F/4 ... why F/4 « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

F/4 ... why F/4

(9 posts) (7 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

Jeff H

member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 49
offline

Forgive me if this has been discussed. I'm still new here, and fairly new to photography. Why is Nikkor puting out updated lenses at F/4? Shouldn't these new pro level lenses be 2.8 at least? If they can make a 70-200 at 2.8 with VR and update it - because it's been around so long... then why put out new zoom and primes at F/4?

On a related note...

I've decided to buy the D700, or the replacement when I see what it is. So, I'm looking to spend my $ now on glass. Basically I have nothing. I know I can pick up an inexpensive 1.8 50 prime, but I think after that I'll be looking at the 24-70 or the 70-200. I wish there was something like the Canon 24-105 (F/4 for some reason) Any thoughts.

Posted 3 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

Not everybody needs 2.8 glass. F4 supposedly should be lighter and cheaper than 2.8. It makes sense to buy a lens such as this if you don't need 2.8 aperture.

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Jeff H said:
I wish there was something like the Canon 24-105 (F/4 for some reason) Any thoughts.

The new rumor is a 24-120 f/4: http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/18/nikkor-24-120-f4-vr-will-be-released-this-year.aspx
But if you're looking to buy now, I'd get the 24-70 2.8 or you might want to try the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and save some money. I've loved my Tamron 17-50 2.8 but it's a DX lens.

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

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

F4 offers a good compromise in terms of cost and weight, most of the time. Also, for some users lenses having narrow depth of field is not desirable, so they'd rather save money and get an F4 lens.

Posted 3 years ago #
Regulator75

preferred member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 829
offline

Doesn't Canon have a tonne of F4 lenses too?

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

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

as PB wrote, You get fixed aperture for less money, also f4 makes the whole lens smaller and lighter. nevertheless, f4 is not that bad anyway, I would love to have 600/4 :D

Posted 3 years ago #
AaronFoto

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 135
offline

Jeff H said:
I know I can pick up an inexpensive 1.8 50 prime, but I think after that I'll be looking at the 24-70 or the 70-200.

The 50 1.4D can be had for a decent price as well. I've noticed in pictures taken with the 1.8 that the bokeh can be less than desirable. Since a 1.4 is as good as it gets right now (aperture-wise) and the price difference is relatively small, it is something to consider.

Posted 3 years ago #
Jeff H

member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 49
offline

The 70-200 2.8 about $2K, and the 24-70 f/4 $1,600. I know there are many other things to consider in cost between these two besides aperture, but it seems like the F/4 aught to be a lot less expensive.

The images that come out of the 70-200 2.8 are far superior than those I get from my 55-200 F/4-5.6 dx. Other than being a dx (not sure if that matters since I'm using a D40) and the ability to get that butter in the background with 2.8 what is making these images better? Because, they always seem better - f/4, f/11 doesn't matter. I figured it was because it was a 2.8 lens. Ability to go wider open made everything else better as well. - and now that I actually write that out, I can see my thinking is likely a bit off.

So, what do I look for in a good lens.

1. Since I'll be going full frame I'll want an fx lens.
2. Auto focus
3. I want a zoom
4. ?

Or are there really that many choices once I get to number 4. I think Nikkor makes 4 that fit these three and only two if I add VR.
What's the deal with ED, IF, and SIC...etc... important factors?

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

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

ED glass is used to correct chromatic aberrations (purple fringes) and IF means internal focus, which makes it a lot easier to use filters, not to mention less prone to sucking in dust.

F2.8 lenses are not just better because they bring in more light, but they also have better build quality, and due to the wide aperture you get a clearer, brighter view in the viewfinder. F4 lenses, a good because they tend to be lighter, and less expensive thus more hand holdable than their F2.8 counterparts. F4 is also wide enough that you can still stick the TC14E II on and still have accurate auto focus.

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

F/4 ... why F/4

Reply