Nikon 70-200 - true range/performance

[PaulWog]

You do realize that the Nikon 200mm f/2 is a $6000 lens, right? That's out of arguably most people's budgets by quite a bit.

I'm fully aware that it's a $6000 lens. We're not talking about "most people" though. We're talking about Tony Northrup, specifically.

Derrel's point made sense though, about the weight.

 

[greybeard]

The OP makes a convincing argument as to why focus breathing is an issue with the types of work he does. However, his conclusions are not based on actual experience but on what he deduces will happen from what he has read. The nit picking in this video reads more like a political ad than a product review. Shoot what does the job for you.

 

[Derrel]

I'd like to see a really good, thorough, rigorous testing of some of the 70-200 and 80-200 f/2.8 lens options, by somebody who has the equipment and the skills and experience to actually do a worthwhile test that focuses on sharpness of image, vignetting, chromatic aberration, and center/edge performance, as well as focal length and image magnification at say 2 meters, 3 meters, 5 meters, and then just a straight focal length measurement at Infinity focus distance. Done on both APS-C and also FX. A few years back, dPreview tested the Nikon VR-1 and Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS USM lenses and found that the Nikkor was the better lens on APS-C, but the Canon was a better lens on FX. But times change, lens models change, and we are shooting on newer, different cameras now. I'm starting to wonder just how good the Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC lens actually is at portrait ranges. I stopped shooting my 70-200 VR-1 on FX because...at landscape ranges, the corners even at f/7.1 are just NOT SHARP when shot on 24MP FX Nikon...I mean, they are simply NOT sharp...on APS-C, the bad areas are not even imaged, and the strong sharpness in the middle of the field is actually what is captured by the sensor; which, with a 12MP Nikon APS-C camera, is a perfectly great lens performance from f/4 to f/8. But the DxO Mark sharpness test graph Tony shows for the VR-1 on the 36MP D800 is the big limitation of the now decade-old 70-200 VR-1 lens.

One lens that gets recommended a LOT is the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D, aka the "two ring", but if one reads Thom Hogan's review of it, it's pretty clear, the lens which USED TO BE "good enough" back in the 12MP APS-C days is now no longer good enough to cut the mustard at f/2.8...it's optically not good enough for this era's cameras. It's in reality, limited in optics until stopped down to f/4...which makes me think it'd be a better bet to buy the newer 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR-G and get newer optics and VR and a smaller, lighter lens.