Dpreview review of Nikon's 70-200mm telephoto

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

  1. RichA

    frederick Guest

    You mean a Canon full frame camera, & 70-200 F2.8 L IS?
    Canon has 3 less expensive lenses of that range that still trounce the
    Nikkor at 200mm.
    You can of course thoroughly trounce the D3/70-200 combination at 200mm,
    by using the same lens on a cheap D60 @ 135mm. On the other hand, if you
    really want to see performance and value, then the cheap and cheerful
    55-200 on Dx at 135mm kills the 70-200 on Fx for resolution at the
    edges, and has similar vignetting:
    http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_55200_456vr/mtf.gif
     
    frederick, May 4, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    And how do they do at f/2.8?
    I haven't tried my 70-200 on full frame.
     
    Paul Furman, May 4, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    frederick Guest

    You can check slrgear.com for data on the Canon lenses on Fx. The
    70-200 f2.8 L IS they checked surely wasn't perfect - it is decentered
    at 70mm (softer one corner) but by f4 it looks to be a truly excellent
    performer through the range.
    Sure - if you are using f2.8, then edge performance probably isn't
    something you're looking for anyway. But if you look at the 70-200 on
    Fx, even stopped all the way down, edge performance is still very poor.
    On Dx - sure it's great - an excellent lens indeed, and as well as f2.8,
    there's fast AF-s which the 55-200 hasn't got - but it only costs $200.
    It's not that the 70-200 is a little bit soft on FX - it's really very
    soft - totally unsuitable for landscape - have you seen the samples?
    Sure for other uses it's probably fine. Apparently the 80-200 AF-D is
    better at 200mm on Fx. I have one of those, and on Dx it's okay but for
    SA and softer edges at wide apertures at 200mm, and really good across
    the Dx frame (D300) only by f5.6 or so. So I can't see the 80-200 AF-D
    being better on Fx than Dx either.
    I had a MF 200mm f4 (AIs - IIRC) for years. It was okay (nice and light
    anyway), but didn't seem any better than a $100 used 70-210 zoom at
    200mm on Dx (that was good at f5.6 - one stop didn't bother me for the
    convenience of the old zoom). Perhaps for affordable great glass at
    ~200mm across the frame on Fx, a 180 f2.8 might be the answer. The
    200mm f2 is way out of the question for most people - price and weight.
    Anyway - doesn't worry me too much - for the time being Dx works well
    for me.
     
    frederick, May 4, 2008
    #23
  4. LOL! Right! Link? The 18-200mm VR kills any and all of Canon's offerings
    in that range.
    It's not even an issue anymore. I've read on the internet that most pros
    are selling off all their lenses and going with the 18-200mm VR. I think
    this is going to drive the price of this super-zoom past $1,000 again.



    Rita
    --
    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.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
     
    Rita Berkowitz, May 4, 2008
    #24
  5. You ought to get the world famous 18-200mm VR. This is a great lens to end
    the need for ever owning any other lens. After using this on my D3 I am
    going to be selling all my other lenses.



    Rita
    --
    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.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
     
    Rita Berkowitz, May 4, 2008
    #25
  6. RichA

    JT's Ghost Guest

    Gotta love sarcasm... ;-)


    - JT
    it's pouring buckets of rain North of Boston, thanks for brightening my
    day.
     
    JT's Ghost, May 4, 2008
    #26
  7. RichA

    JT's Ghost Guest

    I read that *if* it's posted on the "internet," then it *must* be true.

    - JT
    Bought a D300 yesterday. This lens (18-200mm VR) came with it for
    $450.00 USD more. The D3 wasn't an option that my wife would allow for,
    and not being a "professional," I couldn't justify it for a hobby either.
     
    JT's Ghost, May 4, 2008
    #27
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Which of the 70-80-200mm Nikkors is physically the longest?
    Sometimes (all depends on design) a longer lens (meaning it has
    shallower curves on it's optics) will provide a better corrected
    image and a flatter field of view. In addition, it can lessen other
    aberrations as well, but again it all depends on design. Normally,
    the optics that try to squeeze as much focal range or length into the
    smallest package end up being the worst performers.
     
    RichA, May 4, 2008
    #28
  9. RichA

    frederick Guest

    Fancy that!
    You're now in a compromising position.
     
    frederick, May 4, 2008
    #29
  10. RichA

    OldBoy Guest

    Of course it does, Canon doesn't make "vacation" lenses.
    I don't believe pros are that stupid.
     
    OldBoy, May 4, 2008
    #30
  11. LOL! That was the type of hype this lens had when it was introduced.
    Granted it's a decent all-purpose lens, but it isn't a show stopper. I have
    one and it rarely gets used. It's not a bad lens if you get one cheap
    enough.




    Rita
    --
    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.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
     
    Rita Berkowitz, May 4, 2008
    #31
  12. Yep! That's the logic most of these fools have. I'm amazed that the
    government lets such stupidity propagate. I take all these lens reviews and
    Dpreview forum dwellers with a grain of salt.
    Congrats! You did good! You'll get some great use out of the combo.
    Unfortunately you will be hooked on buying better glass since it gets very
    addictive. Keep a keen eye out for the 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, and the
    70-200/2.8 VR as they are now obsolete and no longer any good. You should
    be able to pick them up at bargain basement prices according to Dpreview. I
    know I'll be picking more of them up as the come available.



    Rita
    --
    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.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
     
    Rita Berkowitz, May 4, 2008
    #32
  13. Huh? How so? I got a sweet collection of Nikkors that I'm very pleased
    with and they perform to utter perfection. I'm sure if I ever run across a
    Nikkor that can't do the job Nikon will send me one that can.

    There really are some bright people on Dpreview. This guy loves his 70-200.

    "The 70-200 has taken a lot of flak about FX performance but I find mine
    incredible on the D3. I have absolutely no complaints."

    You can read the thread.

    <http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=27790753&changemode=1>



    Rita
    --
    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.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
     
    Rita Berkowitz, May 4, 2008
    #33
  14. Did anyone ever tell you multiple question marks don't make
    your question more questioning, just more questionable?

    And did you know that people using question marks like you do
    are unable to properly communicate, using words and grammar?
    That's the writers equivalent to way overdone HDR and way
    oversharpened pics of no content.

    Please state your source, so we may have a good laugh at your
    credulity. Oh, you cannot, you made that number up, right?
    Since I happen to own a 70-200mm, and since I don't use it
    for car races, football games, surfers, etc --- and only 1%
    of my shots with it were birds in flight --- I do care.
    "'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head,
    'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.'" -- Terry Pratchett

    Unfortunately, your lens (probably used on a crop camera) is
    vastly better than the Nikon one *at FX*. Which is the whole point.

    But I am glad to know that you are "IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".
    He'll probably disown you. Love your neighbour and all that.
    Just because you cannot help being exasperated, you don't
    deseve any divine intervention.

    Who died and made you king so that you are the one to tell the
    rest of the NG how to pursue their hobbies --- or what their
    hobbies are to be?

    How much hubris can be inside one person?

    Does your argument consist merely of calling names?
    Are you really deranged enough to believe by mistreating others
    you gain respect or at least cause them to listen to you, or are
    you merely a closet sadist?
    You really are introspective, got yourself down pat.
    Please show your ... aeh, arts. (I really need to supress a
    giggle here.)
    And stop posting to technical discussions.
    I didn't know any Jesus was posting here, and wasn't there
    something about taking your God's name in vain?
    So what? You are an old maid who blew her gaskets, not all that
    tight up there, not all lenses in your lenses, most aperture
    blades stuck, metering off (all dim up there) ...
    wasting times on technical debates, berating the time wastes on
    technical debates. <rolls eyes>

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 4, 2008
    #34
  15. RichA

    frederick Guest

    What could a thread "D3 Portrait Lens Shootout" tell you about edge
    performance? Plus I _add_ vignetting in pp the occasional portrait I do
    - I guess using a 70-200 could save the user that bother.
    As far as the f2.8 **->200mm zooms go for portrait use, yeah - my old
    80-200 is fine too - except it's rather intimidating for the subject to
    have a bazooka pointed at their bib and brace.
     
    frederick, May 4, 2008
    #35
  16. RichA

    John Smith Guest

    HDR????????????????? <s>


     
    John Smith, May 5, 2008
    #36
  17. RichA

    John Smith Guest

    **** off Wolfgang. Your entire race of Aryan murderers in WWII gives you NO
    credibility on anything.
     
    John Smith, May 5, 2008
    #37
  18. RichA

    frederick Guest

    Godwin's.
    You lose.
     
    frederick, May 5, 2008
    #38
  19. RichA

    John Smith Guest

    God wins because his Nazi elders killed Jews? Please clarify for those of
    us now so enlightened as you.
     
    John Smith, May 5, 2008
    #39
  20. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I shot with the 70-200mm today. On the D300, it is a very good lens.
    However, as I suspected at f2.8 there is some edge softening (very
    little) and very, very modest CA on light-dark interfaces.
    But the lens is the best I've seen of it's type on the 1.5x
    platform.
     
    RichA, May 5, 2008
    #40
    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.