Nikon 70-200 f/4G VR review and comparison to f/2.8 lens

My review/comparison of the new 70-200 f/4G VR lens.

http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Nikon%2070-200x.pdf

Nice review, E.J., thank you!

Thanks for the review. I have been looking at purchasing this lens for its light weight. I agree the tripod collar should be included in the price. When the first 80-200 f2.8 lens were released they did not have the tripod collar included, it was extra. After market makers RRS and Kirk made these items. As the 80-200 lens improved the tripod collars became standard. I hope this happens with the 70-200 f4 in the future.

Thanks for an excellent and informative review, EJ!

Thanks for the review EJ. For those interested, Nikon Europe lists the weight of the RT-1 Tripod Collar Ring as approx. 157 grams.
John

The lens is light enough that for landscape use where I do frequent lens changes, I wouldn't use the collar since the camera will already be mounted on the tripod. Note that the 24-70 f/2.8 is heavier than the 70-200 f/4 and you could never put a collar on that Plus due to the much larger front element on the 24-70 (77mm) compared to the 70-200 f/4 (67mm) the 24-70 is a bit more front heavy so the shorter length of the 24-70 doesn't really improve balance much. Bottom line, for landscapers, I would probably skip the collar to keep things simple without having to remount from camera to lens just for a lens change. On the other hand if you don't change lenses much or at all, then the collar and foot are a good idea.

Very interesting.

Nice to hear it is that solid, even though it is polycarbonate and made in Thailand.

What a difference between the two in the FOV at 200. And that MFD you say is a lot shorter in the f4. The MFD difference reminds me of the 300 f4 Nikkors (closer MFD) vs the 300 2.8 Nikkors. Same thing, and all the Nikkor 300 models through the years have been that way, i.e. a much closer MFD with the F4's over the 2.8's.

But you are right, for that money the cheap bas#@!:s should include a good collar. I know you did not say that E.J......I did

That's Nikon being cheap again; and that's another thing Nikon is good at ....IMHO

Thanks for the review. Now we know what that lens is about. Sounds like one that I would want in the future.

Robert

Thanks for the review EJ - definitely one to add to my list! Do you know if the f4 will accept teleconverters (apologies if I've missed that on the spec from Nikon)?

Cal

Cal wrote:Thanks for the review EJ - definitely one to add to my list! Do you know if the f4 will accept teleconverters (apologies if I've missed that on the spec from Nikon)?

Cal

Yes. I did do a quick test with the 1.4x TC after somebody asked me about it in regards to going to Homer for Bald Eagles. This was my reply...

OK, with 1.4x and zoom set to 200mm:

Center – f/4 lens is better
Corner - f/2.8 lens is better

By f/8 – both lenses are equivalent for resolution

Autofocus
Acquisition and tracking is better with f/2.8 lens and TC.

For me, if I could only own one I would own the f/4 variety but since I have both and if I were going Homer for Eagles in flight I would take the f/2.8 due to the faster focus and one stop faster potential shutter speed at equivalent ISO. I would shoot the f/2.8 lens plus TC at f/5.6 or f/8.

But I would prefer my 300 f/4 over either for flight photography

Hope that helps

Excellent review E.J. I'm considering trading in my older 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 for this new lens. I love the idea of being 1.5 lbs lighter, but being able to be used on full frame bodies as well.

hey EJ,

Sounds like I might want to sell my 70-300mm?

Cheers

Carl

walkinman wrote:hey EJ,

Sounds like I might want to sell my 70-300mm?

Cheers

Carl

Yes, this lens is MUCH better than the 70-300, especially on the newer high megapixel cameras.

Thanks for the info on the TCs E J.

Thanks for the comprehensive review, EJ !
A great landscape tool.
I just snagged one from Hunt's. They have 5 left.

Great review E. J. And thanks for the added info about the lens collar maybe not needed as the lens weighs less than the 24-70mm f2.8. Joe Smith

Thanks E.J. for the very imformative review.

I had a chance to mount the new 70-200mm f 4.0 VR on my D 600 today at Houston Camera Exchange. It was Rep day and I was there talking to the Nikon rep. She showed me the lens. Fit and finish looked great--better than I had expected. Once mounted, zoom was silky smooth and held at different focal lengths. Manual focusing was silky smooth too. I took some shots inside the store and AF was fast. It did not have a tripod collar on it. Given its light weight, not sure you need one. Given the number of people there, I did not get a chance to take a lot of shots. This lens is definitely worth another and more careful look. Joe Smith

Thanks for the review. I'm a little annoyed that the collar is a separate, $200 accessory, but I imagine RRS & Kirk will offer a better after-market alternative anyhow.

Pete D.

Great review EJ! Since I started shooting the D800, I was trying to figure out what to do with my Nikon 70-200mm VR1, selling and switching to VR11 or the new 70-200 F4. Now probably leaning towards the F4!

Looks like DXO agrees with me - the 70-200 f/4 is a really good lens, they score it better than the 70-200 f/2.8 VR2:
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/03/22/dxoma ... nses.aspx/