http://www.usednikon.com/nikon-70-200-vr-ii.php
The issues with this lens are real. How they will effect your shooting is entirely up to you.
Max
70-200 VR II review
(122 posts) (23 voices)-
Interesting review, thanks. I don't think I'll have an issue with the loss of focal length at close focus. Disappointing, though, that this issue seems to be pushed under the rug by Nikon and some "insider" reviewers.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm certainly YELLING at the top of my lungs about the problem, mainly because there's a odd group of shooters (many who don't even have the lens) and reviewers (many who ALSO don't have the lens) who want to minimize an issue that is meaningful to a good number of people. They say strange things, like "70mm loss is typical for pro zooms" but then ask them for another 70-200 or 80-200 example that does this and they get angry. Then, stranger still, we have a group that will defend what their guru says, even when it's something like "50mm loss of magnification is not significant."
The lens is AMAZING and I'm glad I own it. I just hope a more honest picture of exactly what it does emerges from the "big" reviewers over time.
Cheers,
Max
Posted 3 years ago # -
i'm still a little confused on what's going on here, but I would be ROYALLY PISSED about losing nearly 70mm on the long end. . . I know if/when I plunk down money on a 70-200/80-200 lens, I will probably be using it OFTEN on the long end. . .
So am I to assume it's effective FL is 70-150mm then?
The optical achievements are largely underscored, IMO, if the effective FL is so small. . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
Shivaswrath - the loss in focal length occurs when close focusing. Focusing at or near infinity, no loss. See, for example ... http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=33857737
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yes, that is true. In fact at the long end I believe the lens does quite well. But at a distance you'd find typical for event shooting, say 10-15 feet, you'll have a lens that will be usually below 150mm or worse.
The old 70-200 only dropped to 190mm at close focus, a big advantage for a variety of shooting applications and styles.
If YOU don't need that ability, that's fine. But many of us used the long end at 10 feet quite regularly. The loss of this ability is what's causing the web chatter.
But frankly, there's nothing to "debate." The lens has less functionality in regard to using it's zoom range compared to the old lens, period.Max
Posted 3 years ago # -
I have the new 70-200 f/2.8 VR II and I had to previous version. I can see how different ones among has will react differently. It does not bother me. What would have bothered me is if you told me it lost some significant percentage of its sharpness. That would have me howling.
Posted 3 years ago # -
MaxGreen said:
Yes, that is true. In fact at the long end I believe the lens does quite well. But at a distance you'd find typical for event shooting, say 10-15 feet, you'll have a lens that will be usually below 150mm or worse.
The old 70-200 only dropped to 190mm at close focus, a big advantage for a variety of shooting applications and styles.
If YOU don't need that ability, that's fine. But many of us used the long end at 10 feet quite regularly. The loss of this ability is what's causing the web chatter.
But frankly, there's nothing to "debate." The lens has less functionality in regard to using it's zoom range compared to the old lens, period.Max
I have the old one and honestly newer noticed that it was not 200mm when shooting closer, I rarely use 200 mm closer up, what an Odd thing though
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
I guess for reasons unknown the Nikon optical engineers decided against maintaining the angle of view at closer focusing distance with this IF design, maybe it would have had a negative impact on IQ but who knows. Btw I'll say angle of view instead of focal length since the latter is based on focusing at infinity.
In a way I can understand the folks that are upset about this increase in angle of view if it has an negative impact on their shooting style but that's what can happen if you have to have the latest and greatest once it becomes available and don't wait for more hands on detail reviews to see if it really is right for your style.Posted 3 years ago # -
Don't plea-bargain with the laws of physics! You can try it yourself with a pair of concave lenses. If you focus internally within a non-retrofocus lens, you will reduce the focal length. It varies somewhat with the location of the IF element. There cannot be a an IF element moving towards the center of the lens from the rear half without reducing the focal length. Anyone who tells you differently does not know the physics.
That said: we should applaud the Nikon engineers for packing the VR element, the IF element and the vario-element into one f/2.8 package that has such high reproductive qualities across its whole range.
For me: end of story. I'll likely buy the thing . . .Posted 3 years ago # -
+1 with Recent Convert.
Oh and way to plug your $$$ website Max.
Come up with a "bad review" of a popular product. A sure way to get traffic flowing to your new site.Posted 3 years ago # -
Recent Convert said:
Don't plea-bargain with the laws of physics! You can try it yourself with a pair of concave lenses. If you focus internally within a non-retrofocus lens, you will reduce the focal length. It varies somewhat with the location of the IF element. There cannot be a an IF element moving towards the center of the lens from the rear half without reducing the focal length. Anyone who tells you differently does not know the physics.
That said: we should applaud the Nikon engineers for packing the VR element, the IF element and the vario-element into one f/2.8 package that has such high reproductive qualities across its whole range.
For me: end of story. I'll likely buy the thing . . .That all sounds fine, except that there are other lenses on the market that are still excellent, have VR and IF and don't drop to 128mm.
I DO own the thing and like it, but I don't believe that any product is perfect. When you get the lens you're welcome to report YOUR opinion on how these issues do/don't effect you of course.Max
Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
+1 with Recent Convert.Oh and way to plug your $$$ website Max.
Come up with a "bad review" of a popular product. A sure way to get traffic flowing to your new site.That's silly. The website is in it's infancy and not associated with any seller or commercial entity. We don't make money with it.
Max
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm also with Recent Convert.
Glad we have another engineer/science type in the forum, too - adds dimension to the arguments .. umm ... uuh ... I mean discussions.Posted 3 years ago # -
OK fair enough Max. Welcome to the forum. I hope you chime in on other thread topics as well.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I've already seen a thread here talking about this issue.
Nothing new under the sun.
All IF design have the problem.
The engineers at Nikon have made a choice.
I think they were very audacious.
If it bothers you, don't buy it. The other performance aspects of the lens is worth the focal loss.Posted 3 years ago # -
I guess half the reason I don't understand this comment is that I shoot exclusively in DX, where 10 feet is simply too close for use at 200mm unless you want only the head in the frame. Were that the case, 9/10 times I'd just move a step forward and that would probably make up the difference.
On FX (which is why you want this lens in the first place I'll wager) I could see it being more of a problem. Still, the list of times I'd need that much reach at that distance and I'm stationary if, for me, pretty short. The only thing I can think of is shooting the post movie interviews with directors during the film festival (I don't do this, but my girl is pretty cozy with the AFS folks).
Even then, the typical shooting distance winds up being closer to 15-20 feet. I'd really appreciate it if somebody could name the distance at which this effect goes away (or at least gets within 10mm.
Posted 3 years ago # -
+1 with optima
Posted 3 years ago # -
I guess to each their own. I use my older version for those wildlife shots where my subjects are fairly tame and my 300mm primes would not be practical. The loss of FL would have me irate!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Folks, some of you are really missing the point here. Your personal lack of need for a 150mm at 5 feet has no bearing on the matter at all.
You should respect that this is a REAL shortcoming for some people. If it's a non-issue for you, great. But we're discussing an issue, not the many excellent aspects of the lens.
In EVERY other respect the 70-200 II is amazing. But that's not what's being discussed. I never really needed sharp corners on my VR I, but that didn't apply to everyone of course.
Max
Posted 3 years ago # -
Give me an example where this would be critical?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Niko - There's only a handfull of plausible answers to your question. It matters when:
1. You need more reach within close range, and can't move any closer, and the light is low enough that TC's are not an option.
2. You need the perspective offered by 200mm at close range.Personally, option 1 probably doesn't happen to more than a niche group of photographers. Option 2... who knows. I find that when I'm messing w/ perspective, its on the wide end (adding depth) and not the tele end (flattening your shot). But I don't have much experience with anything past 100mm outside of my 18-200, which I hate using on the long end.
Ultimately, optics is mostly a game of trade offs. Nikon added VRII, and sharpened up the corners of what was otherwise a legendary lens to begin with. In exchange for this they sacrificed some minimum focal distance.
The question is, did their trade make sense? I think, overwhelmingly, yes it does make sense. You use zooms for flexibility. If I'm going to be in a fixed location reletive to my subject, I'd prefer to use faster sharper primes and would plan accordingly. If I'm not fixed, in my posistion, zooms offer me much more flexibility. If I can't frame my subject 10 feet away then I don't mind moving 2 feet closer. In exchange for the effort, I know my subject will still be sharp when its 50 feet away. Even in the corners.
Again I ask though: At what point do you start to get a true 200mm?
Posted 3 years ago # -
I think most peple tend to look at lenses and camera gear in general only from their own perspective. If they don't need it, then you don't either.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
