What do you class as close distances? I've not noticed any focus breathing on my 70-200mm f2.8 but then I wouldn't know how to test for it anywayI have used it to test on my D750 and here are my findings from a short session of shooting random stuff indoors
Good
1. Really sharp across all all focal lengths. While some reports says the 200 mm end is softer, I found it sharp enough.
2. Contrast is good overall, but lacks a slight bit at 200 mm on bright objects
3. VC is excellent and silent compared to the Tamron 70-300 I had before
4. Well built and feels solid to hold. Bit front heavy on a D750 compared to the Nikon 70-200 F4 I have but expected as this is twice as heavy
5. Focus speed is excellent. In dark conditions also it did well, but I understand the Nikon 2.8 is better in low lights
6. Half the price of Nikon, but performance is close. DXO in fact rates this lens to be sharper than Nikon 2.8, but most other reviews suggest the other way. I think the Nikon 2.8 is consistently sharp from 70-200 at 2.8. The tamron may edge the Nikon in certain focal lengths, but from reviews it is slightly behind the Nikon 2.8 at 200 at 2.8
7. Colours are nice
8. Bokeh is excellent
Not so good or could have been better
1. It focus breathes at close focusing distance. Compared to my Nikon 70-200 F4 and the difference is quite obvious. At shortest focus distance this lens is about 145-160 mm when zoomed in to 200 mm and not a true 200 mm. This is quite well known for such lenses. The Nikon 2.8 is worse at 135 mm. If you intend to shoot objects closes to you, this can be a problem. The Canon is best in this regard and so is the Nikon 70-200 F4. At longer distances the breathing doe snot matter like in sports and concerts.
2. Does not have focus limiter switch - it is handy for shooting distance objects and the AF will not pick up anything close that comes in the way. This is a deal breaker for serious pro sports shooters
In my limited experience, I liked it and it is very sharp. If you shoot as a professional and make money, I'd say go for the Nikon 2.8 as you will never regret buying the Nikon and your work will pay for it in a couple of shoots. If it is for hobby, get the Tamron. It is best value for money 70-200 2.8 that is not just about value, but offers good performance.
Here's one shot I kept as others were just shooting random objects.
This one is almost at 100 % zoom at 200 mm F2.8
Almost 100% crop with the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr
What do you class as close distances? I've not noticed any focus breathing on my 70-200mm f2.8 but then I wouldn't know how to test for it anyway
Glad it helped, but I have not used it much. Do see other reviews on the internet and if possible get one and try.
Even with the high ISO capabilities, sometime f2.8 is better for sure! If I was shooting gigs I'd use f2.8's. The 24-70/70-200 combo won't let you down. As corner performance isn't really an issue with gig photography you could get a good Nikon VR1 (technically just called VR but ....) - I've used the ones we have at work and they just work! Probably cost less than a new tammy too though you'd have to check. For all that a good copy of the tammy would work well too, I'm not sure where they are with QC now, but the early batches were variable (being kind).
Paul Weller at Manchester Arena. Saturns Pattern World Tour by Irafusha By Jason Palmer, on Flickr
Thanks for that. Really bad at close focus at 200mm isn't it, although that being said I've always fancied the 135mm anywayAha, most people won't notice the lens breathing until you compare against another that does not breath.
The focus breathing issue on the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VRII is well discussed and documented on the internet.
Close distance starts from minimum focusing distance and anything close that is not infinity for the lens.
Here's a link to the review written by Thom Hogan with the table below
http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm
View attachment 55371
One more compared with 70-200 VR1, 70-20 F4 and another lens.
What it means is that if you are shooting with the lens at its closest focus distance the actual focal length is shorter for Nikon and Tamron versions. Interestingly the Canon is longer. The old Nikon 70-200 VRI does not suffer from this breathing and neither does the 70-200 F4.
When I compared the Tamron with the 70-200 F4, I was able to see clearly that the FOV on the F4 is magnified more at 200 and the Tamron seemed like 160mm and not true 200 mm.
You may also see Matt Garngers comparison with the Nikon VRII and Nikon 200 F2 and see how focus breathing affects the magnification on the 70-200 VRII. Btw, Matt was wrong in his earlier review where he said that the Nikon does not focus breath like the canon and Tamron, but he later corrected himself.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQx9fAAtwOI
Hope this helps to understand the issue.
It is bad when you look it that way, but the Nikon 70-200 VRII is considered as one of the finest lenses by people who use it and I have not heard anyone complaining. It is a stonking lens.Thanks for that. Really bad at close focus at 200mm isn't it, although that being said I've always fancied the 135mm anyway
TBH it's not something I knew about but now you've mentioned it but now I can't see past it and my favourite lens is now ruined, damn you for bringing it to my attentionIt is bad when you look it that way, but the Nikon 70-200 VRII is considered as one of the finest lenses by people who use it and I have not heard anyone complaining. It is a stonking lens.
Wish I could afford one as 135mm at 2.8 is a good portrait lens. I don't need anything longer
Hoping to see Sigma coming up with a 135 F2 Art and if that comes up, I will sell all my other lenses and keep the 24-85 VR and that 135 F2 and I will not worry about portrait lens anymore.
I concur it's one of the finest lenses, it's by far the best lens I have or have ever used 
