Nikon 70-200VR II - rumblings

The spec for the VRII has been out for ages, the "problem" is fully described in the numbers.

Perhaps "professional" photographers should have read the spec and understood what Nikon were delivering to them before they spunked their money.
 
What you all on about :thinking: a quote from the DP review



As to the rumors that the new VR II doesn't achieve the full 200mm focal length, you will see that this isn't true at all. In fact, both zooms have slightly more reach than the 200mm prime.
Click to expand...

Or am I being stupid, and missing something? (please don't answer that) :shrug:
 
desantnik said:
The spec for the VRII has been out for ages, the "problem" is fully described in the numbers.

Perhaps "professional" photographers should have read the spec and understood what Nikon were delivering to them before they spunked their money.
Click to expand...

Good point. Although I suspect the majority of photographers (pro or otherwise) wouldn't have much of an idea about the specs of these things. :D
 
Ryan, maybe thats true but all this "not fit for purpose" crap is rubbish - the spec tells you what it is and thats what you get. Its "not fit for purpose" if the figures lied, which they don't.
 
desantnik said:
Ryan, maybe thats true but all this "not fit for purpose" crap is rubbish - the spec tells you what it is and thats what you get. Its "not fit for purpose" if the figures lied, which they don't.
Click to expand...

Hey - I'm NOT saying the lens is not fit for purpose at all. In fact I'm still considering an upgrade. I just came across the DPreview thread (via Nikoncafe) and thought I'd see what you guys thought. I always feel there's a less "melodramtic" attitude here than on the US forums.
 
It seems all the forums have got similar threads running full of people going to return it :shrug: I have to question that given the specs were published by Nikon whether or not the retailers are going to accept returns.
 
I have been reading all these threads on DP and other sites about this lens, and to be honest my only response to all of this is "meh".

As said before, the lens specs were publically available and to be honest, does it really matter that much?

Its a well crafted lens with superb edge definition and pin sharp clarity that performs like a pro lens should. I love it :)

People really need to start spending their time actually taking photos :D
 
jamesoliverstone said:
I have been reading all these threads on DP and other sites about this lens, and to be honest my only response to all of this is "meh".

As said before, the lens specs were publically available and to be honest, does it really matter that much?

Its a well crafted lens with superb edge definition and pin sharp clarity that performs like a pro lens should. I love it :)

People really need to start spending their time actually taking photos :D
Click to expand...

Do what???

:lol:
 
ryanyboy said:
I always feel there's a less "melodramtic" attitude here than on the US forums.
Click to expand...

Yup, thats why TP exists I think you will find.... however we are more *sarcastic* though (for anyone reading from "the Land of the Brave and the Home of the Free", that "ironic" :nuts:)
 
So my take on the VRII "issues" is based on some research I call the "real world usage" test. I realise that this isn't going to be as accurate/reliable as the all important "geek taking photos from a tripod in his bedroom then banging on and on about it on dpreview" test but I thought I'd share my findings anyway: :)

Sat - Wales vs Australia Rugby - Excellent, sharp, quick and no noticeable difference in focal length (there may well be some but I certainly didn't notice it).

Sun - Everton vs Liverpool - Excellent, sharp, quick and no noticeable difference in focal length (there may well be some but I certainly didn't notice it).

Tues - Commercial job including corporate portraiture - you guessed it - Excellent, sharp, quick and no noticeable difference in focal length (there may well be some but I certainly didn't notice it).

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that you can pixel peep and worry about specs all you like but this lens is really very good and imho a worthy successor to the VRI. The focal length issues are just something that the geeks are going to get excited about and the Nikon bashers can troll about but the working pro will probably barely notice, I certainly didn't. They have addressed the problems with the old lens well.

Curls into ball and prepares to be flamed :)
 
I think the folks over on DPreview must have blown the fuses on their S.A.D. lamps.
 
So how do images compare in the real world and not in the lab or on the test bench ?
Can you see a visible image difference in quality between the two lenses of the same subject ?

I doubt it very much ?

I'm sure that most serious togs be they pro or amateur like to have what we believe to be the best gear be it Canon Nikon Sony etc.
No matter how good the equipment is it's only as good as it's operator :)
 
boyfalldown said:
cause he reviewed it without ever having laid hands on one possibly?
Click to expand...

Well, he has now :naughty: ....

(From the updated Ken Rockwell review):

"I hate this lens because it is so good that now I want to buy one. I borrowed one to test, and it turned out so subtly excellent that it surprised me.

I was fully hoping that this was the same as the previous 70-200mm VR, except missing the AF lock buttons and $500 more expensive, but no.

