Select Models wrote:
Also a D700 shooter here.  Huge fan of the Nikon 70-300 ED-VR... very sharp and terrific image saving VR... around $500 if you shop around...

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v330/GaryAbigt/Shodire201.jpg[img]

As nice as that lens is, it doesn't quite measure up to a 70-200 f/2.8.

For the OP...is it worth it?  I have the version 1 and I would say YES!!  It's my favorite lens!!

photoimager wrote:
If you mean 'bad press' about the 70-200 GII ignore most of it. Some people created internet hysteria over the molding of a light baffle. Some people were staunchly standing by their 70-200G and unwiling to accept that the GII can be so much better than the G, particularly on FX or film. I use it, have done since last December and am yet to be able to fault it.

THE issue when used as a portrait lens is the compromise Nikon have taken in getting the IQ so good and the vignetting down to standard. Internally focusing lenses change their focal length when focussed close. This happens to macro lenses as well as zooms. With the 70-200 GII it becomes nearer 135mm as opposed to 200mm focal length. Users of the G version made a big thing about this, for me it's what I've got a 135DC lens for so it is a non-issue. As a general purpose 70-200 lens I cannot find a fault. As a 'head & neck' lens, it will not suffice.

Excellent reply.

Thus which would you suggest? Getting only the one lens or the two alternatives?

photoimager wrote:
If you mean 'bad press' about the 70-200 GII ignore most of it. Some people created internet hysteria over the molding of a light baffle. Some people were staunchly standing by their 70-200G and unwiling to accept that the GII can be so much better than the G, particularly on FX or film. I use it, have done since last December and am yet to be able to fault it.

THE issue when used as a portrait lens is the compromise Nikon have taken in getting the IQ so good and the vignetting down to standard. Internally focusing lenses change their focal length when focussed close. This happens to macro lenses as well as zooms. With the 70-200 GII it becomes nearer 135mm as opposed to 200mm focal length. Users of the G version made a big thing about this, for me it's what I've got a 135DC lens for so it is a non-issue. As a general purpose 70-200 lens I cannot find a fault. As a 'head & neck' lens, it will not suffice.

I hate to go off-topic, but could you explain what you mean by the bolded part?

I have the G version so if by some financial luck I was able to replace it with the VRII, what exactly is going to change for me?

William Ishiwata wrote:
If you set up the camera on a tripod and shoot the same fixed subject with say 3 different lenses at set focal lengths (according to the individual lenses) the results will not match

Lens A's 200mm will not equal lens B's

apparently with this lens at 30 feet (it is a wedding photographer complain)

New 70-200 VR II........Original 70-200 VR

4ft. 200mm.....................130mm
6ft. 200mm.....................150mm
10ft. 200mm.....................170mm
15ft. 200mm.....................175mm
20ft. 200mm.....................180mm
25ft. 200mm.....................180mm
30ft. 200mm.....................190mm (even at 30 feet, it's still not a 200mm comparing to the original)

Amazon reviewer's gripe
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-200mm-VR … ddFourStar

Ok...so you have the zoom set to 200mm.

And if your subject is 20-feet away, you'll have the POV of a 180mm lens?!

But with the older lens, regardless of focus distance, it was 200mm all the time?!

That would be a HUGE complaint.  WTF?

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Ok...so you have the zoom set to 200mm.

And if your subject is 20-feet away, you'll have the POV of a 180mm lens?!

But with the older lens, regardless of focus distance, it was 200mm all the time?!

That would be a HUGE complaint.  WTF?

I dont shoot with nikon but whoever said this is on drugs! this makes no freaking sense for any lens regardless of who made it.

( ANT ) Mgaphoto wrote:

I dont shoot with nikon but whoever said this is on drugs! this makes no freaking sense for any lens regardless of who made it.

That statement is not correct. It's called 'focus breathing' and it *is* an issue with the new 70-200VR II from Nikon. While many zoom lenses exhibit focus breathing to some degree, it is rarely as pronounced as it is in the 70-200VRII.

At close distances when set at 200mm, the FOV will be equivalent to a 130mm lens with the Nikon 70-200VRII. This information is available in basically every review of the lens. Here is what dpreview has to say on the matter:

"Naturally, though, all is not perfect, and there are a couple of catches. The most obvious is the marked increase in angle of view on focusing closer (otherwise known as focus breathing), which means that despite the closer minimum focus of the new lens, its maximum magnification is rather lower. This has implications for users who frequently find themselves shooting at 200mm and relatively close distances, who may need to consider carefully whether this behavior might be a deal-breaker (you won't be able to replicate the tight close-ups possible with the older lens).

Christopher Hartman wrote:
Ok...so you have the zoom set to 200mm.

And if your subject is 20-feet away, you'll have the POV of a 180mm lens?!

But with the older lens, regardless of focus distance, it was 200mm all the time?!

That would be a HUGE complaint.  WTF?

The older lens became somewhere between 180 & 190 mm, not 200mm. Canon etc  lenses will be similar in experiencing the problem. As I said in my original post, ALL lenses do this if they are internally focusing, even macro lenses. With the 70-200 GII it is just more noticeable. Personally I find it superb. If I'm doing a tight headshot I use a more appropriate lens than a big zoom. You can still do a head & shoulder shot, just not solely head in portrait orientation.

photoimager wrote:

The older lens became somewhere between 180 & 190 mm, not 200mm. Canon etc  lenses will be similar in experiencing the problem. As I said in my original post, ALL lenses do this if they are internally focusing, even macro lenses. With the 70-200 GII it is just more noticeable. Personally I find it superb. If I'm doing a tight headshot I use a more appropriate lens than a big zoom. You can still do a head & shoulder shot, just not solely head in portrait orientation.

I guess I'll just hav eto remember this and should I ever have the idea to upgrade, I'll rent first and compare.

But I doubt I'll upgrade...my 70-200 is awesome and for what it's value is compared to the new one...I think I should buy an ultra-wide lens first.

William Ishiwata wrote:
Worth the investment or stick to the older models?

I was thinking of getting the 80-200 F2.8D and the 105mm, then I saw that this 70 - 200 f/2.8 is about the same as the other two combined. I shoot with a D700.

Cheers

80-200 F2.8D  works niiiice as well

http://www.pixel-thingy.com/kit/photos/ … 0/0/0.html

Nicely Disturbed  wrote:

80-200 F2.8D  works niiiice as well

http://www.pixel-thingy.com/kit/photos/ … 0/0/0.html

Yes it does! I am going to have to try them all I think....

William Ishiwata wrote:
Worth the investment or stick to the older models?

I was thinking of getting the 80-200 F2.8D and the 105mm, then I saw that this 70 - 200 f/2.8 is about the same as the other two combined. I shoot with a D700.

Cheers

I call that a "money lens".  Clients love the look. It's a great addition to my gear.

I rarely put it on a tripod. Remember Nikon suggests you turn off the VR if you mount the lens to a tripod.