70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 end

Lance B
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

For those interested:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/782-nikonafs702004vrfx

Feb 02, 2013 at 03:24 AM

davidnholtjr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

Looks good. They gave it the thumb's up.

Feb 03, 2013 at 02:49 PM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

I've been waiting for this for about 20 years.

EBH

Feb 03, 2013 at 03:27 PM

M635_Guy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

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...)

Feb 04, 2013 at 01:02 AM

adam613
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

M635_Guy wrote:

There are some awfully nice copies of the 70-200 VRI for that money...

My thoughts exactly. I'm sure this lens is wonderful, but if I were going to spend $1400 on a 70-200, I can't imagine why I'd get this over the VR1.

Feb 04, 2013 at 02:54 AM

Danner
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

I already knew it was an excellent lens.

Feb 04, 2013 at 03:21 AM

mshi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

No weather-sealing even at $1400? Thank you, Nikon.

Feb 04, 2013 at 03:25 AM

Danner
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

mshi wrote:
No weather-sealing even at $1400? Thank you, Nikon.

My understanding is that he 4.0 VRiii is weather sealed,

Feb 04, 2013 at 03:26 AM

mshi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

Danner wrote:
mshi wrote:
No weather-sealing even at $1400? Thank you, Nikon.

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.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/782-nikonafs702004vrfx

Feb 04, 2013 at 03:40 AM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

That rather sucks, and there is no excuse.

EBH

Feb 04, 2013 at 04:06 AM

sjms
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

then you have the $2400 2.8 as the option.

Feb 04, 2013 at 04:10 AM

M635_Guy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

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...

Feb 04, 2013 at 12:47 PM

trenchmonkey
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

Well said, Lee

Feb 04, 2013 at 12:51 PM

PeaktoPeek
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

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....

Feb 04, 2013 at 01:16 PM

MRM4
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

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.

Feb 04, 2013 at 03:46 PM

jhinkey
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

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

Feb 04, 2013 at 07:43 PM

M635_Guy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

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!

Feb 06, 2013 at 02:08 AM

jhinkey
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

M635_Guy wrote:
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!

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.

John

Feb 06, 2013 at 04:01 AM

sjms
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

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?

how did both of them do at f4?

Feb 06, 2013 at 12:25 PM

M635_Guy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone

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...

Faster and a lot quieter than my 80-200 2-ring

Feb 06, 2013 at 03:19 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end