I see it just like I see testing noise on cameras without using any sort of noise processing. Software cleans most everything up, sharpens it, removes CAs, but some cameras/lenses have nuances that are very difficult to deal with even with software. That last part is what I care about - what software can not handle easily - that is the thing that really makes a difference.

TaoTeJared said:
In practical use, I don't see much difference in them except the bokeh (hexagon, circular) […] The ones I usually use with film I really don't pixel peep at all but are all more than good enough.

Well said. There's many examples of tack-sharp looking images of the f/1.4 lenses (at 1.4) on the web, and also the example here in the thread. Back in the film days, I used to never care about lens sharpness, it's the digital pixel-counting age that made this (seemingly) important. I guess it's the same way that people want fast cars for: You can't really drive fast anyway, but it's the feeling that you COULD if you had the opportunity that sells these cars.

Anyway, there are some issues (like the better LoCA and haze behavior that I mentioned earlier in this thread) that make me prefer the cleaner f/1.8G over the others. Everyone has to realistically figure out if these things actually matter for their own photography at that focal length or not.

I'm not sure if I still have them anymore. Might be on my flickr page. I let the "pro" expire so many images are dropping off. Most stuff like that I post and then dump. I'll take a look.

I have a bunch of 50s that I should do a comparison to see. In practical use, I don't see much difference in them except the bokeh (hexagon, circular) and the lack of sharpness is usually due to missing focus or me swaying forward or backward - that is all it takes at that shallow of DOF. The ones I usually use with film I really don't pixel peep at all but are all more than good enough.

Thanks for the feedback, argonzero, good to know that it's of use to someone. Speaking of which:

golf007sd said:
Chris tests reminds of all those tests you did a while back TTJ.

Does anyone have a link to those tests TTJ made?

Thanks,
Chris

I would just like to add that this has been a very informative post, and although there have been many 50mm 1.4g vs 50mm 1.8g posts online they did not go in depth on sharpness at f/1.8 (they would measure at 2.0, ect) and LoCA's. I had the 1.4g in the past and now have the 1.8g and from what I could remember before the 1.4 was soft and had high amounts of LoCAs which made me think twice to use it at f/1.4. I was still debating to swap back to the 1.4g, but reading your experiences reminds me of the headache I had before trying to cope with the softness, LoCA's, loss of contrast, and slow AF speed, I'll stick with the 1.8g. I also have the 85mm 1.8 and that's just amazing wide open, so I don't see why a 50mm from Nikon couldn't deliver something near that performance. Once again, thanks everyone who contributed!

msmoto said:
@PB PM

It is interesting how the prices vary from one country to the next. I would have thought the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II would be identical to the USD as the currency rate is 1:1 at present. Are there other Nikon prices which are distinctly less in Canada. And, are these prices from B & H or Adorama or from local dealers?

It depends on the store. MSRP is $2399, but other than the big B&H like shops few charge that much. Unlike Nikon USA, Nikon Canada has not forced MSRP on dealers. After a lens is out for 6-12 months the price tends to slide down a $100-200 depending on the item.

@proudgeek: I shot wildlife photos from Maine to Alaska to Caribbean to Baja. I shoot everyday tech photos for our farming business which is timber frame cabins, Black Cherry furniture, and some for cooperate companies we work with. My son and grandsons also run GNCC motorcycle racing and have their own web stuff on that off road topic. I use primarily DX Nikons but we have our share of Go Pros, and Sony video rigs. Results with DX Nikon has been lovely and some needs fixing and we do our share of reshoots. The fall color is done for this year and I find myself taking some Halloween Costumes of my guys who won the local contests as usual but this year they did not go to Montreal after the big prizes as they have been there and done that and have the season's last race coming up. We live in the Adirondack Mountains near Lake Placid and Whiteface Mountain. ''The 70-300VR has become the end of the line in our tele lens stuff outside of a space scope purpose built for that and as yet not set up for our Nikon DSLR Gear. But until I hear how it is doing in outdoor challenging settings I am holding off. As soon as this D400 D7200 and the like shakes down we will buy a new camera and maybe two new lens and maybe a TC 2.0. I always regard this as the down time for photos and LUCKILY I did not get to shoot Hurricane Sandy in all of its fury.

