Photoclubalpha

Dpreview has just posted the review for the new 70-200 VR II. For my taste this is very impressive lens :

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nik ... /page5.asp

I'm not a fan of zoom lens, but its abilities at 200mm are really good on the 24mp sensor. Kind of lens that is probably waiting for higher MP sensor trying to challenge it.

Regards,

Frank

Richard has swapped his 70-200mm Sigma HSM for the new Nikon, as the quality of the Nikon image is quite stunning. But there are some very big trade-offs, the main one being that close-ups are half the scale of other lenses, AF stops short at 1.47m (4.82 feet - not far off the old 28-135mm).

This is the worst feature of the lens, as on full frame you can want to make shots at closer quarters than around 5 feet away, especially with kids or animals. That small difference down to 1m with the Sigma is a big difference really.

However, Sigma's new OS 70-200mm design joins the Nikon VR and stops short at exactly the same close focus, 1:8 sort of repro scale. It may be a problem trying to comine close focus with image stabilisation.

David

well ... probably the same problem as the old 28-70mm G ... or other lens that was not able to focus closer. But in my mind, a 70-200mm is not there for macro or close up, there is very good fix lens for that. At the sharpness of the lens (for what I can see in the review) probably less angle (150mm instead of 200mm) and crop on the computer will solve the issue.

I don't know if the nano technology of coating is really there helping for all the advantage of the lens ? If it is, probably this is a reason for some very good old lens to become slowly not that good ...

Regards,

Frank

InTheSky wrote:Dpreview has just posted the review for the new 70-200 VR II. For my taste this is very impressive lens :

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nik ... /page5.asp

I'm not a fan of zoom lens, but its abilities at 200mm are really good on the 24mp sensor. Kind of lens that is probably waiting for higher MP sensor trying to challenge it.

Regards,

Frank

Looks good.
Any hint that Sony will also make a V2 of the 70-200/2.8G ?

InTheSky wrote:well ... probably the same problem as the old 28-70mm G ... or other lens that was not able to focus closer. But in my mind, a 70-200mm is not there for macro or close up, there is very good fix lens for that. At the sharpness of the lens (for what I can see in the review) probably less angle (150mm instead of 200mm) and crop on the computer will solve the issue.

I don't know if the nano technology of coating is really there helping for all the advantage of the lens ? If it is, probably this is a reason for some very good old lens to become slowly not that good ...

Regards,

Frank

The Tamron 70-200 f2.8 has a better close focus than the Nikon or the Minolta/Sony AND it is well corrected for macro (and cost less than 700 US$) In other hand, focus is slow and apparently, the AF on the sample DK got for review was specially slow and inaccurate that we will never seen a DK's review of this lens. Mi sample is good for everything but sports -since I don't do sport photography, I don't really care...

Here a close up with the Tamron:

The 70-200mm may not be there for close-ups but Richard would have kept his Sigma 70-200mm as a second lens if finances permitted. It behaves totally differently as you focus - the focal length changes much less than with the Nikon, which is really only a 135mm lens when focused at 1.47m. If the Nikon remained a 200mm lens at close focus, the 1.47m minimum distance would be more useful for portraits, but the internal focusing mechanism reduces focal length about as much as any lens we have ever tested.

For me, the issue is simple - I sit in my office which measures 7.5 x 10ft, my desk chair ends up more or less in the middle. Lift the Nikon to my eye, and I can't focus on anything in the room from the middle of it except the far wall and the window! Sure, I can roll my chair over and just manage to focus on the stuff on my desk. Standing up, the lens will JUST focus on the ground at my feet.

On my Gitzo Reporter tripod, legs fully extended but column not extended places the focal plane of the camera about 120cm from the ground, when the camera is aimed down as if to copy an item (like a photo, postcard etc) place on the ground. You can not raise the centre column as the legs then risk appearing in the pic. Also, at 120cm height, it's very comfortable for someone of my height (5-10) to use the viewfinder and also just possible to use the rear screen for live view.

I know that you will say 'but no-one uses a 70-200mm f/2.8 for copying' - if it's their only lens, and one of their sharpest, they do. Having a zoom for copying like this is more than useful, it's almost essential. The Nikon does allow MF to 127cm but that's very tight for comfort.

The 1.2m of the Sony SSM lens, the 1.0m of the Sigma and the 0.95m of the Tamron are very strong positive features - and the 1.47m of the new Nikon is not. The new Canon focuses to 1.2m, which is 10cm closer than the existing Canon 70-200mm IS and 30cm closer than the non-IS. The Nikon actually does focus close than the older version, by a small amount, but the internal focusing makes the subject scale smaller.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:... but the internal focusing makes the subject scale smaller.

So it's rather a micro lens than a macro lens

I have the M28-135 with 1.5m MFD and it is annoying (maybe even more than on a 70-200 lens). This is a technical detail that doesn't get the attention it deems, it seems.

bossel wrote:I have the M28-135 with 1.5m MFD and it is annoying (maybe even more than on a 70-200 lens). This is a technical detail that doesn't get the attention it deems, it seems.

Yes, that was the most annoying thing about that lens. It made it much less useful as a walkaround lens. I used to use mine on a 9xi a lot and walked around Tokyo with it often, but with the 5-6 feet minimum focus distance it was not as useful as I would have liked.

It must be the build quality of the first VR version of Nikon's 70-200 impresses most. It is relatively thin (comparing to Canon/Sony..Sigma versions) and well sealed for weather proof. I have never intended this lens for any macro shots and I keep my patience for Sony's revision of the 200/4 version..