AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
So, we’re starting to hear some hubbub about Nikon’s long-awaited new 70-200mm VR II having a somewhat different field of view at it’s longer end than its predecessor. A quick-and-dirty test by Jody and Nick seemed to confirm this, although being wildly unscientific (and ugly, boy was it ugly), we can’t say with the certainty we expect DPReview will that it exists and to what extent, but we suspect this’ll be a hot topic among shooters.
So, after a brief bit of head scratching, because while variances in actual versus stated focal lengths are really not uncommon, unexpected, or even bad, this seemed a bit unlikely to be the mere result of the lens being, say, 197mm and not truly 200mm, we did what any reasonable gearheads would do. We looked at the spec sheet. And, sure enough, look here:
On the OLD 70-200mm VR, we find this entry:
Maximum Reproduction Ratio AF: 1:6.1 (x0.16), MF: 1/5.6 (x0.18)
And on the NEW VR II?
Maximum Reproduction Ratio 0.12
Now, we don’t claim to be engineers. At all. So this is just rationed assuming, and not us proclaiming any gospel truths, but it seems that since the new one has very notably lower magnification than the old one, that this might be playing a factor in why the apparent field of view is different? In theory, a lower magnification should always lead to less of a telephoto effect, allowing more of a scene to fall in the frame, so it makes sense, but we can’t promise you that’s what’s up. Something to think about before lighting up the forums, though.
Switch To Mobile Site
The 70-200 VR II exhibits a characteristic that most IF (internally focusing) lenses have– that of reduced apparent focal length as focus distance decreases. With the 70-200VR II, the effect is most pronounced at extreme close range. Most of the griping on the various forums are from those who don’t even own this lens. I recently received my copy of this lens (from Roberts, of course), and I can say that it blows away the original 70-200 VR in just about every respect:
-Sharpness wide-open (my old 70-200VR looked “milky” until I stopped down to f/4 or smaller) This lens is scary sharp– on par with my 200mm f/2.0 AFS VR Nikkor (a legend in its own right).
-Performance with a TC (I’ve tried the TC-14 so far and will test the TC-17 shortly)
-VR performance (can you say sharp images hand-held at 1/10s?)
-Edge/Corner sharpness and light fall-off are all DRAMATICALLY better with the VRII.
While the reduced magnification phenomenon is real, it is more apparent on paper than in real-world use, with the exception of some extreme circumstances– shooting detail close-ups at under 10 feet. Even then, the added sharpness of this lens means you can crop a little if you *really* need the identical angle of view as you’d get with the old 70-200VR.
I’m shooting right now with my new AF-S VR II 70-200mm f/2.8G ED. There is a tremendous difference in apparent focal length. I shoot small handheld devices of similar size all the time, and I used to shoot them around 135mm zoom. Now I have to zoom all the way to 200 and they still are smaller in frame by a LOT! I am testing the old AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8GED with the new AF-S VR II 70-200mm f/2.8G ED side-by side. 200mm focal length on the new AF-S VR II 70-200mm f/2.8G ED equals about 130mm on the old version.
Shooting at minimum focus, about four feet from the product. Haven’t tested it yet in other situations.
Looks sharp, however, with less flare and fringing than it’s predecessor.