Nikon 70-200f/4 vr

T

Thegreatroberto

Suspended / Banned
Messages
612
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
No
Not exactly a review, just more of a recommendation.

Like many, turned the money over and also considered the f2.8 in both vr and vr2 versions. But settled for the newer f/4 version.

The vr is fantastic.you can easily take pics at 200mm with 1/8 second.
Just used the lens in anger today at a local steam show. The light could have been better, but the lens was light and sharp. Even in the viewfinder, you could see it was spot on and sharp. Shooting at f/4 gave a razor thin DOF.

So glad I did not go for the f2.8.God knows i wanted too! Not sure I could have carried that for three hours! And I doubt it would have been any sharper, or faster focussing.
Next week some Motorsport, but so far, very impressed.
 
Pictures, pictures, pictures :D
 
My friend has just bought this lens, he has the 2.8 vr2, but needed a backup, while its been serviced. He too is very impressed with this lens, he uses it for studio work, I am eagerly awaiting a test shoot with it.
 
looking forward to the motorsport pics
also whats it like in duller light outside
you may have created a quandary!!
 
Hi
Very nice and sharp images. Have been toying with the idea of getting this lens and notice the one on Amazon is (only) the VR version. I assume this is an older model or is Amazons' description wrong? or is VR the only version and I'm all mixed up!
Thanks
JohnyT
 
Last edited:
:love:
Chrisbie said:
looking forward to the motorsport pics
also whats it like in duller light outside
you may have created a quandary!!
Click to expand...


Only a quandary if you like lugging 1500g of metal and glass around.
I was glad to only carrying the f/4 today.
The vr is very good.to the point where you forget about the shutter speed. The pic of the pump was to make sure I got some motion blur, without any shake from the camera.
 
Johnytuono said:
Hi
Very nice and sharp images. Have been toying with the idea of getting this lens and notice the one on Amazon is (only) the VR version. I assume this is an older model or is Amazons' description wrong? or is VR the only version and I'm all mixed up!
Thanks
JohnyT
Click to expand...

The f/4 is vr only. And a very good vr at that.

1/8 second at 200 mm is possible handheld.Unheard of a few years ago. But I guess that's why it's £1100;)
 
Johnytuono said:
Is a tripod collar necessary or will there be no strain on the camera to worry about? In fact, does anyone know what the maximum weight is advisable without a collar?
Thanks
JohnyT
Click to expand...

I bought a tripod collar via eBay for £20. But can't imagine it's needed. The f/4 is around 800g in weight. Balances well on a tripod without the collar.
I guess it depends on the body. I guess it's less likely to have a £1100 lens on a d3200.
My d700 is fine with the lens on
 
I've been pondering on this lens too, since I sold my 70-200 VRII

I sold it because it was just a pain to carry about, and then not use near enough to justify carting the weight about. I've a bad back and lighter is always better for me.

Not being funny or anything, but all the links you posted that I clicked were taken at 1/1000 or 1/500, I see one at 1/250th - not exactly a display of VRIII goodness ;) fine images as they may be.

Can you post some at 1/8th like you mentioned?
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I've been pondering on this lens too, since I sold my 70-200 VRII

I sold it because it was just a pain to carry about, and then not use near enough to justify carting the weight about. I've a bad back and lighter is always better for me.

Not being funny or anything, but all the links you posted that I clicked were taken at 1/1000 or 1/500, I see one at 1/250th - not exactly a display of VRIII goodness ;) fine images as they may be.

Can you post some at 1/8th like you mentioned?
Click to expand...


Didn't take any yesterday at 1/8", the pump was my slowest at 1/30"

Will see what I can find taken at a slow shutter speed.
 
Very impressed! That last one is especially pin sharp hand held at 1/4. Was debating whether I'd need the extra stop and I don't think I will. The lighter weight and not having to use a tripod collar and not carrying by the lens all day would be much more beneficial (to me). There doesn't seem to be THAT much difference with out of focus areas compared to the 2.8 in most of the photos I've viewed online etc. Anyway, now got one on order and hopefully will be with me Wed. or Thurs.
JohnyT
 
One of my first with this lens....I'm impressed, nice to handle and not too heavy!

8952610392_33b01270eb_c.jpg
 
Simply impressive, i did think about the f4 version before i got f2.8 VR1 instead. I think is like the canon f4 lens that it is light, slightly cheaper and very very sharp. I went for the 2.8 simply for low light situation otherwise i will buy the f4 instead.

Got to admit the VR on the nikon is nice, 200mm at 1/20 at VR is possible. Impossible to handheld that on my previous lens which is a sigma f2.8 non OS.
 
Is the F4 sharp wide open? I am saving and debating f2.8 vr1 or f4.....

How much of a difference is Vr1 to Vr2?...

Cheers

Mike
 
VR1 or VR2 is different but depend how you use it and what camera you using it with.

First the size and weight is slightly different between the VR1 and VR2. the VR1 is slightly longer in my opinion (at least it feels that way). Optic wise the VR2 is slightly better specially the edges when using it on a FF camera. But if you use a DX camera then the VR1 is fantastic.

I've bought the VR1 used with a very good price in here and i'm happy with the VR, optic and feel of the lens since i can't afford for the VR2 version. Also i use to shoot with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 non OS so the nikon VR1 give me a massive performance improvement.
 
Thanks that's good to know re f2.8.

I am D7K - so crop, and doubt I will go full frame for a long while - would rather buy the glass so the swap is painless later.

I am interested in the short and long ends of the lens - wide open of course. I currently have an 18-200vr which is soggy wide open at 200. Stopped down it is quite reasonable, but then I loose the isolation....
The only thing holding me off (apart from my bank account) is the size weight thing. My D7K is gripped, and my 18-200 is not a feather, so I am not looking for a featherweight option, but many complain of such - so the f4 remains an option...

Cheers
Mike
 
To be honest the f4 is sharp wide open according to some source and review and i won't surprise as well. the f4 version is lighter then the f2.8. It all depend on your budget and how much weight you want to carry.

See example below of my f2.8 VR1 on a D300. Is purely test shot with VR on shooting in very extreme bad lighting in the room. Also handheld 1/20-1/25 second on all range as well. Can be sharper if i shoot in proper settings, this is purely mess around to see how the VR and f2.8 works for the lens.

70mm f2.8, ISO 640 and 1/20sec

DSC_4999 by p_li_2000, on Flickr

105mm f2.8, ISO 640 and 1/20sec

DSC_5000 by p_li_2000, on Flickr

200mm f2.8, ISO 640 and 1/25sec

DSC_5004 by p_li_2000, on Flickr

If 2.8 is not need i would go for the f4 version and i think it will work nicely on the D7000 gripped as well.
 
sultanofswing said:
Has anyone tried using teleconverters with the f/4?
Click to expand...

Good question. Was considering a 1.4 with my f/4 and d700. No point going to a 1.7 or 2.0 as autofocus may not work. And 1.4 should be enough.

But I'd be interested in that Q as well.

Ps. Still not sure why you'd buy a f2.8. If you need an extra stop, crank up the iso.
 
Thegreatroberto said:
Good question. Was considering a 1.4 with my f/4 and d700. No point going to a 1.7 or 2.0 as autofocus may not work. And 1.4 should be enough.

But I'd be interested in that Q as well.

Ps. Still not sure why you'd buy a f2.8. If you need an extra stop, crank up the iso.
Click to expand...

You'll probably find that AF does work with the x1.7 - loads of people use the 300mm f/4 AFS and the x1.7 tc on a D700 and it auto-focuses fine.

If you think about it, even the lowest in the range cameras autofocus with the cheap f/6.3 at the long end superzooms so there's no reason a pro body wouldn't.
 
The D600 lets you AF with all the TCs, including the 2x TC E series (1-3)
I've tried the D600 with the 300mm f4, making it a 600mm f8, and the AF works...

That means one can effectively use the 70-200 f4 with a 1.4 or 1.7!
 
Found two photos on Flickr which uses the D600 + 70-200 f/4 + TC 2x EIII

The photographer says:

"Testing the alleged performance of the 70-200/4 with the 2x teleconverter (TC20E III)… As reported, it performs beautifully, AF works quite well (at f/8), and it is sharp. The light was fairly dim here (f/8, .5 sec.) at dusk. Even with the lens combination awkwardly cantilevered out from my TRAVEL tripod (1542T Traveler), it is nearly pixel sharp on the D600. That's pretty good. Oh, did I mention this is shot through glass, too. :)"

8440621824_80c2f5b745_c.jpg


7164977940_467d3c9823_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nawty said:
You'll probably find that AF does work with the x1.7 - loads of people use the 300mm f/4 AFS and the x1.7 tc on a D700 and it auto-focuses fine.

If you think about it, even the lowest in the range cameras autofocus with the cheap f/6.3 at the long end superzooms so there's no reason a pro body wouldn't.
Click to expand...

I had that 300mm f.4 plus x1.7 plus D700 combination and it worked just fine.
My D800E plus 70-200 f.4 plus x1.7 works fine too (just tried it a couple of minutes ago). Not a combination that I aim to use in practice, but it is technically functional.
 
Bumping this as I've also just picked up the 70-200 F4G lens from nikon. I'll be putting it through its paces on my D600 shortly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top