• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forums > Back > New Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR without the focus breathing
#1
The new Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR is a nice addition to the range, and seems to lack the large focus breathing its more expensive brother, the AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II, shows.



The f2.8 VR II has an unimpressive 0.12 max. magnification according to Nikon specs, at an MFD of 1.4 meters.

The new f4 has a nice 0.275 max. mag. according to the Nikon specs, at given MFD of 1 meter.



That is pretty close in focus breathing terms to my EF 70-200mm f4 L USM, which gets a 0.21 at 1.2 meters MFD and 0.29 at 1 meter MFD with 12mm extension tube.



Indeed, it looks to be a nice addition to the Nikon range!
  Reply
#2
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1351076975' post='20698']

The new Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR is a nice addition to the range, and seems to lack the large focus breathing its more expensive brother, the AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II, shows.



The f2.8 VR II has an unimpressive 0.12 max. magnification according to Nikon specs, at an MFD of 1.4 meters.

The new f4 has a nice 0.275 max. mag. according to the Nikon specs, at given MFD of 1 meter.



That is pretty close in focus breathing terms to my EF 70-200mm f4 L USM, which gets a 0.21 at 1.2 meters MFD and 0.29 at 1 meter MFD with 12mm extension tube.



Indeed, it looks to be a nice addition to the Nikon range!

[/quote]



It was about time ...
  Reply
#3
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1351085803' post='20700']

It was about time ...

[/quote]



Indeed.
  Reply
#4
Just when I went and got the 70-200 II, this comes out!



I think it's going to be great. Don't know why though that a lot of folks are complaining about the tripod mount. I mean this lens weighs less than say the 24-70 and it doesn't even have a tripod collar.
  Reply
#5
It's definitely a nice addition that finally fills up the gap in Nikon's lineup.

However, I keep thinking they could have made it more compact. As it is, I still find it fairly large (although much lighter than its 2.8 counterpart).

VR figures are always inflated, but IIRC this is the first lens to claim having a 5-stop efficiency (which probably translates to 3-stop in the real world). Very nice.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
  Reply
#6
Hmmm, which weirdo rated my post down? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />
  Reply
#7
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1351115547' post='20712']

Hmmm, which weirdo rated my post down? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

[/quote]



BC, it was not me.
  Reply
#8
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1351115547' post='20712']

Hmmm, which weirdo rated my post down? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

[/quote]



Use the mobile site on an iPhone/Pad/Pod and you can't see it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />



On a more serious note: In general I personnally have strong reservations against these rating things. To much skope for trolling and mobing in my view.
enjoy
  Reply
#9
[quote name='thxbb12' timestamp='1351108890' post='20711']



However, I keep thinking they could have made it more compact. As it is, I still find it fairly large (although much lighter than its 2.8 counterpart).



[/quote]



How do you figure this?



The dimensions on the old 70-210 f4 are:

Approx. 76.5 mm dia. x 156 mm extension from flange

Weight: Approx. 760g

13 elements in 9 groups



New 70-200 f4

Approx. 78 mm dia. x 178.5 mm extension from flange

Weight: Approx. 850g

20 elements in 14 groups.



So with VR III and 7 more elements (and 5 more groups) it's only 90g more and 22mm longer.



Of course if you are a lens designer (for Canon or Zeiss) then I apologize in advance.
  Reply
#10
The Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM and EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM are both 76x172mm wide x long.

So the new Nikon is only 6.5mm longer, or 5mm is you take the different flange distance into consideration.



The Minolta 70-210 f4 is shorter and lighter, but is not an IF design (extends to 168mm, 695 grams)

The Nikon AS 70-120 f4 is shorter still (extending to 156mm) but is the same weight as the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM, and like the Minolta, is not an IF design.



The Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR is in my view of normal dimensions... just a bit heavier than I would expect, but that is probably due to the fact that Canon uses some fluorite elements and Nikon does not.



Interesting for some, the optics of the f4 Nikon have a stronger resemblance to the Canon than to the Nikon f2.8 (but the back groups of both Nikons are similar):

Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II

[Image: 02.gif]

Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR:

[Image: pic_004.png]

Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM:

[Image: lens-construction.png]



And another thing (or two) about this Nikon... Compared to the Canon it has a 12mm extension tube integrated, allowing 1m MFD according to the specs (my Canon needs a 12mm ext. tubve to get to 1 meter). My 12mm extension tube weighs 66 grams, more than halves the weight difference. And the Nikon is black, not some weird broken white shade. Now if it only has such smooth bokeh as the non-IS version from Canon, it will be a lovely lens.
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)