Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR
- Thread starter Dangermouse
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,156
- Name
- Simon Everett
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Read through this with interest.
I had the 80-200 in all its incarnations. When the 70-200 came out I waited to see what the real field testers would com eout with, not the tame Nikon users used to field test in development. They are full time pros, granted, but they are trusted Nikon devotees who get the kit for free and ahead of time to put through its paces. Nikon then trades off their reputations to tout the new model whatever it is. The real field testing then comes from the likes of you and I who buy the new model and use it in anger...the truth then outs.
The current 70-200 is slightly sharper than the 80-200, but you would have to put two pictures side by side and study them to tell. Give a lightbox researcher a single shot to look at and they will accept it from either lens. Itis marginal. BUT, the 70-200 is better sealed against climate (it has a rubber O-ring around the mount) and is sealed on the body too. It is lighter than the 80-200 by a noticeable margin, and when you have a bag of kit to lug around all day, each weight saving from each item soon adds up.
The handling of the 70-200 is faster than the 80-200 (AFS), the focus speed is slightly faster too. I have no idea why. However, the VR is a bit hit and miss. Sometimes it works brilliantly. Other times it causes every shot to be softened. It is something I use, or try to, but am still trying ot master - 2 years or more I have been using the bloody thing, virtually every day, and I still haven't worked out how to get the VR to work reliably. I am on my 3rd actual 70-200. Nikon replaced me with a second one, as they couldn't get it to focus properly either. So that was fine and it worked OK. This one (I used to have 2 sets of kit, so 2 of everything, now I am winding down a bit I don't feel the need) this one is still a bit on the unreliable side. I did a couple of bike features yesterday, one, an orange Hornet, it didn't work on a single frame of the panning shots. Dead simple pans on a flat road. Not a single one acceptably sharp, not sharp, not even acceptably sharp when using the VR - shutter speeds ranging from 60 - 160 on a focal length of around the 135 mark, possibly as long as 160. The same pans done the old fashioned way, withno VR - thank god, it saved the day. I haven't lost my touch, but the VR doesn't provide any benefit for getting down the shutter speed range to increase the streaky blur - the object of the exercise. The other day, doing some military boats for the builders, it worked perfectly, that was on a rough sea, bouncing around on a boat photographing another boat bouncing around on the sea - so there is no rhyme or reason for it. You just have to get the old fashioned safe shot, then play with the shutter speeds and VR and if it works, it works. If it doesn't you have the safe shots the old way.
The new version may, or may not, be a better lens. I will do the same as I always have, WAIT. I will wait for some feedback off the ground from people using it for a while before committing any budget to changing. The same with any new model of anything, those who jump straight in are the ones who risk the teething problems. Even after a few months there are often little wrinkles that surface to be ironedout, which later versions of the same thing have removed. By next spring we should know if it is worth the extra or no. Until then I shall reserve judgement and stick with the devil I know.
I am not hankering after my 80-200 AFS back, that I do know. The 70-200 is everything it is hyped up to be. The little vignetting in the corners I think actually adds to most images by providing more depth to them, unwittingly.
Another thing to think of - NO maker sets out to make something bad. Nikon will have put all their thinking into this lens, it is the mainstay of most pro systems - plenty who work with just a 24-70 and a 70-200. maybe add a prime 20 to that for the odd occassion if weight is an issue, or a specialist portrait lens like the 85 or 105. But the majority of shos on a day to day basis will be covered by the 24-200 combo.
I can see a time in the future where, simply to add a bit of challenge again, some people will go back to a set of primes. It will make them think about their pictures more.Imagine having 4 primes. 20, 35 85 and 200. You would actually have all bases covered. You would just need to be a little more selective and use your brain a bit before each shot. The zoom function is like a sat nav in the car for the school run......it just encourages laziness!
I had the 80-200 in all its incarnations. When the 70-200 came out I waited to see what the real field testers would com eout with, not the tame Nikon users used to field test in development. They are full time pros, granted, but they are trusted Nikon devotees who get the kit for free and ahead of time to put through its paces. Nikon then trades off their reputations to tout the new model whatever it is. The real field testing then comes from the likes of you and I who buy the new model and use it in anger...the truth then outs.
The current 70-200 is slightly sharper than the 80-200, but you would have to put two pictures side by side and study them to tell. Give a lightbox researcher a single shot to look at and they will accept it from either lens. Itis marginal. BUT, the 70-200 is better sealed against climate (it has a rubber O-ring around the mount) and is sealed on the body too. It is lighter than the 80-200 by a noticeable margin, and when you have a bag of kit to lug around all day, each weight saving from each item soon adds up.
The handling of the 70-200 is faster than the 80-200 (AFS), the focus speed is slightly faster too. I have no idea why. However, the VR is a bit hit and miss. Sometimes it works brilliantly. Other times it causes every shot to be softened. It is something I use, or try to, but am still trying ot master - 2 years or more I have been using the bloody thing, virtually every day, and I still haven't worked out how to get the VR to work reliably. I am on my 3rd actual 70-200. Nikon replaced me with a second one, as they couldn't get it to focus properly either. So that was fine and it worked OK. This one (I used to have 2 sets of kit, so 2 of everything, now I am winding down a bit I don't feel the need) this one is still a bit on the unreliable side. I did a couple of bike features yesterday, one, an orange Hornet, it didn't work on a single frame of the panning shots. Dead simple pans on a flat road. Not a single one acceptably sharp, not sharp, not even acceptably sharp when using the VR - shutter speeds ranging from 60 - 160 on a focal length of around the 135 mark, possibly as long as 160. The same pans done the old fashioned way, withno VR - thank god, it saved the day. I haven't lost my touch, but the VR doesn't provide any benefit for getting down the shutter speed range to increase the streaky blur - the object of the exercise. The other day, doing some military boats for the builders, it worked perfectly, that was on a rough sea, bouncing around on a boat photographing another boat bouncing around on the sea - so there is no rhyme or reason for it. You just have to get the old fashioned safe shot, then play with the shutter speeds and VR and if it works, it works. If it doesn't you have the safe shots the old way.
The new version may, or may not, be a better lens. I will do the same as I always have, WAIT. I will wait for some feedback off the ground from people using it for a while before committing any budget to changing. The same with any new model of anything, those who jump straight in are the ones who risk the teething problems. Even after a few months there are often little wrinkles that surface to be ironedout, which later versions of the same thing have removed. By next spring we should know if it is worth the extra or no. Until then I shall reserve judgement and stick with the devil I know.
I am not hankering after my 80-200 AFS back, that I do know. The 70-200 is everything it is hyped up to be. The little vignetting in the corners I think actually adds to most images by providing more depth to them, unwittingly.
Another thing to think of - NO maker sets out to make something bad. Nikon will have put all their thinking into this lens, it is the mainstay of most pro systems - plenty who work with just a 24-70 and a 70-200. maybe add a prime 20 to that for the odd occassion if weight is an issue, or a specialist portrait lens like the 85 or 105. But the majority of shos on a day to day basis will be covered by the 24-200 combo.
I can see a time in the future where, simply to add a bit of challenge again, some people will go back to a set of primes. It will make them think about their pictures more.Imagine having 4 primes. 20, 35 85 and 200. You would actually have all bases covered. You would just need to be a little more selective and use your brain a bit before each shot. The zoom function is like a sat nav in the car for the school run......it just encourages laziness!
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oh hooray at last! Someone else who agrees with me on the VR function on the 70-200VR! Totally 100% agree with you LensFlare - in fact I had a long drawn out argument that VR didn't work but IS did a while back on here (curiously with the main protaganist being a Canon owner who had never used Nikon LOL!)
Thats the only VR lens I have at the moment and if thats typical, I'll not be choosing to buy another if there is any option (which there isn't normally on Nikon, other than buying a pre-VR older one which will be not so good in other respects as the latest one with the iffy VR).
So buy the 70-200VR/VR2 because of the optics and step away from the "make my pictures soft" switch.
Suck it up on the price, the lens is quality (apart from the useless VR)
Thats the only VR lens I have at the moment and if thats typical, I'll not be choosing to buy another if there is any option (which there isn't normally on Nikon, other than buying a pre-VR older one which will be not so good in other respects as the latest one with the iffy VR).
So buy the 70-200VR/VR2 because of the optics and step away from the "make my pictures soft" switch.
Suck it up on the price, the lens is quality (apart from the useless VR)
- Messages
- 1,293
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 873
- Edit My Images
- No
Yup, the AF just isn't up to scratch.. and we shoot wide open all the time too... Joy
- Messages
- 873
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yup, the AF just isn't up to scratch.. and we shoot wide open all the time too... Joy
I think I asked before when you mentioned this, but what exactly do you mean? A consistently (sp?) reproducable issue?
Gary Coyle
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 12,654
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
