Nikon 70-200 f2.8 or f4: I am debating to buy one of these two lenses. Since the f2.8 is on sale is it worth the extra funds? I compared the specs and 2.8 looks better in spite of the...

skyking20

I am debating to buy one of these two lenses. Since the f2.8 is on sale is it worth the extra funds? I compared the specs and 2.8 looks better in spite of the still noticeable cost difference. In use, what are the advantages one over the other?

BTW I am new here. I have been reading for a few weeks. Great site.

Earnest Botello Loc: Hockley, Texas

Welcome to the Forum, Skyking. The 2.8 is the better choice.

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

Welcome to the Hog. Faster is almost always better with glass. (If you can afford it).

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I have both and I use both regularly. The 2.8 is the better of the two by far, IMHO, yet when I don't need its speed I do use the F4 because it is substantially lighter. The F2.8 version is sharper and faster focusing and has more features than the F4 version. Best of luck.

aardq

Agree with all the above, the 2.8 is a much better lens, the extra sharpness and speed is worth it. Depending what you photograph, you may not notice the weight.

btbg

skyking20 wrote:

I am debating to buy one of these two lenses. Since the f2.8 is on sale is it worth the extra funds? I compared the specs and 2.8 looks better in spite of the still noticeable cost difference. In use, what are the advantages one over the other?

BTW I am new here. I have been reading for a few weeks. Great site.

It is absolutely worth the extra money if you need a fast lens. Most people actually don't. I shoot sports. the 70-200 or the less expensive 80-200 f2.8 are necessary for the job. If you are just shooting in good light and don't care about shallow depth of field, then you probably don't need the more expensive lens.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

cjc2 wrote:

I have both and I use both regularly. The 2.8 is the better of the two by far, IMHO, yet when I don't need its speed I do use the F4 because it is substantially lighter. The F2.8 version is sharper and faster focusing and has more features than the F4 version. Best of luck.

I opted for the f4 due to weight more than cost.

Vietnam Vet

I shoot sports and the 2.8 lets me shoot later in the evening for a while anyway than a f4 will. Also the sweet spot is not wide open. So if you want to hit that sweet spot you will lose a couple of f stops.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

skyking20 wrote:

I am debating to buy one of these two lenses. Since the f2.8 is on sale is it worth the extra funds? I compared the specs and 2.8 looks better in spite of the still noticeable cost difference. In use, what are the advantages one over the other?

BTW I am new here. I have been reading for a few weeks. Great site.

Absolutely go with the 2.8; performance is superior.

therwol Loc: USA

skyking20 wrote:

I am debating to buy one of these two lenses. Since the f2.8 is on sale is it worth the extra funds? I compared the specs and 2.8 looks better in spite of the still noticeable cost difference. In use, what are the advantages one over the other?

BTW I am new here. I have been reading for a few weeks. Great site.

I bought the f/4. Less cost. Less weight. The tripod collar is overpriced, so I didn't buy it. As for sharpness, I see many posts stating that the f/2.8 is sharper. I doubt it. My f/4 is as sharp as my 50mm prime. My observation. I don't comment on equipment I haven't used. I wonder if those who made that statement have used both lenses.

DxOMark rates them the same. In fact, the f/4 is said to be sharper by them. (The cameras used weren't the same, but they have essentially the same sensor. D810 versus D800E.)

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-F4G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D800E__406_963_1071_814

I think that the f/4 is a steal unless you absolutely need the extra f/stop.

blackest Loc: Ireland

i guess f2.8 should result in faster focusing but at f5.6 say is there a noticeable difference in image quality?

mharvey

The 2.8G if your budget will allow. I've owned and extensively used BOTH of the 2.8's and the 4. I had thought the earlier version of the 2.8 was unbeatable...But that was when I was shooting with 12-16mp cameras. With today's D850 you can readily see that Nikon has found some new voodoo for the G model!

traderjohn Loc: New York City

skyking20 wrote:

I am debating to buy one of these two lenses. Since the f2.8 is on sale is it worth the extra funds? I compared the specs and 2.8 looks better in spite of the still noticeable cost difference. In use, what are the advantages one over the other?

BTW I am new here. I have been reading for a few weeks. Great site.

I have always heard; fast is better. Indoor or night pictures.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

No question, the 2.8 is the better lens; so buy it.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

The 80-200 2.8 non AF-S is the lens I have been using for a long time. It is still being produced and is cheaper than the 70-200 vr. I believe it as sharp as the the 70-200, but doesn't focus as fast because it is not an AF-S lens or have the vr function. Instead of the 70-200 f4, you might want to check out the 70-210 f4 for light a weight walk around. Sells now for about $100 to $200 and produces beautiful images. Its negative is you must use proper camera technique.