Nikon 70-200 VR II vs 70-200 VR ~~ Reach issues?

EASmithV · Sep 25, 2011

Hello,

I'm saving up to soon be in the market for the famed Nikkor 70-200, however, after seeing the attached video, i'm beginning to wonder if the older 70-200 is actually a better choice. I want to shoot portraits with my F6, and apparently at portrait range, this lens is only effectively 165mm, which leads to a much less creamy background, despite otherwise being optically superior. What is your take on this, and given the choice of either (assuming they were priced the same) which lens would you choose? Also, at longer ranges has anyone noticed a reduction in the reach vs the older lens?

[video=youtube;gjA4lDLs3ic]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjA4lDLs3ic[/video]

zk-cessnaguy · Sep 25, 2011

Well, he's having a rant, but isn't presenting any empirical evidence.

CGW · Sep 25, 2011

EASmithV said:
Hello,

I'm saving up to soon be in the market for the famed Nikkor 70-200, however, after seeing the attached video, i'm beginning to wonder if the older 70-200 is actually a better choice. I want to shoot portraits with my F6, and apparently at portrait range, this lens is only effectively 165mm, which leads to a much less creamy background, despite otherwise being optically superior. What is your take on this, and given the choice of either (assuming they were priced the same) which lens would you choose? Also, at longer ranges has anyone noticed a reduction in the reach vs the older lens?

[video=youtube;gjA4lDLs3ic]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjA4lDLs3ic[/video]

Check out the reviews on nikonlinks.com--most of them more credible than this blowhard's testimonial.

brucemuir · Sep 25, 2011

I don't have a ponie in this one as I have canon AF system but I don't think this one disappoints even with the reduced mag.

pentaxuser · Sep 26, 2011

If he is right then in the U.K. Nikon falls seriously foul of the Trades Description Act and is in a deal of trouble. I assume it is in similar trouble anywhere it sells a 70-200 lens that falls way short of its description as a 70-200 lens. Two things seems strange to me:

1. A company like Nikon overlooks in all the lens testing it does, that the lens is so blatantly deficient in the way described

2. The gent in question fails to give any evidence of his claim.

The problem these days is that anyone can make a video and claim anything. I belong to the era where someone with the resources to make a video could usually be regarded as "bona fide"

It is no longer the case but I am still having to re-educate myself to this sad fact

If I were Nikon I'd be pursuing this gent for serious defamation of its good character.

pentaxuser

Sim2 · Sep 26, 2011

This was well-hashed out when the lens was launched - the focal length is calculated at infinity focus, when focussed close, 20 feet or less, the focal length does drop to around 160mm. Don't really understand why, seems to be a bit to do with daeign tricks to assist the close focussing or it's just incredibly difficult to make a constant focal length zoom lens at all focussing distances. Most zooms are affected by this to some degree or another (perhaps with the exception of Leica R zooms?).

A google search on focus breathing for this lens brings up all you need to know.

Sim2.

ann · Sep 26, 2011

I love mine, that is all i find important. Haven't found the reach too short.

F/1.4 · Sep 26, 2011

I would seriously recommend either a Nikkor 135 f/2, 105 f/2, or 85 f/1.4 (either one) for portraits. They have a much more organic rendering than the clinically sharp 70-200's.

Personally, my favorite lens for Portraits on 35mm is the 50mm f/1.4G. But I like it because of the short working distance and smooth rendering. Like I said, organic:

Nikon F100, Portra 400 @ 200, 50mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4

fstop · Sep 27, 2011

pentaxuser said:
If he is right then in the U.K. Nikon falls seriously foul of the Trades Description Act and is in a deal of trouble. I assume it is in similar trouble anywhere it sells a 70-200 lens that falls way short of its description as a 70-200 lens. Two things seems strange to me:

1. A company like Nikon overlooks in all the lens testing it does, that the lens is so blatantly deficient in the way described

2. The gent in question fails to give any evidence of his claim.

The problem these days is that anyone can make a video and claim anything. I belong to the era where someone with the resources to make a video could usually be regarded as "bona fide"

It is no longer the case but I am still having to re-educate myself to this sad fact

If I were Nikon I'd be pursuing this gent for serious defamation of its good character.

pentaxuser

On a digital camera the effective range would be 200mm.

If I were Nikon I'd be pursuing this gent for serious defamation of its good character.

can't do anything about someone expressing their opinion

zk-cessnaguy · Sep 28, 2011

fstop said:
On a digital camera the effective range would be 200mm

Ye... but not on the FX format bodies... The VR II lens was released partly as a fix for the dark corner issue these cameras were having with the VR I lens... BUT that's OT for here so I'll say no more...

fstop · Sep 29, 2011

True but the VR was released after Nikon ceased film camera production , so its obvious a digital camera lens and there fore any foolish notion of legal action would be laughed out of court, Nikon did no wrong or make false claims.

keithwms · Sep 29, 2011

EASmithV, my recommendation is just get the old 80-200 macro ED and be happy Who need VRs anyway, unless you're doing sports or wildlife. If you're shooting portraits then you shan't see the slightest difference between the 80-200 and the 70-200. Except in your pocketbook.

cluttered · Sep 30, 2011

keithwms said:
EASmithV, my recommendation is just get the old 80-200 macro ED and be happy Who need VRs anyway, unless you're doing sports or wildlife. If you're shooting portraits then you shan't see the slightest difference between the 80-200 and the 70-200. Except in your pocketbook.

I found VR (on an "old" 70-200VR) invaluable last night, shooting handheld photos for an indoor event where flash wasn't possible. It's not always needed of course, but there are occasions where it makes a big difference.

keithwms · Sep 30, 2011

Yes, well, one can always name examples where VR saves the day! But unless you routinely do sports & wildlife, there are many more situations where non-VR saves the bank Especially now that the full-frame DSLRs are delivering credible results at ISO 3200 and up, VR is seldom a must have. Just something to keep in mind if you plan to shoot digital at some point.

Anyway... if someone has money to blow and needs VR, then by all means go for it. I have a VR lens that I like very much. But I hardly ever need the VR and it's almost always switched off.

In terms of lens quality, the 80-200 macro ED is fabulous.

David Goldstein · Oct 2, 2011

fstop said:
True but the VR was released after Nikon ceased film camera production , so its obvious a digital camera lens

This is a FX lens design, which is for sensors the same size as 35mm film. It therefore works identically on either a film for FX sensor Nikon.

EASmithV · Oct 8, 2011

I would get an 80-200 but it won't AF on all bodies I have... From what I've read it also has a lot of flare. And if i'm not mistaken, the F6 supports VR

fstop · Oct 8, 2011

David Goldstein said:
This is a FX lens design, which is for sensors the same size as 35mm film. It therefore works identically on either a film for FX sensor Nikon.

That may be true, there was the question of false advertising about its focal length.

benjiboy · Oct 8, 2011

If you want to particularly shoot portraits I suggest you buy a 85mm or 100mm prime lens, zoom lenses aren't ideal for serious portraiture for several reasons that I'm too tired to go into now, It's 1 A.M, and I'm going to bed .

EASmithV · Oct 8, 2011

benjiboy said:
If you want to particularly shoot portraits I suggest you buy a 85mm or 100mm prime lens, zoom lenses aren't ideal for serious portraiture for several reasons that I'm too tired to go into now, It's 1 A.M, and I'm going to bed .

Very true, however it's going to have more use than just a 35mm portrait lens

JMTZ · Oct 8, 2011

I can't answer your original question, but I can tell you that the VR circuit kicks in with both my F5 and F100 so it should be OK with an F6. I'm sure you will be happy with whichever of the two lenses you choose.

cluttered · Oct 8, 2011

JMTZ said:
I can't answer your original question, but I can tell you that the VR circuit kicks in with both my F5 and F100 so it should be OK with an F6. I'm sure you will be happy with whichever of the two lenses you choose.

I can confirm that the VR does work with an F6.

Nikon 70-200 VR II vs 70-200 VR ~~ Reach issues?

David Goldstein

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency