F/2.8 telephoto vs f/4 telephoto (Nikkor)

nothrowaway

I've got a few bob to spend on some lenses, I've ordered a nikon D610. I've got a serious, possibly irrational, desire for the 70-200 mm vr ii. This, however, will absolutely hammer my budget. The f4 version would let me get a decent wide angle to go with it.

My question is, what would I be missing out on if I went for the f4,in terms of what I can shoot. Obviously it'll affect bokeh (for portraits, etc.) and low light action shots. I can live without these for now. Are there any other glaring disadvantages?

Thanks.

ValueInIreland

nothrowaway wrote: »

I've got a few bob to spend on some lenses, I've ordered a nikon D610. I've got a serious, possibly irrational, desire for the 70-200 mm vr ii. This, however, will absolutely hammer my budget. The f4 version would let me get a decent wide angle to go with it.

My question is, what would I be missing out on if I went for the f4,in terms of what I can shoot. Obviously it'll affect bokeh (for portraits, etc.) and low light action shots. I can live without these for now. Are there any other glaring disadvantages?

Thanks.

Nobody ever regretted getting the better lens!

Fat_Fingers

ValueInIreland wrote: »

Nobody ever regretted getting the better lens!

This!!! if someone told me this when i was starting years ago i would have saved myself tons of money I've wasted on cheap glass.

"I can live without these for now" - this was me. I wish someone sat me down and said no, you are going to need 135mm f2 or 200mm f2!

adox

Might also be worth considering the Tamron which is very well thought of and a lot cheaper.

flyingsnail

I made this decision years ago on the canon side, while the F4 is a great lens i cant count the times I had wished I had gone for the F2.8 instead.

D.S.

What do you shoot?

I have the 70-200m f4 and it's fantastic. Extremely light and the sharpness is great. I have borrowed the F2.8 version a few times. It is superb when you need the extra speed but it's very heavy. Not great for those long hikes.

To be honest, if you are shooting people / animals in regular daylight from a distance - I don't think you'll miss out on much.

You'll miss out somewhat, as you point out, if you want better bokeh, the ability to freeze your subjects moving at speed, or the ability to shoot in worse light without compromising ISO.

If bokeh or low light performance were your main need - I probably wouldn't recommend the 70-200m f2.8 either unless you need the flexibility (e.g. wedding photography) - you would be better off with a fixed focal length such as the 85mm (which is fantastic at both 1.4 and 1.8).

I have to say - the 70-200m f4 was one of the first lens I purchased, but it's my least used now. I shoot mostly portraiture and landscape, and I'll use my fixed focal lengths most of the time. If i were recommending any of the trinity zoom lenses (14-24, 24-70, 70-200m), I'd recommend the 24-70 f2.8 over the other two. It's an amazing lens if you need flexibility. I use the 14-24 next for landscape and seldom bring out the 70-200m.

Just some thoughts. Best of luck with whatever you choose to get.

nothrowaway

Cheers for the responses guys. I'm going to take the hit now and go for the f/2.8. It'll be a once in a lifetime (hopefully) purchase so I won't be daydreaming about the better lens down the road.