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

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

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

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.

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

no real test, just a shot with the TC17E

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

VR on and shutter speed? That looks good.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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