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.
So far, the only reason I've seen you say it sucks is because the numbers aren't the same.
Essentially, in the "wedding photographer distance range" of 5 to 20 feet,
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 -
By your own self description, you are notorious for posting only "test photos" and withholding your real work for real purposes. I know you have your reasons for that, as I've read your statement on it. Therefore I find it wildly ironic that you of all people want to start a pi$$ing match over "actual photos." As a matter of practice, I do not put wedding faces on this forum. However, I just did a search of my hard drives on "200mm" and grabbed a few of the first examples that came up. They are not necessarily my best shots nor the best examples, but each of them illustrates a full frame crop from a true 200mm view (190 or better anyway) taken in the trouble zone of 4 to 15 feet. You seem to be rather emotional about denying my actual experience with this lens that you don't even have yet. As to "real world" shots, the one I did with the Rolleiflash and mixer and box is a perfect simulation of a shot that I shoot at pretty much every event, which is what you might call "staggered and compressed heads," which also works for details. If you deny the value of that "test shot," you are being rather irrational and rhetorical just for effect. But like I said, I don't put wedding faces here, so like yourself I show a test shot rather than the real think in that particular instance. Now on to some "actual photos" which the VR2 would produce in poorer form, either due to lack of foreground-background compression, wider AoV in background, less background blur, or less magnification...
First, this bird flew right at my face and was taken in the problem range. If taken with VR2, there would be less BG blur, more AoV in background (busier), and less magnification. Probably still a good image, but not nearly as good (not that I'm a wildlife photog; I'm clearly not!):
This picture of Robert Plant would be at a steeper angle and/or lower magnification and have a less blurred background if shot with VR2. Since you asked about weddings, I can tell you that plenty of shots are taken at this exact range at weddings.
This is a classic table top "wedding detail" shot of 2 flowers, one highly blurred out in background. The VR2 cannot do this nearly the same way, only to a far lesser degree (until of course you add the TC).
This simple ceremony detail would not work as well with VR2 either:
The next three shots are wedding details at or within a couple cm of MFD that the VR2 could not capture nearly the same way (in absence of TC).
This shot of Fogerty would suffer as well, because it is well within the problematic range. Shots of this framing are typically shot at weddings as people come down the aisle, since you want to know about weddings.
This is a
VERY important shot where the VR2 will suffer. This does not look like much, but at 200mm and within the problem range for VR2, this shot from VR1 has enough magnification to easily show the rings on their hands when you zoom in. At this range, the VR2 would look like a 140-150 and have far less magnification of a crucial detail, not to mention the other usual qualitative differences pointed out above.
--
David Hill
http://www.sfbayweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco, CA | Austin, TX
Certified Wedding Photography Junky™
