Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR lens specifications

Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR lens specifications:

  • VR effectiveness: five stops in shutter speed (current VR tech is up to four stops effective)
  • 20 elements in 14 group, 3 ED element, Nano Crystal Coat (for comparison, the Nikkor 70-200mm has 21 elements in 16 groups)
  • Filter size: 67mm
  • Weighs: 850 grams (for comparison, the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 weights 1540g)
  • Expected price in Japan: ¥165,000 (around $2,000, US price will be lower)
  • Expected release date: November 2012

Via Digicame-info

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Big Burger Nips

    That’s some weight reduction.

    • goose

      nice weight reduction indeed, but im more into size reduction.

      • Kuv

        Dude… it has a 67mm thread…

        • desmo

          A lot of people are going to be happy about 67mm thread—
          its only a couple ounces heavier than 70 -300VR, so should be same effort to pack or carry and image quality should be much
          I see this becoming part of my standard kit along with my

          • Peter

            I’ll be very happy if this is the actual weight, and probably a buyer. So long as it’s got excellent corners stopped down this will make for a perfect do-everything tele zoom!

        • whaaaaat?

          wtf? 67mm filter? Both 16-35mm and 24-120mm are 77mm. Wonder if thats a mistake?

          • justintime

            67mm filter on 70-200 f4.0 means relatively small diameter, which is good.
            But Nikon, why is the recently released 24-85 f4.5 72mm? Would be better if both were 67mm.
            It then gets worse if you carry a 16-35mm as well. Need 67, 72 & 77mm filters!

          • iamlucky13

            200mm divided by 4 (aperture number) = 50mm.

            That’s consistent with the filter size, plus a 34% margin. That’s actually more margin than the 70-200 F/2.8 has.

            Of course, that doesn’t help you much if all your filters are already 77mm.

            And since this lens ought to be a natural pairing for a budget-compromising D600 user, it’s odd that they used a different size than the 28-85.

            Actually, ideal case in my opinion would have been the 28-85 and 70-200 F/4 both being 67mm.

            • SmokeEmIfYouGotEm

              67-77mm and 72-77mm step up rings cost $5.00. Filter size is irrelevant.

        • Goose

          well, more towards the length, sorry forgot to be a little more specific.

      • nuno santacana

        I’m more into price reduction.

        • EvanK


          I wouldn’t mind carrying around a 70-200 2.8, problem is I can’t afford to shell out $2400 for a lens! I’m hoping $1300 or less for this, otherwise, count me out.

          • RC

            The original version of the 70-200 can be had for that kind of money. Why not that one?

            • iamlucky13

              It’s not really useful to compare used and possibly abused prices to new and covered by warranty prices.

              Plus, a few will like the lighter weight and slightly smaller size.

            • RC

              Why not? I’m sure many people make these considerations. Besides, I’ve bought hundreds of lenses and I’ve never needed the warranty ever.

    • Rob Banks

      Yeah, that’s because it is made of plastic. Don’t know we =’d consider that a good thing.

      • JMP

        So it’s all plastic, nothing to do with the fact that there’s a lot less glass in there?

  • opterown

    wow, that is hella expensive. specs look good though!

  • Big Burger Nips

    P.S. first…

    Glad I decided to go for a poo now, really come up trumps.

  • Looks good but typical of lens prices going at the moment all the way up – expensive but a mandatory purchase.

    Hope to see 80-400 Afs VR & 300 F4 AFS VR but expect price to by like Sony’like £1500 – £1700.00

  • geraldino

    Only $ 2.000,00!!?? Yet, it will be mine!!

    • geraldino

      yes not yet….

  • Cotman

    2000$?! It will mean 2000€ in Europe, so… for €1300 I will buy a used 70-200/2.8 VR I

    • Remedy

      What, 2000€ is not cheap now? WTF? IT’S CHEAP!!! Ask NR comments experts, they know this kind of stuff.


      • Pablo Ricasso

        You might wait until you know what the price is in your location. You might even wait further, until you know the image quality. Just sayin’.

    • karl

      no way it’s gonna cost anywhere near 2000€.
      the MSRP $1990 Nikon 24-70 can be had for 1450€, and that’s a pro grade lens.

      I expect this new lens to sell for around 1300€. Might be overpriced at launch, but it will get cheaper. Nikon can’t fix prices in the EU.

  • Yoan

    VR compensates 5 stops! Wow!!!

  • Any news on if it will include a tripod foot? I know Nikon don’t tend to sell stuff like this separate more will there be one at all.

    • Drazen B

      Most likely won’t being at rumored 850g weight.

      Also, if the existing Canon’s 70-200 f4L IS is anything to go by.

      One thing I noticed is that filter thread will be smaller at 67mm, which pretty much means it won’t be of externally retractable-barrel kind, the zooming will be internal at fixed external lens length, so again pretty much like the model from Canon. I can almost visualize it 😉

  • Bret M

    Wow the weight is incredibly low.

    I’d still hunt down a used version 1 70-200mm f/2.8 for what looks like will be about the same price as this. I would guess most high level Nikon users would also prefer the used f/2.8 over this, but I suppose for travel and the “lightweight” people this will be great, though expensive.

    I was kinda hoping for that 100-300mm f/4 from way back, Sigma discontinued theirs but it was a killer lens I had on my future purchases list.

  • Remedy

    Where are all the idiots “wow, new, light and CHEAP 70-200 from Nikon YAY!” now? Didn’t I fking tell You?!!! DIDN’T I?!!!!! Fking noobs.

    • iamlucky13

      1.) Obsession with vengeance is petty and tiresome.

      2.) Your previous post was still nonsense – fancying that everyone has an extra couple hundred dollars to spend, ignoring that you were comparing prices of used lenses to new lenses, etc.

      3.) I see below you are calling 1580 grams light. In the last discussion, you called 760 grams heavy. Please make up your mind.

      4.) You might feel less anger if you take up a hobby besides belittling people on the internet. Photography might be a good one to try, since as yet it sounds like one you’re not very familiar with. It’s much more engaging and satisfying than less enlightened hobbies like arguing with photographers about what gear they decide to use.

      • desmo


      • JMP


    • Big J

      Anger management issues? Don’t forget your lorazepam.

  • Paul

    The D600 was rumored at ¥215,000 and the 70-200/4 VRIII is rumored at ¥165,000. The D600 actually cost $2100 in the USA at release so it was $0.00977/1¥. Multiplying this factor by the ¥165,000 of the 70-200/4 VRIII gives $1611 as the US price.

    • Thaumazein

      Which will be the used price of a good condition 70-200mm f2.8 VR1 here in Germany.

      • desmo

        for the price I’d rather shoot the 70-200 2.8 used but I know it will not be something I would carry all the time do to weight and size,
        so this lens makes more sense

        • Thaumazein

          That’s a point. But I don’t see how I should pay the same price for a “worse” product. But lets wait for the reviews 🙂

          • Peter

            For me, it’s all about the weight, no point in having a lens you dread carrying around and leave at home. I have the similar weight 70-300mm and think it’s heavy enough, can’t imagine carrying something almost double the weight with the 70-200mm 2.8.

            • Peter

              Of course, IQ is important too.

            • iamlucky13

              And on the image quality end, hopefully it will beat the 70-300 quite handily, because if even cropping down or using a TC-14 it can’t beat the 70-300, then that takes away half of the motivation for spending extra on it.

  • Ok if it is $1600 US. Pricey otherwise. 850 gr, is not too bad.

    • nobody

      The Canon 70-200 f4 IS weighs 760g only. Just saying.

  • rhyanski

    If I have 2k to spend for the f4 version, I will definitely go with 2.4k for the f2.8 one no matter weight increase. For God’s sake I can afford carrying a kilo more if this one kilo cost only 400usd… It will turn pretty non-competitive price-wise if they release this glass with such a small price difference from the faster lens.

    For sure it will make sense for Nikon though – they will push you swallow the 400usd and spend more…
    And if the lens gets outperformed or equally performs with the 70-300VR f3.5-5.6 then it is totally useles…

    • Enshong

      It’ll most likely be sold at $1,600. Japanese list prices are typically higher. See the post above about the D600’s price.

  • Nikon Sniper

    For what a new one cost you can get a used 70-200 f/2.8 and have a better lens. No thanks Nikon I look for a used f/2.8

    • Roy S.

      Yes, if 70-200/2.8 would have weighted 50% less than this.

      • Remedy

        Because everyone knows that metro sexual hipsters can’t lift 1.5kg. Facepalm.

        • Thaumazein


        • karl

          the 70-200 f4 will be easier to use as well

          • desmo

            He’s checking for dust spots on the sensor

        • LMAO

          Your comment made me LOL so hard at work. HA!

        • JMP

          It’s actually quite a bit heavier when you attach it to a camera.

          You should try it.

  • DM

    I am guessing all you people who are saying just get a used 70-200 haven’t carried it for a long time. I’ve had the first and second version and sold them both. When you take a trip with your kids and you have to carry all your camera gear in addition to all the stuff that your kid needs, you’ll know what I am talking about.

    • Remedy

      No I don’t know what da heck are You talking about? Want to go on a trip with kids? Have fun with Your P&S camera and a bit of advise, Your kid does NOT need to have 10298973286 different toys with him all the time.
      I was shooting 5 continuous days with borrowed D3+500 f/4 in the fking mountains and guess what, I’m still alive. Also I didn’t need any medical treatment after this event. Shocked?

      • Cotman

        I have a DSLR full-option-bag for my weddings and a X10 for my kids…

        • Pablo Ricasso

          Right!!! And I’m such a moron that I never shoot anything other than weddings and kids.

          • Cotman

            Well yes you are sir.

            And stop babbling already, please. It’s nauseating.

            You HALF-wit.

            Sorry, but you asked for it.

            • Andrew

              I’m glad somebody else noticed as well.

              This Picasso fella is getting a little too much.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              Go to your cot.

    • Dave in the USA

      I too have packed a 70-200 VR-I along with the kids for a week and I have no problem doing it again. But here’s the deal, if Nikon gets rewarded for producing expensive F/4s (by people buying them), then they’ll keep making them expensive.

      Canon’s 70-200 f/4 may not be as good as the 70-200 f/2.8, but it’s a heck of a lot better than their 55-200mm and half the price of their 70-200mm 2.8 (on Amazon).

      I’m beginning to agree with Thom Hogan that Nikon has lost touch with their customers.

      • iamlucky13

        +1 to that post.

        And on the flip side, if everyone holds off on buying the 70-200 F/4 until the price comes down, Nikon will decide the low sales indicate listening to customer requests is a failed strategy that serves a small market that seems big only because they’re vocal.

        As such, oft-requested lenses like the 70-200 F/4, 300 F/4 VR, or 10mm F/2.8 DX will be abandoned or else treated like boutique lenses that merit even higher prices.

        That’s the sort of logic companies that lose touch with their customers tend to follow.

      • Canon’s got five 70-200’s…

        70-200 2.8 IS II
        70-200 2.8 IS
        70-200 2.8
        70-200 4 IS
        70-200 4

        The 70-200 f4 IS is sharper than the 70-200 2.8 IS, but it’s not as good as the 70-200 2.8 IS II.

    • RC

      If you take a trip with your kids, you better not be lugging around something like a 70-200 F2.8! You’re supposed to be spending time with them! You should at most be carrying a 24-120 or 28-300!

      • Andrew


    • America

      Go to the gym. I can carry that lens for a long time without crying. When your in the military things like that are light. Why are you taking so much gear when you should be spending time with your kids anyhow?

  • Steve

    damn expensive, i can get 70-200 VR2 with 185k yen

  • I don’t understand you guys complaining about the high price because I think that the typical 70-200 f4 buyer soesn’t buy it because of the cheaper price … As long as the optical performance is great wide open, the bokeh is nice and it has a really really good build quality this lens is just a small compromise compared to the 2.8 version and better for many applications.

    Comparing it to the 2.8 version is like comparing apples to oranges, especially if you need the lens for landscapes, travel and light weight high performance.

    I you want something cheaper just go with the tokina or the 70-300vr. I rather have nikon offer me really good performance for a high price than only cheapo lenses as it’s happening in DX .

    • Remedy

      WTF are You even yapin about? Apples and oranges? It’s the same fking lens for the same fking purposes. The only difference is that one of those lenses is darker and noticeably lighter. PERIOD. It doesn’t get any closer than this. You on crack or what?

      • JMP

        It’s darker and lighter? Wow!

        Remedy, you’re obviously very angry about something and unable to appreciate that not everyone is the same as you and has the same requirements as you.

        It’s a real shame that we’re not exactly the same as you, but I think quite a few of us can live with that.

    • Will


      I have 70-200/2.8, and mostly it sits in my lens cabinet due to its horrible weight. If this f4 version performs very well, I will change to this one.

      • Remedy

        So You bought a lens You didn’t need. Great use of both Your brain and Your money. Try thinking next time when You go on purchase spree.

        ROTFL, horrible weight… 1.5kg. Strength of a 4 year old much?

        • Spartan

          I think you have no brain right? Hahahaha

        • Kenneth

          One of most stupid comments ever seen

          • karl

            that’s pure envy speaking, nothing else.

        • nobody

          Remedy, this lens is obviously not for you. I suggest you take your pills and leave this discussion. Thank you very much!

          • Remedy

            Obviously Your obviousness is obvious. Which lens is for me then? Give it Your best shot.

            • Dingus

              You know You don’t need to capitalize “You” every time You type it right?

          • Big J

            Don’t feed the troll.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      But I’m sure it will work great on a DX camera…

  • Richard Hertz

    I agree with all that have said that go for the 70-200mm 2.8. This is a gimmick – like the toss-in-the-air-cleavage-camera. Nikon, stop being dumb.

  • Cotman

    I wonder why I should not buy a 70-300 VR for just 350€….

    • Big J

      It’s a great lens, I’m happy with mines personally. Got it for about the same price also slightly used.

  • Rock Kenwell

    The 70-200 f/2.8 has a suggested price of 315,000 Yen while the new 70-200 f/4 is expected to be 165,000 Yen. If the suggested price for the former is $2,399.95, I’d expect the latter to retail for $1,257 or so.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      Or… about HALF!


      The market will become segmented catering to the halfs and the half nots.

      • snarfy

        LMFAO!!! +1


    • Old Geezer

      The latest 24-120 f4 VR is priced at $1300 US on Amazon USA. I would expect
      the 70-200 f4 VR to be priced a bit higher. Maybe $1600 US, as someone else
      has suggested.

  • metalorange

    2000 Dollars? Is this a joke? This lens should not cost more than 1200 or 1300 Dollars/€. Otherwise I would rather buy the f2,8 version.
    I wonder how rugged this lens will turn out to be for field use. With 20 lens elements you just have to drop it or slightly knock it and they might get knocked out of alignment. No thank you Nikon. I rather stay with primes.

    • iamlucky13

      See the comments by others about price being higher in Japan.

      Unfortunately, it probably will be more than $1200, just because people will probably pay it.

      As for durability, I wouldn’t worry, nor would I judge by element count. My plastic 70-300 has 17 elements and has been bounced around in the field quite a bit and taken a few small spills and held up ok. As the admin noted, the 70-200 F/2.8 has 21 elements, and the 200-400 has 24 elements. Both have well-earned reputations for being pretty tough.

      Meanwhile, back when I was cutting my teeth on the lowly 18-55, with only 7 elements, it took a drop camera first that definitely shifted something…probably the ED element. It ended up with severe CA and moderate softness on the left half of the frame.

