[Studor13]

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.