Has anyone downgraded from their Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII to f4 VRIII?

[gqtuazon]

I love the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII lens. It took a while for me to fund and get one. However, I cannot ignore the weight of it. I normally use a tripod or monopod when shooting with it to get better shots.

Since the release of the f4 version, has anyone sold their f2.8 VRII and settled with the f4 VRIII instead? Any regrets or remorse? Would like to get some of your personal feedback. I'm not sure if that is a smart move or not. I figured that if the lens is lighter and can perform close enough to the f2.8, then I might consider getting the lighter f4 version and sell the f2.8 VRII lens. Thank you.

 

[Xapathan]

Being lighter was the reason for me to switch to the f4 VIII and leave he f2,8 behind me. No regrets!

 

[Randy]

how often do you shoot at 2.8 ?

alot of use replaced our 24-70's with the 24-120 because we didn't shoot enough at 2.8, of ocourse the xtra reach and vr helped

i would think a move to the 70-200/4 would be a good idea, it would maybe enable you to hand hold more

 

[gqtuazon]

how often do you shoot at 2.8 ?

alot of use replaced our 24-70's with the 24-120 because we didn't shoot enough at 2.8, of ocourse the xtra reach and vr helped

i would think a move to the 70-200/4 would be a good idea, it would maybe enable you to hand hold more

Hi Randy . I shoot @ f2.8 mostly indoor sports or night time sports where you need the fastest lens as possible. Other than that, I often stop down to f3.2-3.5 to gain a little more dof and sharpness.

 

[Randy]

Hi Randy . I shoot @ f2.8 mostly indoor sports or night time sports where you need the fastest lens as possible. Other than that, I often stop down to f3.2-3.5 to gain a little more dof and sharpness.

than you answered your own question

 

[Kingfisher]

Hi Randy . I shoot @ f2.8 mostly indoor sports or night time sports where you need the fastest lens as possible. Other than that, I often stop down to f3.2-3.5 to gain a little more dof and sharpness.

I don't think I could ever get rid of my 70-200/2.8, it is such a versatile lens. If you are a low light shooter having the 2.8 is sometimes not enough, I can't see trading it for the f/4 version.

 

[gqtuazon]

than you answered your own question

I know I know. It's just not easy to quickly replace a very good lens and before I make this move I wanted to get the general consensus. Just to be sure that I am not making a bad move.

 

[Kingfisher]

I know I know. It's just not easy to quickly replace a very good lens and before I make this move I wanted to get the general consensus. Just to be sure that I am not making a bad move.

Rent one for a week to see if it works out for you. Nothing lost but a few bucks and a little time.

 

[Aqualung]

I've thought about getting one in addition, but not to replace. I need the 2.8 too much. I've been shooting for a sports company that doesn't want you to go beyond f4, and so it would be lighter to hold for 5-8 hours of shooting...but I do use a monopod for that now so it may be a wash. Lots of other places to spend my $$ on, like a mirrorless system, etc.

 

[StefanSC]

@gqtuazon

You'll probably be able to pay for a f4VRIII by selling the f2.8VRII.
With FX bodies nowadays, you won't feel that much the 1 stop difference. With DX bodies though, that f2.8 gives an extra push for the image .

Keep in mind though that the f4 lens does not come with a tripod mount (need to purchase separately), so factor that into your plans.

Also, of what I've seen, the f4 is so-so with TeleConverters, while the f2.8VRII has blown me away how well it handles the TC14II.

All-in-all, IMO, if you shoot FX and you need to be on the move a lot (landscape, decent light photojournalism), then the f4VR is a slight upgrade over the f2.8VRII.
If you shoot portraits, DX and/or low light, then the f4VR is a clear downgrade.

As a side-note, when I bought the 70-200 f2.8 VRII, my landscape bag actually got lighter (I was shooting with an 85mm f1.8, the 180mm f2.8 and the 300mm f4, and all got replaced by the 70-200 and TC14II)

 

[Thorsten]

Since the release of the f4 version, has anyone sold their f2.8 VRII and settled with the f4 VRIII instead? Any regrets or remorse?

I did, and yes. This was my thread when I decided to downgrade to the f/4, and here is the post when I moved back.

Bottom line: The f/4 is superb and I will be keeping mine, but if you shoot sports, there is nothing like the f/2.8 VRII. I don't even shoot sports, just kid's events like a field day, and somebody with more skill could probably make the f/4 work for that. But the f/2.8 just makes it so easy to nail every single shot.

 

[Randy]

for sports keep in mind the diff in what 2.8 does to a BG vs f/4

 

[Joseph]

I liked my 70-200 2.8 VRII, but I've always thought it was pointless for my own use so I sold it. I only shoot two things - portraits and landscapes. I got the 200/2 for portraits and the 70-200 f/4 for landscapes/travel - this way I have the option of going "all out" or "going light". With the 70-200 2.8, I have no choice but to carry it if I needed that FL.

If I didn't own the 200/2, I would still opt for the f/4 lens. It's just as good as the 2.8 version but way lighter.

 

[Dman51]

Glenn I recently made this swap and for my purposes couldn't be happier. I shoot a multitude of events but for me it's a hobby. I do occasionally shoot low light events and indoor sports so 2.8 was preferred but not necessary for me. Here are a quick lists of pros for making the switch:

Significantly smaller and lighter
Excellent VRIII
Super sharp
Much improved focus breathing and minimal focus distance

The only "cons" would depend on you specifically. The only two I've noticed are weather sealing and obviously 2.8 vs. 4. I will be shooting my first indoor basketball game with this lens soon but I'm not too concerned. With the D600 I can bump my ISO to compensate for shutter speed and even though that won't make up for the BG for my limited times of such situations it was a no brainer for me. I will likely post the pics up after the game in the coming weeks.

 

[mneary]

I'm in the process of making that switch right now - took delivery of a 70-200 f/4 about a week ago, but had no time to try it out yet. It's been hectic here…

The f/2.8 VR II was my favorite lens by far, since it's so versatile… Most of the time I used it with a 1.7 TC for wildlife - before the new 80-400 G appeared! The 80-400 relegated the 70-200 to a life in storage… I just don't shoot events often enough that I would need f/2.8 at 200mm.

So I figured the f/4 would save me some weight and take the place of the 2.8 - as well as my old 70-300 VR that I still throw in the bag whenever I'm traveling (and it's showing its age now on the D800 with the higher pixel density)

Mike

 

[Randy]

@gqtuazon

You'll probably be able to pay for a f4VRIII by selling the f2.8VRII.
With FX bodies nowadays, you won't feel that much the 1 stop difference. With DX bodies though, that f2.8 gives an extra push for the image .

Keep in mind though that the f4 lens does not come with a tripod mount (need to purchase separately), so factor that into your plans.

Also, of what I've seen, the f4 is so-so with TeleConverters, while the f2.8VRII has blown me away how well it handles the TC14II.

All-in-all, IMO, if you shoot FX and you need to be on the move a lot (landscape, decent light photojournalism), then the f4VR is a slight upgrade over the f2.8VRII.
If you shoot portraits, DX and/or low light, then the f4VR is a clear downgrade.

As a side-note, when I bought the 70-200 f2.8 VRII, my landscape bag actually got lighter (I was shooting with an 85mm f1.8, the 180mm f2.8 and the 300mm f4, and all got replaced by the 70-200 and TC14II)

I'm in the process of making that switch right now - took delivery of a 70-200 f/4 about a week ago, but had no time to try it out yet. It's been hectic here…

The f/2.8 VR II was my favorite lens by far, since it's so versatile… Most of the time I used it with a 1.7 TC for wildlife - before the new 80-400 G appeared! The 80-400 relegated the 70-200 to a life in storage… I just don't shoot events often enough that I would need f/2.8 at 200mm.

So I figured the f/4 would save me some weight and take the place of the 2.8 - as well as my old 70-300 VR that I still throw in the bag whenever I'm traveling (and it's showing its age now on the D800 with the higher pixel density)

Mike

The 80-400 changed alot, even more then the 24-120

 

[Joseph]

Just shot our company Christmas party last night... I used the 70-200 f/4 and it struggled badly in dim lighting. I never dipped below 25600 on the D4 and even then, it was just giving me 1/60 or so. The 28 1.8G and 200 /2 came out and saved the night. I think the 2.8 version would've been better in this situation, but I rarely shoot events anyway.

 

[mneary]

Just shot our company Christmas party last night... I used the 70-200 f/4 and it struggled badly in dim lighting. I never dipped below 25600 on the D4 and even then, it was just giving me 1/60 or so. The 28 1.8G and 200 /2 came out and saved the night. I think the 2.8 version would've been better in this situation, but I rarely shoot events anyway.

I'm not surprised - I wouldn't use an f/4 lens to cover an indoor event.

Mike

 

[gqtuazon]

I did, and yes. This was my thread when I decided to downgrade to the f/4, and here is the post when I moved back.

Bottom line: The f/4 is superb and I will be keeping mine, but if you shoot sports, there is nothing like the f/2.8 VRII. I don't even shoot sports, just kid's events like a field day, and somebody with more skill could probably make the f/4 work for that. But the f/2.8 just makes it so easy to nail every single shot.

Just shot our company Christmas party last night... I used the 70-200 f/4 and it struggled badly in dim lighting. I never dipped below 25600 on the D4 and even then, it was just giving me 1/60 or so. The 28 1.8G and 200 /2 came out and saved the night. I think the 2.8 version would've been better in this situation, but I rarely shoot events anyway.

Thanks for this info Thorsten and Joseph and all who have provided feedback (pros and cons).

I shoot a lot of indoor events and that is what I experienced before between the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 vs 24-120mm f4 before. The f4 version requires much more light even when using flash. But that is just my experience. I actually went to one of the local stores here in Japan and there was a D4 with the 70-200mm f4 mounted to it. It looked a little strange since it has a smaller diameter. I was more impressed of the faster fps of the D4 since I use a much slower D800E.

With that said, I will be sticking with my f2.8 VRII and just man-up and get used to the weight. I'm sure it is a light weight compared to the 200mm f2. LOL!

 

[AcademicNomad]

Although it looks funny mounted on a D4, I have no regrets moving to the f4. Just shot an indoor wedding. No problems at all and my arm wasn't tired after hours of shooting. That is a big plus for me.