More Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR sample images

In addition to the first set of sample images from the new Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 I published few days ago, here are few more pictures found on flickr:

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

    These pics look good.
    I will be curious to see a comparison with the 70-200 f/2.8.

  • hunt

    looks good so far.

  • Photographysnapped

    Looks good want to see comparisons with the 2.8

  • Owen

    Took a look at the larger versions on Flickr. Definitely seems like a tack sharp lens.

    Any sharpness comparison with the f/2.8 is going to be splitting hairs. They’re both going to be ridiculously sharp in the hands of a competent photographer.

    What really sells me on the f/4 is weight, price and VRIII.

    • Camaleont

      Any Nikon link to see the explanation and differences of the VR1, 2, 3?
      If we ask Nikon support they just say “It is better” 🙁

      • Adam

        Basically each VR just means improvements by 1 stop, if I’m not mistaken VR3 is 5 stops?

        • Camaleont

          Yes, VRIII is 5 f/stop, you might be right, thank you!
          Look forward for VRVIII then 🙂

        • MB

          Actually Nikon advertised VR as 3 stops, VR II as 4 and VR III as 5 stops gain, your mileage may vary 😉

      • iamlucky13

        No, there is no Nikon explanation of the difference between VR 1, 2, and 3. They’re marketing terms that reflect the approximate performance, as opposed to specific feature sets that they could use to delineate things in absolute terms.

        So don’t get carried away trying to quantify them. We’ll just have to take Nikon’s word that they reflect “good, better, and best” performance levels.

        Also, these are 2.6 MP. They’re far short of what is needed to assess whether the lens is tack sharp or not. It’s a good bet it’s a great performer, but there’s not very many lenses currently in production that won’t look perfectly sharp at 2.6 MP.

        At least the Fredmiranda link below has a few 100% crops. Those look quite encouraging, including one the reviewer says he shot at 1/50 and 135mm.

    • Y Yudhistira

      Me had VRInfinity… a.k.a Tripod…. 😀

    • rich in tx

      what really kills it for me is f/4
      Indoors w/o flash… sorry

      • Mike M

        So buy a f2.8 instead, what was the point of this comment?

  • Camaleont

    This lens is 1/2 the weight of the 2.8, perhaps for that reason has no tripod collar, 67mm filters, one glass less inside and … $1,000 less!

    It might show more vignetting at f/4 compared to the 2.8 at f/4.
    Guess Nikon made it in the spirit of the D600, right?

    • Anthony

      They (finally!!) made it in the spirit of the Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS, which came out six years ago. This lens has been arguably the most glaring remaining hole in Nikon’s lens lineup, and had it existed a few years back I might well have bought a D700 instead of a 5D2, especially since the Nikon tax compared to the analogous Canon is only ~$200. The *real* comparison to see is between these two f/4 lenses, not against Nikon’s own f/2.8.

      A postbellum 135mm f/2 design is the next gaping hole in my view of Nikon’s lineup, though the rumor mill last year said that we’d never get one.

      • The biggest hole was the 24 1.4, which took Nikon 35 years to patch up. Yes… Canon made their first 24 1.4 in 1975. Just saying it’s not worth waiting if it’s not there now…

  • That macro (ish) shot of the flower has to be one of the least inspiring sample photos i’ve ever seen…

    • JED

      Really??? Wow – you apparently have not looked at many sample pics before….

      • RC

        It’s centered and not entirely in focus.

        • desmo

          he’s simply demo’ing BOKEH and critical depth of field,
          no other purpose for pic

    • Bengt Nyman

      Agreed. This is certainly not a close-up lens.

      • OsoSolitario

        …..Try to get the same close-up picture with the 70-200/2.8VRII

      • Pablo Ricasso

        Look at the front part of the thing all those other things are standing in. None of those things that you are looking at are in focus because none of them are in focus! They are all in back of the focal plane and by viewing how they progressively get blurrier as you work your way back you can see the narrowness of the depth of field. A GREAT close up lens.

    • Christobella

      Seems to me that this shot was probably included to illustrate how well the background can be made to melt away with a lens that ‘only’ opens to F4, and in that regard it illustrates the point very effectively. This will be one of the issues which will help buyers choose between this and the F2.8 lens.

  • Dotin

    Now waiting for the 135 1.8 or 300 f4 with VR

    • Twaddler Belafonte

      Damn right! Those I’d buy ASAP, whereas the 70-200 f4 is all like, ‘Oi! This looks nice, but my pockets a bit light and me mum is ill… ya know.’

    • Nikonhead

      I’d rather have the 135mm f/2 DC with VR. Maybe a 400mm non f/5.6 as well @ $1,500

      • EnPassant

        $ 1500 is just enough to buy both a used, current 135/2 DC and the old, manual Nikkor 400/5.6 Ai-S.

    • Moo

      500-800mm f4 VR

    • Tony5787

      +1 for the 135mm 1.8G but I’m still trying to think about how much that lens would cost. If it came out for under $2000 I’d be interested but if it has VR in it which it more than likely will it will probably be over $2000 easily. If it’s at the right price I would trade in my 70-200mm VR to put towards the 135mm.

  • gio

    here are some more pics with initial user review

    • PhilK

      Wow – those shots on Fred Miranda’s site are fabulous.

      I’ve been waiting for a lens like this from Nikon for a long time. Definitely moves to #1 on my wishlist.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      It’s better than I expected.

    • desmo

      outstanding ,

      both the lens and how it was used,
      on reading his posts he mentioned he had nikon tc’s in the bag but forgot to use them,
      too bad as those results would have been interesting

      these samples really validate both the lens and nikon’s new d600 and d800 bodies

  • Mercurius Vayeate

    Aside from the 1-stop low-light advantage of the 2.8G, it has very little over the 4G. Even for bokeh: the blur diameter of any point of the background is only %44 larger on the f/2.8 than on the f/4. And I’m guessing the bokeh will be less nervous on the f/4.

    Pre-order complete!

  • i’ll be a little bit sellfish, but as i own a 2.8VRII i hope the F4 sucks! ^^

    • so sell it, buy the f/4 and come out $500 ahead. If I were you I would hope it is REALLY GOOD

      • NotReally

        I think if a photographer had the option of selecting “as a gift” between the f/2.8 Vs f/4 I am pretty sure he/she would select the 2.8.
        But for us “regulars”, the f/4 is mighty sufficient and the f/2.8 is not needed (sour grapes case)

  • mbp

    Had a chance to try one of the first pre-production copies of this lens. Was pretty impressed. Was shooting down to 1/5th of a second hand held and viewing at & beyond 100% with the D800 and the VR was extremely impressive.

    It’s a great weight and feels just as solid as it’s big brother. This lens is going to do great in the market.

    Unfortunately I wasn’t allowed to take photos of it or put a card in the camera.

    Was told they will be shipping late November, in Canada at least.

  • Discontinued

    Tempting lens. Nikon def. closed another gap in their lineup.

    • Big J

      Surprised no one has bitched about this being released rather than an updated 80-400mm.

  • erba

    can we use it on dx format es d7000?

    • Hirak

      Why not?? The metal mount is same like every nikkor lens…..

      • Calibrator

        His question is legitimate – there are FX lenses that don’t work so well on DX bodies – because of the body design (not the mount or the sensor themselves).
        The PC-E Nikkors come to mind.
        I don’t expect any problems with this lens, though, and it should balance better on the D7000 than the F2.8 tele.

  • Thomas

    I own a 70-200 2.8 VR I and have the f/4 on order. I would prefer to lose a stop in favour of a smaller/lighter lens I’m more likely to bring with me, and corner-corner sharpness on FX. Looks like I will just about break even on resale of my 4-year-old 2.8 too.

  • cobby64

    Hmm.. I’m just waiting for a drop in the price. Its a pity Nikon prices don’t drop as low as Canon’s.. and so i feel that Canon fans have all the fan.

    5D mk ii goes for $1699 and 5D mk iii for $2994 all @ B&H (Offer ends 24th Nov).. Sigh!
    The Nikon D300s that err.. no one really buys is still $1,699????

    smh, well..

  • Stephen

    Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC is much better and cheaper. Who cares about weight?

    • Apollo

      Tamron is horrible. So soft @ f2.8 and even f4! And it’s very cheap feeling, it won’t last for long. Slow focus, poor stabilization! I don’t recommend Tamron, I rather recommend Sigma or more, used 70-200mm VR1.

      • Cintel7

        Tamron 70-200 VC has not been released. Just recently announced.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          Troll catcher of the year award. What do trolls sound like?

  • VR

    I regularly take these kind of photos with my kit 18-200 lens.
    I thought they will show better snaps for a £1000 lens.

  • Looks some good samples – why couldn’t they put some at full res (16 – 24mp) and to cobby64 Nikon lens prices aren’t bad as Canon’s yet – over £2k for a 24-70 L Usm 2.8 lens thats a lot of money compared against Nikon’s equivalent for £1200.

