Nikon 70-200mm f4 BEATS the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8

Equipment I used to record this video:

Check out my other YouTube Channels at

[nerwin]

One of the best things I like about the 70-200 f/4 is the fact the minimal focus distance is 3ft instead of 4.5ft of the 2.8, you wouldn't think that is a big deal but it's very significant difference for some people and more useful than the extra stop of light. Obviously the cost being a big overall factor too. I'm switching from the 70-300 VR to the 70-200 f/4 and through in a 1.4x TC when I need the extra zoom. The depth of field and bokeh quality isn't really that HUGE of a difference, sure the 2.8 is better but is it $1500 more better? I don't honestly think so.

[artmaltman]

1. In DXO, go to "measurements", then "sharpness", then "field". Select the aperture / focal length combinations that you most often use and compare the two lenses. The field test is great because it shows you the sharpness across the entire field of view!

2. More expensive lenses often have lots of extra coatings or elements of their construction that show up in image but not in DXO scores. Depth. Color. Contrast. Pop.

That said, I use a pair of F4 zooms with my full frame Nikons and resort to fast primes for low light and/or desire to blow out the background. (The superb Nikon 70-200mm f/4 and the amazing Sigma 24-105mm f/4)

[MohanJan]

Some features of the f/4 lens which are better: (1) No focus breathing (2) Can focus closer at 1 m. This reduces depth of field to be shallower than the f/2.8 G lens at its closest focus of around 1.5 m (3) Latest VR of 5 stops compared to 3.5 stops for the f/2.8 lens. This compensates for the 1 stop aperture difference (4) Lower weight and of course (5) lower cost (6) Can close aperture to f/32 which is useful in certain conditions. We have to test these 2 lenses in real world before we write off the f/4 lens. It is a strong competitor.

[UnknownPerson-ptoj]

I think it might be because wider apertures are a bit softer, but stopped down, they sharpen up. I dont know though, they'll need to be compared side by side in person to notice the difference

[dsu]

Though common psychology is "the lens I own is the best", I shall try to be as unbiased as possible in the Nikon lenses (BTW I own the Nikon 70-200 f4).
(1)The f4 is sharpest at the center @f4-f5.6; sharpest in the middle (maximum area) zone between f5.6 to f8, corners sharpest f8-f11; @200mm it is sharpest @f8.
The f2.8 is sharpest at center @f5.6 to f8, sharpest in middle area @f8, corners @f11!
In f4 there is less difference of sharpness throughout entire area than the f2.8, where sharpness rapidly falls off at the periphery. The middle and corners in the f4 are ALWAYS sharper than the f2.8 AT ALL APERTURES!
(2)The central parts of f2.8 usually show MORE RESOLVING POWER than central part of f4!
(3) f2.8 shows about 40% more background blur than the f4 at widest apertures.
(4) The 2nd iteration of Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 has high amount of focus-breathing - at close-ups becomes 70-130mm; there is negligible focus-breathing in the f4 (thus you get larger images in closeup head shots).
(5) current prices for f4 and f2.8 are approximately $1400 and $2100; the weights of the f4 and f2.8 are 1.87lb and 3.39lb; filter sizes are 67mm and 77mm respectively. Thus shooting for extended period of time handheld f4 is the much better option; for low-light, f2.8 is definitely superior, but for extended shoots is a burden.

[robertbrody]

The Nikon 70-200 F4 does not breath like the 2.8 version. That means that at distances closer than 13 feet, the F4 version gives superior subject isolation and bokeh. So if you're looking at these two lenses for portraits, the F4 is actually better. I sold the VRII version when the 2.8E was released, which does not have this issue, but kept the F4 version because it's much lighter.

[chrishoward]

For me, the f4 version makes more sense, since I’m an enthusiast landscape photographer and not shooting events/sports etc. It really depends on what you shoot. I want a 70-200 to pick out certain elements of the landscape, rather than going wide all the time. So really, what do I need f2.8 for? I don’t. Nor do I need to carry the extra weight when hiking and nor do I need to pay nearly double the price for no reason! The f4 is clearly the better buy for my needs, but I can understand why others might need f2.8.

