Nikon 70-200 2.8 VI and FX

[Gabbe]

Do you have the same opinion regarding 70-200 VI and FX (D600)?
http://m.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/7

Regards

 

[Ramon Vaquero]

Yes, the DPreview test is very accurate. It depends on the use you are going to do. The only situation you will notice the lack of corner sharpness is at 200mm with infinite focusing.

With a D800 or D600, setting Image Zone to 1,2X the blurry area disapears completely.

 

[M Lammerse]

Gabbe wrote:

Do you have the same opinion regarding 70-200 VI and FX (D600)?
http://m.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/7

Regards
Hi Gabbe,

I use the 70-200 VR-I lenses already a long time on both DX and FX camera's (from D300 to D3, D700, D3S and D800.)

In all those years I never have anyone complain about images I made with this lens, like less edge sharpness and vignetting on FX cameras'

My opinion is, the VR-I is an excellent performer both on DX and FX camera's but wide open, especially at 70 to 90mm and at the far end the new VR-II version is absolutely better.

Is it worth to upgrade to the II version if you have the I in use, for me not and I use my lenses for my work.

There is an other problem I have with the I version and that is the enormous amount of focus adjustment I have to make on the D800 to get anything sharp above 150mm.

On the D3S, D700 and especially on the D300 this lens is a stellar performer.


Michel

 

[earlgreyhot]

there is a reason why this lens is still $1300-$1500 used

amazing lens

but the VR2 walks away from it in the corners and at 200

however the VR1 is a real 70-200 at close distance

and the VR2 is a 70-135

 

[RBFresno]

earlgreyhot wrote:

there is a reason why this lens is still $1300-$1500 used

amazing lens

but the VR2 walks away from it in the corners and at 200

however the VR1 is a real 70-200 at close distance

and the VR2 is a 70-135

Hi!

Actually the "I" is 80-182 at close focus.

The 70-200VR "II" is 70-134 at close focus/

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm


(Neither quite reach 200mm at infinity, but are close: 196mm for the "I" and 192mm for the "II")

Best Regards,

RB

 

[earlgreyhot]

yeah that's what I said

 

[RBFresno]

earlgreyhot wrote:

yeah that's what I said

Hi!




I was trying to tactfully correct you.





What you said was:"the VR1 is a real 70-200 at close distance"




It's not.





What the facts are is:




The 70-200VR "I" is 80-182 at close focus.

The 70-200VR "II" is 70-134 at close focus/

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm


(Neither quite reach 200mm at infinity, but are close: 196mm for the "I" and 192mm for the "II")




Best Regards,




RB

 

[earlgreyhot]

yeah that's what I said

 

[RBFresno]

earlgreyhot wrote:

yeah that's what I said

I give up....maybe I'm the one who is hallucinating.





But in fact you did say:




What you said was:"the VR1 is a real 70-200 at close distance"







Best Regards,




RB

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges

pbase Artist rbfresno

 

[Gabbe]

Any difference with a 1,7x converter?

Regards

 

[Shotcents]

The loss of magnification on the 70-200 VRII is DREADFUL. Canon did much better. I own the VRII and it's a great lens, but I feel "cheated" by losing so much at close focus. If you used the lens for weddings, portraits and anything 3 meters and closer it's easy to see why so many folks are a bit burned. I laugh when someone says losing 40-70mm is no big deal.

I hope Nikon builds a better 2.8 in a year or two. Fans will defend the VRII, but the only lens that is as bad is the 18-200 (and I think the 28-300), consumer glass. No other pro lens is this bad!




Robert