I have a 200-500 and a 70-300 which I use with my D500. I have had the 70-300 for quite a few years now, mainly because it is so light and very useful for travel and has good IQ, if a little soft at the longer end. I'm contemplating buying a 70-200 2.8 VRII to replace the 70-300 in order to gain the extra stop, better bokeh and IQ, although its a lot heavier and more expensive. Cost is not really an issue. I usually buy second hand from the likes of LCE, MPB and Parks Cameras. I have read some reviews that say up to 200mm there's not much difference and also that the 70-300 works well with the kenko teleplus 300 pro 1.4 x converter. So, has anybody compared these two lenses and opted for the 70-200 ?
Should I buy a Nikkor 70-200 2.8 to replace 70-300 VR ?
- Thread starter Colinb
- Start date
+1 for using a 70-200 F4. The reality is the depth of field is so low at the longer lengths that there is no real creative benefit from having a 200/2.8 vs a 200/4 (and at shorter lengths, there are primes that have significantly larger apertures, so give you more creative freedom than f/2.8). Combine this with decent high ISO performance and focus from modern bodies, and the fact that the f/4 lenses are a very modern no compromise construction, and they look like the best option if optical quality is what you are chasing.
Bananahead
pfm Member
I have no opinion on Nikon lenses. However, it might help if you said what you normally shoot. 2.8 provides more light to the AF system than 4.0 and this can make a difference.
SteveG
pfm Member
I've had a 80-200 F2.8 for many years (a Tokina ATX-Pro in Pentax AF) and find it a very useful lens for all sorts of things. One thing to definitely bear in mind though is how willing you are to carry it as they are heavy. I use a Pentax full-frame system and carry the 80-200 F2.8 when I'm primarily out doing photography stuff, but a lot of the time I take a lighter lens instead (I have consumer spec 70-300's and a 135-400 that are a fair bit lighter).
Rico
Bloody Colonials
lift weights, carry your 70-200 2.8 like it's a 50mm prime.
I've had VR1 (twice), and now have FL-E. You can prise it from my cold dead hands. It's worth the weight. When you are somewhere and you see the perfect shot, and you've compromised with a lighter lens... you'll barely get the gear out of your backpack. Is it dedication or masochism that sees me travel with this lens?
The thing is, the f/4 is probably sharper than the f/2.8 in most situations - it's a better resolving lens. The only downside is loosing that one stop, which isn't very important these days unless you are at the limit of what your camera can do. The one benefit I can see of the f/2.8 is the extender support, so if you want to slap a 1.4x or 2x extender on, then this will be the better choice, but i'd personally take a 70-200/4 and a 100-400 as a better combination for most situations.
I 've decided to get the f4. I sold my 300/2.8 about 2 years ago and replaced it with the 200-500 because it was a good deal lighter for travel, so I don't want to add another 1.6kg for the 70-200/2.8 if I can get the same or better IQ with the f4 at only 850g as most of my photography is out in the field in fairly remote locations.
Rico
Bloody Colonials
In which areas exactly is the 70-200 f4 better than the 70-200 VRII or FL/E?
I never said the 70-200VRII or FL/E, although some say its as good as the VRII if you don't need 2.8.
Have a look at https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-f4.htm I quote "Yes, it's super-sharp, sharper than Nikon's 24-70/2.8 and about the same as Nikon's extraordinary 70-200/2.8 VR II. When a lens is this good, there's not much to say: at the long distances for which you use a long lens, this lens is ultrasharp even wide open, all the way out to the corners on a 36 MP D800E."
Also have a look at https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-af-s-...r-review-an-enlightened-70-200mm-lens-choice/ " Mounted to a Nikon D3x, the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR scores 19P-Mpix making it one of the sharpest 70-200mm telephoto lenses available from any manufacturer. The only other lens that comes close is Canon’s EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens at 18P-Mpix, but it comes at a price that is more than $1000USD higher."
Have a look at https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-f4.htm I quote "Yes, it's super-sharp, sharper than Nikon's 24-70/2.8 and about the same as Nikon's extraordinary 70-200/2.8 VR II. When a lens is this good, there's not much to say: at the long distances for which you use a long lens, this lens is ultrasharp even wide open, all the way out to the corners on a 36 MP D800E."
Also have a look at https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-af-s-...r-review-an-enlightened-70-200mm-lens-choice/ " Mounted to a Nikon D3x, the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR scores 19P-Mpix making it one of the sharpest 70-200mm telephoto lenses available from any manufacturer. The only other lens that comes close is Canon’s EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens at 18P-Mpix, but it comes at a price that is more than $1000USD higher."
Rico
Bloody Colonials
No indeed; I said VRII or FL/E as it wasn't clear/declared, earlier. I appreciate the clarification and the links, thanks.
Sadly DXO mark still haven't tested the 2.8 FL/E.
How did you find the F4 in the field on your recent trip?
I have to say that it didn't get used in Gambia as I had the 200-500 on all of the time for birds, but using it back here in the UK it is very sharp, good contrast and amazingly light in the field. We are off to Corfu in a couple of weeks so I will make sure that it gets plenty of use, including with the 1.4x converter as I will probably need to cut down on the weight of my hand luggage. Also, I want to have fully tested it and know how to get the best out of it before we head off to South Africa later in the year.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
a tad late but I'd be looking at the Sigma/Tamron offerings...at least as good for less.
specifically this: Tamron SP 70-200 f2.8 DI VC USD...about £1000 cheaper than the Nikon equivalent.
specifically this: Tamron SP 70-200 f2.8 DI VC USD...about £1000 cheaper than the Nikon equivalent.
Yes the Tamron G2 is cheaper than the latest nikkor 2.8 lenses. But not if you don't need a 2.8 and do as I did and buy a very good condition secondhand f4 one from MPB for £499. It was just missing the original box and lenshood. All of the 2.8 lenses are double the weight of the f4 and in reality you won't see a lot of difference in bokeh unless using it at close range as the depth of field gets less as you increase the focal length as the focus distance gets greater
The f4 also focuses closer & doesn’t suffer from focus breathing.
Good review here;
https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/05/30/review-nikon-70-200-4-vr-havana-cityscapes-part-i/
Good review here;
https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/05/30/review-nikon-70-200-4-vr-havana-cityscapes-part-i/