Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR vs. 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II specs comparison

Here is a quick specification comparison between the new Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR and the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II lenses:

Model AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
Focal Length Range 70-200mm 70-200mm
Zoom Ratio 2.9x 2.9x
Maximum Aperture f/4 f/2.8
Minimum Aperture f/32 f/22
Format FX/35mm FX/35mm
Maximum Angle of View (DX-format) 22°50' 22°50'
Minimum Angle of View (DX-format)
Maximum Angle of View (FX-format) 34°20' 34°20'
Minimum Angle of View (FX-format) 12°20' 12°20'
Maximum Reproduction Ratio 1.36x 0.25x
Lens Elements 20 21
Lens Groups 14 16
Compatible Format(s) FX
FX in DX Crop Mode
35mm Film
VR (Vibration Reduction) Image Stabilization Yes Yes
Diaphragm Blades 9 9
Nano Crystal Coat Yes Yes
ED Glass Elements 3 7
Aspherical Elements -- --
Super Integrated Coating Yes Yes
AF-S (Silent Wave Motor) Yes Yes
Internal Focusing Yes Yes
Minimum Focus Distance 3.28ft. 4.6ft.(1.4m)
Focus Mode AF, Manual Auto
Filter Size 67mm 77mm
Accepts Filter Type Screw-on Screw-on
Dimensions (Approx.)3.1x7.0in. (Diameter x Length)
78.0x178.5mm (Diameter x Length)
(Approx.)3.4x8.1in. (Diameter x Length)
87x205.5mm (Diameter x Length)
Weight (Approx.)30.0oz.(850g) (Approx.)54.3oz.(1540g)
Lens Design
MTF Chart Wide
MTF Chart Tele
Price $1,399.95 $2,396.95

It is also worth mentioning that the RT-1 Tripod Collar Ring for the new 70-200mm f/4 lens is not included in the $1,399.95 lens price - you can purchase it separately for $180.

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

    1.36x repro ratio?!? Whoa!

    • RK

      It has lost a foot of the close focus distance compared to the 2.8 but still, 1.36x would make it the best macro lens in the lineup.

      However the f2.8 rep ratio is wrong it is not 0.25x it is about 0.12x (ish) from practical experience.

      Therefore it is easy to believe the f4 is also wrong, or more likely the marketing department not understanding the numbers given to them.

      • RK

        Nikon’s UK site has the rep ratio at 0.274x as opposed to the 1.36x above from the USA site.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          I thought it would focus down to around three feet. That’s what the old 70-214 f4 would do. It’s harder to get a fast lens to close focus.
          Also, .274x is another way to say 1: 3.6.

          • Chimphappyhour

            This makes waaaay more sense.

    • Little Nobody

      The reproduction ratio is obviously wrong. If you do serious macro-photography, you will know why. Since 1/d+1/s=1/f(s=distance of object, d=distance of image, f is the focal length) and the reproduction ratio is (maximum of d)/(minimum of s). We know that the minimium focus distance is 3.28ft and it is the sum of (maximum of d) and (minimum of s). To make it easy, just solve the equations we get in a graphing calculator. There should be two solutions in the first quadrant. The one with s bigger than d is the right answer because usually your lens is shorter than the distance between your lens and the object. If you did every thing perfect, it should come up with something about 0.3-0.4.

      And by the way. It’s for the admin. Does it suggest anything if you post the MTF curves for both lenses at different apertures? Even a 80-400 lens can do better @ f4.0 vs. 70-200 f2.8 @ f2.8. It may mislead people who are comparing these two lenses.

      • Little Nobody

        Need to make a correction that since 80-400 doesn’t have f4.0, it should be corrected as 80-400@5.6 (or 4.5).

      • Carsten

        The magnification is 0.274, but this information allows an interesting calculation: The 70-400/4 will become a 170mm at closest focus, this is not too much focus breathe, the VR2 becomes a 135mm at closest focus.

        Videographers will love this

  • soap

    Admin, I can’t scroll the comparison table horizontally here on my 800px wide display, making it completely unreadable.

    • nobody

      same problem here with Firefox 17. it works with IE9 though… the problem seem to be the pictures in the table.

      • RK


      • DB



        • anlsx


          • nik

            works on IE not on Firefox

      • eNron

        Same problem here. I was able to work around the issue by copying and pasting into an HTML aware application to view the rest of the right hand side of the table.