This new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II does everything a little better than every other previous 80-200mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. Drat. I can't find any area in which it isn't Nikon's best yet. The only potential gotcha is that at close distances, the effective focal length range contracts, effectively becoming a 65-135mm lens at 5 feet (1.5m). "

Full review: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-ii.htm


Having read all about this close focusing issue, I really don't think that it's going to be much of a problem for me - it could even work out well! As I said in another thread, I do want to use this lens with a 1.7x TC for wildlife, but mostly the lens will be focusing close to infinity on these distant subjects, so I won't be losing any length at 200mm/(340mm with the TC), or so I hope :|.

Also, I've sometimes needed a closer focus distance than I can get on my current 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 Nikkor (for indoor work), so the extra 6 inches gained with this new lens are more than welcome.

History will be the judge, of course, but I think that all this hysteria stirred up by a couple of people who have 'discovered' something which they don't like about this lens will probably be outweighed by the many pros who go on to shoot with these mk II models every day and adapt to their characteristics, producing near perfect quality images along the way :shrug:.

Anyway, in a few days, I'll be able to make up my own mind :naughty:.
 
I really wouldn't put all your hopes on this lens being GREAT with a 1.7x TC. If you really need the length, buy a 300 f4 prime - a fraction of the price and far better for long shots.

The TC will work, it will take photos but they will be a little squidgy :D
 
desantnik said:
I really wouldn't put all your hopes on this lens being GREAT with a 1.7x TC. If you really need the length, buy a 300 f4 prime - a fraction of the price and far better for long shots.

The TC will work, it will take photos but they will be a little squidgy :D
Click to expand...

I hope not :(, but you may well be right. Let me just explain the logic behind this purchase, as I haven't been at all clear about it so far:

For me, it's a question of trying to avoid buying lenses that I don't really need and instead, forking out for what I need most, desantnik :|. What I wanted to avoid at all costs was spending £1000 on a brand new 300mm f4 and then having to delay the purchase of the 70-200mm (which I got cheaper than it will ever be again, I suspect) for another 12 months, whilst I save up more cash. Although I've mentioned wanting to use this lens at 300mm for bird photography, this is only something that I do for a couple of months in the winter - it isn't my main photographic interest and isn't the main reason for choosing the 70-200mm VRII.

Basically, I want a longer f2.8 zoom than the Tamron 28-75mm that I'm currently using for low light and shallow DOF stuff and so a 70-200mm (or 80-200mm) Nikon lens was always on the cards anyway. This latest one looks to be the best yet and as I only intend to 'buy this lens once', I wanted to spend the extra and get the latest model.

If the TC17E gives good enough results, then I don't need a 300mm f4 at all - such is the theory, at least :naughty:. Some (including K.R., FWIW) say that the TC17E performs extremely well with the 70-200mm. If they're wrong, then I can always re-sell the TC and go for the old AF 300mm f4 ED IF lens instead.

So, I do appreciate the point that you're making (puddleduck's already suggested the same thing in another thread of mine), but I only have a certain amount of money to spend on lenses and a good, flexible zoom is more use to me than an excellent, but limited application, 300mm prime. As long as the results are better than with the 70-300mm VR (at 300mm), I'll be happy ;).
 
I had the older 70-200VR along with the 1.7 TC EII. I had used the lens with D40, D200, D300 and D2Xs; it was a wonderful lens. I also got the 1.7 TC EII and this made it a little bit soft, but nothing to worry about. Not one single bit.

My only reason for selling that lens was I couldn't hand-hold it well enough. I am right-handed and have a serious injury from my wrist to knuckles. Even with VR and pushing up ISO, I wasn't able to get acceptable results when shooting with them hand-held. Nothing to fault the lens, or it coupled with the 1.7 TC EII.

Nikon have announced a new line of TC, the 2.0 TC EIII. I have a feeling this will work great with the new incarnation of 70-200 VR II. I am sure it will be put to the test pretty soon once its' made available.

As for the 300 f/4. It is almost the same weight as the 70-200 VR; and yes, it is sharper than the old 70-200VR + 1.7 TC. But, that's a prime lens, which lacks VR, and only goes to F/4!

Zoom versatility is a huge bargaining & buying point. Sometimes I just can't handle primes, regardless of how much better they may be.
 
Naboo,

Sorry, I should have added.... when I switched to Nikon in 2008, I didn't have a huge pile of cash for glass. So I picked up a 70-200VR and a 1.7xTC.

The 70-200 I planned to use for motorsport and the TC I thought would give me a replacement for the 300 prime I couldn't yet afford for longer shots.

