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.

First a short intro: I'm a serious amateur, not a professional, and I'm mainly a nature, landscape, and travel photographer. I mostly don't shoot sports, action, or kids. Keep this in mind as you read my review.For years, my workhorse telephoto zoom was a 70-200 f/2.8 VR (the original version), and for the most part it gave me spectacular results. When I switched from DX to FX in 2012 I continued to use this lens, but its limitations quickly became apparent -- especially bad corners, most evident at the long end of the range, at distance, and with smaller apertures. I knew going in that this lens had such a reputation, but needed to see for myself.When Nikon announced the f/4 version, I decided it was time to make the switch. The prospect of a smaller, lighter lens, with excellent ergonomics and corner-to-corner image quality, was too much to pass up. Was it a good change? Suffice to say that, although I still have the f/2.8 lens, I'll probably sell it soon because it just sits on my shelf unused.Compared to the f/2.8 lens, the f/4 version lacks one stop of lens speed (obviously), the heavy metal construction that allows the 2.8 to double as a melee weapon, and the built-in tripod collar. On the other hand, the f/4 has a lot going for it:- It's much lighter and smaller, taking up less space in my bag and putting less weight on my shoulders on long hikes.- The build quality is still very good, with the solid plastic construction found in many of Nikon's better lenses, with smoothly damped zoom and focus rings and fixed front and rear lens elements.- The image quality is very good and much, much better in the corners than the older f/2.8 version.- The f/4 version focuses much closer, which makes it good for near-macro, and I've read that there is actually better background separation with the f/4 version at minimum focus than the f/2.8 II version at its own minimum focus, because of the 2.8's focal length breathing. Portrait and wedding photographers care about that.- The tripod collar is not a big loss because the lens is so light. I tried the Nikon add-on collar but the lens/camera combo was actually better balanced without it. I use a combination L-bracket and small rail to get near perfect balance on a tripod.- The VR system on the f/4 is considerably better than that on the older f/2.8.I haven't tried the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, which I've read solves the corner issue of the older model, but it's still bigger, heavier, and $1000 more expensive. I don't need the wider aperture, so for me, the f/4 version is perfect.A lot of people wonder about the 70-300 VR variable aperture zoom (f/4.5-5.6), at about a third of the price, and how the 70-200 f/4 can possibly be of any value in comparison. I had the 70-300 for several years, but hardly used it, and gladly got rid of it. The f/4 lens feels like a professional, precision tool, with smooth tactile operation; the 70-300 feels cheap in comparison, and I really never liked using it. Sure, the 70-300 goes to 300, but you can put a 1.4 TC on the 70-200 and get as good or better an f/5.6 280mm lens. It's no contest unless the price of the f/4 lens precludes its consideration for you.In conclusion: the f/4 is an excellent lens, and if you don't need the extra stop of lens speed or the tank-like build, is probably the best all-around choice.