Nikon 70-200 - true range/performance

[sscarmack]

Something where you want a lot of bokeh or separation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

200mm lens at 1.4 meters???? Tony's once again, spewing crap in a video where he juuuuust cannot seem to get over his longtime Canon fanboyism....he and his wife did the side-by-side comparison of their beloived 5D-III versus the Nikon D810, and he proclaimed the D810 "the best d-slr ever made"....but still, cannot bring himself to make a clean break from his former mindset that Canon is the best...despite the higher resoltuioon, greater acuity, lower noise, wider dynamic range, better color depth, better highlight recovery, and better shadow recovery of the Nikon sensor, his long-time Canon fanboy tendencies make him unable to reconcile his former beliefs with the facts as determined by empirical testing, so he's going 'round dreaming up cherry picked examples, and spewing bull&hi+ data that is flat-out WRONG in an effort to backpedal...like the repeted "130mm" focal length figure he harps on over and over.

I think he's afraid of losing his many Canon fanboy followers on-line. When well-recognized "experts" and "people of influence" change brands, it rankles their followers, who spend their dollars elsewhere...

It's human nature. He points out that cheaper is better....lower cost lenses and cheap CHinese flashes makes a system better....the idea that Canon's iffy-fifty makes Canon a "better" sports camera...OMFG....that is some funnnny, funnnny stuff!

 

[Braineack]

Funny how expensive the canon 70-200 is.

 

[PaulWog]

If he shoots at 160-200 60% all his shots, why does he not have a 200 f2 nikon lens? Is he on that tight of a budget?

 

[LifeORiley]

Flash -

I did find it curious that he doted on Canon for flash quality (radio or not). Every review everywhere says - Nikon has superior flash exposure.

This could change of course but I've never seen any review that said that was a Canon had superior flash over Nikon.

 

[Derrel]

If he shoots at 160-200 60% all his shots, why does he not have a 200 f2 nikon lens? Is he on that tight of a budget?

Well, the 200 f/2 is a very tough lens to use in many situations. It's big, heavy, awkward, and it has no zoom, so you constantly need to alter camera-to-subject distance when using it, and it pretty much demands a monopod, at minimum. That makes it a challenge to handle a lot of regular, everyday people photography tasks with the big 200, for which a good 80-200 or 70-200, or other, zoom lens really is a handier tool. I own a 200/2, and it is optically a MUCH better lens than most lenses, but it is also a BIG, HEAVY, pain in the butt to use for people work. It's just...awkward...and also tiring to use. Yes, it can make lovely images, with a very strong visual impression, but it's reallllllly impractical if you need some focal length flexibility. Because the 200/2 lacks zoom, a person using it is constantly forced to move forward, or more often, backward, just to get simple field of view changes that could otherwise be done by zooming a little bit. Canon's 200mm f/2.8 or Nikon's 180mm f/2.8 are much smaller, much lighter, much handier primes than the big 200mm f/2 lenses.

 

[goodguy]

200mm lens at 1.4 meters???? Tony's once again, spewing crap in a video where he juuuuust cannot seem to get over his longtime Canon fanboyism....he and his wife did the side-by-side comparison of their beloived 5D-III versus the Nikon D810, and he proclaimed the D810 "the best d-slr ever made"....but still, cannot bring himself to make a clean break from his former mindset that Canon is the best...despite the higher resoltuioon, greater acuity, lower noise, wider dynamic range, better color depth, better highlight recovery, and better shadow recovery of the Nikon sensor, his long-time Canon fanboy tendencies make him unable to reconcile his former beliefs with the facts as determined by empirical testing, so he's going 'round dreaming up cherry picked examples, and spewing bull&hi+ data that is flat-out WRONG in an effort to backpedal...like the repeted "130mm" focal length figure he harps on over and over.

I think he's afraid of losing his many Canon fanboy followers on-line. When well-recognized "experts" and "people of influence" change brands, it rankles their followers, who spend their dollars elsewhere...

It's human nature. He points out that cheaper is better....lower cost lenses and cheap CHinese flashes makes a system better....the idea that Canon's iffy-fifty makes Canon a "better" sports camera...OMFG....that is some funnnny, funnnny stuff!

Thank you Derrell for the inlighting posts you made on this thread.
I am following Tony on youtube and saw the videos he made on the D810 and then the video he explain why he has problems making the jump from his 5D III.
I felt a bit bad (just a tiny bit) about the so called BIG advantage the Canon 70-200mm has on the Nikon/Tamron 70-200mm and now I see this is not so correct as he makes it to be.
I have this lens as you know only few months but I have learned to see how usable this lens is for portraits, this zoom range is so practical and the results make the high price of these lenses (Nikon, Canon, Tamron or Sigma) to be a good investment and frankly pure joy to use.

 

[jaomul]

A few mentioned various focal lengths at different focus distances. I had Canon gear, now Nikon. I am a fanboy to neither. The Nikon 70-200 is recommended as a fab lens almost everywhere I look. Flickr has a group for this lens with amazing pictures.

Whether Nikon or Canon is better is irrelevant to me, as I can't use the Canon on my Nikon gear (at least not the way it's supposed to be used). I do however think if you drop this kind of money on a lens that it should do what it says on the tin. The fact that focal length and breathing etc etc is worse than on older lenses is a poor show. I know there is tolerances, but these should get better as lenses get newer and more expensive.

Someone questioned taking a 200mm shot at close distance. If I pay thousands for a lens I want as near to stated focal length as possible inside the stated closest focus distance

 

[WayneF]

If I pay thousands for a lens I want as near to stated focal length as possible inside the stated closest focus distance

A lot of complaining. On ANY LENS, the marked focal length is ONLY APPLICABLE to Infinity focus distance.

In order to focus closer, any lens must rack out its front elements (extension, lens is longer). A macro lens looses two stops at 1:1 because it is racked out to be 2x longer focal length. A 105mm at 1:1 is NOT 105mm. If it were, it would still be f/2.8.

A regular lens is not allowed to rack out that far, cannot focus that close, to avoid losing that much f/stops. They only focus as close at 1:8 or maybe 1:4 magnification, for that reason (focus length changes, f/stops change, very much is unacceptable - except in macro lenses).

Internal focus lenses have different ways, fixed front element, virtual extension inside. Zooms may be shorter at some settings and distances. The problem about which you complain only affects very close focus distances.

But stuff absolutely must change if it is going to focus or zoom.

Just look through your viewfinder, and frame it as you deem desirable. No big deal.

 

[jaomul]

I'm not complaining, I don't have this lens. Will I buy it?, maybe, but likely would buy the Tamron version. This is nothing to do with the focal length at different distance, but rather price/quality vs price.

I do understand though people being annoyed when an older less expensive version of equipment performs better than a newer more expensive version

 

[DandL]

... I do understand though people being annoyed when an older less expensive version of equipment performs better than a newer more expensive version

Fortunately this isn't the case where the older, less expensive version performs better than the newer, more expensive VR-II. Thom Hogan, in his review of the VR-II 70-200mm AF-S VR II Lens Review by Thom Hogan summed it up by stating for FX users, "... if corner sharpness and brightness is at all important to you, the new lens is much, much better than the old one".

I don't know... maybe I'm too much of a newbie to photography, but I think there's a lot more to quality glass than focus breathing, or whatever you call it. Like maybe, corner sharpness and brightness...

 

[jaomul]

^^ no one is talking about sharpness etc. Title of the thread is true range/performance. I was only commenting on that aspect of the lens. Read my previous post I have said it's supposedly a great lens

 

[DandL]

^^ no one is talking about sharpness etc. Title of the thread is true range/performance. I was only commenting on that aspect of the lens. Read my previous post I have said it's supposedly a great lens

You are correct about the title of the thread. However, since the word, "performance" is part of the title, and sharpness and brightness are part of "performance", then they should be discussed. Discussing sharpness etc, is especially important when comments like, "older, less expensive version of equipment perform better than a newer, more expensive version" are made.

I could be wrong but, I suspect most photographers (including professionals) place more emphasis on sharpness, brightness, clarity, etc, of a lens than they do "true" range. Focal length, yes, "true" range, I doubt it.

 

[Solarflare]

So focus breathing is no big deal?

No.

I have four very fine lenses. They ALL show focus breathing. Same for my three Nikon DX lenses on my old D5100.

The only issue thats really important for lenses used in still photography is changing focus when changing aperture. Because a DSLR will focus with the aperture at maximum, and only then stop down and actually take the picture. If this happends with a lens that changes focus if the aperture is changed, you will miss focus consistently, except if shot wide open.

But focus breathing is no issue, and is thus commonplace. Check really any lens you own. Very likely, if you change focus, the angle of view will also change, slightly.

Also, telezooms in special have focus breathing at close distances because people want their lenses to focus closer, but the only way to actually archive this and keep the lens small is focus breathing.



Focus breathing is an issue for cine lenses, though. Because videographers do not want the focal length to change if the focus is changed. Thats why cine lenses are special beasts and cost more. Additionally, Videographers also want the lens to be parfocal, if it is a zoom. That means, you can change the focal length, but the focus will stay constant - also something thats a rare property on non-cine lenses.

 

[daggah]

If he shoots at 160-200 60% all his shots, why does he not have a 200 f2 nikon lens? Is he on that tight of a budget?

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.