Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vr2 and f4 vr lens focus breathing?

Messages
6,932
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking of getting either a 70-200 f2.8 vr2 or a 70-200 f4 vr to use with a d800.

I've been reading many reviews, this comparison review of the two seems quite good but it's still not helped.

https://photographylife.com/nikon-70-200mm-f4-vs-f2-8

What I'm unsure of is the vr2's focus/lens breathing issue at close subject distances and the difference in AF speed/quality in low light between the f2.8 and f4. I'm likely to use it at sunrise/sunset rather than for sports under floodlights. As it's going to be a zoo/wildlife parks/nature portrait lens I'm going to be using it in the 1-5m range quite often.

Does anyone have any experience of AF in low light for both the f2.8 vr2 and f4? Could anyone point me in the right direction of examples of the same subject taken at 2-4m and the same focal length on both lenses just to see what the difference really is.
 
Ignore the focus breathing it's a non-issue. The 2.8 will produce nicer portraits at a zoo as you will get better subject isolation.
 
Ignore the focus breathing it's a non-issue. The 2.8 will produce nicer portraits at a zoo as you will get better subject isolation.

To say the focus breathing is a non issue at the distances the Rob is going to be shooting is absolute nonsense. The focus breathing at the distances Rob will be using it at makes it an effective 135mm. Its also the main reason Tony Northrup hasn't switched to Nikon. The VR1 will actually provide much better subject isolation if that is what important, though certainly not as sharp and with soft corners/vignette.

For shooting in a Zoo , if you ask me this will be a crucial thing to consider at the distances it is being used!
 

Around 9.50 he talks about it. This has been well discussed before on practically every photography forum. To some people its not much of an issue but if you really need the effective focal length then its most definitely something to consider.
 
Ignore the focus breathing it's a non-issue. The 2.8 will produce nicer portraits at a zoo as you will get better subject isolation.
Thats rubbish, i shot field sports with the VRII and it CAN be a massive issue given at certain distances you only get 135mm at the long end, it is frustrating to be zooming in on a close in subject yet in your viewfinder see the subject actually getting further away, i got used to it over time because the AF was much better than the VRI
 
Last edited:
I've tested most 70-200s - all but the Nikon f/4, so can't comment on that.

Focus breathing is a real problem at close range, with a lot of tele-zooms TBH, and the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VRII is the worst I've seen. I didn't do any exact measurements, but at close distance it's certainly sub-150mm and I'd guess closer to 140mm. The Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC is virtually the same, the Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS not much better. The two Canons, 70-200/2.8 MkII and 70-200/4 IS are much better and I'd say not far off 200mm at the long end, throughout the focusing range. Best of the lot is the older Tamron 70-200/2.8 non-VC which is bang on throughout.

You can get a rough idea of effective focal lengths by comparing max magnification ratios, as they all have similar minimum focusing distances. Eg, Nikon 2.8 VRII is 1:8, whereas the Tamron non-VC goes down to 1:3 (to be fair, the Tamron also focuses a bit closer to achieve that figure).
 
Back
Top