Full Version: confirmed prices for Nikon 19f4 PCE and 70-200f2.8 VR
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Quote:Lets be clear, the issue of the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR II is not focus breathing (focus breathing is a change in FOV when going through the focus range), it is the way it focus breathes. All of these lenses focus breath, but this Nikkor loses so much focal length that it widens FOV towards MFD, where other lenses, like the new Nikkor, lose so little that they narrow FOV towards MFD. The difference in FOV can be very striking indeed.


Thom Hogan shows the difference between the AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR and the AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II at MFD at 200mm:



Nikon has addressed the issue now by introducing a replacement.  Good for Nikon.

I can't comment on Thom's samples because I don't want to use his images inappropriately so I can only make my own comparisons.


Here is a side by side shot with 200mm f4 on the left and 70-200mm on the right. The 200mm has a MFD of 1.8m so I have to say that the 70-200 has the advantage since its MFD is 1.4m.


The point is that for all this talk of losing FOV it should be clear that it's much of a muchness. And with a smallest amount of cropping the FOV would be identical.


If you are shooting macros then yes, FOV would matter. But I would say that Nikon's market for this lens are those who actually use the whole focal length and real-world working distances.


And if you think that you need to get closer to say a rock band (as per the whingers in Thom's article) then good luck to you! You can see in the other image just how close you are already to the lead-singer's face.
I always use macros for lead singers. Most of them are very small...  -_-


Quote: Well you did ask!!




So, I tracked down what he actually said. It is from his own website:


“That dream ended after a couple of shoots with the D810 and the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 II. The D810 did great, but the Nikon had a severe problem: at headshot range, it wasn’t 200mm… it wasn’t even close. In fact, we measured it at about 135mm.

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);">Our signature headshots suddenly didn’t have the same background blur or compression of facial features; a portrait at 135mm just isn’t the same as a portrait at 200mm. Forget using it for a wedding, where you need all the reach you can get.”

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);"> 

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);">Well here is a snap that I took of daughter below.

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);"> 

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);">Do you think:

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);">1. It needs more compression

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);">2. Improvement in background blur

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);">3. I should forget about weddings

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);">4. I need to get closer to the bride

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);">5. I need more reach in a wedding

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);"> 

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);">The image is at 200mm f2.8 1/40 and just a little further than MFD.

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);"> 

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);">It really drives me crazy when people spread non-sense over the internet and even more so when people start to think that they are a source of absolute fact.

<p style="font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85);">(Wedding shot at 200mm)
Yeah we get it. The VR II is perfect and anyone wanting 200mm is being just silly. 


That is what you wanted to hear, right?


No. I want people to stop spreading non-sense.


For example,


“Forget using it for a wedding,...”.


Got it?

Anyone who has done weddings knows he needs shots between 70 and 200mm at something like a meter distance or less in almost every wedding.

Maybe it's less than 10% of the shots but you do need it, for pictures of the bride having her makeup done, a picture of the wedding rings, a closeup of the champaign glasses, the wedding invitation amongst the roses, for all those standard "clichés" you do need good performance at close focus distances.

Wedding photographers either use 24-70 or 105mm macro for those shots, having decent performance at this range is surely a reason for many wedding guys to upgrade.
"like a meter distance or less"...


Just check the specs of these lenses before you post such nonsense!! Also, check your own pictures how close you really were instead of estimating wild stuff. Really, you're wasting a lot of time with posts like this. With MFD from 1.1 m or 1.4 of the elder version, how can you get closer and what kind of pictures are these? Close-ups from a part of the ring or what?


And it's not the problem, that the elder lens was not good enough at "200" mm and MFD, it was just not 200 mm enough.


Jo, I don't think you need to go so hard on Toni. I think that he is a good decent guy.


But when we get links to people who not only say non-sense but somehow become self anointed experts we should be hard on them.


Anyways, I think that the new lens is a move forward but the pricing is a bit steep, IMO.

 It's no easy task shooting weddings, so kudos to you toni!
Quote:No, that is not really true.

The Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8's did not have the widening of the FOV near MFD. The AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR did not have that either. No Sony (A or FE mount) has shown it. The old Pentax 80-200mm f2.8 did not either. Nor does the Nikkor 70-200mm f4 VR. Or the older Sigma 70-200mm's. Or the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 Di LD Macro.


Only 3 lenses in this class do: The Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 USD VC, the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG HSM OS  (to lesser extent I think?) and the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II.


The specs of the new Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f2.8E FL VR tell the story (1.1m MFD 0.21x max. mag.).

AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II: 1.4m MFD, 0.12x max. mag. .
 Yes true, I wasn't counting the 80-200 oldies nor the slow focusing but inexpensive Tamron.


BTW The new Pentax focus breathes strongly also!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9