At 70mm, sharpness in the centre portion of the frame is outstanding from maximum aperture. Although the clarity towards the edges isn't up to the same level, it is still very good at this aperture and focal length. Stopping down the aperture gradually improves performance across the frame, with peak edge to edge sharpness being achieved at f/11 where sharpness is outstanding across the frame. I value portability and utility over ultimate laboratory performance. If all I wanted to do was shoot test charts, this 70-200/4 is the way to go for you tripod and NEF guys — it's undefeated for sharpness.

Now 5 feet is obviously too close, so let’s do slightly more realistic numbers. When doing my lab tests, I measured that the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II at 200mm is equivalent to the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR at 170mm, both at a distance of 13 feet. If I plug those numbers to the same calculator this time, I end up with 0.29 feet of depth of field for both lenses. What this all means, is that the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G yields shallower depth of field than the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G from the closest focusing distance to about 13 feet, again because of difference in focal lengths. Past 13 feet, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G starts to take over, because the lens breathing effect starts to wear out and the lens recovers most of its focal length. Again, this shows that the 70-200mm f/4G would be much better suited for close-up work than the 70-200mm f/2.8. The "A/M" position means autofocus. It's called "A/M" because you also can focus manually simply by grabbing the focus ring in this position. 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.

Latest Reviews

The Nikon 70-200mm f/4G looks weaker in the center, but take a look at the corners – it clearly resolves more details in comparison. Apochromatic lenses have special lens elements (aspheric, extra-low dispersion etc) to minimize the problem, hence they usually cost more. At 200mm it's a little softer, 2,181 lines at f/4 with even sharpness across the frame. The best performance is at f/8 where it tops 3,100 lines. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM delivers similar performance, but its edges are at their best at 70mm and softest at 200mm.

As you can see the new 70-200/4.0 is topped by the 70-200/2.8 in the FX corners at 70mm and 105mm when shooting at f4. At 150mm the 70-200/2.8 seems to have a weak spot and the new lens is slightly better across the sensor. At 200mm both lenses are basically on a par. Again all these comparisons are made at f4, which means the f2.8 model has been closed by one stop. Although the price may seem a little high at the moment, it is sure to drop in time, but even so, the current price is probably just about worth it. The Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR is made well for a consumer lens. It's got some metal on it, and it's made as well or better than some of Nikon's other recent attempts at making what are supposed to be pro lenses out of all plastic, like the 35mm f/1.4G.

The Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR punches above its weight

IS: yes, the new version 3 of Nikon’s VR system. Nikon claims it gives you up to 5 stops of stabilization, one stop more than with the previous version 2. [+] Longitudinal chromatic aberration / LoCA (which is the effect of color fringing in front of and behind the focused area) is also handled well at large apertures. This new lens has the same extraordinary optical quality of the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, at only half the price, size and weight. If you compare Nikons MTF curves, this new lens is even a bit better than the 70-200/2.8 VR II. Now that's not to say the 70-200 F4 is a poor lens. I've tried it and it's stellar. But I'm pretty sure the Tamron will beat it for bokeh at the longer focal lengths that the Nikon can't do at all. The VC is amazing. The lens is small and light and focuses fast. And it sings all the way to 300mm. Price: already down to 1200 EUR new (incl. 19% VAT), but that’s still a lot of money, and the tripod collar RT-1 is an extra. The Sigma AF 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG APO HSM OS is 20% cheaper, the new Tamron SP AF 70-200mm 2.8 Di VC USD 30% more expensive, and the Nikon 70-200/2.8G VR hovers around 1800 EUR street price – and all three come with a tripod collar. But if the new Nikon zoom delivers performance-wise I’d say the price is adequate. [0]

The Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR has more noticeable distortion when compared to the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II. It suffers from both barrel and pincushion distortion at short and long focal lengths and pincushion distortion is most pronounced at 200mm. Here are the measured distortion results from Imatest:

Samples

OK, you twisted my arm, so I just shot a 80-200mm f/4 AI-s versus this new 70-200/4 VR at the range. At 200mm wide-open, this VR lens is a bit sharper under the microscope, while though the rest of the range they are the same, and sometimes the 80-200/4 AI-s is sharper. Most importantly, for those who can afford the latest version, we found that in our lab tests that optical performance has been noticably improved. With its curved 9-bladed diaphragm, the 70-200 4 VR makes no sunstars on brilliant points of light. Again, vignetting is relatively easy to fix in Lightroom via the Lens Correction module. Ghosting and Flare When I read about Nikon’s announcement of the new Vibration Reduction III technology in the 70-200mm f/4G VR, I was a little skeptical that it would be in any way better than VR II. While image stabilization technology is certainly effective on any lens, I never quite agreed with Nikon’s bold “4 stop advantage” claims in their VR II. In my experience, 2-3 stops is a more realistic number. So when Nikon announced VR III with “5 stops of advantage”, I wondered if it meant an improvement of 1 stop over the realistic 2-3 stops, or another marketing lie.