Nikon Announces 70-200mm/f2.8 E FL AF-S VR and 19mm/f4 PC-E Lenses

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>I think it's a little surprising they only show architectural samples for the 19mm.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Obviously there will be some interest from landscape photographers, but thinking this through I do see why it would have much more appeal for architecture. A big advantage of t/s is the ability to use Scheimpflug technique to get "wall to wall" DoF. However, a 19mm lens (in tiny RX/35mm format) will inherently have a lot of DoF anyway, without tilt. For architecture, the rise & shift movements come into their own to straighten the hard lines you find in man made structures. You also typically have less ability to back up and use a longer lens (such as 24mm PCe) when shooting architecture, unlike most landscapes. So in the end, it makes sense to me most image samples are of architecture.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

I see a rumour site has done what I should have done

and posted the MTF graphs from the new and previous

70-200s. I've got to say, there's more difference than I

expected (though the very limits of the frame have quite a drop off - DX shooters are sorted, but I'm surprised Nikon didn't find a way to level the curve a bit further). Given that I try to shoot my VR2 at f/4 when

possible for sharpness, maybe I should have expected

this. If I'm ever rich, maybe it'll go back on my NAS list -

but it's still a shame about the switched rings if so.

[rick_jack1]

<p>I saw but did not handle both lenses at the NYC photo expo last Thursday. I saw sample images taken with them and of course they were fantastic. The lens I fell in love with is the new 105mm f1.4.<br>

I agree with the comments about cost but if you work for a large enough firm money is no object. I know we will be buying the 70-200, we have little need for the 19mm. Personally, I'm still using a old 70-210 AFD which works great on my D750. When I want critical results I have plenty of primes. <br>

Canon is pulling ahead of Nikon in the professional market, it's nice to see Nikon is pushing back.</p>

[paul_b.1]

<p>The prices , here in EU , are enormous , 30% higher than USA ones..., but I welcome the change of the zoom ring to the front of the lens. If the tripod foot is used as a resting point on the palm of your left hand (as I always did) , the forward position of the ring is much more comfortable now. On the previous models I have to flex back the wrist ( while using the foot as a resting point), that being slightly uncomfortable. Touching the focus ring may be a problem for those who use the lens with tripod collar removed.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I see a lot of discussion on other forums about Nikon putting the zoom ring in front on the 70-200mm/f2.8 FL. While that is a departure from the previous versions, it is actually consistent with some recent super tele zooms, such as the 80-400 and 200-500 AF-S VR.</p>

<p>Personally, either way works for me.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18093254-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I see a lot of discussion on other forums about Nikon putting the zoom ring in front on the 70-200mm/f2.8 FL</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some indeed make a big deal out of it. Certainly will take some getting used to; in particular since the two rings are quite close together, and not, like on the 80-400, separated by the section with the switches.</p>

<p>I would actually prefer to have the zoom ring up front on my 70-200/4 VR - it's the one that I use the most by far and while I can handle the zooming with the ring in its current position, it would be more comfortable if the zoom ring was actually up front.</p>

<p>BTW, Sigma and Tamron f/2.8 70-200 zooms also have the zoom ring up front. I see the point about the reversed lens hood blocking the zoom ring, but consider that a minor issue only (I never shoot with the lens hood reversed anyway).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the tripod foot is used as a resting point on the palm of your left hand</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not something I find very comfortable; I usually have the foot moved to rest on top of the lens.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Since I rarely touch the focus ring, I like its old position

where it doesn't matter if it's under the hood and where

I'm not going to jog it as I hold the lens. I'll have to see

about the new 70-200; I worry my palm will judge the

focus ring unless it's as stiff as the zoom ring. The 200-

500 has a large zoom ring and is front heavy enough

(especially at the long end) that my palm can stay away

from the focus ring, mostly. Maybe I'm being unfair, but

that doesn't seem like the ergonomics of the 70-200.

 

I'll be interested to see what they've done to the tripod

collar. The one on my vr2 actually clouts the grip now

I've put an arca plate on it - a little more leeway would be

nice.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe I'm being unfair, but that doesn't seem like the ergonomics of the 70-200.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't think you are - one major difference of both the 200-500 and the 80-400 to the 70-200 is that the latter does not extend when zooming. The forward placement on the former two is an advantage in that case, allowing easier compensation for the change in balance.</p>

[raczoliver]

<blockquote>

<p> If the tripod foot is used as a resting point on the palm of your left hand</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I recently saw a video where someone did that by the side of a swimming pool, on what appears to be a Canon 1D series camera with a very long and possibly expensive telephoto lens, and somehow lost balance with his left hand. He jumped after the camera in a futile attempt to save it, but by that time of course it was too late. It was actually floating pretty nicely. Why he wasn't using a strap is beyond me, but it just didn't look like resting the tripod foot on your palm was a very steady way of holding the camera.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

I understand that it may not be the most steady way to support a lens but a 70-200/2.8 is not that heavy or difficult to

hand hold and the foot is short enough that your fingers can reach the lens barrel. I typically take the foot off when hand

holding it. However, I'm just trying to figure out the logic behind the new positions for the rings. If holding the lens with the

foot resting in your palm, probably you can reach the focus ring without accidentally nudging it, as well as the zoom ring.

Some have criticised the new positions suggesting that the focus ring would be easy to move by accident. I am not sure if

this is really the case - in my VR Mk II, the focus ring does not move by accident, it takes a deliberate effort to move it.

Anyway, if the foot is in the palm, moving the focus ring by accident should be even less likely.

However, whether this is a good way to hold the lens is up to each photographer to decide. I expect that I would take the

foot off with the new lens just as I have with the older versions.

[paul_b.1]

<p>Below you can see my setup ..., obviously I can't remove the foot due to the way I use it. Just like Ilkka mentioned , each photographer will decide how to use(or not) this new lens.<br /> BTW Shun , now that you post the above picture I realized also my 200-500 have a front zoom ring :-)..., the funny thing is : I don't remember how I hold this lens...</p><div></div>

[t_du_vernet]

I don't have the current 70 - 210 or even an older one anymore. I had the 80 - 200 from years ago. It was OK sharp, not like an Apo Telyt R 180 though. I have the 28 - 70 in non-VR form. People rave about these lenses being so sharp, etc. Actually, I've found the distortion to be quite wonky and the sharpness generally OK but nothing extraordinary. I have been told and read in reports that the f. 4.0 version of the 70 - 200 is sharper and also obviously a whole lot cheaper. With the ISO ratings going through the roof, does it make sense to spend several hundred more for the extra stop?

[CvhKaar]

I have been told and read in reports that the f. 4.0 version of the 70 - 200 is sharper and also obviously a whole lot cheaper. With the ISO ratings going through the roof, does it make sense to spend several hundred more for the extra stop?

That all depends on what you shoot , when you shoot, which camera you use (D vs FX) etc. but mostly I would say no, the extra stop is not worth the extra money to ME ...

 

- The extra stop on the 70-200 F\2.8 (and the whole lens) can give you a different bokéh , , this is a thing ogf personal taste I guess.

- The extra stop on the70-200 F\2.8 can give you more focussing possibilities in low light (also depends on the camera you use) , but if you do not shoot in low light a lot , then this is of no interest ..

 

- The 70-200 F\4.0 is not only cheaper, it weighs also a lot less which I find a definite plus .

- The 70-200 F\4.0 seems close to "parfocal" (can be different between copies, no 2 lenses are exactly the same.)

 

I think that under general circumstances , the only thing that helps distinguish between the two in a picture would be the slight difference in Bokéh , so for me , personally the F\4.0 is the preferable option.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think both current Nikon 70-200mm lenses are very good to excellent. If you mostly shoot outdoors and prefer light weight the f/4 version is an excellent choice. If you also plan to use it indoors, then the f/2.8 is better (faster focusing, you can use a bit faster shutter speed or lower ISO).

[Wouter Willemse]

not like an Apo Telyt R 180 though

 

Frankly, that puts the bar very high (and possibly not realistically high); the APO 180mm Telyt-R is a very high regarded prime (zooms are always more complex designs and need to make compromises), and that prime costs more second hand than any of these zooms cost new.

 

As for the difference between f/4 and f//2.8, as Ilkka points out, AF is generally faster with a f/2.8 lens, as the AF unit also gets twice the light. Under dim light, that certainly makes a difference. High ISO performance doesn't resolve that part of the equation, so for events/sports, I certainly can see getting the f/2.8 over the f/4.

[Andrew Garrard]

Increasing the ISO reduces the dynamic range - yes, I can shoot acceptably clean ISO 6400 from my D810 (depending how closely I look and what I process with), but I can't push the shadows as much as if I could use a lower ISO. And there are always times when you're hitting ISO 12800 or above even wide open - there's no such thing as "enough ISO performance" (sometimes it's just dark). f/2.8 also gives you more options with a teleconverter, although a 70-200 + TC isn't an ideal option anyway.

 

The reason I'm still tempted by the new 70-200 mk3 is that, although I'm fairly happy with my mk2, it is visibly a little softer at f/2.8 than at f/4. I'd use f/2.8 more if it were less compromised, and reputedly the new lens is detectably better at maximum aperture; currently I use f/2.8 if I need it, but I err to a slightly smaller aperture if I can. I was more keen to use wide apertures in my D700 days when optical aberrations were less obvious.

[m_allegretta]

Lenses have to get sharper, as sensors' pixel count increase. This new 70-200 MTFs are the best yet. If upgrading from a VR1, I think it's worth the price.

[mike_halliwell]

Depending on what and how you shoot, I have been mighty impressed with the Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 on a Nikon D500.

 

Sure it's a real heavy, DX only, lens with a more limited zoom range than the 70-200mm, but if it's sharp you want go no further.

 

For horse event jumping, my most used focal length (in 35mm terms) is 135mm, so the EQ 75-150mm is spot on, with enough wriggle room for horse deviation.

 

...and of course 1.8 is fast and if DoF is an issue, DX is handy too.

[ilkka_nissila]

After using it since last year, I find the 70-200/2.8 FL to have advantages over its predecessor but they may or may not apply to a particular photographer's use case.

• Contrast is higher, there is less flare
  
• 70-200FL+TC-14E III yields excellent images stopped down to f/5.6, to the point where I can't tell the difference in practical results between TC on and off (wide open not as good with the TC). This is very unusual as I'm not a person who likes to use TCs much, but here it works well. I've used the TC in both landscape photography and people photography and felt autofocus was working perfectly as well
   
  
• The field of view is what you'd expect from a 200mm lens even when focused close; I often notice that I can get tighter framings with the new lens in concert photography, which is a nice benefit, not needing to go for a longer lens or crop as often.
   
  
• The image quality is very consistent across distances and focal lengths
  
• Autofocus stutters less
  
• VR SPORT mode gives for me the right amount of support while not interfering with following a moving subject
  
• Tripod foot is more rigid, less vibration on tripod
  
• Lighter and less front heavy
  
• Out of focus areas behind the subject reasonably nice, no double lining (double lines were common in out of focus areas with the VR G II version when photographing subjects at some distance away)
  
• Achieves higher magnification at MFD
  

I have to say the ring position is a disadvantage as even after nine months of using the new lens my left hand still slips to the back of the lens to support it when I'm not adjusting the zoom. Since there is less weight in the front part of the lens the balance point is closer to the body. So to hold the weight of the camera + lens the best place is with palm under camera and fingers around back part of the lens at least with a body with vertical grip. Quite some way from the zoom ring. Still, I like the other aspects of the new lens a lot and would highly recommend it. I think any of the 70-200mm Nikkors is serviceable as a day-to-day lens and yield high quality images but the FL version does in my opinion take it to a new, higher level. I noticed for example that when I was shooting backlit models in an outdoor fashion show with the 200/2 II and then with the 70-200 FL, I could see that there was less flare in the shots with the zoom. This to me is quite an achievement, to make some of the best primes seem dated. The 200/2 II and 105/1.4 do have a bit higher resolution than the zoom and some advantage in out of focus rendering (especially front side) but then the question is whether those things are needed in the application and whether the other aspects of the new zoom are perhaps more important.

[Andrew Garrard]

Thanks for the mini-review, Ilkka. I'll keep saving up. (Unless I win a lottery, I suspect a D850 will hit my bank balance before I look at my 70-200 VR 3, 19mm PC-E, 85 f/1.4 Art, 135mm f/1.8 Art, 400 f/2.8 FL shopping list...)

[BeBu Lamar]

It proved my theory that the AF-P is a cheap way to provide AF motor in a lens which is intended for a cheap camera which doesn't have a motor. For expensive lens Nikon still use AF-S.

[BeBu Lamar]

It proved my theory that the AF-P is a cheap way to provide AF motor in a lens which is intended for a cheap camera which doesn't have a motor. For expensive lens Nikon still use AF-S.

[BeBu Lamar]

I swear I only clicked once. Shun please delete the extra posts.

[ilkka_nissila]

AF-P lenses provide useful video AF which AF-S lenses do not, at least for the time being. AF-P motors, according to Nikon, have limited torque which is why they are not used on larger lenses.