First Major Lens Purchase - Nikon F/4 70-200mm

[TheBigE]

So here I stand on the precipice of my first major purchase after buying my DSLR earlier this summer. I hsve been shooting all summer, and I am about to complete my first online course (6 Weeks) on Photography. I have learned a great deal in my short time with my current equipment - Nikon D5300, 18 -140mm Kit Lens, 35mm F/1.8 prime.

I have really enjoyed the creativeness that my 35mm affords me and the clarity of this lens. While my 18-140 has been a great lens as well and given me some great shots. I am by no means done learning with these lenses, however, I have started to think more about working with a little more capable lens, specifically the Nikon 70-200 mm f/4 lens. I am seriously considering this lens, as it will be more than the cost of my camera, I want to make sure I am thinking of it for the right reasons. Those reasons are as follows:

1. Reach - I have found that the 140mm maximum focal length on my kit lens to be limiting in some aspects. Either I could not get close enough to what I was shooting or I did not have enough control over depth of field.

2. f/4 - I would have the lower stop at full reach. This will help as I will be travelling next summer and do not think I will have a tripod with me all the time. This extra stop will allow me to get my shutter speed to a good level for handholding.

By all accounts the reviews and IQ on this lens are top notch. I would think that this lens would be one of the primary lens I would use, and perhaps shift to the 35 mm when indoors (lower light) and the 18-140 when I needed a bit wider angle than I could get at 70mm minimum focal length.

Certainly we all can spend our money as we want, and I have tried to be very practical about my purchases thus far and focus on those items absolutely needed (good tripod, bag, etc). Furthermore, I wanted to work with my current set of Lenses and understand their strengths and weakness. As a result, this is my first purchase that I am really looking at from all angles - Am I ready? Should I continue to work more with my current equipment? I understand the only person who can truly answer this question is the one typing this post.

I think my rationale is valid for how this lens fills a void, and will ultimately be used. I am not looking for validation as much as just trying to quantify my thoughts and perhaps have a bit of discussion on the topic. Any thoughts are welcome, and thanks for listening.

[Donald]

So here I stand on the precipice of my first major purchase after buying my DSLR earlier this summer.

.....

I think my rationale is valid for how this lens fills a void, and will ultimately be used.

I think it is time to jump off the precipice into the 70-200 world!!

Your plan will see you purchasing a very good quality lens that will extend the options you have available fro your photography. Like me, you seem to be asking the question - Can I fully justify this? And perhaps like me, one of the answers you have is - 'It is a lot of money. Do I really need it to make good pictures?' Well, the answer is 'No, you do not need it to make good pictures. But it will help you make more good pictures that would otherwise have been possible'.

[Shadowman]

You'll use it, enjoy.

[JR1]

I have the 70-200 f2.8, I can assure you that the 70-200 lens is a great focal mix, especially for sports

[Mike Buckley]

1. Reach - I have found that the 140mm maximum focal length on my kit lens to be limiting in some aspects. Either I could not get close enough to what I was shooting or I did not have enough control over depth of field.

I wonder if you might be surprised at the relatively small difference between 140mm and 200mm. When you mention depth of field, I assume you're referring to the fact that you'll be able to shoot at f/4 with the new lens in situations when you would be able to shoot only at f/5.6 with the current lens. If so, that improved control will be nice with regard to depth of field.

2. f/4 - I would have the lower stop at full reach. This extra stop will allow me to get my shutter speed to a good level for handholding.

The high-ISO quality of your camera is quite good. So, getting one extra stop due to the larger aperture wouldn't be important to me unless perhaps I was shooting sports often and requiring 1/1000 shutter speed or faster.

I think it would be well worth your while to consider the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IF-ED VE AFS lens. At twice the longest focal length of your current lens, that increase will be much more noticeable than the lens you're currently considering. You won't have the same flexibility with regard to controlling depth of field as with the lens you're currently considering. Don't be deceived by the relatively low cost of the lens; a lot of people consider that lens to be the single best value of all zoom lenses in the Nikon line up because its quality is so good and its cost is so low.

[Manfred M]

It sounds like you thought long and hard and make a very rational decision when you are thinking about this lens.

