Nikkor 70-200 f/4
cab.in.boston
Registered Users Posts: 634 Major grins
The year of "consumer" FX continues. Per Nikon Rumors, the 70-200 f/4 VRIII is coming late November.
Gotta give them credit. There is now zoom coverage from 16-200 at f/4 thanks to the 16-35, 24-120, and 70-200, all with VR, plus the new 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm f/1.8 primes, and the D600. Would not be a bad little kit, if you ask me...
Gotta give them credit. There is now zoom coverage from 16-200 at f/4 thanks to the 16-35, 24-120, and 70-200, all with VR, plus the new 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm f/1.8 primes, and the D600. Would not be a bad little kit, if you ask me...
0
Comments
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
It's here!
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
As per Canon
pp
Flickr
If you have never shot with the Canon 70-200 f/4's, or the Sigma 50-150 2.8, then I don't blame you for being shocked / disappointed by this.
However, I assure you, the lens has absolutely no need for a tripod collar. I have effectively used similar lenses on tripods even with teeny-tiny ballheads, and the lens still barely weighs down the front of the camera.
I'm really glad Nikon left the tripod collar out of the package, because that is a weight and cost savings to 95% of buyers...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I believe that all longer zooms should have the collar.....but I shoot off a tripod a whole lot of the time...
well unless I am doing a concert then I just remove the collar off a my 70-200 f2.8 but still it should be
in the box and not at an extra $200.....
jmvvho
Kudos to Nikon for developing the lens. I do hope that it has optical performance to equal the Nikkor 70-200mm, f2.8G ED VR II AF-S.
(The Nikkor 70-200mm, f2.8 VR II has 21 elements in 16 groups, with 7 ED elements, while the 70-200mm, f4 VR has 20 elements in 14 groups, with 3 ED elements and 1 hi-refraction element, so they're not at all close in design.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I'd rather have it be aftermarket, then have the whole lens cost ~$1600.
I'm telling you guys, aside from portrait orientation being a little easier to switch to, there is absolutely no weight-distribution / balance reason to get the tripod collar on such a lens. Don't take my word for it though, just try for yourself and see. However like I said I have used even heavier lenses on some of the tiniest, crappiest ballheads ever. Actually, the setup will get back-heavy pretty quick if you use the tripod collar with any body bigger than a D7000 / D600. And even then, your setup is so light that we're back to "don't need it in the first place"...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
And it is light. Like, really, really, really light. I'd be beyond surprised if most people felt it needed a tripod ring; I'm sure there are some applications where that is helpful, but given that it's waaayyyy lighter than my 24-70 2.8 (WAY lighter).
Again, I can only speak to the Canon version, but I expect the Nikon will be similar.
If so, it makes having one useful for t'other (longer) lenses ... 'One ring to rule them all' .... maybe
pp
Flickr
Nikon's 70-200 2.8's have had a built-in tripod ring, with a detachable foot only. The Nikon 80-400 and 300 f/4 are the two likely candidates for having a tripod collar that matches the 70-200 f/4. This information may already be available, if you'd like to look up part numbers with Nikon.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I feel differently, especially when I start adding macro tubes or tele extenders...I tripod a crap load and I hate having my camera set right against the legs of a tripod...even 1.5 to 3 inches of bringing the body back toward me makes for more comfortable shooting for me....but then each to his own......as it really does not matter since Nikon has already decided to NOT ship with a collar....so any type of arguing or gripping is of no use is it..
I have been messing with a better design for a tripod mount for my 2.8 for a while now..its in the next pile..
But this lens coming without one will give me the push I need. Wished I could have gotten my hands on one of the early release units, I could have had a design machined and ready when the lens hit the shelves.
So great, more stuff to do last min
Gary
Yes. Yes you can. Otherwise why have cake?
The tripod ring just gives another handhold. and it is a handy-handhold on any longer tubular lens.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Agreed! Though I have to admit. I am surprised they cost so much for the Original Manuf. to add.
they don't ... ... even a fully machined collar should not cost more than $50 - 65 to turn out...and I am including the material, the programming of the collar and the 4 or 5 tools to actually turn it out ... and I feel that is on the high end, especially in Japan or China or Thailand ...
and really is a very moot point we know they are not packaging them together ...
I will wait until one of the 3 party companies puts one out there for around $80 and go with that...
Gary
And yeah, until the 70-200/2.8 Mark II came along, the f/4L IS was their best zoom. I'm sure Nikon used it as the benchmark, so this should be a very nice lens indeed. A must-have if the f/2.8 is out of the question. Or as a compliment for travel, it probably weighs half if it's like the Canon.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I bought a used EF 70 - 200 f4 ( non IS) from a local shop / dealer
Displayed with Canon tripod mount as 2 items.
Bought the lens (after getting 20% off ticket price) ... but left the collar ... thinking that they'd have difficulty selling just that for £79 (way over odds imo)
For several weeks after, whenever I visited said shop, noted that the collar was still there, made comments about the numbers involved and that they'd never sell it ... and eventually bought same when manager got fed up ... for £29.
Fortunately it's the pivoting / hinged type rather than the split ring version - so is more versatile (imo)for other jobs too.
pp
Flickr