Gentoo said:
Then I think in real life you and I would get along very well LOL
I always felt that I was in an alternate world when in this forum. Finally, you tell me that it's not real life. And I thought it was just me !!
70-200 VR II review
(122 posts) (23 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
-
Recent Convert said:
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.
Now this is an excellent post. Gets me thinking that's for sure.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
-
sniff, sniff.... I wish I knew how to quit you Gentoo... sniff, sniff!
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
MaxGreen 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.
Oh, swell, now you've got me jumping into the fray.
Technically speaking, "the entire zoom range" is watever it is. Nikon in this statement does NOT say "close focus throughout entire 70-200mm zoom range". Is it misleading, maybe (probably)so; is it incorrect or wrong? No. The lens DOES close focus over its entire zoom range - which happens to be reduced at its indicated 200mm setting.
Is this misleading, yes. Would it piss me off if I had bought the lens expecting it to maintain FOV? Yes.Posted 3 years ago # -
warprints said:
Oh, swell, now you've got me jumping into the fray.
Technically speaking, "the entire zoom range" is watever it is. Nikon in this statement does NOT say "close focus throughout entire 70-200mm zoom range". Is it misleading, maybe (probably)so; is it incorrect or wrong? No. The lens DOES close focus over its entire zoom range - which happens to be reduced at its indicated 200mm setting.
Is this misleading, yes. Would it piss me off if I had bought the lens expecting it to maintain FOV? Yes.The thing is, Nikon does not actually have to say that the lens has close focus over it's entire 70-200 range. It's enough for them to simply say close focus over it's entire range because the lens is already marked as a 70-200 lens. If I'm understanding you correctly.
Posted 3 years ago # -
But aren't lawyers always pissed about something warprints? ;^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Well, yes, most of the time. Unfortunately, half the time we're pissed at our own clients.
Gentoo - Industry standard dictates that the 70-200mm rating is at infinity focus. Doesn't really say what happens when you close focus.
Back in the day, when tele zooms were first getting anything near close focus, wasn't it the norm for them to loose "reach" as they focused closer?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Niko, OK removed, and left in the new thread.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Pac eagle you don't have to repost this in multiple post.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
ok guys, first of all PEACE!!!
secondly, there is an issue with this new lens - or should I rather say, Nikon haven't informed us about this, which IMHO is not fair on one hand, but now when we all know about this issue, we can decide what's more important to us: getting the VRI version which will work great on short focal lengths or to get the VRII which will be a better performer (overall). IMHO the choice belongs to the ones who will buy this lens.
as for me, I fully understand gentoo's point of view - that this issue shouldn't be hidden by Nikon, but I also understand Niko's point of that it's not really a big deal, and like with any other lenses, You just need to know how to work with it. For me that's not an issue, if I know how the lens behave, will I buy it... well, if I get a nice price for my old one, than for sure yes - it's little bit shorter, and will fit nicer in my bag :)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Well said adamz!
I think the only way to settle this is for Nikon to send us a sample 70-200 VRII. We can then take turns mailing it to each other and test it out for ourselves. So who wants to be part of the "Nikon Focal Length World Tour"?
Posted 3 years ago # -
me for sure, but I can't promise I'll post the lens further... You know, the winter is approaching and it can be lost in the snow :)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Count me in, but send it to me before you send it to Adamz !!
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
OK so everyone wanted a more in depth reply from Nikon. So here is what I got. I didn't let them off the Hook with the canned response and pressed the issue. I did find there first reply canned and very condesending so I called them on that too. So for everyone information here is the response, in its entirety.
First email to Nikon
I now have heard about the following issues with the lense. Severe Magnification loss at distances below 15ft, at 4.6 ft your at 128mm, which is a loss of 36%, the loss of FL at close range is disappointing. 135mm at 10 feet is not the same as 190mm away at 10 feet that was achievable with the old VR I version. I understood this VR II lense was a vast inprovement over the VR I, but this type of difference will restrict close up Photography with the new lense.
So this leaves me wondering if I should pursue other lenses instead. Have you have complaints about this performance? Are there any plans to recall or replace lenses that show this issue. Or is this issue across all the new lenses? Thanks for your time.Nikons First response
HI
This is a common question when people don't understand optical design. The focal length (and f/stop) of any lens is calculated with the lens focused at infinity. When you focus closer than that the apparent angle of view (and effective aperture) changes.
Depending on the optical complexity of a lens the angle (and f/stop) may change significantly at minimum focus distances or different zoom levels. We don't publish any specific angles of view data for anything but the standard - infinity focus.
I hope this helps.
-David
My response to this email
David,
Thank you for your response. Fist let me say this I do not appreciate being patronized! I understand Optical design just fine. I find your response very unprofessional at best.So lets try this again,
The standards that camera maker’s use for marking lenses states that focal length is defined by the distance from the rear nodal point to the focal plane when focused at infinity. The standards also allow for a lot of rounding, which means you can claim a 190mm lens is "200mm."
It appears that one of the decisions the Nikon designers made was to try to improve close focusing performance. In doing that, they also shortened effective focal length by an amount large enough that a lot of people have noticed.
The primary thing that is being compromised here is perspective. For very close subjects, you to have to move a bit closer with the new 70-200mm. That's going to give you better sharpness, brightness, and less vignetting, but it's also going to change your perspective. It also mean’s that you have to move closer and change perspective to get the same "subject size" at the 200mm marking and closest focus distance.
So at the closest focus distance the new lens is apparently about 128mm in equivalent focal length, this means that the entire focal length is not available as Nikon has advertised.The Nikon website state the following, “Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VRII, Shooting at distances as close as 1.4 m throughout the entire zoom range”.
So can you please advise what Nikon is doing about this? As the information provided on you web site and literature seems to be false, or at least misleading.
Nikons response
HI
I am sorry you felt my last response was patronizing.
As you point out the focal length (which determines angle of view) of a lens is calculated at infinity. At closer distances the effective angle of view (and aperture) may change due to lens design. We're preparing an FAQ to help explain lens focal length determination but this is the same for all lenses. It would really be impossible to state the effective angles of view for all lenses at all zoom settings and all focus distances so we (and all other manufacturers) go with the standard of infinity focus for focal length/angle of view calculation.
I am sorry that you feel that this is misleading.
-David
My Response to nikon
David,
Thanks for your reply. So then, if you as a manufacturer state that it is impossible to state the effective angles of views for all lenses at all zoom settings and focus distances, then why do you state “Shooting at distances as close as 1.4 m throughout the entire zoom range”. So don’t you think that you should amend the performance and effective zoom range of this lens then? The VR I did not have this issue to this extent, so my opinion of Nikon being Mis-leading in your literature is fair statement. There are a lot of my fellow Nikon owners that feel the exact same way I do. People spend a lot of Money on your products, and we feel you should be accountable for your products. You have made a new lens that was suppose to be an improvement on the first lens, yes it is in a lot of ways, but there is a problem that you have not let people know about. That is Misleading, why do you think people are returning the lens to you.
So you still have not answered my question. What is Nikon going to do about this? Are you going to come clean? Or are you just going to let people buy the lens and find out for themselves it has close focal issues?Nikons Final response
HI
As I mentioned we are preparing a web FAQ to help education customers about focal length calculation standards. Once posted this FAQ should help reduce any speculation or misinformation being distributed.
The statement "Shooting at distances as close as 1.4 m throughout the entire zoom range" refers to the fact that this lens can focus to any distance at any focal length setting. Some lenses, such as our 24-85 lens, only allow close focusing at certain zoom settings, for example. This statement does not say or imply that the angle of view is the same for all zoom settings only that the lens can focus to the minimum distance at all zoom settings.
We do appreciate your concern and your opinions will be used to enhance how we present our products in the future.
-David
So you can all take what you want from that email. Personally I was not overly impressed with either their responses or there attitude on the whole, but hopefully something good will come out of this one day, but I'm not holding my breathe.
PEPosted 3 years ago # -
Are you sure you're allowed to post that? Last time I sent a question to Nikon it said this at the bottom:
"Any use, dissemination, distribution, posting on Internet bulletin boards, disclosure or copying of this e-mail or any information contained herein by or to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited."
Posted 3 years ago # -
Pac I don't think Nikon's response to you was in any way patronizing. It honestly makes it seem as though, regardless of what they say/do, you are looking for a fight and not clarification.
Do you have this lens Pac? I can't remember if you said you already have it or are you waiting to get one.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
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.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
