70-200/4.0VR is here!! « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

70-200/4.0VR is here!!

(90 posts) (33 voices)

Started 8 months ago by birdman
Latest reply from PB PM
Related Topics:
1. New lenses for school

Tags:

« Previous 123 4 Next »

El_Pickerel

preferred member
Joined: Jul '11
Posts: 581
offline

I hope it has 1:2 macro ability as one patented design had. This would be a great lens to take backpacking in lieu of my f/2.8... as it stands, I tend not to also take my macro lens (or it isn't handy) and miss out on those shots. Having 1:2 macro and a lighter lens would be great. Right now I walk with the 16-35mm f/4 VR and old model 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, one on camera and blackrapid strap one one hip, the other in a waterproof lens case on the other hip. Being able to reduce some weight and gain 1:2 macro would be great, and if I really want shallow DOF I could probably squeeze in the 85mm f/1.8 and still come out carrying less. Though I also really would miss the Tamron 24-70 and the midrange versatility.

Man, trying to narrow camera / lens gear down is tricky! Especially if I want to use zooms...

Posted 8 months ago #
captainelmo

senior member
Joined: Jul '12
Posts: 84
offline

Maybe its just my lack of experience but I do not really see the point of having an f/4 version of the 70-200 when there is the 80-200/2.8 unless you really need the VR rather than the extra stop. One of my teachers bought a 70-200f/4L IS but then a month later traded it in for a 70-200/2.8L IS mk1 because he found the weight reduction too small for the reduction of a stop.

Posted 8 months ago #
framer

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 160
offline

captainelmo said:
Maybe its just my lack of experience but I do not really see the point of having an f/4 version of the 70-200 when there is the 80-200/2.8 unless you really need the VR rather than the extra stop. One of my teachers bought a 70-200f/4L IS but then a month later traded it in for a 70-200/2.8L IS mk1 because he found the weight reduction too small for the reduction of a stop.

OK, VR nice to have but is it over rated? If I had a money issue getting a 70-200vr 2.8 I'd go with the 80-200 2.8 than the 70-200 f4 vr. The 80-200 2.8 is a great lens and can be picked up cheap IMHO. The f2.8 gives you more to work with, faster focus, more accurate focus, use with TC's + Filters at the same time and still use full AF sensors. Brighter screen for manual focus also.

framer

framer

Posted 8 months ago #
shawnino

preferred member
Joined: Jan '12
Posts: 234
offline

Main blog says $1000-$1300 depending on your currency. At that price, there should be a great deal of interest.

Posted 8 months ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

@captainelmo and framer...why buy any F4 lens?

I have no doubt the new lens will have improved autofocus over the old 80-200 and depending on which model 80-200 it will have AF-S making it compatible with the lower bodies. It will be cheaper for a new lens and it will have VR.

Although I have heard good things about the 80-200 I never really considered it as an option in comparison to the 70-200 for some reason.

As for F4 and VR vs F2.8...we can argue all day. As long as stuff isn't moving in low light I will take my F4 and VR all day long. If the new lens has good performance at F4 I think it will be a pretty good lens. I would consider getting one.

Posted 8 months ago #
birdman

preferred member
Joined: Feb '12
Posts: 166
offline

To further TCole's stance: 2.8 is not exactly *fast* either. Sorry, but my 1.8 primes are way faster, have thinner DOF, and better Bokeh than probably any 2.8 zooms. f/4.0 is not as sexy as 2.8, I admit, but more affordable and great performers. i would always opt for 2.8 if price were nearly equal...and which depending on price of new 70-200, may be close to used price of 2.8VRII. If so, i see no point in 4.0VR unless warranty and weight matter

Posted 8 months ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

I think VR is underrated by those who don't use the 70-200 or higher. It has saved my bacon more than I can count. Even my VR I 70-200 gets me almost 4 stops in most situations. Especially at F4, I think VR is a big bonus.

I think the real choice is if the F4 is so close to a used 70-200 VR I or even the Sigma and Tamron, it will make some hard choices.

Posted 8 months ago #
captainelmo

senior member
Joined: Jul '12
Posts: 84
offline

TaoTeJared said:
I think VR is underrated by those who don't use the 70-200 or higher. It has saved my bacon more than I can count. Even my VR I 70-200 gets me almost 4 stops in most situations. Especially at F4, I think VR is a big bonus.

I think the real choice is if the F4 is so close to a used 70-200 VR I or even the Sigma and Tamron, it will make some hard choices.

