Nikon 70-200 f2.8 or f4 (Page 2): I also needed to make the same choice as you. While it is clear that the 2.8 is a better lens; it also needs context. You already know the answer. I...

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

I also needed to make the same choice as you. While it is clear that the 2.8 is a better lens; it also needs context. You already know the answer. I didn't go for the 2.8 because.....I don't shoot sports and wildlife and I do not need the faster glass for low light and the extreme bokeh. I figured that most use would be at f4-f8. Also, coupled with my D810 (at the time), the ISO range was/is outstanding. All reviews and comparisons place the f4, once you move the 2.8 into the sweet spot range, equal to or better than the 2.8 in some circumstances. I chose the f4 because it was lighter and I didn't have the need, then or now, for the better lens characteristics. I do not regret my choice. It is the same reasoning that I recently moved on from my D810 to the Z6; and not the D850 or wait for the successor to the D850. My primary goal is to lighten my carry without compromising quality that is important to me. To me is what is the guide here. And to you..should be your guide as well.

Hasslla

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 the f4.0 and am very happy with the results for my granddaughters’ soccer games, especially the light weight. In a fit of GAS i’m thinking of getting the f2.8 for better results for night games - but am fighting it. An alternative might be the Tamron f2.8 G2 at about half price of the Nikon. Rockwell has a review of this and seems impressed at its value. My concern is the manufacturing consistency of Tamron lenses vs Nikon.

Ray and JoJo Loc: Florida--Tenneessee

2.8 is the best and if you want you can go with and up to 2tc, but myself would stay with 1.7 max

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Many professionals, specially landscape photographers, are using the f4 version.

Bill_de Loc: US

Weight and price would be the only reasons I can think of for not going with the F/2.8. They can be enough depending on the intended use. I do own the AF-s version and in most instances I wouldn't trade it.

On the other hand, while I have no intentions of getting rid of my DSLR's, I picked up a Z6 which is now my walk about choice. I have the F/4.0 24-70, have the 14-30 F/4.0 on order, and will wait the projected one year plus for the F/4.0 70-200. Weight is the deciding factor for this kit.

---

pbfuller

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 the 2.8 and love it. The only downside is weight! I use it for a walk around most of the time.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

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.

My take:
1. It depends on the camera. A super hi-res like a D-850 may need the slightly sharper glass.
2. What are you photographing. If you always shoot at f/8 or higher you may not see a great difference. If you shoot wide open then you will notice a difference.

Again, as always, it depends on what you are going to use the glass to photograph.

Bullfrog Bill Loc: CT

When I was shooting sports, 2.8 was essential and, is probably for portraits. Now that I shoot primarily landscapes, I wish I had the wait savings of the f4.

brjomd Loc: Carlsbad, California

The f/2.8 is constructed much better. It is dust and weather sealed. Definitely superior in every way. IMHO it’s worth the money and the increased weight for the tack sharp images you will be able to create.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

Earnest Botello wrote:

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

The IQ at f/4 will be better using the f/2.8 lens than the f/4 lens at f/4. You can also use a TC on the f/2.8 lens which will reduce the effective aperture, but still give you great usability. If $$ is an issue, look for a pre-loved VRII.

blue-ultra Loc: New Hampshire

There is a reason it is one of the holy trinity lenses. Absolutely the 2.8, you will not be disappointed...

jpgto Loc: North East Tennessee

2.8 is my suggestion. Good luck. Welcome to the forum.

jdedmonds

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 the older Nikon AF-S 80-200 f2.8 and I'd estimate that at least a third of the exposures I make with
it are at f2.8. My lens is quite incredibly sharp at all apertures.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

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.

YOU will not notice the difference in the lenses. Save your money and buy the 4. Pro's need the 2.8, you do not.

Gilkar

I have the 2.8 have used it for many years A great lens