12345]

We all know how good the Z mount 24-120mm lens is and I know it First Hand. However when I decided to give my D750 Kit to my Nephew and pick up the Z7 II for a short period I had the ability to do a one to one comparison between the Z lens and the earlier F mount G lens. Below are images I shot using my Z7 II with both lenses. Because when I purchased my Z7 II I purchased it with the 24-120, the 40mm f2, and the FTZ II adapter because I have a collection of Nikkors dating back to the Mid 60's. Anyhow below are 200% Pixel Peeps for you to see how well they compare.


This is the 24-120 f4 ED IF VR G lens.


This is the Z mount 24-120 f4 S lens

As you can see the level of resolved detail is too close to call. As for the extra "pop" to the G lens image that is simply a matter of the lighting changing. It was a heavy cloud cover day but at one point the clouds thinned a touch and added a touch of contrast to the scene.

Concerning why I feel this focal length as essential, I have been shooting Landscapes for a bit more than 50 years and the range this lens covers provides a 97% One Lens Solution and the Image Quality can be viewed as "off the Charts" it's so good. BTW, since acquiring my 24-120 G lens the most used focal length for my images as been 39mm and now you can see why I purchased the 40mm f2 with my initial "kit" for mirrorless.

 

[Michael Benveniste]

Did you miss where the original poster stated he had a D850?

I like the 24-120mm Z just fine, but essential it is not, especially for a dSLR. Not can it replace a 70-200mm.

--
Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight. Catch some today!

 

[Bielers]

Let me approach this from another angle. Why the 70-200 for landscapes? F2.8 or F4, it seems the wrong application for the lens. (Especially the F2.8 version).

What focal lengths do you find yourself using when shooting the 70-200 for landscapes?

I found my 80-200/70-200 f2.8 lenses to basically be handheld event lenses. The F2.8 in particular for indoor sports.

Landscapes - tend to be wider angle than 70mm, but I'm willing to learn here. Are you pulling the lens out when wildlife comes by?

When I'm out in the field, I've often carried either the 80-400 (now 100-400) or a 500pf. Both are about the size and weight of a 70-200f2.8. I used my 70-200 so little that I didn't buy a z-mount version when I moved to mirrorless. The 100-400 gets the nod instead.

For weight reduction, I can see the 70-200 (it's tiny!), but it seems even more of niche lens than the f2.8 version. Too slow for indoor sports. Does fill the gap between 24-70 and 200-500 without adding too much more bulk.

But if shooting landscapes and not wildlife, how about a nice prime? (Plenas are nice for landscapes!) 105z macro is surprisingly light, though one might guess that from the 67mm filter size. The old 180f2.8 is light.

 

[monte12345]

I was simply pointing how good this F mount 24-120 was when compared to the latest S line lens.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

What will be the overall weight saving on the body and three lenses though? 10%?

10% or 5% weight saving doesn't matter, the weight saving is 0.7kg. That means more lightweight packing, or more of any other stuff for the same packing weight.

But the OP IS looking to reduce weight so the reduction is important, and low bang for buck IMHO. YMMV.

the image quality isnt the same, they may be equally sharp but the 2.8 will make images the f/4 cant in the same circumstances.

if it were me I’d just leave the big lens when doing landscape

Thats what I also do. I have both 70-200mm/2.8 and 70-200mm/4. I use the f/2.8-lens only when I need f/2.8. The f/4 is one of my most used lenses.

For landscape only, I would not even consider to carry the f/2.8.

Just an update- you are right that my primary concern was size/weight.
I did end up picking up the used F4 lens (like new condition, it appears it was never used).
I took it out this weekend and though it's a bit of a noticeable difference in the overall weight of my backpack, the biggest difference is when actually using it on the camera- so much less bulky and heavy, such a joy to use.
On top of that, image quality is no worse at all than the bigger F2.8- in fact it is razor sharp, even hand-held.
I don't use this focal range all that often in landscape photography, but there are always a couple of shots I want to take at that range, to get closer to something, to compress a scene, etc. It's really valuable for landscape.
I'll be selling my 2.8 to KEH, they have given me a nice offer on it, so I'll get about what I paid for it 9 months ago when I bought it used.

I love the 4.0G can only concur: It is a very sharp lens!

 

[nhr5005]

That's an amazing price (well, about what they go for these days). I paid more than double for mine, also used, ~8 years ago. I really love the lens, especially if you're sticking with DSLR!

 

[maestro55]

I replaced my 70-200 2.8 with a 70-200 4.0 many years ago for the exact same reasons: size & weight. During a few months of owning both I brought the F4 with me far more often without thinking twice, whereas the F2.8 was often left at home. Sure, I missed the large aperture with higher shutter speeds or better bokeh now and then, not to mention took a $ hit in the wallet, but I don’t regret the trade-offs.

Did the same thing going from the 200-500 to the 500 PF, even though my copy of the zoom was superbly sharp and I could easily tweak contrast in post. Yeah, I often wish I had a wider FOV without swapping lenses, and the PF bokeh gets slightly weird at times, but I am much happier with the lighter prime and still use it on Z bodies with adapter.

Of course YMMV, and pros will generally take the best optics they need for the job regardless of weight or bulk, but for hobbyists like me it’s about fun.