Nikon 70-200 Vr1 vs Sigma 70-200 OS focus breathing

[Locrian]

Hi

I'm very close on deciding which of these 2 lenses to buy for my Nikon D90. I have excluded the nikon 70-200 Vr2 immediately because of the focus breathing issue, as for me the fact that it ends up being an 135mm lens from close distance is a major show stopper.

Can you please tell me if the new Sigma 70-200 OS has the same focus breathing issues from close distance as the new Nikon Vr2? or is it very similar to the first Vr1?

I tried googleing on this but I didn't find much...

Regards,
Mihai
--
Pushing the Nikon D90
http://floppyrom.deviantart.com/gallery/

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

I cannot answer your question directly, but all Nikon lenses except the 50mm f1.8 and 85mm PC and probbaly all Sigma lenses are affected by "focus breathing" as it is currently fashionable to call the effect between infinity and minimum focus.

Nikon claimed the Mk 1 had the least focus breathing of all their zoom lenses when it was in production. The Nikon Mk 1 at 200mm minimum focus covers a subject 9.15 inches wide on FX at 1.5 meters.

I am sure there is similar information on the Sigma web site for you to make a comparison.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Good photography is mainly about doing simple things well. The challenge is doing simple things well enough for good results.

 

[Locrian]

Indeed, this is a known fact. I was only trying to establish the numbers here.

From Thorn Hogan's review on the new 70-200 vr2 I got those numbers

200mm at close focus: http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm
Vr1: 182mm
Vr2: 134mm

I just wonder where does the sigma 70-200 OS finds itself at 200mm at close focus

I cannot answer your question directly, but all Nikon lenses except the 50mm f1.8 and 85mm PC and probbaly all Sigma lenses are affected by "focus breathing" as it is currently fashionable to call the effect between infinity and minimum focus.

Nikon claimed the Mk 1 had the least focus breathing of all their zoom lenses when it was in production. The Nikon Mk 1 at 200mm minimum focus covers a subject 9.15 inches wide on FX at 1.5 meters.

I am sure there is similar information on the Sigma web site for you to make a comparison.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Good photography is mainly about doing simple things well. The challenge is doing simple things well enough for good results.

--
Pushing the Nikon D90
http://floppyrom.deviantart.com/gallery/

 

[Milner]

Hi

I'm very close on deciding which of these 2 lenses to buy for my Nikon D90. I have excluded the nikon 70-200 Vr2 immediately because of the focus breathing issue, as for me the fact that it ends up being an 135mm lens from close distance is a major show stopper.

Can you please tell me if the new Sigma 70-200 OS has the same focus breathing issues from close distance as the new Nikon Vr2? or is it very similar to the first Vr1?

I tried googleing on this but I didn't find much...

Regards,
Mihai
--
Pushing the Nikon D90
http://floppyrom.deviantart.com/gallery/

I rented a vr2 and really love it. I shot a sigma 70-200 2.8 and it was disappointing. The vr2 is one of those lenses that makes it impossible to not get a pretty shot with.

The focus breathing? never noticed it. the vr1 is supposedly less sharp corner to corner on ff.

me i would not depend on a sigma for a lens that expensive.

so in you case go vr1 but my advice is get the vr2 and be happy

 

[xenon-mkd]

VR2 is an awesome 65-135mm zoom

Get the 70-200 vr1, sigma is too soft

 

[Locrian]

Yes, that is what I'm starting to realize. The test photos from Thorn's VR2 review were a real blow for my enthusiasms...

The guys from photozone.de forum confirmed that the new sigma os suffers from the same nasty issue (focus breathing) plus other quality problems (they had to return theirs to sigma to repair it)...so I think I'll keep an eye on the second hand offer and hunt for a Nikon VR1. It's main issue, vignetting, can be easily fixed with software.

