MrLogic
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 423
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Rotterdam, Netherlands
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Interesting post by Marianne Oelund on the DPReview forums. The difference between the VR II and VR I is quite large at (relatively) short focal lengths:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=33853608
Measured focal lengths for the 70-200 VR I and VR II: Nikon D3 - D1 / D700 Forum: Digital Photography ReviewI've measured the effective focal length of the VR II for some subject distances, as follows (zoom ring at "200mm" mark for all measurements):
Dist.; Focal length
1.27m (closest); 128mm
1.4m; 132mm
2m; 147mm
3m; 164mm
5m; 176mm
10m; 186mm
In actual use, worst case, the user would need to move in to 75% of the distance that they could use with the VR I lens, in order to achieve the same magnification. I can't see this as a real problem, until one completely runs out of focus range, and if that happens, that is what teleconverters or closeup lenses or extension tubes are for.
The VR I only drops to about 190mm focal length at closest focus, and is up to 198mm by a subject distance of 3m, so it's quite close to being a constant focal-length lens with respect to subject distance
The VR II says "200mm" because it is - at far subject distances. It is only shorter when focused for closer subjects, which is the reason for its smaller max reproduction ratio as specified by Nikon.
Personally, I feel this is a fair price to pay for the field flatness that the VR II exhibits at closer distances, which produces better corner-to-corner IQ.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=33853608