Full SIze100% crop from centerTaken on solid tripod using touch to focus and electronic shutter.

Here's the link to the DNG (shot in 14 bit and converted with Adobe DNG Converter).https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6r_XpvziVg5MzNBQk5zUlZPeEU?usp=sharing

wow...that detail on the 100% crop is amazing!

Yeah it's pretty good for sure.  Definately seems softer at 100% than my DF did with the same lens (makes sense).  I'm curious to try the 70-200 2.8E and see if there's any increase in resolution on this same scene.  I may rent it and test it out for comparison purposes.

larswright wrote:Yeah it's pretty good for sure. Definately seems softer at 100% than my DF did with the same lens (makes sense). I'm curious to try the 70-200 2.8E and see if there's any increase in resolution on this same scene. I may rent it and test it out for comparison purposes.100% on 45mp is vastly different than 100% on 16. In LR 1:1 zoom on 16mp files is about the same zoom as 1:3 on high mp files.Thank you for showing this camera lens combo. I have it too but I’m getting to know the camera I haven’t tried this lens on it yet.

Looks good to me.  How's it do handheld?

I took a bunch of photos on a walk recently but the lens was backfocusing.  I've adjusted but haven't gone back out yet.  Besides the backfocus i'd say it was great.  When i get a chance ill post some photos that aren't backfocused.  Things are a little hazy right now though where i'm at from the Sonoma fires.

I've always found this lens to be very sharp on other cameras (I don't have an 850), so I would think it'd still be great on the 850, even though it's not on Nikon's list of "recommended" lenses.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that it's available for 700 bucks usedCue the conspiracy theories

larswright wrote:Maybe it has to do with the fact that it's available for 700 bucks usedCue the conspiracy theoriesIt is? What country?

mgblack74 wrote:larswright wrote:Maybe it has to do with the fact that it's available for 700 bucks usedCue the conspiracy theoriesIt is? What country?There's a few here:https://www.ebay.com/sch/items/?_nkw=nikon+70-200+f4&_sacat=&_ex_kw=&_mPrRngCbx=1&_udlo=&_udhi=&_sop=12&_fpos=&_fspt=1&_sadis=&LH_CAds=&rmvSB=trueAmazon used prices are a bit higher.  I'd check out KEH, too, but their site seems to be down at the moment.

Completed listings on eBay look to be around 760 ...https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat&_mPrRngCbx=1&_udlo&_udhi&_sop=12&_fpos&_fspt=1&_sadis&LH_CAds&rmvSB=true&Compatible%2520Brand=For%2520Nikon&Brand=Nikon&_nkw=nikon%2070-200%20f4&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684Pretty damn good deal if you ask me.   I've never understood why people really need 2.8 to be honest.

Larsseems you were on the second floorat what distance from the pole, if I may ask?

Old Greenlander wrote:Larsseems you were on the second floorat what distance from the pole, if I may ask?Hmm, maybe 30 feet?

larswright wrote:I've never understood why people really need 2.8 to be honest.Slightly better AF, an extra stop for lowlight, and more usable with a teleconverter.

I used to have the F2.8. For the years that I owned it, I took it overseas  4 times. Used it for model shoot twice. Its just too heavy for me inspite of the monopod I used with it. Sold it and bought the F4 version 3-4 years ago. It is almost as sharp, and it is one of my two travel lens since; goes everywhere I go until recently. YMMV.BillT

Tony Beach wrote:larswright wrote:I've never understood why people really need 2.8 to be honest.Slightly better AF, an extra stop for lowlight, and more usable with a teleconverter.Also: you can use this as a portrait lens (in the 100-135mm range) in a pinch and will therefore appreciate the narrower DOF.Chris

Bill T wrote:I used to have the F2.8. For the years that I owned it, I took it overseas 4 times. Used it for model shoot twice. Its just too heavy for me in spite of the monopod I used with it. Sold it and bought the F4 version 3-4 years ago. It is almost as sharp, and it is one of my two travel lens since; goes everywhere I go until recently. YMMV.I don't consider the f/2.8 VR heavy, but the f/4 is clearly lighter and more travel-friendly.

NotASpeckOfCereal wrote:Tony Beach wrote:larswright wrote:I've never understood why people really need 2.8 to be honest.Slightly better AF, an extra stop for lowlight, and more usable with a teleconverter.Also: you can use this as a portrait lens (in the 100-135mm range) in a pinch and will therefore appreciate the narrower DOF.ChrisActually, due to the focus breathing of the 70-200 VRII, the 70-200 f/4 has a shallower DOF at minimum focus. The 2.8 VRII at 200mm at minimum focus distance acts like 135mm. The f/4 version acts like 197mm at 200mm at minimum focus distance. 197 f/4 is shallower than 135 2.8.

mgblack74 wrote:NotASpeckOfCereal wrote:Tony Beach wrote:larswright wrote:I've never understood why people really need 2.8 to be honest.Slightly better AF, an extra stop for lowlight, and more usable with a teleconverter.Also: you can use this as a portrait lens (in the 100-135mm range) in a pinch and will therefore appreciate the narrower DOF.ChrisActually, due to the focus breathing of the 70-200 VRII, the 70-200 f/4 has a shallower DOF at minimum focus. The 2.8 VRII at 200mm at minimum focus distance acts like 135mm. The f/4 version acts like 197mm at 200mm at minimum focus distance. 197 f/4 is shallower than 135 2.8.What about when using either 70-200mm "(in the 100-135mm range" as I mention above?