Considering Switching 70-200 2.8 VRII to 4.0 ??

Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
6,170
Location
N Idaho
My sister got her 70-200 f/4 from Pro Photo in Portland for $750. She said they had two of them marked at $795, she offered $750 and got one of them, she’s done quite a bit of businesses with them. I just looked, they still have the other one.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
227
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I got the f/4 lens.
The primary driver was weight. The f/2.8 is 2x heavier than the f/4 lens.
I shoot high school field sports, where the JV game starts at 4, and the subsequent Varsity game ends at 930. That is a LONG time to be on my feet shooting. After about 3 hours, everything feels HEAVIER than when I started, and by the end of the night I am almost worn out. The heavier f/2.8 lens would have me worn out and shut down before the middle of the 2nd game.
I shoot hand held, as my style of shooting requires me to turn my body to track the players. I have a 120 degree arc of coverage. A monopod restricts my arc of coverage to about 30 degrees, before I have then move my body to rotate around the monopod. IOW I cannot track a laterally moving subject while using a monopod.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
4,499
Location
Redwood City, CA
I've had the f4 for several years and agree about it's being excellent. I also have the older 70-300VR which I still use occasionally for it's smaller size and lower weight. The 70-200/4 is quite a bit longer than the 70-300. A big advantage of the 70-200 is that it takes the excellent RRS collar and foot, easier to carry than the Kirk.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
1,065
Location
St. Charles, IL
Real Name
Andy
I currently use the 70-200mm f/2.8E, but have previously owned or tried pretty much every variant of the 70-200mm (and 80-200) Nikon autofocus zooms. I would say that the 70-200mm f/4G is an excellent choice based on what the OP has stated as his needs. It is an excellent optic both in terms of sharpness and flare resistance. The latter is a challenge for the first two iterations of the VR
as well as the "non-IF-ED" 80-200.

A couple years ago while my f/2.8 was in for repair, I shot a cross country meet and a marathon on consecutive days with a rented copy of that lens (mounted on a D500 for the former on a D750 for the latter). I was very pleased with AF performance, sharpness, and even the OOF rendering. Obviously, those were both outdoors, so there was plenty of light.

As long as you don't often need the extra stop, it's an excellent choice.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
6,170
Location
N Idaho
Next time I'm in Portland I'm going to see if my sister will let me try her f/4 out. I use my f/2.8 a lot in the winter photographing my crazy dogs playing in the snow, looking thru my photos a lot of them are at f/3.2 so I think f/4 should work. The weight/size reduction would be nice.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,595
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
Next time I'm in Portland I'm going to see if my sister will let me try her f/4 out. I use my f/2.8 a lot in the winter photographing my crazy dogs playing in the snow, looking thru my photos a lot of them are at f/3.2 so I think f/4 should work. The weight/size reduction would be nice.
If you're already at f/3.2 I'd definitely look at the f/4.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
939
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
Next time I'm in Portland I'm going to see if my sister will let me try her f/4 out. I use my f/2.8 a lot in the winter photographing my crazy dogs playing in the snow, looking thru my photos a lot of them are at f/3.2 so I think f/4 should work. The weight/size reduction would be nice.
Why are you at f/3.2? Is it intentional?
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
227
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
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.
Actually for day time shooting this is a good option.
When I travel, I do NOT bring my HEAVY fast lenses. I make do with my lighter f/5.6 lenses.
It is all about compromises to bring the kit weight down to a level that I can carry, constantly on the go for 2 to 3 weeks.
If I'm tired and worn out, I stop shooting or shoot very little.
And I don't want to be so worn out and tired at the end of the vacation, that I don't want to travel again.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
6,170
Location
N Idaho
I’ve been doing a lot of reading about these 70-200’s since this thread was started. Still haven’t decided which way to go, but the new 70-200e really sounds attractive in the reviews I’ve found. Only thing stopping me is my VR2 is so sharp I’m reluctant to replace it. 70-200 is the lens I use most of the time. I might be in Spokane this weekend, I’ve called them and they have one they’ll let me try. I’d like to compare the “e” with my VR2.
 
Last edited:

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