Hmmm...I go back and forth about how excited I am about this lens. I'd like to drop a pound from my bag vs. my 80-200 (2-ring), but I'm wondering how much I'd miss f/2.8 speed...
There are some awfully nice copies of the 70-200 VRI for that money...
(At this point, I'm on DX/D300s, but I could see myself picking up a D700 or even a D3s down the road...)
Danner wrote:
My understanding is that he 4.0 VRiii is weather sealed,
The build quality of the lens is excellent. However unlike the pro-grade f/2.8 zoom lenses, the Nikon AF-S 70-200/4 VR is not weather-sealed, except for the usual rubber sealing on the mount.
EB-1 wrote:
That rather sucks, and there is no excuse.
EBH
Sure there is - I think this lens is perfectly executed for its target market: D7000 and D600 users. It aligns exactly with the design philosophy for those two bodies - sturdy, but not pro-sturdy. It doesn't have a tripod mount because most people in the target market for the lens don't want or need it (the vast majority of the Fred Miranda community isn't the core target for the 70-200 f/4). I think Nikon made a perfect set of choices - it is a good price, great value, very sharp, handles well, etc.
Whether it is a lens for many of us here is a different question. For me, my main complaint about my 80-200 is weight, and this lens would help with that a lot, and I'd probably live well enough with f/4 and VR vs. f/2.8/no VR/+1lb on my 80-200.
But for nearly $1600 (I'd have to get the tripod mount), I'm not sure I can see it when for as much as $250 less I can have a nice used copy of the 70-200 f/2.8 VRI, or I can save a little longer and pay ~$400 more for a used 70-200 VRII. Neither of those solve my weight issue.
I guess the good news is I don't have a compelling reason to run out and spend money right now , but based on the early tests and the price/specs of the lens, I think it is a home-run ball for Nikon, if a little overdue...
As a former user of the Canon flavor of this lens, I guess I might be in the minority that thinks that it's the missing piece in Nikon's lens selection. It could be because it seems like up until recently almost all of the landscape photographers I know were Canon users, but now that Nikon has arguably the best DSLRs for landscapes I'd expect this lens to sell a ton. I've lugged around 2.8 teles when backpacking and I have zero desire to own any of the fantastic Nikon variety. This lens is the perfect landscape lens, and the weathersealing and extra cost of the tripod foot are no different than the Canon. I actually used a cheap ebay knock-off on the Canon and it worked perfectly, and I'm sure they are already available for this lens too. I think the price is a little high, but as it starts to come down I will be happy to add it to my bag. Better yet, if some used copies start popping up on B&S....
Unless I have missed one, I have yet to see a review where someone has tested the AF speed in low light on this lens. I am curious how it compares to the AF speed on the 2.8 VRII lens.
Well I expect that at some point it won't AF at f/4 when the f/2.8 still can . . . .
I will be "testing" it in a theatrical production this week along side my 2.8 VRII and I'll try to give some feedback.
jhinkey wrote:
Well I expect that at some point it won't AF at f/4 when the f/2.8 still can . . . .
I will be "testing" it in a theatrical production this week along side my 2.8 VRII and I'll try to give some feedback.
John
John - that would be awesome. Really looking forward to seeing it!
M635_Guy wrote:
John - that would be awesome. Really looking forward to seeing it!
Well, I had the 70-200/4 and 70-200/2.8VRII with me in the theater tonight during a rehearsal. I switched between them several time shooting each at f/4 (f/2.8 had too low a DOF some times). Really hard to tell the difference between them. The f/2.8 seemed to not need any AF fine tune while I was struggling to dial in the f/4.
I was hand holding for the most part and the VR of the f/4 was clearly superior (much steadier in the viewfinder at least). I struggled to have f/4 and at least 1/200 sec to freeze minor subject motion while keeping the ISO as low as possible.
As of right now I would say that the f/2.8 seemed to nail the focus more times than the f/4, though the difference is success rate was not huge.
Now that I know the program better, I will be able to compare them more tomorrow night at a full dress rehearsal - hopefully the lighting will be much more consistent.
did you take in account the more then subtle weight difference between the f2.8 and f4 models. the extra 20oz (1lb 4oz) hanging off your camera may make you a little less steady and the VR work a little harder making up for it
wgt of the f2.8 is 54.4oz with the mount
wgt of the f4.0 is 30oz w/o a mount on it. even with 4oz added for the optional mount that's still ~1lb difference.
if the f2.8 VR was less superior the that of the f4 why would the f2.8 nail the focus more then the f4 since VR/focus sorta go hand in hand to produce a "sharp" image?
MRM4 wrote:
Unless I have missed one, I have yet to see a review where someone has tested the AF speed in low light on this lens. I am curious how it compares to the AF speed on the 2.8 VRII lens.
I played with the f/4 at my local camera shop, and the AF speed seemed darn snappy to me, though I don't have an f/2.8 to compare it to...
, but based on the early tests and the price/specs of the lens, I think it is a home-run ball for Nikon, if a little overdue...