Gentoo - don't you find that to be true re most issues in the world?
70-200 VR II review
(122 posts) (23 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Willis
1. If that's true then you're using the wrong lens for the wrong job
2. How is the perspective different at 150 versus 200? Might not be the exact same view but why would the difference be super critical at such a close range?Gentoo this has nothing to do with what I need or what you need. It's about understand the limits of the equipment you already have and how that can be interpreted as a "problem".
I don't see how this is really a problem?
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
It's obvious you don't see it as a problem and that's what the problem is. I personally don't see loss or corner sharpness as a problem. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem all the same. This is why I specifically said nothing about that the few times I addressed this topic.NikoDoby said:</cite
Gentoo this has nothing to do with what I need or what you need. It's about understand the limits of the equipment you already have and how that can be interpreted as a "problem".
I don't see how this is really a problem?
Posted 3 years ago # -
MaxGreen said:
The question is, Pete, is did you ever enjoy using the 70-200 at 10 feet away using more than 165mm?Because the VR II cannot do it. In fact at 15 feet you still can't even zoom to 175mm.
Max
Not so much on my D300, but I would need it if I moved up to a D3s
This would actually be real annoying on a FX camera, wow what was Nikon thinking
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
Willis said:
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?
I've already used the lens on two jobs. On one, at a child's party, I was seperated by tables from the subjects. My working distance was right in the pocket where a lot of reach was lost. I got a LOT of nice shots, but had to do a LOT of cropping. Later, shooting a band from 1st and 2nd rows, my friend and I found we were once again unable to get the tight framing we liked with the old 70-200 lens. If you've shot weddings or virtually ANY event, then you know the reach can be important at times. The old version of the lens simply gives you more options for framing...kind of the whole point of a zoom...OPTIONS via variable focal length.
The VR II requires 30 feet (!!!) before it hits 190mm. Anything closer than that shows dramatic differences in magnification, which is not a "useful feature" by any stretch.
Now attach a TC 1.4 to the 70-200 VR II and you can do what the old one did....at F4 and with less subject isolation and weaker bokeh? And what about portraits? In a poll last year the 70-200 made the list as a top portrait lens. Not surprising since Nikon promotes BOTH versions for portrait work. But at 15 feet away you can no longer get the same magnification for candid/portrait stuff.
There are a huge amount of situations where a lens like this is negatively effected. I'm shocked that people even wonder about it. 30 feet and less is certainly a wide range of usage and 10-15 feet is common. A lot of people liked using the old version at the long end at such distances. So why are some people trying to spin this into a non-issue for the rest of us?
People buy zooms and primes separated by as little as 20mm, yet we have some shooters who are trying to claim a 30-70mm deviation from typical lenses is not big deal?
I wonder how many even own the lens.Max
Posted 3 years ago # -
MaxGreen said:
I've already used the lens on two jobs. On one, at a child's party, I was seperated by tables from the subjects. My working distance was right in the pocket where a lot of reach was lost. I got a LOT of nice shots, but had to do a LOT of cropping. Later, shooting a band from 1st and 2nd rows, my friend and I found we were once again unable to get the tight framing we liked with the old 70-200 lens. If you've shot weddings or virtually ANY event, then you know the reach can be important at times. The old version of the lens simply gives you more options for framing...kind of the whole point of a zoom...OPTIONS via variable focal length.The VR II requires 30 feet (!!!) before it hits 190mm. Anything closer than that shows dramatic differences in magnification, which is not a "useful feature" by any stretch.
Now attach a TC 1.4 to the 70-200 VR II and you can do what the old one did....at F4 and with less subject isolation and weaker bokeh? And what about portraits? In a poll last year the 70-200 made the list as a top portrait lens. Not surprising since Nikon promotes BOTH versions for portrait work. But at 15 feet away you can no longer get the same magnification for candid/portrait stuff.
There are a huge amount of situations where a lens like this is negatively effected. I'm shocked that people even wonder about it. 30 feet and less is certainly a wide range of usage and 10-15 feet is common. A lot of people liked using the old version at the long end at such distances. So why are some people trying to spin this into a non-issue for the rest of us?
People buy zooms and primes separated by as little as 20mm, yet we have some shooters who are trying to claim a 30-70mm deviation from typical lenses is not big deal?
I wonder how many even own the lens.Max
If this forum had a reputation ranking, I would give you a +1 rep in a heart beat. Thank you for explaining this so well as I lack the patients to do so very often. Very well said!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Gentoo - I think what Niko is saying is that you see a lot of tech heads complaining about this, but not a lot of photographers explaining how this lens doesn't do what they need it to.
You happen to be one of the guys who might fall into this category. You've got lots of small bird shots. Moving 2 feet closer to your subject is trivial on the horizontal plane. Getting 2 feet higher is a whole different matter, so I can see how it would mess you up.
For the little guys, 200 is still probably not enough, and 130-150 won't work at all. I get that. But that's not how most people frame it up. If your going to complain about it, you need to make a case for exactly what it is that you can't do. For most of those gripes, my answer would be that any 70-200 isn't the best tool for the job.
The offended parties in this situation are a niche market that seems overrepresented in the forums. I think this review is actually very fair in its treatment of this matter, but I take issue with the assertion that the fact you don't see it in reviews represents some sort of conspiracy to preserve good relations with Nikon. The "Big Blogs" aren't complaining because the "Big Blogers" don't try to shoot a lens in a manner for which it was never intended.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Man, this forum is getting boring with so many like minded people - no differences of opinion, no debating issues ... LOL
Posted 3 years ago # -
Willis said:
Gentoo - I think what Niko is saying is that you see a lot of tech heads complaining about this, but not a lot of photographers explaining how this lens doesn't do what they need it to.You happen to be one of the guys who might fall into this category. You've got lots of small bird shots. Moving 2 feet closer to your subject is trivial on the horizontal plane. Getting 2 feet higher is a whole different matter, so I can see how it would mess you up.
For the little guys, 200 is still probably not enough, and 130-150 won't work at all. I get that. But that's not how most people frame it up. If your going to complain about it, you need to make a case for exactly what it is that you can't do. For most of those gripes, my answer would be that any 70-200 isn't the best tool for the job.
The offended parties in this situation are a niche market that seems overrepresented in the forums. I think this review is actually very fair in its treatment of this matter, but I take issue with the assertion that the fact you don't see it in reviews represents some sort of conspiracy to preserve good relations with Nikon. The "Big Blogs" aren't complaining because the "Big Blogers" don't try to shoot a lens in a manner for which it was never intended.
Oh my, once again posts are read here very carefully LOL! I specifically explained, that I use this lens when I'm in a situation where the birds are tamer than normal and my 300mm prime isn't practical. Now perhaps I should have given more detailed information than I did but what's the point when no one seems to read it any anyway? For small birds, no I do not use this lens. I use it for larger birds (gulls, waterfowl etc) and for the few people shots I do take on occasion. For those tame larger birds, my distance just happens to be between 15 and 30 feet away, right in the threshold of the loss of magnification. It may not be a big deal to some, I get that, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. That's the attitude I'm taking exception to. If that's the case, no one needs the new lens. The loss or corner sharpness and the vignetting on FX from the old lens isn't a problem either.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
30 feet? I thought the problem is at close range? The Sigma f/2.8 70-200mm macro allows close quarters use. Perhaps that is a better option for you?
Since I still haven't heard a critical reason why this is a problem. Then let me ask what you want Nikon to do about this "problem"? Recall the 70-200? Stop selling it? Put a warning label on it? What's the solution?
Posted 3 years ago # -
That's another complaint I have - neither SOAP nor Niko ever give their opinions on anything, they just run with the crowd.
Maybe we need to settle disputes with shootouts !! When Niko and SOAP or Niko and Gentoo get into it, we can come up with an appropriate photo assignment that they both have to fulfill. Forum can vote for the winner.
Posted 3 years ago # -
+1 with Willis
+1 with Warprints
-10 for bmxdad :^)Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
30 feet? I thought the problem is at close range? The Sigma f/2.8 70-200mm macro allows close quarters use. Perhaps that is a better option for you?Since I still haven't heard a critical reason why this is a problem. Then let me ask what you want Nikon to do about this "problem"? Recall the 70-200? Stop selling it? But a warning label on it? What's the solution?
Hi Niko back from the shower already??. I think what Nikon should do would be to not try to hide this, be honest with the reasoning for the design, it not like they can hide it.
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
Niko - the solution is to buy a 200mm lens :-)
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
lol warprints
bmxdad I told you before already...stop picturing me in the shower! ;^)
especially picking up soap, lol
Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
30 feet? I thought the problem is at close range? The Sigma f/2.8 70-200mm macro allows close quarters use. Perhaps that is a better option for you?Since I still haven't heard a critical reason why this is a problem. Then let me ask what you want Nikon to do about this "problem"? Recall the 70-200? Stop selling it? But a warning label on it? What's the solution?
1. I was gussing at my distance
2. I've said on numerous ocasions that I don't use Sigma. My old version is fine.
3. You don't see it as a problem because it doesn't effect your shooting style, just as corner sharpness doesn't effect mine.
4. I never said nor implied that Nikon had to do anything. I simply stated why I personally would have a problem with it and why I'm glad I did not sell my version I of this lens.Did I clear myself up yet?
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
NikoDoby said:
30 feet? I thought the problem is at close range? The Sigma f/2.8 70-200mm macro allows close quarters use. Perhaps that is a better option for you?Since I still haven't heard a critical reason why this is a problem. Then let me ask what you want Nikon to do about this "problem"? Recall the 70-200? Stop selling it? Put a warning label on it? What's the solution?
Actually I gave you a SPECIFIC and VERY CRITICAL reason why it's a problem after using the lens on a job. My review also has samples to back it up. There are also THOUSANDS of shots taken with the old 70-200 at shorter focus distances that the new lens cannot match without cropping (loss of resolution) or changes in shooting distances(loss of bokeh and perspective).
Others have listed very exact reasons why it's critical for even shooting and even wildlife. So what are you not understanding?As for getting Nikon to do something? Not likely. But this thread is to inform people of a flaw that they might have otherwise not understood before buying the lens.
Don't you think someone planning to use this lens for occasional candids might want to know that it can't do what the old one did?Max Green
Posted 3 years ago # -
MaxGreen said:
Actually I gave you a SPECIFIC and VERY CRITICAL reason why it's a problem after using the lens on a job. My review also has samples to back it up. There are also THOUSANDS of shots taken with the old 70-200 at shorter focus distances that the new lens cannot match without cropping (loss of resolution) or changes in shooting distances(loss of bokeh and perspective).
Others have listed very exact reasons why it's critical for even shooting and even wildlife. So what are you not understanding?As for getting Nikon to do something? Not likely. But this thread is to inform people of a flaw that they might have otherwise not understood before buying the lens.
Don't you think someone planning to use this lens for occasional candids might want to know that it can't do what the old one did?Max Green
I like your post but I bet no one reads it as you posted it. You and I can go on and on about why this is an issue but I can almost guarantee you that this will go no where fast lol. You were VERY specific but as you've probably noticed, people here seem to skim over things and then reply to something you never actually said.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Gentoo said:
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.I believe there are many more different sides to that.
e.g There are those that believe they need it because someone else needs it but do they really need it?Oh life can be so confusingly entertaining sometimes :)
The final decision remains with each individual.Posted 3 years ago # -
Panamon_Creel said:
I believe there are many more different sides to that.
e.g There are those that believe they need it because someone else needs it but do they really need it?Oh life can be so confusingly entertaining sometimes :)
The final decision remains with each individual.I think you missed my point but thanks for that LOL
Posted 3 years ago # -
So taking pictures at a birthday party is critcal? Max I'm not trying to rattle you up. If anything I hope you realize that this forum is not like dpreview and friendly discussions are welcomed here. But whether this "problem" is something we should light the torches and march over to Melville over is what I'm debating.
Gentoo I'm not sure how or why you think this is a Niko vs Gentoo thread but my comments were for Max not you. Aside from the one post with your name which was for you :^)
Let's all just chillax and put the knifes down :^)
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
