70-200VRII field of view

Started Dec 1, 2009 | Discussions
Greg Reinacker Contributing Member • Posts: 627
70-200VRII field of view

Hmm...I may have found the one thing about this lens that might not work for me.

As has been reported here, the focal length changes (as it does with many lenses) as the focusing distance changes.

I have only one data point so far, but for me it's relevant. From a distance of roughly 7 feet from the sensor plane to the subject, at 200mm with the VRII, I'm seeing an equivalent field of view to the old VR lens at 155mm.

For me, this is a potential issue...I shoot quite a bit all the way out at 200mm, up close, for things like headshots and the like. I'm going to have to get significantly closer to the subject to get a similar framing now. Not sure that's going to work for what I need - I'll have to do a real test shoot to tell.

Sigh...there's always a tradeoff.

-- hide signature --
Max Green Regular Member • Posts: 267
Re: 70-200VRII field of view

Hmmmm. I don't have the old lens to compare to the VR II.

Are you saying that at 7 feet you're getting 50mm less reach on the new lens?

Max Green

-- hide signature --

Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II (Pending), Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM

OP Greg Reinacker Contributing Member • Posts: 627
Re: 70-200VRII field of view

Indeed. Here are three shots demonstrating this; camera position was the same (within 0.5 inches) for all the shots. Subject to camera distance roughly 7 feet.

-- hide signature --
nikhgan Senior Member • Posts: 1,552
Re: 70-200VRII field of view

This is a serious issue. How can Nikon let it pass the QA test?

Greg Reinacker wrote:

Hmm...I may have found the one thing about this lens that might not work for me.

As has been reported here, the focal length changes (as it does with many lenses) as the focusing distance changes.

I have only one data point so far, but for me it's relevant. From a distance of roughly 7 feet from the sensor plane to the subject, at 200mm with the VRII, I'm seeing an equivalent field of view to the old VR lens at 155mm.

For me, this is a potential issue...I shoot quite a bit all the way out at 200mm, up close, for things like headshots and the like. I'm going to have to get significantly closer to the subject to get a similar framing now. Not sure that's going to work for what I need - I'll have to do a real test shoot to tell.

Sigh...there's always a tradeoff.

-- hide signature --
lock Veteran Member • Posts: 6,200
That makes me wonder how it would be at 135 and 100 mm as well.

It's hard to believe thathe old one had too much tele on it, so this is probably one of the build compromizes in the new one. Question is if this happens all through the range at these shorter distances. And at what distance does the effect disappear ?

lock

sugar Senior Member • Posts: 2,136
Normal design compromise

This is probably due to the higher magnification the lens is capable... Just like all other lenses, the lens becomes 'shorter' when reaching it's closest focussing distance (just like a 200 mm Micro is only '200 mm' at telework)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I've tried to shoot rulers but my printer backfocusses.

http://supermasj.zenfolio.com/

Antoine Palade Contributing Member • Posts: 589
Re: Normal design compromise

sugar wrote:

This is probably due to the higher magnification the lens is capable... Just like all other lenses, the lens becomes 'shorter' when reaching it's closest focussing distance (just like a 200 mm Micro is only '200 mm' at telework)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I've tried to shoot rulers but my printer backfocusses.

http://supermasj.zenfolio.com/

Indeed. Might only be at shorter distances, i.e. 7ft in your example. What happens when you shoot a subject at a greater distance? Same issue?

slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,071
Re: 70-200VRII field of view

They are a different design, the old one being narrower. They will both be the same at infinity, but they will vary slightly at closer differences with the closest distance being the most obvious.
Would it really have bothered you unless you compared the two side by side?

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1
fpessolano Senior Member • Posts: 1,132
Re: 70-200VRII field of view

It is a normal trade-off, but this seems too extreme for me..
This post removed any potential doubt for me to get the new one.

Apart that I am more than happy with the old one on FX (mind I do not need sharp corners) ... I shoot not at infinity and i need the zoom. In fact, 200 is even short for me.

Good, I can safely keep saving for something else now

Francesco

****************
webpage: http://www.thefoodtraveller.com/blog

OP Greg Reinacker Contributing Member • Posts: 627
Re: 70-200VRII field of view

slimandy wrote:

Would it really have bothered you unless you compared the two side by side?

Good question. I'm going to have to do a real test shoot (as opposed to shooting my stove!) to find out.

-- hide signature --
Octane Senior Member • Posts: 2,993
wow, big difference

wow that is quite a difference. I would have been fine with a small difference, but 155 mm vs 200 mm is a huge difference!

I'm using mine on the leng end a lot. I would hate to loose that reach.

-- hide signature --
Lasse Eisele
Lasse Eisele Senior Member • Posts: 1,766
Suggestion

Don't know if it'll work for you, but you could get around the problem by using a Kenko extension tube. Even the thinnest tube might be enough.
I understand your disappointment though.

Regards
Lasse

tundracamper Senior Member • Posts: 1,818
Re: 70-200VRII field of view

So does that mean all the lens sharpness comparisons being done now might be invalid? I know my VR1 is much sharper at 150/2.8 than at 200/2.8.

Max Green Regular Member • Posts: 267
Re: 70-200VRII field of view

tundracamper wrote:

So does that mean all the lens sharpness comparisons being done now might be invalid? I know my VR1 is much sharper at 150/2.8 than at 200/2.8.> > >

My 70-200 II is now going back.

I'm sorry, but Nikon messed up badly. I'm a working pro and so are many of my friends. Except for one person, we're all returning the lens. Even my friend who teaches photography is returning his.

The lens is HUGELY short of the old version. It's not a minor compromise, nor is it mirrored to this degree by other lenses of this type. It's 70mm short at close focus. Are they kidding!

Max Green

-- hide signature --

Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II (Pending), Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM

em_dee_aitch Veteran Member • Posts: 3,675
Re: 70-200VRII field of view

Max Green wrote:

The lens is HUGELY short of the old version. It's not a minor compromise, nor is it mirrored to this degree by other lenses of this type. It's 70mm short at close focus. Are they kidding!

Ditto... I really just want to join this thread.

-- hide signature --

David Hill
http://www.sfbayweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco, CA | Austin, TX
Certified Wedding Photography Junky™

Adrian Diaz New Member • Posts: 16
Read the Maximum Reproduction Ratio

I found these specifications on the Nikon Canada website.

Lens Closest focusing distance Maximum Reproduction Ratio (at 200mm)

70-200mm VR / 1.5m (in AF) , (1.4m in MF) / 1:6.1

70-200mm VR II / 1.4m (in AF) / 0.12x (which means 1:8.3)

It means the new one behaves closer to 140mm at close distances. These specs make the older 70-200mm a true Nikon classic.
--
Adrian Diaz

Max Green Regular Member • Posts: 267
Re: Read the Maximum Reproduction Ratio

Adrian Diaz wrote:

I found these specifications on the Nikon Canada website.

Lens Closest focusing distance Maximum Reproduction Ratio (at 200mm)

70-200mm VR / 1.5m (in AF) , (1.4m in MF) / 1:6.1

70-200mm VR II / 1.4m (in AF) / 0.12x (which means 1:8.3)

It means the new one behaves closer to 140mm at close distances. These specs make the older 70-200mm a true Nikon classic.
--
Adrian Diaz

I agree....and I think the new one will be as well. Perfectionists will now but the new version AND keep the old....or buy the new and add the 200mm VR.

Nikon wins. The new version is "better" but not at close focus 185mm....which it absolutely can't do!

Max Green

-- hide signature --

Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II (Pending), Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM

Nikonparrothead Veteran Member • Posts: 5,060
Didn't the 18-200 VR have a similar issue?

... then again, it throws a whole knew variable into the equation.

One will someday be able to choose from constant aperture or constant focal length lenses...

-- hide signature --

'Nice pen, bet you write good stories with it.'

 Nikonparrothead's gear list:Nikonparrothead's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1 Canon PowerShot S95 Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon Coolpix A Panasonic LX100 +13 more
Adrian Diaz New Member • Posts: 16
Re: Didn't the 18-200 VR have a similar issue?

I forgot to add something.

A similar issue, regarding the 18-200mm VR (old) made me dump that lens to get the 16-85mm VR (and weight/size, 72mm filters, zoom creep, wobbly extension, the VR system was much more noisier when engaging, the focus ring had some play...! ) The 18-200mm VR was more like a 130mm at close distances. I always got a better telephoto look with my 70-300mm VR because the lens was in fact LONGER at the same marked focal lengths.

Now going back to the debate with the two 70-200mm lenses still on the market, we should have realized before about the impact that the physical shortening of the lens barrel of the new VR II must have on reproduction ratios and focal length changes at close focus distances.

Both lenses are 70-200mm with f/2.8. The new one is shorter, and both use the same 77mm front filters...

-- hide signature --

Adrian Diaz

Adrian Diaz New Member • Posts: 16
Re: Read the Maximum Reproduction Ratio

True, we are all suckers who happily spend big amounts of money on Nikon gear that non-photographers would think is insane.

I have NAS. At least I admit it, it's the first step in a twelve step program...
--
Adrian Diaz

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads