All internal focus lenses when focused at a distance less then infinity changed the actual focal length. If I remember correctly my 200mm micro at 1:1 is actually 140mm.
It has been a number of years since I investigated this. So if someone has more accurate numbers, please note them.

Gentoo said:
Glad I didn't sell me VR I now.

Why? Aren't the birds you shoot quite a distance away?

Glad I didn't sell me VR I now.

Hello
I agree that my 70-200 VR isn't 200mm if you focus close (say 1.5-3m).
But I was told this was indeed an IF design issue.
I also had the same problem (?) on my 18-200 VR but I compared both focusing at 1.5m and the 18-200 at 200mm looked like 135mm on the 70-200... So when focusing close at the long end of a IF zoom will never be what you can read on the zoom ring :D
I also admit that when I need to shoot close subjects I use my 105 micro or my 10.5 fish-eye, so it hasn't been a problem... perhaps with a fixed 200mm f/2 but I'm not even sure that its IF design can provide 200mm when focusing close... I think it's just optics laws here.

Trenton_Romulox said:
A lot of people spend more time testing stuff out than actually shooting, it's ridiculous, haha.

I completely agree with you there Trenton_Romulox!!!

adam I don't think it's a "problem" even if it's absolutely true.

neither do I Niko, just though it might be interesting and I haven't notice this with the old lens (although never checked :))

I have the VR II (I sold my VR I to help with the upgrade) and the focal length shortening that people are talking about is definitely real. I haven't done a ton of tests of it though, because, I don't care. For some people, the issue might actually matter, but for me (someone who mostly shoots landscapes) this doesn't matter to me at all. The VR II is very sharp, noticeably sharper than the VR I, and it produces great contrast and colors. The vignetting of the VR I is practically a thing of the past shooting on my D3 and I haven't regretted my upgrade yet. A lot of people spend more time testing stuff out than actually shooting, it's ridiculous, haha.

It's not an issue that I'd lose sleep over :^)

I don't think this new lens should be any different from the old lens with regards to actual mm produced like the above test showed. I compared my Canon 40D/70-200 2.8 vs D300/70-200 2.8VRI and they were almost the same, with the 1.6 vs 1.5 cropping factor considered

Pete

BTW look at the DpReview post further down and it shows, from poor sample shots that at longer distance the lenses have the same view, but the Nikon is simply much sharper

I have my doubts about those "samples" but like Willis said if you're shooting something up close at 200mm with this lens then you're using the wrong lens!

I hear you Adamz, but when I think about a 70-200 zoom, That's the sort of lens I'd use to make far away things a little closer. Not to make close up things bigger. Would I prefer that it be 200mm across its entire focal range? Sure. It just isn't the lens I'd reach for if i were going to be shooting within 6 feet (or even 10 feet).

From a lens like this, the most important thing is that far away objects appear sharp at 200mm. I can usually walk to frame up something within 6 feet of me. Doing that on a landscape, or a sporting event is a little more challenging. I think that's what Nikon had in mind when they made this lens.

willis - I agree with You that for ppl photography this is really not a big issue, but there are so many different fields of photography where it actually is a problem; the thing that bothers me is when I buy 70-200mm lens I want it to perform like a 70-200mm lens in all circumstances (from 1.4m) or at least I would like to see an information that this lens is 70-135 at 1.4 and it gets 200mm once You cross 2m distance (just guessing, don't know at what point this lens starts to behaves normally - 200mm on lens = 200mm in reality)

I've seen this a couple other places. Apparently, as you move away from your subject, the difference goes away.

In all fairness, it seems a bit silly to use a 200mm lens at a distance of 6 feet anyway. If you want close-ups of little things, you should be using a macro lens, or a close focusing prime.

For a 70-200, the smallest thing I'm likely to shoot is a human head, which would need to be further away in order to fit in the frame.

EDIT: I suppose the bird people might have a ligitimate gripe here. Still, six feet is pretty close to get to a bird.

nau said:
yep thats a big one... so 70-200 lens is more like 70-150.... and we are talking about AFS lens which are super pros bla bla bla ....

No it is not it is 70-200 all the way except on the closest distances ...
It actually looks longer at infinity then Canon in the article ...

yep thats a big one... so 70-200 lens is more like 70-150.... and we are talking about AFS lens which are super pros bla bla bla ....

It should not be an issue really and is a result of IF design in 70-200 VRii. At infinity you will not notice this and you could focus more closely with VRii (1.4m) then with VRi (1.5).

I think the Canon 5D did actually have a smaller sensor and is cropping the image, just kidding

I just compared my Canon 40D 70-200 F2.8 at 200mm app 6 feet distance to my D300 70-200 F2.8VRI and the Canon setup looks slightly closer, but it is also a 1.6 crop factor sensor right.

There were someone that have both I think, Odd though

Pete

Have You guys read this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=33881808

it looks like the new 70-200VRII has some problems with distance shortening on closer subjects. Can some of You (who has this, and preferably the 70-200VRI) confirm that? If this issue confirms than... Nikon You have a problem!