Nikon 70-200 II -- effective focal lengths at "200mm"

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:



I'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
Measured focal lengths for the 70-200 VR I and VR II: Nikon D3 - D1 / D700 Forum: Digital Photography Review


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
 
Thanks, Derrel. Much appreciated.

This post may also help some DX users:

The VR I model remains one of the best lenses money can buy for DX cameras. The only things the VR II model will offer DX users are:

  • A little sharper wide open at f/2.8
  • Nanocoating
  • More color neutral (less red cast) and 1/6 stop brighter
  • Better VR
Unless you are working hand-held or shooting portraits at f/2.8 most of the time, the only considerations above which apply are the Nanocoating and lower color cast. That's not very much for the price difference.
VR I Advantages
What the VR I model offers, which the VR II does not, is best-in-class resolution for DX when stopped down one stop or more. In this case, the VR I is the sharper lens (note I've already compared to two copies of the VR II and both have lower central resolution than the VR I when stopped down).
The VR I also maintains at least 190mm focal length at close distances, which some other portrait photographers have declared quite emphatically to be important.
Unless you need the improved VR, or better sharpness wide open, the VR I is best choice, especially considering the lower price.



My advice on the 70-200 models for DX: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
 
Haha.... some people are pissed. :lol:



70-200 II is a DISASTER


I'm the original Nikon fan....love...LOVE their stuff. But.....this new 70-200 is a utter goofball of a lens. It's a 70-150mm at best...read on!

Taking two steps closer is NOT the answer. It's not the same bokeh or perspective compared to the old lens. My friend is here with his 70-200 I and I'm so jealous since I sold mine for this dud.

I'm angry.

At the ranges that will be TYPICAL for anyone shooting portraits, weddings, events, kids and so on, this lens is INFERIOR to the old model. Bokeh will SUFFER because with a MUCH shorter zoom you will have far less subject isolation. The lens is incapable of those amazing close up portraits that the VR I could do. It does them well, but not AS WELL.

Now I have to send this back and order the old model again, which now costs a lot more than what I paid two years ago. While Nikon printed the mag specs, they should have been CLEAR about this lens behaving like NO OTHER LENS of this type. Yes, other lenses lose reach at closer focus...

BUT NOT TO THIS INSANE DEGREE. To even call this a 70-200 is essentially a lie, since it will rarely even come close to that. I'm drafting an angry letter to Nikon right now. So is my friend who is a photography teacher at Hunter. He's upset because he bought 3 of these turkeys. In my small circle of shooters, 8 lenses out of 9 are being returned. I expect that MANY MANY more will also be sent back and Nikon is going to have to respond.

The 70-200 II is a DISASTER. Nikon will be getting a lot of mail and calls on this. It's been a COSTLY mistake to think that this would replace the old version.


Max Green




thread: 70-200 II is a DISASTER: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
 
Okay... one more and I'll stop. Originally posted by rb4u2c on the Digital Photography Review forums:

70-200VRII vs VRI quick test; I'm baffled!!: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

70-200VRII vs VRI quick test; I'm baffled!!



I just received my VRII and did some quick tripod/remote release portrait style sharpness testing using my D700 @ 200mm @ f2.8 & f5.6. Raw 2 jpeg. What has shocked me most about the new lens is the difference in the focal length actual view between the two lenses. To achieve the same compostion with the new lens, I had to move in a whole 2ft closer to the subject, but guess what, the lens would not focus whatsoever. I made several shots for verification. To sum it up, MY VRII is definitely sharper at 2.8 than MY VRI. Even though the VRI is "zoomed in" closer to the subject, it still couldn't achieve the sharpness of my VRII. They both seem to focus at the same speed, VRII has better contrast/less flare.... I feel somewhat cheated though, knowing that the VRII won't be giving me the reach that the VRI gave and it costs a whole lot more. Head shots might be a challenge for portrait shooters without having to crop. Please note that all distances are approximate!

p987050185-3.jpg


p892995958-3.jpg


p991587426-3.jpg


All crops taken at 66" away using both lenses:

p460361544-3.jpg


p180795136-3.jpg


p507794066-3.jpg


p127233296-3.jpg


p479929756-3.jpg
 
personally the reason I invested in the VRII instead of VRI eventhough I have the D300s, is the fact that in the coming future, I will eventually upgrade to a FX body (D5?). that was my reasoning at least
 
YES, the VR-II has internal focusing and is shorter overall than the original VF-I of 2003--and the new lens loses focal length, as do MANY lenses, both prime and zoom, as it is focused closer. The VF-II model seems to be 200mm at Infinity focus--it is testing out LONGER than the 200mm f/2 VR-G prime lens, but as it focuses closer, it appears it loses quite a bit of focal length. The flip side though, is that as it is focused closer, it has a flatter field, so it keeps the corners AND the center sharp at close ranges, which is something many zoom lenses fail to do.

It's always a tradeoff it seems, between one thing or another. But it is clear, the older, VR-I lens does not lose as much focal length as it focuses closer.
 
If you have a camera where you can fine tune focus maybe have a go at it with your VR1. Maybe I got a good copy but mine is tack sharp at 2.8.
Yeah Nikon is going to catch hell over this one!!!
Thanks for the info.
 
and the new lens loses focal length, as do MANY lenses, both prime and zoom

Do you have some examples or sources for this? Or of other brands? There seems to be a dramatic difference here between 200mm and "VRII 200mm;" so much so that it would deter me from buying that lens all together if I owned Nikon gear. It would be useful information for perspective lens buyers.
 
This is disappointing. I was hoping for a homerun from Nikon on this lens. Although the 2nd version appears much sharper wide open than version I. Unless of course, the version I lens in the sample pics is just a soft copy.
 
DPreview and the Nikon Cafe have reported about a 36% loss of FL when you are under close in. Unfortunately it is in the range you stand when shooting a wedding and the exchange of rings... It is going to require a new shooting style to work around or going back to version one.
 
The lost of focal lenght issue is only an issue when you're at the minimum focus point, the farther away the subject, the lessor it is of a problem. At infinity, it's not problem at all. In short, this lens probably suck for macro :). But for any other purposes when you're not at the mimimum focusing distant, then it won't be a problem at all. A little extra space at the wide end might be a welcome to some :).
 
and the new lens loses focal length, as do MANY lenses, both prime and zoom

Do you have some examples or sources for this? Or of other brands? There seems to be a dramatic difference here between 200mm and "VRII 200mm;" so much so that it would deter me from buying that lens all together if I owned Nikon gear. It would be useful information for perspective lens buyers.

Yes, the macro lens field is chock-full of lenses that lose focal length as they focus closer; the Tamron 90mm drps to about 73mm at 1:1, and loses two f/stops in the process as well, being f/5.6 wide-open instead of 2.8 at In finity.

18-200mm AF-S DX VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan
In his review of the 18-200 VFR Nikkor, noted Nikon lens reviewer Thom Hogan writes:
"Finally, one word about focal length. As with most zooms, focus point shifts the focal length a bit. At infinity, the lens is 18mm at its wide end, and I think a few millimeters short of 200mm at the tele end (I've seen one measurement that says 193.5; all I know is that it's a bit shy of my 70-200mm at infinity). At very close focusing distances, which is where I'm at most of the time, the lens is almost down to 17mm at the wide end, with very little perceptible change at the tele end. Perfect! Just the way I want it to be.

16-85mm AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan
In his review of the 16mm-85 Nikkor lens, Hogan writes:

"Many Nikon DX users had already picked the 18-200mm VR as their walkaround lens, partly because they were seduced by numbers. Quick question, which gives you more range: the 18-200mm or the 16-85mm? The answer might surprise you a bit. The 16-85mm has a horizontal angle of view range of 16 to 73 degrees, the 18-200mm has an angle of view range of 7 to 66 degrees. However, because the 18-200mm changes focal length so much at the long end when focused close, for many situations its angle of view is only 10 to 66 degrees, which is not looking a lot better than the 16-85mm. I personally value those extra 7 degrees at the wide end much more than the extra 6 to 9 degrees at the telephoto end--they make a more dramatic impact on my photography."

