70-200mm f4 arrivals?
/forum/topic/1168458/4

1       2       3       4      
5
       6       end

jmcfadden
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Total Posts: 30242
Country: United States

Alistair1 wrote:
jmcfadden wrote:
Jammyn wrote:
I am 90 percent certain that I am returning mine: IQ on my copy isn't impressive, and the build quality is lacking, in my opinion. I might be a bit biased, of course, as I am comparing f4 to the f2.8 vrii.

I am going to spend the day shooting tomorrow, and review the images that will determine ultimately whether I return the lens, or keep it.

Jammy



Seriously you actually think a lens that cost almost Half as much should perform as well? Photography is all about choice and compromise isn't it?


J


There is no reason it will not perform better - initial reviews indicate it does. It will not perform at 2.8 though and there is the rub.



apples and oranges there !

J



NightOwl Cat
Registered: Feb 19, 2007
Total Posts: 7833
Country: United States

If you're using VR, try it off the tripod, or if on the tripod, turn off VR and see if your results improve. This has me curious, since I too was giving this lens some consideration.

Jammyn wrote:
jmcfadden wrote:

Seriously you actually think a lens that cost almost Half as much should perform as well? Photography is all about choice and compromise isn't it?


J


I did admit to my bias . However, I took about 20 images of co-workers, therefore unable to post them here, and all of the pictures were soft. I was using a tripod and shutter release, so I expected tack sharp images.

I purchased a 24-120 f4, after returning a 24-70 f2.8, and accepted all of the compromises that decision required. This has not been the case with my 70-200 f4: the images are soft, and if the trend continues I am returning the lens. I might have gotten a bad copy, so re-buy in another few months and try again.

Jammy



Jammyn
Registered: Nov 01, 2012
Total Posts: 184
Country: United States

NightOwl Cat wrote:
If you're using VR, try it off the tripod, or if on the tripod, turn off VR and see if your results improve. This has me curious, since I too was giving this lens some consideration.



After seeing the poor results --- having not read the manual to verify if VR should have been on or off, I experimented further by switching VR off. The results were a tad sharper, but still fell below acceptable standards, for me. The images were not so hot handheld either

If reviews are favorable, then my results are not representational of the lens' performance and you should give it a shot, pun intended. Regardless, I am sufficiently turned off that if I don't see drastic improvement in performance, I am moving on for now.

Jammy



Ben Horne
Registered: Jan 10, 2002
Total Posts: 11800
Country: United States

I just took some tripod mounted shots to compare the 70-200mm f/4 VR to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. I compared them blind, and found that the f/4VR was a hair sharper at f/8, but they were close. I'll post the results this evening.



jmcfadden
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Total Posts: 30242
Country: United States

Ben Horne wrote:
I just took some tripod mounted shots to compare the 70-200mm f/4 VR to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. I compared them blind, and found that the f/4VR was a hair sharper, but they were close. I'll post the results this evening.



I could do the same this weekend Ben , it will be interesting

Don't ya just love the internet megaphone/parrot syndrome



J



AndreasE
Registered: Dec 31, 2003
Total Posts: 851
Country: Austria

no real test, just a shot with the TC17E

D800E, handheld, 200mm (=340mm), f6.7 (= open), NR=off, ISO 1600






100% crop






rgds,
Andy


DocsPics
Registered: Feb 02, 2008
Total Posts: 2547
Country: United States

VR on and shutter speed? That looks good.



Peter Burian
Registered: Feb 26, 2003
Total Posts: 116
Country: Canada

equestrianguy wrote:
Whether she got it from retail or NPS I really have no clue though.


I don't know about the USA, but in Canada, NPS members (like me) DO buy from a retailer but get a discount. We do NOT buy from Nikon.



Peter Burian
Registered: Feb 26, 2003
Total Posts: 116
Country: Canada

Plus $170 for the tripod mounting collar which, with this lens, is an extra cost option.



Rooster L200
Registered: Jan 01, 2009
Total Posts: 256
Country: Netherlands

Lloyd is a moron (must be old grumpy guy now) that no-one listens to anymore, sad.... we will all pray for him to come to his senses and leave the gritty comment alone for the next 100 years.



runamuck
Registered: Oct 29, 2006
Total Posts: 7103
Country: United States

Ben Horne wrote:
lou f wrote:
lloyd's not happy...

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20121205_4-Nikon70_200-concern.html


Is he ever? He seems like the type of person who would squish puppies for his own enjoyment.

Thanks for the wonderfully insightful and intelligent addition to the discussion.



Red G8R
Registered: Jul 16, 2012
Total Posts: 149
Country: Canada

The 70-200 f4 have arrived. My dealer had preordered one for me (to tempt me) but I decided not to take it. I was all excited because I got a message that "my lens arrived", but I was expecting the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and forgot about the 20-200 f4. Three weeks ago I bought the Nikon 85/1.8 and also expecting the Sigma 35/1.4 any day now so the f4 was not a priority plus I already have the 2.8 VRI.
Maybe next year.



Marc Kurth
Registered: Nov 14, 2003
Total Posts: 2876
Country: United States

jmcfadden wrote:
Ben Horne wrote:
I just took some tripod mounted shots to compare the 70-200mm f/4 VR to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. I compared them blind, and found that the f/4VR was a hair sharper, but they were close. I'll post the results this evening.


I could do the same this weekend Ben , it will be interesting

Don't ya just love the internet megaphone/parrot syndrome

J


John:

How many times over the years have we experienced that same effect of the internet megaphone syndrome? As always, lay back, shoot your own - then produce the results. Think back to the first D70 and D2h days and the internet megaphone. Hoping all is well with you and yours!

Marc



jmcfadden
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Total Posts: 30242
Country: United States

Marc Kurth wrote:
jmcfadden wrote:
Ben Horne wrote:
I just took some tripod mounted shots to compare the 70-200mm f/4 VR to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. I compared them blind, and found that the f/4VR was a hair sharper, but they were close. I'll post the results this evening.


I could do the same this weekend Ben , it will be interesting

Don't ya just love the internet megaphone/parrot syndrome

J


John:

How many times over the years have we experienced that same effect of the internet megaphone syndrome? As always, lay back, shoot your own - then produce the results. Think back to the first D70 and D2h days and the internet megaphone. Hoping all is well with you and yours!

Marc


Marc

you are so right , i am sure glad i never listeded to someone say i could not make lots of money with a D100 lol

Merry Christmas my friend!!!


J



lou f
Registered: Nov 18, 2005
Total Posts: 5205
Country: Ireland

so whats the verdict on the 70-200 f4 i have an opportunity to pick one up in a month, any issues with the foot? normally i like to leave it a while and see what if any issues pop up. need to sell a couple of lenses but thats ok.



jhinkey
Registered: Jan 08, 2010
Total Posts: 6104
Country: United States

Just picked mine up from Glazers here in Seattle. A quick check while at the store seemed to show this copy is much better regarding centering than the first copy I tried to buy. So I traded in some gear on it and took it home.

At f/4 and 200mm it seems sharp right out to the very far corners. At 70mm f/4 the very far corners are slightly mushy. This is on a D800, which is a tough body to test a lens on.



lou f
Registered: Nov 18, 2005
Total Posts: 5205
Country: Ireland

nice, any bad lenses out there yet? wont be buying in a shop so wont be able to check and sending it back will be a pita.



jhinkey
Registered: Jan 08, 2010
Total Posts: 6104
Country: United States

A quick look at my hand-held/VR-on D800 images at 200mm and f/4 between my f/2.8 AFS VRII and my f/4 AFS VR shows the center sharpness equivalent, but the edges and borders belong to the f/4 by a good amount.

The 70-200/4 is astoundingly sharp and even across the frame wide open at 200mm.

At 70mm f/4 the central sharpness seems to be a tie, but the borders and corners go to the f/2.8, but really only discernible at 100% viewing at 36MP.

There is also no apparent LaCA at transitions between bright and dark areas.

Really outstanding performance for the 70-200/4AFS VR at 200mm and pretty good performance at 70mm.

I look forward to testing this lens against the 70-200/2.8 AFS VRII, 80-200/2.8AFS, 70-300AFS VR, 200/4 AIS, and 105/2.5 AIS.

So far it's a clear replacement for the 200/4 AIS at 200mm, but we shall see how it does at 105mm.

John




alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4509
Country: Norway

jhinkey wrote:
There is also no apparent LaCA at transitions between bright and dark areas.



This is really good news. Samples I have seen, like those from Lloyd Chambers, confirm that the F4 owns the F2.8 VR II in this department.

I really hate LaCA, the correction that can be done in software doesn't do it for me. That is the reason that until now, none of the (8) lenses I have for my D800E are Nikkor lenses.



Ralph Conway
Registered: Jul 31, 2008
Total Posts: 3932
Country: Germany

Looks like you guys got a counterpart of my most favorite lens on the "other side".
And your copy is black, too! Great!



1       2       3       4      
5
       6       end