70-200 f/4

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by davewolfs, Sep 23, 2008.

  1. davewolfs

    davewolfs

    633
    May 23, 2006
    Yes I know it doesn't exist...but I am still lusting for one.
     
  2. I don't really see the attraction of such a lens. I'd rather just get Sigma's 100-300 f/4. That lens is actually pretty nice.
     
  3. mematsu

    mematsu

    May 2, 2007
    los angeles
    Probably because you need length or speed and compromises aren't part of your vocabulary or lifestyle. :smile:

    For the casual shots of the boys playing soccer, or around the yard it is a pleasure to use. A pleasure to carry and provides excellent image quality. I never really could get used to the 70-200VR or the 70-300VR. The Sigma 50-150 was another choice for me but just too short. The 70-200F4IS fits me just right.
     
  4. davewolfs

    davewolfs

    633
    May 23, 2006

    Really? Hrm lets see. Extremely high IQ and half the weight! No attraction at all!
     
  5. RichNY

    RichNY Guest

    John- What do your backgrounds look like? Are you able to blow them out sufficiently at f/4?
     
  6. I'll throw this out there...

    I used to shoot Canon and I simply could not afford the 70-200 f/2.8 or the f/2.8 IS. I got the 70-200 f/4 and it was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever seen and is considered to be one of Canon's sharpest. It was not only sharp but it was light and fairly compact. It may not have been f/2.8 and perhaps not acceptable for hardcore professionals but it was an amazing lens that could be had for just under $600 brand new. I never regretted it and was thrilled that there was a constant f/4 lens in that focal length. I was always able to get my backgrounds out of focus and never had a complaint.

    Personally, if Nikon had lenses that were constant f/4 and of course were outstanding in quality they would be very popular and fill a much needed gap for those of us that don't have the $1000+ for each lens, much less $1700.

    I'd buy it in a second if it existed.
     
  7. rotxlk82

    rotxlk82

    Jul 20, 2007
    UK
    A 70-210/4 constant does exsist!!!
    Well at least it used to...

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70210f4.htm
     
  8. Yes but that lens is not highly praised and most do not recommend it. Build it nothing to write home about either. I'm talking about a lens that really rocks and is on a par with something like the Canon 70-200 f/4 which is very highly praised and considered to be one of Canons finest pieces of glass.
     
  9. rotxlk82

    rotxlk82

    Jul 20, 2007
    UK
    I get your point. If Nikon had a series of F4 constant semi-pro zooms like Canon it'd be a good thing.

    This old model probabally isn't upto the standard that you and many other shooters would want however.

    That said the build is probabally going to be better than the modern day cheap zooms like the 55-200.
     
  10. TheCommons

    TheCommons

    112
    Jul 2, 2008
    LA, CA ;)
    I personally want a 2.8 without VR for about $1000
     
  11. rotxlk82

    rotxlk82

    Jul 20, 2007
    UK
    Assuming we're still talking about the 70-200 range surely that exsists in the form of the 80-200/2.8 series.

    I don't know your currency or market but surely that can be obtained for $1000 or thereabouts.
     
  12. Nikkor AIS

    Nikkor AIS

    Jun 5, 2008
    Alberta
    For a while several years ago I shoot with a Canon T-90 and all I could afford was a 70-200 F4 and a wide angle. In three events I made enough money to dump the Canon T-90 and buy a Nikon body and a Nikkor 300 2.8 Ed-IF AIS. So the moral of the story is ?. I always thought that Nikon would do really well putting out a 70-200 ED lens. The 80-200 4.5 AIS was just a little to slow IMO and had non ED glass. That being said many classic Images have been taking with that lens in the 70s-80s.
    By the way I picked up my Nikkor 80-200 ED AIS " the best zoom Nikkor ever made for $750.00:)

    Gregory
     
  13. scooptdoo

    scooptdoo Guest

    here here ill second that.also the same can be said about the 300 f/4 and the 300 2.8.the smaller lighter lens is more practical for all but the hard core pro.yes if im going on saffari or other special occasion ill get(rent) the big fast glass.but for me day in day out as an amature the f/4 is so much more managable.
     
  14. I have the Nikkor 70-210mm f/4.0. AF speed is not great in some circumstances but manageable. I like it. Couple of quick samples, both hand-held and moving subjects:

    2884043108_fc8aafa158_o.jpg

    2884100250_226efeb29c_o.jpg

    Nothing special, just the first two I found. Details in EXIF.
     
  15. I would buy a 70-200/4 if it had the image quality of the 70-200/2.8 at around half the weight (well, perhaps it would be a bit heavier than half the weight, since the AF-S and VR units would probably weigh the same between the two).

    1.4 kg is too heavy for me to carry into the backcountry. As it is, I carry the 70-300 VR, which is a fabulous lens, but starts at 4.5 .

    Having said that, I think there are more important lenses for Nikon to work on. But each person has their own needs.
     
  16. mematsu

    mematsu

    May 2, 2007
    los angeles
    Blown out? Not so much. The DOF factor of the 5D helps a little. A pretty big limitation for some. Might make a nice temporary project for your 1D. :smile:

    If speed is not a concern, the size is just ridiculous. Along with being much lighter the barrel is also very slim. The 70-300 feels bulky compared to it in that way. The first time I held one, it just felt like it was fake. Not in a bad way, just not at all what I was used to. The 70-200 focal range has always been a little bit of a puzzle for me. Too expensive, too heavy, not fast enough, slow focus...too picky.

    That said I feel very comfortable with my new lens. It really just fits me.

    Then if I need speed, I go to the 135L. But that's another story.
     
  17. mematsu

    mematsu

    May 2, 2007
    los angeles
    You could buy one right now. But then you would have to buy a bunch of other stuff too.:smile:
     
  18. Ha ha. Don't think I haven't considered it!
     
  19. Leif

    Leif

    Feb 12, 2006
    England
    I would probably be on the buying list were Nikon to produce a decent 70-200 F4 for £400-£500. Small, light, good optics.

    Ken is not always right. (Irony intended.) I owned that lens, after reading online reviews (not Ken's, I don't trust him). Well, it seemed sharp, but it is very heavy, with no tripod collar, and visibly warped my film camera. And the IQ was poor. In dull light images were flat and pretty awful. I came to the conclusion that although my copy had decent sharpness, at least when stopped down, contrast was too low to be acceptable. I sold it.

    Unfortunately Nikon has not caught on to Canon's F4 zoom pro-grade optics range, and regards F2.8 zooms only as their pro range.
     
  20. davewolfs

    davewolfs

    633
    May 23, 2006
    You really need an f/4 for back country, it's not really about the $$$, give me VR and an f/4 and I'll be the first one to sign up and buy it.