      • coloretric


      • Rudi

        +1 Firefox doesn’t work, Safari is doing well. I already thougth the problem is on my site…

    • quintana

      Me neither on a 1920 px wide display…

      • Joe

        Same here.

        • On my 27″ iMac, I have the same issue. Obviously, a simple formatting error. 10 sec fixing the CSS and it’ll be fine.

      • jec6613

        Same issue on a 3840 wide display. 🙂

        • An annonimous photog

          I use 2 screens of 2500 each combined, and it’s not good here too

          • DolphLundgren

            I use 2 screens of 3840 each combined, and … still no go 😉

    • neversink

      works fine on Safari or Chrome…. Who needs FF anymore? Who really wants IE?

      • That Browser Issue


      • Larry

        Likewise, works in Safari and Chrome but not in FF or IE.

        Unfortunately, I am stuck with IE as that is the only browser my work supplier supports…all others need not apply. For years, nobody bought a Mac as a work computer until the recent development of Kurio as a (slow) workaround. Hate it when a company defers to their programmers bias and laziness, rather than requiring the product to support their customer base.

      • I still WANT firefox – it has support for a lot of things that Safari doesn’t (Firebug, Fireftp Adlblock Plus (the Safari version isn’t as comprehensive, .). I could go on and on about the great tools for FF, but won’t.

        I’ve tried them all, still prefer FF, even on my Macs.

    • bob


      I cannot see the right side column using either FF16 or IE9 on Windows 7-64 bit.

    • I made some changes – hopefully I fixed it.

  • schnipp

    “Maximum Reproduction Ratio 1.36x” seems a bit on the high side… 😉

    • Thomas

      That reproduction ratio is BS. It is 1: 3.6

    • Scott M.

      What does “maximum reproduction ratio” mean, anyway?

      • Thomas

        1:3.6 equals a magnification of 0.28.

      • chlamchowder

        Reproduction ratio refers to how big you can get a subject to show up on the sensor.
        A 1:1 reproduction ratio means that the subject’s actual size is projected onto the image sensor (or film). So, a 36mm wide subject would fill the frame horizontally on a full frame sensor with a lens focused down to 1:1.
        A 1:4 reproduction ratio would mean that the image projected onto the sensor is 1/4 the size of the actual subject. That’s still a pretty decent performance, especially with the new 24 or 36 MP sensors, which allow a lot of cropping room.

      • “maximum reproduction ratio” describes macro ability for lens.
        1:1 means object 5 mm wide will place 5 mm on sensor or film.

        1:1 is very good macro lens
        1:4 is enough for Sigma call lens MACRO.

        For quality telezooms common is 1:5…1:6
        So 1:3 is very good for 70-200.

        • Scott M.

          Thank you gentlemen.

          • Global

            Booo… this should have been a TRUE macro (1:1).

            So what the heck… is there going to be a 200 macro or not? 105 is not long enough!

            • neversink

              What the heck??? There is a 200mm macro…. It’s been on the market for nearly 20 years. Incredible lens, me thinks. Could use an upgrade many would say, but I say leave it alone. The lens is incredibly sharp….

    • Meinrad

      Both repro ratios are wrong. The new lens has a repro-ratio of 1:3.6 (not 1.36), while the f/2.8 lens has a repro-ratio of 1:8.3. The new lens achieves this at 1m, the f/2.8 lens achieves this at 1.4m focus distance. If the f/2.8 could be focused to 1m (it can’t, but I use this for comparison reasons), then its repro-ratio would be about 1:5.9.
      The difference can be explained by the strong focus breathing of the f/2.8, which is obviously (almost) absent on the f/4.o, contrary to some of the (very uninformed) comments that were made on earlier news items on the NR blog.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        The old 70-210 f4 works great for macro. This is probably better.

      • Pedantic

        At closest focus the f4 comes in at 170mm. Hardly “almost absent”.

        But yes, way better than the f2.8 VRII which ought to be labeled 70-125/200mm.

  • CJ

    If the picture quality from 16-35mm were any indication, we could expect this lens is a winner too. We will have to see…

    • Thomas

      Well, the 16-35 has its flaws…
      So I’d reserve judgment on the 70-200/4.0 until I’ve personally tested one.

      • desmo

        check the MTF plots
        this lens performs on par with the 70-200 2.8
        at the wide end the 2.8 has better overall sharpness at center with roll off at the edges
        the f4 has better edge to edge sharpness
        at the tele end the f4 is just plain sharper
        i’m sure at f4 the 2.8 will improve but probably won’t exceed what the f4’s plot shows
        both are very good MTF plots

        • Pablo Ricasso

          Thanks for reading that to me. I couldn’t view it myself. I thought it would be a slight improvement. It will be interesting to see how they compare at the same apertures.

