[Brightcolours]

[quote name='wojtt' timestamp='1292327104' post='4979']

Jim,



you'll be delighted with the 70-200 VR II <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> this lens doesn't disappoint.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> and I agree totally with the approach towards lenses, after learning it the hard way (as it so often happens) <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

Although it is a nice lens, it can disappoint, that does depend on the user. For me, the lens would be a disappointment, because of its one quirk: The very pronounced focus breathing. This 70-200 would be totally unsuitable for me (all other 70-200's, except the new Sigma 70-200 OS HSM, do not show this pronounced focus breathing). I often use the versatile 70-200 breed for close up photography, and the difference between this Nikon and other 70-200's (like the Tamron, the Canons, the Sony) is huge in that area.



So... in advice threads, try not to let your personal bias or love or use weigh in so much, and try to analyze the needs of the person you want to advice... not yourself.



And in this case, I do not think it is right to just point to the much dearer Nikon by default, especially when one does not have a good idea of the qualities of for instance the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 HSM. And of course, that money might really be a very important factor.

[wojtt]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1292342943' post='4984']



"So... in advice threads, try not to let your personal bias or love or use weigh in so much, and try to analyze the needs of the person you want to advice... not yourself."





A theoretical analysis based general wisdom was not my intention, sorry for that <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



My comment pointed mostly to my experiences with Nikon's N 24-70 (and 70-200 VR mk II by chance).. which I use quite often.. I stated clearly I had no direct contact with Sigma's 24-70 .. I believe I also suggested borrowing mentioned lenses to get a first hand experience - and an idea as to whether it makes sense to pay the premium for the Nikkor or not.. What's biased in that ?



The opinion that it's worth saving for the premium lenses (from any company) in order to get the best possible performance is still valid in the way that it saves both the trouble and money, when you end up wanting for more after a budget purchase; each of us has to consider the budget for a given lens and whether it's worth it .. a personal and not objective decision indeed <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> BTW I have not seen a single friend of mine going back to Sigma Tokina or Tamron after trying out pro glass from Canon or Nikon (I mean 2.8 zooms in the popular 24-70 / 70-200 categories).



About bias, have you actually used any of the Nikon glass you write about?



I do use the 70-200 mk II in landscape and portraiture (also at a relatively close range) and focus breathing is not a problem for me. I was aware of this when trying it out, but in practical shooting it wasn't a problem. Then, it's just me and my take on it.. subjective indeed <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='wojtt' timestamp='1292410620' post='4999']



About bias, have you actually used any of the Nikon glass you write about?

[/quote]

Lets see. I write about Canon glass/cameras I have never used. I write about Sony glass/cameras I have never used. I write about Olympus glass/bodies I have never used. I write about Pentax glass/bodies I have never used. I write about Sigma glass/bodies I have never used. I write about Nikon glass/bodies I have never used.



I have the feeling you need to read up on the meaning of "bias", you seem to have it the wrong way around (only ever recommending the lenses you yourself have bought might be a big indication of bias).

[quote name='wojtt' timestamp='1292410620' post='4999']

I do use the 70-200 mk II in landscape and portraiture (also at a relatively close range) and focus breathing is not a problem for me. I was aware of this when trying it out, but in practical shooting it wasn't a problem. Then, it's just me and my take on it.. subjective indeed <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

It is very good/nice that the focus breathing is not a problem for YOU. That is what I was writing... always try to take the person who asks for advice into mind, and not just yourself. For me, that particular Nikon would suck majorly. And for some others, it might be a fine lens.



But, of course, that was an example, this thread was not about that lens... it was about standard zooms and budget.

[miro]

I have one question to our focus breathing expert.

Brightcolours, could you please recommend me one macro lens that doesn’t change the focal length between 1:1 and Infinity?



If such macro lens doesn’t exist, should I stop taking any macros?



Thanks in advance,

Miro

[wojtt]

Brightcolours, if I read you well, you write a lot on all possible SLRs/glass combinations out there! Without first hand experience as I understand - since that is a paragon of an unbiased opinion.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Wow, that must be great for the posting counter <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



And seriously, Vieux loup asked mostly whether it makes any sense to pay premium price for the N 24-70 in the context of cheaper alternatives, right ? I'd say yes and part of the answer is already here on Photozone where you can see the tests. The part that has to do with real everyday usage of the N 24-70 is the one that I'm trying to address, just telling about my experience, some of it at least. At the same time I still stubbornly insist on TRYING out the Nikkor together with other alternatives if possible - for oneself. That's the equivalent for saying : the Nikon 24-70 works for me like a charm but please see it does as well for you..



Vieux loup - the Sigma Pro Centers have a policy to rent the lenses for a small fee, so if you have a chance to talk to your Nikon dealer about renting the Nikkor as well you might do a quick test for yourself, I mean right on the street to see where the differences are and then you can consider what is right or not for You. Regds.

[Guest]

Imho in photography the firsthand experience, however biased it is, is much more valuable than theoretical speculations, sorry Brightcolours.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='miro' timestamp='1292418173' post='5005']

I have one question to our focus breathing expert.

Brightcolours, could you please recommend me one macro lens that doesn’t change the focal length between 1:1 and Infinity?



If such macro lens doesn’t exist, should I stop taking any macros?



Thanks in advance,

Miro

[/quote]

Why are you trolling? I am not sure of the why.



Or, you are just really not smart, and really do not get certain aspects.



Let me assume the 2nd (as I am sure trolling is not allowed here).



I do not recall us talking about macro lenses. I really do not recall that. I gave an example of when a lens, suited for one person, can be totally not suited for another person. And that advice givers always should take into account that they are not giving advice to THEMSELVES.



The lens I gave as example is the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II, a so called portrait tele zoom. Now, upto the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II, all lenses in the 70/80-200mm class would not narrow their field of view when shooting closer up. And their focal lengths would stay relatively near 200mm. This includes the 70-200 from Tamron, the older 70-200's from Sigma, the 80-200 and old 70-200 from Nikon, the 70-200's and 80-200 from Canon, the 80-200 from Pentax and the 80-200 and 70-200 from Minolta/Sony. Not so the new Nikon and new Sigma.

And most also offer a quite close MFD (minimum focus distance).



As I pointed out, this focus breathing problem of the Nikon (and now also the new Sigma) makes them really rather unsuited for me. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why. A 70-200mm is a flexible lens to have... the whole portrait range, moderate tele capabilities and (in the case of my lens) moderate close up capabilities with narrow field of view.



In short... a single lens in your bag offering a wide range of shooting possibilities (no wonder this lens calls is rather popular).



Now lets take a look at the figures to illustrate:



The lens I currently use and always have with me:

- Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM

MFD: 1.2m

Max. magnification: 0.21 (1:4.7)



The old Nikon 70-200:

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

MFD: 1.5m (AF), 1.4m (MF)

Max. magnification: 0.16x (AF), 0.178x (MF) (1:6.1 - 1:5.6) (Note: the Nikon USA website shows totally wrong data, they claim 0.25x there)



The new Nikon:

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

MFD: 1.4m

Max. magnification: 0.12x (1:8.3) (Note: the Nikon USA website shows totally wrong data, they claim 0.25x there)



So, while I can use both the new Nikon and my lens for standard medium tele shots, 2 things happen when one uses the Nikon closer up:

The field of view widens considerably, compared to other 70-200's, and the magnification is less (compared to other 70-200's). And that is exactly why it is NOT an ideal lens for me. I want, need the narrow and the better bokeh that results, I want, need the magnification my 70-200 offers me!



One only has to look at the diverse photos I make with my 70-200mm, to understand that the focus breathing CAN be an issue, or even, should be an issue that needs consideration.. all images taken at 200mm setting:





(stitched panorama)



























And now to your weird remarks... what does focus breathing in macro lenses in any way have to do with the suitability of the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II for photographers like me?

[miro]

Honestly I don’t want to discuss anything with you.



However I’ll give you a short feedback about your photo work.





1. First Image

a. Taken at infinity

b. Why stitched?

i. Is it sharp? No

ii. Do you need to be sharp No.

c. Bad postprocessing and resizing techniques.

d. I like the sphere in this image



2. Second Image

a. Nice one but bold standard idea. At least here in Netherlands I see regularly such framing and subject.

b. Again image is taken at infinity.

c. I have similar snapshot taken with tokina 100 macro and hoya CPL. My father and mother in low live in Kinderdijk.

3. 3-th image – again taken at infinity.

4. 4-th image?? – messy snapshot image. I should not call it photograph. It can be taken with any camera and lens.

5. 5-th

a. You went closer. It is nice image

b. Definitely not tad sharp. Such sharpens I can achieve with my mobile telephone camera. It could be due to

i. Sloppy resizing techniques

ii. Shaky hands.

iii. Windy weather.

c. It is definitely NOT keeper if the original have such sharpness as represented here.

6. 6-th.

a. Nice image it remembers me my early years of macro photography.

b. Nice composition

c. What is the main subject – I suppose the butterfly.

d. Then Why the butterfly is out of focus.

e. BTW: Why this image cannot be taken with focus breathing lens. The magnification is not big enough.

7. 7-th

a. Nice snapshot but not sharp.

b. It is not keeper. I have thrown hundreds of images like this before I made the right one.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='miro' timestamp='1292431065' post='5010']

Honestly I don’t want to discuss anything with you.



However I’ll give you a short feedback about your photo work.





1. First Image

a. Taken at infinity

b. Why stitched?

i. Is it sharp? No

ii. Do you need to be sharp No.

c. Bad postprocessing and resizing techniques.

d. I like the sphere in this image



2. Second Image

a. Nice one but bold standard idea. At least here in Netherlands I see regularly such framing and subject.

b. Again image is taken at infinity.

c. I have similar snapshot taken with tokina 100 macro and hoya CPL. My father and mother in low live in Kinderdijk.

3. 3-th image – again taken at infinity.

4. 4-th image?? – messy snapshot image. I should not call it photograph. It can be taken with any camera and lens.

5. 5-th

a. You went closer. It is nice image

b. Definitely not tad sharp. Such sharpens I can achieve with my mobile telephone camera. It could be due to

i. Sloppy resizing techniques

ii. Shaky hands.

iii. Windy weather.

c. It is definitely NOT keeper if the original have such sharpness as represented here.

6. 6-th.

a. Nice image it remembers me my early years of macro photography.

b. Nice composition

c. What is the main subject – I suppose the butterfly.

d. Then Why the butterfly is out of focus.

e. BTW: Why this image cannot be taken with focus breathing lens. The magnification is not big enough.

7. 7-th

a. Nice snapshot but not sharp.

b. It is not keeper. I have thrown hundreds of images like this before I made the right one.

[/quote]

My goodness, you really are a low person on this forum. And your "remarks" are just trash, really sad. That you yourself are mediocre photographer with no artistic sense is ok, but that should not allow you to make such stupid, wrong and silly remarks.



I know that you are from the Netherlands, but that should not excuse your apparent poor understanding of English (I am dutch too, after all).



Notice this phrase: "... the diverse photos I make with my 70-200mm".

Diverse. Key word here. So I show photos that are DIVERSE, from infinity, (the horses), bringing something closer from 20-30 meters (the sheep, the bird on the mill) and, what I COULD NOT DO with the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II, close up nature photos.



The point then being: For ME (and photographers like ME), the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II is not nearly the most suitable portrait range tele zoom. Others, like the Canon 70-200's, the Sony 70-200 and the Tamron 70-200, are more suitable. Why? Because of the considerable focus breathing of the Nikon.



It just is as simple as that.



I will not get into your nonsensical criticisms of my photos, as they are stupid, factually wrong, and just out of a spite that you have shown to me for a long time now, which I am guessing stems from me at times also being critical about certain Nikon products. Sad.

[wojtt]

No arguing here, the N 70-200 VR mk II is no macro lens, so no use to scare the bugs with it.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />