Is Nikon 70 - 200mm f/4 consider a fast lens ?

[wolfton]

....... I'm contemplating to invest in the 70 - 200mm f/4 for normal shooting and portrait.

For the price of about 2.5x of my current lens, is it :
1. Much faster in low light
2. Better sharpness
3. Worth the price by only 1 stop

Looking at some forums, most mentioned worth the change, while a few said not worth for the price. Please share and thanks for your view.

Hi TS, here's my take:

1. Not much faster in low light when I tested the f4 version. I take a lot of low light photos with the 70-300VR and it performs well on the D600. You need to find a point of contrast to lock focus, once you are familiar with this technique, it will not cause you any problem at all. The only issue I think in low light situation is, you may not be able to use a higher shutter speed than you would have wished to, even after using very high ISO.

2. Marginal at most.

3. No for me. At that price, I will rather go for the f2.8 VR1. Seriously, the only problem with this lens is probably the subject separation (bokeh) due to the aperture and having to use high ISO frequently (the D600 handles quite well though). For me, I am setting aside funds to change to the f2.8 VRII somewhere down the road, and that's because I have been abusing my 70-300VR for a long time and I know I need the f2.8 at many instances when out shooting. f4? No thanks, but that's just a personal preference.

The below are taken with the 70-300 VR on the D600. I think they fall within your requirement of portraiture and normal shooting.

 

[dniwkh]

why not the nikon 85mm f1.8g?

If you already has the 70-300mm.. I really think the 85mm is a better way to go. The review of this lens is very good.

 

[lenslust]

Really? Then Nikon has no fast lens... The only f/1.2 in the Nikon range is AiS 50mm f/1.2 manual focus. Oh and the AFS 85mm f/1.4G is not a fast lens, by your definition. :nono:

And AFS 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII is a normal lens. And 600mm f/4 is a slow lens, also 800mm f/5.6 is a slooooooowwww "don't waste ur money on it" lens. :sweat:

I LOLed.

 

[daredevil123]

Only lenses that are f1.2 and bigger are qualified to be called "fast" lenses.. F2.8 lenses are "normal" speed lenses. F4 are "slow" lenses, while f5.6 & beyond lenses are called "don't waste ur money on it" lenses.

Try taking walkabout street scenes at night with a f2.8 & u would already face difficulty using it handheld. F1.2 allows u to use a rather decent 1/50s or 1/60s speed. While f5.6 lenses? Impossible to get sharp nice shots at 1/2s or 1s shutter handheld aka useless..

Different people consider different apertures as the minimum for fast lenses.

For most people, and for the industry as a whole, lenses with apertures of F2.8 and larger are all considered "fast" lenses.

And yes, people have been shooting at F2.8 for handheld night walkabout street scenes, including myself and many distinguished street photographers here in ClubSnap. No problems whatsoever. I guess in the end it comes down to technique as well as know-how.

 

[blueblood]

Thanks for all the active comments and useful informations to this topic. I humbly wish that this forum continue to be friendly and healthy. I respect all individual views without criticizing or belittle them.

Thanks again for the guildance again for my long way to the photography path.

 

[Cheesecake]

Only lenses that are f1.2 and bigger are qualified to be called "fast" lenses.. F2.8 lenses are "normal" speed lenses. F4 are "slow" lenses, while f5.6 & beyond lenses are called "don't waste ur money on it" lenses.

Try taking walkabout street scenes at night with a f2.8 & u would already face difficulty using it handheld. F1.2 allows u to use a rather decent 1/50s or 1/60s speed. While f5.6 lenses? Impossible to get sharp nice shots at 1/2s or 1s shutter handheld aka useless..

swee la!!!

:thumbsup::thumbsup:



hahahaha

 

[dWENZ76]

Only lenses that are f1.2 and bigger are qualified to be called "fast" lenses.. F2.8 lenses are "normal" speed lenses. F4 are "slow" lenses, while f5.6 & beyond lenses are called "don't waste ur money on it" lenses.

Try taking walkabout street scenes at night with a f2.8 & u would already face difficulty using it handheld. F1.2 allows u to use a rather decent 1/50s or 1/60s speed. While f5.6 lenses? Impossible to get sharp nice shots at 1/2s or 1s shutter handheld aka useless..

KRW at his best::bsmilie:

 

[Lifes80]

Can i ask will this lens good enough for wedding photography??

2nd hand price for this lens is around the same as f2.8 VRI

 

[daredevil123]

Can i ask will this lens good enough for wedding photography??

2nd hand price for this lens is around the same as f2.8 VRI

Every lens can be good enough for wedding photography. The question is, is the photography good enough for wedding photography?

A tool is a tool. How effective the tool is, is largely depended on the person using the tool.

 

[Blur Shadow]

Can i ask will this lens good enough for wedding photography??

2nd hand price for this lens is around the same as f2.8 VRI

Why won't it be?

 

[Light Machinery]

The 70-200mm f/4?

It is good enough for wedding photography & everything else too.

Just go ahead buy one & enjoy yourself.

If you aren't shooting at high shutter speed in low light conditions, you will not have the need for the larger 70-200mm VR f/2.8.

 

[baggiolee]

:thumbsup: nice one...wahahaha...sry can't stop laughing.

Only lenses that are f1.2 and bigger are qualified to be called "fast" lenses.. F2.8 lenses are "normal" speed lenses. F4 are "slow" lenses, while f5.6 & beyond lenses are called "don't waste ur money on it" lenses.

Try taking walkabout street scenes at night with a f2.8 & u would already face difficulty using it handheld. F1.2 allows u to use a rather decent 1/50s or 1/60s speed. While f5.6 lenses? Impossible to get sharp nice shots at 1/2s or 1s shutter handheld aka useless..

 

[Lifes80]

Every lens can be good enough for wedding photography. The question is, is the photography good enough for wedding photography?

A tool is a tool. How effective the tool is, is largely depended on the person using the tool.

Still trying my way to be a wedding photographer. So it might be helping me and bringing me closer to my dream.. :think:

Why won't it be?

Just worried that I bought the wrong lens coz buying a good tele lens is nt cheap.

The 70-200mm f/4?

It is good enough for wedding photography & everything else too.

Just go ahead buy one & enjoy yourself.

If you aren't shooting at high shutter speed in low light conditions, you will not have the need for the larger 70-200mm VR f/2.8.

yes. the 70-200 F4. Will take in more consideration.. Thanks!

 

[daredevil123]

Still trying my way to be a wedding photographer. So it might be helping me and bringing me closer to my dream.. :think:



Just worried that I bought the wrong lens coz buying a good tele lens is nt cheap.



yes. the 70-200 F4. Will take in more consideration.. Thanks!

I think you missed the point. It is your skills that matter more than the gear. And if you do not know what kind of gear you need, it just shows you skill level is still very low, and you should not be putting yourself out as a wedding photographer. What I can suggest you do is to be assistant to a real wedding photographer and learn.

 

[Luminare]

@ TS:

Are you going to be the only photographer for the wedding event?

If you are the only photographer, you'll likely need 2 bodies if you chose to use a 70-200mm.

You'll need one body to be attached a either lens that can cover 24mm to 35mm for group shots. Bride, Groom and their family members will request group shots during reception and in between. Hence, it is common for most wedding photographers to use a 24-70mm f/2.8 if using a FX body or a 17-55mm f/2.8 DX if using a DX body

70-200mm is more for highlights which if you are the only photographer, is hard to come by.

Depending on the ballroom size and layout for march-in, 70-200mm can be difficult to deploy to cover the length of the march in.

In my experience in being the highlight photographer doing candid and highlights, the DOF of f/4 CAN be on the deep side and depending on the ISO of your body and the light of the venue, may not produce the BEST results.

Then again, it depends on both your style and what your customer expects (friends are also in a way a photographer's customer regardless being paid or not) to determine what tools you need to deliver the expected results.

Not to forget, you'll need 2 flash lights on both bodies, if not, at least 1 on the body with have the 24 to 70mm lens mounted.

Still trying my way to be a wedding photographer. So it might be helping me and bringing me closer to my dream.. :think:



Just worried that I bought the wrong lens coz buying a good tele lens is nt cheap.



yes. the 70-200 F4. Will take in more consideration.. Thanks!

 

[Minglink]

Only lenses that are f1.2 and bigger are qualified to be called "fast" lenses.. F2.8 lenses are "normal" speed lenses. F4 are "slow" lenses, while f5.6 & beyond lenses are called "don't waste ur money on it" lenses.

Try taking walkabout street scenes at night with a f2.8 & u would already face difficulty using it handheld. F1.2 allows u to use a rather decent 1/50s or 1/60s speed. While f5.6 lenses? Impossible to get sharp nice shots at 1/2s or 1s shutter handheld aka useless..

I had tired walkabout on street scenes at night with D800 and 50mm F1.2 Ais. I don’t use f1.2 I use f2 - f4 depends on how I want the pictures to be. With new model camera like TS D600 I don’t see any problem with high ISO been used. So 70-200 F4 VR will be a good choice for light weight yet good image quality pictures.

 

[Lifes80]

I think you missed the point. It is your skills that matter more than the gear. And if you do not know what kind of gear you need, it just shows you skill level is still very low, and you should not be putting yourself out as a wedding photographer. What I can suggest you do is to be assistant to a real wedding photographer and learn.

I know what you mean. Thanks btw.

@ TS:

Are you going to be the only photographer for the wedding event?

If you are the only photographer, you'll likely need 2 bodies if you chose to use a 70-200mm.

You'll need one body to be attached a either lens that can cover 24mm to 35mm for group shots. Bride, Groom and their family members will request group shots during reception and in between. Hence, it is common for most wedding photographers to use a 24-70mm f/2.8 if using a FX body or a 17-55mm f/2.8 DX if using a DX body

70-200mm is more for highlights which if you are the only photographer, is hard to come by.

Depending on the ballroom size and layout for march-in, 70-200mm can be difficult to deploy to cover the length of the march in.

In my experience in being the highlight photographer doing candid and highlights, the DOF of f/4 CAN be on the deep side and depending on the ISO of your body and the light of the venue, may not produce the BEST results.

Then again, it depends on both your style and what your customer expects (friends are also in a way a photographer's customer regardless being paid or not) to determine what tools you need to deliver the expected results.

Not to forget, you'll need 2 flash lights on both bodies, if not, at least 1 on the body with have the 24 to 70mm lens mounted.

Ya.. I understand. Usually I'm shooting using prime. Got Consider on 24-70 before. but ex too!!