        • Worminator

          “i’m sure at f4 the 2.8 will improve but probably won’t exceed what the f4′s plot shows”

          I think otherwise.

          • Rudi

            My 2.8 has it’s sharpest performance at f4.5. I don’t think the new 70-200 f4 will have it’s sharpest performance at 4.5. Wishful thinking of those who will buy it.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              My 70-210 is much sharper at 4 than my old push pull 2.8 zoom. No comparison. So you may be surprised. At that price, it better be good.

  • Sebastian

    And weathersealing?

    *crosses fingers

    • Thomas

      The cross-section does not indicate a rubber-grommet, unfortunately.

      • Sebastian

        well that’s shit…. 🙁

        • desmo

          might wait and see,
          hard to believe it doesn’t have weather sealing at least the gasket as nikon includes this on many upper consumer lenses that are not gold ring

          • Sebastian

            Guess i should just be patient for a while, it’s indeed hard to believe there won’t be any protection…

  • Gly

    Ok Nikon,

    Time to get to work on updating that 80-400 VR…

    • Thomas


      • St.

        + a lot

    • Craig

      No. A 400mm f4

      • desmo

        +1 on afs 400 f4 Vr

        • Photoretouchpro

          I’d take a 400mm 5.6 vr

          • Jan F. Rasmussen

            Exactly, a 400/5.6 is what we need!

            • desmo

              400 at 5.6 you have little room for teleconverter,
              if you want 400 5.6
              buy a 1.4 converter for your 300 f4

  • Tripod collar ring …. 180$ …. It’s plain embarrassing as Nikon knows exactly, that it’s needed for the long lens. Meh, I keep my 70-200.

    • Thomas

      Well, at 850 grams it’s even lighter than the 24-70/2.8G. So should easily mount w/o collar on the body alone

    • BartyL

      It weighs less than the 24-70 f/2.8G AF-S, which does not require its own tripod mount.

      • +1 Spot on

      • Jay

        178.5mm 70-200 vs. 13.21mm 24-70. Guess which would apply more torque force about the lens mount? Especially when you think Nikon lenses are front-heavy.

        • preston

          Haha, nice try Jay. I’d check where you put the decimal points there – the 70-200 is not more than 13 x’s longer than the 24-70. The 24-70 is 132.1mm, not 13.21.

          • Jay

            Ahh, you’re right..Let me try again; 70-200 is a whopping 35.12% longer than the 24-70.. :))))) Can I be more dramatic? You bet.. 😉

    • karl

      Nikon doesn’t care whether you keep your 70-200 f2.8 or not.
      What’s more important is how many enthusiasts buy this lens as their first telephoto zoom, or as an upgrade from the 70-300.

      • jodjac33

        Put me down for one!

    • desmo

      your beating a dead horse this whine has been discussed over and over buy it you want it save the money if you don’t or put the money towards the 3rd party mount of your choosing.

      offering the lens at a price point without the mount makes sense as this will primarily be a hand held lens

      • iamlucky13

        I can live with them not including the mount for a lens of this size and weight, although the length makes the lack of mount more significant than for wider angle lenses of similar weight, because the total torque on your tripod head is greater.

        The price is insane, however.

        Fortunately, I’ve got some machining skills. If I buy this lens, I will definitely be making my own and saving a couple hundred dollars.

        • bigeater

          If you have the equipment set up to make one, you might as well make a dozen. When do you start taking orders?

          • iamlucky13

            That is a tempting proposition, but honestly, assuming I were making these in quantity with the sort of equipment currently available to me, they’d be around $200 each because of the time each one would take and the value of necessary equipment.

            As is, my employer lets me use the mills to a limited degree after hours, so I don’t have to pay standard machine shop rates to make just one, and making one myself would be good job skill practice.

            If I wanted to make thousands of these, I wouldn’t be machining the basic shapes like I would for making a handful, but using extrusions or castings. The set up costs would be high (likely over $20,000), but the individual costs would be much lower (likely less than $50).

            It could be a profitable, or I could find myself trapped in a limbo between the market for those pay extra for a name brand like Really Right Stuff, and those who buy the cheapest thing available and get the plastic Chinese collars off Ebay for $10.

            I’m afraid I’m not feeling that entrepreneurial at the moment.

            • Dr Motmot

              I think you should sell your tripod collars for $180

  • Jonathan

    Nikon, you are ticking me off with your greed. Why sell the necessary tripod collar separate for $180. I could likely make my own for much less. This is just like selling that vertical grip for $450 – $600. Complete BS.

    • BartyL

      It doesn’t need a tripod collar (see posts above).

    • Bret M

      I wouldn’t call it greed necessarily, and this lens probably isn’t heavy enough to require one… but I agree, there’s no reason a lens of this price shouldn’t include the ring. Then again, I don’t think Canon does on their 70-200 f/4, but theirs is a solid $200 cheaper.

      The d800 vertical grip is down to $399 right now btw. Higher than we want but not insanely unreasonable, such as when it came out at $550 or whatever craziness that was.

      As for the MTF, I’ll be the f/2.8 will be at least equal to this lens at the same aperture settings. Don’t expect it to “be sharper at 200mm” because you’re comparing two different aperture numbers there. At the same settings they’ll both likely be extremely similar, Nikon isn’t going to show up their own lens which was just recently announced itself (well, like a few years ago. Still relatively new).

    • PeterO

      There are much cheaper alternatives to the Nikon grip and rest assured there will also be alternatives for the collar. You just need to decide if the quality is what you want.

    • yrsued

      Canon would never do that…..

      Wait, they have been doing it for years!!

      I have two of the 70-200 2.8 VRII’s and I remove the Tripod foot when I shoot, I only use the Kirk Foot when I put the lens on a Tripod!!

      You don’t need a Tripod foot for this light and small lens!!

      When I shoot a national lever 3 Gun match, this lens is a God Send!! Six 10 hour days in a row can get tiring with the 2.8 lens!!

      • neversink

        +1 – Correct… no need for mounting collar on this….
        This lens is not for me. Am keeping my 2.8… Love it, except for the weight….

      • Hans

        ok, I will buy your f/2.8 lens.
        $ 800

        • Me too


    • spock

      Right! $180 for the collar!? are you serious! $400 for a grip!?

      Crazy amount of money for what? It just makes me wonder what Im getting for the $3000 camera im buying?

      Nikon……3rd party mfg’s are licking there lips on this one.

      Simple greed.

  • Jack

    A 2.8 af-s 70-200 without VR at this price point would be great. Heck. Canon does it

    • Bret M

      Sadly not anymore, the non IS is discontinued.

      Personally I’d rather have a 70-200 f/2.8 without VR if it were around $1500 or so. I’m steady enough in most situations, and in sports VR is utterly useless. In fact, since VR by design basically force de-centers the lens, I’d actually rather have a non-VR for portraiture.

      Though I understand its place, a stabilized 70-200 would do wonders for me when photographing a wedding ceremony where I can’t move around much… I’ve been using a 105 f/2.8 until I can scrape up the cash.

    • Marc

      They do it is is the 80-200mm 2.8D for Price: $1,079.00
      *yes i know its it 80-200mm not 70-200mm and it doesn’t have an SWF auto focus motor ,but its a very good lens. Its cheap enough to put the extra into upgrading to a body with auto focus motor if your at the low end

      • Patrick

        +1. I love my 80-200 D!

        • F200

          +80-200…. it’s a wee bit heavy, but the IQ is definitely worth it.

  • Fishnose

    Admin, I can only see half the table (left half) in Firefox.

    • neversink

      Stop whining… Get rid of Firefos… Forget IE.. Use Chrome or Safari…

  • At $180 for the collar, I was a bit miffed. But since it won’t be long before a better one can be had from Really Right Stuff, it actually saves people from paying for the Nikon version just to swap it out anyway! Even still we are talking about $1600 for an F/4 zoom telephoto with collar; this is quite pricy when for a couple hundred more you can buy a used 70-200 f/2.8 VR1, with a one stop advantage. For $800 less, you can find an 80-200 AF-D f /2.8. Unless you absolutely need to save weight and a bit of money, that one stop loss is not an easy pill to swallow. For those of you nay sayers to the collar, you may have forgotten a really usefull aspect of having one. The monopod. A long lens like this with a collar will balance better on a monopod than attatching the camera directly to the mono. And if you think you are going to use this lens to capture low light scenes or High School football at night from the bleachers, you better spend the money on a collar and a monopod. VR is nice, but VR with a monopod gives you more, and at f/4 you are going to need the help.

