Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR Nikkor Zoom Lens

I always spend the first few days with a new lens around my own house and neighborhood. This time gives me a chance to get used to its capabilities and quirks without any pressure. Well the new 70-200mm F/4 is a winner. I started this era with Nikon equipment (after 30 years away from photography) with the Nikon 55-200mm VR then got a 70-300mm VR. The latter was a better optic at comparable focal lengths, built better, and cost more. My plan is to use the new 70-200mm on a D7100 along with the 1.7 teleconverter as needed. However, I will not make the transition from my D90 or buy the teleconverter until either PhotoShop CS5 handles raw from the D7100 and has an appropriate lens model in raw or I'm willing to buy CS6. The history is important since the ability to compare the 70-300mm and the 70-200mm is, perhaps, limited by the D90 sensor. My initial reactions are all positive:1. The focus is quick and accurate, the limiter switch - tells camera to not focus closer than 3 meters - is useful and eliminated focus hunting in many low-light situations.2. The VR seemed better than my prior two medium tele lenses but that is always hard to tell since technique and technology both contribute.3. Out-of-focus renderings were creamy and pleasant.4. Sharpness was super (by visual inspection) and seemed to persist throughout the entire image as one would hope when used on a DX body.5. The internal focus, IF, should really be called I{F|Z} to indicate additional IZ standing for Internal Zoom. The lens length stays constant no matter what.6. The lens is a little heavier and longer(!) than the 70-300mm - that is because it has more glass elements, wider aperture, and I{F|Z},7. The mechanics and build quality are great. All switches and imaging rings move smoothly and the lens feels solid. I have no idea whether the 70-300mm or the new one has more metal but the 70-200mm feels better and snugger.8. I haven't seen any chromatic aberrations or flare problems even when bright light came from the front; N.B., I used the supplied lens hood.9. From reports, I expected more bending distortions, e.g., barrel distortion, than I actually saw. That may be because I'm shooting DX.I really love this lens and am looking forward to a D7100 and teleconverter along with PhotoShop raw processing so I can get all the advantages I see with this lens. If you are happy with jpgs or are satisfied with a body were you have good raw support, I highly recommend this lens.PS I know that Nikon's ViewNX 2 is available to support a raw work flow but I'm not comfortable using that software. If you are, some of my above comments do not apply to you.ADDED 04/25/2013: For those of you who want a tripod collar but don't want to pay Nikon prices, consider an alternative DSLRKIT Full Metal Tripod Mount Ring for Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR lens, it's under forty dollars, well made, and fits perfectly. It ships by international mail from the People's Republic of China and takes a few weeks to get here. So if you aren't in a rush ...ADDED 06/28/2013: I have obtained a Nikon TC-14E II teleconverter for use with my 70-200mm. There are no bad things to say about the combination and many good: 1) lens length increase is only the order of 1", 2) there is a only a slight, hardly noticeable weight increase, 3) I can't see any difference in sharpness or contrast on either the D90 or D7100, 4) I no longer have length anxiety by not using my 70-300MM VR, and 5) I don't notice any difference in focus or VR speed. Together with the D7100 the lens and teleconverter approximate a 150-420MM (or 200-560MM in crop mode) f/5.6 IF VR lens in a nicely made and balanced package. I originally considered the TC-17E II but decide against it; though I would have longer reach by a factor of 20%, I'd lose some autofocus modes (according to Nikon's web site). I thought that loss to be a bad tradeoff but would certainly like to hear about experiences of others.For what it's worth, I bought the imported (gray market) version of the TC-14E II for about $100 dollars less than the US version - this loses the extra four years of warranty given US products; since there are few moving parts, I felt this was a reasonable and safe move.

For quite a while now I've owned both this lens and it's bigger brother, the VRII f/2.8...if I had to choose only one of them to own, I would take the f/4 version, hands down.The f/2.8 version is obviously much more expensive (about a grand), and also much heavier. For that, you get one extra stop of performance...which, if you shoot indoor action and print to larger dimensions (bigger than 8X10), or enjoy playing with shallow DOF, will prove to be beneficial. With the f/4 version, you can bump up ISO one stop at f/4, and get the same shutter speed you'd enjoy had you been able to shoot at f/2.8...the only difference being a marginal decrease in image quality due to the increase in ISO. Unless you shoot very large prints (i.e. a 30 X 20 inch poster off a D4 or D810), a one stop increase in ISO is virtually unnoticeable in modern Nikon DSLRs.An f/2.8 aperture will also afford one the ability to garner a more shallow depth of field, which can prove useful for artistic purposes.The f/2.8 version comes with a tripod collar and foot...given it's twice the weight of the f/4, it is more often relegated to tripod use. The f/4 version, with its relatively light weight, is a joy to hand-hold. It can easily be carried around an amusement park all day while you follow the kids from ride to ride. The 2.8 is significantly more cumbersome due to its heft and weight. If you prefer to drop the f/4 on a tripod, you can find a matching collar and tripod foot at most reputable photo shops online (i.e. Really Right Stuff makes a collar designed specifically for the f/4 version).For me, VR is useful and productive in low light situations when ISO can no longer be raised without suffering significant noise issues. I can't say for sure that VR gives me the ability to gain the advertised 5 stops of speed when shooting with it, but it is a valuable and handy trait to have on the lens. It helps mitigate motion blur at slower shutter speeds.Image quality is obviously exceptional...if you're so interested in this lens that you're reading this review, then you already know how well this lens handles clarity, contrast, and color distribution. There isn't another zoom lens in this focal range which can compete with Nikon's two 70-200s. Between the f/4 or f/2.8, I can't say which lens delivers better overall picture quality. The main point is that, they are both so good, it doesn't really matter if one of them might be a little better. And, if one of them is a little better, I can't tell.The way color and contrast is distributed across the image is very life-like...and will be rendered with a "looking through a window" type of realism. Rarely have I been able to detect any color fringing, even in higher contrast, brightly lit situations (i.e. under mid-day sunlight). There is very slight vignetting wide open at f/4, but this dissipates very quickly as you stop down...it's basically unnoticeable at 5.6.If you enjoy focusing manually, you will be treated to typical Nikon quality. The focus ring turns like you're wading through warm butter...very smooth and precise. When used with zoom in live view, finding your focal point couldn't be easier. When using autofocus, you're treated to a quiet, fast, and precise mechanism. No complaints with the autofocus.This lens takes 67mm filters (as opposed to the 77mm size its bigger brother requires). I simply use a step-up ring from 67-77, so that I only need to purchase one size of 77mm filters for both lenses.For practically any casual use I can think of, I would be very comfortable recommending the f/4 version over the 2.8 version all of the time. Unless your needs are very specific (of the kind I mention before at the beginning of this review), the f/4 version, and its much more forgiving price tag and weight, is all you need to deliver excellent photos in this zoom range.