Nikon 70-200 - true range/performance

[LifeORiley]

I ran across this video on Nikon Rumors. I'm sure a lot of you guys saw it - what do you think about it?

Is the 70-200 VRII really a bad performer as he says? Is its useful range actually much shorter than 70-200mm ? Seems hard to believe but not impossible to believe.

Is this true for the 80-200mm also.

 

[Braineack]

It seems to have focus breathing issues.

However, it's only of closet focus, and I can't really imagine shooting at 200mm from roughly 4.5' away from a subject.

this video does a better job of explaining this phenomenon.



2:18

notice how bad the Canon does in this regard, even at 70mm. Seems to me the VRII is much better than the Canon counterpart.

 

[sscarmack]

I take everything I see/read/watch online with a pound of salt...


I have the vrii and I take some nice photos with it and I'm really happy with the performance.

 

[hamlet]

This new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II does everything a little better than every other previous 80-200mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. Drat. I can't find any area in which it isn't Nikon's best yet. The only potential gotcha is that at close distances, the effective focal length range contracts, effectively becoming a 65-135mm lens at 5 feet (1.5m).

I didn't know the focus changed your focal length?

 

[GWAC]

I have the VR-II. It's hit or miss. I don't guess I'm saying it has piss poor performance. However, in the same respect, it's not what they crack it out to be. I have had numerous circumstances were it has been extremely slow to focus... or rather slower than I needed it to be. Most of the time It gets very sharp results, though.

 

[Braineack]

This new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II does everything a little better than every other previous 80-200mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. Drat. I can't find any area in which it isn't Nikon's best yet. The only potential gotcha is that at close distances, the effective focal length range contracts, effectively becoming a 65-135mm lens at 5 feet (1.5m).

I didn't know the focus changed your focal length?

this is exactly why I hate Ken Rockwell's site. Here's his take on the Canon's focus breathing:

[SIZE=+1]Focus Breathing[/SIZE]

Breathing is a motion picture term which refers to what happens as you pull (change) focus from near to far.​

This 70-200mm f/2.8L IS changes its magnification as one pulls focus.

very objective reporting here.


From what I can tell from quickly surfing the web is that 1. the Canon is roughly at 160mm when fully zoomed at min focus. 2. Canon users don't actually want to test, admit the case.


There's also a bit of differences in the min focusing distance and the 1:4 vs. 1:4.75 mag. ratio of the lenses in question.

and the nikon has a max angle of view of 34°20' vs. 34° which is just ever so more zoomed in.

 

[Patrice]

This is not news, look up 'focus breathing'. This was commented everywhere on the web within about a day of that lens being available.

 

[LifeORiley]

So focus breathing is no big deal?

This is not news, look up 'focus breathing'. This was commented everywhere on the web within about a day of that lens being available.

It's news to me. It's an unclear idea to me. That's why I'm asking here and not getting information from "experts" on the web.


Thanks for all the input guys.

 

[480sparky]

I take everything I see/read/watch online with a pound of salt....

Thomas Jefferson once said, "Never believe everything you see on the internet."

 

[hamlet]

I take everything I see/read/watch online with a pound of salt....

Thomas Jefferson once said, "Never believe everything you see on the internet."

Did you happen to catch the part about the focus breathing issue?

 

[DandL]

I wonder how much Canon paid Tony for that "infomercial"...:scratch:

 

[Derrel]

Check out Thom Hogan's review of the 70-200 VR-II. The newer model has significant loss of effective focal length as it is focused closer and closer. At minimum focusing distance, the 70-200 VR-II is 134mm in focal length at the 200mm setting. At infinity, the VR-II measures 192mm is actual focal length. Keep in mind, the industry works under a 10% focal length fudge factor!!! As Patrice mentioned above in Post #7, this is a very widely-discussed characteristic of the 70-200 VR-II lens, and was IMMEDIATELY seized upon when the lens was released. Canon fanboys went wild with this for a year or more.

If you look at Hogan's mannequin test series comparing the old 70-200 to the new model, the actual SIZE of a person;s head is SIGNIFICANTLY smaller beginning at 3 meters on the new lens, compared to the size of the same head shot with the old, VR-1 model 70-200. at 2 meters, the disparity is larger, and at minimum focusing distance, the 70-200 VR-II yields a head size that is quite a bit smaller than what the older lens rendered, which is not surprising, since the VR-1 model was 182mm at its MFD, compared to the 134mm length the new lens has at its MFD.

Here are the ACTUAL focal lengths Hogan reports for the 70-200 VR-II lens, at difference distances: At 1.4 meters 134mm; at 2 meters 147mm; at 3 meters 164mm; at 5 meters 176mm; at 10 meters 186mm; at Infinity, 192mm.

 

[Braineack]

The Canon also suffers from it, that video I posted suggests it's worse than the VRII and the Tamron VC. Too bad Matt didn't actually measure it for raw data.

The problem I find is that most Canon users either haven't tested it, don't care, or just like to throw Nikon's numbers back in the face of Nikon users. I also haven't found a resource on canon lenses with in depth reviews like Tom's.

I was able to find a decent post on it: 70-200/2.8 II Interesting Focal Length Behavior - Canon Digital Photography Forums

again, this is suggesting the Canon drops to at least 170mm at min focus distance. I read somewhere else, a link i cant find again, that it dropped to 160mm.


super technical crazy in depth link from the above: http://www.pierretoscani.com/echo_telezooms_english.html

This focusing system offers at least three advantages:

• the lightness of the compensator allows excellent reactivity to the autofocus system with low energy consumption;
• the small diameter of the compensator makes it easier to motorize;
• the aberrations control is simplified because the front-group characteristics does not vary with the focus distance.

...

But it also offers two drawbacks…

...

The second drawback has not gone unnoticed: the compensator shift induces a substantial reduction in the focal length when the telephoto zoom is set to short focus distances. Why?

Because moving the compensator backward to focus on close objects, increases the space between itself and the variator. Now, we know that any increase in the distance between these two units induces a reduction in the focal length of the entire system: this is precisely what occurs when the variator moves forward in order to decrease the focal length. Again, to a certain extent, the same cause produces the same effect. This is also the reason why the focal-length variation on Figure 8 (no-compensation system) is different from the one on Figure 9 (compensated system).

I can test my Tamron out. It's not bad, but it does happen.

 

[Derrel]

I wonder how much Canon paid Tony for that "infomercial"...:scratch:

I just watched the video. He's spewing a ton of crap information. He keeps saying "130mm" at headshot distance....but at 3 meters, the 70-200 VR-II is 164mm in actual focal length. And the one-hundred dollar Canon iffy-fifty? OMG!!! It's such a piece of $hi+ lens! He suggested the Canon 50/1.8 is an advantage in "Sports" photography to the Canon system? OMFG, now that "recommendation" is absolutely hilarious!!!!

I used to own a Canon 50/1.8 EF-II, AKA the "iffy fifty"...it's utter rubbish as far as focusing, and the background blur it produces? Noisy, erratic, unreliable autofocusing! What a great sports lens! NOT!! It's one of the few 5-blade diaphragm lenses still on the market, with horrible defocus nature (ie bad bokeh). It is one of the $hi++iest 50mm lenses ever offered in the 20th century: it has a huge issue with massive, almost frame-wide green flare when shot toward strong light, which makes the iffy fifty a dubious "advantage" over any maker's 50mm lens.

As Tony stresses throughout the latter part of his video, Canon does have a lot of cheap gear available. Cheap Chinese flashes, and a cheap 50mm lens seem to be Canon's biggest advantages. Hilarious stuff. So if you want cheap gear, Canon is definitely your system. Pile on that made in China stuff! It costs less, so it's better! Tony said so!

 

[SpikeyJohnson]

I listened to that video while I was playing some BF4 with friends and they couldn't figure out why I would burst out laughing for no reason. I understand the issue with the 70-200 VR2 but if you are at "200mm" that close, what are you taking a photo of?