Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 70-200 VRII vs Canon 70-200 Zoom Test! Interesting results!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
VividExposures said:
I would like to see some of your examples. What kind of photography do you shoot?
brightcolours said:
I use my 70-200mm lens a LOT for real close up stuff. Why? Because with its 200+mm focal length at close range it gives a lovely field of view.

Which macro lens will give an equal field of view? I do not know of any.

And do you say the same to everyone who uses a 300mm or 400mm lens for their close up shots?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I would like to show you examples, but right now I have no server to upload them to. I shoot nature, mainly. So close up and personal with flowers, insects, mushrooms, trees and such.
 
Reading these threads lately makes me feel as if I am on the AT&T forum on the iphone.

You all have two simple solutions to the problem - You do not have to buy Nikon equipment and you do not have to by this lens.

People seem to think they are Woodward and Bernstein uncovering a new Watergate scandal. If you do not like Nikon products, do not buy them.

--bob
 
I am not a PRO but one of the reason I ljustify buying a PRO lens is because it keeps its value.

I can enjoy the lens for a few years and eventually re-sell it at a very good price.
Legendary lenses can actually increase in value.

Will the new 70-200 VRII keep its value or will the heavy breathing take a bite on its future re-sell value?
 
GoldRingNikkor said:
proartfoto said:
So what is the problem? What happened there? How come Nikon’s lens the way it is? It seems to me that Nikon engineers where designing this lens on DX test rig.
Click to expand...
BS. This is the effect of the internal focus optical design. I'm not saying the effect is not there. It obviously is. But it's got NOTHING to do with DX, and neither is the lens wrongly labeled as a 200 mm.
Click to expand...
BS too. No other 80-200 or 70-200 shows the same effect, yet all are of "internal focus optical design". I am not saying there are no IF lens designs which do NOT show this.

But there are MANY non-IF lenses that show it (think all 18-2XX/28-200/28-300 ultra zoom lenses).

And there are MANY IF lenses that do NOT show it (all other 70-200 and 80-200 lenses).
 
Most pro grade lenses generally keep their value; they are better built, better optically, and ppl in the market for them know their value. unlike a consumer kit lens for example, which is impossible to sel for any value

Although, at this point, the vr2 is new and havent seen any price reductions yet.. so, the value drop off is steeper; but, this is true for all new toys
bbrault said:
I am not a PRO but one of the reason I ljustify buying a PRO lens is because it keeps its value.

I can enjoy the lens for a few years and eventually re-sell it at a very good price.
Legendary lenses can actually increase in value.

Will the new 70-200 VRII keep its value or will the heavy breathing take a bite on its future re-sell value?
Click to expand...
 
brightcolours said:
I would like to show you examples, but right now I have no server to upload them to. I shoot nature, mainly. So close up and personal with flowers, insects, mushrooms, trees and such.
Click to expand...
I didn't find the 70-200/2.8 1st version to be sharp at close distances at 200mm. I would recommend the 300/4 AF-D for close-ups with lots of working distance (it goes to 1:4 and is amazingly sharp at close range). Get a RRS, Kirk, or Burzynski collar for it if shooting from a tripod. Or get the 200mm f/4D AF Micro.
 
em_dee_aitch said:
We do need to send a loud message on this. Part of me wants to keep this thing, because it is very nice, but it also sucks.
Click to expand...
So far, the only reason I've seen you say it sucks is because the numbers aren't the same.
em_dee_aitch said:
Essentially, in the "wedding photographer distance range" of 5 to 20 feet,
Click to expand...
Show me a 70-200mm I image taken at a wedding and at 5 feet and 200mm. Also show me images from both at 20 feet and 200mm. I'm hearing rhetoric from you, but I'm not seeing actual evidence of the problem. And don't show me tests. I mean real images you took at weddings that used 200mm with the first version at very close distances, and real versions of 200mm in use at longer distances (which I suspect is where you actually use it).

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com
 
I'm not the poster you responded to but I have shot weddings and a 200mm close-up is not atypical, esp. for ring shots. Here's a photo I took close-up @ 200mm with a Canon 40D - not sure the distance but pretty sure it was less than 10 feet and more importantly, was on a 1.6 crop so I'd have to step even closer with an FX body.


Thom Hogan said:
em_dee_aitch said:
We do need to send a loud message on this. Part of me wants to keep this thing, because it is very nice, but it also sucks.
Click to expand...
So far, the only reason I've seen you say it sucks is because the numbers aren't the same.
Thom Hogan said:
Essentially, in the "wedding photographer distance range" of 5 to 20 feet,
Click to expand...
Show me a 70-200mm I image taken at a wedding and at 5 feet and 200mm. Also show me images from both at 20 feet and 200mm. I'm hearing rhetoric from you, but I'm not seeing actual evidence of the problem. And don't show me tests. I mean real images you took at weddings that used 200mm with the first version at very close distances, and real versions of 200mm in use at longer distances (which I suspect is where you actually use it).

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com
Click to expand...
--
Kodak Instant Camera
Kyocera 1MP Camera phone (pre-paid phone plan)
http://horshack.smugmug.com/
 
em_dee_aitch said:
WCguy said:
I think you should return it and move on.
Click to expand...
I might. But before I do, I will inform like-minded people who are contemplating this purchase. I may save them from 4 days of their own testing hell.
Click to expand...
I for one, thank you. I was considering this, but my shooting style does suggest this could be a problem for me. Your creative use of two images showing the FL shift really drove the problem home for me.

I often set the camera up with a particular background, then put the talent in place to achieve the effect I want. A lens that changes FL this much means I'd be moving the tripod around a lot when I change focus. I know what a pain that is in my macro shooting, and avoid lenses that have this behavior.

I may still purchase this lens, but I will do so with a good idea of its behavior.

Thanks for your efforts, Dave.

--
Ken Elliott
Equipment in profile.
 
the odd few people who complain on this forum are not representative of all the professionals who are out shooting with this superb new lens and making more money a month that most people do in a year. Nikon will sell thousands of copies of this lens, how many people are actually complaining.
 
Colin46 said:
the odd few people who complain on this forum are not representative of all the professionals who are out shooting with this superb new lens and making more money a month that most people do in a year. Nikon will sell thousands of copies of this lens, how many people are actually complaining.
Click to expand...
I think the figures are in the hundreds of thousands, not thousands ;-)

I absolutely agree with the rest of what you say.

Ilkka
 
brightcolours said:
GoldRingNikkor said:
proartfoto said:
So what is the problem? What happened there? How come Nikon’s lens the way it is? It seems to me that Nikon engineers where designing this lens on DX test rig.
Click to expand...
BS. This is the effect of the internal focus optical design. I'm not saying the effect is not there. It obviously is. But it's got NOTHING to do with DX, and neither is the lens wrongly labeled as a 200 mm.
Click to expand...
BS too. No other 80-200 or 70-200 shows the same effect, yet all are of "internal focus optical design". I am not saying there are no IF lens designs which do NOT show this.

But there are MANY non-IF lenses that show it (think all 18-2XX/28-200/28-300 ultra zoom lenses).

And there are MANY IF lenses that do NOT show it (all other 70-200 and 80-200 lenses).
Click to expand...
The BS is on your part: the 70-200 VR I has about 181mm at shortest distance, using manufacturers specs; the 80-200 AF-S has 177mm. That is shorter focal length, in my book.

Mike
 
Mike Neary said:
brightcolours said:
GoldRingNikkor said:
proartfoto said:
So what is the problem? What happened there? How come Nikon’s lens the way it is? It seems to me that Nikon engineers where designing this lens on DX test rig.
Click to expand...
BS. This is the effect of the internal focus optical design. I'm not saying the effect is not there. It obviously is. But it's got NOTHING to do with DX, and neither is the lens wrongly labeled as a 200 mm.
Click to expand...
BS too. No other 80-200 or 70-200 shows the same effect, yet all are of "internal focus optical design". I am not saying there are no IF lens designs which do NOT show this.

But there are MANY non-IF lenses that show it (think all 18-2XX/28-200/28-300 ultra zoom lenses).

And there are MANY IF lenses that do NOT show it (all other 70-200 and 80-200 lenses).
Click to expand...
The BS is on your part: the 70-200 VR I has about 181mm at shortest distance, using manufacturers specs; the 80-200 AF-S has 177mm. That is shorter focal length, in my book.

Mike
Click to expand...
And how did you get to these results?

Not by measuring, not from the manufacturer. No, by using a formula that is nonsensical, and you already have been informed of that the formula is nonsense.

Also, me, and a Nikon 80-200 owner, have noted that the lens we own gets longer.
And yes, mine really is internal focusing.

I also have given you formulas that actually make sense, which give very different outcomes. But no, you refuse to use all that information and keep on trolling this baseless nonsense. Thanks for that.
 
I hear what your saying, but I prefer to test drive my new car personally, I read books that I am interested in and not because someone else says to or not, or it wasn't what they expected. What is good for one is not for another, visa,versa. I do read reviews and all are welcome, some help , some don't. I still don't buy or sell unless I am the one who samples and makes that decision, I don't feel everyone should do as I do and have the same expectations as I do, we are all different. I drive a GMC truck yet Ford says their truck is better built. So? I don't agree and someone who has had a bad experience with something or someone is well within their rights to have a say, but dragging the horse through the mud over and over doesn't make sense, make the point, discuss it and move on.

It's What You Learn After You Know It All That Counts !
 
I should not comment about this lens because I will probably never use it but the whole situation reminds my about my experience with Canon EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS (I bought it immediately when it was released).

I returned that lens after a few days of tests because it was not sharp at 200 mm and MFD of 1.2 m (maximum magnification was advertised as 0.21 (at 200mm)). I got another copy and it was the same.

I later discovered (I have had 4 copies and tested another 4) that the lens works properly at MFD up to 165 mm and at 200 m the focusing distance should be at least 2.3 m (almost 7 feet)

This lens is excellent otherwise (I bought it again a year ago) but I have to always remember about this problem. It is a huge issue for me because I use this lens at MFD very often. This is how I use the lens and I felt deceived by advertised maximum magnification.
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
mfurman said:
I should not comment about this lens because I will probably never use it but the whole situation reminds my about my experience with Canon EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS (I bought it immediately when it was released).

I returned that lens after a few days of tests because it was not sharp at 200 mm and MFD of 1.2 m (maximum magnification was advertised as 0.21 (at 200mm)). I got another copy and it was the same.

I later discovered (I have had 4 copies and tested another 4) that the lens works properly at MFD up to 165 mm and at 200 m the focusing distance should be at least 2.3 m (almost 7 feet)
Click to expand...
Hmm? Can you show the problem you had with a photo? I have no problem focussing at 1.2m, or even shorter with a 12mm extension ring.

I would like to see to understand which issue you encountered.
mfurman said:
This lens is excellent otherwise (I bought it again a year ago) but I have to always remember about this problem. It is a huge issue for me because I use this lens at MFD very often. This is how I use the lens and I felt deceived by advertised maximum magnification.
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
Click to expand...
 
brightcolours said:
GoldRingNikkor said:
proartfoto said:
So what is the problem? What happened there? How come Nikon’s lens the way it is? It seems to me that Nikon engineers where designing this lens on DX test rig.
Click to expand...
BS. This is the effect of the internal focus optical design. I'm not saying the effect is not there. It obviously is. But it's got NOTHING to do with DX, and neither is the lens wrongly labeled as a 200 mm.
Click to expand...
BS too. No other 80-200 or 70-200 shows the same effect, yet all are of "internal focus optical design". I am not saying there are no IF lens designs which do NOT show this.
Click to expand...
It is a consequence of internal focus. If you have a better explanation, I'm all ears.
brightcolours said:
But there are MANY non-IF lenses that show it (think all 18-2XX/28-200/28-300 ultra zoom lenses).
Click to expand...
The 18-200 DX VR, which is a very prominent example of this issue, is an IF design. Don't know about the others.
brightcolours said:
And there are MANY IF lenses that do NOT show it (all other 70-200 and 80-200 lenses).
Click to expand...
Not at all, or not to this extent? Well, the debate is on, obviously (given some other posts above), and your statements go contrary to everything I've read about optics so far. But I'm not an expert, so, if you have some reasonable other explanation, put it forward...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top