Those AWFUL 70-200 Nikon Zooms! ;-) Locked

Started Feb 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
HSway Veteran Member • Posts: 3,137
Re: Those AWFUL 70-200 Nikon Zooms! ;-)

Shotcents wrote:

I added the smiley face, BUT I am actually a bit serious about it. After trying the newest version of the Canon 70-200 2.8 I'm left shaking my head at Nikon's subpar efforts. It's very simple to break down.

1) Nikon 70-200 VRII - This lens is wonderful in ALMOST every way. It's even a bit better than the Canon optically, but the VRII has one insanely bad element. Focus breathing. What kind of two-bit engineer redesigns a classic zoom, often listed among the best for portraits and wedding work, and then leaves it with the worst focus breathing this side of the 18-200vr DX? You just paid well over 2 grand for a 70-200 that is actually a 65-133mm lens. I love mine, but I'd really like a lens that actually gets something close to 200mm since that's what I paid for.

2) Nikon 70-200 VR F4 - Oh my! I hate this lens. It's great. Great optics. Great handling. It holds much more of it's 200mm at close focus and it has very good VR. And then Nikon made it an F4. For gods sakes if I want anything close to the 2.8 and 200mm of any of these lenses I'm left with...the 70-200 VR1.

3) Nikon 70-200 VRI - Let's face it. This is still the best design. It's sharp. It's beautifully built. It has some softness in the corners, but that's not going to effect folks who use it for what it was designed for. Optically it's a step behind the VRII, but it's a small step. And you get a lens quite close to a true 70-200mm. Well done, Nikon of yesteryear!

Now....if you want a Nikon lens that does what the Canon version does so well, you need to buy TWO of them!

And that's my Monday rant. I hope a new 70-200 2.8 won't be too far off.


I tend to forgive a weak point of my lens (or two) in light of its excellence in other and main areas. I think that exactly would be the case with the 70-200/2.8 ll. I mean I wouldn’t compromise, not even slightly, in any other area for getting higher MM. Do you need high magnifications close or at MFD? It sounds like for more specialised use. correct me if wrong. How about keeping the excellent 300/4  next to the 70-200/2.8 ll for much better MM plus gain in working distance and reach. For close-ups the lack of VR doesn’t matter as you’d use a tripod and the quality/magnification/price is very very good with this lens imo.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow