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

Tags:

« Previous 1 234 Next »

captainelmo

senior member
Joined: Jul '12
Posts: 84
offline

Rx4Photo said:
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.

Funny you say that. The final image may not be what is seen in the viewfinder. My 120-400 OS for example is supposed to have a 4 stop stabilisation system and it looks that way through the vf. in reality, I am lucky to get even 3 stops. Usually I get arnd 2 stops. The VR system I find is generally much more stable in practice than any third party system so far.

Posted 6 months ago #
Rx4Photo

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 951
offline

Ultimately, the images from the Nikon 70-200 VR2 were always sharper than the Sigma's even though the Sigma provided a more stabilized image. BTW, during these unofficial tests I shot both lenses at the same f-stop, shutter, and ISO.

Posted 6 months ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

So here is an interesting question. Will the release of the 70-200mm F4 VR finally spell the end of the 80-200mm F2.8D?

Posted 6 months ago #
Godless

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 241
offline

spraynpray said:
I hope not and doubt that - what makes you say it will probably be so?

Check the MTF curves, the f/4 version looks much better already.

Posted 6 months ago #
Godless

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 241
offline

PB PM said:
So here is an interesting question. Will the release of the 70-200mm F4 VR finally spell the end of the 80-200mm F2.8D?

I hope so. And I hope this spells the arrival of the 300mm f/4 VRII and 100-400mm VRII lenses as well.

Posted 6 months ago #
Kuv

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 22
offline

Godless said:
Check the MTF curves, the f/4 version looks much better already.

Those aren't exactly comparable. Each lens has it's MTF at their max aperture. You'd have to stop the 2.8 version down (where it's much sharper) to get a decent comparison.

Posted 6 months ago #
Nikoner

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 171
offline

PB PM said:
So here is an interesting question. Will the release of the 70-200mm F4 VR finally spell the end of the 80-200mm F2.8D?

Should not & I hope not, why?

Cause many sports photographers use it for indoor sports like: Volleyball, Swimming, Diving, Basketball, Equestarian, etc.

With or without VR an F4 will simply not work indoors for faster shutter speed indoors.

Posted 6 months ago #
Rx4Photo

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 951
offline

Nikoner said:
Should not & I hope not, why?

Cause many sports photographers use it for indoor sports like: Volleyball, Swimming, Diving, Basketball, Equestarian, etc.

With or without VR an F4 will simply not work indoors for faster shutter speed indoors.

Along those same lines, I've been reading the reviews of the Canon 70-200mm f/4 on Amazon and many of the people state that very same thing about the lens. Many say that it's an excellent outside or daylight lens but not so great indoors or under lower light.

Posted 6 months ago #
tcole1983

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

Rx4Photo said:
Along those same lines, I've been reading the reviews of the Canon 70-200mm f/4 on Amazon and many of the people state that very same thing about the lens. Many say that it's an excellent outside or daylight lens but not so great indoors or under lower light.

Which is to be expected...just as any F4 lens. Better then variable, but not a fast lens. I don't think the intent it to be the 70-200 F2.8...there is still a place and market for it. It is for those that want a light lens to carry all day or those that can't fork over $2000+. Just like the 14-24 or 24-70 F2.8's...if you had the money would anyone get the F4 or variable aperture counterparts? But I know from carrying my 300 F4 around that weighs about the same as the 70-200 F2.8 that it is heavy and a lens that is half the weight would be a welcome lens to carry for long periods.

Posted 6 months ago #
tcole1983

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

Oh yeah and here is right off the Nikon website...and I mentioned it before.

"Cover every possibility
Build an exceptional f/4 zoom system
The AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR brings the telephoto zoom range to Nikon's high-performance f/4 fixed aperture zoom lenses. Pair it with either the ultra-wide-angle to standard AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4F ED VR or the wide-angle to telephoto AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR, and you'll be able to cover an extremely broad focal length range with f/4 speed, superior image quality and a compact, lightweight lens system."

Seems to be they wanted to complete the F4 lens package...I am thinking to go along with the FX body releases...for those that can't afford the F2.8's. Or want a lighter weight package.

