Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR Lens

Product Information

Size (diam. x length): 78 x 179 mm (3.1 x 7.0 in.) compared to 87 x 206 mm (3.4 x 8.1 in.) for the f2.8. The lens-hood adds another 36mm (to a total length of 215mm). The lens does not change length during zooming or focusing. [+] A focus limiter switch is available, which can restrict the autofocusing range between infinity and three meters.

Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR AF-S Nikkor Review Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR AF-S Nikkor Review

Nikon’s own marketing gets it right with this lens: “strikes an ideal balance…” Yes, indeed. Far more so than most Nikon lenses, the 70-200mm f/4G is a very well-rounded, well-behaved, well-performing lens. In addition to the focus and zoom rings, there is one bank of switches which controls the operations of the lens. As previously described, two switches control the activation or deactivation of autofocus, as well as focus limiting; two additional switches activate or deactivate image stabilization, and which image stabilization mode is selected (passive, for correcting camera movement in the vertical direction only, or active, which corrects in all four directions). To Denis of Whidbey Island : the way you introduce the discussion is interesting but I must say the logic is uncomplete. Unfortunately, measuring any image stabilization performance is a difficult task. There is no way for me to provide any quantitative data, because it would require a complex setup that involves machines shaking the camera in a certain manner and direction. And trying to do a measurement by hand-holding the lens and reporting on the number of sharp vs blurry shots is never accurate either because there are too many variables involved.

Sell or trade used photo and video kit with MPB

The 200-500's advantages are maximum range (not as much as it sounds), sharpness (small, but seems real), and VR effectiveness (seems amazingly good). I'm also coming to the conclusion that it is better for distant subjects than the 80-400g in general. It may have more accurate autofocus too. Weighing 850g, the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR is significantly lighter and more compact than Nikon's other pro-level telephoto zoom lenses. We found that it balanced well on the Nikon D4 body and proved to not be too much of a burden when used all day long. The vast resolution of the D800e's 36-megapixel sensor wasn't as kind to the 70-200mm ƒ/4. It provided moderately sharp results through the 70-135mm range at ƒ/4, but again, 200mm at ƒ/4 was not as good. In this case, stopping down makes only a slight difference. As expected the corners are slightly more prevalent with the lens mounted on a full-frame camera as opposed to the APS-C sensor of the D7000, but not terribly so. The Nikon 70-200mm f/4G looks weaker in the center, but take a look at the corners – it clearly resolves more details in comparison. The newAF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR is comprised of 20 elements in 14 groups, and featuresa constant aperture of F4. Internal zoom and focus means that its length doesn't change when zooming or focusing, and the closest focusing distance is 1 meter.

Nikon 70-200mm f4G VR review | Cameralabs

Apochromatic lenses have special lens elements (aspheric, extra-low dispersion etc) to minimize the problem, hence they usually cost more.

The not yet released Tamron SP AF 70-200mm 2.8 Di VC USD: The cheapest listing of around 1500 EUR certainly is not a real street price yet. You might be wondering whether to get this optional collar or not. In my opinion, Nikon did the right thing by excluding it, because the lens does not need it for most cases – again, it is not much different than using a lens like Nikon 24-70mm. The only case where I recommend the collar, is for people that have lightweight/entry-level DSLRs and need the extra stability (for photographing landscapes, etc). Without a doubt, all entry-level Nikon DSLRs will easily be able to handle the weight of the lens, so that’s not why I recommend it. The main reason is the long length of the lens and the balance of the setup. If you don’t need f/2.8, you don’t need the more expensive lens, basically. The 70-200mm f/4G is has no significant flaws to speak of, resolves well on even the highest megapixel count bodies, yet saves you size and weight over its older sibling. While the lens is light enough that a tripod collar is not strictly necessary, the optional RT-1 tripod collar does make the lens more stable on the tripod. However, we felt when rotating the lens in the tripod ring is should have been smoother. It’s slightly noisy in use, like plastic rubbing against plastic and not very exceptionally smooth. So after I looked at the MTF data, I decided to compare it to the MTF data from Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II. Take a look at the following comparison:

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR Overview: Digital

In terms of features, the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR has quite a lot to offer. It has an internal focus (IF) mechanism and a Silent Wave Motor, allowing you to use manual focus even when you are in auto-focus mode (denoted with the usual M/A sign on the lens barrel). Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR seems to render bokeh highlights the worst in this group. The outer edges look OK with some visible fringing, but the inner part of the circle certainly does suffer from the dirtier look. If we look at the less visible highlights, I cannot see that much difference though. Imatest only managed to detect 0.149% barrel distortion at 70mm, which is a very mild amount of distortion and shouldn't cause any issues day-to-day. However, at 200mm Imatest detected 2.28% pincushion distortion, which is reaching the levels where it may become noticeable in normal images. If straight lines are paramount, you'll be glad to hear that the distortion pattern is uniform across the frame at both ends of the zoom range, which should make corrections in image editing software afterwards relatively straightforward to apply. As I have already said above, the Tamron 70-200mm Macro lens does not really belong here – it should have been the new Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 SP Di VC USD lens instead. Since the lens was not available for the Nikon F mount at the time of testing, I could only obtain the old Macro version. I certainly have plans to test the new Tamron lens, because it seems to be comparable to the Sigma 70-200mm and a good alternative to the Nikkors. Build quality is similar to the majority of Nikon lenses we have tested so far. Most exterior parts are made of plastic, but that doesn't stop the lens from feeling solid and substantial in the hand.Nikon has a long history of making professional 70-80 to 200mm focal length zoom lenses, but aside from the very old 70-210 f/4 AI-S and AF lenses, it has never had an affordable and lightweight constant aperture f/4 model in its line. With its arch-rival Canon making a 70-200mm f/4L lens since 1999, and the high cost of the 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II model, Nikon was often criticized for not providing an f/4 alternative. After many years of delays, Nikon finally announced a lightweight alternative to the f/2.8 version in October of 2012 – the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR, which is designed to work on both full-frame (FX) and cropped-factor sensor (DX) DSLR cameras. As you may already know, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II was a disappointment for some photographers, because it suffers from a “lens breathing” optical design, where the focal length of the lens varies depending on subject distance. At close distances, the 70-200mm loses quite a bit of the range, which can be a problem for those of us that like to fill the frame with small objects. The Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR does not have this problem – I measured its focal length and it was exactly 70-200mm, no matter how close or far I focused. Its optical formula is similar to that of the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro, which also measured about the same. Now why is this important? If you lose some focal length at close distances, it also means that you will have to zoom in closer with the f/2.8 version to get a similar field of view. And as you may already know, longer focal length translates to shallower depth of field, which translates to better subject isolation and smoother bokeh. When comparing bokeh on the two lenses, if I focused with the 70-200mm f/4G VR at 116mm at a distance of about 5 feet between the lens and the subject, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II required me to zoom in to 200mm to get a similar field of view! That’s a pretty significant difference in focal length… If we use a depth of field calculator, we can plug what a 116mm lens at f/2.8 is like compared to a 200mm lens at f/4, both at 5 feet subject distance. The calculator says that the 70-200mm f/2.8 will yield a depth of field of 0.09 feet, while the 70-200mm f/4 will have 0.04 feet. That’s right – at close distances, the 70-200mm f/4G is actually a better lens to use for subject isolation. Now 5 feet is obviously too close, so let’s do slightly more realistic numbers. When doing my lab tests, I measured that the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II at 200mm is equivalent to the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR at 170mm, both at a distance of 13 feet. If I plug those numbers to the same calculator this time, I end up with 0.29 feet of depth of field for both lenses. What this all means, is that the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G yields shallower depth of field than the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G from the closest focusing distance to about 13 feet. Past 13 feet, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G starts to take over, because the lens breathing effect starts to wear out and the lens recovers most of its focal length. Therefore, at close distances, that one stop advantage of the 70-200mm f/2.8 is really not that of an advantage! Coated optical glass elements certainly help with handling ghosting and flare on the 70-200mm f/4G VR. Take a look at how it handled direct sun when compared to the rest of the group: