Nikon's new 70-200mm f/4 VR rated 5-stops

[Aglet]

I've been looking forward to this lens and hope it performs well and handles better than the very sticky manual focus on their f/2.8 v2.
Also hope it doesn't have the focus-breathing issue. I want my 200mm to be 200mm at close focus.

If this thing can perform at least as well as Canon's f/4 IS then I have one more mainstream zoom in my Nik-kit.

Price for the tripod ring is nuts!  but so is Canon's.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Focus breathing is just a fact of life, its a trade off against other parameters that are more critical, and price.  It would be nice to have telephoto lenses with no focus breathing, but there will always be some for low cost lenses.  Its part of the reason lenses for Cinema run 30K and more.

[pierceography]

I've always felt that when a lens is rated for having [X] stops of IS/VR, it should be taken with a grain of salt.  Tamron and Canon lenses are rated for the same number of stop improvement when using IS/VC, however I've noticed (personal opinion, of course) that Tamron lenses offer much better IS/VC than their Canon counterparts.

So I really don't read much into the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 having five stops of VR.  Although I wouldn't mind seeing the math behind these numbers.

[Nick Gombinsky]

EDIT: Wrong answer to wrong post.

[littlepilotdude]

Hello,

What are your thoughts on the newly released Nikon 70-200 F4?

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

[Aglet]

What are your thoughts on the newly released Nikon 70-200 F4?

I'm thinking that this lens is the highest claimed VR rating of any lens yet, so even if it's one stop less effective in real life, as many claim they are, then it's still going to be impressive VR, especially for a medium-tele lens!
I've got 4 stops from a cheap 18-55mm at times so would love to have 4 with the possibility of 5 on something this long.

• I hope it's AF is damn fast and accurate!
  
• I hope it's MF is smooth and lightly damped, not like the 2.8 VR2 version
  
  • I hope it's going to have very pleasing IQ with smooth bokeh at all settings.
    
  • I hope it's sharp as a scalpel
    
    • I hope it's free of CA
      
    • I hope it has very little distortion
      
      • I hope 200mm is within 10% at all focus distances
        
      • I hope it's better than my EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II
      - because if it is then that's one more pricey Canon lens and full frame Canon body I can sell to pay for it and more.
      I'll wait to sell that lens until I see test results from the 6D and whatever "new sensor tech" Canon's alleged to bring forth in the next series of bodies. My 70-200L is just wicked sharp and contrasty, I don't want to have to buy another one if I keep using Canon bodies and Nikon's 2.8 does not please me for handling quality but it's IQ is excellent too.[/size])
      
      I think I'm going to have to be patient and wait to see what this new lens performs like when it's put to the test and results are publish by someplace like Photozone, DPreview, or slrgear.
      
      
      Just saw NR posted a feature comparison
      http://nikonrumors.com/2012/10/24/nikkor-70-200mm-f4g-ed-vr-vs-70-200mm-f2-8g-ed-vr-ii-specs-comparison.aspx/#more-47388
      I think the max repro-ratio should be 0.36x for the f/4, not 1.36x!
      the MTF charts for the f/4 look like it's going to perform considerably better than the 2.8, especially at the long end. Wide end's not much better.
      
      

[weekendshooter]

What are your thoughts on the newly released Nikon 70-200 F4?

I'm thinking that this lens is the highest claimed VR rating of any lens yet, so even if it's one stop less effective in real life, as many claim they are, then it's still going to be impressive VR, especially for a medium-tele lens!
I've got 4 stops from a cheap 18-55mm at times so would love to have 4 with the possibility of 5 on something this long.

• I hope it's AF is damn fast and accurate!
  
• I hope it's MF is smooth and lightly damped, not like the 2.8 VR2 version
  
  • I hope it's going to have very pleasing IQ with smooth bokeh at all settings.
    
  • I hope it's sharp as a scalpel
    
    • I hope it's free of CA
      
    • I hope it has very little distortion
      
      • I hope 200mm is within 10% at all focus distances
        
      • I hope it's better than my EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II
      - because if it is then that's one more pricey Canon lens and full frame Canon body I can sell to pay for it and more.
      I'll wait to sell that lens until I see test results from the 6D and whatever "new sensor tech" Canon's alleged to bring forth in the next series of bodies. My 70-200L is just wicked sharp and contrasty, I don't want to have to buy another one if I keep using Canon bodies and Nikon's 2.8 does not please me for handling quality but it's IQ is excellent too.[/size])
      
      I think I'm going to have to be patient and wait to see what this new lens performs like when it's put to the test and results are publish by someplace like Photozone, DPreview, or slrgear.
      
      
      Just saw NR posted a feature comparison
      http://nikonrumors.com/2012/10/24/nikkor-70-200mm-f4g-ed-vr-vs-70-200mm-f2-8g-ed-vr-ii-specs-comparison.aspx/#more-47388
      I think the max repro-ratio should be 0.36x for the f/4, not 1.36x!
      the MTF charts for the f/4 look like it's going to perform considerably better than the 2.8, especially at the long end. Wide end's not much better.
      
      

the reproduction ratio is 1:3.6, or 0.278x. Much better than the 2.8's infamous breathing!

I'm really really excited for this lens  if it's anywhere near as sharp and easy to handle as Canon's then count me in for one around the time my yearly bonus comes in March 

[BrandonKing96]

Being realistic, the Nikon would most likely out perform the Canon. 
Realistic? What ever do I mean?!

The Canon 70-200 f/4 IS was released in 2006.  No doubt a great light and more affordable option compared to the f/2.8, but it is a little old (I wouldn't mind Canon releasing a mark II of this, to be honest.  the f/4 IS is so outdated now, although a great option).  Even though it does perform magnificently with it's optics, AF, etc., the Nikon would most like be using more recent technology.  I guess we'll see with comparisons, but Nikon should take the cake because of how new it is. 

I'll just wait and see what it's like though (not insinuating that I'm going to switch to Nikon.  NEVER WOULD I!).

[RLPhoto]

I've been looking forward to this lens and hope it performs well and handles better than the very sticky manual focus on their f/2.8 v2.
Also hope it doesn't have the focus-breathing issue. I want my 200mm to be 200mm at close focus.

If this thing can perform at least as well as Canon's f/4 IS then I have one more mainstream zoom in my Nik-kit.

Price for the tripod ring is nuts!  but so is Canon's.

I take whatever VR/IS rating's are and Cut them In half. That usually is the actual performance unless your buying the Super Tele's which can give that kind of performance.

[sparda79]

  Hmmm... No weather sealing... 

[Aglet]

Hmmm... No weather sealing...

not likely a very robust version from what I've heard so far.
I think it's to have a flange gasket and be sealed enough to be "weather resistant"
I'd hope for more at that price tho.

[Nostrada]

Being realistic, the Nikon would most likely out perform the Canon. 
Realistic? What ever do I mean?!

The Canon 70-200 f/4 IS was released in 2006.  No doubt a great light and more affordable option compared to the f/2.8, but it is a little old (I wouldn't mind Canon releasing a mark II of this, to be honest.  the f/4 IS is so outdated now, although a great option).  Even though it does perform magnificently with it's optics, AF, etc., the Nikon would most like be using more recent technology.  I guess we'll see with comparisons, but Nikon should take the cake because of how new it is. 

I'll just wait and see what it's like though (not insinuating that I'm going to switch to Nikon.  NEVER WOULD I!).

The 70-200 f4 IS a little old? For a lens, 6 years are the equivalent of 20 years in human terms - you would not call a 20something old, would you? . Re the performance, the new Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II barely outperformes the f4 IS, which is still a magnificent lens and I don't think it can be improved that much. Truth be told, I expect the Nikon to, at the very best, edge it slightly, but that would be that.

[BrandonKing96]

Being realistic, the Nikon would most likely out perform the Canon. 
Realistic? What ever do I mean?!

The Canon 70-200 f/4 IS was released in 2006.  No doubt a great light and more affordable option compared to the f/2.8, but it is a little old (I wouldn't mind Canon releasing a mark II of this, to be honest.  the f/4 IS is so outdated now, although a great option).  Even though it does perform magnificently with it's optics, AF, etc., the Nikon would most like be using more recent technology.  I guess we'll see with comparisons, but Nikon should take the cake because of how new it is. 

I'll just wait and see what it's like though (not insinuating that I'm going to switch to Nikon.  NEVER WOULD I!).

The 70-200 f4 IS a little old? For a lens, 6 years are the equivalent of 20 years in human terms - you would not call a 20something old, would you? . Re the performance, the new Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II barely outperformes the f4 IS, which is still a magnificent lens and I don't think it can be improved that much. Truth be told, I expect the Nikon to, at the very best, edge it slightly, but that would be that.

No doubt is the 70-200 f4 IS a great lens (I own it and just love the portability.  Forget lugging around an extra kilogram).  And it definitely has stood the test of time.  But Nikon should defeat Canon in this case.  Well, if they play it right that "should" will become a "will".  I'd probably still go into a camera store and play with the Nikon 70-200 f/4 anyway.