From one thing I read, the new 70-200 VF-II is more like 65mm at the short end; to me, that would be more welcome than a few extra millimeters on the long end. And also, it's important to note that at Infinity, the new 70-200mm VR-II zoom lens is actually a little bit longer than the 200mm f/2 VR-G prime. The loss of focal length as the lens is focused closer is VERY normal for internal focusing zoom lenses, and for macro lenses as well. It's not that unexpected to people who are actually intimately familiar with optics. The new lens has flatter field at closer ranges than the old lens, leading to improved image quality. At very close ranges, internal focusing lenses may LOSE FOCAL LENGTH as a way to keep the actual, effective light transmission the same--note the use of the word "may". If a lens cannot change its overall length AND the user wants the actual, effective aperture of the lens to remain the same, the simplest solution is to allow the focal length to drop at very close focusing ranges. On the other hand, with a lens that focuses by extension of the barrel, like most old-style, non-internally focusing macro lenses, the aperture drop will be quite pronounced. A Tamron 90mm f/2.8 or old-style 105mm Nikkor D-series, the maximum aperture will DROP to f/5.6 as the lens is focused close, at 1:1 magnification.

It's clear the new 70-200 VR-II has had design optimization choices that favor a perfectly flat field at close ranges, leading to better edge-to-edge sharpness, and very little vignetting on full-frame. At Infinity, where actual focal length is important, the lens is *longer* than a Nikon 200mm f/2 prime lens. With ever-higher and higher MP sensors, the need is for a lens with the absolutely BEST optical performance--resolution, center sharpness, corner sharpness, contrast, and flatness of field and freedom from vignetting.

If anybody wants a lens that is optimized for something like a 24.5 megapixel FF Nikon D3x sensor, the new lens is that lens. For those shooting with DX camras, the old lens is stil quite good, and the new lens is a little bit better, but both are streets ahead of say, the 17-year old to 12-year old 80-200/2.8 lens designs.
 
Last edited:
Effective focal lengths at "70mm" for the VR I & II, in case anyone is interested:





Measured focal lengths at 70mm end of range

Yes, I was referring to the short end, where the new lens is a little wider. However, it does not actually go below 70mm - it's just that the original 70-200 didn't quite open up all the way to 70mm, especially at close subject distance.



Minimum Focal Lengths



VR I:
Dist.; Focal length
1.39m (min focus); 80mm (I can hear the screams of anguish already)
1.5m; 79mm
2m; 77mm
3m; 75mm
5m; 73mm



VR II:
Dist.; Focal length
1.26m (min focus); 70mm (Hooray!)
1.5m; 70mm
2m; 71mm
3m; 72mm
5m; 72mm



I haven't measured longer distances yet, but I suspect they will be very close
Measured focal lengths at 70mm end of range: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
 
Calculated focal lengths at minimum focus distance & "200mm" for 70-200mm and 80-200mm zooms (Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma), according to Thom Hogan:

And should the manufacturer in question do so when others don't?
Someone asked about the Canon 70-200mm, by the way. The answer via formula calculation based upon published specs is interesting:

70-200mm f/4: 172mm
70-200mm f/2.8 w/o IS: 153mm
70-200mm f/2.8 IS: 161mm


This compares to Nikon's:

70-200mm f/2.8 I: 182mm
70-200mm f/2.8 II: 134mm
80-200mm f/2.8: 185mm


Tamron 70-200mm: 174mm
Sigma 70-200mm: 174mm

So, with this additional information on the box, you're fine, right? And do you see any manufacturer that really wants to be the first to disclose it this way?

Re: Response 1: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top