How can I find out? Nikon 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II Focus Breathing

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by bebu_lamar, Nov 29, 2014.

  1. I watched this video from that guy Tony Northrup and he said the current Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 lens is only 70-140 at close distance. I think he said the truth but how do I find out without buying the lens because no where in the specifications said so.
     
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    This is another one of those "tampest in a tea cup" issue. When I reviewed the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR, I have a comparison among four lenses at 200mm to check the so called "focus breathing" issue: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-70-200-f4-ed-vr-af-s-zoom-lens-review
    The 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II indeed has the strongest breathing, but pretty much all 70-200 zooms have that issue. It is merely a matter of the degree of breathing. I don't have a way to measure "true" focal length, but most likely the other lenses are only 170mm or so when focused to 7 feet.
    I am also no lens design expert, but most likely it involves different optical compromise. The older 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR has less breathing, but it is well known that at 200mm, its corner sharpness is terrible, at any aperture. I have both lenses and the VR II is clearly the better lens, at a higher cost.
    Moreover, any lens' official focal length is always measured when the lens is focused to infinity.
    [​IMG]
     
  3. I know about the specific problem (or feature) but my question is a general one. How do I know if a lens has this problem without doing some testing? It's not really a problem but it's something one might need to know before purchasing.
     
  4. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    How do I know if a lens has this problem without doing some testing?​
    You don't, because in practical terms, it really is not a problem. Similar to the D800E/D810 moire issue, it can happen to any DSLR in fairly rare occasions, although it can be very annoying when it happens. However, certain web sites like to emphasis these "issues." I think they just want to show off to the average readers to generate the impression that those bloggers are "experts" with special knowledge. In reality, such information are not all that useful to most photographers, who are much better off focusing on basic composition and lighting issues. It is more for nerds who would like to learn about trivia.
    Bob Atkins has a more thorough discussion on focus breathing: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_breathing_focal_length_changes.html
    For example, as Bob points out, some AF zooms only move a small group of elements to focus in order to focus faster, but that affects the focal length. I certainly wouldn't favor a 70-200mm/f2.8 with slow and inaccurate AF but has little or no focus breathing.
     
  5. You should be able to find this information by reading the test reviews. As others have said, it is not necessarily a problem, it is just the way the lens was designed. There are basically two ways to make a lens focus closer. One is to extend the lens away from the sensor and the other is to reduce its focal length. Often manufacturers use a combination in some of their lens designs.
     
  6. I think he said the truth but how do I find out without buying the lens because no where in the specifications said so.
    Well, there is a thread here in photo.net where I think there were the very first posts about the real data about the 70-200/2.8VRII "focus breath"; I cannot remember if the lens was released yet.

    Just look for the user`s manual or the instructions sheet, at the magnification/distance charts. The VRII ones were published in the Nikon site maybe at the announcement or at the release. You can easily get the equivalent focal length by applying a simple formula. BTW, I try to remember that this guy is wrong; the shortest equivalent focal length is about 136mm, not 140 (lens set at 200mm).
    And as (I think it was) Rorslett pointed out at that time, a good level of magnification is kept with the short focusing distance. Not a remedy, but certainly diminish the issue.
    Any lens without focus breath would certainly be better, but I also would like them with much smaller bulks, non-retrofocus performance, maximum sharpness in the whole focusing distances, free of color fringing, etc., etc... What Shun says; at the end, the issue in the VRII is not disturbing at all, with a couple exceptions. I think it is one of the best lenses I`ve ever used.
     
  7. This guy said he can't use the lens and instead using the Canon equivalent because he need a near 200mm lens to do close up portrait. I did say it could be a feature just that I wonder how to find out the information before purchasing.
     
  8. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    This guy said he can't use the lens and instead using the Canon equivalent because he need a near 200mm lens to do close up portrait.​
    That sounds more like someone who uses this as an excuse for yet another silly Canon is superior to Nikon (and vice versa) discussion. For one thing the Canon equivalent is not "true" 200mm at close distance either, and there are plenty of Nikon lenses that have less focus breathing, as shown by the comparison I did for the 70-200mm/f4 review.
     
  9. "silly" ? ? ?
    why the fact that Nikanon is superior to Canikon is the life's blood of many a heated post. Keeps the participants all stirred up and eager to deal another telling blow (hard). :)
     
  10. I certainly agree with you Shun that the guy is trying to say that Canon is better. He tried to find all the reason why not going with Nikon. He said version 1 of the lens doens't have as much breathing but isn't sharp at 200mm @ f/2.8. And Nikon doesn't have a 200mm f/2.8 he didn't say that he could get the 200mm f/2.
     
  11. not a huge problem in the field, although it can be noticable when shooting close up. as long as you know the distance at whitch the breathing kicks in, you can work around it easy. the 180/2.8's close focus distance is 1.5m so if you really need more magnification from between 4.5 and 7 ft. there's always that.
     
  12. Actually, the thing in the video is about perspective; the maximum magnification is not an issue at all. (BTW, that perspective portrait sample is a bit unlucky, isn`t it?)
    Just to add to Eric`s post, a 200/2 would be even better for the task, with an even more blurred background. Looks like this guy like flattered faces, so why not a 200-400/4, with an "endless" flatering effect, and higher magnification background details as well? Sincerely, I rarely take my 300mm for portraiture, nor even my 180.
    BTW, "classic" portrait lenses use to came from 85 to 135mm... with the acclaimed 105DC in the middle.
    There is not reason to say less is better here, that`s obvious; but it is also a hard task to convince people that this issue is not that limiting in the real life. For those with Tony`s very same taste and very same needs, it could. He knows that his shooting percentage fit this range. My statistics run near the shorter end.
    I`m currently shooting that close face portraits with a 180mm in 6x7 (90-100mm FX equivalent). Perhaps a little in the short side, maybe I`d like to use a 250mm better. Should I use a 350-500mm lens for that task? Not sure...
     
  13. This guy said he can't use the lens and instead using the Canon equivalent because he need a near 200mm lens to do close up portrait.​
    I wonder how much the guy has to move to get the same framing... A step? A half a step? maybe (horrors) a step and a half.
    This is what happens when we read too much on the internet.
     
  14. The distance is significant and not about walking but the different distances gives him different perspectives, otherwise he can certainly fill the frame with a 50mm lens.
     
  15. "You don't, because in practical terms, it really is not a problem." - In what universe is a lens that's supposed to be 200mm shrinking to ~150mm at closer than 10ft not a problem?
    This never used to happen that drastically with older 80-200 and 70-210mm zoom designs. So why should we lately have to put up with being robbed of 50mm reach with closer subjects? Those older designs clearly show that it doesn't have to go with the territory. As does the newer 70-200mm f/4 zoom Nikkor.
    FWIW I can confirm that all the current 70-200mm f/2.8 designs from Nikon, Tamron and Sigma shrink in the wash. All have a similar focus hyperventilation problem. Nice sharp optics they may be, but when I pay for a 70-200mm lens, then that's what I expect to get. Not something that becomes 60-150mm or so if I point it at a subject a few feet away. I have a 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E zoom already thanks.
     
  16. Joe I think in recently years they did it because internal focusing is easier for AF and it's easier to make constant aperture zoom if the focal length isn't that much longer.
     
  17. Well lets see first of focal length for any lenses is measured with the lens focused at infinity. So Nikon did not misslead anyone when the 70-200 is shorter at close distances. Second all lenses breath and not just moderately priced lenses like the Nikon 70-200. Even the very high end lenses made for motion picture photography breath.
    If you need 200mm at ten feet then buy the 200 f/4 Micro and deal with it.
     
  18. Not all lens breath. Lens that breath has more complex focusing mechanism than lens that don't.
     
  19. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    "You don't, because in practical terms, it really is not a problem." - In what universe is a lens that's supposed to be 200mm shrinking to ~150mm at closer than 10ft not a problem?
    This never used to happen that drastically with older 80-200 and 70-210mm zoom designs. So why should we lately have to put up with being robbed of 50mm reach with closer subjects? Those older designs clearly show that it doesn't have to go with the territory. As does the newer 70-200mm f/4 zoom Nikkor.​
    Rodeo Joe, if you are willing to take some time to read the earlier posts, you might not have asked those questions again. As Michael Bradtke reiterated again, a lens' official focus length is always measured when focused to infinity. If you think any 70-200mm zoom by any brand will maintain its 200mm focal length at its closest focusing distance, it is merely your own misunderstanding.
    Bob Atkins has explained why modern f2.8 zoom involve such compromises: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_breathing_focal_length_changes.html
    That is a link I have posted before.
    I certainly agree with you Shun that the guy is trying to say that Canon is better. He tried to find all the reason why not going with Nikon.​
    BeBu, as far as I know, Canon also makes excellent cameras and lenses. Like anybody else, this guy has the right to use whatever equipment he prefers. If he would also like to trash Nikon in the mean time, that is his right also. However, I hope that next time, you'll be smart enough not to bring this kind of silly Canon vs. Nikon trash talk into this forum.
     
  20. BeBu
    If the lens has a focusing helical in it it will breath when you focus it.
     
  21. Shun! I didn't bring the Canon vs Nikon trash into the forum you did!
    I just ask how do one know if the lens has breathing and by how much by simply research information available from the manufacturers. That was all.
     
  22. "If you think any 70-200mm zoom by any brand will maintain its 200mm focal length at its closest focusing distance, it is merely your own misunderstanding."​
    Thanks for that patronising response Shun (and Michael), but I can show you several AF/IF zooms, notably the old Sigma/Vivitar 70-210 f/2.8 AF Apo and it's more recent replacement, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 AF-D EX Apo that definitely do not show such a ridiculous degree of focal length shrinkage. Agreed, there's no current VR/VC/OS 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that doesn't shrivel up and die when focused close, but don't tell me that it's technically impossible to make a lens that doesn't lose 1/4 of it's focal length and magnification when focused to 6ft or so. Indeed, Nikon's own 70-200 f/4 VR zoom has much less of a problem with its optical airways.
    Those two Sigma lenses I cited above are both IF designs that keep a constant physical length, so the drastic FL shrinkage has nothing to do with Infernal Focusing.
    Edit: It's not the fact that the Nikon/Tamron/Sigma 70-200mm lenses "breathe" that I'm taking issue with, but the degree to which they do it. Shun - have a good look at your own example pictures. Does the VR II magnification at closest distance really look acceptable in your view? Compared to the other lenses, the clock covers about half their area, and that's like using a 6 Megapixel camera instead of the 12 Megapixel D700 that you actually used.
     
  23. Funny how you find the statement of a fact patronizing RJ. I also find it kind of humorous how you hold the Sigma lens up as a paragon to non breathing with your previously stated disdain for Sigma lenses....
     
  24. Fact? Haaaaaaahhahaahhaha! Seems more like a defence of the indefensible to me.
    And I was really saying that if a company like Sigma can do it, then any fool should be able to.
    Edit: To actually answer Bebu's original and fairly uncontentious question. Bebu, I think the only way to find out is to hire or otherwise try out these lenses. The drastic FL loss is obviously something that optical companies would like to keep quite quiet about. However, they often hide the maximum magnification away in the specifications somewhere. The higher the ratio the worse the lens will be for a like focusing distance.
     
  25. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Shun - have a good look at your own example pictures. Does the VR II magnification at closest distance really look acceptable in your view?​
    Of course that is just fine. I didn't buy the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II to capture subjects from 7 feet away. For that, I already have the 200mm/f4 AF-D Macro. Typically, I use that lens for subjects that are 20, 30 feet or even farther away, where any focal length change is negligible. That is why I always find this topic silly, because people keep on hammering on "issues" where that is not how 70-200mm lenses are typically used.
    Rodeo Joe, have you read Bob Atkins' web page on focus breathing yet? I have only referenced it twice on this thread.
    There is a big difference between f4 and f2.8. Nikon's 70-200mm/f4 is a lot lighter and that I why I am interested in getting one for hiking and travel even though I already have the f2.8. The front elements on the f2.8 are much larger and therefore moving them to AF and stopping them when focus is achieved is harder. Bob explains that modern f2.8 zooms only move some smaller center elements to focus, in order to get faster and more accurate AF. The trade off is that the focal length will vary more when you focus.
    Years ago I had the original 80-200mm/f2.8 AF. Needless to say, AF was slow and once it reached focus, the momentum tend to move the elements further so that it hunt back and forth a lot. Additionally, modern lenses have VR/IS. Most of the current designs do not move the VR elements during focusing.
    In my example above, I chose a very close focus, 7 feet, to show the difference among the various 200mm lenses. It should be obvious the even the other 70-200mm zooms have focus breathing compared to the 200mm/f4 macro. However, in the more usual 20, 30 feet distance, the difference is pretty small.
    Would you prefer slow AF, a lot of focus hunting back and forth, and no VR? If so, there are plenty of older lenses to choose from. Or you can give up f2.8 and choose an f4 lens. To me, Nikon has made the obvious design compromise on the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II, which is often used in professional sports photography, including indoor sports that require fast, accurate AF and wide open at f2.8.
     
  26. Yes, I've read Bob Atkins article. It explains focus breathing but does nothing to explain why it should be more so with one lens design over another. I'm not sure where you're getting the information about lighter or smaller lens groups being moved in current lenses, but it's not apparent in that article. My reading of it is that Mr Atkins was simply comparing IF mechanisms against unit-focusing.
    Anyhow, a couple of minutes with a calculator using the conjugate foci formula reveals that it should theoretically take no more than a change in focal length from 200mm to 178mm to effect a change in focus distance from infinity to 6ft. That's perfectly acceptable. To change from ~200mm to ~150mm definitely isn't.
    Please don't presume that your main use of a 70-200mm zoom is the only way to use one, or even that it's typical. For your particular sports use 20 or 30 ft might be a typical distance, but there are several instances where I and many others would use such a lens much closer. Ringside martial arts or small stage performances for example. And that's why I rejected Nikon, Tamron and Sigma's current 70-200mm f/2.8 offerings as unacceptable.
     
  27. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Yes, I've read Bob Atkins article. It explains focus breathing but does nothing to explain why it should be more so with one lens design over another. I'm not sure where you're getting the information about lighter or smaller lens groups being moved in current lenses​

    Rodeo Joe, I got the information about smaller lens groups being moved in current lenses straight from Bob's article, as he writes:
    That means instead of moving the whole lens barrel back and forth to focus, a small group of elements inside the lens are moved. The advantage of this is that the small group of lenses is smaller and lighter than the whole lens, so it can be moved faster with less power to give you faster AF.​
    Did you read the same article I read?
    As I said, I think Nikon has made the obvious design compromise on a 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S with VR, and apparently so do some other brands. These companies need to sell lenses that meet most customers. If they don't meet your needs, get something else. The alternative is slower AF, AF hunting, and maybe no VR. If you are ok with those, buy older lenses.
     
  28. Fellows, a question.
    Is there a formula that gives you the actual FL at the closest focusing distance when you give the maximum reproduction ratio and the minimum focusing distance? Those two parameters are usually published by the manufacturer.
    The given real FL for infinity is, i guess, well within 5% of the given.
    Saw once a Zeiss ad where a cine 70-200/2.8 did not breathe so much, it was still well alive and worth 3-4x what corresponding photo lens is.
     
  29. I have the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED lens and of course this one the focal length shrinks quite a bit at the closest focusing distance. Putting the sensor plane at 1.6 meter which is a bit more than the minimum focusing distance. Set the zoom to 300mm and take a shot of that. Next return the focusing ring to infinity but mount the lens on the bellow so that it would focus at the same distance. The pic with the bellow has significantly more magnification although both pictures were taken at the same distance from the subject. To make the focal length not shrink when close focusing simply make the focusing mechanism that moves the entire lens away or closer to the imaging sensor. However the distance that the lens must move is a lot compared to the internal focusing technique which only moves some of the elements and does shorten the focal length.
     
  30. Kari, Bob Atkins will explain it you better than me; Measuring focal length. It`s photography basics.
    As mentioned, many manufacturers (Nikon included) have available distance/magnification charts, together with DoF charts. And as you say, all manufacturer`s publish the lens` highest magnification at least. It is not an straight curve, so it`s interesting to draw a chart to know the lens behavior. It is not something hidden, Nikon clearly specify it at the lens`sheet:
    "With the Nikon Internal Focusing (IF) system, as the shooting distance decreases, the focal length also decreases".

    While I agree with Rodeo, better to have full performance on any product, I like to think that there must be a reason for Nikon to release a lens with such characteristics. We all know that features are not always for free, there is always a compromise. I was not aware of the focus group speed thing; for sure Nikon designers have not missed the issue. I`d be pleased if Nikon throw some light about the development of this lens as sometimes did with others.
     
  31. So I got an approximation from Bob Atkins' explanation after some manipulation:
    FL= ( mag x distance )/(mag + 1), where
    mag is the lens maximum magnification = 0.12 (source nikon)
    distance is the closest focusing distance = 1.4 meters (source nikon)
    Using this approximate equation you get a value of 0.150 meters = 150 mm.
    Not a perfectly accurate, but it is about there. Holds better for tele lenses.
     
  32. "With the Nikon Internal Focusing (IF) system, as the shooting distance decreases, the focal length also decreases".
    It's actually not that simple - focus breathing can have a variety of reasons - for example, the focal length of the 70-200/2.8 VR (first version) actually increases at each setting when the lens is focused closer (at MFD it's actually a ~79-203 as opposed to the ~71-196 it is at infinity). But nonetheless, the magnification decreases slightly - which is taken as an indication that the focal length decreases. As is so often the case, what is observed is assigned to the wrong cause - though the real one may only be of academic interest.
    By contrast, the VRII shows a true reduction in focal length when focused closer - because a totally different focusing system is used than in the first VR version. Yet another one is used in the 200-400 lens. Read more about it here: http://www.pierretoscani.com/echo_telezooms_english.html
    Take home message: With compensator-shift focusing zooms (70-200 VR II), or zooms with afocal internal focusing system (200-400 VR), no simple relationships connect magnification and focal length, and again, only the definition of the optical system allows accurate calculations.​
     
  33. Dieter, thanks for sharing!!!
     
  34. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Dieter, thanks for the link. Pierre Toscani's web page probably has far more details than 99% of us here would be interested in, but it does explain Nikon's design trade offs in the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II in question very thoroughly.
     
  35. Just to chime in belatedly... I use a 200 f/2 as well as a 70-200 VR 2 for candid portraits. The 200 I got as a replacement for the 135 f/2 DC, because it's even better at losing the background and doesn't have the LoCA issues. I'm reassured that Joe McNally also uses that lens for portraits - I thought I was being weird. The 70-200 gives me control over framing, but - to the point - the focus breathing really doesn't bother me because the 200 f/2 just can't focus as close as the 70-200 in the first place.

    There's nothing much wrong with the 70-200 VR 2. It's slightly less good than the 200 f/2 as a 200mm lens, but then it's a fraction of the price and weight, and you get a zoom out of it. If you want to get closer, I recommend the 150mm or 180mm f/2.8 Sigma macros - then you're not giving up any aperture.
     
  36. Sorry, but for all practical purposes the focal length of a lens is defined by its magnification at a given focusing (subject to focal plane) distance, regardless of what the nodal placement is doing inside the lens. If a lens behaves like a 150mm equivalent focal length at 2 metres focus, then it is a 150mm lens at that distance. Quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, eats breadcrumbs fish and pond weed, and therefore is a duck. Whether it's really a lemon in a duck suit is pretty irrelevant.
    Actually Kari, given those figures of m=0.12 and d=1400mm, the equivalent focal length is only 134mm. The discrepancy between our figures is, I suspect, due to you taking the focus distance as being from the front node of the lens. The convention for marked scale distance is the distance from focal plane to subject.
    The correct formula is: F=d/(2+m+1/m)
    This disregards the internodal distance, but that figure is only needed if trying to determine the subject distance for a given magnification and focal length. From simple conjugate foci a 200mm IF lens need only shrink to 171mm to focus down to 1.4metres - so definitely something a bit strange with that design.
    No Shun, I didn't misread Bob Atkins' article, but you've obviously read more into it than was actually written there. Bob's diagram clearly shows a fairly conventional internal front-cell focusing design of the kind that's been around for years. If you look into the front of almost any mid-range or short tele AF zoom made in the last decade, you can see those elements being moved as the focus is altered. And it should be obvious that Bob was talking about Internal Focusing AF lenses in general versus helical unit-focusing designs; which incidentally 'breathe' in the opposite direction by effectively growing in focal length as they're focused closer.
     
  37. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Sorry, but for all practical purposes the focal length of a lens is defined by its magnification at a given focusing (subject to focal plane) distance​
    Rodeo Joe, let me stop you right there. You are not entitled to your own, separate definition for focal length.
     
  38. So does this mean there is a range within the lens where I can sneak-up on a close-by subject or zoom in simultaneously and it doesn't get any bigger in the frame? How retro!
     
  39. I am a Nikon user and can't afford the new 70-200. The focal breathing is an annoyance you should get what it says. My question is which is closer to 200mm the Tamron or the older Nikon 70-200. These are what I am looking at.
    Is the bokeh equal? I know the Tamron is sharper.
     
  40. I've been in amateur astronomy sales for 20 years, and much like the Takahashi Vs TeleVue vs AstroPhysics debates, you find that all optical systems are compromise and personal taste fuels these debates.
    What I find most disingenuous about Tony Northrup's YouTube statements regarding the Nikon D810 paired with the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, is that in many many of his videos he advocates two things:
    1) Shooting intentionally wide, so that you can crop later
    2) moving a few steps closer with a 200mm lens is always going to yield better results than using a 300mm (with regards to wildlife) because you get more resolution from the shorter distance.
    Then, he hops on a 36 MP Nikon D810 (compared to his Canon 5D MkIII at 23MP) and complains that he'll have to shoot and crop, or step a few steps closer because the Nikkor 70-200mm VR II is 140mm at full telephoto within 10 feet.
    Honestly, it all smacks of a bit of *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#*-stirring. Which is to be expected, I suppose, because he is making money on YouTube views. I suspect Nikon Vs Canon video receive much more views (and make more money) than your standard equipment review videos.
    For example, when I do a search on YouTube for "tony northrup 70-200mm" I get the following:
    -70-200 f/2.8 shootout - 1yr - 82k views
    -Canon 100-400 vs 70-200 - 6 mo - 77k views
    -Canon vs. Nikon: Why I want to switch to Nikon but can't - 1 yr - 720k views
    So there you go, 10x the views of one of his typical videos. 10x the cash.
    I actually think Tony is a pretty decent YouTube personality. But I know that at the end of the day, he's going to be prone to sensationalism if it will mean more cash in his pocket.
    I mean, he has said numerous times that the Nikkor 70-200mm was sharper than the Canon L equivalent, and DxO has said as much too.
    I think those on this thread that have said that this is a much exaggerated issue are correct. Everything in a lens system is compromise. If I can get a sharper lens, that focuses faster and more accurately for the trade off of increased focus breathing, count me in.
    Oh, and as far as how much a true 200mm is needed for portraits... I have the 70-200mm VR II we are speaking about, a 135mm DC f/2, and a Tamron 150-600mm. I hardly use the 135, as it focuses too slow for the candids I shoot, and the 150-600mm is way too long. I have to be around 40-50 feet away from my subject. The 70-200 VR II is always my go-to lens. And much of that is because the focus is fast and bang on. If I need a closer more intimate shot, I just crop on my D810.
     
  41. I think it is an unthinkable tragedy that Nikon maintains this severe focus breathing for its new 70-200mm F2.8 lens. Especially when we consider this lens to be an industry-standard, high-performance zoom lens.
    At 200mm at close up, this lens gives us only 135mm! That's a significant short change. If I want 135mm, I will set it at 135. When I set it to 200, I want 200mm. It is just that simple, nothing else.
    When we get this wonderful 70-200mm/2.8 zoom lens, we get rid of 85mm/2.8, 135mm/2.8, and 180mm/2.8, because all these glasses are included in 70-200mm/2.8. And then it turned out that somehow 200mm is missing, at least in close up, say 6 feet distance. So now, we have to carry 180mm/2.8 along with this 70-200 zoom.
    However you cut it, this is not acceptable. The older Nikon 70-200mm/2.8 gave us the focus breathing of around 180mm when set at 200mm at close up. That is perfectly acceptable...
     
  42. Now, with the introduction of a new 70-200/f2.8 FL, Nikon finally solved this problem for good...
     

Share This Page