Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

opinion on Nikon 70-200 f4.

gingerdougie 11 67 United Kingdom
21 Jan 2013 10:59AM
In the past I have had great advice and opinion using this forum. Has anyone got the above lens, and what do they think about it. I already have a tamron 70-200 2.8 for use in rugby photography and I am assessing the possible advantages of the nikon over the tamron to see if it worth the extra expense.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

JohnParminter 11 1.3k 14 England
21 Jan 2013 11:11AM

What is the Tamron not doing at present that you would like another lens to do?

Define this then folk with a Nikon 70-200 f4 may be better able to advise if the Nikon will do what the Tamron can't.

I can already see one possible disadvantage that the Nikon may have - f4.

GarethRobinson 11 1.0k 2 United Kingdom
21 Jan 2013 11:20AM
if the tamron is focusing fast enough and giving nice sharp images I can not see any reason to downgrade to an f4 lens other than saving some weight.
duratorque 14 427 United Kingdom
21 Jan 2013 12:25PM
I think the Nikon have VS which is only useful for stationary objects. For rugby matches, shutter speed is more important, so F2.8 is better. Like others have said, only consider changing if the Tamron can not do something which the Nikon can.
LenShepherd 10 3.6k United Kingdom
21 Jan 2013 5:08PM
Nikons MTF confirms brilliant optical performance, as do all the test reports I have seen. There is a weight saving of 1.5 pounds on the Nikon f2.8 version though autofocus is not as fast.
It is the first lens with five stops vibration reduction and includes tripod mode vibration reduction.
Nikon VR works very well with moving subjects provided you pan in the direction of the movement.
I do not know how the camera autofocus speed compares to the Nikon f2.8. It is possible the f4 version equals the Tamron AF.
It is probable the price of this new lens will fall to just under £900 within six months of launch.
This lens is on my medium term shopping list in addition to the f2.8 which I already own. In my view each lens is best suited to a different type of photography.
StrayCat 14 19.1k 3 Canada
21 Jan 2013 8:19PM
It's almost enough to make me switch.Grin
gingerdougie 11 67 United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 10:05AM
Qnce more thanks for your considered opinions guys. As ever your comments have been valued and helpful.
thewilliam 9 6.1k
22 Jan 2013 4:03PM
How does the performance of the new 70-200 compare with the ancient Nikon 80-200 manual focus, which is a real classic?
LenShepherd 10 3.6k United Kingdom
23 Jan 2013 3:47PM
Comparing a 30 year-old optical design with one introduced last year is never going to be easy - few will own both lenses.
Nikons full aperture MTF shows the 80-200VR as usefully optically better than the D version.
I do not know how the D compares to the earlier manual focus version, other than the D was not the first f2.8 autofocus version.
The latest 70-200 f2.8 VR is much better with flare shooting into the ligh.
As a rule of thumb optics improve over more than the quarter century time difference.
The f4 focus down to 3 feet 3 inches - much closer than the old manual focus version.
23 Jan 2013 4:52PM
Maybe thewilliam is referring to the AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED rather than the truly ancient and rare manual-focus monster?

This two-ring autofocus lens was launched in 1997, but had identical optics to the previous autofocus models dating back to 1988. The reason the optics stayed the same was that they were good. The lens is still, incredibly, in the Nikon catalogue, because its optics and mechanics are still good enough to fetch a profitable asking price.

I own this lens, and I can say it is excellent from about 80 mm to 135 mm, when stopped down a little to get rid of some spherical and longitudinal chromatic aberration. At the short end and f/4, I very much doubt the new f/4 lens would beat it, particularly since the f/2.8 lens has almost no lateral chromatic aberration there, while the new lens assuredly does (from samples Iíve seen on the web).

At the long end, and admittedly many people use these lenses at the long end, the new lens would probably destroy the old f/2.8 lens, since the latter does somewhat fall apart at 200 mm. Thereís lots of spherical aberration and enormous amounts of lateral chromatic aberration. Thus even stopping down to f/8 or f/11 doesnít produce a fully satisfying result.

In its favour, the old lens is simply beautiful made. Its zoom ring turns with impressive smoothness, better even than the new f/2.8 lenses. And although itís very heavy, itís much smaller than the new f/2.8 tele-zooms and not hugely bigger than the new f/4 lens.

Still, the five-stop VR of the new lens and its lighter weight are powerful draws.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.