I have the 80-200 AF two ring version. Taking pics of my daughters in low light have suffered. Will this be a good replacement? Or get the 2.8 VRII?
382296
if your camera model has a better sensor that handles high ISO's well (i.e. little noise) the 70-200 F4 is fantastic ... I kept my F2.8 ( fantastic lens but much heavier plus mines an older version W/VR1) but never use any more as the F4 coupled with a D800 is a great combo
382297
This is always a compromise between cost and performance. If is this is simply to photograph your daughters, the "speed" of the lens is not that critical given today's high performance DSLRs that can easily be pushed to ISO 800-1200 without significant graininess (noise). I personally use the more expensive F2.8 fx for special views of the Milky Way photos as well as super sharp landscapes. The 70-200 is a very high quality lens which will most likely fulfill your needs and requirements.
382298
The 2.8 gives you slightly better VR and one more stop over the f4. You could always take advantage of Amazon's 30 day return policy and try the f4. If it works well for you, keep it. If not, return it for the f2.8 model. Your current lens has NO VR, so either lens would be a big improvement.
382299
If you have a Nikon with a CMOS sensor chip, all you need to do is goose up the ISO to 1000 or so and you automatically gain extra stops without adding too much noise. Noise is the small colored dots in the darker areas and are caused by the sensor trying to gather info in a dark area and not, quite, getting it right.
382300
I most frequently use the lens in a studio environment. The VR seems very good and I am happy to have saved the $1000 over the 2.8 lens.
382301
This is the bane of all photographers. Low light action is very difficult. Large aperture rules. However, increasing the ISO on your camera can buy you some pictures without a new lens. If you can afford it, get the 2.8 VR2 lens. The f4 lens will just put you farther behind the 8 ball.
795052
This lens is fantastic for daylight sports photography but is going to be much weaker in low light situations than the 2.8 versions. In my particular situation I use a crop-frame camera so I'm especially handicapped in low light. My last attempt was photographing a nighttime car race with stadium lighting. Maybe 1 in 10 shots were satisfactory unless I shot on corners where the cars were slowed down significantly.
1192318
I am extremely pleased with my 18-140. I do not own the 18-200, but I have handled it. The 18-140 is a bit lighter, and handles a bit quicker. It is sharper than my 18-105, especially at the wider focal lengths, where most pictures are taken.
736774
Given the high ISO capability and the noise-handling of current softwares (LR4!), I see no compelling reason for the extra stop, weight, bulk and expense of the f 2.8 version. It is NO sharper than its little brother. And you already have the 85 f 1.8.
494123
I'm considering the 880 but have seen mixed reviews regarding its slowness as well as low-light shots...can you share your thoughts? I want a camera that is ready to take a photo quickly (recovery time if you will) and also captures the image quickly (without being in sport or multi-shot mode)...would you recommend?
1044998
I just went through the same decision process, in fact I literally bought the D60+ lens kit and returned it (package unopened) for the D80 (body only) + the fabulous 18-200 VR lens. Why? 1) I wanted the additional metering controls vs. the D60 and in fact used all of them on my recent trip to the Hoh rain forest. 2) Keeping to my budget, I opted to spend the money on the 18-200mm VR, and yes, I used its FULL RANGE without having to change lenses. A great way to go when outdoors and taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves (e.g. deer twins walking right towards us while on the trail!). 3) Quickly realizing the super-zoom wasn't going to get me a FAST lens, I was able to pick up the 50mm f/1.4 right before my travels (which would NOT have AF working with the D40 or D60). If I had the $$$ I might have opted for a D300 and picked up the D40/60 for a lightweight second body, but as the only Digital SLR that I'll be using for the next couple of years, and the small price difference, I am extremely happy with my purchase.
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
784056
Is the 18-105 worth buying over the 18-55mm any day. Especially you going to use with D5200. If you more money why not go for 18-200mm VRII or 18-300mm VRII. They are all around lenses. Good luck!
2022116
The teleconverter works best with F2.8 lenses. AF may not work well at higher F stops and you may need to go to Manual focus
1200245
I'm going to suggest a different question. Do you really want a newer version? I recently bought a used 300mm F4 for 950. Its sells new for around 1300. This lens has been due for replacement for quite some time. So i had to ask myself the same question you have, when will a replacement come out, because it is certainly overdue. Problem is, when it does come out, it will be of lesser build quality, it will remove the aperature ring(G lens), add VR, and cost well over 2000. While I would like the VR on this lens, is it worth the huge proce difference, and the reduced build quality. I also used the same logic on a 17-35 i just bought. So what I would suggest, is to judge the current lens on its merits. The only gripe I would have with this lens is that it is AF and not AF-s. It will be much cheaper than a new one, probably much better build quality, and who knows when a replacement might arrive.
2137225
Unfortunately, 2.8 is the max aperture so you will likely be shooting 3200 or 6400 iso. I find that for the most part 6400 is at the upper boundary of useable, but it is not pretty.
624550
I have the 2.8L lens, and I love it, but I wish it had IS. In my opinion, the only real advantage of the 2.8 is its greater light gathering power, to shoot inside or in deep shadows. The f4 with the IS can do most everything you want, especially if you have a camera with a high ISO. I don't know of any differences in the glass.
1547552
Sure, it should be very similar. 2.8 is 2.8 no matter which lens. The larger the aperture the faster your shutter speed will be. Obviously you need to be close enough, it seems like some of the other comments haven't read what you asked. I have used this to catch my son running around the house or outside. I also have the 70-200 f4 IS for telephoto zoom.
2059522
With the VR, it performs fairly well. It is 1/2 stop slower than the older 18-300, but it's lighter and has better optical characteristics. The 1/2 step is not really an issue. Just remember that it does stop down to f6.3 at full telephoto. If you use Auto ISO, this could help compensate. If you have realistic expectations about what the lens can do, it will serve you well.
678606
Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just... » Read More Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. « Show Less
2207206
It just so happens that yesterday I tried the 2.0 on my 7D Mark II with the new 100-400 II lens and it lost its AF function. It works fine with the 1.4 extender, though.
1680732
It's OK, but you are looking at f4.5 rather than 1.4 or 1.8 with a prime. Plus, you get a sharper image with a prime. If you are a pro, stick with the prime. You will probably get fewer keepers on a camera like a D800 if you are looking for details. For casual its fine.