Dpreview review of Nikon's 70-200mm telephoto

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by RichA, May 2, 2008.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    JT's Ghost Guest

    From the link...

    The Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8G is a lens which would, were it
    designated 'DX', be fully deserving of the highest accolades. On the
    smaller sensor format, results are nothing short of spectacular -
    resolution is excellent even wide open, chromatic aberration and
    geometric distortion are low, and falloff negligible. Combine this with
    the impeccable build quality, excellent autofocus, and effective image
    stabilisation, and this lens is getting close to flawless; only the
    occasional, but severe flare problems really count against it. And let's
    face it, this verdict applies for the overwhelming majority of current
    Nikon users, who will only be delighted with the performance of this
    lens on their DX crop cameras.

    The problem is that, with the introduction of the D3, DX is no longer
    the pre-eminent format in Nikon's DSLR line, and 35mm full-frame has
    re-arisen from the ashes in the guise of FX. This of course places
    different demands on lenses, which now need to cover properly an image
    circle 43mm in diameter, as opposed to the 28mm of DX. And the D3 is a
    top-end camera, so it seems reasonable to assume that Nikon's workhorse
    professional lenses should give excellent results on it; sadly, the
    70-200mm F2.8 VR doesn't quite manage this, with signficant vignetting
    at wide apertures throughout the zoom range, and distinctly soft corners
    at longer focal lengths. The big problem here is that many D3 owners
    will likely need to use a fast telezoom on a daily basis, and for some,
    the 70-200mm VR's performance will simply not be up to scratch.
    Now it's certainly arguable that a little corner softness and vignetting
    isn't necessarily a huge issue when it comes to telezooms; the corners
    of the frame are often outside the depth fo field anyway, and a little
    vignetting can serve to 'frame' a portrait subject more effectively.

    Plus, the D3 now has vignetting correction as a firmware option, so can
    mitigate one of these issues to some extent (although at the price of
    slightly increased noise towards the corners of the frame).
    Unfortunately the big problem is that we're not dealing with just a
    little corner softness and vignetting, but a lot, and there's simply no
    way to sharpen up those soft corners.

    So overall we're left with a lens which is a great option for most
    potential buyers, but simply isn't quite up to the demands of full frame
    capture. For anyone using the Nikon's DX format DSLRs, the
    incoprporation of image stabilisation alone means that it's the best
    option currently available, but FX shooters may well wish to think long
    and hard before buying.

    - JT
    has this lens, won't be buying a Full Frame body.
    JT's Ghost, May 3, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    John Smith Guest

    Who the **** really cares about "soft corners" in a 70-200 telephoto

    99% of the time, this focal length lens is used for car races, birds in
    flight, football games, surfers, etc. Who REALLY even thinks, much less
    cares, about soft corners or minor vignetting in a lens like this???? I
    have the Canon equivalent and one could say the same thing about my lens but
    I don't care BECAUSE ITS IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    My God, there are so many fucking anal retentive geeks here with nothing
    better to do but analyze ad nausea, how many megapixels this has, or how
    infitessimally soft that is, or what the speed of this CF card is versus
    that one, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.etc.

    Doesn't anyone here actually make any arts? Nearly all of the technology we
    have today, including this really crappy Nikon 70-200 lens <s> is orders of
    magnitude better than anything that Weston, Adams, Stieglitz , and Atget
    could have even dreamed of.

    Jesus, shut the **** up about all this ANALyzing about equipment minutia
    and go out and make some art!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And no, once again, I'm not a Nikon shooter!
    John Smith, May 3, 2008
  4. RichA

    frederick Guest

    No - it's irrelevant to you perhaps. BTW the corners/edges are pathetic
    on Fx - not just a little soft, and it's not some cheap third-party zoom.
    It's also probably one of the most popular professional priced zooms
    ever made by Nikon.
    70-200mm isn't reserved for birds and sport etc. On Fx it's mainly too
    frederick, May 3, 2008
  5. RichA

    OldBoy Guest

    It's irrelevant because the Canon equivalent is made for full-frame.
    OldBoy, May 3, 2008
  6. The real issue here is that most of these people "complaining" about this
    lens have never used it and would love to have one. That said, it's all
    background noise from posers and wannabes that will never graduate past a
    consumer zoom. I find my 70-200/2.8 VR a kickass sharp lens on the old D3.
    Sure, it has a little bit of vignetting at 200mm when filling the whole
    frame with a clear blue sky, but that's shooting wide open at f/2.8. In
    real world photography it isn't even an issue. I guess these whiners are
    the same type of people that aren't content with anything in life.

    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    Rita Berkowitz, May 3, 2008
  7. RichA

    Frank Arthur Guest

    See your doctor. I'm sure there are medications to calm you down.
    Frank Arthur, May 3, 2008
  8. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    It's not like there is a better 70-200mm f/2.8 lens to choose. If they
    compared to a comparable Sony lens or some such & found this lens
    lacking, that would be interesting but it's not news that a zooms have
    some compromises. It is a well regarded lens and has been since it was
    introduced for full frame film use. There is the 200mm f/2... and a
    number of better fixed length lenses in that range.
    has this lens and plans to go full frame at some point.
    Paul Furman, May 3, 2008
  9. RichA

    newsmb Guest

    Totally agree.

