Those AWFUL 70-200 Nikon Zooms! ;-)

Mike, I'd feel better about this if I hadn't found the Canon 70-200 more or less equal to the Nikon. I've used it on the 5DIII and I can see no practical differences between the lenses so far as the optics.

But the Canon version is MUCH closer to the 200mm and I don't think Nikon's trade off makes sense since they do not give me anything close to the spec stated in ranges that are COMMON for wedding, portrait/event work. DOF, magnification and bokeh are all effected negatively.

So let's be realistic: For those not shooting at infinity the 70-200 VRII is a weak design since it's not really anything close to giving 200mm. What kind of crazy trade-off is that? I choose lenses first and foremost for the FOCAL LENGTH and if I pay for 85mm, I expect a lens close to that....not 45mm.

VR 1 prices have held fast because Nikon now longer has a true 70-200mm 2.8 in their lineup. If I want anything close to that I need to carry another lens! It was an idiot decision.

Forget what you've read online. Try a Canon 70-200mm lens (new version) and see for yourself. Nikon's tradeoff is like advertising a car with four seats, then delivering a two seater to buyers. The limitation is gigantic for so many applications I still can't believe it.

A friend, who does a lot of wedding/party shooting says the new 70-200 VRII is his most used lens, but it's also his most "cropped" lens. And he's stuck with it unless he wants to rebuy the VR 1.

Robert