I would really love to see how this new 70-200 f4 Nikkor lens will fare as a portrait lens. When this lens is compared to the 70-200 f2.8 VRI at similar exposure settings - how attractive the bokeh will be and color rendition as well as contrast. Being that one could purchase either of these lenses for approximately the same amount of money...I will end up making a choice between one of the two.

At the end of the day - I do not think I can really make a bad decision here, but thoughts and examples of photos whenever someone picks up this new lens would be awesome!

I haven't personally shot the Sigma lens, but the Nikon 70-200 is one of Nikon's best lenses. In general Nikon has better build quality. I know Sigma has some quality control issues and the lenses can be hit or miss. Third party lenses do depreciate faster then the Nikon counterparts. From what I have seen the performance is pretty good, but the Nikon comes out on top especially wide open. I feel like Nikon lenses are more reliable, fully compatible and always perform better in the extremes because of the Nikon lens coatings and stuff.

That being said coastalconn on the PAD thread shoots with a tamron 200-500 and they look pretty great. If you like the Sigma then get it...check out youtube for a comparison between 3 or 4 of the 70-200 lenses.

Though I have crossed the Sigma 70-200 OS lens off my list - I am wondering: aside from brand loyalty and future compatibility issues - what is the big deterrence from considering a third party lens? In this case, the Sigma is considerably newer than the Nikon 70-200 VRI, has pretty good reviews, and is still cheaper to buy new than older Nikon glass.

The reason I am no longer considering the 70-200 Sigma is the depreciation aspect. Whether I purchase the Nikon 70-200 VRI or the Sigma, I think they will both be good glass for my DX body for now. If I ever move into the world of FX bodies - it seems I would have to sell and upgrade that telephoto (due to vignetting on APS-C sensor on the Nikon). It seems like the Sigma just will not hold it's value like the Nikon.

To tell all I love the 70-200vr v1 for single portraits. I use it @ f2.8 in real world for people shots. Corner problems are not in my subject. I've never considered it a landscape lens.

framer

Shooting both FX and DX, the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 is probably my favorite lens. I have both version 1 and version 2. On DX you would never notice the difference as the main differences are in the corners. On FX, version 1 has noticeable vignetting wide open, and a little corner softness stopped down to f/8. Version 2 does not have this problem. So if you plan to go with FX, you probably should spring for the new version or plan to upgrade.

The Nikon 70-200 is better stopped down slightly. I try to use f/3.2-3.5 rather than wide open to keep a nice soft background. It's actually best at f/4.5-5.6, but the incremental difference is small. The 70-200 makes a good landscape lens for extractions, or with the Canon 500D it doubles as a macro lens.

I have two versions of the 70-300 - the current VR version and the earlier ED version. The 70-300 has a variable aperture, so if you are at 200mm your wide open aperture is f/5.6 - and you stop down from there for more sharpness. You lose the smooth backgrounds with this lens - especially on DX. You can live with the backgrounds on FX. I use the 70-300 VR as part of a light weight kit for hiking and some travel. I pair it with a 16-35 f/4 and a 50 f/1.4. I often substitute the 70-200 into this kit if weight is not a big issue.

Since you are using DX today, a used copy of the 70-200 Version 1 is probably okay. Just know that if you jump to FX - and there is no automatic reason why you must do that - you will probably want to upgrade to the newer model. But going with the used version up front would save nearly $1000. KEH.com is a good reference point on price for good used gear.

I'm sure the 70-200 f/4 is a good lens, but the loss of f/2.8 is a big deal. For optimum sharpness you know you need to stop down a little, and by the time you get to f/5.6 you might as well just get the 70-300 and spend the balance on other lenses.

The 18-200, 18-300, 28-300 zooms are not really alternatives to a 70-200. Those lenses are single do everything okay lenses. Image quality is good, DOF is okay, but you would never pick the 10x zoom if you could use a 70-200. I've got an 18-200 - and it has only been used once in the last year. Usually I don't even carry it.

+1

Hard for us to say what you are going to like or use. An F2.8 zoom isn't really a replacement for a fast prime. The 85 F1.8 would still have a use with the 70-200 in hand. As Tao says though...as you shoot more you will see that despite wanting that $2000 lens to cover your bases you almost always need another lens it seems. I started with an 18-200 and after shooting that for some time I narrowed down what I needed and got a macro lens, ultra wide, fast prime and super telephoto...but I did it over time and knew I needed them for what I wanted. Not saying the 70-200 isn't what you need, but it is a bit of money to spend. You could even try renting one for an event just to see. It is a whole different beast if you haven't shot any of the pro zooms before...they are heavy and can be a little intimidating I think...if for no other reason but for the cost.

Paxton said:
Thanks, TaoTeJared - would the 70-200 not replace having those lenses in one lens?

Yes in theory but in reality, mostly no. Every lens has a designed purpose but can do many things very well. Starting out and the fact you have a D3200, IMHO I think you would get more out of a 70-300vr and learn what you do actually shoot the most, look at what focal lengths you shoot the most, at and then throw your money at a lens in that range. Throwing $2,ooo at a lens and not really knowing what you need (not want) is kind of like giving a 16yr old a Porsche, when they actually like going camping in the back mountains.

You may end up with one in the far future, but at least you know you need it, and you don't have just $2,000 sitting on the shelf collecting dust.

Thanks, TaoTeJared - would the 70-200 not replace having those lenses in one lens?

Paxton said:
I am more leaning towards either the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRI or the new 70-200 f4 as they will both fit my budget. If I am spending that much money on a lens - I do not want to chance having forward compatibility issues when I upgrade camera bodies in the future. I do plan on owning this lens for many years.

If you think you are going to update your body to FX in 2-years or less than that is a valid concern. If not, then put your money to a bit better use to give you more options. IMO from what you started this thread with what you want to do, 50mm 1.8G, 85mm 1.8G & 70-300vr would cover Everything and give you many creative opportunities to learn from. With those and a SB-900/910 flash would get you set up to do almost anything. You may even want to consider a 60mm or 105mm macro.

If you mind is made up, then you can't go wrong with either 70-200mm Nikkor.

I am more leaning towards either the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRI or the new 70-200 f4 as they will both fit my budget. If I am spending that much money on a lens - I do not want to chance having forward compatibility issues when I upgrade camera bodies in the future. I do plan on owning this lens for many years.

tcole1983 said:

I have never been sad or disappointed by ponying up the extra money to get the lens I really wanted instead of compromising and getting the third party or variable aperture lens just because they were cheaper.

+1

there is one big advantage of the 70 -120 f 4 apart from cost ; It is a lot lighter

If you have light the 70-300 will do for a budget. If you have the money and really think you are going to use it a lot I would go for the 70-200 F2.8 VRI or VRII. I think the 70-200 F4 is going to produce great images...I think it is probably on my list. Hard to say what I would get since I have a totally different setup. I opted for the 300 F4, but I wanted it for animal shots mostly. If I knew I was really going to use it a lot and make some money I would spend the extra money and get the lens I really thought I would want/use.

I have never been sad or disappointed by ponying up the extra money to get the lens I really wanted instead of compromising and getting the third party or variable aperture lens just because they were cheaper.

Paxton said:
I would like to retain that nice bokeh and separation for my portraits,

In which case. forget the 18-200

out of the lenses you have listed I would go for Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRI
I have not used this lens , but do I have the VRII and at f 2.8 the bokeh is just what the doctor ordered

I would not too excited about the D400 or D7XXX. when the D600 is available today

The 70-300 VR is an FX lens.

I would REALLY like to see sample images from the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRI @ f/4 and the same image on the new N 70-200 f4 @ f4. I would like to see how they compare both with sharpness and bokeh.

I can see myself eventually moving into the world of FX - but my likely next step would be a D400 or D7XXX. I have seen some FANTASTIC images that used the N 70-300 VR - but this will be rendered useless on the FX format?

Consider the 18-300 or 28-300 if you decide to go the all-in-one route. The extra reach on the long end is great if you need it (450mm equivalent on DX), with the added bonus that the 28-300 gives you a good starter lens if you decide to go FF at any point. I used the 28-300 with my 7000 and was happy with it, but it also made the transition to FX a lot easier, since it took care of the wide end that my other FX lenses didn't. OTOH, if you're all in on DX, the 18-300's a bit lighter, takes cheaper filters, is wider at the wide end (starts at 28mm equivalent at the wide end, vs. 42mm equivalent on the 28-300), and it comes in a couple hundred dollars cheaper, which leaves you with extra cash for a fast 50 or 35.

The 70-300 is great on DX, by the way, albeit a bit heavier than the 55-300.

+1 70-300vr - I view it just like having a 50mm. For the price and how good it performs, no reason not to have one.

Thanks so far for all the input!

I will also mention, that additionally - I would like to retain that nice bokeh and separation for my portraits, but I will also be going to gymnastic meets for my nieces and taking shots in various high school gyms.

I suppose I can add the 70-300 VR in the mix here, provided that it can give me great results and if I can save money - I am not opposed to that.

Looks like you are mainly taking portraits and people.
* I have the 18-200 and its a love hate relationship.. Its just so versatile. but for portraits its a bit weak cos of the high F stop(less DOF) and jittery bokeh. also as mentioned its not the sharpest(understatement?) wide open.. I tend to use it at F8 which is fine for most shots but portraits? Hmm not so good... esp if you are used to the really sharp lenses that you already own.
* I have a 35-70 F2.8 that I use for portraits. Works great for DX format portraits. super sharp at 35mm
* I would consider getting the 24-120 for what you intend to take. Gives you a great range for portrait/people shots on DX and its a nice lense. And you wont need to change lenses... from wide to tele.
* Also consider the 24-85 F2.8-F4.0
* I would also consider the older 70-200 F2.8 second hand. Its what all the Pros used to use for people shots... ( I wonder how many millions of dollars this lens has made for its owners?)

Good luck with your choice...!

Probably wont be using VR very much if shooting kids playing around at parties or on the soccer field. More so for portraits or slower motion candids. For that I'd imagine 200mm f/4.0 with VR should render a decently smooth bokeh. My question is whether the AF speed will be just as snappy as that of the 70-200mm f/2.8 (or the 24-70mm f/2.8 for that matter). We'll see.

Paxton said:
Mainly taking candid shots of their children, and snapping at their soccer games, etc.

My experience of photographing children is getting the "decisive moment" is far more important than image quality; you certainly do not want to be changing lanes when the action happens

So I would look at the 18 -200*. No, this not Nikon's sharpest lens but no matter how close or how far the kids are from you , you stand a very good chance of geting "the shot"

want something better? then go for D600 and the 24-120 f 4

and if you have not already, get a Nikon flash the SB 700 or the SB 910

* this is just my opinion .I should warn you, the 18 -200 is not a popular lens with other members of this forum but there are no really bad, current nikon lenes

Assuming you do actually need a telephoto, you didn't mention the 70-300 VR.

HOWEVER, as your knowledge increases you will find that the ability to focus differentially on a DX sensor is less easy/good than on an FX so what I am saying is, great VR at F4 isn't going to replace creamy bokeh.

I have DX (D7000) and am looking at the F2.8's. I will then carry the same lenses with me when my journey takes me through FX.

n70-200/4 vr, forget the sigma - ain't that good as both of this nikons, considering this what I read about n f4 and what was my experience with n 2.8 and sigma

Welcome, Paxton... I am only guessing, but I suspect Nikon has produced a 70-200mm f/4 which will be the equal of its big sister the f/2.8. And, this will be such a nice lens if this is true as it is so much lighter and smaller.

Here is a link which is a bit old but has a hands on of the lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9864568961/hands-on-with-the-af-s-nikkor-70-200mm-f4g-ed-vr

My guess, again, is the new VR system can be extremely helpful. Five stops from the 1/250 sec base for a 200mm would be handholding at 1/8th sec....difficult to believe, but if true means there is a new benchmark in the VR world.