  • Plug

    It seems from early reviews that the VR is extremely impressive to match top-notch image quality. I’m buying one in all likelihood once comprehensive testing has confirmed the initial impressions.
    But, what I dream of, is a 300f4 with this new VR. Wow, that would be some lens. 🙂

  • RMT

    Not to burst anyones bubble, but how does this compare to the existing 70-300 VR?
    Less than a stop difference at 200mm for half the price and less weight still.

    Why would you buy the 70-200 f/4? (I mean: please help me justify ordering this lens!)
    IQ, weathersealing…..? anything else?

    • camguy

      build quality, sharper, no variable aperture, weather sealing, no moving barrel, take your pick.. Lots of reason. The 70-300 is miserable at 200-300 and i don’t think so good from about 135 to 200. 70-135 is very sharp though. Variable aperture also constantly has you adjusting exposure (assuming your shoot manually) every time you change zooming any noticeable amount. Also keep in mind that with variable aperture, yes the aperture changes in steps in the camera. but physically it changes in a fluid amount. So even though from 70-135 or whereever, the camera says 4.5 throughout, but you slowly go 4.5 , 4.6, 4.7.. until you hit the next level where the camera shifts to f4.8, 5.3 etc… The camera just estimates to keep with standard aperture numbering. so the variable aperture lenses change exposures very slightly as you zoom even though the camera doesn’t say that and model cameras may even compensate for it. this is pretty much an irrelevant/unnoticeable thing and i wouldn’t worry about it at all, but it’s there. the fixed aperture zooms are designed so this doesn’t happen, so they are much more complex, hence the higher price/size/weight/quality. Generally because they are more complex, the higher quality construction and better glass follows naturally driving the price up further. You just end up with all around better images from them

    • mikils

      you do not need any justification to change a (relatively) low IQ, variable maximum relative aperture with a super IQ ans fixed aperture zoom

  • Jim

    I am very interested in the results of this lens wide open at 200mm with a 20TC III attached. I would like to see how the sharpness and IQ compares to a similar images taken with the 70-200 f2.8 either VR I or VRII both wide open at f5.6 and then at f8. Bottom line, I would like to know how useable shots taken with the TC would be wide open, since I would not want to shoot the newest version at f11. I am interested pro level zoom lens in a smaller package, but I would not trade in my f2.8 copy.

  • NikJr

    Pardon my ignorance. What is the typical use of this? I understand light weight but isn’t this little shorter at 200mm when compared to other 300mm lens and also this f4 rather than 2.8.

    Usually people go for faster aperture but here its the other way around.

    Given a normal light outside how much of a difference it is 70-200mm f4 and say 70-300 3.5-5.6 lens?

    Just checking. Thanks for your responses.

    • Big J

      Read above on camguy’s reply to a post made.

    • MB

      “isn’t this little shorter at 200mm when compared to other 300mm lens”?
      Yes it is a little shorter, after all it is 70-200mm not 300mm … and it is f/4 … you noticed that very well 😉
      If you are comparing this lens to 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR that is basically DX lens, and by that I mean it has very good IQ from 70 up to 135 on DX, on FX corners are just too soft, and above 135mm it gets softer and softer, you could consider this range as a free built in teleconverter.
      Besides much better image quality (and that is what the lens is all about) new 70-200 has better VR and could probably use real TC like 1.4 or 1.7 and still give better image than 70-300.
      It is also much cheaper than 2.8 lenses and lighter so here you are, great new product for people who know what to do with it …

  • I’d have liked to see a better bokeh example, but so far it looks great! I have the 2.8, but it’s incredibly heavy for a day’s work. I might pick this one up to ease the burden when I can shoot at F4 such as outdoor ceremonies, etc.

  • JC

    These sample pics kind of suck…not inspiring at all.

    • PhilK

      Take a look at the shots on the Fred Miranda page linked by someone earlier here. Much nicer.

  • Rasksasa

    sooo… does this this mean the 70-200mm 2.8 is going to get a revision to VR III soon?

    • Big J

      Think it’d be too son for a revision. But then again why? It’s a superb lens and just because of a slightly updated VR or some tech in the lens doesn’t make the VRII useless. Or else people wouldn’t still be shooting with older cameras and lenses. You shoot whatever you feel comfortable with in order to achieve the results you want.

      • Rasksasa

        I am currently in the market to the a 70-200 2.8, so if they would be upgrading the current VRII it would be bad news if I purchased an outgoing model.

        • That’s why you wait until all the other GWCs buy the new one so you can buy one used for cheap. That’s what I do. All my gear, used, but in mint condition for minimum 40-50% below retail.

      • ToastyFlake

        Maybe they’ll fix the focus breathing.

      • ToastyFlake

        Maybe they’ll fix the focus breathing.

  • That looks good! Very nice.

  • Back to top