Panamon_Creel said:
There are those that believe they need it because someone else needs it but do they really need it?
70-200 VR II review
(122 posts) (23 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Put down the knives? What, and spoil all the fun?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Come on man, you cannot say that after the fact. I also never said nor implied that this was me vs. you. This isn't personal at all but I always stand by what I say and defend it. I'm sorry if you don't understand that and you obviously don't if you think, that I'm taking it personally. You really don't get my personality at all.NikoDoby said:
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 # -
??? after what fact Gentoo? I'm not trying to "get" anything other than if this "problem" is something to light the torches over. Watch the above video clip if you still need clarification.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Guys, don't get too worked up - it's not worth fracturing the forum (which could happen if some of the more active and knowledgeable folks loose perspective). Where's a moderator when you need one? Oh ... crap .... you guys are moderators. LOL
Posted 3 years ago # -
LOL yeah thats funny huh. Don't worry though I don't have a problem with anyone around here. Well maybe just Alphanikonrex :^) j/k
Posted 3 years ago # -
Wow, Talk about a topic raising the friction level in here. I can see both sides of the discussion, and both have there merits. But I believe the final outcome is the same, The new 70-200 VRII is flawed. It doess't matter that it is only flawed in one specific area of focus, the real point is that its flawed...Period.
It doesn't really matter if it works for one guy because he only shoots it at the long end of the focal length, but the other guy can't use it for closer shots because its close focus sucks. Even if you have to put a 1.4 or 1.7 converter on it, the lens is still Flawed and isn't performing anywhere near perfectly.
Before you jump on me and say "no lens is perfect" you're right! But look at this way for a second. This is suppose to be an Improvement on the old 70-200VRI, and from all the hype, a dramatic improvement.
Now being that its Nikons Professional series, Huge Money, mid range Zoom lense, that is designed to work on both FX and DX bodies and give professional grade results, In my opinion it fails if it's not doing its job completely better than the original lense.
Being a great lense at the limit of your focus distance, but sucking at the other end in my opinion is not the basis for a professional series lense no matter who makes the thing.Posted 3 years ago # -
I did not watch the above video clip. This isn't about what some comedian thinks. This is about some of us expressing and having a difference of opinion on something. I am able to say this in my own words and you should be able to as well.
I think it's fair to say that you and I just don't communicate well with one another. That's neither good nor bad nor is it anyone's fault. It's just out personalities.
Posted 3 years ago # -
We're not getting worked up. Just because we're debating doesn't mean tempers are flaring.warprints said:
Guys, don't get too worked up - it's not worth fracturing the forum (which could happen if some of the more active and knowledgeable folks loose perspective). Where's a moderator when you need one? Oh ... crap .... you guys are moderators. LOL
Posted 3 years ago # -
Eagle - it's not flawed, it's just not as advertised. No wait, it is as advertised, it's just not as it's implied to be. Wait, wait, I think I'm getting there. It's a variable focal length zoom made to enhance discussion on the NR forum. Yeah, that's it !!!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Gentoo, I know. I've just got a very warped sense of humor.
Posted 3 years ago # -
He's not a comedian Gentoo he's an actor but never mind then.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
NikoDoby said:
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 :^)
There was nothing about the party that was any different from a gig where I would be paid a grand for 6 hours. I don't know why you simply can't accept that the 70-200 was always a popular event/wedding lens and that the new one behaves in a way that is detremental for some types of work.
Here's a shot at 200mm with the VR 1 from a fixed position that the new lens can't manage without a severe crop.
http://GhostLight.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p294988511-5.jpg
And here's one from a Tamron 180 from about 10 feet that the new 70-200 also can't handle without cropping...
http://GhostLight.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p779623545-5.jpg
These are very typical distances and shots for the old 70-200. So what else do you need to understand?
To get this shot with this perspective on the 70-200 II would require giving up 30% of the resolution to a crop:
http://GhostLight.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p683658886-5.jpg
Plenty of shots are made at 175-190mm at events in less than 15 feet. It's typical for a wedding. Will you tell us next that the 70-200 VR I wasn't a popular wedding lens now?
Max Green
Posted 3 years ago # -
Max like I've already said before I never said I didn't believe you. What's the problem with a slight crop if you can't zoom in close? It's not a critical requirement that you need to have to shoot photos at a birthday party regardless if you're getting paid or not. Lenses do have limits. Can a limit be considered a flaw? If you are unhappy with your lens then sell it! Simple! If others think this is an outrages flaw then buy the old version or switch to canon.
Other than that what should Nikon do about this?
Posted 3 years ago # -
OK...Now this thread would be so much fun in a live CHAT ROOM here in NR. There's a new post every few minutes, imagine it live......Holy Crap!!!!! LOL
Hey NR, hows the chat feature coming, talk about living up the forum, look out.
Posted 3 years ago # -
PacificEagle said:
Wow, Talk about a topic raising the friction level in here. I can see both sides of the discussion, and both have there merits. But I believe the final outcome is the same, The new 70-200 VRII is flawed. It doess't matter that it is only flawed in one specific area of focus, the real point is that its flawed...Period.
It doesn't really matter if it works for one guy because he only shoots it at the long end of the focal length, but the other guy can't use it for closer shots because its close focus sucks. Even if you have to put a 1.4 or 1.7 converter on it, the lens is still Flawed and isn't performing anywhere near perfectly.
Before you jump on me and say "no lens is perfect" you're right! But look at this way for a second. This is suppose to be an Improvement on the old 70-200VRI, and from all the hype, a dramatic improvement.
Now being that its Nikons Professional series, Huge Money, mid range Zoom lense, that is designed to work on both FX and DX bodies and give professional grade results, In my opinion it fails if it's not doing its job completely better than the original lense.
Being a great lense at the limit of your focus distance, but sucking at the other end in my opinion is not the basis for a professional series lense no matter who makes the thing.Exactly and well said.
Now lets look at what Nikon says on their website:
"Close focusing provided throughout the entire zoom range for extended versatility."
The entire zoom range is 70-200mm. Not 70-128 or 70-175. So in truth we lose 72mm at minimum focus and 36% of the range, which is not the "entire range" as Nikon claims.
This is not misleading. It's just plain wrong. It says that you retain the full 70-200mm range during close focusing. Nope.
And that's something Nikon should change.Max
Posted 3 years ago # -
OK then let me call some people :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
Max like I've already said before I never said I didn't believe you. What's the problem with a slight crop if you can't zoom in close? It's not a critical requirement that you need to have to shoot photos at a birthday party regardless if you're getting paid or not. Lenses do have limits. Can a limit be considered a flaw? If you are unhappy with your lens then sell it! Simple! If others think this is an outrages flaw then buy the old version or switch to canon.Other than that what should Nikon do about this?>>>
Nikon needs to eliminate this sentence from their website:
"Close focusing provided throughout the entire zoom range for extended versatility."
It's not true. It's also not true that a 20% or 30% crop is slight.
Max
Posted 3 years ago # -
PacificEagle and MaxGreen. I think you two summed this up as well as anyone ever could.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Man I love the quote feture. I can see why many here did not want it LOL!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Man I love the quote feature. I can see why many here did not want it LOL!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Max - Your last post came up while I was typing mine. Much better way of explaining it.
1. I don't own the lens... I'm trying to decide between it and the old version.
2. For the band shoot - It seems nikon offers you a choice between reach w/ soft corners \ or something you have to crop with sharp corners (not much of a choice at all is it?. In all honesty, 30 feet seems like typical band shooting distance anyway... depends on the venue I guess. I tend to shoot musicians head to toe, so 15 feet is to close even w/ my 105mm prime.If the goal is mid distance head shots, the old zoom sounds like a better option. Corner softness and vignette would only add to the shot. As long as I'm no in the way of my light, I'm not all that concerned with working from 6 feet instead of 10 feet. I'm also not a very good photographer of anything other than bars & beaches, (and the occasional computer mouse). So don't take my word for it.
For the life of me though, I just can't fathom how this would prohibit normal shooting. Speaking generally, your subject to fill your frame (i.e., you don't care what's going on around it), then distance to subject only matters if you can't adjust it.
Gentoo - I didn't skim your post... my point was that you have a legitimate reason why you don't have much flexibility w/ distance to subject. It can be inaccessable, or run\fly away.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Willis said:</cite
Gentoo - I didn't skim your post... my point was that you have a legitimate reason why you don't have much flexibility w/ distance to subject. It can be inaccessable, or run\fly away.
Willis, I apologize, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was singling you out. I was making a general observation. By and large, I have no issue with you at all.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Max:
Question: if you close in at around 3m (okay: 10ft), where you observe a significant loss of focal length on the 200mm setting, how does it behave at the 70mm setting? I am kind of curious, because at 70mm, a degree of retrofocus should be in effect, because of the 46mm distance between sensor and f-mount surface, plus the VR element and the variator . . .
Do you observe a focal length gain or loss at 70mm. It could go either way. . .By the way: I support you demand for honesty in advertising. The facts should be stated, rather than hidden.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
