10-25-2012, 10:49 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-25-2012, 11:16 AM by Brightcolours.)
The Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM and EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM are both 76x172mm wide x long.
So the new Nikon is only 6.5mm longer, or 5mm is you take the different flange distance into consideration.
The Minolta 70-210 f4 is shorter and lighter, but is not an IF design (extends to 168mm, 695 grams)
The Nikon AS 70-120 f4 is shorter still (extending to 156mm) but is the same weight as the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM, and like the Minolta, is not an IF design.
The Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR is in my view of normal dimensions... just a bit heavier than I would expect, but that is probably due to the fact that Canon uses some fluorite elements and Nikon does not.
Interesting for some, the optics of the f4 Nikon have a stronger resemblance to the Canon than to the Nikon f2.8 (but the back groups of both Nikons are similar):
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II
![[Image: 02.gif]](http://www.nikon-image.com/products/lens/af/fx/zoom/img/af-s_70-200mmf28g_ed_vr_2/02.gif)
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR:
![[Image: pic_004.png]](http://www.nikon-image.com/products/lens/af/fx/zoom/img/af-s_70-200mmf4g_ed_vr/pic_004.png)
Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM:
![[Image: lens-construction.png]](http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f4l-is/img/spec/lens-construction.png)
And another thing (or two) about this Nikon... Compared to the Canon it has a 12mm extension tube integrated, allowing 1m MFD according to the specs (my Canon needs a 12mm ext. tubve to get to 1 meter). My 12mm extension tube weighs 66 grams, more than halves the weight difference. And the Nikon is black, not some weird broken white shade. Now if it only has such smooth bokeh as the non-IS version from Canon, it will be a lovely lens.
So the new Nikon is only 6.5mm longer, or 5mm is you take the different flange distance into consideration.
The Minolta 70-210 f4 is shorter and lighter, but is not an IF design (extends to 168mm, 695 grams)
The Nikon AS 70-120 f4 is shorter still (extending to 156mm) but is the same weight as the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM, and like the Minolta, is not an IF design.
The Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR is in my view of normal dimensions... just a bit heavier than I would expect, but that is probably due to the fact that Canon uses some fluorite elements and Nikon does not.
Interesting for some, the optics of the f4 Nikon have a stronger resemblance to the Canon than to the Nikon f2.8 (but the back groups of both Nikons are similar):
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR:
Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM:
And another thing (or two) about this Nikon... Compared to the Canon it has a 12mm extension tube integrated, allowing 1m MFD according to the specs (my Canon needs a 12mm ext. tubve to get to 1 meter). My 12mm extension tube weighs 66 grams, more than halves the weight difference. And the Nikon is black, not some weird broken white shade. Now if it only has such smooth bokeh as the non-IS version from Canon, it will be a lovely lens.