    • Christobella

      Lots of good sense here, all good advice. I can add from experience that a monopod is also extremely useful when shooting DSLR video in a hurry – eg following unpredictable actuality footage. Wobbly DSLRs are never good in that environment, but a permanently attached monopod gives you a fighting chance – move it, plant it, shoot.

    • RC

      Not sure where you’re getting your prices from but you can get a used 70-200mm F2.8 VR1 for around $1200.

      • desmo

        pretty hard to do
        try $1600 on up at Adorama or BH for good one

        with craiglist or ebay you have an element of risk ,
        not only hidden damaged , but hong kong knock offs,
        legit nikon dealers in hong kong charge same as nikon US,
        the cheap ones sold on the street are buyer beware,
        a lot of that makes it to crigslist and the auction site

      • Joe Chuckwagon

        This is VERY VERY rare. Usually they go for $1600 used.

        • Rob

          I’ve never seen one go for more than $1450, and seen plenty go for around $1300. You are getting RIPPED OFF.

        • Rob

          And to put that into perspective, they sold for $1650 brand new (this was before Nikon’s price controls, obviously). You think the normal rate for a used one without any warranty is 97% the new price.

          I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

          • Mike M

            Quoting the original MSRP is irrelevant, see the 28 f1.4 that sold for almost twice what it’s new price was at one point. Inflation and supply vs demand (or in this case new item price, since the VR2 came in well over 2000) keep the VR1 afloat. Though I will agree, the average selling price is somewhere in the 1300-1400 range for a nice copy of the VR1 on ebay. That’s frankly still really high for a residual value of the lens. If you have good street cred on a real forum you might eek out 1450-1500 for a real gem.

  • Chris P

    The comparison I would like to see is the actual focal length range of the f2.8 and f4 designs. I believe with the Canon lenses the f2.8’s true range is something like 72 to 196 mm, whereas the f4 version is much shorter at 74 to 189 mm, so in rounding the figures it should be really be described as a 75-190 mm lens, not 70 to 200, but that wouldn’t look so good in the sales literature would it.

  • I’d really like to see the f/2.8 lens updated with its MTF at f/4. It’s a completely unfair comparison to compare the f/2.8 lens at f/2.8 to the f/4 lens at f/4. A better comparison is the two lenses at f/4. Light obviously falls off at the edges as the aperture gets bigger.

    NR: can you also add the f/2.8 MTF charts at f/4?

    • I Like

      Unfortunately Nikon does only publish MTF charts for its lenses wide open. I wish they’d publish also the MTF charts at f8 as Canon does (or used to do?). This would make comparison between different lenses much easier.

    • desmo

      people need to read my previous post, I pointed out that the f2.8 mtf was at f2.8 and would clean up some at f4,
      but hears the deal,
      unlike tamron and some others whose f2.8 lenses are only f2.8 for marketing purpose they can expose at f2.8 if you can handle the loss in quality,
      Nikon and Canon f2.8 lenses are sharp at f2.8 (you get what you pay for)
      as such it will improve when stopped down to F4 but not alot as its sharp already
      so I’m not dissing the AFs70-200 f2,8 I’m saying its a good benchmark to indicate the 70-200 F4 exceeds expectation for a lens at its price range

  • MB

    Specs looks fantastic … and the price is just right …
    I am sure we will have cheaper collar from China soon enough and better one from Kirk.
    It is almost real macro too, if only it works well with TC 1.4 (as well as 300 f/4 does).
    The only thing that I don’t like is 67mm filter, why not 72mm if the intention was to complement 24-85 VR or better yet standard 77mm?
    But overall I do like it very much

    • Pablo Ricasso

      It might go well with a new 50 or a 28.

    • iamlucky13

      Better yet, why wasn’t the 24-85 a 67mm filter?

      I believe Nikon has more existing lenses with 67mm filters than with 72mm filters, and since smaller filters are cheaper and more convenient, it would be to the benefit, however small, of the users to standardize on the smaller size if possible.

      • EnPassant

        The old AF-S 24-85 use 67 mm filters! 😉

  • francisco

    67mm filter size, what??!!! c’mon nikon, what were you thinking??!!!

    • They were probably thinking that this lens is quite a bit smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 version and 77mm is too big?

      • St.

        +1 :))

        • RC

          yeah, who cares what filter size it uses… If you do, use adapters.

      • Rudi

        What? Mine is not the biggest?

    • Nic

      They were thinking along the lines of their:

      24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-s VR
      28mm f/1.8 AF-s
      35mm f/1.4, 24–85 AF-s VR
      85 f/1.8 AF-s

      Seems like it’s the newish standard.

  • Michael

    I still have a few days to return the 135 f/2 dc I bought and this lens looks PHENOMENAL. The MTF charts are very very impressive. Should I return the 135 f/2 and get this?

    Also, I see no mention of weather sealing; is this lens weather sealed?

    • @Michael,
      Keep the 135 f/2 DC, its a bargin for a fast medium tele. If you want faster and longer, next stop is the $5K 200mm f/2 VRII. For tight portrait shots with beautiful bokeh, that 135 rocks! Plus you get a two stop advantage with the 135! And let us not forget the subtle bokeh control you get with DC.

      • Jabs

        @Dr SCSI – Next up is a 180mm F2.8 ED-IF.

    • KitB

      Keep the 135 f/2DC. Use it to shoot anything between 135mm and 200mm and then crop a little – it’ll still look better because you can control the out-of-focus bits and it’s still sharper than almost anything out there. For shorter stuff, if you’ve not got one already, bag an 85mm f1.8 to go with it, which is a cracking little lens – and the new ones are weather sealed too. OK so there’s no VR, but both of these have two stops more and are easier to keep still when handheld, so there’s less shake going on.

      MTF charts tell a good story, but it’s not the whole story about what makes a lens good.

      • bigeater

        The only thing about the 135DC is that it has mad purple/green fringing that doesn’t go away till around f/5.6. It’s not really a problem with people, but if you’re shooting anything else, you spend a lot of time correcting for it. OTOH, I don’t know of any other lens like it that’s much better in this regard.

  • Clearly there are TONS of people here who have never shot with either the Canon 70-200 f/4’s, or the Sigma 50-150 2.8’s…

    YOU DON’T NEED A TRIPOD COLLAR! It is total overkill… I’ve been shooting rock-steady tripod shots with a Sigma 50-150 2.8 for years, and I’ve been doing it with some of the tiniest little ballheads too.

    Nikon is the king of including necessary accessories. They’ve been including hoods with practically every single lens in production WAY before Canon; Canon was notorious for not including hoods and then charging a ridiculous amount for a piece of plastic.

    Give the 70-200 f/4 VR a chance, from the looks of things it’s going to be an incredible performer for landscape photographers. I’m very glad they left the tripod collar out; it saves me money and weight!


    • Carsten

      +1, the 24-70 doesn’t have a tripod collar neither (not much difference in size and weight)

      I have shot the 70-200 once from a tripod attached to the body (I have left the foot in my other bag). Not ideal (hard to frame), but the shots came out perfect.

  • macan garonk

    …i would thought a lens that big should cover at least 300mm on the tele end, maxing out at 200mm is just asking for trouble (comparing the f2.8 ver)

    • neversink

      then get the 70-300…

  • Ex-Nikon user

    Now, Nikon needs a 50-500 f4.5-5.6. If Sigma can do it (Bigma), why not Nikon?

    • RC

      Because it wouldn’t perform up to Nikon’s standards. The Sigma gets soft past 200mm according to slrgear.

  • zinzun

    well – first thing I have done when bought my 70-200 VR II was to buy a replacement foot for $140 more, I also wish the colar could go off completely sometimes so I find the new design as an advantage.
    imagine it would come with the collar in the box and cost $100 more – would it be better? I don’t think so. Instead of saying Nikon is greedy for the collar, think about them trying to actually be creative and cut the initial cost of the lens, I would prefer the same with my 2.8 version…

    • RC

      I seriously doubt a little metal is going to affect their actual cost.

      • BartyL

        No, not since materials, design and production are all cost-free these days.

        • Fishnose

          Not to mention distribution, marketing and salaries.

        • Rudi


        • RC

          Yeah, all that work that goes into designing a metal ring that’s cast.

  • Ovrkast

    I was on the Nikon site reading that this lens would work with the line up of tele-converters and only with the Nikon D4, D800, and D600. Does this mean it would work with the TC2-E III and will still be able to utilize AF? I just don’t see this lens on the compatibility chart yet…maybe its too new and hasn’t been updated on the chart? Sorry, but I’ve never played with tele-converters and reading about some lenses maybe cause damage to the contact connectors of a $500 tele-converter is rather daunting 🙁

    • Drazen B

      Yes you can use the TC-20 III with this lens but keep in mind you loose 2 f-stops so the max aperture will be f/8. All three cameras you mention will support AF at f/8 but you’re limited with a single centre cross-type sensor, four line sensors (non-cross type) left and right from the centre sensors and one line sensor above and one below the centre sensor. So while degraded in a sense and not great for many shooting situations, it’s still functional.

      See more here for example that talks about D800:

      • Ovrkast

        Thank you Drazen! I recently purchased the D600 and I am loving it. Although I have handled the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII, it is way too heavy for my liking and it appears that the f/4 line-up is suiting me well (currently own the 24-120 f/4). I think shooting at f/8 in decent lighting with a range of 400mm using the TC2-EIII would be great! I was just concerned that it was not listed in the compatibility chart, but strangely noticed that Nikon was promoting the capabilities of this lens using a tele-converter on their main site and in the PR release.

        • Drazen B

          Yeah, those compatibility charts take time to update 😉

          I also have 24-120 f4 and love it to bits. BTW, if you have D600 you should consider 70-200 f/4, at least I would if I owned D600 as it shoudl provide better size/weight balance with that camera model than it would with the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII.

          70-200 f/2.8 on a larger camera like D700, D800 or D4 is a great fit and balances well, but for D600 would be an overkill from size point of view, IMO.

          Whatever you chose to go with – enjoy the hobby and keep shooting!

          • Ovrkast

            I totally agree and it is in my list to buy =)

    • iamlucky13

      It is probable that other cameras will work with this lens + the TC-20 as long as the lighting and subject contrast are decent. Plenty of users of the 200-400mm have reported AF works with the TC-20 as long as you don’t push things.

      Nikon does not advertise these as compatible combinations, however, because you will too many find situations where AF fails to lock.

  • DaveyJ

    @Ovrkast: It will work with TC 1.4-TC2.0. This is a great lens. Leaving the tripod ring off was BETTER. The 70-300VR doesn’t have a tripod ring for about the same reason! To bad Nikon can’t revamp its 80-400VR which will result in MANY sales and MANY happy users.

    • Ovrkast

      I can’t wait DaveyJ! I am loving the f/4 line-up…16-35 f/4, 24-120 f/4 (currently own), and 70-200 f/4 (next on my list) =)

    • EnPassant

      Nikon propably will update the 80-400 in a year or two when everybody who couldn’t wait for it already bought this 70-200/4 to use it with teleconverters!

  • Lee Saxon

    Please learn the limitations and formatting of the coded-by-someone-else backend you paste your articles into from Notepad, Word, Facebook, your email, etc.

    I’m so sick of dealing with issues like this, in 2012 no less, it’s absurd. How do you make it in today’s world without knowing ANYTHING about computers?

    • Pablo Ricasso

      Lee…wrong forum/thread/post ?!….planet?

      Whacha going on about, Willis?

    • Nikon Joe

      Really Lee ???
      Sounds a bit harsh to me…..go have a beer and chill out 🙂

    • Fishnose

      Hey, having a bad day, huh?
      You of course NEVER make mistakes, do you.


    Use Chrome to see right column

  • Spy Black

    At least the tripod collar ring is made in Japan…

  • With this one in the pocket they might want to finally do us a 400 or 500 mm f/5.6…

  • GfK

    Please tell me why should somebody who cares about image quality buy this lens?
    The 70-200 f/2.8 is the BEST lens I have ever hold.
    I am speaking solely about I.Q.
    Color rendering, contrast and detail are several levels above other lenses

    the post is fine in google reader, I just saw it in original and it is screwed.

    • An annonimous photog

      I think it might be a good question. Especially in relation to the 70-300mm and even 28-300mm.

      And then there is the competition of Tokina. The probable have been waiting with the release of it till they knew the price of the Nikkor.

    • desmo

      because based on MTF and samples on link posted in earlier comment string on this site the image quality is quite good

  • penoud

    IE, Firefox not work, Chrome work well

  • Event Horizon

    A number of people may contemplate upgrading from 70-300 (old and new versions) to the new 70-200. Others may be comparing the two. It may be worthwhile to compare the specs and IQ of the 70-300 with the new 70-200.

  • Jon Moss

    Regarding the tripod collar for the 70-200 f4 which some say won’t be needed due to the comparitive compactness and light weight, how much danger IS there of it distorting the ‘plastic’ (but probably high quality polycarbonate) front panel of a D600 for example, when ‘hanging off the front’ of a body just secured by the body’s tripod bush?
    Although this lens will obviously appeal to various folks, it’s evidently intended by Nikon to be a companion to the D600 so, due to camera’s construction, using the collar might be a prudent decision.

    • arbee

      the 24-70 f/2.8 is a heavier lens but i don’t see anyone recommending a tripod collar for it when attached to even low end DX bodies.

    • desmo

      good question its always best to be safe, my rational is ,which is heavier, camera body or lens?
      in this case the lens wt is 850 grams and camera with battery is 850 grams,
      so it wouldn’t matter either way.
      the 850 grams above was from nikon imaging site

  • Brian

    Will Nikon release 70-200/2.8 VRIII and 24-70/2.8 VRIII? Do you think?

    • Big J

      Chances are yeah, people are gonna go crazy for it. Although not sure about the 24-70 having VR. Canon did it with theirs and people aren’t fond of the big price difference (although it was in desperate need of an update).

      • Zeev

        Canon actually did *not* do it with theirs, and are getting a lot of backlash for it. Both Canon and Nikon are losing business to Tamron on that particular front now – the only vendor with VR on a 24-70 f/2.8.

  • 70-200mm f2.8 and 80-200mm f2.8 didn’t used to come with tripod collars, back in the old days and we didn’t need them either.
    This 70-200mm f4 seems like a pretty good lens so far, but I’ve only see Nikons little dinky photo samples from it so far.
    If I wasn’t already using a 70-200mm f2.8 already, I might be interested.
    NOW they need to make/have/produce a, 100-400mm f4 G lens for $1399.
    Now that would be something to have! I would definitely buy one of those.
    But they better hurry, as I’m also looking at Sigma’s 120-400mm.

  • Cliff

    Simply click on one of the charts (with FF, anyway) and you’ll get a pop-up window with that chart and back and forward arrows to navigate to other charts.

    • desmo

      are you refer to the mtf plots on nikon imaging site?
      I couldn’t get it to work

  • Jabs

    Good news on the new 70-200mm F4.

    The new AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR is comprised of 20 elements in 14 groups, and features a constant aperture of F4. Internal zoom and focus means that its length doesn’t change when zooming or focusing, and the closest focusing distance is 1 meter.

    • Big J

      Nice info. Also I thought that the focal length of the 70-200mm VRII WASN’T that actual length, but in fact like a 65-135mm (or something similar)? Can somebody clear this up for me?

      • Twaddler Belafonte

        Yah, that’s right.

        • Big J

          Well then… shouldn’t there be an extra line or bracket that gives the “true” focal length so that people can actually compare them? A lot of people are hoping to use them with TC and/or on DX bodies. Think it should be posted so that a better decision can be made between the two.

          • Well… The deviation from the stated numbers are not the same at all distances, at infinitum the 200 mm IS 200 mm 😉

            • ToastyFlake

              Even then some 200mm lenses aren’t really 200mm. The Tamron and Sigman lenses are actually less. If I remember right, 190MM and 185, respectively. Apparently rounding of focal lengths is acceptable practice.

      • desmo

        it may not be exactly 70-200 at all focus settings, but 65 probably too much and wrong direction, 135 would be way off to the point of being ludicrous

        • yo

          thats the case of the 70-200 2.8 VR2 at minimum focusing distance, 200mm is rather a 135mm

          • desmo

            you need to check your meds

            200 reduced to 135

            • ToastyFlake

              You need to check your facts. That’s right.

  • Mike

    Using IE 9 and can’t read both tables. Right table is cut off vertically.

  • malchick743

    Have looked at the comparison table and am concerned with one thing: is this f/4 lens compatible with film and FF in DX crop mode?

    And yes Peter, problem with viewing table under FF, please fix it

    • I hate to say it but it looks good to me – I don’t see any issues with the table.

  • Cristian

    A price of 1400$ and Nikon doesn’t include a tripod mount! You have to purchase it separately for extra 180$.
    Simply incredible….

    • Yes, incredible is right! Even worse is their additional prices for simple battery grips.
      But, you really don’t need a tripod mount for a 70-200mm in most cases.

  • neversink

    I’m sticking with the f2.8 70-200 – more ED glass through and through…

    • ToastyFlake

      I’m not. Bye-bye big beast.

  • John

    Table STILL broken using 3 different OS’s and 3 different browsers. You really should fix this even if you think it’s not broken.

  • ok, I fixed the table – it now works in IE and Firefox

  • Back to top