New 70-200 II worth it or buy old model?

[brian_yeung]

<p>Just like title says, is the newer upcoming model worth the extra $700-$800(canadian) or just buy the older model? Sure there are the advantages of the newer one but I'm not shooting professional but would like this lens. What would most do? Get the new one or not?</p>

[tpernal]

<p>If I am most, I just recently bought a used older model... I'm sure the new VR may be improved??? mine's build like a tank and is an awesome lens.</p>

[walterh]

<p>...."the newer<strong> upcoming</strong> model"....<br>

We need a fortune teller . I have not seen one out yet. Anybody did?</p>

[jmt]

 

<blockquote>

<p>We need a fortune teller</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I foresee better corner sharpness on FX and significant others shaking their heads in disapproval</p>

 

[alec_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>worth the extra $700-$800(canadian)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This man is <strong>good</strong>... not only does he know the forthcoming products, he knows the prices in advance too!</p>

[Two23]

<p>I'm waiting until I read the reviews from sources I trust until I decide. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[james_symington1]

If you shoot film or FX the current lens will give you mushy corners for around one hundred times the price of a Holga.

Otherwise it's OK.

[brian_choi2]

<p>Alec, was it really necessary to make fun of this guy? Amazon has both first and second versions available, with a price of $2400 to preorder the newer model. So he may not be prescient, but apparently Amazon may be. But then again, I heard they recently hired a psychic...</p>

[tim_knight]

<p>I hope it is worth it so that I might be able to afford a used version of the present Nikon 70-200.</p>

[User_276104]

<p>The fact that there is a new version and its MSRP has been public knowledge for a few weeks now. No need to make fun.</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/0907300370mm200mm.asp</p>

[m_allegretta]

<p>All I can tell from the Nikon MTF charts of the newer 70-200/2.8 is that it may be a tiny bit sharper in the far corners than the first model. There is no information about distortion or falloff. Nikon does not publish those other charts. The point is this, the more glass you add to a lens, the return on image sharpness diminishes even further, cost and weight increase, and the lens becomes more fragile from all those elements floating around.<br>

Anyway, I like my 70-200/2.8 - the pictures are amazing, and the lens is paid for. If you are an amateur like me, buy the first model. You'll appreciate the pictures more than those who lose sleep over corner sharpness of zoom lenses.</p>

 

[commtrd]

<p>My 70-200 is quite good just the way it is. I regularly shoot mine on FX and I love it. Mine is paid for and that's the best kind. And I can shoot it on my D300 as well with stunning IQ. I really don't use mine too much for landscapes where I would be absolutely freaked out over a small lack of corner sharpness. I have a 14-24 and a 24-70 for going wide with corner-to-corner sharpness and that they do admirably. In fact when using mine at 200mm especially on portraiture, a little bit of lack of sharpness or some minor vignetting in the far corners hurts nothing at all. To me it's a non-issue. Most likely the new version will be awesome too so if one must have the latest and greatest, get to it.</p>

[brian_yeung]

<p>Well I have a d300 and will use that for a while, at least couple years before I get full frame or whatever comes Nikon's way in 2 years. So the corner issue won't matter but I would keeping this lens for long time so I hope the old one won't affect any issues for future full frame bodies.</p>

<p>The prices I got are from my local Henry's... I put a refundable deposit on the new lens which was MSRP $2679.00 CDN, could change at delivery but more or less it's this price. With our super happy tax Canadians get, it's about $3k even, which means the older version with tax is about $2200, so 800 give or take 50.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Here's an un-cropped image from taken on FX with the current 70-200 VR G lens and a 1.4x teleconverter, handheld, VR engaged. There were no mods except smashing it down to 680 pixels on the long side and conversion to JPEG Medium in Photoshop to meet Pnet standards for web display (granted this isn't much resolution).</p>

<p>I see a very faint bit of softness in each of the lower two corners, an amount I can live with. There is NO softness in the upper corners. There is also NO VIGNETTING in ANY corner. Absolute zero.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>Here's the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR G wide open at f/2.8, 190mm. Notice the transition from maximum sharpness to smooth blur.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>Here's a sports photo taken with the D700 and the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR G mounted with a Nikon 1.4x teleconverter.</p>

<p>You probably didn't notice any vignetting or corner softness. However, you might have noticed that the gentleman in the white shirt and black helmet is Prince Harry.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>Here's one more. It's the extreme lower left corner of the polo photo. None of the corner was cropped out. Factoring in depth of field, it looks pretty sharp to me. What do you think?</p>

<p>Heck, maybe the 70-200 f/2.8 VR G works on FX after all!</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>To Dan South: When people talk about corner issues with the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR version 1, it is about using that lens without any teleconverter.</p>

<p>When you add even an 1.4x TC onto that lens, the problem becomes worse because now even the center of the frame is soft and you must stop down to regain sharpness, which is what you did. But people pay the price for an f2.8 zoom because we need to use it wide open.</p>

<p>Since the new version is not yet available, nobody really knows whether it is better. We have to wait for field tests.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>In fact, to get rid of the issues with the current 70-200VR, you simply add the 1.4 TC-E. Instad of shooting at 200 mm *at distance* and get the awful corner performance, you add the TC and set the lens to 135mm. So Shun's description is somewhat misleading.</p>

<p>I have ordered a review sample of the 70-200 Mk.II but haven't got it yet. Should be interesting to learn how it performs on the D3 and D3X.</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>I shoot FX, have taken many tens of thousands of images with the 70-200mm, with a lot taken at 200mm, never with a TC, mainly for sports, and have yet to have a single image I can complain about the corners. Unless you are shooting a flat surface like a brick wall where the entire image is on the same plan and you are positioned perfectly perpendicular to the subject and then pixel peep or print a huge poster, it would be difficult to detect corner softness. In normal shooting, the corners will typically be out of focus anyway (DOF).</p>

<p>While the 1.4x converter 'fix' is well documented, Shun's comments are on the money - it simply does not make sense to use a converter on this superb quality lens. Simple cropping will give a better quality image than the identical image shot with the converter without the need to stop down the lens.</p>

<p>I own several lenses (from Nikon and Canon) that exhibit a bit of vignetting . To me, the 70-200mm at 200mm is pretty much the same as other lenses I use and is easy to correct during PP anyway.</p>

<p>Brian, if you have extra money, get the new lens. If you don't, get the original. You will be thrilled with either one.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

If you will be using FX now or in the future, it's a no-brainer: get the new lens that's designed for FX. Although some users don't mind carrying a nominal f/2.8 lens that's actually as bright as an f/6.3 lens in the corners wide open, I very much did and got rid of mine as soon as I realized that I would have to correct almost every image I make with an aperture-dependent vignetting correction function which never quite gets it right for the whole image without manual intervention. Any time there is an even toned background the dark corners would jump at the viewer. I want images that I can present without manual post-processing as soon as they've been transferred to a computer - sometimes this is necessary and for me it meant there would be more grief than joy from using this lens. No such problems exist with the older 80-200/2.8D AF N nor any of the AF Nikkor telephoto primes I have. The DX-era 105 AF-S VR does have a unusually strong vignetting wide open at portrait distances but it's about 1.3 stops (a mere annoyance, not a deal-breaker) whereas the 70-200 is 2.5 stops - yikes.

 

 

 

I am looking forward to getting the new 70-200 II. I originally was a bit dismayed by the high initial price but I think I'll get it this year anyway. Nikon's track record of FX pro zooms set with the 14-24 and 24-70 suggests that I don't really need to look at the reviews for this lens - without doubt it will set new standards as the other two lenses have.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Bjorn, my description is not at all misleading. People buy a constant f2.8 zoom because they want to use it at f2.8, e.g. for indoor weddings, sports, etc. You can add a 1.4x TC and set the zoom to 135mm to get a 200mm equivalent, but it is now an f4 lens and worse yet, an f4 lens with a soft center so that you need to stop it further down to get a decent image. You can get a good 200mm, slow f5.6 lens out of it after paying something around $2000 for the 70-200 plus $500 for the TC. To me, that makes absolutely no sense. There are much much cheaper ways to get a good 200mm/f5.6 lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you will be using FX now or in the future, it's a no-brainer: get the new lens that's designed for FX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That may be a reasonable assumption, but at least I am not willing to comment on a lens I have never seen or even read about from creditable reviewers.</p>

<p>A lot of lenses give you darkened and soft corners. For by far the majority of my shooting with the 1st version of the 70-200mm/f2.8, e.g. people, weddings, sports, wildlife ..., I don't at all care whether the corners are sharp or not since they are typically out of focus anyway. It is the center of the image that I care about, and messing the center up with a TC is not something I am interested in.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Here is an example I captured with the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR at 200mm on the D700. This is the entire frame with no cropping, only scaling down.</p>

<p>That day I took several hundred images of children at a birthday party, maybe half of them with the 70-200 at or near wide open. I can't care less whether the corners are sharp or a bit darken in any one of those hundreds of images.</p><div></div>

[brian_yeung]

<p>It seems good enough to be honest with the orignal 70-200... some people like to create the light fallout in the corners as an asthetic look. But what of the other gains on the newer lens. Is nano-coating really an advantage, no one addressed the flare from the current 70-200. They claim the AF is faster, but of course we don't know, but is the current af that bad?</p>

<p>And lastly the VR2, with 4 stops vs 3 stops with the current one. How useful really is that?</p>

[rodney_carpenter]

<p>I just bought the 70-200mm VR, i had the choice of getting the new one, it sells in my province for an extra 500 to 700 dollars more, i don't think its worth spending that extra money when the old one does the same job. plus that extra 500 too 700 dollars you could put it towards a good prime lens.</p>