Wataru said:
It looks ridiculous, though.

+1

But looks don't matter if the photo is what you want! :)

I screwed the 70-200 VR II on a V1 (with the adapter) and it takes GREAT high speed super telephoto shots. At work I need to take handheld shots of things far away, and for a few $K (lens and camera body) you get a very high speed, compact 540 mm (FX) equivalent stabilized telephoto system that can be hand held and stored in a normal camera bag along with a full sized body.

I haven't seen the serious reviewers talk about putting this lens on a V1, but I can assure you it takes otherwise impossible handheld pictures.

It looks ridiculous, though.

I never thought of the 70-200 as a portrait lens. I use it for my kid's sports and with a TC-20EIII for some nature stuff.

To me using 70-200 as a portrait lens is like using a Prius as a dragster.

I use my 85 1.4 or 105 micro for portraits.

To each their own though. I can see their point about the decreased focal length at shorter distances. I just don't understand their over the top, feet stomping whining about semantics.

I'm with msmoto. Get out and shoot. Which is what they must have done as Max nor PacEagle have been active in over 2 years. Either that or they switched to Canon...

msmoto said:
Hey, I have the VRII and it is a great lens. Works well with both the TC-14EII and TC-20EIII. Very crisp.

agree 100%

it also works down to ~ 600mm with the Canon CU77500D 77mm Type 500D close-up -lens

with the TC-20EIII it becomes an f 5.6 but it is best if stop down to f8

Hey, I have the VRII and it is a great lens. Works well with both the TC-14EII and TC-20EIII. Very crisp. Folks get so uptight with the so-called limitations of the equipment.... Just get the stuff, shoot photos and if any of us uses a modicum of care, the results will be pretty good. If a lens is too long or short, that is why they make different lenses.

I am seriously considering the purchase of the VR 11 version, reading all these posts is illuminating, my take is that Max would have liked the info prior to his purchase and not have to discover the lenses limitations third hand, i would ask Max whether or not he would buy the lens if he had of had the info? and if the folk in this forum are serious about influencing Nikon to be more up front with the facts and not hide the truth in jargon there should be maybe a petition, not sure if the nikon chaps read this forum, i am looking forwards to using the lens for landscapes and portraits so the minimum focus thing will have some impact but i will just accept those limitations and if needs be buy something for specific situations, BTW i think the sense of decorum and decency shown by the posters was nice, at dpreview it is not so nice, thanks for the expose Max.

I just posted portrait samples.

Please see the thread 70-200 II Portrait samples

Max

Well I've finally pulled the trigger and opted for the new version. For my style shooting, its the superior choice. I did finally manage to get the info I was looking for on the angle of view thing:

1.27m ............... 128mm
1.40m ............... 132mm
2.00m ............... 147mm
3.00m ............... 164mm
5.00m ............... 176mm
10.0m ............... 186mm

That's something I can live with. If I need the really tight headshot framing, I still have my 105mm macro, which has served me well for that purpose. I'll let you guys know my thoughts when it gets here.

There's a new review that sums up the focal length problem fairly well and matter of factly.

http://www.gregrphoto.com/blog/2009/12/10/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8g-vr-ii-review/

Keep in mind that in the first shot that compares the doll heads (the portrait vs tight crop of the head), both are at MFD and you cannot achieve the tight shot of the head on the right by moving forward a couple of steps. Also, the Doll heads are human-sized mannequins. This is a clear difference, and for me has kept me from getting the VR II.

Max now has something good to say about the 70-200 VRII

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1101

The lens just came out a few weeks ago so you won't see any "charts and graphs" reviews for a while.

Niko thx - must of missed that one
thats a good review by the users and tests for photo quality ... I wanna see something in a bit mroe details - lab tests if you wish

admin posted a couple nau. Give me a few minutes and I'll dig up the links for you.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10045-10329
http://wedshooter.tv/blog/review-of-d3s-70-200vr-ii/
http://moosepeterson.com/blog/?p=10243

on a topic: have anyone seen one good review for the lens (in depth that is)

PacEagle I think we all know your stance on this subject and there is really nothing more to add so let's just leave it at that. To everyone else let's keep the opinions in the first-person and not directed at anyone in particular.

LET'S KEEP THE PEACE GUYS!

Unless there is a new development like a miraculous firmware upgrade or something to that affect then this issue is a dead horse. If tempers don't settle down then it will be closed.

NO FURTHER WARNING OR EXPLANATION WILL BE GIVEN!

seba316 said:
"If you read my thread, which got closed till Saturday, I countless times try to make you and others understand the same thing, Accountability."

Man, you must be really smart and the rest of us so dumb...

This thread is sooooo boring! Get yourself a life and stop complaining. If you don't like a product, return it. If you don't like Nikon, buy Canon!

Seba.... that was enlightening....Brain pan size aside, sometimes you need to take a stand, I don't expect you to understand, and I really don't care about your rant. This is a forum to express one's self, opinions and thoughts on Nikon products. If you don't like someones view on something, fine, but don't make it a personal attack.

"If you read my thread, which got closed till Saturday, I countless times try to make you and others understand the same thing, Accountability."

Man, you must be really smart and the rest of us so dumb...

This thread is sooooo boring! Get yourself a life and stop complaining. If you don't like a product, return it. If you don't like Nikon, buy Canon!

Haha... The PR guy would be like:

"Customers really love the flexibility offered by a variable angle-of-view..."

I think waiting on early adopters and avoiding pre-orders is a good strategy for any product. Although even with time there will always be a chance that something goes wrong with your copy versus someone else's.

Niko....well he did say they would use my information and concerns to better advertise and educate people when buying a product. So I guess thats something, and its better than nothing. Will it happen, who knows.
As far as Placating me, good word by they way...they had to know of this issue in testing, and they should at least let the consumer know that it has limits of focus. But at this point in time, I think that they will get more of a message from the people returning the lenses than anything else.
I still have my VRI so I can use it in situations where I need it. So as far as I'm concerned, the next issue of any lens I will wait and see what the results of others I know are first, and not pre-order again.

So what kind of an e-mail response would placate you?

Willis... i understand your point, but if I talked down to any of my customers or corporate colleges without first at least clarifying their question first and understanding their knowledge of the subject, I would get the same kind of response from them. To assume that someone understands nothing about the quesiton they are asking is not a good start to any conversation.
That with-standing, your right that it wasn't a typical PR person, or that conversation would still be going on forever.

Pac-Eagle - I didn't find the response patronizing at all. Presumption of ignorance on the finer points of percision optics seems perfectly reasonable to me. Did it have the polish of a well oiled PR machine? No. But that's probably a good thing. That's how you know you are dealing with somebody in a position to actually answer your question as opposed to somebody trained to dodge it.

Alpha - E-mail disclaimers are dubious at best. In fact, other than waste bandwidth, I'm not aware that anyone has ever successfully used them to prosecute somebody or defend themselves from prosecution. I could be wrong though... I wonder if Tiger will start putting them on the end of his text messages LOL.

PacificEagle said:
Alpha..there is nothing in any of the exchanges between me and Nikon that say I can't share the information. Its from there customer support people and everything that was in the email is in the thread.

OK—well in that case thanks for posting :^)

Alpha..there is nothing in any of the exchanges between me and Nikon that say I can't share the information. Its from there customer support people and everything that was in the email is in the thread.

Niko....it looks like you and I will have to clear some Air here. I personlly found it condesending, to state that someone asking a question in regards to a product has no understanding of the question they are asking IS condesnding, and his response could have been phrased much better. So your opinion aside, its my opinion in regards to how i'm treated that matters.
Finally I base my opinions on my own, yes I read other people comments and take them for what they are worth. But in the end, its my decision and no one elses. And yes I have the lense.

So you say I'm looking for a fight, thats your opinion, but hardly accurate. I want them to be accountable, I want them to tell the truth, so we don't have to spend 2600 dollars for a product thats not what they describe. In each of my emails all I ask for is them to give me an honest answer on what they are going to do with the lens if anything.

The VR I worked well, and didn't have the VR II issue. If you read my thread, which got closed till Saturday, I countless times try to make you and others understand the same thing, Accountability.