Nikon 70-200 F4 vs F2.8

[Skynet-T800]

Weighing up my next lens which was going to be the 14-24 or the 70-200 f2.8 but now the F4 VRIII? is out, it's got me thinking.

I'm not fussed on the cost of the two but more the optical quality I hear the F2.8 is very good at portraits, would the same thing be applied for the F4 version do you think.

5 stops with VR on sounds great.

I like the fact it's smaller and weighs less.

Is it made out of metal still of more plastic?

anybody got one?

 

[D.P.]

Optically the f4.0 is supposed to be superior or at least equal, and apparently takes the TCs just as if not better which is surprising. they are both painfully sharp so that should come into the equation. Build us lite is pretty equivalently, the f4.0 is lighter mainly due to less glass.

70-200 is good for landscapes, architecture and on a crop body might do some wildlife, especially with a TC. You mention portraits, well I think you really want the 2.8 version to get a shallower DoF. The f4.0 will be ok at he longer focal lengths to give a smooth background but at the shorter end you probably want a wider aperture than f4.0, especially on crop.

I have a 70-300Vr and 70-200 2.8 so don't consider the 70-200 useful. The 70-300vr is very sharp over the same focal length, is mostly only half a stop slower, is smaller, lighter and cheaper.

 

[Ksanti]

I'd get the f/4, and then an 85 of some variety for portraiture. It will save you a load of weight, a fair chunk of money, give you great DoF control through the 85 and better video performance through the VR3 system. The only cost would be if you're shooting indoor sports or similar where you can't really move to recompose the 85mm, and you need the speed of the 2.8.