| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Nikon 70-200 2.8
Aaron Bell, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Belleville | ON | Canada | Posted: 7:14 AM on 11.26.09 |
->> I'm anxiously awaiting the call from Vistek that my new Nikon 70-200 2.8 is in - they say likely by tomorrow.
Does anyone have one yet? If so, is there much difference in the new version? |
|
Jon Wright, Photographer
|
Wayzata | MN | USA | Posted: 8:25 AM on 11.26.09 |
| ->> I got a call that mine came in yesterday. Now to quickly sell the 80-200 AFS so I can actually afford it. |
|
Matt Cashore, Photographer
|
South Bend | IN | USA | Posted: 9:32 AM on 11.26.09 |
| ->> I got mine yesterday. Just for fun I tried a 1-sec. exposure handheld. It was sharp! Not tack sharp but publishable sharp! So the improved VR is for real. Shot one quick portrait job with it yesterday and it seemed slightly quicker to focus than the previous 70-200. I had to burn in the corners of the portrait a little, so maybe I actually miss the vignetting of the old one...Nah... |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:51 PM on 11.26.09 |
->> Mine should be in tomorrow!!
Thanks Jody & Christy!! |
|
Jeff Snyder, Photographer
|
Metro DC Region | MD | USA | Posted: 1:01 PM on 11.26.09 |
->> We began shipping yesterday...
I had the chance to shoot with one last week, and OH MY, what a difference...Sharper, faster, and better contrast.
Jeff Snyder--Adorama
Happy Thanksgiving to all.... |
|
Aaron Bell, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Belleville | ON | Canada | Posted: 10:25 PM on 11.27.09 |
| ->> I picked mine up today but haven't had a chance to shoot anything with it yet. Hopefully some hockey this weekend. |
|
Aaron Bell, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Belleville | ON | Canada | Posted: 3:44 PM on 12.03.09 |
->> I used this lens for a junior hockey game on Wednesday night and am very impressed.
I usually left my 70-200 in the bag in favour of the super sharp 200 f2 but this one is pretty close in comparison.
I shot the game at 1/500th, 2.8, 2000 ISO on my D700 and was happy with the results. Everything was sharp and the AF was very quick and the contrast was very nice.
Obviously I wasn't using the VR so I don't have any comments on that yet and my old 70-200 is a Sigma so I can't offer much comparison between the old and new NIKKOR models but I know I'm happy with the purchase. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 4:27 PM on 12.03.09 |
->> The new VR II is indeed amazing. Just night and day between it and the old one. I'm amazed at how slow I can holdhold taking test shots around the house. Of course I probably switched VR "on" on the old one maybe twice a year so not sure exactly how much I'll really use that upgraded feature.
The one big downside to the lens is that due to its IF design, its much shorter than the old model. At around 10 feet away its more like a 150mm lens instead of 200mm.
When you keep the same subject to camera distance and just change lens, both set at 200mm its a huge difference in the framing.
Its about the difference of shooting with a D3 vs D3x
The new lens is a bit sharper though, but not by leaps and bounds. My 200 f2 still is noticeably better than either, but overall it is an improvement and does have less vignetting and somewhat better corner performance.
If its really worth the $2400 I paid, over the old 70-200 which cost me $1400 I'm not quite sure yet.
I need to explore a bit of if the AF performance is better, if the lens feels a bit short in its framing due to its IF design limitation and some other factors. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 4:47 PM on 12.03.09 |
->> When you keep the same subject to camera distance and just change lens, both set at 200mm its a huge difference in the framing.
I'd really like to hear A LOT more about this before I make the switch. Is this true at the other end too? is the 70 more like 50mm? I have no interest in a 50-150 no matter how sharp it is. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 5:04 PM on 12.03.09 |
->> I just looked up the specs and there is in fact a 4° difference in the angle of view between this 200mm and all of the other 200's in the lineup. For all of the other 200's the minimum aov is 8° while the new 70-200 is 12°. The 200-400 for example is listed as 8° to 4°.
It's also wider at the other end of the zoom ring too. 22° on the old versus 34° on the new version.
The one thing that I noticed is that the aov for both the 200VR F2 and the new zoom are the same at 12°@20'. So Jeff, does the 200 f2 and the new zoom look the same at 200 (framing wise)? |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 7:46 PM on 12.03.09 |
->> Eric, I haven't had time to do a direct comparison with the 200 F2, or really an in depth test between the two 70-200 models even.
However, if you head over to DPReview (I know, I know... lol) there are about 20 threads over the new lens and tons of upset people over the fact they feel they bought a 60-150mm F2.8 zoom instead of a 70-200.
I recall seeing some tables someone made up as well that listed what the focal length was at a given distance. I think up to about 10 meters subject to camera distance the lens is indeed shorter.
I'm not sure about it being wider on the short end, however, the new lens hood is about an inch shorter than the old hood, and the scallops go much deeper. Odd given the FOV should be the same, so why a totally redesigned hood ? |
|
Matt Cashore, Photographer
|
South Bend | IN | USA | Posted: 8:42 PM on 12.03.09 |
->> Well...slap my face and call me dumb. He's right!!!
I have both versions of the 70-200. I did a quick un-scientific test and photographed a plant on the windowsill from approximately ten feet away, changing nothing but the lens. The VR II at 200mm showed considerably more window around the plant than the VR at 200mm.
I don't *exaclty* feel ripped off--the VRII is still one fine lens--buuuuuuttt...
Eh?
If it's effective focal length is 20% less than advertised, can I have 20% of my money back?
Or a D3S would do nicely, too. |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 9:26 AM on 12.04.09 |
->> its only that way up close. Beyond 20ft or so it regains its length. The new lens does have a closer min focus difference as well.
Not sure how I feel about this tbh...the close range appears to be approx 130mm f/l.....which is actually a great range for portraits and such.....but its not 200. Will have to actually use it a couple times to see if it actually matters much in practice or if its all just hype for nothing. I'm thinking none of us actually use 200mm from 8ft away anyway so maybe its all just a non issue in real world usage terms.
Mines on the UPS truck to my door as we speak...
bb |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 10:27 AM on 12.04.09 |
->> This is indeed essentially a non issue in real world usage for this user. Everything about this lens is stellar; and yes, magnification is somewhat less at short focusing distances. I have not found myself moving any closer than I would normally during several client shoots with this lens, and it has been integrated seamlessly into my arsenal.
There appears to be at least one person posting under multiple names across multiple forums throughout the internets trying to stir up fear and loathing over this "issue".
Some very good technical discussion here: http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=21568.0 |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 12:03 PM on 12.04.09 |
->> It is a big investment, and although maybe a "non issue" for some, it is quite a change from the previous model.
But if you look at the lens page on Nikon's web site, they list both models with complete technical specifications. So it makes it easy to compare the two - the new lens specs clearly show wider FOV numbers.
You should definitely do your homework before spending over $2k on a lens...and Nikon wasn't trying to hide anything here. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:54 PM on 12.04.09 |
->> I think for some this is not really going to be a big issue, clearly evident by plenty of users not even noticing the difference, because of what they shoot.
I know I don't typically shoot anything at 10 feet away, at least in regards to sports, however, I'm sure there are plenty of users who do portraits, weddings et al, where they might be shooting rather tight and could see the effects of the reduced reach.
For me, I really want to see some improvement in AF and optical performance wide open. I really don't even care much about the corners or the vignetting frankly.
My old v1 cost me $1400 and is still a good lens that has and will continue to get the job done. $2400 (well $2249 on sale, which I why I bought it Black Friday) for a new lens, that after selling the old one will probably result in about a $800 or more "upgrade cost" is going to have to impress me or else I'll stick with what I've got.
I think thats basically the same boat everyone is in and people either bought or are considering buying the new version for a wide range of reasons and uses.
For some its going to really be money well spent. I can tell you right now that if your a wedding shooting doing lots of ambient handheld shooting that new VR system is going to be priceless. Sharp shots at 200mm at 1/10th a second on a regular basis around my house is just unreal to me. For others though, your maybe not going to see any huge improvement and maybe a new camera body upgrade could be a smarter use of funds.
I certainly had hopes this new lens would be closer to the 200 f2 optically, but more or less its closer to the old 70-200, at least in the center. I'm just not seeing a night and day difference in my limited test so far.
Its not a step backwards in that regard but its not really a big step forward either. Its more of a evolution rather than a revolution if you will.
Best advice is to simply try one. Retailers seem to have a good stock of them, and we've got a number of great SS sponsors who will give you a great deal, and also be there if it doesn't work out.
Reading every message board on the net can only tell you so much, but really shoot it for a weekend doing your normal assignments and events and review your images and you'll have your answer |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 2:20 PM on 12.04.09 |
->> To be more specific, I shot an awards reception/dinner last night, very typical of the wedding work I do (or even being on pit lane in some regards). Images were created throughout the focal length range of the lens from very close to very far. This was the second big job I've shot with the lens in a week.
There was absolutely no deleterious effect on my shooting style or image quality (including bokeh) caused by the IF of the new lens. None. No change in my photographic approach at all.
However, the image quality is truly jaw-dropping by every measure, and it demolishes all the irritating issues that it's predecessor had, and simply blows it away in terms of image rendering (on a full frame sensor, that is). This is a *very* special lens.
Your mileage may vary... |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 6:27 PM on 12.04.09 |
->> yes.....agreed. Got mine today and went out and tried some close stuff and some 1.7TC stuff....
happy camper here guys...this thing has great bokeh, super sharp even in corners, and very nice color rendition. I shot indoors at 200 at 1/60th and print on lables was clear as a bell....carry on folks..nothing to see here.
bb |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 6:49 PM on 12.04.09 |
| ->> Yes, what Jeff said way above: OH MY. |
|
Matt Cashore, Photographer
|
South Bend | IN | USA | Posted: 7:54 PM on 12.04.09 |
| ->> Yes, put me firmly in the "not an issue for me" category, but it WAS startling to see...It's not a nit-picky difference, it's a big, immediately noticeable difference. I'm not smart enough to understand the mechanics & physics of why that is. Can anyone give me a layman's explanation? |
|
Lloyd Smith, Photographer
|
Poughkeepsie | NY | USA | Posted: 4:11 PM on 12.05.09 |
| ->> Just as long as i don't get motion sickness when the AF is racking in and out it does sounds like that lens is going to be a decent investment. |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 4:30 PM on 12.05.09 |
->> The thread that I linked above has now been "locked" from new postings. This was done because one or more people (with an agenda, apparently) are spreading misinformation about the new lens across the web, and administrator Bjorn Rorslett had enough of it on that particular thread. It's a long discussion worth reading, and thoroughly explores the "mechanics & physics" of what occurs at the minimum focus distance of ALL internal focus lenses. There's also a measure of hilarity towards the end.
Is this the right lens for everyone? Nope. Is it an *enormous* improvement over its predecessor on a 1.0 sensor? Yes. Is there less magnification at the shortest focusing distances? Yes.
My opinion is that both it and the 14-24 are the highest quality ("best") zooms produced by any camera manufacturer. Ever.
Again, your mileage may vary. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:58 AM on 12.06.09 |
->> Well I've been shooting with the new 70-200 a bit more this weekend and I've got to say I haven't found myself feeling I needed more reach when I'm shooting at 200mm from 6 feet away (which from some responses I've seen on other forums a lot of people apparently do ?)
In what would fall under the mainstream "normal" shooting, the new lens performs just like the old one, or close enough your not going to notice a difference, I can't.
What I have noticed though is a noticeable difference in sharpness, especially wide open. The old lens is/was still a great optic, and by F4 is as good as anything out there, but this new v2 lens really is sharp wide open and you can see the difference on screen.
I was shooting a swim meet yesterday, wide open, and the sharpness and contrast, especially on the water droplets, really impressed me.
Its not 200 f2 sharp of course, but its an good improvement. I really don't know if its worth $2400, as that's a subjective assessment each user will have to make for themselves but if you typically shoot wide open with your 70-200, this lens should provide a pretty nice upgrade.
Along with the 14-24, 24-70, and 200-400, this is another world class zoom from Nikon. |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 7:39 PM on 12.06.09 |
->> One thing I noticed at my first wedding last night with this lens....it focuses much faster in low light than did the v1. The ability to find and lock was much quicker...which bodes well for sports use obviously...and its MUCH sharper....all across the frame. I shot on purpose some up close stuff...and I can honestly say that the "issue" is the most overblown load of crap I've seen in a long time. I guess if you wanted it to be a macro lens....you'll be disappointed...but if you want a 70-200, you just got the best one out there....
bb |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|