DaveyJ when you say for "our field use," what are you referring to? I know you've shot some in Alaska, but do you shoot wildlife here as well? I ask, because we're practically neighbors, at least as the crow flies, and am always curious about new places to take pictures (bonus if they don't involve plane tickets).

I've never bought a "new" Nikon lens, I always buy used lenses and only once had to return a lens to the seller, with no hassle. I got my 70-200 vr I for $1500 and I've seen them for less. You can also buy a Squaretrade warrantee for not much money, though I don't. If I was a pro and writing off the cost, no question "new" would be the way to go, but otherwise, used all the way. For me, a used f2.8 vs a new f4 isn't even worth a discussion. Once the f/4s hit the used market for $1000 (with a nikon or decent aftermarket collar), I would be tempted.

@PB PM

It is interesting how the prices vary from one country to the next. I would have thought the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II would be identical to the USD as the currency rate is 1:1 at present. Are there other Nikon prices which are distinctly less in Canada. And, are these prices from B & H or Adorama or from local dealers?

And the 200-400VR is also too expensive for our field use. It is not the ideal field lens for the conditions we shoot under.

This lens has me wondering. What would this do with and without a TC 2.0?? On both DX like on a D7200 or D400, and or a D800??
How about compared to the current 80-400VR which I am not all that impressed with. But SINCE I am not there holding both rigs and actually just here trying to figure out what this could mean for us. Any thoughts about the 70-200VR NEW and maybe that TC 2.0 versus the 80-400VR. I am happy enough with the 70-300VR and have some great Nikon F5 shots with that AND D300, D90, and D7000. BUT always a slightly longer reach if it is paired with quality. I looked for a LONG time at the 200-400 and finally decided it was JUST TOO BIG!

The F2.8 retails for $2100 (here anyway)... not $2400.

I think I am outvoted...OK, I guess it is the fact I had a Vello battery grip on my D90 and had no problems.... but, the consensus appears to be a Nikon Collar for $225. So, $2400 less $1640 is still a difference of $760. Now, my mind goes to this line of thinking. If I want to use the lens for backpacking, the 0.7 kg difference in weight may favor the f/4. But, if I want to shoot sports, indoors or with the teleconverters, the f/2.8 looks very good. And when using the $2400 vs the $1640 it is only a few hundred more....

And, there is a point here about the quality of the mounting ring. When hanging a heavy body from the end of the lens, and relying on the ring to hold it all....mmmm I believe on another thread a D600 and 70-200 f/2.8 feel off the tripod and broke the lens mount off the D600.

OK, the Nikon collar wins.....

msmoto said:
I think the lens is about $1400, and Vello will have a ring for about $50, so this is about $950 difference by my calculations. It is irritating they would not build it with the ring included.

Off Topic: While Vello products deceptively look better than the rif-raf off-market products, they are functionally no better and are possibly even worst. Case in point: I had lost my original nikon hood HB-7 for 80-200 AF-D 2.8, I bought a "Vello 77mm Snap-on Tulip Lens Hood (Version II)" as it is reversible and easy to store. However that damned thing was so ill designed with its too tight "Snap-on" that it totally obliterated the filter threads on my lens. Although I do not use filters, but when I resell the lens any astute buyer will look at it closely.

FYI Vello model number BQ0911 sells for around $25.00 on amazon.

Here in Canada the lens is $1449, throw in another $200 for the Nikon collar, and it is a $1649 lens, a $451 diff. I wouldn't want to use a cheap $50 knock off on a nearly $1500 lens. That's like putting a $20 Tiffen filter on your 24mm F1.4G.

This really don't bode well for other F4 lens updates either. I suspect if the 300mm F4 or 80-400 are updated, they will share the same collar, which you'll have to buy in addition.

I think the lens is about $1400, and Vello will have a ring for about $50, so this is about $950 difference by my calculations. It is irritating they would not build it with the ring included.

Godless said:
You can get any shutter speed you want using the S or M modes of the camera. Did you know that?

lol. Thanks for the photography 101 tip. I would rather not totally underexpose my subjects, which is why I used the shutter speed and aperture combo I did. I aways shoot in M for sports, unless I'm under crazy mixed lighting. In any case we are so off topic it isn't even funny, so we'll stop the F2.8 vs F4 here.

As I said before, I think 70-200mm F4 will be a good lens, for still subjects and daylight/early evening. The new VR 3 looks very impressive, from the low shutter speed samples I've seen. For still portraits it could be a great natural light lens, matching the shutter of the F2.8 (with VR) under the right conditions, but giving you greater depth of field if needed. If you have the money the F2.8 is still the better lens, but the F4 will be no slouch. The only kick in the teeth is the extra money you'll have to dish out for the collar. Once you throw the collar in its only $400 less than the F2.8, tough choice!

proudgeek said:
I bought the 2.8 about a year ago. No buyer's remorse though, as I love it and still have a strong enough back to drag it along. One big advantage that I don't think anyone's mentioned relative to the extra stop is that it provides more flexibility when using TCs. I'm just guessing but I don't think you can use a 2x on an f/4 lens, unless you have a body that can autofocus at f/8 (do I have that right?).

Yep. You got it. But then all of the new Nikon FX bodies have AF at a max aperture of f/8 so I dont think the 2x TC will not be that big an issue.

I bought the 2.8 about a year ago. No buyer's remorse though, as I love it and still have a strong enough back to drag it along. One big advantage that I don't think anyone's mentioned relative to the extra stop is that it provides more flexibility when using TCs. I'm just guessing but I don't think you can use a 2x on an f/4 lens, unless you have a body that can autofocus at f/8 (do I have that right?).

Perhaps I have been swayed by the sample images. Now I think that I would rather this lens over a xx-200/2.8. From an amateurs perspective, comparing the f/4 vs a 2nd hand 2.8VR1 unless your shooting NEEDS the 2.8, the f/4 will be a better option due to the likely better optics, lighter weight, better VR and significantly closer MFD. I am sure there are other benefits to the 2.8 like what msmoto has mentioned in point 1 and 5 but for me personally I think the 70-200f/4 is better. I shall probably get one once my budget allows me

One other issue of f/2.8 vs. f/4.0 is the subtle change in bokeh. So, it would appear the differences are:

1) f/stop...may be needed in low light so as to allow adequate shutter speed or to use lower ISO
2) weight...as in carry a lens a mile on one's back or climbing...
3) size, allowing more easily being packed into a small space
4) cost...
5) different bokeh f/2.8 to f/4.0
6) VR third iteration...up to five f/stops on the new f/4 But of almost no advantage in shooting random moving objects....

There may be other issues, but it would appear this lens is a great addition to the lineup. Now for a 400mm f/4.0 VRIII, huh?

PB PM said:
Yeah, my poor D700 with its crappy low light performance. Have you tried shooting tennis outside, at night under crapy florescent light? Did you need a shutter speed of 1/640 or higher to freeze the action? At F4 the shutter speed would be 1/500. F2.8, 1/640 at ISO 64000.

You can get any shutter speed you want using the S or M modes of the camera. Did you know that?

1 stop does make a huge difference. Even the stop difference seen in looking through the viewfinder in a tough condition is a big help. I only shoot 2.8's or faster. Mostly a D7000 nowadays as I can push it up to ISO 2500 nicely

This is where Focus Peaking would be handy.