    My own personal theory is that the quality of a person's photos is
    inversely proportional to the amount of they spend posting on dpreview.
    newsmb, May 3, 2008
  10. RichA

    JT's Ghost Guest

    One can always find some sort of fault with any lens... I've used this
    lens now for about a year and a half, and have never had a problem. I've
    even had sharp images taken from a moving car (the looks you get from
    people are nothing short of hilarious). Fixed lenses always tend to
    preform better (in most cases they also cost more).
    Did you get your D200 back from the shop yet?

    - JT
    should have a D300 before the 10th of May.
    JT's Ghost, May 3, 2008
  11. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    Got it back & resisted getting a D3 (for now).
    Paul Furman, May 3, 2008
  12. RichA

    frederick Guest

    You're kidding yourself. You can fix the vignetting in pp with little
    problem, but the lens is as soft as fresh cow shit at 200mm on the edges
    on a D3 - and it doesn't improve as you stop it down.
    In real world photography it is an issue.
    In your Tennessee state of photography, it mightn't matter.
    Nikon fanboys - lol!
    frederick, May 3, 2008
  13. RichA

    John Smith Guest


    John Smith, May 3, 2008
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Denial in a person who can obviously afford any camera is silly. The
    lens can't cut it on the D3, case closed, they need a new one and
    apparently, one is being readied by Nikon.
    So when it comes out and you dump the current 70-200mm like I know you
    will, don't all of a sudden admit there was a problem with it like it
    was some kind of new revelation.
    RichA, May 3, 2008
  15. Huh? I've been shooting with it on the old D3 and it is sweet. Trust me,
    if it were a problem as you are trying to make it out to be the thing would
    be on eBay in a Tennessee butt-fucker's minute. Only people crying about
    the lens are posers, idiots, and morons on Dpreview that photograph blue
    skies and brick walls. Oh, the latest hype is the 28-70/2.8 not being good
    enough. Sorry, son, I'm not getting rid of my 28-70/2.8 because some
    clueless idiot on the internet doesn't know how to use their stuff if they
    really had one. It's a moot point. I'll sell these "problematic" lenses
    when they give *ME* problems. So far, I'm happy.

    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    Rita Berkowitz, May 3, 2008
  16. RichA

    Archibald Guest

    There's the Canon....

    Archibald, May 4, 2008
  17. RichA

    frederick Guest

    The "latest hype" about the 28-70 not being great on Fx is also probably
    true, and like the 70-200, on Dx it's a superb lens. Take a look at
    Nikon's MTF data - on their global site. They didn't release the 24-70
    to "fill in" the missing 4mm with the 14-24, nor just to piss off Nikon
    users who wanted them to update lenses like the normal f/l primes and

    This is all too funny. The very same fuckwits who have spent the last 4
    years slamming Canon in this forum now need to eat some humble pie.

    It's also made mockery of the "wisdom" proffered by some of the lens
    snobs - who repeatedly mock users of Dx lenses, and I'm sure have
    collectively stated thousands of times that "investment" in glass is the
    only way to go. Too bad it ain't true - well unless you buy something
    collectable. The 14-24 shows what Nikon can do (and considering
    relative performance - they can also do it at a pretty good price).
    frederick, May 4, 2008
  18. RichA

    frederick Guest

    Exactly - and slrgear test data shows that it trounces the Nikkor on Fx.
    frederick, May 4, 2008
  19. RichA

    C J Campbell Guest

    has this lens, will be buying a D3x when it is released.

    A little vignetting never hurt anybody. Helps to isolate the subject. :)
    C J Campbell, May 4, 2008
  20. Let's stop your trolling. Get some real equipment and start shooting. As
    for the the 28-70 vs 24-70 the "improvement" in the newer version is so
    minimal that it really isn't worth current 28-70 owners to make the upgrade.
    Yes, the 24-70 is a slightly better lens that I would recommend buying to
    the person that is buying new. When I get mine (used) for dirt cheap I
    still be holding onto my 28-70. After all, they are all Nikkors and it is
    near impossible to improve on perfection.
    Oh, the pie is sweet indeed! Canon has yet to produce a workable WA lens
    and they get an additional kick in the ass with Nikon's 14-24 being a "G"
    lens. Fortunately Canon shooters still have the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor.
    Those were great times! All the fools selling off their good glass for a
    pittance are now kicking themselves in the ass. I bought many a good Nikkor
    dirt cheap and threw them in the old closet for a year and they more than
    doubled my money a year later when I flipped them. I'm glad the idiots are
    so impressionable since it looks like I'll be buying several dozen 70-200
    VRs for a lot less than a grand a piece. I'll nurture them for a year and
    sell them. The hype will fade and the price will go up like it always does.
    After all, they are Nikkors. Pure perfection.

    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    Rita Berkowitz, May 4, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.