- Messages
- 6,948
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's all to do with focus breathing at short focus distances. At close focussing you don't get a true 200mm, it's supposedly more like 135mm. I can't remember what the actual distances are but it's easy to fine example on the internet.
There is a table comparing focus distance with focal length in the link below.
http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm
If you don't shoot subject distances under 5m and haven't previously used another lens it may be hard to notice the 'issue'.
@JJ! how much do you shoot within 5m of the subject at 200mm? I honestly dont see the focus breathing in real use as I don't have a 70-200 f4 to compare it against whilst shooting. I could compare it against my 200-400 but I usually choose what I think is the best lens lens for the situation then don't worry about if focus breathing will be an issue.
The f4 is a great lens, so is the VR2 f2.8. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages. The f4 is light, sharp across the frame and quite fast to focus too but build/weatherproofing isn't so good. The f2.8 VR2 is pretty sharp, great at f2.8, rapid/accurate AF in low light, great with 1.4x TC but heavier and has the focus breathing "issue".
It all comes down to whether you really need f2.8, need great AF in low light, better weatherproofing or often use a 1.4x TC. If you do then it's the VR2 f2.8, otherwise the f4 would be perfect. If I only shot wildlife in good light/weather or landscapes I would have kept the f4. Having f2.8 available in poor light can really help keep ISO lower when you are at the extreme exposure settings. There is nothing wrong with the f4, if used within its limits it's a great lens. I have to say I sometimes miss the lightweightness of the f4, after holding framing on a subject for a few minutes waiting for the perfect pose I've noticed the weight difference! If I was only into landscapes the 70-200 f4 and 24-120 f4 would be my ideal landscape setup (and much lighter too).
Last edited: