Traveller

If I keep my DSLR stuff (that's another conversation...), I feel that I need to replace my kit lens with a more serious 70-200 zoom. From the blogs I have been reading, both of these lenses are optically excellent. The F4 is much lighter, about $1000 less, but a full stop slower. While both lenses are considered Nikon "pro" grade, the F2.8 is made mostly from metal, the F4 mostly from plastic. Because I have arrived to that stage of life where weight matters, I am leaning toward the F4, but wonder if I'll be kicking myself later for not getting the faster, and perhaps more rugged lens. Your thoughts?

Robeng Loc: California

I have the 70mm-200mm f2.8 VR lens and love it. Not only is it sharp and fast, it's extremely durable. I dropped it numerous times and it still works fine.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Do you shoot in lower light situations a lot or mostly outside in good light?
While I love the 2.8, for it's speed, outsided I feel it is overkill as I get older.

Robeng Loc: California

Hi Goofynewfi,
If you have time, go to my website to the stunning gallery, password is "Girls" a lot of those shots were done handheld with the 70mm-200mm f2.8 lens in natural light.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Sounds to me like you want the F2.8 speed, but the F4 price. Why not get BOTH, take a look at the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8. Has the speed at the best price, I made the Nikon-Sigma switch almost 1 1/2 years ago and LOVE the choice. It takes the Sigma 1.4X TC extremely well also, with full, fast AF function.

mdfenton

If my memory is working properly, this question is discussed in www.kenrockwell.com. He recommends the F4.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

That lens has a reputation for being "built like a tank," mainly for its metal construction. However, the many moving parts inside are what often cause trouble. About a week ago, someone posted a link to a report on lens failures experienced by a lens rental company. Moving parts wear, jamb, and break.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Exactly, and in some reviews, it has photographic advantages. If I had it to do over, I would get the f/4, rather than the f/2.8. "A full stop" is just one shutter speed or ISO level.

There was an article in Pop Photo (I think) about the popularity of the new f/4 lenses.

Stef C Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA

I got the F4 after the same dilemma and could not be happier. It's so sharp, the VR is amazing, and it autofocuses so fast.

JBohinc Loc: Chesterland Ohio

I am just about to list for sale a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AFS ED lens
9+ condition hard to find old style with two rings. sharp, clear ,no issues.
If your interested $850.
JimB

J-SPEIGHT Loc: Akron, Ohio

I use the 70-200 2.8 and love it it is durable but heavy and im not as young as I used to be but the results are awesome Ive had no trouble with this lens at all

cthahn

Make the choice yourself. No one knows anything about the type of photography you do. Everyone feels they have to have a zoom. Why? I sold my last zoom because of quality problems and use only prime lenses. 2 AF, a 1.8 35mm, 2.8 105 mm macro, plus a variety of manual focus prime lenses from 17mm to 300mm . I us a D200 and am probably older that you are. Most amateurs want a zoom to do everything which will never happen so they wont have to change a lens. Only you know what you need.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

Use the 70-200, 2.8 because I shoot alot of night time sports. Great lens despite it weighing a bit it's not like carrying a dumb bell around. I have it on a D7000 with battery pack and can carry it all day---I'll be 65 in Dec. I love the lens/camera combo and you can get some great shots with field lighting. Also works great for indoor gyms where the lighting usually sucks. Haven't been inclined to use the f4 so I can't compare the 2 I just know I like the 2.8 and for right now see no reason to change......

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

I use the f2.8. Yes it's heavy and bulky and what really aggravates me is the lens hood which prevents you from standing the lens on its nose. But all that said I'd not trade it for the F4.

The lens is incredibly fast and perhaps the F4 could be too, I've not tried it. But where it really excels is in poor lighting. Yes I noted everyone says "it's just a stop" but in poor lighting that stop might be the difference between getting the image focused or not. Keep in mind a stop is a factor of two. So the f2.8 lets in twice the light of the f4. I think that's quite significant don't you?

As to the thousand dollars ... we're not talking about some gizmo that is going out of style or obsolete in the next year or two. We're talking about a gadget that will outlive all the cameras you plan to buy. If you divide the number of years that adds up to into the thousand dollars, it's a trivial amount.

I also like that it's sealed too and has a steel barrel. That's lovely on a rainy day and handy if I slip on ice in the winter. I know I'll be able to rely on the lens in all conditions.

And the weight? Well gosh, as we get older we're constantly told to exercise. Well, they don't charge you extra for giving you a healthy solution to that advice.

My money is on the f2.8

mrzip90230 Loc: Culver City, Ca. USA

I've been using the F2.8 for a long time and love it! I also have the 2X extender that makes it a sweet 140-400 F5.6. That's cheaper than buying another long lens...