A&P So whats this about the 70-200 Vr2 and its FOV?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by adamlewis88, Feb 7, 2010.

  1. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    I read an article (and Ive also heard it from different people) saying that the new 70-200 has a problem because, apparently, its MFD at 200mm is crappy.

    I dont know what the MFD is but I know in this article http://www.gregrphoto.com/blog/2009/12/10/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8g-vr-ii-review/ this guy says he cant take headshots at 200mm because of the MFD.

    However, this leaves me confused because I just tried to take a headshot with a new Vr2 lens @200mm and I can have a person's head easily fill the frame.

    Am I missing something here?
     
  2. Mutombo

    Mutombo New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    I'm not that clear on all the details, but basically at the MFD and 200mm with the vrii, the effective field of view is ~135mm vs. ~190mm with the original vr. The result is a subject that doesn't "fill the frame" as much as with the older lens.
     
  3. Mutombo

    Mutombo New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
  4. Bob Loblaw

    Bob Loblaw Guest

    he's taking photos of dolls
    im pretty sure a real persons head is slightly bigger than a dolls head :hsugh:
     
  5. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
  6. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    52
    do you have access to a VR I?

    I'm assuming not, since you're asking, but I'm really curious about this...

    Anyone have a way to get a VR I and II and do an OT test?
     
  7. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    his point seems valid.. but I think it's a bit nitpicky unless you need the minimum focusing distance for photographing like... dolls or a person's eye etc.. but then again, there are better lenses for that sort of thing.
     
  8. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Unfortunately not anymore :hs: Since the new ones are here, we stopped carrying the old ones.

    Im curious as well only because if I went by what I have read everywhere (and by what you see in that web link), I would think that you couldnt take headshots with the VR II lens and that would suck a whole lot. However, when I actually try it, it works just fine..so..yeah..Im confused and curious :hs:
     
  9. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA

    The point is totally valid if you used the VR I to take headshots and now the VR II cant but, like I said, when I throw a VR II on a D700, it can completely fill the frame with someones face @ 200mm. Its pushing the MFD to make it happen, but its nothing like what is presented in that review.
     
  10. xenon supra

    xenon supra OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    33,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
  11. iridium130

    iridium130 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Anaheim Hills, CA --> Denver, CO
    Looks like a mannequin head
     
  12. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
  13. Mutombo

    Mutombo New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Oh man I didn't even realize I linked you to the same article you read :doh:
     
  14. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    52
  15. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    There you go
     
  16. MaxSE

    MaxSE No Max, No More

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,336
    Likes Received:
    0
    The pictures showing the differences are pretty interesting.

    Adam, I have a 70-200 VR I and am in Louisville. Shoot me a PM if you want me to stop by your store for a comparison between the VR I and VR II.
     
  17. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Ok. So I dont have pictures, but I will say that there is MOST DEFINITELY a HUGE difference when youre at the MFD. Those shots this guy took were at ~7 feet. The ones I took were at the actual MFD (I dont know what it is but I got closer and closer until the lens wouldnt focus). The difference at MFD is literally gigantic. Even from ~15 feet you can see a difference. As you go close to infinity, it eventually equalizes.

    FWIW, aside from VRII, I personally dont think the new 70-200 is worth it. Just my two cents.
     
  18. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA

Share This Page