After a little while I realised the TC wasn't a good plan really so got on the lookout for the 300 I should have bought (but couldn't, well, still couldn't but plastic is an evil/wonderful thing :D). The tipping point actually was when I went out last winter to take some photos of deer in the morning light - not something I do normally, but basically it proved the point in bucket loads.

So there you go, your situation is the same as mine was...

The 70-200 is gorgeous, even in VR-1 incarnation. Its my most used lens and I don't regret having bought it at all, but with the TC, its not quite so good. In fact, I'd say the much frowned upon 70-300VR would probably be a better bet for the longer stuff if you don't want to go long prime.
 
desantnik said:
Naboo,

Sorry, I should have added.... when I switched to Nikon in 2008, I didn't have a huge pile of cash for glass. So I picked up a 70-200VR and a 1.7xTC.

The 70-200 I planned to use for motorsport and the TC I thought would give me a replacement for the 300 prime I couldn't yet afford for longer shots.

After a little while I realised the TC wasn't a good plan really so got on the lookout for the 300 I should have bought (but couldn't, well, still couldn't but plastic is an evil/wonderful thing :D). The tipping point actually was when I went out last winter to take some photos of deer in the morning light - not something I do normally, but basically it proved the point in bucket loads.

So there you go, your situation is the same as mine was...

The 70-200 is gorgeous, even in VR-1 incarnation. Its my most used lens and I don't regret having bought it at all, but with the TC, its not quite so good. In fact, I'd say the much frowned upon 70-300VR would probably be a better bet for the longer stuff if you don't want to go long prime.
Click to expand...

Ah well, you seem the right person to ask for advice then :). Shame that I didn't read your account before I bought the TC17EII :(.

I'll let you know how I get on, once the lens and TC turn up (later next week).
 
Naboo32 said:
History will be the judge, of course, but I think that all this hysteria stirred up by a couple of people who have 'discovered' something which they don't like about this lens will probably be outweighed by the many pros who go on to shoot with these mk II models every day and adapt to their characteristics, producing near perfect quality images along the way :shrug:.
Click to expand...

Don't forget those pros who'll still be using the VR1 as well.
 
TheBionicDan said:
So my take on the VRII "issues" is based on some research I call the "real world usage" test. I realise that this isn't going to be as accurate/reliable as the all important "geek taking photos from a tripod in his bedroom then banging on and on about it on dpreview" test but I thought I'd share my findings anyway: :)

Sat - Wales vs Australia Rugby - Excellent, sharp, quick and no noticeable difference in focal length (there may well be some but I certainly didn't notice it).

Sun - Everton vs Liverpool - Excellent, sharp, quick and no noticeable difference in focal length (there may well be some but I certainly didn't notice it).

Tues - Commercial job including corporate portraiture - you guessed it - Excellent, sharp, quick and no noticeable difference in focal length (there may well be some but I certainly didn't notice it).

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that you can pixel peep and worry about specs all you like but this lens is really very good and imho a worthy successor to the VRI. The focal length issues are just something that the geeks are going to get excited about and the Nikon bashers can troll about but the working pro will probably barely notice, I certainly didn't. They have addressed the problems with the old lens well. :)
Click to expand...

I don't have or initally intend swapping my Mk1 but if a fellow sporst shooter can't tell the difference!, then I guess I'm not going to listen to some sad bedroom pixel pinchers!!:p "end of"!! LOL
 
Radiohead said:
Don't forget those pros who'll still be using the VR1 as well.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't dare ;)! I was simply saying that it's a bit too early to write off this latest version, IMO, as the focal length 'issue' that has been raised in this thread is nowhere near as important as the issues of soft corners and heavy light fall-off (on FX cameras) will be to some other users (even if they are only amateur users) :shrug:.

The MKI was built in the days when DX was the only option - times have changed and Nikon appear to have tried to create a lens which works just as well with FX sensors. Makes perfect sense to me :)!
 
Suppose it only matters when you compare against an equivalent and it ends up with egg on its (and its owner's face).

Other than that, it's a just a lens; you take photos with it....
 
dinorock said:
you better read his review .....he did:lol:
Click to expand...

In fairness to boyfalldown, KR only amended his 70-200 VRII review this week. Before that, the review clearly stated that he hadn't yet had his hands on one. It was all just speculation.

Just trying to set the record straight ;).
 
Naboo32 said:
In fairness to boyfalldown, KR only amended his 70-200 VRII review this week. Before that, the review clearly stated that he hadn't yet had his hands on one. It was all just speculation.

Just trying to set the record straight ;).
Click to expand...

oh right sorry (boyfalldown) i only read it today. just a quick question how many of these pro,s just bought it without having a play with it on one of thier camera bodies and seeing what it was like? :bang: thats a lot of money they are parting with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top