Mine came in yesterday. I didn't have much time to shoot it yet, but so far I'm very impressed. The lens is quite light and compact, comparable to the 70-300VR or 180/2.8 (slightly longer). AF is fast. VR feels more effective than on any other lens I have used. And of course it is very sharp at any focal length, wide open already. Bokeh is good. I usually carry my 70-200 f/2.8 VRII to outdoor events, but this one will be a superb and light-weight alternative.
It matches well with what I have seen so far. The AF speed of the f4/, while good and a clear improvement over the 70-300VR, is no match for the f/2.8. This is an important consideration for events and sports. It's not surprising of course, since the f/2.8 has blazing AF speed.
As for sharpness, both models are superb. The article above points out some differences, i.e. sharper corners of the f/4 model at 70mm, but this is not very significant (at least for me) in practical use. I would say both lenses are so sharp that this is not a consideration. And a word of caution about this statement in the article:
On paper the f/4 variant of this lens looks superior to the f/2.8 lens.
Keep in mind that MTF charts are measured for each model at it's maximum aperture. So while the MTF of the f/2.8 model looks slightly worse than the f/4 model, we need to remember that the f/4 model does not even compete at f/2.8.
Finally, the f/4 has less focus breathing than the f/2.8 (that's the term for the reduction in focal length when each lens is used at close focus). Since I like to take tight head-shots, this is a welcome improvement of the f/4 over the f/2.8.
Tom, when you get a chance could you take some shots at 200mm f4 with the new lens and a 2.0TC III. I would like to see how this combination works out, and how much if any the 70-200mm f4 needs to be stopped down to obtain excellent results with the TC attached.
Just checked Kirk and RRS and neither has a listing for an Arca-Swiss mount for this lens, either a plate or the entire collar (like they have for the 300f/4). Do you use this on an Arca-Swiss mount ball head and if so what plate do you use?
I didn't buy the optional collar, and so far see no need for it. The lens handle similar as the 70-300VR or 180/2.8 which have no tripod collar, either. My usual way to hold the camera and lens like this is to support the lens with left hand while shooting, but on occasion I found myself holding just the camera, just like I would with a small prime, and that works fine, too. The lens is really that light.
With my f/2.8, I use the collar to mount the R-strap (via clamp) to carry the geat (you don't want to dangle that lens from the camera mount). And I use the collar to mount the monopod for longer sessions to support the weight. I don't see the need to ever mount the f/4 that way. This is for events, sports and kids, mind you. If I were to mount this lens into a tripod for a landscape shot, then the collar would be good, but I usually use other lenses for landscapes.
If I ever were to get a collar for the f/4 at some point, it would be the RRS version. They don't have it yet since the lens just came out, but it will surely come shortly.
>>So will you be selling your f2.8? > >I highly doubt it, but I might sell my 70-300VR now. While >the f/4 looks to be great light-weight alternative, the >70-200/2.8 VRII is in a class of itself. > > >Here is an interesting comparison I found between the f/2.8 >and f/4 models: > >http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Nikon%2070-200x.pdf
> Thank you for posting this link. I was debating on wether to save up for the f2.8 but I think I am now convinced that the f4 is a great lens for people on a budget, specially for the ones who do not shoot professionally. But even if you were not on a budget the f4 definitely has some advantages over the f2.8! I'm about to purchase the D600 so hopefully this would be a great match. Thanks again. Please posts more insights on this lens when you get a chance.
ok i started testing now and it feels like a real nice optic but egads, why cant we have a tripod collar and a retractible lens hood/???
I get the same issue with this lens as the 2.8 version, namely, the middle range of this zoom focuses closer than the ends, regardless of the fine tune setting. It just does that. Is that a limit of optics physics that 36 MP reveals to us? I am thinking so. Anyone?
These look great! I have to wait a little while before I get this lens (just got my D600, my account needs to recover At first I was thinking I'd get a sigma 70-200 2.8, but I'm really leaning towards this lens.
>These look great! I have to wait a little while before I get >this lens (just got my D600, my account needs to recover >At first I was thinking I'd get a sigma 70-200 2.8, but I'm >really leaning towards this lens.
Thank you! I think this lens would be a perfect fit for the D600, for a light kit with great performance. Once your budget recovers.
LOL, that's how I afford the lenses - with the money I save on gardening labor. we had just bought a new blower and they couldn't wait to play around with the new gear and take turns. Lets see how long this will hold.
Sat 15-Dec-12 03:05 PM | edited Sat 15-Dec-12 03:05 PM by PAStime
Good looking shots (colour, sharpness, contrast, composition). Bokeh looks good (I'd say great). That was a curiosity I had - would be it as good as the 70-200 VRII? The middle shots in this series shows it is fine. The specular reflections from the car in the background are a good test. I'd still wish I'd have f2.8 in addition to f4 but the price and weight that come with that are a big compromise. Peter