      Which turned out to be a great thing, because until then I hadn’t felt any real need to upgrade.

  • NikofanBoy

    HI Admin,

    Thanks for the heads up update. With latest VR , I wonder what 5 stop gain will be like. It will look good on the expected 800mm F/5.6 VR. I suppose all the Tele lens will be updated with the new system in the coming months.

    • I am not sure about the 800 f/5.6, but the word on the street is that the 80-400mm lens will have the new VR – this is why Nikon delayed it for so long.

      • hi admin,

        Will the 80-400 vr afs going to be available soon next year?
        any idea?


  • NickW

    The weight loss is impressive. Hoping it’s not due to using “too cheap” plastic on the lens barrel.

    The new VR is impressive too. After VRII was out, I thought 4 stops is the limit. Now Nikon is telling us 5 stops!! Nice!

    From the price point, if the MSRP is at 2k level (or even 1.5k level), this is not the poor-man tele zoom. This is the rich-man-walking tele zoom. Mm… btw, Nikon still sells new the AF 80-200/2.8. And it costs 1k. Maybe this f/2.8 non-VR real poor-man tele zoom will still be in the production line for a while.


    • Pablo Ricasso

      Probably not much plastic at all.
      Probably a bit under 1500 in the US
      Probably settle to about 1250 or 1299, about HALF the price of the other.
      Probably sharp as can be.

      • that would be a dream of a lens for me 🙂

      • Big J

        What I’m worried about is the fact that to achieve great sharpness on the 70-200mm f4 would have to be with stopping it down. With the 80-200 ED AF you had to stop it to f4 to avoid the soft 2.8 (at certain lengths of course). Would be great to see later on images of it shot wide open at different lengths to see how it will compare to the AF-D model because there are still plenty of fans of that lens and I think moving up to this one would be nice apart from lighter with nice tech inside.

  • Mike M

    If the price comes in high, which it might, and it’s performance is unrivaled in it’s class, it could still be a huge seller. Heck I got a smoking deal on my 70-200 VR1 and several other deals from older gentlemen who had to give up their DSLR or give up their heavy kit because they just couldn’t carry it anymore. Being a younger guy it doesn’t bother me, but don’t underestimate what age can do to a person. Instead of making fun of old guys, be nice to them on forums and make offers on their stuff, frequently ease of sale is their priority not squeezing every cent out of their gear, get your manly on and carry the heavy gear that’s best and don’t worry about how someone else lives.

    • Really well put Mike M.

      Different photographers require different gear for a whole host of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with technical issues or price. Looking at some of the outrageous comments on here made me think I was on a Canon forum.

  • Llewkcor Nek

    Sweet lens, but…

    from a DX p.o.v., my 70-300mm VR is beautiful from 70 to 200mm, good used copies are as common and cheap as dirt…oh, and it goes all the way to 300mm, which I use often (slight softness be damned).

    So $2000 for VR III , Nano coat, an extra 1/2 to 2/3 stop, but loose 200-300mm. Hmmmmm…

    A used 70-200mm 2.8 VR I, please.

    • Martijn

      try a 80-200mm 2.8 AF-S. it’s very sharp and focuses fast as hell.

  • ERik

    Half the Weight is really nice for travelling and Mountaineering.
    I would say that both the versions of the 70-200mm f2.8 and f4 have their places. The f2.8 is a seriously heavy lense for any type of movement above an easy stroll.

  • Suraj

    Apparently 2 versions of the lens will be launched….

    AF-S 70-200mm f4 ED VRIII (US$ 1,599)
    AF-S 70-200mm f4 ED (Non VR) (US$ 1,199)

    The source is 100% non-genuine (I just cooked it up right now) 😉

    Chill people….lets first wait and see what Nikon has to offer.

  • Rhyan

    I don’t get one thing – of course this lens is not a game changer, but Canon offer 5 versions – 3 IS and 2 non-stabilized. Nikon do not offer 80-200 and in some countries even the vr1 version of 70-200. How come these guys don’t get it yet – there is an enormous demand. Instead we get a 1-v2 compact…

    Let’s see how it will perform, but if it does it like the 24-120, i will keep the 70-300 vr.