Below is the magnification data for other lenses in this class:

Tamron 70-200mm f2.8: MFD 0.95m, max. mag. 1:3.1
Sigma 70-200mm EX DG HSM Macro II: MFD 1m, max. mag. 1:3.57
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II: MFD 1.2m, max. mag. 1:4.76
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 SSM G: MFD 1.2m, max. mag. 1:5
Pentax 80-200mm f2.8: MFD 1.4m, max. mag. 1:5
Max. Magnification at MFD of Nikon 70-200 VR I: 1/5.6
Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 D: MFD 1.5m, max. mag. 1:5.9
Max. Magnification at MFD of Sigma 70-200 OS: 1:8
Max. Magnification at MFD of Nikon 70-200 VR II: 1:8.33

So the Nikon VR2 is the worst in this class

The Vr2 is very nice if you focus at infinity or on distances bigger than 10m. Otherwise, like you said it turns into a 135mm lens

VR2 is an awesome 65-135mm zoom

Get the 70-200 vr1, sigma is too soft

--
Pushing the Nikon D90
http://floppyrom.deviantart.com/gallery/

 

[Big Daddie]

You have to ask yourself if the focus breathing is really going to make a difference in your shots. There's plenty of documentation on this but real world usage is what counts.

Personally, I think it's a vastly overrated issue. But there are copious Internet debates over this and some folks are set, many without even trying the two lenses.

Some folks claim that it hurts the lens for portraits. Well, the much-loved 85/1.4 portrait lens has a maximum magnification ratio of 1:8.8 -- worse than the 70-200 VR II.

I replaced my 70-200 VR with the VR II while I was still shooting a D90, and have upgraded to the D7000. The VR II is great, and the focus breathing doesn't interfere with what I do with it.

I find the VR II to be a bit sharper in the middle where it counts -- 200mm at f/2.8. It takes TC's better than the VR I. And my VR I was a good copy, just having been tuned by Nikon. You might want to look at reviews at Photozone and SLRGear.com when most of the used VR I's they tested had problems. Photozone found good results in only 2 out of 6 samples in a recent test.

The real problem with the VR II is its price, especially given the recent price hikes (at least in the USA, don't know what your prices are like).

By the way, there is no vignetting problem with the 70-200 VR I on a D90. It's only on full-frame where you see it more.

 

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

I just sold my 70-200 VR (1) after buying a VR2. Before I sold the VR1, I tested both to see if "focus breathing" would be an issues for me. It was not.

Actually, I found the VR2 to work better for me due to the breathing. With the VR1, when I got close I had to switch to a shorter lens (24-70). But with the VR2 I can get much closer without switching lenses. So rather than be a problem, it turned into advantage.

In effect, there was almost no overlap between the 24-70 and the 70-200 VR1. If the subject was in the 70mm "range" and moving around, I had to switch between the two lenses (mounted on separate bodies). With more overlap between the 24-70 and 70-200 VR2 (at close ranges), there is a larger space where either lens will work.

If that doesn't make sense, think about a bride dancing or moving around at a reception where I'm stuck and can't move.

--
Ken Elliott
Equipment in profile.

 

[Tommot1965]

test shots between a VR1 and Vr2..I too find the focus breathing a advantage in some circumstances

VR1





VR2

 

[Locrian]

From what distance were these taken? If it's > 10m the focus breathing dissapears

test shots between a VR1 and Vr2..I too find the focus breathing a advantage in some circumstances

VR1





VR2

--
Pushing the Nikon D90
http://floppyrom.deviantart.com/gallery/

 

[Tommot1965]

the distance was over 25 metres..possibly more..I didn't post them to show focus breathing..but rather the sharpness of the VRII over the VRI

I sometimes shoot outside basketball games..the focus breathing in that situation is a asset with the VrII on a D300s...perhaps not so much if I was shooting FF....but even with that I doubt the lack of reach would be a issue as 70 MM is sometimes too close if the players are near me

 

[cluna]

the distance was over 25 metres..possibly more..I didn't post them to show focus breathing..but rather the sharpness of the VRII over the VRI

I sometimes shoot outside basketball games..the focus breathing in that situation is a asset with the VrII on a D300s...perhaps not so much if I was shooting FF....but even with that I doubt the lack of reach would be a issue as 70 MM is sometimes too close if the players are near me

Did you use live view or phase detect AF? seems the top is more out of focus

-C

 

[Tommot1965]

the distance was over 25 metres..possibly more..I didn't post them to show focus breathing..but rather the sharpness of the VRII over the VRI

I sometimes shoot outside basketball games..the focus breathing in that situation is a asset with the VrII on a D300s...perhaps not so much if I was shooting FF....but even with that I doubt the lack of reach would be a issue as 70 MM is sometimes too close if the players are near me

Did you use live view or phase detect AF? seems the top is more out of focus

-C

phase detect..using a tripod...the pictures are a 200% crop...heres 100%...sorry I dont have the originals any more

 

[thegreatxing]

I usually shoot with Nikon bodies and lenses and will remain so. I have the Nikon 14-24 and the Nikon 24-70 and I wanted a 70-200 to complete my holy trinity but the focus breathing issue of the VR II is a show stopper for me even though I heard many good things about this lens.

