you will probably end up buying both the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 and keep the 24-120 f4 for extended zoom range AND have a range of primes as well. That is where most pros that shoot a range of things, including natural light portraits, find themselves after a number of years.
At 100mm the 100-400 is f/4.5 vs f/2.8 so at lower focal lengths, the 70-200 wins, but when you extend out to 400mm you will be getting the equivalent DOF. Let’s be clear, I’m not proposing the 100-400 as a shallow DOF portrait lens, just saying under the right conditions you could achieve similar outcomes. This 70-210mm f/4 AF has the same optics as the manual focus Series E 70-210mm f/4, which had very similar optics to the Nikkor 80-200mm f/4 AI-s over which some collectors dream. This 70-210mm f/4 AF lens is unique because it provides a constant f/4 aperture all the way out to 210mm. This makes it a very attractive alternative to the f/2.8 The one I am interested EF 70-200L/4.0 IS II vs 70-200 GM @200mm/F4.0 in TDP test. 70-200 GM is known has copy variation, and I am not a big fan of studio test in close distance on resolution chart but prefer outdoor test from distance to be more resemble in real-world usage. So just for reference. Hello, I own a 70-200 F2.8 VR II, which is a great lens. 47 Nikon Software; 26 Nikon Deals; 760 General Discussions; 49 Gear Reviews; 180 Other Manufacturers; 105 Re: 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D vs. 70-200 f/4 vs. Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC In reply to Josh Jones • Oct 5, 2013 Thank you for the reply, there seems to be a lot of love for the 80-200. I shot on Canon APSC DSLR in the past with 70-200/F4 and now use D7200 with 70-200/F2.8. I reviewed my photos from last couple of years and there were a significant number at 200mm. The Fuji zoom goes only to 140mm. Recently, Fuji has 40MP bodies, which give crop option. That option wasn't available earlier. 7DNM3e.