3 real world 70-200vr2 shots at 2.8

This lens is just as sharp as ANY past or present high end lenses that I have owned or own bar none, and I have had almost all of them including the 200 2.0 400 2.8, 85 1.4 and 28 1.4, and 105 2.8. And the fact that this is a zoom at f2.8 wide open leaves me speechless.

http://www.davenphoto.com/p697306713

Peace, Dave

http://www.davenphoto.com

Yes, but it's not just sharp, there is a certain quality to these images, kinda like the 14-24 but even more so...

Thanks!
--
Edward

'I see large pixels.'

http://www.edwardthomasart.com
http://www.pbase.com/edwardthomas

I was comparing shots of the same subject ,from my 70-200 vr2 to shots that I took with my 400 2.8 vr and I have to say that the 70-200 is as sharp as my 400 2.8 vr !!!

Sorry I forgot to mention both lenses wide open f2.8

dave veneri said:

This lens is just as sharp as ANY past or present high end lenses that I have owned or own bar none, and I have had almost all of them including the 200 2.0 400 2.8, 85 1.4 and 28 1.4, and 105 2.8. And the fact that this is a zoom at f2.8 wide open leaves me speechless.

http://www.davenphoto.com/p697306713

Click to expand...

Those look GREAT.

I'd like to see more.

Mine is on the way, and with all this talk of the "heavy breathing" I need to see more quality shots from this lens to make me feel better! ;-)

Rob Tomlin said:

dave veneri said:

This lens is just as sharp as ANY past or present high end lenses that I have owned or own bar none, and I have had almost all of them including the 200 2.0 400 2.8, 85 1.4 and 28 1.4, and 105 2.8. And the fact that this is a zoom at f2.8 wide open leaves me speechless.

http://www.davenphoto.com/p697306713

Click to expand...

Those look GREAT.

I'd like to see more.

Mine is on the way, and with all this talk of the "heavy breathing" I need to see more quality shots from this lens to make me feel better! ;-)

Click to expand...

Think about it this way: Nikon sacrifices the ability to use filters on the 14-24 and created a superb lens. Once you learn to get around the limitation it's probably the best thing ever.

I believe it's the same with this lens. Enjoy them when they reach you
--
Best regards,
Chris

chris_my said:

Think about it this way: Nikon sacrifices the ability to use filters on the 14-24 and created a superb lens. Once you learn to get around the limitation it's probably the best thing ever.

I believe it's the same with this lens. Enjoy them when they reach you
--
Best regards,
Chris

Click to expand...

Totally agree. Some people will buy this lens, adapt to its limitations if necessary, use it to take great pictures and will be happy. Others are going to not buy the lens, or will buy it and return it, because they either can't adapt to its limitations or refuse to. Most likely they'll spend an awful lot of time being mad at Nikon or lamenting the limitations of whatever lens they're going to use instead.

Every lens design is a trade off. Look at some of the "flaws" a lens can have...

Isn't sharp wide open
Not sharp in the corners
Vignettes
Flares easily
Poor contrast
Lots of distortion
Lots of field curvature
Lots of CA
Poor bokeh
Looses focal length at close focusing distances

Probably every single lens ever produced has at least one of these flaws. If this one didn't have the focal length loss issue, but had even one of the others, I have not a shred of doubt that all the clamoring and complaining going on right now would still be going on, by the exact same people. Only the words would change.

Sure, but people expected the lens to be better not just change one limitation for another. Particularly since the limitation this time will cost you $600 more.

Saffron_Blaze said:

Sure, but people expected the lens to be better not just change one limitation for another. Particularly since the limitation this time will cost you $600 more.

Click to expand...

Well, except that you'd either have to think that Nikon was going to defy the laws of physics and eliminate all limitations in the new lens (not a realistic expectation to have, IMHO, though after the 14-24, people probably thought that they could), or you'd have to expect the lens, like almost any other, to have one or two limitations, right? Maybe this one is more severe than people were expecting, but to expect none at all I just don't think is realistic and its hard to believe anyone really thought that.

Indeed, at that is the whole crux of the issue in one short sentence.

M Katz said:

Maybe this one is more severe than people were expecting...

Click to expand...

chris_my said:

Think about it this way: Nikon sacrifices the ability to use filters on the 14-24 and created a superb lens. Once you learn to get around the limitation it's probably the best thing ever.

I believe it's the same with this lens. Enjoy them when they reach you
--
Best regards,
Chris

Click to expand...

Yes, I have the 14-24 and it is a superb lens. To me, the inability to use a filter is a very minor sacrifice. By comparison, I think the heavy breathing of the 70-200 is a much larger sacrifice. We will see if it is a sacrifice that I can accept when I get it next week.

Surely people's main gripe with this lens is that the focal length issue took them by surprise. If Nikon had been upfront with the information (especially if they keep the VR1 current) there would barely be a problem. Do we know if the VR1 will be discontinued?
Gary