Nikon 70-200VR II - rumblings

ryanyboy said:
Hi all,

It appears the focal length of the new model 70-200VR has vastly different focal lengths then the original.

Apparently with the new model at 200mm it has the same effective focal length as the original model at 155mm :eek:

The whole thing can be found here:-

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=33853734&changemode=1

Just wondering what the verdict is here......
Click to expand...

has anyone on here done some test shots to see if it is in fact true ?
 
Volusian said:
its a deal .... NOT .. :lol:

also how come Mr Rockwell didnt notice this problem ..... ( if in fact the said problem does exist ) http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-ii.htm
Click to expand...

Not sure if you read the thread on DP Review but by all accounts the problem is more noticeable the closer you are to the subject. Perhaps Big K was only testing the long end with subjects further away?

I'm certainly not here to say whether the story is true or not but in the linked thread one pro goes on to say that he and several of his colleagues were going back to the Mk I. Actions speak louder than words I guess......
 
With lenses that focus close, they often shorten their focal length internally as you get closer to the minimal focus distance.

For example, while the 105mm VR doesn't extend its barrel like some other macro lenses, to achieve 1:1 it actually shortens its focal length internally down to around 80mm from 105mm when it gets close to MFD.

The Nikon 18-200 VR is only 200mm at infinity, generally its closer to 135mm at other focal lengths.

The story on DPR is probably true as its not without precedent.
 
I still have the VR1 and am not thinking of changing anyway but it appears it will affect those using it for portrait work.
To be honest if the VR1 had never existed there wouldn't be this outcry and everyone would be extolling the virtues of this VR2 lens :D
 
SussexBlue said:
I still have the VR1 and am not thinking of changing anyway but it appears it will affect those using it for portrait work.
To be honest if the VR1 had never existed there wouldn't be this outcry and everyone would be extolling the virtues of this VR2 lens :D
Click to expand...

Quite agree SussexBlue. But the Mk I does exist and is a mighty fine lens. When an update is released people are bound to compare the new to the old and expect nothing but improvements.

Doesn't appear to be the case....
 
ryanyboy said:
Quite agree SussexBlue. But the Mk I does exist and is a mighty fine lens. When an update is released people are bound to compare the new to the old and expect nothing but improvements.

Doesn't appear to be the case....
Click to expand...

yes sorry I wasn't trying to make light of it, I guess like when anything new comes out it's always wiser to wait and see and then decide if you can live with it.
I haven't read all the threads on it (there's loads) I wonder if we'll get a responce from Nikon.
One final point, I wouldn't part with 2 grand for one without at least testing it and I think thats the problem here everyone expected the lens to behave the same as the old one.
 
puddleduck said:
With lenses that focus close, they often shorten their focal length internally as you get closer to the minimal focus distance.

For example, while the 105mm VR doesn't extend its barrel like some other macro lenses, to achieve 1:1 it actually shortens its focal length internally down to around 80mm from 105mm when it gets close to MFD.

The Nikon 18-200 VR is only 200mm at infinity, generally its closer to 135mm at other focal lengths.

The story on DPR is probably true as its not without precedent.
Click to expand...

So, if you don't mind me asking, why do the manufacturers do that?

Isn't that, in a way, deception? .. if I'm buying a 105mm macro that yield 1:1 magnification .. should I not be getting that exactly :shrug:

But in the case of the 70-200VRII, I think that's an even bigger deception (even if there's a disclaimer in the fine prints) since the older FX model didn't show this anomaly .. so why not maintain the same minimum standards / specifications?
 
Wail said:
Isn't that, in a way, deception? .. if I'm buying a 105mm macro that yield 1:1 magnification .. should I not be getting that exactly :shrug:
Click to expand...

Well you still do get 1:1

Remember any 1:1 macro will frame a subject at 1:1 the same, even its 55mm or 90mm or 150mm. Most macro lenses extend their barrels - but the 105mm VR can't do that so it needs to shorten its effective focal distance instead.

The new 60mm f/2.8 AF-S does not have as much working distance as the older 60mm AF-D for the same reason. But both are still 1:1.
 
Yes, but you get a shorter focal length for 1:1 .... the 1:1 is only part of the package :shrug:. Should they not market it as an 80mm macro 1:1?

The funny thing is that until this subject just came up, I was totally indifferent at what "reach" I'd get from whatever lens. Ignorance is bliss :p
 
SussexBlue said:
To be honest if the VR1 had never existed there wouldn't be this outcry and everyone would be extolling the virtues of this VR2 lens :D
Click to expand...

And vice-versa:

To be honest if the VR2 didn't exist there wouldn't be this outcry and everyone would be still be extolling the virtues of the VR1 lens :D :lol:
 
ryanyboy said:
This guy's a little po'd

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=33860457
Click to expand...

Gotta love this guy's reply

Having read all of the posts on this thread, and the 42 other threads about the new 70-200, I have to conclude that there is only one course available to those who bought this lens--suicide. Clearly, their world is entirely shattered, their loved ones forever lost or estranged, and their herbal aids to male potency rendered ineffective by this unprecedented catastrophe. The Roman way is the only one left to them.

Of course, they COULD go take pictures...
 
SussexBlue said:
Gotta love this guy's reply

Having read all of the posts on this thread, and the 42 other threads about the new 70-200, I have to conclude that there is only one course available to those who bought this lens--suicide. Clearly, their world is entirely shattered, their loved ones forever lost or estranged, and their herbal aids to male potency rendered ineffective by this unprecedented catastrophe. The Roman way is the only one left to them.

Of course, they COULD go take pictures...
Click to expand...

haha, thats brilliant :D
 
So you are mostly defending the "old" 70-200, which performs brilliantly.

No lens manufacturer goes to the time and trouble of designing an upgraded, but poorer lens.

The close focus focal length is something that only people changing might notice, for a day or two....anyone who hasn't had the old 70-200 will just get on and use it. They will (as will upgraders) learn to use the lens within its capabilities......you don't slag a 200mm off because it hasn't got the reach of a 300mm do you...you just swap lenses if you need 300mm.

For portrait work at closer focus range, the new lens will still perform a mighty fine job - you might need to be 1 pace forward, thats all....but couple that slight trade off with the new sensor resolution and it is a non arguement. A3 from DX is fine - so a bit of crop in a FX sensor, especially a new FX sensor will have no detrimental affect whatsoever.

I am not going to defend the lens for everything. Just trying to bring a little balance to the arguement. I will wait until I have had my test lens for a few weeks before making a final decision. Just got to wait for the roadshows to finish, then I will put it through some real wor jobs and see how it fares. After that, it is decision time. Until then, I will carry on with what I have and be happy in the knowledge that it is perfectly good for any job.

In which case, why am I even considering a swap?
Hmmmm. I think I had better think it out again!
 
Maybe this just about sums it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjA4lDLs3ic






Edit:
It appears that this guy is the self same person who has posted threads all over the web slating the lens.I think he's up to about 45-50 threads so far. (Max Green. Or is it really Chris Miller?) He certainly is doing his best to make his point.
 
Owners of the first version complain of light fall off in the corners when used on a full frame body. Nikon optical engineers design a new lens with a larger light cone to eradicate this issue, in doing so have to alter the internal geometry of the lens.

Surprised none of the 'experts' on dpreview have worked this out yet ;)
 
You mean the pixel peepers on DP review did? - there were few who complained about the light fall off in real world useage
 
I wonder if the mass of threads by the same chap is because he has links or is in the pay of Canon, Sony, Olympus whoever?

Nothing like a bit of propaganda about competition's kit to sow nagging seeds of doubt and help your own sales.

I smell a small furry creature with a long tail.
 
Lensflare said:
I wonder if the mass of threads by the same chap is because he has links or is in the pay of Canon, Sony, Olympus whoever?

Nothing like a bit of propaganda about competition's kit to sow nagging seeds of doubt and help your own sales.

I smell a small furry creature with a long tail.
Click to expand...

Any retro-focus design is going to exhibit the same reduction in focal length to a greater or lesser degree and I'm sure all the "competitions" offerings are no different. Focal length is specified whilst focussed to infinity and that's what you get (+/- 5%).

No "furry creatures", just someone who's discovering how optics work.

Bob
 
kevshore said:
Maybe this just about sums it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjA4lDLs3ic






Edit:
It appears that this guy is the self same person who has posted threads all over the web slating the lens.I think he's up to about 45-50 threads so far. (Max Green. Or is it really Chris Miller?) He certainly is doing his best to make his point.
Click to expand...

He's well known as a troll on DP Review and has been banned there at least twice (which is going some over there). He's now also posting the same parp on NikonGear. Tedious is not the word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top