Nikkor 70-200 f/4

cab.in.boston · October 23, 2012

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...

Harryb · October 23, 2012

babowc · October 30, 2012

http://www.adorama.com/NK702004U.html

It's here!

puzzledpaul · October 30, 2012

Seymore wrote: »

What... no tripod ring? Gotta buy it separate? )o:

As per Canon

pp

Matthew Saville · October 30, 2012

Seymore wrote: »

What... no tripod ring? Gotta buy it separate? )o:

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=

Art Scott · October 30, 2012

Well I for one would rather it come with a tri-pod collar and give me the choice of not using it...
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

ziggy53 · October 30, 2012

It probably won't take to long to start seeing the third-party tripod rings appear. I do prefer having a tripod ring because it allows much easier portrait/landscape orientation changes when you work with a tripod/monopod. It's also something to give you a little more to grab onto if you rotate the ring to the top.

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.)

Matthew Saville · October 31, 2012

Art Scott wrote: »

Well I for one would rather it come with a tri-pod collar and give me the choice of not using it...
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

We simply cannot have our cake and eat it too.

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=

divamum · October 31, 2012

If it's even close to as good as the Canon 70-200L F4, then you guys are in for a treat. I bought my Canon version for one particular shoot anticipating selling it on immediately, but I loved it so much I kept it. I love it even MORE on full frame, and it's become one of my most-used lenses. Flawless even wide open.

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.

puzzledpaul · October 31, 2012

Would be interesting to learn whether the tripod ring for this Nikon lens can also be used with other N lenses - as is the case for the Canon equivalent (at least 3 that I'm aware of)

If so, it makes having one useful for t'other (longer) lenses ... 'One ring to rule them all' .... maybe

pp

Matthew Saville · October 31, 2012

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Would be interesting to learn whether the tripod ring for this Nikon lens can also be used with other N lenses - as is the case for the Canon equivalent (at least 3 that I'm aware of)

If so, it makes having one useful for t'other (longer) lenses ... 'One ring to rule them all' .... maybe

pp

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=

Art Scott · October 31, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

We simply cannot have our cake and eat it too.

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=

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..

Wayupthere · November 3, 2012

I like cake

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

angevin1 · November 4, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

We simply cannot have our cake and eat it too.

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.

Matthew Saville · November 4, 2012

angevin1 wrote: »

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.

Let me rephrase. You can't have a tripod collar AND $200 in your pocket, too.

=Matt=

angevin1 · November 5, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Let me rephrase. You can't have a tripod collar AND $200 in your pocket, too.

=Matt=

Agreed! Though I have to admit. I am surprised they cost so much for the Original Manuf. to add.

Art Scott · November 5, 2012

angevin1 wrote: »

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...

Wayupthere · November 6, 2012

Art Scott wrote: »

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 ...

Uhh yea ok, good luck with that.

Gary

jmphotocraft · November 6, 2012

Canon's own tripod collar for their 70-200/4 is $139.

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.

puzzledpaul · November 7, 2012

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Canon's own tripod collar for their 70-200/4 is $139.//

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

Nikkor 70-200 f/4

Comments