Positive side of 70-200 VR ii breathing?

[polizonte]

<p>With the goal of maintaining a 3 lens arsenal (due to weight & portability issues + an amateur's budget constraints, my lenses were purchased one by one and I am old enough to possibly not outlive the 10 yr. recycle of these lenses) : I own a D700 and have been using using a 60mm AFS G as a normal & close-up lens and a 105mm AFS VR as a sub-telephoto & close-up lens and a 14-24mm AFS for wide angle shots. I am pondering the purchase of a 70-200 VR ii for more reach (than the 105mm) in landscape photography and dispensing with one lens of my arsenal.<strong> Which of of the two Micro-Nikkors would become most redundant</strong>, my normal or the sub-telephoto lens due to the acquisition of the 70-200 VR ii zoom? Is the breathing issue so marked that the zoom lens @70mm ( a positive side to breathing/wider focal length) could replace the 60mm as a normal lens or the more obvious 105mm (due to increased focal length) for more distant shots? Of the two Micro-Nikkors, i use each almost equally for close-up photography but real macro work does not make the bulk of my photos but as a former 55mm f3.5 owner there are times when I still want to photograph flowers or small, slow moving animals. <strong>WhichMicro-Nikkor could be most easily replaced by the new zoom?</strong></p>

[jose_angel]

<p>At a first glance I`d say the 105VR, given that the 70-200VRII cover that focal and is equally, if not sharper, than the prime... <em><strong>but</strong></em><br /> <em><strong></strong></em><br /> The 70-200VRII is so big and heavy in comparison. I have both, and most of the times I end using the 105VR for much better comfort if I`m shooting portraits. Another issue is the zoom field of view at shorter distances (portraiture) that makes it to be not so much different to the prime.<br /> <br /> If you add its close focus ability up to 1:1 (in comparison to the zoom), and the longer working distance in comparison with the 60 Micro, you can understand that I can`t get rid of the 105VR. I advice you to keep it too, even after buying the telezoom.<br /> <br /> I don`t know what`s that "breathing" issue.<br /> <br /> About the 60Micro... the jump from the 14-24 to the 70 is huge. You need something in between. The 60 Micro is on the long side to my liking as a "standard", almost the same to the 70 on the zoom. If so, I`d get rid of the sortest micro, but you certainly need an standard "all purpose" lightweight quality lens. I don`t know which other lenses you already have.<br /> <br /> Could I give you my sincere opinion? If <em>I were you, </em>I`d forget the 70-200VRII for a while in favour of the new 35AFS prime. A 14-24 + 35 + 105VR seems to me a reasonable and pretty usable, top quality setup. I`m saying this just <em>if I were you</em>, I understant that your needs can be different than mine (I must say that I also have a 14-24, 35/1.4, 50s, 85s, 105s and several micros in the 55 range).</p>

[jyoungman]

<p>Jose, focus breathing means that a lens changes effective focal length as the focus distance changes.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Why don't you buy the lens and see which if any of the lenses you have you stop using? My guess is that I doubt that you will stop using any of them. They each have their purpose and excel in the areas they were specifically designed for..</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Thanks James. Certainly this lens "breathes", but after using it, not an issue at all to my needs. Near three meters, the angle of view is slightly longer than a 135mm prime, good enough for portraiture. For landscape use, I`d say it`s pefectly fine.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Not sure what kind of "breathing" you have in mind?</p>

<p>Perhaps you got the idea of lens "breathing" from lenses that change external lens dimension(length) while zooming or focusing, like 80-400/VR, 70-300/VR, and similar. The 70-200/VR lens has constant length for all focal lengths and zooming does not cause the "breathing" effect like the other lenses do. Also the 70-200/VR has internal focusing mechanism.<br />Neither zooming nor focusing of the lens causes any significant "breathing" to be concerned about. The lens is sealed pretty well and does not suck any dust. That is why the lens is more expensive.</p>

[bob_h]

<p>With the lenses that you are currently using, I might try the 180/2.8 for more reach. Before you buy, rent or borrow that 70-200 VR ii and work with it for awhile.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I am pondering the purchase of a 70-200 VR ii for more reach (than the 105mm) in landscape photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why do you need a f/2.8 zoom for landscape photography? Given that you will stop down anyway, wouldn't the 70-300 VR suffice? Or alternatively, a much lighter 180/2.8?<br>

If you do get the 70-200, then IMO, the 60 would be the "more redundant" one as the 105 can take it's place for all the close-up work and the 70mm is only slightly longer than the 60 to take it's place. The gap between 24 and 60/70 that exists in your setup baffles me though - but if you made do with it so far, maybe there is no need to fill it.</p>

[polizonte]

<p>Jose, the 14-24mm, 35mm, 105mm set sounds like a manageable alternative (lighter/more economical + better coverage) and warrants waiting for reviews of the new 35mm; I also find the 105mm easier to use than the 60mm for my amateur close-ups. Thank you forum members everyone for your insightful suggestions.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The zoom replaces neither Micro-Nikkor in my opinion.</p>

<p><em>Why do you need a f/2.8 zoom for landscape photography? Given that you will stop down anyway, wouldn't the 70-300 VR suffice? </em></p>

<p>The 70-200/2.8 II gives markedly better image clarity and sharpness than the 70-300VR. The f/2.8 is a downside of course, for this application, but it's something Nikon users have to suffer since we do not have a modern f/4 telezoom in this range yet. However, if landscape is the only application then it might be worthwhile to wait 6-12 months to see if Nikon comes up with a 70-200/4 AF-S or something similar ... big weight savings while hopefully only slight drop in image quality.</p>

<p><em>Or alternatively, a much lighter 180/2.8?</em></p>

<p>I think the 180 is a good choice for landscape photography, especially combined with a short macro tele near 100mm, but in a lot of situations you do not have the option of moving forward/backward so in such cases it is often that a zoom lens can be used to achieve a better composition. It's also true that when you do have the option of moving more freely, with a zoom you can alter the proportions of foreground and background objects and frame it better. I've been very happy using the 70-200 II for landscapes and the results are better than what I was able to achieve with the primes though I must say that if the distance to subject is very long then the 70-200 II can be a little soft, compared to the 200/2 or 180/2.8. In typical landscape situations I think it works great.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>the problem seems to be that the 70-200 wont solve all your problems, and its addition may create others.</p>

<p>in addition to the suggestion of the 180/2.8, which is probably worth looking into, the <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html">28-105</a> has a very close focusing distance and can do 1:2. it could replace the 60 micro and also mind the gap between 14-24 and 105. you could also trade down from the AF-S VR to the AFD 105. finally,adding a DX body would add 50% more reach to the 60 and the 105. since you have the AF-S versions, you could use them on even the low-end DSLRs as 90mm and 157.5mm teles.</p>

<p> </p>

[matt_smith24]

<p>I sold my 85 f/1.4D and 60 AF-S Micro when I bought a Zeiss MP 100. I find the 70-200 VR II a little better than the 180 f/2.8 at landscape distances, so I sold my 180, although both are not super sharp like the 200 f/2 or Zeiss Makro Planar 100 at infinity. However, I am continually amazed by the quality of the 70-200 VR II for portraits. It has beautiful bokeh wide open and is razor sharp at close to moderate distances. The downside is it's cumbersome and a nusiance to carry around and of course doesn't do macro which is a must for me for my work, hence the Zeiss.</p>