Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR vs Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR has more in its favour on paper. The AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR gathers more light for low light and background blur; the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR is lighter and the alternative.
Choose the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR for
- less weight (850g vs 1430g)
Choose the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR for
- a brighter maximum aperture (f/2.8, about 1.0 stops more light)
- a lower price (about £840 vs £1,099)
| AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR | AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR | |
|---|---|---|
| Brand | Nikon | Nikon |
| Focal length | 70-200mm | 70-200mm |
| Maximum aperture | f/4 | f/2.8 |
| Weight | 850 g | 1430 g |
| Stabilisation | Yes | Yes |
| Weather sealing | Yes | Yes |
| Filter size | 67mm | 77mm |
| Made for | Full frame | Full frame |
| New price | £1,099 | £2,399 |
| Used at MPB (Nikon F) | None listed | £554–£1,119 |
Frequently asked questions
Is the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR better than the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR?
The AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR offers less weight (850g vs 1430g); the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR offers a brighter maximum aperture (f/2.8, about 1.0 stops more light), a lower price (about £840 vs £1,099).
Which is better value, the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR or the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR?
On Nikon F, the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR costs about £840 against about £1,099 for the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR (MPB used where listed, otherwise new; checked 5 November 2026).
Is f/2.8 worth it over f/4?
f/2.8 gathers about 1.0 stops more light, which helps indoors, at night and for background blur. If you mostly shoot in good light, the slower lens is usually lighter and cheaper.
Do both lenses fit the same cameras?
Both are available for Nikon F.