You Can Call Me Pierre wrote:
I don’t like the focus breathing on that lens at “200mm”.

I don't find it a hassle in shooting beauty. The lens produced some lovely work at 200mm. I know that in archictecture, on occasion, it may be an issue. The 70-200mm 2.8 has been used by both beauty and wedding photographers with some success. I am not referring to  just Nikon, for those who use canon in professional work, that lens has a great track history. Some are of the opinion that you can get focus breathing in primes.

LA StarShooter wrote:

I don't find it a hassle in shooting beauty. The lens produced some lovely work at 200mm. I know that in archictecture, on occasion, it may be an issue. The 70-200mm 2.8 has been used by both beauty and wedding photographers with some success. I am not referring to  just Nikon, for those who use canon in professional work, that lens has a great track history. Some are of the opinion that you can get focus breathing in primes.

If you want to be pedantic, you get focus breathing in EVERY lens, even $20,000 cine lenses - it's just that the resolution you're shooting at isn't nearly high enough to see it.

But yeah, 70-200s all breathe a lot. I don't use zooms anymore, but when I bought by 70-200 (2012, maybe?) , I actually found Tamron's offering breathed the least. I still bought the Nikon.

Enjoy the lens! I only ditched mine because it didn't fit my needs anymore, and was way to large and heavy for something I almost never used. But I did love the hell out of the lens while I had it.

You Can Call Me Pierre wrote:
200mm at 3m and closer is actually 135mm on the VRII.

It didn't turn out that way for me, which is possibly due to the way I shoot. On some beauty shoots I manual focus as I did on this. . Also I usually start at around 70 mm and work my way in from the same spot. This was at around at 4.5 feet. In beauty one tends to shoot a little slower-due to lights recycling than say fast bursts for sports, and also the issue of exactitude and angle. I really enjoyed the sharpness of this lens.

LA StarShooter wrote:
Some are of the opinion that you can get focus breathing in primes.

You definitely can. In fact, one of the reasons that good video primes cost so much is that they eliminate this effect.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I have the Sigma version of this lens.

do you use it much and what kind of shots do you like to use this for?

LA StarShooter wrote:

do you use it much and what kind of shots do you like to use this for?

I use it for glamour shots.  I'm getting used to using it.

You Can Call Me Pierre wrote:
200mm at 3m and closer is actually 135mm on the VRII.

That lens doesn't like to do anything right at 3' ... Letting it focus that closely is really just a courtesy  I've used close-up filters for ages, ever since determining that I like to be close, but not close enough to carry around a dedicated macro lens. I don't think I've ever seen such a huge drop in image quality from a good lens - sticking a heliopan +1 on there caused almost as much softness as putting an eBay +4 on an 18-55.

Zack Zoll wrote:

That lens doesn't like to do anything right at 3' ... Letting it focus that closely is really just a courtesy  I've used close-up filters for ages, ever since determining that I like to be close, but not close enough to carry around a dedicated macro lens. I don't think I've ever seen such a huge drop in image quality from a good lens - sticking a heliopan +1 on there caused almost as much softness as putting an eBay +4 on an 18-55.

It's actually at 4.5 ft that you can focus on the 70-200m 2.8 VR II and Pierre wrote 3m which stands for over 9 feet, m being the symbol for metric. The 105mm 2.8 micro minimum focus is three feet--from memory (I could have that wrong).

The latest Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 FL can get you close to three feet. It also has focus lock buttons on the barrel for sports photographers.

GRMACK wrote:
Got one!

When the D800 came out there was a shortage of them and dealers who had them were asking upwards of $2,800 where the norm was around $2,100 back then.

Good lens and sharp, fast focusing, etc.  The weight gets a bit tiresome to lug around so I bought a RRS Arca-Swiss plate for it and mount it to shoot off tripod with a Wimberley Sidekick gimbal that holds the affair.

That looks like a great setup.

LA StarShooter wrote:
How many of you have a 70-200mm 2.8 lens? I bought mine on last Saturday. In the Nikon lineup the latest version costs $2700. It boasts improvements on its predecessor. I bought the predecessor on Saturday at Samy's Camera, at location that wasn't near me. the VRII cost with tax $1600.

