| 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 70-200mm VRII "real" focal length issue...
Joe Lorenzini, Photographer
 |
Flower Mound (DFW) | TX | USA | Posted: 1:08 PM on 12.13.09 |
->> I didn't find anything posted on the board so if this is a dup, appologies.
I have a friend who has both versions of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, VR1 and VR2 and the focal length of the VR2 is not what you would expect.
While his findings aren't public yet (still testing) he estimates that the real focal length of the new VR2 lens to be closer to a 50-150mm lens.
Has anyone else had experience with this?
Joe |
|
Matt Cashore, Photographer
|
South Bend | IN | USA | Posted: 1:26 PM on 12.13.09 |
->> Here y'go:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=34716
Bottom line: For reasons I am too lazy to try and understand, at close focus distances, the magnification of the VRII is less than the previous generation.
I have tried it and seen it for myself. It's noticeable--but at camera-to-subject distances that rarely occur in real world use of a 70-200 zoom. The overall improvements far outweigh this mostly irrelevant "flaw". |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 3:28 PM on 12.13.09 |
->> And just when I thought the level of hand-wringing about this was finally subsiding a little bit...
Zoom focal length specs are calculated at the MAXIMUM focusing distance. ALL internal focus (IF) lenses have a loss of magnification at the SHORTEST focusing distances.
This is not a "flaw". It's a fact of optical design. In order to for this lens to outperform (and it TRULY does), it exhibits a greater loss of magnification at minimum focus than many others do.
Also, be aware that there are one (or more) confirmed internet "trolls" that are posting misinformation about this optical effect, under multiple names, in multiple threads, on multiple forums.
I have owned *ALL* the 80-200/70-200 AF variations. The new lens is, beyond any doubt in my mind, the absolute *BEST* version across every conceivable category of evaluation, particularly when used on a body with a 1.0 sensor (the VR I is perfectly fine on a crop body). But it is NOT a macro lens, so anyone wanting maximum magnification of a wall clock six feet from their sofa will be disappointed.
I've used this lens extensively for over two weeks now, primarily for EVENTS including receptions, awards ceremonies, banquets, concerts, environmental portraiture, etc. It is mind-blowingly good, and the loss of magnification is a NON-ISSUE, at least for this user. And there is a very good argument to be made that it's beneficial when your subject approaches too closely (you don't have to change lenses). As I've said before, however, your mileage may vary...
A very good discussion about all of this was linked in the previous thread here on SS; anyone wanting to read the "debate" and have a much better understanding of what is happing optically should have a look. That thread (and others) were ultimately locked by the moderators due to the "trolling", and other threads in other forums have actually been deleted in some cases. Here is the link: http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=21568.0 |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 8:09 PM on 12.13.09 |
| ->> Funny thing is, with the exception of some trolls, everyone says the same thing that have shot with this lens: Best version they've ever owned hands down. |
|
Joe Lorenzini, Photographer
|
Flower Mound (DFW) | TX | USA | Posted: 9:41 AM on 12.14.09 |
| ->> Sorry for resurrecting the issue guys. I honestly didn't see the post Matt is referring to and I'm not sure about the trolls mentioned. My info comes from a photographer I tend to trust and he has not said a single negative thing about the quality. |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | Lanarkshire | United Kingdom | Posted: 10:42 AM on 12.14.09 |
->> Michael,
I've fallen foul of fast-moving situations where a fighter has suddenly gotten closer to my spot than anticipated but I simply didn't have time to swap lenses... well, if I had, I'd have missed some peak action.
The fact that the new 70-200 doesn't magnify as much when the subject suddenly get close will certainly benefit me in such situations, so I doubt I'll have cause to complain :) |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 10:43 AM on 12.14.09 |
->> As long as your not trying to shoot a subject at 200mm focused at 6 feet away you won't even notice the difference. I've taken both the old and new lenses to several games and alternated both and when reviewing the images the only differences I could see is the new lens is sharper wide open and with better contrast. At what could be called "normal" shooting distances its a total no issue if you ask me.
I've read so many threads online from people who call themselves "event" shooters saying how this issue is the end of the world. I frankly just don't get it. I've done my fair share of weddings and other events and have honestly never once needed to shoot something at 200mm from 6 feet away, much less even 150mm from 6 feet away. If I'm working at those distances I'm personally using a 24-70.
I could see this being a little bit of an issue if your using it to do some sort of detail shots of things like centerpieces on the tables or things of that nature but really feel that if you really need to be doing enough of that type of work to make it an issue you should simply buy a macro lens. A 70-200 is simply not the best choice of tool for that type of job, old or new.
I recall reading what was called the 2.5 foot on an internet forum as well. Someone figured out that you'd need to step 2.5 feet closer, if your at MFD and 200mm with the new lens to match the framing of the old. That seems a pretty minor issue to me as I'd feel anytime I'm shooting something from 6 feet away I could step closer if I really had to. During situations where I can't step closer, say because I'm on the baseline in basketball or the box in hockey its a non issue because who's really shooting at 200mm on a subject 6 feet away in a bball game ?
If anything, given the added sharpness, especially wide open, I'd wager you could crop slightly on the newer lens and still end up with a better overall image than one taken with the old glass.
The old lens isn't bad by any means, but the new one is certainly noticeable in its improvements. Along with the 14-24, and 24-70, this new one is as start of the art zoom lens as you can buy right now.
Only real "issue" I can see with it is if its worth the upgrade cost of about $1000 that you'd take selling your current v1 and then buying the new lens for its rather high price of $2400. |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 2:07 PM on 12.15.09 |
->> I've used this lens even more extensively now (after my post above) for multiple applications, *including* tight details of centerpieces, plates of food, wine bottles, wine glasses, etc. The lens received *very* intensive use over the weekend at two major, high-end awards banquets with images created throughout the focal lengths and all the way from minimum focus to near-infinity. The rendering of this lens wide open is unbelievable, and it is IDEAL for event photography, *much* more so than its predecessor. I'll flat-out say that I've created some of my best work ever now in the short time using this lens in conjunction with the D3S. I find suggestions that this lens is "flawed" to be quite frankly laughable at this point.
It and the 14-24 are the most superlative zooms I've ever used, hands down, with the 24-70 being the most essential for virtually everything I shoot. An incredible trifecta. And don't even get me started on the D3S... |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 11:08 AM on 12.18.09 |
| ->> plus one to what Micheal said..... |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|