    • Andrew

      You sound like you never actually shoot with the 24-120 f4.

      Time to take those blinkers in your avatar photo off, you might actually see that lens for what it really is, a fantastic, sharp & crisp constant aperture mid-range telephoto.

      • Pablo Ricasso


        Well put.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          Really? Someday I might try that lens…

      • desmo

        I own and shoot both lens the 24-120 F4 is sharper by more than an order of magnitude

  • Twaddler Belafonte

    Hopefully it won’t share the same crappy close-focus heavy breathing disabilities as the 2.8/VRII! If it does, i could never buy. :\

  • nobody

    5 stops of gain from VRIII sounds nice, but how much does that mean in real life? How many subjects will be steady enough for 1/4s exposure time? Not too many, I’m afraid.

    • RC

      How did you come up with 1/4th of a second? For my 85mm, I have to use at least 1/160 for sharp images. For a 200mm lens, that would translate to 1/400th of a second. 5 stops down would be 1/13 of a second. Even if I were to make a 1/4th second exposure, it could be of a stationary object.

      • iamlucky13

        Since it’s a 70-200, translate that 1/13 to the 70mm end. The result is about 1/4.

        It also depends on your tolerance for blur. If you need perfectly sharp results and are shooting on a D800, I completely understand why you’d want to stick with 1/2F unstabilized shutter speed.

        If you’re shooting with a D700 or don’t need to print full res and have a steadier than average hand, I would not be utterly incredulous to hear of someone getting usable telephoto images at 1/4s if the VR is as good as claimed.

        However, since with the existing VRII lenses, the performance is very depending on the character of the vibrations, and the actual results are usually characterized by independent reviewers as 2 to 4 stops improvement, I’m sure the same sort of range applies to VRIII, meaning 3-5 stop improvement. It will still be very hard to get a clean 1/4s shot with a telephoto.

  • Twaddler Belafonte

    Hopefully it won’t share the same crappy close-focus heavy breathing disabilities as the 2.8/VRII! If it does, i could never buy. :\

    • Ken Mockwell

      You need to go back and do another test…and stop reading uneducated lens reviews from uninformed folk on the Web.

    • RC

      How has the focus breathing affected your work?

      • Johnny Boy

        He can barely breath 😉

        Gee, some people…

  • Cintel7

    Waiting for either this or the new Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC (~$1300) for enthusiast use

    • desmo

      too each his own I ‘d rather have Nikon quality at f4,
      than 3rd party at f2.8

      • RC

        When I buy an F2.8 lens, I buy it to use at F2.8. An can’t use F2.8 on an F4 lens.

        • desmo

          so you don’t care about quality just feeding your ego with a number (2.8)

          it’s one stop—

          As the Eagles say

          ” get over it”

  • porkchop

    The Ebay price for a new 70-200 vr ll is about $2100 usd with shipping included . This needs to have a Ebay price no more than $1,500. Anything over $1,600-$1,700 is to much and will only be sold to idiots or people who cant handle the weight of the 70-200 2.8vr

  • Richard Pierce

    Barnaby Britton from dpreview has received their copy few hours ago, just caught up with him in th elast hour. He is however unwilling to divulge any info as he’s bound by the NDA agreement, so needs to wait until midnight EST. Only few hours to go! Yay!

    • Andrew

      Wow, good on them. So I’m guessing that is their 70-200 f4 copy for hands-on review purposes?

  • Nikonuser
  • Jabs
  • Jabs

    Hooray – new 70-200 F4 = $1399.00 US List price PLUS optional Tripod Collar – ouch.

    —- The AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR will be available in late November 2012 for a suggested retail price (SRP) of $1,399.95*. Nikon also offers an optional Tripod Collar, available in the near future for a suggested retail price (SRP) of $223.95

  • Back to top