Nikon 70-200/4 VR

[robsteve]

On the D700 the 70-200VRII works quite well-so good I even sold the 200/2.0 because I found the difference too small.
Maybe its much different on a D800-cant comment.

The 105-280...I also had one one with the DMR. Excellent lens...but without AF and without IS I would see it pretty limited flexibility.

I guess when the corners and sharpness really matter you are most likely shooting from a tripod, so IS or VR is moot and the trees in my scenic shots are not moving too quickly for manual focus

After having said all that, I am happy with the Nikon 70-200mm and as I get a bit older, perfection is not something I am as concerned about anymore.

 

[Paratom]

I guess when the corners and sharpness really matter you are most likely shooting from a tripod, so IS or VR is moot and the trees in my scenic shots are not moving too quickly for manual focus

After having said all that, I am happy with the Nikon 70-200mm and as I get a bit older, perfection is not something I am as concerned about anymore.

Yes, dpends really what one is doing/shooting.

 

[mark1958]

I took my D800 and two 70-200 lenses outside for a bit today. I shot at 70, 105 and 200mm handheld. The f2.8 lens was better at 70 and 105mm in the corners and by f8 the differences less noticeable. At 200mm---the f4 was better in the corners and perhaps a bit better but if real the differences were marginal. At f5.6 and 8, both lenses were better in the corners than f4 (as expected) but the difference between the two were a bit more noticeable. So far, IQ similar with the exception of the corners.

 

[BSEH]

--the f4 was better in the corners and perhaps a bit better but if real the differences were marginal. At f5.6 and 8, both lenses were better in the corners than f4 (as expected) but the difference between the two were a bit more noticeable.

Interesting - but Im not sure i get this right ???..

The f/4 lens beats the 2.8 VRII in the cornes at f/4

And at 5.6 and 8 the different is still in favour of the f/4 lens ???

sorry but english is not my native...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I keep reading good and okay reports on this lens. 200 f4 will it rock my world is my question.

 

[Bob]

It is looking like this one might actually fit in my travel bag whereas the 2.8 is just too damn heavy
-bob

 

[GrahamWelland]

So far I'm finding the 24-120 VR II and 70-200/4 VR to be a nice travel combo. It's kind of a pain having to use different sized filters and/or step up rings but the smaller size of the 70-200 is certainly an advantage.

 

[robsteve]

It is looking like this one might actually fit in my travel bag whereas the 2.8 is just too damn heavy
-bob

Bob:

I have been out of the DSLR gear market for a while, but I find the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II surprisingly light. My last zoom in this range was the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS and I thought it may have been heavier.

 

[mark1958]

I have to say that after doing some target testing using a tripod, I have changed my opinion slightly from what I said earlier. At 200mm, the f2.8 and 4 lens are very close in terms of center sharpness and edge performance at f4 and 5.6. At 70 and 105mm-- the 2.8 is a bit better all around although center sharpness is very close. The edges are a bit better at the shorter focal lengths with the f2.8 lens. In general though, I suspect in handheld real world situations-- going to hard to see a real difference.

 

[anGy]

Any comment about focus breathing ? does the f4 act like the 70-200 f2,8 at 200mm ?

 

[robsteve]

Any comment about focus breathing ? does the f4 act like the 70-200 f2,8 at 200mm ?

What is focus breathing?

 

[Alon]

What is focus breathing?

Change of focal length = Change of focus!

When you change the focal length or in good English when you zoom!
The focus changes and is not in the same focus as to when you focus first at a given zoom.

So to cut a long story short, you need to re-focus when you zoom!

 

[Swissblad]

What is focus breathing?

This is a complex issue - see:

Telephoto Zoom Lenses with Donders-type Afocal System, by P. Toscani

70-200mm AF-S VR II Lens Review by Thom Hogan

In essence it means that when you focus on a subject close to you, you will not achieve the correct focal length - generally there is a reduction. On the 70-200 f2.8 Nikkor, the focal length on close subjects is about 150mm, not 200mm.

While this may not be an issue to some, it can be annoying, as there is a major change in perspective.

 

[D&A]

Change of focal length = Change of focus!

When you change the focal length or in good English when you zoom!
The focus changes and is not in the same focus as to when you focus first at a given zoom.

So to cut a long story short, you need to re-focus when you zoom!

In simplified terms, the above explanation is a description of a vari-focus design in a zoom, not focus breathing. What most people consider as a "true zoom" design is when one focuses on a subject at a given distance at the long focal length of the zoom range, the subject remains in focus as you zoom out to a wider focal length without changing the lens to subject distance. Sometimes even the best designed zooms will change focus by a
small amount as one "zooms out".

Again in simplified terms, focus breathing is where for example a 70-200mm zoom focused on a subject at near infinity distance at 200mm will frame the subject much like a fixed focal length 200mm lens would on the same subject & same distance.

Conversely, if the same 70-200mm zoom is set to 200mm and focused on a subject close to or near minimum distance of the zoom lens, the subject will be framed much like a 150mm fixed focal length lens, not a 200mm fixed lens, so the zoom appears to have lost focal length at it's long end.

The 70-200 f2.8 VRII exhibits noticable focus breathing at it's long end. The older 70-200 f2.8 VRI much less (to any siginificant degree).

Again both explanations above are an oversimplification and there do have exceptions.

Dave (D&A)

 

[anGy]

And the 70-200mm f4 seems not to suffer from that at all (following a subscription site). Good news.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Just got mine today and I just popped a few off at 200 mm at F4 both handheld and tripod. Wow it's really sharp and I did not see any focus adjustment needed. Ill retest and do more as soon as I get healthy here. Been on my *** for 3 days sick but starting to get better. Man I hate trying to be healthy with this diabetes crap. I like to eat good food. Lol

Sorry I have been absent from the forum.

 

[viablex1]

man diabetes is a pisser, I hope your A1C is lower than normal and your stress test is negative, play hard Guy but take care of yourself..

 

[Dustbak]

Today I used mine for the first time. I have not seen a single image yet (first I have to process a couple of thousand other images).

The one thing that immediately got me was the huge difference in the viewfinder view. Geez... the f4 is really dark compared to my 2.8 (and more so to the 35/1.4 I was carrying as my second lens).

In usage that was the only real set back for me. AF seems to work really fast (I did a Judo tournament, so fast AF is somewhat necessary).

 

[Dustbak]

Today I saw what I did last weekend and I am really pleased with the results. The lens is really sharp, OOF areas are nice and the color rendering is absolutely very pleasant.

Remains the darkened viewfinder. If you are used to 2.8 lenses or faster mostly this will be a shocker.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Remains the darkened viewfinder. If you are used to 2.8 lenses or faster mostly this will be a shocker.

I'm not sure why this is a 'shocker'. Your DSLR uses all lenses wide open when composing and metering and there's no shock that an f/4 lens is a stop darker than an f/2.8 lens, which in turn is darker than an f/2 or f/1.4 lens. That will be true of EVERY f/4 lens ... not just the 70-200/4 VR.