Those lenses prob out preform the camera actually..... well the 16-35 does.... the others are wasted... get a D7000.
Nikon 70-200mm f4 G VRIII Next week ;)
- Thread starter Dfive
- Start date
Those lenses prob out preform the camera actually..... well the 16-35 does.... the others are wasted... get a D7000.
i am using the 1635 myself. Yes it is one hell of a lens.. but i cannot say the same for the rest. The 70-200/4 will probably be sharp, Nikon needs to be at least on par with the canon equivalent.. if not, shame shame.
But they are all very good lenses & they are brought before my D4.
I think it depend on individual preference................................:think:
Don't understand why u say "limit your camera's performance".................:embrass:
Jeremy1 said:My guess is around $2K..............................
VR2 is about 3k now man... I don't think it will be 2k
Well, as long as you are happy with what you have.
Personally, I rather put the weight on lenses, especially if i have such a good camera body as yours... but i am too poor to afford that.
Hi bro, I am just a hobbyist. I met a photographer also using a D4 & he also told me it's a waste I am using a D4 but not using a F2.8 trinity zoom. Other than better subject isolation, I can't really think of any other reasons. The weight & the price is also another con.
Yet to try a trinity lens if I had more money to spare.........................
Hope to get more knowledge from you.......................................
Hi bro, I am just a hobbyist. I met a photographer also using a D4 & he also told me it's a waste I am using a D4 but not using a F2.8 trinity zoom. Other than better subject isolation, I can't really think of any other reasons. The weight & the price is also another con.
Yet to try a trinity lens if I had more money to spare.........................
Hope to get more knowledge from you.......................................
Not just subject isolation. 2.8 lenses are almost always sharper at F4 than F4 lenses wide open. The standard zooms 24mm-85/24-120 wide open also vignettes at all focal lengths a lot more than the 24-70 wide open. And when the 24-70 is stopped down to F4, vignette is minimized.
It is not that F2.8 is better than F4. Aperture size is just that. But the targeted segement for these lenses differ. F2.8 lenses are built better simply because they are aimed at working professionals, that is why they perform better and that is also why they cost more.
Thing is if you can afford a D4, why not get better lenses for it?
Remember with F2.8, you can stop down to F4. With F4 lenses you cannot go to F2.8.
Last edited:
Other than better subject isolation, I can't really think of any other reasons.
Hope to get more knowledge from you.......................................
I believe the pro bodies carry a lot of computing power to AF track and predict the subject and they do especially well with the pro f2.8 zooms which carry bigger sized AFS motors.
The instant focus and tracking as well as their top performance under very low light ( ISO 6400 and above ) and unpredictable conditions ( e.g sports where the subject is erractic) when paired with D4's algorithm, computing power, battery power etc gives the edge to this trinity lenses.
Thanks for the explanation.
Will think about it when I got more money to spare.........................
Finally. The last piece in the F4 trinity
Hope this is not a letdown like the 28 f1.8 in the f1.8g prime lens line up...
May I ask what constitutes your f4 trinity set?
Finally. The last piece in the F4 trinity
Hope this is not a letdown like the 28 f1.8 in the f1.8g prime lens line up...
Why the 28mm a let down? Care to share?
OT, but its just my own perception & opinion. Read many reviews, seen many pics, especially those taken by the "resident evangelist"" here Somehow not impressed at all. Find the pictures lack sharpness, crispness & contrast. Dont feel its on par with the IQ from the 50mm f1.8g or 85mm f1.8g. Also, seem this lens have focus shift/field curvature issue from some reviews e.g here http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_28mm_f1-8G/ & http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-28mm-f1-8g . Was looking at adding this prime to my 85mm to subsitute for the 16-35 or 24-120 at the wide end on occassion when I dont need a zoom, but think its IQ hardly comparable. Perhaps other owners/users can share why its impressive
Somehow not impressed at all. Find the pictures lack sharpness, crispness & contrast. Dont feel its on par with the IQ from the 50mm f1.8g or 85mm f1.8g. Also, seem this lens have focus shift/field curvature issue from some reviews e.g here http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_28mm_f1-8G/ & http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-28mm-f1-8g . Was looking at adding this prime to my 85mm to subsitute for the 16-35 or 24-120 at the wide end on occassion when I dont need a zoom, but think its IQ hardly comparable. Perhaps other owners/users can share why its impressive
Last edited:
OT, but its just my own perception & opinion. Read many reviews, seen many pics, especially those taken by the "resident evangelist"" here
perhaps the sharp 24mm F1.4 is for you..
Thom Hogan
70-200mm f/4 Announced
Oct 25, 2012 (news and commentary)--Nikon yesterday announced the long-awaited 70-200mm f/4G AF-S VR lens. It's what Nikon users wanted but not at the price they'll like.
In the "wanted" category we have size, weight, and features. The new lens gets Nikon's latest VR system, which is said to provide a five stop gain in some hand holding situations (up a stop from VR II). It's a fairly compact lens at 7" long (about an inch shorter than the 70-200mm f/2.8). It's definitely much lighter (30 ounces instead of 54). Close focus is now 3.28' instead of 4.6', so the maximum reproduction ratio increases (not to 1.36 as in the Nikon specifications--apparently someone made a typo that has now been replicated around the Internet like wildfire; I'll bet it's 0.36x or 1:3.6). All these things are good.
The bad is this: the tripod collar is optional, and expensive optional, as in US$230 or so. All I can say is that for that kind of money, Nikon had better hope that this a better tripod collar than they've been making on their lenses lately. Coupled with the US$1400 price of the lens itself, this really pushes the overall price up high. At least we still get caps, hood, and a soft case at the regular price.
My guess is that we'll see the Really Right Stuff's and Kirk's of the world get into the tripod collar business, which will make Nikon's bean counters wonder why they aren't selling any and then eventually tell product management to stop selling them.
Nikon (and Canon) should have learned their lesson here from the vertical grip business, but apparently hasn't. Because the vertical grips are now such expensive accessories for the bodies that use them, a whole cottage industry of clone (and better) vertical grips have appeared at far lower prices. Buying a D600, D800, of D7000 with a Nikon-supplied grip is no longer a given. Most users are better served by looking at the third-party market now. That's likely to happen for tripod collars, as well.
Overall, this is a highly desired lens, but it's also a "see we can do what Canon does" type of product for Nikon. Even the act of charging for a tripod collar is a direct copy of Canon. There's no product creativity in this: Nikon is just attempting to do what Canon did so successfully (create a lower cost, smaller, lighter, less expensive telephoto zoom option). Yet apparently Nikon thinks that they're the premium brand and can charge more. (The Canon lens is selling for about US$1100 at the moment, with the tripod collar being US$150 extra. Even without the current US$150 discount on the Canon, the total package from Canon is US$1400 versus US$1630 from Nikon.)
That said, I look forward to this option, as I don't always need f/2.8, and a lighter option is highly welcome.
Thom Hogan's Nikon Camera, DSLR, Lens, Flash, and Book site
70-200mm f/4 Announced
Oct 25, 2012 (news and commentary)--Nikon yesterday announced the long-awaited 70-200mm f/4G AF-S VR lens. It's what Nikon users wanted but not at the price they'll like.
In the "wanted" category we have size, weight, and features. The new lens gets Nikon's latest VR system, which is said to provide a five stop gain in some hand holding situations (up a stop from VR II). It's a fairly compact lens at 7" long (about an inch shorter than the 70-200mm f/2.8). It's definitely much lighter (30 ounces instead of 54). Close focus is now 3.28' instead of 4.6', so the maximum reproduction ratio increases (not to 1.36 as in the Nikon specifications--apparently someone made a typo that has now been replicated around the Internet like wildfire; I'll bet it's 0.36x or 1:3.6). All these things are good.
The bad is this: the tripod collar is optional, and expensive optional, as in US$230 or so. All I can say is that for that kind of money, Nikon had better hope that this a better tripod collar than they've been making on their lenses lately. Coupled with the US$1400 price of the lens itself, this really pushes the overall price up high. At least we still get caps, hood, and a soft case at the regular price.
My guess is that we'll see the Really Right Stuff's and Kirk's of the world get into the tripod collar business, which will make Nikon's bean counters wonder why they aren't selling any and then eventually tell product management to stop selling them.
Nikon (and Canon) should have learned their lesson here from the vertical grip business, but apparently hasn't. Because the vertical grips are now such expensive accessories for the bodies that use them, a whole cottage industry of clone (and better) vertical grips have appeared at far lower prices. Buying a D600, D800, of D7000 with a Nikon-supplied grip is no longer a given. Most users are better served by looking at the third-party market now. That's likely to happen for tripod collars, as well.
Overall, this is a highly desired lens, but it's also a "see we can do what Canon does" type of product for Nikon. Even the act of charging for a tripod collar is a direct copy of Canon. There's no product creativity in this: Nikon is just attempting to do what Canon did so successfully (create a lower cost, smaller, lighter, less expensive telephoto zoom option). Yet apparently Nikon thinks that they're the premium brand and can charge more. (The Canon lens is selling for about US$1100 at the moment, with the tripod collar being US$150 extra. Even without the current US$150 discount on the Canon, the total package from Canon is US$1400 versus US$1630 from Nikon.)
That said, I look forward to this option, as I don't always need f/2.8, and a lighter option is highly welcome.
Thom Hogan's Nikon Camera, DSLR, Lens, Flash, and Book site
Last edited:
Was informed that this lens will be available by next week (maybe Monday). Price I got was $1670.
Similar threads
