Nikon upgrades the 70-200VR 2.8

[Drew 0]

Nikon has finally updated the 70-200VR 2.8 II with a lense that sports better dust and weather sealing, better corner performance for FX shooters and an improved VR system. The previous version, released in 2003 and designed to compliment the then new DX cameras, had various issues with FX cameras which came out in 2007.

Nikon seems to be slowly correcting the shortsighted move of not developing FX earlier and promoting DX as their sole product for future. In part, beside the obvious performance differences that existed then against big competitor Canon, that was the reason for Nikon's decline as it failed to keep up in resolution and foreword thinking.

[Tom_Kline 137]

Nikon has finally updated the 70-200VR 2.8 II with a lense that sports better dust and weather sealing, better corner performance for FX shooters and an improved VR system. The previous version, released in 2003 and designed to compliment the then new DX cameras, had various issues with FX cameras which came out in 2007.

Nikon seems to be slowly correcting the shortsighted move of not developing FX earlier and promoting DX as their sole product for future. In part, beside the obvious performance differences that existed then against big competitor Canon, that was the reason for Nikon's decline as it failed to keep up in resolution and foreword thinking.

 

I think they have seen the error in putting all their eggs in the DX basket. At least this gives them a chance to 'refresh' their lens of this specification. The price is about a grand more than what the old one cost when new a few years ago. And much much more than the 80-200 4.5 from the 70's (I had one these way back then ).

[loftus 42]

I will be putting my 70-200 up for sale; it's still a phenomenal lens for DX shooters. Can't say I think it's bad for FX, just not nearly as good as on DX.

[james 0]

The new 70-200 looks great - but did you see the price - $2,400! That's about $800 more than the Canon equivalent - ouch. Minimum focus is 1.4 meters - compared to 1 meter for the Tamron 70-200 - so I don't know how the Nikon will do for macro - but probably pretty well.

 

Cheers

James

[DanInSoCal 0]

I fear this lens' utility underwater will be limited.

 

Dan

[Drew 0]

James the yen is now like 95 to the dollar. The Canon EF70-200 2.8L IS is now $1900 before rebate at B&H. And not everyone is mad enough to try a 70-200 for macro underwater

[diverdon 1]

I will be putting my 70-200 up for sale; it's still a phenomenal lens for DX shooters. Can't say I think it's bad for FX, just not nearly as good as on DX.

 

I don't follow you. I just ordered a D700 with the 14-24mm and the current 70-200 today. VR2 may be an improvement but my understanding is that the current lens is still a fabulous lens. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm Do you disagree?

 

I intend the use to be for weddings and portraits, not UW use.

Edited August 3, 2009 by diverdon

[jeremypayne 0]

I don't follow you. I just ordered a D700 with the 14-24mm and the current 70-200 today. VR2 may be an improvement but my understanding is that the current lens is still a fabulous lens. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm Do you disagree?

 

I intend the use to be for weddings and portraits, not UW use.

 

The existing lens has serious and well-documented shortcomings on FX ... the corners are extremely soft, especially at 200mm.

 

For weddings and portraits it shouldn't be too much of an issue ... but for landscapes it is serious.

 

The 80-200 AF-S and AF-D are much better in this regard ... but they don't have VR.

 

Many, many people have been requesting a lens as sharp as the old 80-200s, but with VR ... this would appear to be it.

[jeremypayne 0]

I will be putting my 70-200 up for sale; it's still a phenomenal lens for DX shooters. Can't say I think it's bad for FX, just not nearly as good as on DX.

Yeah ... I'd like the new one ... I have a friend who shoots weddings who would buy mine so I could upgrade ... but I'd need to find a job first (got laid off).

[Drew 0]

Uh oh... a Rockwell review. But even his tests got it right this time. He must've actually got the lens this time.

Don, I think you'd do well to just head down to the store and test the 70-200VR I on a D700 and D300. Pay close attention to the corner edges of the D700 pics. It'll be softer and there'll be some vignetting/light loss on the FX. This is especially so when the subject focus is farther away near infinity. I tested it last year with a D3 and D2x because my buddy who'd bought it from me complained about it on his new D3. It's still a stunning lens in the center, just crappier in the corners/edges. It was optimized for DX, with then just the 35mm film cameras (which Nikon was already phasing out) as an incidental thought.

With weddings and portraits corners shouldn't matter as much, but I suggest you test it out and compare V1 and 2. I'm quite sure Nikon optimized it for FX this time round. Otherwise , why would they update a great lens and charge a lot more for it in this economic climate?

[divegypsy 21]

For considerably less $ than the new 70-200 you can find a 70-180 Micro-nikkor on ebay, which works beautifully underwater and without the need for extras like a Canon 500D.

[Mike L 0]

Finally!!! Now if only Nikon would hurry up with the D700x or D800!!

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

I'm really happy they did a refresh on this lens. Its now at the top of my purchase list to go along with a D700X when it comes out. This is one of Nikon's most important lenses so I'm glad they "appearently" nailed it.

 

The old one wasn't bad but once FX became a driving force many complained of problems in the corners. Realistically though this shouldn't be an issue.

 

Sharpness: its pretty hard to get planar subjects in real life that would cause you to notice this and usually the subject isn't dead in the corner so having a little bit of "Bokeh" on the stuff you don't want the viewer to focus on isn't a bad thing.

 

Vigenetting: Sometimes a subtle darkenning of the edges draws the viewr toward the important subjects in the picture more toward the center or 1/3rd of the frame. So this isn't as bad as it seems.

 

Still, for $2400 it better be perfect. I'm currently using a 70-300 for price, zoom range and weight. Once I go FX I'll probably get the 70-200 + a TC and lament the loss of DX "magnification".

 

I don't see many using this lens underwater. Its too big, doesn't focus close enough, and its hard to light or even see clearly subjects that are more than 2 meters away. This is art and there are surely plenty of people breaking boundaries, but I don't see this as a mainstream UW tool.