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

[tobycline]

<p>I'm happy with my older 80-200 AFD. I'm not a pro, so I'll let others play catch-up with the Joneses. :)</p>

[lwg]

<p>On the D300 I see no issues with the current version. I haven't shot much film with it, so I can't comment on that. If I ever buy an FX DSLR, I may feel the need to upgrade.<br>

I do wonder if the new version will be as sharp as the old one across the DX frame. I would certainly wait to read some reviews before I put down my money. I do expect to see a flood of used old versions on the market in the next few months. If you want one of them, wait and you may get a very good deal.</p>

[tallnbig68]

<p>Never thought I would be so fool hardy <br>

to dismiss technology, in the form of VR. As I age (pushing 65 with a myriad of balance issues <br>

and cancer in remission) find my body shakes to a great degree. A tripod maybe;<br>

however VR makes all the difference in the world, as much as the auto focus function<br>

and constant aperture does.<br>

Henry's has many of the older 80-200 F2.8 lenses used, none have VR.<br>

The VR would clinch it for me.<br>

The price? well, each to their own, and good luck.</p>

<p> </p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>My point is that by adding the 1.4TC the corner issue - which is real - disappears. Nature photographers shooting landscapes noticed this and they shoot tripod-mounted rigs all the time so whether the lens is f/2.8 or f/4 is moot.. A good number of them would have the 1.4 TC already for their longer glass. So in this respect the solution is for free.</p>

<p>I don't see much in terms of difference in image quality with or without the 1.4 TC-E provided one works at f/5.6 effective or smaller.</p>

<p>Personally I prefer my old 80-200/2.8 AIS since it has better performance for landscape use anyway.</p>

 

[arthuryeo]

<p>If you plan to shoot the lens wide open (or close to wide open) most of the time and your subjects are animals and humans, you will not notice the mushy corners since they are defocused anyway.</p>

<p>The problem, based on Shun's test results posted many times here in this forum, is when the lens is used to shoot flat 2-D landscape shots which require completely even sharpness across the whole frame. It appears that in this particular shooting scenario, the performance of this lens may falter near the corners.</p>

<p>I do not shoot this kind of shots with this lens, and so, the issue is moot to me. As such, I would rather save my $$$ for the more interesting upcoming 24mm/1.4G AF-S ASPH and 35mm/1.4G AF-S. There's also the yet-to-be announced Zeiss 35mm/1.4 ZF Distagon, currently used for testing and reviews and got slipped out of the words (not mouth) in some articles written to compare the D3X and the Leica M9.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<p>Note: I use the teleconverter only when I need the extra reach. I don't mount it when I'm shooting < 200 mm. I'm thinking about adding a 1.7x TC for sports and wildlife. Extra reach is always nice on FX, and a TC is a heck of a lot cheaper (and lighter) than a new 300 mm lens.</p>

<p>IMHO cropping is inferior to using a TC. First of all, a 280 mm image is not just a cropped 200 mm image. The perspective is completely different. Second of all, I don't want to throw away 50 percent of the detail that my FX sensor captured. I might as well shoot with my old D70.</p>

<p>I'm sure that the new lens will be amazing. I just don't see the need to run out an buy one tomorrow. There are several other lenses that are higher up on my wish list, like a PC 24 and (hopefully) a nano-coated 17-35. Until then, I'll be perfectly happy taking my horribly inferior photos in the 70-200 mm range. I'll be sure hide them from the women and children. ;-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Bjorn, that is exactly my point. If you are a landscape photographer who shoots from a tripod and stops down to f5.6, f8 or f11, why even bother with an f2.8 zoom in the first place? Even though money is not an issue, these heavy lenses are very undesirable when we hike to remote locations to shoot landscape. That is exactly why quite a few people wonder why Nikon still does not make a 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. Canon has had a couple of different versions of that already (w/out and then w/ IS) in addition to f2.8 versions.</p>

<p>I first bought the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR for weddings and people. At least in my case, at least 95% of the time when I use that lens I don't care about corner performance at all. That is why I strongly disagree with those blanket comments that if you shoot FX, you want the new version. (Not to mention that pretty much all of us have no idea how the new version is better.)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>First of all, a 280 mm image is not just a cropped 200 mm image. The perspective is completely different.</em><br /><em></em><br />Actually, the perspective is exactly the same. It is set by the geometry of the objects in the subject space and lenses do not change it.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Shun, because landscape shooting can be conducted under rather dim light conditions, so a fast lens makes the initial setup and framing easier. Plus sometimes you wish to use the lens wide open. For my own work,</p>

<p>I'm using f/1.2 to f/11 lenses for landscapes, with focal lengths from 4.5 to 1200 mm. All apertures and lenses have their special place.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Actually, the perspective is exactly the same. It is set by the geometry of the objects in the subject space and lenses do not change it.</p>

<p>Only if you're standing in the same place, which is where the loss of resolution from cropping factors in. Consider extremes. Take the shot at 280 mm (70-200 f/2.8 @ 200 mm plus a 1.4x TC). Then take the same shot with a 24 mm lens from the same position and crop it to the same size as the 280 mm image. The perspective didn't change, but unless you took both shots in thick fog, the IQ changed a great deal.</p>

<p>To maintain the same IQ, you have to walk closer to the suject, and like it or not, the perspective changes quite a bit.</p>

<p>Anyway, lest we stray too far from the point: The perfect lens has yet to be invented, but photographers manage to make memorable images with imperfect lenses every day.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"The perfect lens has yet to be invented" </em> Perhaps it has - and the 70-200mm II may be it! Time will tell. We will have to wait for the reviews to come in.</p>

[commtrd]

<p>My imperfect financial situation demands that this imperfect photographer stick with my imperfect [current version] 70-200 lens...oh well life is good anyway. Just think of the photographers in the distant past and what they had to work with. Fast forward to now and consider that a lot of creativity to work with what you have actually goes a long way...</p>

[rashed]

<p>It will be in the market some times on Nov., this is my next lens on my list.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, because landscape shooting can be conducted under rather dim light conditions, so a fast lens makes the initial setup and framing easier. Plus sometimes you wish to use the lens wide open. For my own work, I'm using f/1.2 to f/11 lenses for landscapes, with focal lengths from 4.5 to 1200 mm. All apertures and lenses have their special place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bjorn, that is all perfectly fine. There is aboslutely no doubt that the 1st version of the 70-200/f2.8 AF-S VR produces soft corners near 200mm on FX sensors, at any aperture. I.e., stopping down does not fix the problem. I have tested multiple copies of that lens to verify it.</p>

<p>So if you need corner-to-corner sharpness, you are better off with the various 80-200mm/f2.8 AF lenses. Whether the 2nd version of 70-200 is better and how much better remains to be tested.</p>

<p>What I disagree with is the 1.4x TC solution. If the argument is that you need a fast 200mm for low light, with the 1.4x TC on, you have a slower 98-280mm/f4 that you must stop down to at least f5.6 to get good images, and unfortunately an f5.6 lens is no longer the fast one you start with. If one is willing to accept an effective 98-280mm/f5.6 lens that is very heavy, there are much cheaper options.</p>

[rayliguori]

<p>Brian, While I can't predict whether the new lens will be worth the money, but I do predict that you will wait a looooong time before this lens is available in stores. Some new Nikkors don't become available (to us non-professionals) more than a year after they are announced.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>I'm with Shun on the corner issues. I use mine for fast paced portrait shooting where there often isnt time or space for moving and lower light or desire for limited dof. I wonder if like me, many of you find you use lens correction in ps way more to add vignette than to remove it. As for corner softness, I shoot at 2.8 for precisely that and the bokeh on the 70-200 is pretty darn sweet. Good enough for the run and gun that I often find myself doing. But then I dont shoot alot of landscapes or architecture with it. The up grade I would like to see is to the 17-35. That would see more use in landscape/architecture and minimal in portraiture for me. It was nice that Nikon could pull off an amazing lens like the 14-24, but how about doing the same on a lens that is more useful for many of us. A 17-35 with the IQ of the 14-24, I think there would be a long line for that one. Are you listening Nikon??? Would be happy even if it was a 18 to say 30 if a slightly smaller range helps with the engineering and price. </p>

[tony_vasquez1]

<p>The answer is that Nikon has applied the newer lens coatings to control stray light in the lens because of digital photography requirements. If this were a really big problem they should just pull the older lens off the market, but someone at Nikon thought "We can't let Canon catch up". And so, more "stuff" on the lens and better blades were added. Which brings up the question, how much catching up to Canon lens does Nikon have to do or how many baby steps ahead of Canon is Nikon??? It's a never ending battle.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>A lens like the 70-200 is meant to be a general purpose lens. As noted above, at present there is no high quality lightweight Nikon f/4 telezoom alternative for architecture and landscapes which is why the 70-200 gets used for that also (no choice apart from primes). I tend to use high contrast tone curves in my raw conversions (imagine winter skating scenario in overcast light and white ice further softening the light; ISO 1000, f/2.8, 1/200s, to make a nice image a high contrast curve is needed) which is why the vignetting stands out on almost every image I took with the D3 and 70-200. In Shun's example the tone curve is almost straight which hides the vignetting. I often shoot in very low contrast light yet want a snappy result. I agree that for people photography the corner softness is rarely a problem.</p>

<p><em>As for corner softness, I shoot at 2.8 for precisely that and the bokeh on the 70-200 is pretty darn sweet. </em></p>

<p>Use the 200/2 (or any of a number of fast telephoto primes) and you get both sharp corners and sweet bokeh at f/2.8. These aren't mutually exclusive.</p>

<p><em>So if you need corner-to-corner sharpness, you are better off with the various 80-200mm/f2.8 AF lenses.</em></p>

<p> I don't agree. These lenses don't have all the positive qualities of the 70-200 and I doubt many people are going to both own and carry around several f/2.8 telezooms just to be able to shoot still subjects with sharp corners and even luminosity as well as people images with nice bokeh. Which is why the new version is needed. I don't subscribe to the notion that one should just photograph one type of subject with a given lens - the f/2.8 zooms are meant to be general purpose. It has been necessary to have specialized lenses in specific applications to get top results (e.g. PC-E for architecture, macro lenses for close-ups, 85/1.4 for indoor concert etc.) but it should not be necessary to have multiple telezooms just to get <em>acceptable</em> results all-around in most conditions. This is where the current version of the 70-200 fails - it is not an acceptable general purpose lens on FX.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"I'm with Shun on the corner issues."</p>

<p>Bjorn was originally commenting on the use of the 1.4 TC-E and Shun's explanation. You could set the lens at 135, where the lens is very sharp, and use the TC-E. That will crop out the corners and magnify the sharp central portion. Yes, you lose a stop, and yes you'll get a small amount of quality loss from the central portion of the lens. But you also get sharp corners.</p>

[graham_thompson1]

<p>Guess Ken Wellrock is as we speak fully testing the lens with information taken from this thread.<br>

No doubt he will be posting his findings later.<br>

For what my opinion is worth Shun is right.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>If you are a landscape photographer who shoots from a tripod and stops down to f5.6, f8 or f11, why even bother with an f2.8 zoom in the first place?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's the alternative? Is the 70-300 VR the optical equivalent of 70-200 VR? How about the 80-400?</p>

<p>Nikon puts their best glass into f/2.8 packages (or the 200mm f/2). If you want the best glass, you have to carry some weight. I rarely shoot at f/2.8 for scenics (a rare exception is posted above), but I still want to shoot through the best lens that I can carry and afford. For the past decade in Nikonland, the best lenses have been the fast zooms and the recently revised PC lenses. None of these are lightweight. </p>

<p>Like it, or Leica! ;-)</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Alternatives? As I wrote earlier, I wish Nikon would introduce a 70-200mm/f4 AF-S that has a tripod collar, with or without VR. I would mainly use that as a tripod-mounted lens, but I guess a lot of people would prefer to have VR on it. However, for low-light hand held work, I prefer to have f2.8.</p>

<ul>

<li>Last year I travelled with John Shaw for a week. He had two D3 bodies with him on that trip and the only tele he had was a 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR. If you stay away from the 300mm end and use it at f8, f11, I suppose it should be quite good. If (part of its zoom range) it is good enough for John Shaw, I think it is good enough for most of us here.</li>

<li>Obviously the new version #2 of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR is a potential alternative, for a lot of money and so far untested results.</li>

<li>There are various 180mm/f2.8 AF.</li>

<li>Several versions of 80-200mm/f2.8 AF, AF-D, AF-S</li>

<li>70-180mm AF-D macro</li>

<li>Various 80-200mm/f4.5 or f4 AI, AI-S</li>

</ul>

[borgis_karl_johan]

<p>For me, the tragically weak point of the actually available zoom is flare- if the sun shines even very obliquely down the lens barrel -even with the lens shade mounted- contrast gets worse than with a Kodak Instamatic from the 60s... Rendering the lens practically useless unless you can block the sun which may be impractical i a quich shooting situation. Strange that Nikon allowed for this performance glitch considering that older versions hardly suffered from flare. Yes, I have owned those, the first push-pull zoom as well as the two-ring version. Both good.<br>

I doubt I will exchange my sample at least until initial demand goes well down- my present lens is excellent. Also it is the grey version which is kind of fun to own for subjective reasons. Over the years a fair share of lemons have passed through my hands (17-35mm, 35-105mm, several Sigmas) thus I know the risk of exchanging a good thing I already own. At least usually I do.... :-)</p>

[borgis_karl_johan]

<p>Sorry for the misspellings, that should read "in a quick shooting situation"- I pushed the confirm instead of the update button.</p>