Fotografica Gregor wrote:
I've had one for a short while -  not had a chance to shoot it for real yet - 

it seems "dense" in my hand -  while it's a tonne lighter and smaller than the f2.8VRII version,   it does feel kinda weighty to me.... 

focus is *bam* 

looks as sharp as I could want playing around with it -

I'll be shooting some beauty work tomorrow and will bring it along for a few shots so I should have more to say soon.....

Which body are you using?

R Michael Walker wrote:
Which body are you using?

the zippy focus and sharpness was achieved on the D800

I will be shooting tomorrow with the D800 or D3x or both....

J Kegley Photographer wrote:
Simple solution.  Go to Borrowlenses.com and rent one for a few days.  That way you know for sure.  Not that expensive and gives you real world experience in shooting the way you work, not the way some other photographer works.

They just had some deals for the holidays too. I think I'll do just that.

Thanks

Fotografica Gregor wrote:

the zippy focus and sharpness was achieved on the D800

I will be shooting tomorrow with the D800 or D3x or both....

Thanks..I'm looking at this lens for my D800 as it becomes available. I tested the F/2.8 version and it's perfection. But I'd trade a stop of light for $1000 IF the resolution is still the same.

gl-amour wrote:
I am concerned about focus breathing.
I am rather happy with the fantastic performance of the 70-300 VR.  In my hands on comparisons, the performance was equivalent on the D7000 and D600.

I had one of the 70-300 a while back. I don't recall if it was the VR one or not. I'm pretty sure it was but all I can say is I couldn't wait to get the thing out of my bag and onto eBay.

Hated everything about it. I replaced it with the 18-200 which I'm not 100% thrilled with either.

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
Has anyone shat with Nikon's new 70 - 200 4.0? I was just reading the review it Professional Photographer. They basically said you'll get the same quality images with one less stop available of course. What makes it attractive is the $1000 savings

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Produc … ED-VR.html

Anyone know anything about it?

A friend brought one by, For me it is to expensive for that slow of glass. I rather have a lens that is F/2.8 without VR than an f/4 with VR.

ImageX wrote:
You lose more than just a stop of light with the F4 over the F2.8. You also lose a little cream as well. Might as well save a little more and get everything a Nikon 70-200 can offer... instead of almost everything.

Not enough to value it at $1K. If I want more bokeh I have the 85mm F/1.8 for that.

gl-amour wrote:
I am concerned about focus breathing.
I am rather happy with the fantastic performance of the 70-300 VR.  In my hands on comparisons, the performance was equivalent on the D7000 and D600.

They say it's non existent on this model. I loved the 70-300VR on my D300s but it was complete soft crap on my D800 so I sold it. I have a friend who claims his is great on his D800 but he shoots jpg and does so much retouching I can't tell.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:

A friend brought one by, For me it is to expensive for that slow of glass. I rather have a lens that is F/2.8 without VR than an f/4 with VR.

Except they don't make that version in this FL. I used to own the 800 F/2.8 non VR because I didn't think VR was worth the extra $$ on the 70-200. But I've shot Medium format and View cameras all my life prior to digital so to me F/4 IS a fast lens.

ImageX wrote:
You lose more than just a stop of light with the F4 over the F2.8. You also lose a little cream as well. Might as well save a little more and get everything a Nikon 70-200 can offer... instead of almost everything.

There are times when lighter mass and smaller size are more of an advantage or even requirement than that extra stop. Sometimes I find myself going back to a 1980s 70-210 AF F4 lens for precisely these reasons. The fringing can be a problem but it is much lighter and smaller.

If there wasn't demand for such lenses then Canon would not have been producing them for quite some time.

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
Has anyone shat with Nikon's

I was worried when I read the start of the thread, then I realised it must either be a strange typo or auto-complete.

photoimager wrote:
If there wasn't demand for such lenses then Canon would not have been producing them for quite some time.

I use the Canon 70-200 f/4 non IS. Apart from the much lower cost, it is the only one of the four in this range which is small enough and light enough for me to carry round all day in my camera bag. And since I almost always use it on a tripod, the slower aperture and lack of IS are not a real problem.
I'm sure the Nikon will sell well for these same reasons.

R Michael Walker wrote:

They say it's non existent on this model. I loved the 70-300VR on my D300s but it was complete soft crap on my D800 so I sold it. I have a friend who claims his is great on his D800 but he shoots jpg and does so much retouching I can't tell.


Except they don't make that version in this FL. I used to own the 800 F/2.8 non VR because I didn't think VR was worth the extra $$ on the 70-200. But I've shot Medium format and View cameras all my life prior to digital so to me F/4 IS a fast lens.

Same here I come from the Nikon F2 generation. I learned on 4x5 and the RB67 cameras. I have the the first gen. 70-200 VR f/2.8 and the 80-200 f/2.8 push pull. I would take that 80-200mm lens over the f/4 with VR.

Lorin Edmonds wrote:
Ken Rockwell reviewed - but says he will update his site when he actually has one to test.

He bought one this week so I am eager to read his objective evaluations.  His initial posting was basically a rewording of Nikon's press release.

Lorin Edmonds wrote:
Ken Rockwell reviewed - but says he will update his site when he actually has one to test.

Ken is the man! Only he can review gear he hasnt seen or used. He has mad Ninja skills.

The Canon 70-200 f4's have been very popular lenses for a long time, and its well suited to anyone needing lighter gear or anyone with a budget. Seems a perfect match for the D600.

photoimager wrote:

I was worried when I read the start of the thread, then I realised it must either be a strange typo or auto-complete.

LOL typo, sorry. And I'm so careful about that. Ughhh

Lorin Edmonds wrote:
Ken Rockwell reviewed - but says he will update his site when he actually has one to test.

Yeah except does anyone care what Ken Rockwell says?

Lorin Edmonds wrote:
Ken Rockwell reviewed - but says he will update his site when he actually has one to test.

It should be one of his better fantasy stories.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:

Same here I come from the Nikon F2 generation. I learned on 4x5 and the RB67 cameras. I have the the first gen. 70-200 VR f/2.8 and the 80-200 f/2.8 push pull. I would take that 80-200mm lens over the f/4 with VR.

Only problem with the 80-200 is I tested 4 differing lenses on 2 different D800 bodies and none were tack sharp at any aperture. The resolution of the D800 outstrips most optics. The only "gotcha" attached to it. But I sort of knew that going in. Now if you do a lot of retouching and don't get sharp edges anyway (like in most beauty, fashion and glamour work) it would probably be OK. Me, I'm looking for all the resolution I can get. Often edge to edge, especially in my landscape work. So there in is my only concern with this new 70-200 F/4. Did they really make a lens that is some ways is better than their F/2.8 model at a lower price and all you are giving up in return is a stop of light (And as one poster pointed out some Bokeh maybe)?

R Michael Walker wrote:
Only problem with the 80-200 is I tested 4 differing lenses on 2 different D800 bodies and none were tack sharp at any aperture. The resolution of the D800 outstrips most optics. The only "gotcha" attached to it. But I sort of knew that going in. Now if you do a lot of retouching and don't get sharp edges anyway (like in most beauty, fashion and glamour work) it would probably be OK. Me, I'm looking for all the resolution I can get. Often edge to edge, especially in my landscape work. So there in is my only concern with this new 70-200 F/4. Did they really make a lens that is some ways is better than their F/2.8 model at a lower price and all you are giving up in return is a stop of light (And as one poster pointed out some Bokeh maybe)?

My 80-200 f/2.8 is extremely sharp even at f/2.8. I did not test but through practical experience. To me VR is on the bottom of importance when it comes to lenses. F/stops are far more important. I know this bucks the trend but that is me.
It also does not have the vignetting issue the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR has. I still use both lenses, but without a doubt I will reach for my old 80-200 f/2.8 before the f/4 70-200 f/4 VR. It is my old photojournalist nature coming through.

Also weight of the lens is not an issue I shot the F2 with motordrive for a few years.

photoimager wrote:
There are times when lighter mass and smaller size are more of an advantage or even requirement than that extra stop. Sometimes I find myself going back to a 1980s 70-210 AF F4 lens for precisely these reasons. The fringing can be a problem but it is much lighter and smaller.

If there wasn't demand for such lenses then Canon would not have been producing them for quite some time.

Not saying this is your case but I typically interpret "I need a lighter lens" or "I don't need the extra stop" as....  "I can't afford the real deal" or "I'm totally weak and can't handle a few extra grams of weight in favor of better optics... so I will take my savings on a cheaper lighter lens and maybe get a gym membership or not".

ImageX wrote:

Not saying this is your case but I typically interpret "I need a lighter lens" or "I don't need the extra stop" as....  "I can't afford the real deal" or "I'm totally weak and can't handle a few extra grams of weight in favor of better optics... so I will take my savings on a cheaper lighter lens and maybe get a gym membership or not".

Priceless...

Neil Snape wrote:
I tried it on a D800. Fabulous. Sharp, light, fast.

Same here - I love it.  I've shot it on the D800 D3x and D600 -

rp_photo wrote:
F4 seems rather mediocre, even with VR.

How do you figure that?

Images wrote:

Not saying this is your case but I typically interpret "I need a lighter lens" or "I don't need the extra stop" as....  "I can't afford the real deal" or "I'm totally weak and can't handle a few extra grams of weight in favor of better optics... so I will take my savings on a cheaper lighter lens and maybe get a gym membership or not".

Me, Interpret an attitude like yours as you bought the more expensive lens and have to justify how F.2.8 makes your work SO much better than F/4 will.  As for the optics, Nikon clearly goes over the construction and number of elements, ED glass and nano coating this new lens has. So just how is it inferior optically?

R Michael Walker wrote:

rp_photo wrote:
F4 seems rather mediocre, even with VR.

How do you figure that?


Me, Interpret an attitude like yours as you bought the more expensive lens and have to justify how F.2.8 makes your work SO much better than F/4 will.  As for the optics, Nikon clearly goes over the construction and number of elements, ED glass and nano coating this new lens has. So just how is it inferior optically?

Actually I would argue that the f4 is *superior* optically -

no focus breathing

no softness in the edges wide open at 24 / 36mp

superior at low contrast detail

if there's a difference in sharpness between the two at 36mp I sure can't see it....

where the f2.8 shines is that it is a stop faster and it is faster focusing *in theory*

though the f4 seems to be pretty snappy I have not tried shooting Eagles with it as I have successfully with the f2.8

I will keep both thank you very much

but in studio I will be using the f4

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
as with all VR lenses - turn off VR when using flash or strobe for best and most consistent results

I am confused by this statement.  I never encountered that advice before.  Please explain.

gl-amour wrote:

I am confused by this statement.  I never encountered that advice before.  Please explain.

with Nikon VR, there is a bit of a lag for the VR system to work on focusing -  this can be miniscule in some cases but in others the flash fires before the VR system is settled, resulting in what looks like an OOF shot.

R Michael Walker wrote:
How do you figure that?


Me, Interpret an attitude like yours as you bought the more expensive lens and have to justify how F.2.8 makes your work SO much better than F/4 will.  As for the optics, Nikon clearly goes over the construction and number of elements, ED glass and nano coating this new lens has. So just how is it inferior optically?

Any experienced photographer knows exactly the benefits of one over the other and that one of them can get shots that the other can't... period... not the other way around. Not to mention the 2.8 glass stopped down to F4 is going to be better than a wide open F4 lens will be. It's Basic Optics 101... did ya really have to ask? If anyone is trying to justify anything, it's you buying the slower cheaper glass over the more expensive and superior fast glass.  Why don't ya just go with the 70-300? It's F4 on the short end and then you ONLY lose one measley stop at the long end! No big deal when ya save $1000! It's got more focal length and is very light! Did Nikon build us a better lens for 1/2 the price of the 70-200 F4? 


Nope. I'm sure the 70-200 F4 is a very good lens though.