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

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Bjorn, thanks for your comments on the lens (again). I tend to agree that the f/2.8 telezooms are intimidating for portraits at close range and I tend to prefer lighter and smaller lenses myself. I've become quite fond of the 85's (1.4D and the PC-E) for my own studio portraits, but I can see that there are some who prefer a look that one gets with a longer lens such as 135.</p>

[jimitoucan]

<p><em>I suspect Nikon engineers knows what they are doing...</em><br>

Not necessarily. Remember the 80-200 with the very poor collar? We had to buy after market collars to fix the Nikon engineers screw up. In fact, many after market ideas have found their way into Nikon equipment.<br>

I'm not judging this lens, I don't have the II to compare to the original version, I'm just saying that as much as I like Nikon, they have made many mistakes in the past. The good thing is they usually correct them...eventually.<br>

I was thinking of upgrading, I've had the original version since it was first introduced, love it, but after seeing the comparison shots I'm keeping my lens. Thanks to Photo.net and all you great photogs for sharing.</p>

[brians.]

<p>I just wanted to thank everyone for an in-depth evaluation of these lenses. Either lens is way out of my price range but high on my wish list. Should I win lotto, I can make an informed purchase. Thanks.</p>

[tele_tele]

<p>It is simple:<br>

70-200 VR I at closest focus:</p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="533">

<tbody>

<tr align="left" valign="top">

<td width="174" bgcolor="#d9d9d9">Maximum reproduction ratio <br /></td>

<td width="1" bgcolor="white"><img src="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/shared/img/sp.gif" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /> <br /></td>

<td width="358" bgcolor="#e5e5e5">1/6.1 in AF mode = 0.16x<br /> </td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>70-200 VR II at closest focus::</p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="533">

<tbody>

<tr align="left" valign="top">

<td width="174" bgcolor="#d9d9d9">Maximum reproduction ratio <br /></td>

<td width="1" bgcolor="white"><img src="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/shared/img/sp.gif" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /> <br /></td>

<td width="358" bgcolor="#e5e5e5">0.12x</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p><br /> 0,16 / 0,12 = 1.33<br /> <br /> Older lens has 1.33x times more magnification as the newer (almost as if TC-14E was attached to the new one).</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>I'd be happy with either lens on a D700. </p>

[michael_alger]

<p>Thanks all for bringing that issue up the day <em>after</em> I ordered mine ;-) So, no more sleep until I get the "65 - 135" lens? Certainly not. But I may fall back to the trusted AF-S 300/4 more often for those long distance close focus shots. Or eventually get the hereby rumored new AF-S VR 105/1.8 for protraits...</p>

 

[stevenseelig]

<p>One last comment. Analysis is helpful as well as charts, but I thought I would take a few real world images with the new lens. I have attached one, but the quality is representative of about 20 images I took earlier today.<br /> ISO 1250, 1/80, f2.8 @ 170mm on my D700</p><div></div>

[johnnykozy]

<p>This has all been illuminating and helpful . And I am foolish to go off the thread of a blog . But I am so grateful that I am on the art side of photography and not the science side . I love my VR II . The shot of the baseball on my shelf , across the room ; oh my , I could crawl into those stitching holes they are so big and detailed . Life is good . </p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"This has all been illuminating and helpful . And I am foolish to go off the thread of a blog . But I am so grateful that I am on the art side of photography and not the science side . I love my VR II . The shot of the baseball on my shelf , across the room ; oh my , I could crawl into those stitching holes they are so big and detailed . Life is good ."</p>

<p>What!!??? You aren't shooting brick walls and checking magnification? You're taking real photos? How odd that you judge a lens based on real photos!</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>Steven,</p>

<p>Personally I don't think your test is too convincing. May I suggest you send me the lenses for a test period of - lets say two years - so I can decide for myself.<br>

Oh, Bjorn, I'm in a good mood, this applies to all of your lenses as well.<br>

:-)</p>

[ches_time]

<p>I love VR2's stability and sharpness way more than VR1's. Under situations that have no strong wind or shaking floors, I am able to shoot at 1/8s to 1/6s hand-held. Thank you, Nikon!</p>

<p>1. at 1/20s</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2788/4151743987_c519de7119_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>2. at 1/8s</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2497/4153655283_1d170290c6_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>3.at 1/15s</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2732/4152949409_9e6e385132_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[matt_smith24]

<p>I wouldn't blame Nikon's optical engineers for the bad tripod collars on some of their lenses as that part of the lens is probably not designed by them. Nikon have produced some absolutely wonderful lenses in the last few years and the 70-200 VR II will be no exception to that. The close focus, loss of reach issue, has been blown out of all proportion to actual real world usage IMO. I'm certainly not going to argue about it though. I had a quick look at the dpreview forum on the new lens and I must say, mankind is a stupid lot, a lot of the time.</p>

<p> </p>

[wogears]

<p><em>Mark, Aside from the FOV, what struck me most from the images you posted, was the Bokeh. VR 1 is way better. Not just from the apparent focal length, me thinks.<br /></em><br>

I knew some Bokian was going to get in here. Yes, the softer blur from the VRI is indeed due to its greater effective (not apparent) focal length. The character of the blur is essentially identical.</p>

[roy_coleman]

<p>ches time,</p>

<p>Just wondering what zoom you shot those at, zoom is a factor in camera shake. Shooting slow speeds at 200mm is different to shooting at 70mm etc.</p>

<p>Why do so many people remove exif data ? I can understand if the shots are for sale, but when making claims about certain things, wouldnt it make sense to have exif supplied to back up said claims? Im not having a go, but i have noticed this across alot of forums and it gets kinda frustrating.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Altering EXIF data is very easy. Hint: EXIFTool or similar freely available software.</p>

<p>Why would the presence of EXIF data support a claim? One either trust a person, or not. EXIF alone can't prove anything.</p>

[ches_time]

<p>Roy Coleman,</p>

<p>the top two were at 200mm, the bottom one was at 70mm.</p>

[ches_time]

<p>Just attached Nikon TC-17E II to my 70-200mm VR2, and took some <strong>hand-held</strong> test shots under low natural light.<br /> <br /> Camera : Nikon D700, Lens: 70-200mm VR2+TC-17EII<br /> 14-bit Raw Lossless format converted into Jpegs in LR3 Beta.<br /> <br /> 1. ISO 200 f/4.8 1/4s at 320mm<br /> <br /> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/4175798020_2d9a179ee2.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> <br /> 2. ISO 200 f/4.8 1/6s at 320mm<br /> <br /> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2785/4175797926_d1a31a1000.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> <br /> 3. ISO 200 f/4.8 1/8s at 320mm<br /> <br /> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2728/4175036827_6f336a3153.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> <br /> 4. ISO 800 f/4.8 1/13s at 340mm<br /> <br /> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2679/4175797870_547f0be4ab.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> <br /> 5. ISO 1600 f/11 1/8s at 340mm<br /> <br /> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2492/4175036697_276bb4b1ba.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[mansurov]

<p>Guys, I have just finished writing a detailed review of the new 70-200mm lens on my blog here: http://www.mansurovs.com/nikon-70-200mm-vr-ii-review</p>

<p>I have lots of image samples on sharpness and I also tested this lens with both 1.4x TC-14E II and 1.7x TC-17E II and compared the lens to the 300mm f/4.0 lens.</p>

<p>Please let me know what you think!</p>

<p>Thank you.<br /> Sincerely,<br /> Nasim</p>

[whiggy]

<p>This may have something to do with the FOV issue:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/features/18200_issue/">http://www.cameralabs.com/features/18200_issue/ </a></p>

[jeff_lister]

<p>Roy, the reason many people remove exif data is that it can be a privacy hazard. For example, in cameras with GPS receiver the photos are geotagged. If a photo was taken in the photographer's house, then his identity could be reveled, when he may wish to publish the photos anonymously. Serial number is also recorded by many cameras, which again can be problematic as the origin of different photos can determined to be the same. Another problem is the thumbnail that may remain unchanged even if the photo was altered, as was demonstrated by the infamous <a href="http://www.digitalconfidence.com/the-importance-of-using-metadata-removal-software.html">Cat Schwartz</a> case. There are free utilities to remove exif such as <a href="http://www.digitalconfidence.com/downloads.html">BatchPurifier LITE</a> and <a href="http://davidcrowell.com/jstrip/">jStrip</a>.</p>