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

[EASmithV]

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?

[zk-cessnaguy]

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

[CGW]

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.

[brucemuir]

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]

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]

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]

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

[F/1.4]

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]

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]

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...