Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,621   Posts: 1,622,846   Online: 1124
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,894
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    126

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

    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?

    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  2. #2
    zk-cessnaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    137
    Well, he's having a rant, but isn't presenting any empirical evidence.
    There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing, as simply messing about in boats

  3. #3
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by EASmithV View Post
    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?

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

  4. #4
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    4
    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.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,322
    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

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Wiltshire, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    411
    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.

  7. #7
    ann
    ann is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,889
    Images
    26
    I love mine, that is all i find important. Haven't found the reach too short.
    http://www.aclancyphotography.com

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    235
    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

  9. #9
    fstop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    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

  10. #10
    zk-cessnaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by fstop View Post
    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...
    There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing, as simply messing about in boats

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin