70-210 f4 vs 70-200 f4: I have a 70-210 f4 Nikon lens in great shape and enjoy using it on walks because it is so light compared to my 80-200 2.8. Does anyone have experience with the...

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

I have a 70-210 f4 Nikon lens in great shape and enjoy using it on walks because it is so light compared to my 80-200 2.8. Does anyone have experience with the 70-200 f4 vr Nikon in comparison to the 70-210 f4. Other than not having vr and faster focusing, will I notice a $1300 difference in the quality of pictures I will get if I upgrade. I appreciate your thoughts.

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

Leon S wrote:

I have a 70-210 f4 in great shape and enjoy using it on walks because it is so light compared to my 80-200 2.8. Does anyone have experience with the 70-200 f4 in comparison to the 70-210 f4. Other than not having vr and faster focusing, will I notice a $1300 difference in the quality of pictures I will get if I upgrade. I appreciate your thoughts.

What brand lenses are you talking about?

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

Swamp Gator wrote:

What brand lenses are you talking about?

Sorry about that. Both are Nikon.

amehta Loc: Boston

The one you have is a Nikon 70-210 f/4-5.6, so you lose another stop of light at the long end. I think it is a little softer, but it probably isn't worth a $1300 difference. I used it for my second camera at a wedding shoot recently, and it did the job fine.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

amehta wrote:

The one you have is a Nikon 70-210 f/4-5.6, so you lose another stop of light at the long end. I think it is a little softer, but it probably isn't worth a $1300 difference. I used it for my second camera at a wedding shoot recently, and it did the job fine.

Actually no, the one I have is a constant f4. It came out about a year before the one your mentioned. Its good to hear that the one you have did the job at a wedding. Did you use a flash at the wedding with it?

amehta Loc: Boston

Leon S wrote:

Actually no, the one I have is a constant f4. It came out about a year before the one your mentioned. Its good to hear that the one you have did the job at a wedding. Did you use a flash at the wedding with it?

Yes, sorry about that. Now I wonder why I didn't get the one you have...

I did use a flash. It was set up in a photobooth, so distance wasn't an issue. If you are happy with yours, I see no reason to change it.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

amehta wrote:

Yes, sorry about that. Now I wonder why I didn't get the one you have...

I did use a flash. It was set up in a photobooth, so distance wasn't an issue. If you are happy with yours, I see no reason to change it.

The f4 model is harder to find in good shape. I got lucky and found my at a garage sale with a 35-70 3.3-? , a camera bag, worthless flash, and a Nikon 20-20 film camera for $50.

amehta Loc: Boston

Leon S wrote:

The f4 model is harder to find in good shape. I got lucky and found my at a garage sale with a 35-70 3.3-? , a camera bag, worthless flash, and a Nikon 20-20 film camera for $50.

Nice. I got the 70-210mm f/4-5.6 in the early 90s. I imagine the f/4 was more easily available then.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Leon S wrote:

The f4 model is harder to find in good shape. I got lucky and found my at a garage sale with a 35-70 3.3-? , a camera bag, worthless flash, and a Nikon 20-20 film camera for $50.

The Nikon AF 70-210 F4 was one of Nikons very first AF zooms only made from 1986 to 1988, WAY before the AF-S 70-200mm F4 VR which was just introduced in 2012.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

MT Shooter wrote:

The Nikon AF 70-210 F4 was one of Nikons very first AF zooms only made from 1986 to 1988, WAY before the AF-S 70-200mm F4 VR which was just introduced in 2012.

Hi MT. I know that but what I don't know is if it will capture shots near as good. I'm not sure that its worth going to the 70-200 f4 if I can get similar performance from 70-210 f4. I know vr is a big feature, but vr isn't always needed. Are the shots going to be that much better? Do you have an opinion?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Leon S wrote:

Hi MT. I know that but what I don't know is if it will capture shots near as good. I'm not sure that its worth going to the 70-200 f4 if I can get similar performance from 70-210 f4. I know vr is a big feature, but vr isn't always needed. Are the shots going to be that much better? Do you have an opinion?

Your lens only has one real drawback, the rear element does not have multi-coating and these lenses have a tendency to give off reflections of the image that is reflected off the sensor in digital cameras. That was never an issue with film as film was non-reflective. Its worse when shooting into a bright light, and seldom a problem if you don't have any blown-out highlights in your shot. As for sharpness, they were actually pretty darned good! They also had excellent close-focusing capability. Its a good lens for what you paid for it, even close to a great bargain!

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

MT Shooter wrote:

Your lens only has one real drawback, the rear ele... (show quote)

Thanks MT. Just got done jumping the expedition and moving more snow. I should have worked for the county. Thanks for the info. I will continue to use it and watch the light as I do. I didn't think for what the 70-200 f4 cost, it was going to be worth it to me. Knowing how to use a tool is more important than having the latest and greatest. Thanks.

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Leon S wrote:

I have a 70-210 f4 Nikon lens in great shape and enjoy using it on walks because it is so light compared to my 80-200 2.8. Does anyone have experience with the 70-200 f4 vr Nikon in comparison to the 70-210 f4. Other than not having vr and faster focusing, will I notice a $1300 difference in the quality of pictures I will get if I upgrade. I appreciate your thoughts.

I have the same lens for my D200 and now for my Df too, It's a pretty good lens. I don't consider to switch to the much heavier and expensive 70-200mm F2.8. One stop less and the VR function doesn't matter to me, the Df low light ability will take care of it!
Check on this site <www.dantestella.com/technical/70210.html
from Dante Stella, or the site from Ken Rockwell about this old lens.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

wingclui44 wrote:

I have the same lens for my D200 and now for my Df too, It's a pretty good lens. I don't consider to switch to the much heavier and expensive 70-200mm F2.8. One stop less and the VR function doesn't matter to me, the Df low light ability will take care of it!
Check on this site <www.dantestella.com/technical/70210.html
from Dante Stella, or the site from Ken Rockwell about this old lens.

Thanks for the info. I am familiar with what Rockwell said about it but will check into Dante Stella. You must love the lens if you are using it on the Df.

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Leon S wrote:

Thanks for the info. I am familiar with what Rockwell said about it but will check into Dante Stella. You must love the lens if you are using it on the Df.

Yes, I do!