I do have the f/2.8 70-200mm and it is my second most frequently used lens, after the f/2.8 24-70mm and my "go to" lens for portraiture. That being said, it really does duplicate most of the focal range that you already have and you will be gaining an additional 60mm of focal length and a slightly faster lens. When I travel, I tend to limit myself to carrying a maximum of three lenses unless I expect to so some very specific shooting, where I may carry a fourth specicial purpose lens.

Based on your current lens assortment, I personally would look at the new 80-400mm, as that would truly give you extra reach. The reviews have been quite good (I own the older version) and will take it rather than the 70-200mm for travel.

Just a thought...

[NorthernFocus]

Hi, Erik. It sounds like you are really enjoying the journey into photography. Regardless of how experienced we get, equipment selection is always an issue.

I've got the 70-200 f4 as well as the 70-200 f2.8. Frankly had I bought the f4 first I never would have gotten the 2.8. The f4 is an excellent lens, tack sharp, and a very useful focal range. One of my most used lenses now. You won't regret having it from a quality standpoint.

That said, I have to repeat the advice provided by Mike and Manfred. I think you may be disappointed at the minor increase in reach from 140 to 200mm. Since you are early on in building your lens inventory you may be better served by going with something longer. Inexpensive alternatives are the 70-300 recommended by Mike or the Sigma 100-300 f4. The Sigma is about the same price as the lens you are considering and is one of the sharpest lenses Sigma has produced. That was my main wildlife lens for several years early in my photo journey and it served me very well. The 80-400 AF-S recommended by Manfred would be my first choice if you can afford it. It is a bit pricey but covers a lot of range and produces nice IQ particularly when shooting a DX body like you have. I got the 80-400 for travel and now grab it as my quick go to choice when I want the reach but don't want to muck around with a tripod.

Anyhow, as I said you won't be disappointed in the quality of the 70-200 f4 if you do decide to go that route. Good luck on your decision. Particularly now that we've done our best to confuse you

[JR1]

Can you consider the 28-300VR I have that too and it is a great lens.

I also have the 80-400 lens but remember there are TWO types, I have the "N"(nano) one and there is a less expensive version.

This is the more expensive "N" Version

http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/05/02...-g-ed-vr-ii-n/


This is the non "N" version

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...5-5.6D-ED.html

[NorthernFocus]

...I also have the 80-400 lens but remember there are TWO types, I have the "N"(nano) one and there is a less expensive version...

I don't think the D5300 is compatible with the AF drive of the older version. The smaller DX bodies typically only support AF-S type lenses.

[TheBigE]

Thanks everyone for the great feedback and discussion, it has certainly opened my eyes to other options. I like the 80-400mm, but that it out of my current price range. From what I have read also, many of the XX-300 mm Nikon Telephoto Lens become very soft after 200mm. Again there are many varying opinions on this topic. I have also looked closely at 300mm Prime Lens.

I think it is clear from my OP that I do not expect this Lens to make me a better photographer, and I am looking at it as giving me more options.

One of the reason I am looking so close at this lens is because of the lower f stop. For example, the attached picture was taken with at 140mm at F/5.6 and ISO 500. I am thinking if I could have had a bit longer reach and another lower f stop, I could have had the DOF more shallow. At least it would have come closer to what I have envisioned in my mind. There are other options as well, and I could have taken another vantage point in this photo or even focus on just one of the pigeons. I felt the composition was more compelling with all three.



I am more concerned now and will have to dig deeper in just how much I am getting in the extra 60mm of Focal Length. I might try and rent the 70-200mm f/2.8 Lens just to get a feel of the focal length difference between my 18-140 and 70-200

[ajohnw]

The 70-200mm F4 is a buy once lens. Actually compared with the F2.8 some one might buy it to save weight. They are both very good zoom lenses. The view on the F4 shrinks when it's focusing closer - a desirable feature. The 2.8 is the opposite.

I notice comments about 140mm and 200mm and feel they are correct but there will be a noticeable increase in quality which I suspect will part makes up for that by allowing significant cropping especially for web shots. There are severe penalties for the large range offered on the 18-140mm. This is even noticeable on the 18-105mm which some feel is the better lens at this end of the range.

Should the OP want to go longer I feel that ok an 80-400mm is an option but it would be better to go a lot longer via another lens purchased later such as the Tamron 150-600mm or the Sigma version when and if the the OP needs long focal lengths. In that case long never seems to be long enough.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

Erik, if you really want to control DOF, another option in similar price range would be to look for a used 70-200 f2.8 VR (original version). Plus with the extra stop you would have the flexibility of adding a teleconverter for more reach when desired.

Decisions, decisions...

[ajohnw]

He could also use a 1.4x converter on the F4. Usually 2x is dubious on any lens.

John
-

[PhotomanJohn]

He could also use a 1.4x converter on the F4. Usually 2x is dubious on any lens.

I use a version 3 Nikon 2X teleconverter on my 70-200mm f/4 on both my D7000 and D800 and it works very well. The only issues are the normal ones associated with a long lens. The lens is very sharp at f/4 so the f/8 equivalent with the converter is still very sharp.

John

[rpcrowe]

I absolutely LOVE my Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and use it for virtually all my shooting along with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. These two lenses can cover my needs in just about any type shooting in just about any venue (macros and long range wildlife excepted)...

I enjoy having a constant f/4 aperture both for selective DOF and to maintain a relatively high shutter speed.

I don't use this lens only for traditional telephoto work; I use it for about half my shooting including all my dog and people portraits....

I have a 1.4x TC which I seldom use (since I also have a 300mm f/4L IS lens) but, I will sometimes carry the TC on a trip along with the 17-55mm and 70-200mm lenses. The image quality and auto-focus of the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is quite decent with the TC added...

[ajohnw]

I use a version 3 Nikon 2X teleconverter on my 70-200mm f/4 on both my D7000 and D800 and it works very well. The only issues are the normal ones associated with a long lens. The lens is very sharp at f/4 so the f/8 equivalent with the converter is still very sharp.

John

I'm not sure if the OP's camera has F8 AF on the centre sensor John. I generally find 2x means noticeable deterioration. I don't have the 70-200mm F4 but if it wasn't for my escapades on m 4/3 it's a lens that I would most definitely buy topped off with the Tamron which on the face of it seems to compete with the Nikon/Canon competition on zooms.

I feel that all round the OP had made a sensible choice - before he posted - unless he wants a long lens. Then the Tamron makes more sense. The change in focal length on the 70-200mm going the wrong way as things get nearer would put me right off the F2.8.

John
-

[PhotomanJohn]

I'm not sure if the OP's camera has F8 AF on the centre sensor John.

I'm not sure either but that is why I mentioned that I use it on a D7000 which is not rated to focus above f/5.6 but works flawlessly with the center focus point. The D5300 may as well.

John

[ajohnw]

I'm not sure either but that is why I mentioned that I use it on a D7000 which is not rated to focus above f/5.6 but works flawlessly with the center focus point. The D5300 may as well.

John

As I have a D7000 I'm pretty sure that the central AF point will handle F8. I bought my 2x of some one with a 70-300mm an that would only work part way through the zoom range..

John
-

[rpcrowe]

I have never owned but, have shot with less capable zoom lenses (specifically the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS clunker). The autofocus capability, especially in less than bright light conditions of my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens beats the pants off the clunker as well as producing noticeably better IQ.

Since I often (usually) carry two cameras and two lenses (17-55mm + 70-200mm) the lighter weight of the f/4L IS vs the f/2.8L IS lens is a critical factor for walk around photography. In fact, I can carry the f/4L IS lens AND an extra 1.6x body at the weight of the f/2.8L IS lens alone...

[PhotoByTrace]

I have the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 lens. I LOVE it!
I thought I really wanted the f/2.8 but couldn't afford it; and that this was kind of a trade-off. But it turns out it isn't. It is super sharp at 200mm and f/4. It has quite lovely bokeh too and copes with back-lit situations and sunrise/sunsets pretty well. Now that I have this lens I'm very happy. It is rare that I am looking to stop down further with my action shots as I'm just not that good at keeping the focal point on my moving subject's eye, and at 2.8 it is going to be even less forgiving of that. If I was shooting portraiture I might feel differently; but for my purposes which is landscape, dog agility, and the occasional environmental/impromptu portrait, I'm very happy. Love that it's lighter too. I do sometimes wish for 300mm on the full-frame camera though

These are a few pics from it:
f/4 at 200mm


f/4 at 180mm (and cropped)


f/4 at 190mm