Nikon 70-200 2.8 vs 200mm f2

Started Jun 12, 2012 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
historianx Senior Member • Posts: 2,611
Re: Nikon 70-200 2.8 vs 200mm f2

Kali108 wrote:

Lastly, it's a "real" 200mm! (no "breathing"). I do a lot of beauty / fashion work - so this is a significant issue for me.

I get so sick of the overblown Focus Breathing argument.  Yes, if you're shooting at 200mm at 4.6 feet minimum focus distance, yes the lens will compensate by "breathing."  But so what?  It's part of the optical design!

A couple years ago, a friend that has the 200/2 VR1 and I set up a subject at 30 feet, with both cameras and lenses on tripods at equal distance from the subject.  I shot at 200mm wide open, and she shot at 200/2.8, and guess what?  Both images were identical, both in view and exif data recorded.  We then used her 70-200 VRII at 180mm, my 180/2.8 at 180mm, and guess what? AGAIN both images were identical in view and EXIF data recorded.

Going a little wider, we shot the same subject/distance with her 135/2 DC and my 70-200 VRII at 135mm, and... again, NO difference between images and exif data recorded.

So while yes in EXTREMELY close focus distance, as in attempting to do macro shots,  the lens breathes, but I don't know any photographer worth his/her credentials that does this with people at four-and-a-half feet.   Or even ten.

I DO agree that the 200/2VRII is a superior lens, but then it's more than twice the price.

-- hide signature --
 historianx's gear list:historianx's gear list
Sigma dp0 Quattro Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D7100 Nikon D750 Fujifilm X100S +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow