70-200 VRI vs. 70-200 VRII Nano - Field of View Issue

<p>I was at my local camera store comparing the new nikon 70-200 VRII Nano with my old 70-200 VRI. I took 2 sets of images with both lenses at f2.8 200mm iso 400 with my D3 body. Me and the sales guy couldn't figure out why the VRII doesn't have as much reach as the old VRI. Can anyone explain why there's such a discrepancy between these two lens at the same zoom range?<br /><a href=" Photo</a><br /><br />Mark</p>

<p>Assuming you shot from exactly the same spot, IF would be the likely culprit. Focal lengths are given for the lens focused to infinity - the closer you focus, the more the focal length is changed (decreased) for an IF lens.</p>

<p>It <em>does</em> appear that the two shots with the tape dispenser appear to be focused at different distances.</p>

<p>Did you shoot the objects that are far enough? When the modern lenses (zooms and IF primes) focus to the closer objects, their focal lengths are shortened. To what degree? That should depend on each lens. So, the actual focal lengths of 1st version and 2nd version may have been different when focused at something in the shop, which should cause the discrepancy of AOV.</p>

<p>Just stumbled on a thread on another site going over the same thing, they are both IF zooms so I never would have guessed such a large difference in FOV (at 15-20 feet it looked like 25%)<br>

I know it may sound silly to some of you but I shoot a ton of sports where I cant get closer, the difference between them 2 lenses is significant</p>

<p>Perhaps this is part of the price that's being paid for the different corner behavior on FX bodies. Huh. Now I like my Orginal Recipe version even more!</p>

<p>I get the same effect with the 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX and 35-70/2.8D AF at 70mm settings and close focusing. At close range and 70mm settings the 18-70 is effectively a 55mm focal length, while the 35-70 remains pretty close to a 70mm focal length.</p>

<p>Ha! So that's how Nikon solved the corner problem. They cropped the corners right out of the lens.</p>

<p>What's surprising, though, Lex, is that the two versions of the <em>same</em> (class of) lens would exhibit such dramatically different behavior. It will be interesting to see more formal tests on this.</p>

<p>The camera position was fixed, same object focused on, both lenses at 200mm, all settings equal. I went to the store with the intention of buying the new lens. After I saw these comparisons I went home with a greater appreciation of my VRI. (I will never cheat on her again)</p>

<p>Hi Mark ,I have compared these two lenses. <br>

<br /> In short : My copy of the new lens is not sharper than my old version. Vignetting on full frame cameras <br /> is significantly less pronounced (not entirely eliminated). VR on the new lens works amazingly well. <br /> The new lens is more flare resistant. At close focusing distance (1.27m) the new lens turns into a 130mm lens. <br /> This reduced magnification can still be observed at over 200 ft,however at infinity it is a 200 mm lens.At about 9feet shooting distance the new lens will give you a picture of 164 mm ,the old lens at the same distance gives you 198mm . Any portrait photographer should be aware of this.The new lens handles very well on a large camera body.<br>

I have posted several sample pics @<a href="http://www.pbase.com/deerhog/lens"> http://www.pbase.com/deerhog/lens</a></p>

<p>Although the older VR version is a 21 elements in 15 groups design and the newer VRII version is a 21 elements in 16 groups design, they are radically different optical layouts as one can see by looking at the cross-sections at Nikon Global. So it's probably not at all unexpected that at very close distances the internal focus characteristics would result in possibly significant differences in AOV.<br /> </p><div></div>

<p>What an incredibly illuminating thread. For what it's worth I see a sharper image with the new lens when shooting wide open. I have never been a pixel peeper, but have a 30" monitor. It is pretty easy to spot tack sharp images. I also would have "assumed" that when you set the dial to 200mm, the FL is 200mm. Great thread, thanks for the info.</p>

<p>Your reponses are greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Martin, I was curious about the two lenses; I have Ver 1, and have been aware of the round criticism of its corners for landscape work in particular. I can live with the flare problems. Would that reference you made be to a password protected gallery on your link?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Flame away, but for $2500, I feel that's a pretty significant FOV change (especially the shot of the cleaning tissue). I understand when my cheap 18-200 shrinks when focused closely, but this lens shouldn't be worse than the lens it's supposed to replace. Now I'm going to have to test my trusty non-AFS, non-VR, 80-200 AF-D to see how much FOV I lose when I close focus it . . .</p>

<p>It looks the price to pay to have IF (and a wider image circle) at the same time... the lens` user manual specify this issue several times. It could affect to, e.g., some wedding photogs but not so much to e.g., sports photogs (I guess).</p>

<p>The minimum focus distance is stated at 1.4 meters, at 200mm FL it should mean a tight head portrait. Looks like this lens cannot do that. Bad for some.</p>

<p>I`m now thinking,e.g., on small court`s games, like basketball juniors, where the whole "real" range is needed. The issue is, at what minimum focus distance this new lens act -at least- closer to a "true" 200mm focal lenght?</p>

<p>Out of curiosity, I `ve been checking the magnification charts provided for this lens vs. the AFS200.</p>

<p>Both lenses provide almost the same magnification at the expense of a closer focusing distance for the zoom (AFS200 is 1:8.1 at 1.9meters, the 70-200VRII is 1:8.6 at 1.4meters).</p>

<p>Also, the 70-200VR (1st v.) is specially good with respect to this issue (1:5.6 at 1.4meters!). Actually DX shooters should be more interested in this version, thought.</p>

<p>I have been wondering when people discover a "flaw" in this lens which would make it easier for me to obtain one sooner at a lower price. Now one has been found. Hopefully the 2k barrier will be breached soon (currently 2200€) - I think above that the price is just too high for a lens of this type.</p>

<p>The improved VR and higher contrast should make it interesting to DX users as well, though obviously the shorter reach can be considered a drawback (while it may be a benefit for some portrait applications if the FL reduction also takes place at 70mm).</p>

<p>David ,I have uploaded a pic to the gallery ,that demonstrates the flare and ghosting of the new version. Sorry,but I do not have a direct comparison to the old version.</p>

<p>You guys are like a golf pro who would cheat on his gorgeous wife ; I love my 18-200VR and my new 70-200 VR II . But then again , I'm two timing also . </p>

<p>Has anyone measured the focal length at 70mm at approximately 2-3m distances? I think this could potentially be very useful for full body or half-body portraits if also the short end of the zoom gets wider as much as the long end gets shorter.</p>

<p>Here is a quick comparison from a larger test set of images. Not terribly scientific but it confirms the wider FOV with the VRII lens. But without some specific measurements, I am really not sure which 200mm is really 200mm. They are different, it would appear</p><div></div>

<p>Steven, thanks for your pic. After a rough calculations based on your image, at 10.5ft (=3,46mts) your VRII is showing an area similar to what the VRI would show at a FL near 166mm.</p>

<p>So here are some additional comparisons of the VRI to VRII lens. First shutter speed. Conditions are the same as above except I have varied the shutter speed and aperture in this series.</p><div></div>