Posted 6 months ago #
Godless

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 241
offline

Rx4Photo said:
Many say that it's an excellent outside or daylight lens but not so great indoors or under lower light.

A one stop difference? Those people can´t be serious... just bump the ISO up a full stop and you´re at the same exposure level as you would be with a f/2.8 lens with one full stop lower ISO. And THAT will not make a difference in image quality on modern sensors, unless the user is a fool already running near the maximum of his camera´s ISO range.

If you need to shoot in the dark, get a 85mm f/1.4 or something like that. Problem solved.

Oh, wait, those are the Canon people. Forget about problem being solved.

Posted 6 months ago #
diode

new member
Joined: Oct '12
Posts: 4
offline

wow, i just ordered the 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 yesterday. i should keep my eye on the rumor sites a little better!

looking at the mtf charts the v4 looks really impressive. although it's comparing f/4 vs f/2.8, i can't imagine there being much of a IQ difference between the two at the same aperture.

i think i like having the 2.8 for little extra separation in portraits, but i'm not sure if that is worth the $1000 price tag.

Posted 6 months ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

Godless said:
A one stop difference? Those people can´t be serious... just bump the ISO up a full stop and you´re at the same exposure level as you would be with a f/2.8 lens with one full stop lower ISO. And THAT will not make a difference in image quality on modern sensors, unless the user is a fool already running near the maximum of his camera´s ISO range.

My guess is that you've never shot sports in low light, in which case you wouldn't understand why one stop can make a difference.

Posted 6 months ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

I have and love the 70-200 f 2.8 but starting against I would get the f4 as its smaller and lighter. if I needed to shoot in low light, I wold take godless advice and get the 80 f1.4 or the 200 f 2

Posted 6 months ago #
golf007sd

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 585
offline

PB PM said:
My guess is that you've never shot sports in low light, in which case you wouldn't understand why one stop can make a difference.

+1

Posted 6 months ago #
Godless

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 241
offline

PB PM said:
My guess is that you've never shot sports in low light, in which case you wouldn't understand why one stop can make a difference.

My guess is that you use old bodies with poor sensors or don´t know what you are doing if one stop ISO makes such a difference

Posted 6 months ago #
msmoto

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

Well, one f/stop can be a problem when the end of the rope is near... gong from 3200 ISO on say a D90 to anything higher gives a lot of noise. But, the whole discussion about shooting an f/4.0 lens vs. an f/2.8 lens is pretty much relevant only when one is in between a rock and a hard spot. But, this is why they make an f/2.8 lens.

And the idea of VR being helpful in low light is nice, but somehow it does not help if the subject is moving randomly.

Must be about the $1000 difference in price for the last f/stop. Unfortunately, those who are going to be trying to save that money may also be the ones shooting older bodies with lower ISO capability.

Of course, those of us who are chronologically more mature (AKA older than dirt) remember the days we had only 800 ISO or at most 1600 and then it was like a rock slide as far as grain in the B & W's.

Posted 6 months ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

some samples at official Nikon flickr thread: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonphotostream/sets/72157631841763361/

Posted 6 months ago #
msmoto

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

Looks very impressive wide open!

Posted 6 months ago #
Nikoner

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 171
offline

Godless said:
My guess is that you use old bodies with poor sensors or don´t know what you are doing if one stop ISO makes such a difference

My guess is not only have you never shot sports, but are also ignorant about professional photography as well. Have you ever been inside a university, college, or a school indoors arena?

I shoot sports professionally with a D800/80-200 f2.8, I also use 85/1.8G, and the new 24-85/3.5-4.5G (24-85 only for outside action)

Of course you will push the stereotype theory that D800 is a landscape camera and how I should use a D4 for sports, that too like everything else you have said is a lot of bull.

Posted 6 months ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

Godless said:
My guess is that you use old bodies with poor sensors or don´t know what you are doing if one stop ISO makes such a difference

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.

Posted 6 months ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

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

Posted 6 months ago #
Godless

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 241
offline

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?

Posted 6 months ago #
msmoto

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

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?

Posted 6 months ago #
captainelmo

senior member
Joined: Jul '12
Posts: 84
offline

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

Posted 6 months ago #