Nikon 70-200mm (Page 2): I'm not a Nikon shooter, but used another brand of 70-200mm f/2.8 for years. In fact, it was my "most used" lens (lots of sports photography). So much so that...

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I'm not a Nikon shooter, but used another brand of 70-200mm f/2.8 for years. In fact, it was my "most used" lens (lots of sports photography). So much so that when a good deal on a 70-200mm f/4 presented itself, I jumped on it as a backup.

It turned out I use the f/4 lens more often. It's smaller and lighter. And in the system I use the image quality is largely the same, except of course the f/2.8 lens can produce better background blur and subject separation, as some others have illustrated so well in earlier responses. I still have both lenses... though my f/4 version gets more use and the f/2.8 has sort of turned into the backup lens, except when I want the extra background blur it offers or need that extra stop to shoot in low light conditions.

I don't know if the same is true of the various Nikon 70-200s. By all reports, the 70-200mm f/2.8 "FL" is a truly superb lens. I don't know how other f/2.8 and f/4 versions compare, so will leave it to others who have actually used them. There also may be some online image quality comparisons and reviews that can tell you about AF performance, VR effectiveness, etc.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...it is known as one of the best lenses Nikon ever made..."

Absolutely Joan DC... DxOMark clearly documents its epic performance...
Amazing acuity even wide open!

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-F4G-ED-VR-mounted-on-Nikon-D810__963

Click on Measurements; Then Sharpness; Then Field Map
Select F4 then click on 70; 85; 105; 135; and 200...
Virtually Emerald Green edge to edge...

There is a "Prime Optic" hidden in ever focal length...
If I could afford it I could likely retire much of my current kit between 70 and 200mm

Not only that it is feather light... only ~100 grams move the the vintage AF 70-210mm f/4 and it has VR rated for 6 stops! Truly "Pro" level optics in a "Prosumer" wrapper....

Peter Lindbergh could have had any lense he wanted for his D810...
He chose the AF-S 70-200mm F4G ED VR Nikkor for it's stellar performance on set...

hrblaine

Royce Moss wrote:

Hey Hoggers, happy Fathers Dayto the guys out there. The wifey knows I have been researching the 70-200 f/4 and wants to get me a like new one for fathers day for my 7200. I have the 70-300 non vr that I am not really thrilled about. Sigmas 17-50, 10-20, Nikon 50mm. Nikon 75-300. Is the 70-200 really that good ? Is it a major upgrade? I am not a pro mainly shoot portraits, dogs (I am a dog boarder so I have lots of models). street scenes. landscapes and flowers. Thanks for any advice

I shoot Canon and have the Canon 70-200. Great lens! If the Nikon is anything like the Canon, you will love it. Harry

Bill McKenna

I just bought the 70-200 f2.8 (used). An incredible lens. Even though it is more money, I would get that lens before the f4. Incredible focus speed, and incredible images.

hrblaine

Forgot to mention that my 70-200 is an f4. Why? Price primarily but when I can, I shoot at 5.6 or f8 so I wouldn't use 2.8 much (or 4 for that matter). Of course, I try not to shoot wide open, expecting a better image if I stop down some. Harry

hrblaine

Oh, and Bill, my f4 will focus speedily enuf for me and my purposes. The images it produces are d^mn good. Not worth the extra $$ to me as I don't use it indoors or in the middle of the night. Of course, ymmv. Harry

mundy-F2 Loc: Chicago suburban area

ColoPete wrote:

I am very happy with my Nikkor 70-200 f4. I shoot mostly outdoors in good light, so rarely feel the need for a wider aperture. The visual acuity is impressive, and it is lighter (and less expensive) than the f2.8 version. I wish it had a bit more reach (say 70 to 300mm) but as in life, there are trade offs.

I am still using my Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5, (pre IS). It works and captures well and it is very lite and easy to focus. It is the only zoom I use that is lite enough for me to lug around all day with another body and 28mm wide angle prime. If using a tripod, I agree there are some great suggestions by you guys.
Mundy

mundy-F2 Loc: Chicago suburban area

Joan DC wrote:

Incredible lens. A bit heavy — at least got me — but it is known as one of the best lenses Nikon ever made.

I agree Joan, too heavy for me, but great lens. However, on a tripod or monopod, much better for my health.
Mundy

bobfitz Loc: Kendall-Miami, Florida

Don't forget, the 70 to 200mm f4 will actually be the equivalent of a 105 to 300mm f6 when taking the 1.5 crop factor of the D7200 into account.
If the 70 to 200mm has VR it is always beneficial on the long end of the lens' range.

bobfitz Loc: Kendall-Miami, Florida

Don't forget, the 70 to 200mm f4 will actually be the equivalent of a 105 to 300mm f6 when taking the 1.5 crop factor of the D7200 into account.
If the 70 to 200mm has VR it is always beneficial on the long end of the lens' range.

Miamark Loc: Florida

Royce Moss wrote:

Hey Hoggers, happy Fathers Dayto the guys out there. The wifey knows I have been researching the 70-200 f/4 and wants to get me a like new one for fathers day for my 7200. I have the 70-300 non vr that I am not really thrilled about. Sigmas 17-50, 10-20, Nikon 50mm. Nikon 75-300. Is the 70-200 really that good ? Is it a major upgrade? I am not a pro mainly shoot portraits, dogs (I am a dog boarder so I have lots of models). street scenes. landscapes and flowers. Thanks for any advice

I like the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 zoom lenses. I used the push/pull version for film and digital cameras with great results. The later version, which has a separate ring for the zoom and focus functions, also is a good choice as it will give you a removable tripod mount. You can get either lens at good prices.if you choose the push pull version, make sure that dust has not accumulated inside the lens.

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

bobfitz wrote:

Don't forget, the 70 to 200mm f4 will actually be the equivalent of a 105 to 300mm f6 when taking the 1.5 crop factor of the D7200 into account.
If the 70 to 200mm has VR it is always beneficial on the long end of the lens' range.

Actually, the 70-200 f4 lens on a D7200 body would be a 105-300 f4.

therwol Loc: USA

Thomas902 wrote:

Royce the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED IF VR is an awesom... (show quote)

I bought the 70-210 f/4 "vintage" lens you speak of on eBay a few years ago. It came from Japan. It was advertised as used, but it was clearly unused. There wasn't even a hint of a scuff mark on the mount to suggest that it had ever seen a camera. I also have the 70-200 f/4 ED IF VR. It is as sharp as a tack as well. It seems that great minds think alike. To the OP, the lens you ask about is one of the good ones. Go for it.

Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA

Thanks everyone for the advice. I found a "like new" 70-200 f/4 for $675 at MPB. I have used them several times with excellent results so I'll probably pull the trigger on it. All my research tells me the price is right. What do you guys think?

vg Loc: Kansas City area

I have the tamron 70-200 2.8. It is an awesome lens. Tack sharp and much less than the Nikon equivalent.