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

Product Information

As usual, we see a bit more complexity to the optics on the FX bodies. Strangely, the extreme corners just never approach the central region from 70-105mm. There’s always just a bit of degradation at the edges, indeed, even stopped down to f/8 at some focal lengths. Yet, at 135-200mm, I’d call the edge to edge performance very good and close to the central sharpness, even wide open. We see even a better pattern here – the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR not only has better contrast wide open, but its resolution is also significantly higher throughout the frame, especially in the corners. 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, because of the massive difference in focal lengths. Hence, at close distances, the 70-200mm f/4G is actually a better lens to use for subject isolation. I know what you will say: “but the field of view is different”. Yes, true, but think about photographing a small subject at close distances. With the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, you cannot zoom in any further to get the subject to appear bigger – the only thing you can do is add a teleconverter. Whereas with the 70-200mm f/4G VR, you can make the subject appear bigger (and even bigger with a teleconverter) and you have more options for better subject isolation. In particular, the 70-200mm f/4 is a nice pairing with DX bodies, such as the D7200 or D500. But I tend to shoot with it even on my D810.

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

For not much more money you can go ƒ/2.8, if you don't mind going out of the Nikon camp. The Sigma has its own issues with corner softness when used on full-frame, but otherwise, it's about on-par with the 70-200mm ƒ/4. The lens accepts filters via a standard 67mm thread around the – non-rotating – front lens element, which is great news for those who like to use polarisers or ND grads. The VR works perfectly, as every other new Nikkor lens, and the image degradation is virtually absent (when in the firsts VR models was better turn it off with the shorter shutter speeds). One can always forget the VR. 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! The blue column represents readings from the centre of the picture frame at the various apertures and the green is from the edges. Averaging them out gives the red weighted column.The lens isn't designed for macro work, with a minimum close-focusing distance of 1 meter (just over three feet) and a maximum magnification of 0.27x.

Nikon 80-400 vs 70-200/f4 - Digital Photography Review Nikon 80-400 vs 70-200/f4 - Digital Photography Review

What about for portraiture? Obviously, one would not be interested in zooming in to a person’s face more just to get better subject isolation, especially if the subject already filled the frame. In those situations, the lens with a faster aperture still has the advantage in terms of depth of field. So if I were to take both the f/2.8 and f/4 lenses and match the field of view from both lenses, the f/2.8 lens will yield shallower depth of field. This is why I compared all lenses at f/4 when showing bokeh performance below – all lenses had to have a similar field of view with exactly the same aperture for a fair bokeh comparison. Lens Sharpness and Contrast So there’s a little bit of a “fair weather friend” aspect to this lens. If you’ve got enough light, it’s an excellent performer. If you don’t have much light, you’re going to wish you had the f/2.8 version.

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

AF: AF-S with SWM (silent wave motor), so it does work on D60/3×00/5×00-bodies, manual-focus override by turning the focus ring [+] It’s useful to consider some of the key differences between the current 70-200mm f/2.8 (top) and f/4 (bottom) lenses: The official specifications of the unannounced lens remains unknown, but it’s pretty easy to predict that the 35mm will be an f/1.2 lens to match the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 lenses. There has even been an accidental mention of a “35mm f/1.2 S” on some of Nikon’s social media. When Are These Lenses Coming Out? As you can see the new 70-200/4.0 is topped by the 70-200/2.8 in the FX corners at 70mm and 105mm when shooting at f4. At 150mm the 70-200/2.8 seems to have a weak spot and the new lens is slightly better across the sensor. At 200mm both lenses are basically on a par. Again all these comparisons are made at f4, which means the f2.8 model has been closed by one stop.