As long as Nikon keeps creating great gear, I have no problem paying for it, and when I buy this lens, I'll buy the dedicated tripod collar for it. Call me crazy. Closest focus distance/max. magnification: 1.0 m (3.3 ft) / 1:3.6. In my test I was able to go down to almost 1:3.3. This is pretty useful for capturing nature close-up – see one of my images from the gallery. And it also means that the effective focal length shrinks only some 12% when focusing close. [+] Having used the lens for a month, I came to the conclusion that the new VR III system is indeed more effective than VR II. I tried shooting at very slow shutter speeds with both the f/2.8 and the f/4 lenses and my hit ratio with the 70-200mm f/4 was better. Again, I won’t be able to provide any numbers here and it is hard to say how much better it is – probably between half a stop to a full stop (depending on the situation) is a good guess. I cannot say that my results came out better just because of the newer VR though. Keep in mind that the 70-200mm f/2.8 is about twice heavier than the f/4 version, so weight could have been the reason for better sharpness in my case. Either way, I really liked how the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR handled vibrations and I felt like it worked better than on my f/2.8G VR II.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR Overview: Digital

Sadly, it seems like we are coming to the end of Nikon’s roadmap, unless they decide to release a new version. Nikon has previously said that this roadmap will cover “to 2023,” so presumably, the remaining 35mm lens will be announced later this year. The 80-400g is a great all-around lens that can be used for wildlife because it gets long enough. The 200-500 defines a wildlife lens, and is particularly good for that. What does this all mean? It means shoot the lens at f/4 with confidence at any focal length and only stop down if you need to increase depth of field. On DX cameras, I can’t really find fault with the sharpness from 70-135mm. It’s excellent edge to edge even wide open, though f/8 might be the best aperture by a slight margin. At 200mm, you really need to stop down to f/5.6 to get excellent results; wide open I’d just call it very, very good. The corners at 200mm were down from the center, I’d call them good. Overall, I’d tend to say the 70-200mm f/4G is very good on the high resolution bodies such as the D810, and excellent on the high resolution DX bodies. The slight issues at the corners don’t bother me much for telephoto use.mirrorless: sansmirror.com | general: bythom.com| Z System: zsystemuser.com | film SLR: filmbodies.com If you don't want or need VR, this lens remains a popular choice. It's about as sharp as the new Nikon at ƒ/4, and has its own problems at 200mm. It even has a dedicated macro mode, though magnification at this setting is only 0.17x (which is bested by the new 70-200mm ƒ/4 with 0.24x). On either camera, results for sharpness are more or less stable through to ƒ/16, with a noticeable increase in softness at ƒ/22. Fully-stopped down performance at ƒ/32 is dramatically soft, and should be avoided on both sub- and full-frame cameras. This 70-200 f/4 can be mounted on tripod with out tripod collar, mount it on camera, and then on tripod.

Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR review - Digital Camera World

Using the 2-lens combo will give you slightly better sharpness overall, but forces you to change lenses or carry even more weight (two cameras). At least the 70-200f4 is very small and light so easier to handhold. Sorry but this "all but" is a very old way of speaking: 1598 for it's first (known) occurence ! Cf: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/all%20but I have the 200-500mm lens and always have the 70-200mm along as well as 200mm is often too long a focal length. I’m setting up a shoulder rig with a manual Zoom gear and using autofocus with the 24-120 S f/4 for now .I also like how a lens focuses better under many conditions and the increased brightness of the viewfinder with the gaping 2.8 (or faster) apertures. First off the 24-70mm is a much shorter lens. If you compare the 70-200mm f4, 24-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8 VR you will find that the length differences between the two 70-200mm versions isn't a lot while the 24-70mm is a much shorter lens. Chromatic aberrations, typically seen as purple or blue fringes along contrasty edges, can be noticed in photos taken at maximum aperture but they aren't too excessive, and tend to go away upon stopping down.