Considering Switching 70-200 2.8 VRII to 4.0 ??

Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
732
Location
Southern ON.CA
As the heading says, I'm considering switching from my 70-200 2.8 VRII to the f4.0 version for the lighter weight and overall size benefits as I will be retiring and looking to doing more travel. I know the obvious benefits of the 2.8 ( DOF & Faster) but is their any negative aspects of this change that I should be considering?
I can't afford to have both and I hope not to have any regrets later.
Shooting with a D750 mostly.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
841
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
The 70-200 f/4 is a great lens.

I currently own and shoot with the 70-200 VR II as well, but wanted something smaller and lighter for travel, landscapes, etc. I was up in the air between the 70-200 f/4 and the new 70-300 AF-P. I ended up going with the 70-300, but I still have my f/2.8. If you can only have one, the 70-200 f/4 may be the way to go.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
1,805
Location
Southern Cal
James,
I recently decided I needed to reduce the weight of all the gear I was carrying around.
I decided to go mirrorless and bought the Sony A7 III and have absolutely no regrets.
If you stick with the lenses that are made for mirrorless you can reduce your load considerably.
If you decide to use your DSLR lenses and an adapter the weight savings is not as favorable.
I have gradually been selling off my DSLR equipment and so far what I have recouped has been more than enough to pay for the Sony.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
21,634
Location
Moscow, Idaho
I moved to the 70-200 f/4 from the 80-200 AFS-D, ED, f2.8. The 80-200 used to be a well used workhorse, and I missed it enough to go looking for a replacement when I decided my other glass didn't quite do the same thing for me. I love the f/4, its sharp, reasonably fast (I shoot mostly landscapes) hand holdable, but I did get a Kirk collar.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
14,973
Location
Los Angeles, USA
The Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR is awesome. It's sharper than the VR II, weighs less, has better VR and doesn't focus breath either. It's also N coated and has excellent contrast and color. Saying that, the 2.8 is better suited for low light work and portraiture due to the shallow DOF control, while I found the f4 version a bit too sharp and clinical for portraits. Though I found pairing it with a cheap 85mm 1.8 G to give the best of both worlds! ;)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
3
Have you considered the Tamron G2, its a brilliant lens and is incredibly sharp. Probably a better buy over the F4 and much cheaper than the F2.8iii. Its got some weight to it though!
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
841
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
Have you considered the Tamron G2, its a brilliant lens and is incredibly sharp. Probably a better buy over the F4 and much cheaper than the F2.8iii. Its got some weight to it though!
Did you bother to read the OP? He said "I'm considering switching from my 70-200 2.8 VRII to the f4.0 version for the lighter weight and overall size benefits as I will be retiring and looking to doing more travel."

What size and weight benefits are there to the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2 vs. the Nikon 70-200 VR II?
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
3
Did you bother to read the OP? He said "I'm considering switching from my 70-200 2.8 VRII to the f4.0 version for the lighter weight and overall size benefits as I will be retiring and looking to doing more travel."

What size and weight benefits are there to the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2 vs. the Nikon 70-200 VR II?
I'll consider myself told off then.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
4,579
Location
Alaska
I made the same switch that you are considering and for the same reasons. One difference is that I did own both the 2.8 VRII and the f4 at the same time for a while. Due to the excellent IQ of the f4 I found that the 2.8 spent all of its time on the shelf barring the very rare occasions that I shot something indoors. So I sold it. And now with the excellent low light AF and higher ISO capabilities of the current generation of cameras I find the f4 fully capable indoors. I've shot a couple of indoor events in the past year with no problem. Which then leaves only the flatter DOF capability of the 2.8 as what one gives up.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,558
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
For events my f/4 replaced my f/2.8 VRII. But since I was shooting events professionally and there were times I did need f/2.8 (and I needed a backup), I sold the VRII and got the cheaper Tamron VC. I went from DX to FX and ended up with a smaller and lighter kit thanks to the f/4. The f/4 on FX gave me about the same DOF as to f/2.8 of DX).

@Temba, have you looked at you shots? How many were taken from F/2.8 - f/4? Were they taken at f/2.8 because you wanted the DOF vs for the higher shutter speed? If for the shutter speed what ISO were you shooting?
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
18,016
Location
Idaho
I'll consider myself told off then.
I don't know how the size and weight compare, but I always like it when people give me recommendations of third party products that are very good. The owner of our local camera store, who has been a huge Nikon fan and promoter has said that Nikon and Canon better watch out because Tamron is producing lenses that are better and less expensive. He is currently leading a photo workshop in Alaska and all his eagle photos that he is sharing on his facebook page today have been with the Tamron 70-200 f2.8/G2. They are outstanding. Of course, he is a Tamron dealer as well as Nikon, Canon, and Sony so that has to be considered, but he obviously is using it for his own photography. You can search Christopher Balmer on Facebook. He owns Perfect Light Camera. But, I don't want to derail this thread, so I don't want any further comments made on this post, because third party lenses weren't in the original question and I do understand wanting to support Nikon.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,558
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
I don't know how the size and weight compare, but I always like it when people give me recommendations of third party products that are very good. The owner of our local camera store, who has been a huge Nikon fan and promoter has said that Nikon and Canon better watch out because Tamron is producing lenses that are better and less expensive. He is currently leading a photo workshop in Alaska and all his eagle photos that he is sharing on his facebook page today have been with the Tamron 70-200 f2.8/G2. They are outstanding. Of course, he is a Tamron dealer as well as Nikon, Canon, and Sony so that has to be considered, but he obviously is using it for his own photography. You can search Christopher Balmer on Facebook. He owns Perfect Light Camera. But, I don't want to derail this thread, so I don't want any further comments made on this post, because third party lenses weren't in the original question and I do understand wanting to support Nikon.
Yes Tamron is putting out some good stuff these days. I remember one review (can't find it right now) that said the Tamron 70-210 f/4 is good, but the Nikon is still better. I think the difference was more notable on the longer end if I recall.

But of course the Tamron is half the price so...
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
841
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
I don't know how the size and weight compare, but I always like it when people give me recommendations of third party products that are very good.
The Tamron 70-200 G2 is 0.5 inches shorter than the Nikon VR II, and 55g less. Compare that to the Nikon f/4 that the OP asked about which weighs 850g, 690g less than the Nikon VR II that OP already owns.

The effort to list, sell, and ship the VR II, only to have to buy a Tamon G2 to save 0.5 inches and 50g is not worth it. If the OP wants to reduce the weight, the Nikon f/4 is the way to go.
 
Joined
Nov 12, 2018
Messages
808
Or perhaps the 70-300 which by all accounts produces images above what one would expect and it is even smaller and lighter. I know it is 5.6 at 300, but I don’t know what it is at 200 for comparison.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
6,011
Location
N Idaho
I’ve thought making the change to the f/4 for the weight/size advantage, it wasn’t offered when I got my VRII f/2.8. My sister just picked a used f/4 70-200, she really likes it. Only thing holding me back is I often shoot mine wide open. That recent one I posted of my dog was shot at f/2.8.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
732
Location
Southern ON.CA
Thank you for all of the reply's! I do have an 85-1.8 that I can use for low light / DOF considerations when needed. I will begin by trying to locate a decent used copy and then if it checks out and I'm happy with the results I will sell the 2.8.

James
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom