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

<p>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. </p>

<p>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</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Moreover, any lens' official focal length is always measured when the lens is focused to infinity.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16797873-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>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. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>How do I know if a lens has this problem without doing some testing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Bob Atkins has a more thorough discussion on focus breathing: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_breathing_focal_length_changes.html<br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I think he said the truth but how do I find out without buying the lens because no where in the specifications said so.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br /> <br /> 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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>"silly" ? ? ?</p>

<p>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). :)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>BTW, "classic" portrait lenses use to came from 85 to 135mm... with the acclaimed 105DC in the middle.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This is what happens when we read too much on the internet.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>"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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>If you need 200mm at ten feet then buy the 200 f/4 Micro and deal with it.</p>

<p>Not all lens breath. Lens that breath has more complex focusing mechanism than lens that don't. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"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?<br /> 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Bob Atkins has explained why modern f2.8 zoom involve such compromises: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_breathing_focal_length_changes.html<br /> That is a link I have posted before.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>BeBu<br>

If the lens has a focusing helical in it it will breath when you focus it.</p>

 

<p>Shun! I didn't bring the Canon vs Nikon trash into the forum you did!<br>

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. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"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."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 <strong>definitely do not</strong> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <em>really</em> 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.</p>

<p>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....</p>

<p>Fact? Haaaaaaahhahaahhaha! Seems more like a defence of the indefensible to me.</p>

<p>And I was really saying that if a company like Sigma can do it, then any fool should be able to.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun - have a good look at your own example pictures. Does the VR II magnification at closest distance <em>really</em> look acceptable in your view?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, have you read Bob Atkins' web page on focus breathing yet? I have only referenced it twice on this thread.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>