[judmcc]

I agree totally. I haven't used the f/2.8 but I bought the f/4 about 2 years ago. Much better value for the money and a lot lighter, at the cost of only 1 stop.

[detoxrum]

on your DXOmark sheet, you are comparing the old Nikon version one. if compared to the newer version two, on the D810, the f4 and the F2.8 version 2 are almost identical in spec.

someone mentioned this... but the tests are in now.

[alfad]

f2.8 brings more flexibility, it depends if you are pro shooter or just a photography enthusiast and also if you mainly shoot in good lighting or you shoot in darker or different lighting conditions. F4 might be sharper but its a whole lot less flexible. Shoot with it in sports situation where lighting is bad plus you need fast shutter speed and you will find shooting at f2.8 is a significant advantage, also if you want to blur background the f2.8 lens will be an advantage so its a matter of personal taste and needs. I will never get an F4 lens, its pointless in my view, has very few advantages considering the advantages of being able to shoot at f2.8

[NaomiMayaPhotography]

I rented both to see for myself before deciding on which to purchase, and I preferred the f4. The weight difference is significant when shooting all-day weddings and I also found that f2.8 was too narrow a depth of field for shooting people in candid situations. I only wonder how the weather sealing would be if I were to use them in the rain... anyone know? Apparently the f4 isn't as good for that.

[josephfinkleman]

I think DxO scores are not practical/ But I have recently purchased a 70-200mm F/4. I have to say I am highly skeptical of zoom lenses in general. It isn't that I have not had exceptionally sharp zoom lenses. Rather I have 10 prime lenses and the resolving power of a Nikon pro prime lens is so extraordinary that I feel zoom lenses just cannot compete. There are exceptions in the Nikon lineup. The 14-24mm at 14mm is THE lens. The 17-35mm at 20mm was THE lens but the new 20mm F/1.8 is now THE lens at that focal length. However, the 70-200mm F/4 at 200mm rivals my 200mm prime. At 135mm it rivals my 135mm prime in resolution. To say that I am impressed is an understatement.

[RobdoG]

70-200 F4 is amazing. Best walk around lens and work lens as far as weight

[ChillWithMe_musics]

It really depends on the situation. I shoot a lot of events with very low lighting, and 2.8 is sometimes REALLY a must. I just shot a really fast moving ice ballet event for example, where 1/500 was really the minimum and I got ISO6400 with my D750. If I had to stop down to f4, I would have had to shoot with ISO12800, which is something I would never deliver to a client. (ISO6400 is much cleaner on the D750)
Regardless, it's very important which 70-200 lens we use. The Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC USD is ridiculously sharp, and has quick and accurate focusing at 2.8. Don't forget, that the autofocus system gains less light on a f4 lens, which is huge!
And nope, you will not get away on events by switching 1.4 primes.... It needs too much cropping and aligning in post, and also results the loss of megapixels.

[RoamingDeparted]

how do you feel about the Sony 70-200 f4 vs the f2.8. is one better? Ate they as good as canon and nikon versions? canons is only $600, what is the beret way to go?

[jwom]

I like the sigma 70_200 2.8!! don't care what people say because I get sharp results from it.

[adamaj]

You left out the main reason people prefer 2.8 over 4: Bokeh.

[davidmyles]

The new Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8E VRIII...check differences on this one. the VR I and VR II have issues.. Sharpness isn't everything.
auto focus tracking blows the doors off of an f/4. Of course for $2800, it is and should be the best for that kind of money.

[jakesdewet]

Late reply but you are comparing the very old 70-200 f2.8 G vr1 not the VR2.

[poeticflairphotography]

Do you think my 300 F4 AF-S on top of my D7100 for indoor basketball? - (ignore the D7100 buffer issue) I am talking about the low light and getting the image.