I don't see the point of this lens

I'm probably overlooking something, but don't see a reason or market for this lens. The 70-200 f2.8 isn't that much more expensive, and the 70-300 vr for half the price has greater range and isn't a lot worse on max aperture at 200mm. It is a constant aperture lens, but f4 doesn't seem to gain much over the variable aperture offerings.

Can someone explain why I should even consider this lens?
Nikon NIKKOR AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR Telephoto Zoom Lens 2202

The 70-300 isn't a constant aperture is it? I don't recall.. it's never been on my radar really (not a format I'd use regularly and I'd go 70-200 f2.8 if did). I hate variable aperture lenses.

post

Razormac said:

I'm probably overlooking something, but don't see a reason or market for this lens. The 70-200 f2.8 isn't that much more expensive, and the 70-300 vr for half the price has greater range and isn't a lot worse on max aperture at 200mm. It is a constant aperture lens, but f4 doesn't seem to gain much over the variable aperture offerings.

Can someone explain why I should even consider this lens?
Nikon NIKKOR AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR Telephoto Zoom Lens 2202

Click to expand...

This lens is designed foremost for Nikon Full Frame bodies.

the 2202 is a DX lens.

Dysfunction said:

the 2202 is a DX lens.

Click to expand...

I thought so, but wasn't sure. Which is also part of my reason for asking why choose this over the 70-200 f2.8. There isn't that much difference in price.

And, the 70-300 vr (which I already have) is an FX lens.

Oops my bad. I missed the fine print, it's an fx lens. I really hate the dx equiv mentioned in the marketing junk.

As someone who has both I can tell you that is just no comparison. The 70-200 f/4 is a true professional lens. It is made of steel. The 70-300 is plastic.

The 70-200 has incredible AF speed. The 70-300 not so much.
As mentioned above the 70-200 can maintain it's wide open f/4 through out the entire 70-200 range. Probably the most important is the quality of the images. The 70-200 is vastly superior.

The 70-200 is a fantastic portrait lens. At around the 100mm range it makes for the most beautiful people images. Used wide open it crushes out the backgrounds with a smooth as silk Bokeh that is second to none.

The 70-300 also has it's merits. Shooting wildlife etc. in bright lighting conditions can produce some very sharp beautiful images.

If you get the opportunity to hold one in each hand or actually use them both to compare you will wonder why you ever asked the question.

The 70-200 2.8 is often considered one of the best lenses ever made. By anyone, the f/4 model is similar.

Now I am confused!

I understand the difference between the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-300 vr, but I was unaware the 70-200 f4 existed in the wild. I thought it was a new lens (B&H shows it available to preorder).

Anyway, ignore the 70-300 part of the question.

Why choose the f4 70-200 when the f2.8 70-200 is available and not a lot more expensive?

You are correct about the Nikon 70-200 f/4. It is brand new to their line up and will be stellar I am sure.
I was referring to the Canon 70-200 F/4. Canon and Nikon are very similar in quality. Both are great.

>>>Why choose the f4 70-200 when the f2.8 70-200 is available and not a lot more expensive?

The 70-200 f/4 has less glass and is much lighter. And about $800 less expensive.

B&H price was $1000 less when I checked - $1400 vs $2400.

As noted above, the f/4 lens is $1000 less than the f/2.8 lens and much lighter. I'm thinking of buying the Canon equivalent soon. Digital cameras are so good these days that low light focusing is not an issue with an f/4 lens and noise is well controlled up to ISO 1600. See my web page. I shoot in low light quite often, and 70-200 is a very useful range. If I'm shooting in really low light I can always slap my 135/2 lens on my camera and zoom with my feet.

There is also one more piece of this (and the physics is out there - Zoom lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and that is you generally want to stay below a 3x zoom factor or you risk a softer photograph. There is trade-off. Longer range zooms mean you carry fewer lenses, but you trade off quality. Any zoom at all introduces a degradation of the image, but it comes down to what is acceptable.

Deckyon said:

There is also one more piece of this (and the physics is out there - Zoom lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and that is you generally want to stay below a 3x zoom factor or you risk a softer photograph. There is trade-off. Longer range zooms mean you carry fewer lenses, but you trade off quality. Any zoom at all introduces a degradation of the image, but it comes down to what is acceptable.

Click to expand...

Ah, but a "softer" image is quite desirable when shooting portraits! Nothing worse than a tack sharp lens and something like a D800E to ruin a woman's mood.

Doug

Doug b said:

Ah, but a "softer" image is quite desirable when shooting portraits! Nothing worse than a tack sharp lens and something like a D800E to ruin a woman's mood.

Doug

Click to expand...

Ah, because portraits are all people shoot with long lenses...

start sharp, then back off the focus, but wait, that is what photoshop is for anyway, while we fix every blemish and turn a human into a plastic doll.

Back in the day I used some old pantyhose over my enlarger lens to soften people's faces.

I have several UV filters with Vaseline on them for creating tunneling effects. I still use them on occasion.

Doug b said:

Ah, but a "softer" image is quite desirable when shooting portraits! Nothing worse than a tack sharp lens and something like a D800E to ruin a woman's mood.

Doug

Click to expand...

Since you posted, you must have come through the storm OK, which I am glad to see.
How do things look in your neighborhood?

Razormac said:

Since you posted, you must have come through the storm OK, which I am glad to see.
How do things look in your neighborhood?

Click to expand...

My part of town wasn't flooded, but directly outside of my little bubble was definitely hit hard. Lots of power outages, transformers literally blowing up... I really feel for people who evacuated, knowing that their homes are done in. But who I don't feel bad for, are the dolts who consistently want to be know it-all's and insist that they're not going anywhere, and then wind up hurt or worse.

I reached out to friends and such, offering food and shelter if they needed it. Thus far, it's been a lazy week, with a couple days off completely paid for, which I really appreciate. My wife got to work from home, since she has the IBM ThinkPad from the office and we've been eating like cows.

At the most, our lights flickered a few times very briefly. We're good, mostly. The worst part for me is how bad Manhattan is. Transportation is pretty much off line for the week. But this is what we get for having a corrupt transit system that would rather pay their do-nothing union employees more than they deserve, raise fares every year, spend the money on things it doesn't need and then pockets the rest. Not that I'm against Unions, * I was in the local Electrical as well as 1199 Medical for years*, they do good.. but when the power they have is abused, I can't respect that.

A really big problem in NYC is that the water pumping systems they have are dated back to around the early 1920's or so? They desperately need replacing, as is obvious to see! We weren't prepared for this at all in that respect, but of course our Mayor will still take a bow for all the poor Spanglish he's been spewing in his pretty speeches. Uuch.

Anyway... That new lens would be absolutely crackin' on an D600 or 700. I was toying with the idea of going with the 800E, But I really don't need all that resolution for the kind of shooting I do. Street shooting is all about soul, and I've got that covered with which ever camera is on hand for the most part. Plus, give it a few months after release, and it will sell used at KEH.com for a few hundred less. Would be nice to have in general.

Doug