Now, why is this important? If you lose some focal length at close distances, it also means that you will have to zoom in closer with the f/2.8 version to get a similar field of view. And as you may already know, longer focal length translates to better subject isolation and smoother bokeh (if the camera to subject distance remains constant). When comparing bokeh on the two lenses, if I focused with the 70-200mm f/4G VR at 116mm at a distance of about 5 feet between the lens and the subject, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II required me to zoom in to 200mm to get a similar field of view! That’s a pretty significant difference in focal length… Per Nikon, this lens delivers excellent contrast across the full frame (solid red line). Sharpness starts out very good at 70mm and improves even more towards 200mm (solid blue line). There is a little bit of field curvature on the wide end, but it is off the center, so it should not be noticeable. Center, mid-frame and corner performance should all be excellent, especially at 200mm. In all honesty, I cannot see any differences worth noting between these lenses – all four produce pretty smooth and pleasing to look at bokeh. Vignetting More complete comparisons including the Unremarkables and Bokeh shots at different apertures will be presented in the up-and-coming 70-200mm shootout. Focus, build quality, and image stabilization

Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR review - Digital Camera World

My experience with the TC-17E III was fairly short, because I am not particularly fond of this teleconverter in general. I mounted the TC-17E II on the 70-200mm f/4G VR (equivalent to 119-340mm f/6.7) and tested it out both indoors and outdoors. When shooting outdoors in bright light, the TC-17E II did quite well. AF speed and accuracy were both good and sharpness was fairly close to what I was getting with the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II with the same teleconverter. I expected the lens to suffer like my Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR does when using it with the TC-17E II, but it certainly did better. In less than ideal lighting conditions though (especially indoors), AF speed and accuracy did suffer visibly more, with some loss of contrast. Price-wise, the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G is obviously much cheaper than its bigger brother, but it falls in the same range as the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and the new Tamron 70-200mmm f/2.8 lenses. Hence, many photographers will be looking at both Sigma and Tamron lenses as alternatives. In this review, I will go over the performance characteristics of the Sigma and compare to the Nikkors, as well as the old Tamron, but you will have to wait for my evaluation of the new Tamron 70-200mm (which I am planning to review later this year). Tripod Collar You might be wondering whether to get this optional collar or not. In my opinion, Nikon did the right thing by excluding it, because the lens does not need it for most cases – again, it is not much different than using a lens like Nikon 24-70mm. The only case where I recommend the collar, is for people that have lightweight/entry-level DSLRs and need the extra stability (for photographing landscapes, etc). Without a doubt, all entry-level Nikon DSLRs will easily be able to handle the weight of the lens, so that’s not why I recommend it. The main reason is the long length of the lens and the balance of the setup. I’m setting up a shoulder rig with a manual Zoom gear and using autofocus with the 24-120 S f/4 for now . Finally, it’s still possible, though unlikely, that lingering supply chain issues could push the remaining 35mm lens to 2024. Analyzing the Future Lenses

Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR AF-S Nikkor User Reviews

Sigma’s AF 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG APO HSM OS is the cheapest way (around 950 EUR) to get a stabilized 70-200mm zoom. And it has an f2.8 aperture. I hope to test this lens soon. Price: already down to 1200 EUR new (incl. 19% VAT), but that’s still a lot of money, and the tripod collar RT-1 is an extra. The Sigma AF 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG APO HSM OS is 20% cheaper, the new Tamron SP AF 70-200mm 2.8 Di VC USD 30% more expensive, and the Nikon 70-200/2.8G VR hovers around 1800 EUR street price – and all three come with a tripod collar. But if the new Nikon zoom delivers performance-wise I’d say the price is adequate. [0] The Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR ships with the plastic HB-60 bayonet hood. Note that there is a a dedicated tripod collar ring, the RT-1, but it's an optional accessory rather than included with the lens. I’m also excited about the three Sigma DX lenses. Sigma is one of the best third-party lens companies, and these three lenses are a good start considering that there aren’t very many Nikon-brand Z DX lenses yet. All of them fill useful spots in the lineup, for anything from astrophotography to portraiture and street photography. The same can be said of the Viltrox Z DX lenses. Some other pluses for this lens is that it can focus to 3.3' and does not suffer from focus breathing.

Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR - Incredible! - Photography Life Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR - Incredible! - Photography Life

It’s useful to consider some of the key differences between the current 70-200mm f/2.8 (top) and f/4 (bottom) lenses: If you are looking for a good wildlife lens + TC combination, I would not recommend the 70-200mm f/4G VR with the TC-20E III. Yes, you can get decent results on the latest Nikon DSLRs, but it is nowhere close to what you can get with the Nikon 300mm f/4D AF-S + TC-14E II. The latter does not have VR, but if you are into birding, you will be shooting at 1/1000 and higher shutter speeds most of the time anyway and you want VR turned off at such high shutter speeds. VR is only useful for slow shutter speeds, when light conditions are poor. Color RenditionAs you may already know, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II was a disappointment for some photographers, because it suffers from a “lens breathing” optical design, where the focal length of the lens varies depending on subject distance. At close distances, the 70-200mm loses quite a bit of the range, which can be a problem for those of us that like to fill the frame with small objects. The Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR does not have this problem – I measured its focal length and it was exactly 70-200mm, no matter how close or far I focused. Its optical formula is similar to that of the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro, which also measured about the same. Now why is this important? If you lose some focal length at close distances, it also means that you will have to zoom in closer with the f/2.8 version to get a similar field of view. And as you may already know, longer focal length translates to shallower depth of field, which translates to better subject isolation and smoother bokeh. When comparing bokeh on the two lenses, if I focused with the 70-200mm f/4G VR at 116mm at a distance of about 5 feet between the lens and the subject, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II required me to zoom in to 200mm to get a similar field of view! That’s a pretty significant difference in focal length… If we use a depth of field calculator, we can plug what a 116mm lens at f/2.8 is like compared to a 200mm lens at f/4, both at 5 feet subject distance. The calculator says that the 70-200mm f/2.8 will yield a depth of field of 0.09 feet, while the 70-200mm f/4 will have 0.04 feet. That’s right – at close distances, the 70-200mm f/4G is actually a better lens to use for subject isolation. Now 5 feet is obviously too close, so let’s do slightly more realistic numbers. When doing my lab tests, I measured that the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II at 200mm is equivalent to the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR at 170mm, both at a distance of 13 feet. If I plug those numbers to the same calculator this time, I end up with 0.29 feet of depth of field for both lenses. What this all means, is that the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G yields shallower depth of field than the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G from the closest focusing distance to about 13 feet. Past 13 feet, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G starts to take over, because the lens breathing effect starts to wear out and the lens recovers most of its focal length. Therefore, at close distances, that one stop advantage of the 70-200mm f/2.8 is really not that of an advantage! Smaller in all dimensions than the more costly F2.8 70-200mm, the new F4 zoom is slimmer than the AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VRand about half as long again. It features a 67mm filter thread, unlike the more standard (for high-end Nikkors) 77mm.

Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR Review - Photography Life

The 80-400g is a great all-around lens that can be used for wildlife because it gets long enough. The 200-500 defines a wildlife lens, and is particularly good for that. Both lenses are compatible with full-frame DSLRs and feature vibration reduction to counteract camera shake. Both additionally have gold rings and constant apertures which classify them as high-end options, but where they differ is their maximum aperture: f4 on this new model compared to f2.8 on the older one. AF: AF-S with SWM (silent wave motor), so it does work on D60/3×00/5×00-bodies, manual-focus override by turning the focus ring [+]On either camera, results for sharpness are more or less stable through to ƒ/16, with a noticeable increase in softness at ƒ/22. Fully-stopped down performance at ƒ/32 is dramatically soft, and should be avoided on both sub- and full-frame cameras. Relatively compact and lightweight (when compared to f/2.8 lenses) Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR Cons Having used the lens for a month, I came to the conclusion that the new VR III system is indeed more effective than VR II. I tried shooting at very slow shutter speeds with both the f/2.8 and the f/4 lenses and my hit ratio with the 70-200mm f/4 was better. Again, I won’t be able to provide any numbers here and it is hard to say how much better it is – probably between half a stop to a full stop (depending on the situation) is a good guess. I cannot say that my results came out better just because of the newer VR though. Keep in mind that the 70-200mm f/2.8 is about twice heavier than the f/4 version, so weight could have been the reason for better sharpness in my case. Either way, I really liked how the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR handled vibrations and I felt like it worked better than on my f/2.8G VR II. What about bokeh, you might ask? Let’s take a look at how the two lenses compare. First, let’s start by comparing the highlights (Left: Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR, Right: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II):