Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4
Feb 8, 2015 17:18:42 #
I've heard great things about the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 lens and thinking of making this my first expensive lens purchase but I've heard the f/2.8 lens is excellent and faster but much heavier. I have the kit lens and the cheaper 55-300mm f/4.5 -5.6G ED lens that I use on my D5100.
I like dog photography (sold one of my photos for $5000 this year) and landscape photography. I like hiking on the trail with my camera and usually have my dog with me unless I'm in a National Park.
Does anyone have advice on these lenses? Should I look at other lens choices? Also, does anyone have a favorite camera backpack? I'm a small female only 5'2". Thanks.
I like dog photography (sold one of my photos for $5000 this year) and landscape photography. I like hiking on the trail with my camera and usually have my dog with me unless I'm in a National Park.
Does anyone have advice on these lenses? Should I look at other lens choices? Also, does anyone have a favorite camera backpack? I'm a small female only 5'2". Thanks.
Feb 8, 2015 17:34:34 #
Golden Rule wrote:
I've heard great things about the Nikon 70-200mm f... (show quote)
I chose the f/4 because the extra cost for 1 stop wasn't worth it for me.
Feb 8, 2015 17:44:28 #
The Nikon 70-200/4 is a great lens by all reports. I have owned several of the 2.8 versions and all are excellent. The difference is weight and cost vs speed. If you do a lot of indoor stuff the 2.8 would be valuable. This is a decision best made by you in consideration of what you really need for what you will be shooting. Best of luck.
Feb 8, 2015 19:26:17 #
EbbieMN
Loc: Grey Cloud Island, MN
Sorry I can't help with the lens question. However, I hike and backpack and I use a Cotton Carrier vest. It carries the camera and lens pointed down so it never gets in the way. It locks in securely and is easy to get the camera out and shooting quickly. I then use my main backpack for extra clothes, water, etc. I wrap extra lenses in bubble wrap and put in backpack. Works good for me!
Feb 8, 2015 20:01:52 #
EbbieMN wrote:
Sorry I can't help with the lens question. However, I hike and backpack and I use a Cotton Carrier vest. It carries the camera and lens pointed down so it never gets in the way. It locks in securely and is easy to get the camera out and shooting quickly. I then use my main backpack for extra clothes, water, etc. I wrap extra lenses in bubble wrap and put in backpack. Works good for me!
I've seen the camera holster and vest but I'm a bit concerned with moisture being in the Pacific Northwest.
Feb 8, 2015 20:05:19 #
Sheila
Loc: Arizona or New York
Do you intend to move to a full frame camera eventually? Will you want to carry the lens when you are hiking or will you use this lens for events? The 70-200mm f2.8 lens is my heaviest lens and I recently got a 28-300mm lens for hiking with my D810 because it is much lighter. However, if you expect to sell more photos from show events you will want to consider this lens. I have not used the f4 lens but a previous comment states why this might be an option. The 24-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8 are excellent choices but the 70-200 is definitely heavy.
Feb 8, 2015 21:25:04 #
Sheila, I will eventually move to a full frame camera and will hike with only 2 lenses and camera. I think I have talked myself into the f/4 because I keep thinking of the long slog up a permanent snowfield to Camp Muir in Mt. Rainier Nat'l Park.
Feb 8, 2015 21:31:02 #
Sheila wrote:
Do you intend to move to a full frame camera event... (show quote)
When you're a sports photographer, heavy is a relative word. I consider my 70-200/2.8 a lightweight, but I wouldn't want to hike up any mountains with any of my gear either!
Feb 8, 2015 21:35:53 #
At 70, the 70-200 f2.8 feels like a feather weight compared to my 300 f2.8 prime. Get the 2.8 and never look back. Indoor shots are a no brainer!
Feb 9, 2015 07:12:05 #
I do not have either of these lenses. I am still using a 80-200 f2.8 AF-D, but when I do finally get the 70-200 it will be the f/2.8. For serious photography compromise is never an option.
Feb 9, 2015 08:08:08 #
Hi,
I don't know how expensive the f 4 lens is but I can tell you for roughly $975 new & $700 used the f 2.8 80-200 mm lens is fast accurate, not as heavy as the 70-200 f 2.8 which replaced it and is a gem to use. I use it in low light indoors & out doors, animals/birds/football all with very good results last used to take lower manhattan skyline & ships/helos with excellent results all with no flash & no tripod/monopod. Of course I am 6' 2" 350lbs & can handle the weight of the lens!!
Joe
I don't know how expensive the f 4 lens is but I can tell you for roughly $975 new & $700 used the f 2.8 80-200 mm lens is fast accurate, not as heavy as the 70-200 f 2.8 which replaced it and is a gem to use. I use it in low light indoors & out doors, animals/birds/football all with very good results last used to take lower manhattan skyline & ships/helos with excellent results all with no flash & no tripod/monopod. Of course I am 6' 2" 350lbs & can handle the weight of the lens!!
Joe
Feb 9, 2015 08:16:50 #
las
Loc: West-Central Illinois on the Mississippi
Many years ago I owned a 24-70/2.8 which I used on my F4. It was after taking this combination on a family vacation which involved much walking that I started to downsize both lens and camera.
Feb 9, 2015 08:30:44 #
I bought the 2.8 and have never regretted it, and not for indoor use. The extra stop's shallower DOF is most useful in most all situations I encounter.
Feb 9, 2015 09:07:06 #
Golden Rule wrote:
I've heard great things about the Nikon 70-200mm f... (show quote)
The weight of the 2.8 will be an issue for you .....( and the cost)
Feb 9, 2015 09:29:49 #
That's a big jump from kit lenses to 2.8 zooms. I own the 24-70 and 70-200VR f2.8 zooms. They are very heavy (for lenses) and very expensive...and I love them. But when I travel I hardly ever take the 70-200...just too heavy. I take my Nikon 70-300VR instead. You should also consider the 18-200 (for DX) or the 28-300 (for full frame). If you want the depth of field/bokeh advantages of a very fast lens, take a look at the 35mm f1.8 (for DX) or the 50mm F1.4 (for full frame). With the prime lenses, zoom with your feet!
Backpack? I use a LowePro Fastback 250 (think that is the correct model). It will carry a body with large zoom, extra smaller size lens, filters and stuff and laptop charger & mouse. The laptop (up to 15") slides in a compartment in the back. Another compartment at the top for a book, phone and other assorted travel junk. It is always my carry on.
Backpack? I use a LowePro Fastback 250 (think that is the correct model). It will carry a body with large zoom, extra smaller size lens, filters and stuff and laptop charger & mouse. The laptop (up to 15") slides in a compartment in the back. Another compartment at the top for a book, phone and other assorted travel junk. It is always my carry on.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.