Fortunately for me, I also use Canon SLRs and lenses, which makes me a "Canikon" system user. I have been using the canon 70-200 f4L IS for a while and I love the excellent IQ that the lens produced. I wish Nikon would make an equivalent lens like that for Nikon users. It is such a wonderful lens to use.

After comparing Nikon's 70-200 f2.8 to Canon's 70-200 f2.8, I decided that I will go for Canon's version due to Nikon's focus breathing issue and Canon's better IQ over Nikon's IQ. I am saving up for the new Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II as it has no focus breathing issue and is very sharp. Hopefully by end of this year's holiday season, I will be able to complete my "Canikon" holy trinity with the Nikon 14-24 f2.8, Nikon 24-70 f2.8, and Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II.

Personally I would not buy the Sigma's version if I am going to spend that kind of money for a lens. Might as well shell out more money for either the Nikon or Canon's version.

 

[Daniel Morris]

After comparing Nikon's 70-200 f2.8 to Canon's 70-200 f2.8, I decided that I will go for Canon's version due to Nikon's focus breathing issue and Canon's better IQ over Nikon's IQ. I am saving up for the new Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II as it has no focus breathing issue and is very sharp. Hopefully by end of this year's holiday season, I will be able to complete my "Canikon" holy trinity with the Nikon 14-24 f2.8, Nikon 24-70 f2.8, and Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II.

Not sure why you say the Nikon's IQ is not as good as the Canon's. Photozone tests put them at about equal, with Nikon beating the Canon in center sharpness across the range. I would say they are comparable, it is just a Canon versus Nikon thing. Nikon does focus breathe to an extreme, so if that is a problem for you shooting style, the Canon is the better lens, but some prefer that compromise. But this is not uncommon and any IF lens does it to a certain degree. The Canon focus breathes as well, just not to the degree of the Nikon.

 

[thegreatxing]

Not sure why you say the Nikon's IQ is not as good as the Canon's. Photozone tests put them at about equal, with Nikon beating the Canon in center sharpness across the range. I would say they are comparable, it is just a Canon versus Nikon thing. Nikon does focus breathe to an extreme, so if that is a problem for you shooting style, the Canon is the better lens, but some prefer that compromise. But this is not uncommon and any IF lens does it to a certain degree. The Canon focus breathes as well, just not to the degree of the Nikon.

You're right. Both lenses are equally sharp according to Photozone and Canon have some focus breathing as well but not to the level of Nikon. I should have looked closely at the MTF charts between the two lens on Photozone. My Canon 70-200 f4L IS is very sharp and according to Photozone, the new Canon's 2.8II suppose to be slightly sharper than it's little brother, the f4L IS. This makes me even more excited about buying this lens when I get all my funds together. I think Nikon's version is very good as well base on what I read on different forums and review sites as I have never use one. I am just happy that I can choose between the two.

 

[Daniel Morris]

Not sure why you say the Nikon's IQ is not as good as the Canon's. Photozone tests put them at about equal, with Nikon beating the Canon in center sharpness across the range. I would say they are comparable, it is just a Canon versus Nikon thing. Nikon does focus breathe to an extreme, so if that is a problem for you shooting style, the Canon is the better lens, but some prefer that compromise. But this is not uncommon and any IF lens does it to a certain degree. The Canon focus breathes as well, just not to the degree of the Nikon.

You're right. Both lenses are equally sharp according to Photozone and Canon have some focus breathing as well but not to the level of Nikon. I should have looked closely at the MTF charts between the two lens on Photozone. My Canon 70-200 f4L IS is very sharp and according to Photozone, the new Canon's 2.8II suppose to be slightly sharper than it's little brother, the f4L IS. This makes me even more excited about buying this lens when I get all my funds together. I think Nikon's version is very good as well base on what I read on different forums and review sites as I have never use one. I am just happy that I can choose between the two.

The benefits of being a dual system user!