I do think VR is a boon. My point about the 80-200/2.8 is just that the only reason you would ever get the 70-200/4 VR is because of the VR. Either that or as you said get a 70-200/2.8 VR1 or one of the newer image stabilised third party options if you need both 2.8 or VR. I would also think that other lenses like the 300/4 and the 80-400 are in greater need of getting an update. Not saying they are bad, just that its been ages since we saw an update to either especially the 80-400 since its not using AF-S. I got a 120-400 OS because there wasnt an update to the 80-400 VR. Maybe there will be a new 70-200/2.8 soon with this new VR system. Maybe its like the olympus 5 way system or provides enhanced tripod detection or even greater stops of stabilisation

Posted 8 months ago #
El_Pickerel

preferred member
Joined: Jul '11
Posts: 581
offline

TaoTeJared said:
I think VR is underrated by those who don't use the 70-200 or higher. It has saved my bacon more than I can count. Even my VR I 70-200 gets me almost 4 stops in most situations. Especially at F4, I think VR is a big bonus.

On the wide end too... VR on the 16-35mm f/4 gives me a much wider range of handholdable shutter speeds than I'd have otherwise. It's great for hiking, if I want to shoot at low ISO, small aperture, and maybe with a CPL without bothering with a tripod.

The VR on the 70-200 gave me one of my favourite backpacking shots, and with the overcast dawn light I would not have had that shot without VR.

Posted 8 months ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

It will be interesting to see if they discontinue the 80-200 finely. It's not AFS (another reason to get the newer versions and the F/4), been in the lineup since 1986. I read once they kept it in the lineup for scientific uses but never ran across anything else. At $1,200 new, the 80-200 has to be close to what the f4 will be.

Posted 8 months ago #
friedmud

member
Joined: Oct '12
Posts: 23
offline

I owned the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS (just sold it and my 7D to get a D600)... so I can shed some light here. As a primarily landscape shooter the 70-200 f/4L IS was best because:

1. Weight. When backpacking, every ounce makes a difference. On the Canon side the f/4 IS was MUCH smaller and lighter.
2. Don't need f/2.8. If you are mainly shooting landscapes at f/5.6 to f/11 then the added weight of the f/2.8 is unnecessary.
3. Sharp across the frame at every aperture. Just check the MTF charts: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/431-canon_70200_4is_5d?start=1
4. 70-200 is just right for telephoto landscape usage: longer leaves out too much...
5. f/4 is still fast enough _outside_ (just one stop... which can be overcome by one stop of ISO) to catch moving things: "Oh shit! Look at that moose running by me!"
6. Weather sealing and ruggedness. The Canon version is built like a tank. It can take drops and can be used in the rain without a worry.
7. IS (VR) is important for handheld landscape shots. In that case, your subject isn't moving, but if the light is a bit poor IS will help more than the one stop you get from a non-IS f/2.8. Yes, I usually shoot from a tripod... but there are times when you can't.
8. Awesome bokeh. The Canon f/4 had super creamy awesome bokeh. Yes, it has less than the f/2.8... but the quality is very nice. Perfect for isolating a fall color tree against it's brethren.

In summary. If you are walking outside the f/4 just made a lot of damn sense. I was sad to sell it... and I'm happy to see that Nikon might be introducing one. If it hits the weight / resolution / $ ratio just right... I'm definitely going to pick one up!

Posted 8 months ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

I have a feeling this lens will be in the 16-35mm F4 VR price range at about $1100 to $1300. It might be initially higher but will settle down once the reach stores in numbers. Its going to be a fantastic lens I am certain if the 70-300mm VR consumer lens is any indication. You have to believe that Nikon's 80-400mm VR is next in line for an update. It is Nikon's oldest (first) VR lens and needs an update in focusing as well. It is a very good lens though regardless.

Posted 7 months ago #
birdman

preferred member
Joined: Feb '12
Posts: 166
offline

Closer and closer...I'm still thinking about $1,500 US price. Anything more would be uncivilized. Or is it anything less?

Posted 7 months ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

Looks pretty good...half the weight and 5 stops with the new VR, but it still sound like $1600-$1800...which isn't nice.

Posted 7 months ago #
birdman

preferred member
Joined: Feb '12
Posts: 166
offline

I agree. $1600 would even be an insult. 5 stops VR...meh...i don't believe it

Update: I regress! $1,400 it is! With 5 stops! I knew it HAD to be less than $1600-1800. Much better option than the 1st 70-200/2.8 IMHO, given weight, price, build quality and IQ -- according to MTF charts. I'm sure it'll be S T E L L A R. I'm not sure I'm an early adopter, though. Will weasel into a slightly used copy for about $1,000. Can't wait

Posted 7 months ago #
golf007sd

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 585
offline

$1399...well priced. Should go very well for those that just got the D600.

spraynpray said:
I had just come to the long overdue conclusion that nothing less than the trinity will do for me, and the addition of a cheaper (that bit is welcome) but slower lens does nothing to change my mind.

+1

Once you got 2.8 you never go back....

TaoTeJared said:
I think VR is underrated by those who don't use the 70-200 or higher. It has saved my bacon more than I can count. Even my VR I 70-200 gets me almost 4 stops in most situations. Especially at F4, I think VR is a big bonus.

+1

Posted 7 months ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

Hmmm...it might go on my list, but not at the top. New body is staying at the top then followed by super wide angle (10-24, 12-24, or 14-24 depending on which body I get). Guess by the time I get to the 70-200 F4 there will be some used/refurbished ones out there ;)

Posted 7 months ago #
Emceee

member
Joined: Oct '12
Posts: 35
offline

Has anyone looked at the MTF charts? Wow.

Yeah I know charts don't mean crap but upon a first impression it looks like this lens will be impressive.

Posted 7 months ago #
captainelmo

senior member
Joined: Jul '12
Posts: 84
offline

Yay now all the canon converts can have the lens they have been whining for. On a more serious note, the weight and cost savings are tremendous. Granted its not built to the pro level of its 2.8 big brother but then this means I can carry the lens around for longer. I do like the 5 stop VR though. The MTF's are very impressive indeed. The foot is a real rip off. 225 USD for a lens foot Sigma or Tamron charge you 50 bucks for.

Posted 7 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

Vello has a collar for some Canon lenses at $50. Sigma charges $150 for the collar to fit the 70-200....Kirk, has a collar for more. Canon is about the same.

So, Nikon is only about $75 over the rest....like we might expect.... However, it is obviously a marketing ploy to get the price down to the $1400 range...

The VR will be interesting....in its third iteration which suggests a lot of lenses will be getting upgraded in the next several months.

Posted 7 months ago #
captainelmo

senior member
Joined: Jul '12
Posts: 84
offline

msmoto said:

The VR will be interesting....in its third iteration which suggests a lot of lenses will be getting upgraded in the next several months.

Maybe this is the kick that will set in motion updates to lenses such as the 80-400VR or the 300/4 AF-S or maybe even an update to the 70-200VR2 so that it wont have pronounced focus breathing.

Posted 7 months ago #
birdman

preferred member
Joined: Feb '12
Posts: 166
offline

Elmo, I do expect the 300/4.0 VR to be a release early next year. That's my educated guess, based on how new primes were updated (35,50,85)first. Nikon may get around to attacking telephoto releases next. I don't think there will be a new 80-400 though. I think they'll go with a different FL -- perhaps 100-300 or 100-400. Expect heavy prices!

Posted 7 months ago #
Rx4Photo

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 951
offline

captainelmo said:
Maybe this is the kick that will set in motion updates to lenses such as the 80-400VR or the 300/4 AF-S

+1

Regarding VR3, I don't know but I might have already witnessed what might be considered VR3 or at least something better than VR2. Last year I owned the Sigma 120-400mm AF APO DG OS HSM. The optical stabilization in that lens was phenomenal. It would practically freeze the image for you. Well, during a period of financial carelessness I ordered the Nikon 70-200mm VR2 f/2.8 for comparison. Of course the Nikon won the sharpness and low light battle - but the VR2 left a lot to be desired. Even with my best handholding technique the image would still move in the viewfinder with VR on. The Sigma OS give a rock solid image to pull the trigger on.

I returned the Nikon because I shouldn't have bought it in the 1st place and eventually sold the Sigma to raise cash. I now wonder if Sigma was on to something with the OS in that lens because it was truly sweet. Hopefully Nikon's VR(3) is as nice and steady.

Posted 7 months ago #
Bland

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 883
offline

B&H has it at $1,399.

Posted 7 months ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

How much is the old 70-200 VRI still selling for? I don't see it being sold new at B and H anymore.

Can you still get it new?

Posted 7 months ago #