70-200/2.8 VRII vs VRI vs 105/2 DC - part 1: vignetting

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=33838051

It will answer some of your questions, that is, limited to 'long distance' sharpness issues.

lock

I think this brings up a point that is forgotten more and more often these days. Lenses are designed with a target usage in mind. Very seldom are lenses designed for every possible application. It seems that folks expect every lens to be a genius at everything these days. I don't think that the exchange rates are the only reason that the 70-200VRII costs what it does!

And it's certainly also possible that the lens manufacturers aren't very clear at advertising what a lens is optimized for. That can all be inferred usually by looking at MTF diagrams and other characteristics of the lens, but I suspect there are lots out there who have no idea about this. They just want every lens to be perfect for what they want to use it for, and then spread all sorts of over-blown nonsense when they encounter a lens that wasn't designed for them and their type of work ANY WAY!

Fostereast said:

Another big curiosity of mine is if the new 70-200 focuses faster than the older one. > Do you have an opinion on this to offer from your side by side shooting?

Click to expand...

As I got the VR II only on Saturday I haven't done too much shooting with it yet, but the initial impression is that the AF speed is the same as it is with the previous version.

--
Carsten Bockermann

tyb said:

Jeff Klofft said:

I fail to see how this relates to the original post.
--
Jeff

Click to expand...

Have no clue?

Its clear the VRI suffers at the corners on FX. I see it in every shoot, and sometimes did wish it was sharper too.

The only difference betwen someone called a "pro" and an amateur ( with really good stuff ) is that the amateur has a different and likely very high paying job that allows him to dabble in esoteric and can spend lots of money and measurebate and pixel to his hearts content. The pro only cares that his equipment gets a shot that sells. Very different criteria from people with very different interests.

I still don't know what Max's point with his gruf reply was. Perhaps he can't afford it, perhaps someone made a comment about his lens... I too have the orginal VRI and it serves me well, but I too will likely leap to the new one very soon. Why, because it is measurably better and I can see it clearly and thus it is worth it! ;D

Click to expand...

Most pros that I know and/or work with have little interest or time to worry about little limitations that don't add up to a hill of beans on paying jobs. My clients were well served by the old one, and now that I have the new 70-200 II, they'll be well served by that lens.

But I'd be kidding myself if I stated that the little advantages were going to be noticed by my clients. A pro knows what COUNTS and works with and generally does not chase after ambiguous rumors of optical perfection. That's why the best wedding photographer I know shoots with a D2Hs and 20-35mm. State of the art gear usually only helps those with true talent and skill.

I don't shoot landscapes or street scenes, but I sure wouldn't choose a 70-200 for it, even if it's sharp at the corners. There are better lenses for such work. Now someone will chime in about using an 80-200. Fine, then use it and work with the compromises. The 70-200 was always optimized for people, sports, action and so on. The new lens, while improved, it still intended for that usage.

Max Green

--
Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM

ffnikclif said:

And lots of amateurs are nice people who don't put others down & pretend to be on a higher level.

Fred

Click to expand...

Exactly. You have hit the nail squarely on the head here about these remarks by Mr. "Max Green"

His comments come across as being very condescending and most egotistical. I personally find them to be downright offensive in nature. The really ironic thing is that in his own "review" that he wrote here in this forum of this very same lens, he commented about this very same issue too. Yet, when another person actually provides an actual example illustrating the issue, he criticizes them. That is really a rather hypocritical thing for him to do, when you think about it.

Especially in light of the fact that he says that he himself is unable to ever post any photos of any kind here, due to all sorts of strange reasons that he cites. Yet when another person takes all of the time and effort to do so, he puts them down like this, as you noted in your remarks.

Perhaps the anonymous Max Green really is the great professional photographer and website operator that he says that he is in real life. But as a plain human being, such remarks like these from him bring nothing at all to the discussion. There is no good reason whatsoever for him, or anyone else, to use such a condescending and derogatory tone toward some like teodorian, who has been so kind as to share his actual test results with the forum.

Instead, Teodorian should be applauded for taking so much time and effort to do such a comparative test of 3 lenses, and sharing the results with everyone.

.

ARClark said:

Seems there's a lot of thin-thinned skin people around here, Max. :> )

Click to expand...

Alan:

I think that it is more of an issue that many people don't appreciate such unnecessary and unwarranted condescending language.

It is really most rude and offensive.

.

LanceOR said:

ARClark said:

Seems there's a lot of thin-thinned skin people around here, Max. :> )

Click to expand...

Alan:

I think that it is more of an issue that many people don't appreciate such unnecessary and unwarranted condescending language.

It is really most rude and offensive.

Click to expand...

It's too bad that you feel that way.

But I stand behind my comments and have no interest in watering down an opinion just because a few people get their hair ruffled.

And trying to insinuate that my posts are not appreciative of the OP test shots is rather short-sighted.

Max Green

--
Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II (Pending), Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM

it's really funny how some here try to justify poor lens design with 'specific use'.

The 70-200 is a classic universal lens. It's not made to have soft corners and bad vignetting. Under no circumstances are these attributes positive. In some areas of photography these flaws don't show up that much but that doesn't mean the lens was designed to be that way.

The 70-200 VRI is not a bad lens, but it has flaws. Period. It's silly to cover up these by making up an intended use.

--
-------David-------
http://flickr.com/photos/childish/

LanceOR said:

ARClark said:

Seems there's a lot of thin-thinned skin people around here, Max. :> )

Click to expand...

Alan:

I think that it is more of an issue that many people don't appreciate such unnecessary and unwarranted condescending language.

It is really most rude and offensive.

Click to expand...

Lance, I can see where Max would be difficult for some people to deal with because he's plain-spoken, sometimes brusque, and opinionated. But I've personally not interpreted anything he's said to be rude or offensive. To do so would mean that he was making an effort to hurt others feelings, and I just don't see that. If anything, he's impatient with others that he doesn't feel are working from his same knowledge base. But I think he's colorful, informative and interesting. To each his own, I guess.

Alan

--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/

Octane said:

it's really funny how some here try to justify poor lens design with 'specific use'.

The 70-200 is a classic universal lens. It's not made to have soft corners and bad vignetting. Under no circumstances are these attributes positive. In some areas of photography these flaws don't show up that much but that doesn't mean the lens was designed to be that way.

The 70-200 VRI is not a bad lens, but it has flaws. Period. It's silly to cover up these by making up an intended use.

Click to expand...

David, you'd do well to do some research on optical engineering, because the 70-200 certainly ALWAYS had an intended series of applications.

The 70-200 had a very specific goal in it's design. In fact EVERY lens, even the 18-200 has a design goal.

How well these goals are met is easy enough to assess. When the original 70-200 was introduced at a trade show in NY, the Nikon rep said it was perfect for "sports and portraits." In fact, Nikon's website says "The Ideal Lens for low-light sports and portraits."

And that's exactly what it's great for, where the design compromises will usually have little to no effect. The lens ALWAYS had an intended use and landscapes were not among them.

Every money making landscape shooter I've known or met wouldn't think of using even the NEW version for landscapes. Sure, someone out there will do it, just like someone will win a photography award with a Casio, but that's more about talent than using the best possible tool on a job.

My main point, of course, is that some people got annoyed with the 70-200 I in the same respect that a child might get annoyed trying to hammer a nail with a cookie.

Max Green

--
Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II (Pending), Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM

agreed...

Your main point often gets lost in your delivery approach, which routinely includes condecension and ad hominem attacks. You confuse rudeness for honesty.

Max Green said:

My main point, of course, is that some people got annoyed with the 70-200 I in the same respect that a child might get annoyed trying to hammer a nail with a cookie.

Click to expand...

Max Green said:

David, you'd do well to do some research on optical engineering, because the 70-200 certainly ALWAYS had an intended series of applications.

Click to expand...

You are confusing usefulness with 'intentional design'. Sure the lens is great for sports, but it makes no sense to come up with a theory that because of that it was designed to have soft corners. The soft corners made it unattractive for any type of photography that show subjects other than centered people. But it was never designed to be only doing that. The flaws made photographers use it in a certain way, not because a Nikon rep told them so. Why the heck would anyone want soft corners? It's not only the far corners BTW. Even portrait or sports photography uses more than just the center for many photos. Fashion photography needs sharpness across the entire image. There are many examples.

It's silly to retrofit an 'intentional design' to something that is a result of a flaw. If it didn't have soft corners it would have found more uses. There is no reason for Nikon to limit the use of a lens intentionally.

In photography I make 90% of my money with portraits but exactly because of the poor sharpness towards the edges I didn't buy this lens and rather went with the old AF-S 80-200/2.8. Even if it doesn't matter for most of my shots why would I buy a lens that has these flaws?

Looking at the new 70-200 where these specific issues have been addressed shows that you theory is wrong. Nothing has change in the 'intentional design'. It is exactly the same lens in all specs.

So please spare us the nonsense of your expertise in "optical engineering research".

--
-------David-------
http://flickr.com/photos/childish/

Max Green said:

You could always tell an amateur shooter.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and Van Gogh was never able to make a living selling his paintings. However, that doesn't mean that he was a bad artist and didn't understand how to use his brushes. I suppose he should have painted weddings... ;-)

David