In shooting beauty you end up often desiring a 200mm lens.

The saleswoman had warned me the lens she was supposed to be holding for me the 80-200mm was slow. Happily, in her confusion she pointed to a lens that had been returned just after it was bought-a lens that I knew by reputation.

My 105mm micro lens is sharp but when it comes to beauty, this VRII is a great beast of a lens. You can't get closer to focus than 4 and a half feet. It's sharpness is phenomenal, much sharper than the 105 I had previously used for beauty.  It does have barrel distortion.

Do you use yours for weddings and how long have you had it? I can't imagine selling this or trading it for the newer "better" version. I used it on Sunday on model who has been shot for Loreil makeup and Sepphora.

Yes, I would like to buy the 200mm 2.0 but its very pricey

Well, while I don't own it, I was recently in the market for such a lease alone the same range.  Didn't necessarily need the speed, so, long story short I went with the 70-300 VR II.  It's a little slower, but for a huge difference in price, it may just be worth it for you, it was for me.

Isaiah Brink wrote:
I went with the 70-300 VR II.  It's a little slower, but for a huge difference in price, it may just be worth it for you, it was for me.

Same choice I also made... it's substancially lighter in weight and can be carried around all day without the major neck and arm fatique that the very heavy 70-200 caused me after only an hour.  It may be alittle slower, but it's very sharp and can render some pretty decent 'subject isolation' when shooting at F6.3 from 250-300mm... sample here!

GRMACK wrote:
Got one!

When the D800 came out there was a shortage of them and dealers who had them were asking upwards of $2,800 where the norm was around $2,100 back then.

Good lens and sharp, fast focusing, etc.  The weight gets a bit tiresome to lug around so I bought a RRS Arca-Swiss plate for it and mount it to shoot off a tripod with a Wimberley Sidekick gimbal that holds the affair.

Great minds think alike, my setup too for lens mounting, different bodies though.

Once balanced I leave the pan on the ball head loose and the tilt on the Wimberley loose, it make for quick composing when shooting people who are moving around. It also prevents a ball head from tilting left or right so it keep the verticals vertical.

JBP Graphics wrote:
Great minds think alike, my setup too for lens mounting, different bodies though.

Once balanced I leave the pan on the ball head loose and the tilt on the Wimberley loose, it make for quick composing when shooting people who are moving around. It also prevents a ball head from tilting left or right so it keep the verticals vertical.

One thing I did add were the two long bolts with a rubber hose on them that screw into the Wimberley mounting plate.  You can see them ahead and behind the tightening knob on the Wimberley gimbal, and on mine there was a threaded hole for them too.  They limit the lens from swinging down and accidentally striking the ball head if I loosen the thing up and it isn't in balance and drops.

Select Models wrote:

Same choice I also made... it's substancially lighter in weight and can be carried around all day without the major neck and arm fatique that the very heavy 70-200 caused me after only an hour.  It may be alittle slower, but it's very sharp and can render some pretty decent 'subject isolation' when shooting at F6.3 from 250-300mm... sample here!

Yeah, I just bought it when I bought my D500 and honestly I haven't put it through it's paces yet, or checked it out for myself yet, but I"m sure I'll be happy with it,  Also picked up a 50 and 85.  Had an 85 before, so I know what I'm getting into there, but the other 50mm I have is a Nikon Series E all manual, quite old, but after 30 years of work, I decided to retire it in favor of an autofocus lens lol.

Isaiah Brink wrote:

Yeah, I just bought it when I bought my D500 and honestly I haven't put it through it's paces yet, or checked it out for myself yet, but I"m sure I'll be happy with it,  Also picked up a 50 and 85.

I have a 50 but I'm probaby gonna unload it at the camera swapmeet... the 85 F1.8 have blows it away on subject isolation.  I'm hoping Nikon comes out with a 120 F1.8 or a 135 F1.8... or possibly a 105 F1.8... I love fast telephoto primes...



Here's a shot of McKenna in low-light Mt Baldy... taken with the 85 F1.8 (shot at F2.2) and the D810...

Select Models wrote:

I have a 50 but I'm probaby gonna unload it at the camera swapmeet... the 85 F1.8 have blows it away on subject isolation.  I'm hoping Nikon comes out with a 120 F1.8 or a 135 F1.8... or possibly a 105 F1.8... I love fast telephoto primes...



Here's a shot of McKenna in low-light Mt Baldy... taken with the 85 F1.8 (shot at F2.2) and the D810...

Yeah, the 85 1.8 is an awesome lens, sharp and fast.  The only thing I don't like about it is that it stops at f 16 instead of 22.  I'm one of those who I guess wants it all lol.  But I tend to shoot more stopped down than wide open.

Select Models wrote:

I have a 50 but I'm probaby gonna unload it at the camera swapmeet... the 85 F1.8 have blows it away on subject isolation.  I'm hoping Nikon comes out with a 120 F1.8 or a 135 F1.8... or possibly a 105 F1.8... I love fast telephoto primes...



Here's a shot of McKenna in low-light Mt Baldy... taken with the 85 F1.8 (shot at F2.2) and the D810...

The Nikon 105mm 28f micro lens is a fantastic lens and its blur is beyond that of the 85mm that you like. I thought about selling it after I sold my soul to get the latest 70-200mm from Nikon but its a lens that can do product photography very well. It can do rings-jewelry and when it comes to subject isolation it does a gorgeous job. Here's a lecture from Adorama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViHIcB0mAok

LA StarShooter wrote:
The Nikon 105mm 28f micro lens is a fantastic lens and its blur is beyond that of the 85mm that you like. I thought about selling it after I sold my soul to get the latest 70-200mm from Nikon but its a lens that can do product photography very well. It can do rings-jewelry and when it comes to subject isolation it does a gorgeous job. Here's a lecture from Adorama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViHIcB0mAok

I do liike the 105mm focal length, but I got the 85mm because I had one before which eventually gave out, and since I had such good luck with it before, I got another one.  I'm sure what they said about the 105mm is correct and I may get one sometime.  Have you ever tried the 105 macro?  EDIT  YEs, you have tried that lens. you were just telling e about it!  Sorry, missed it first time around

Select Models wrote:
I have a 50 but I'm probaby gonna unload it at the camera swapmeet... the 85 F1.8 have blows it away on subject isolation.  I'm hoping Nikon comes out with a 120 F1.8 or a 135 F1.8... or possibly a 105 F1.8... I love fast telephoto primes..

What about the 105mm f1.4

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-105-1-4- … B01J4S9YRI

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
The thing about numbers and lenses is that all products have tolerances. Very rare is a lens exactly what is marked on it. in terms of lens speed the standard in Japan was +/- 1/3 of a stop so between two identical lenses in theory you can have 2/3 of a stop difference (same for shutter speed and meter accuracy).
In theory a 200mm lens could be longer than a 210mm.
Personally I am more concerned with the images than the numbers.

Wow! You actually care about the image. That's amazing and I'm sure it's true of no one else here. And my previous belief, which was that people like the OP want a certain focal length and aperture to get a certain type of image - in this case one with much flatter perspective to stop the hands looking over-large in beauty shots - is completely wrong!

(Also: I suspect that your 1/3 stop claim is bs - it seems to possibly trace to this piece of idiocy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3519899. And also that you don't know the difference between a t-stop and an f-stop.)

thiswayup wrote:
....
(Also: I suspect that your 1/3 stop claim is bs - it seems to possibly trace to this piece of idiocy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3519899. And also that you don't know the difference between a t-stop and an f-stop.)

The +/- 1/3 stop is true given a lens faster than f/4 per the ISO 517:2008 standard. For slower than f/5.6 it's +/- 1/2 stop.

Schneider Optics has this posted here on second to last page where they also point out the faults in the MTF scales too:

https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/Sc … Buying.pdf

If you want to buy the ISO Standard 517:2008 as a PDF validated for 2016, you can buy it here:  https://www.iso.org/standard/50089.html

Now if you want T-stops with a cinema lens where it is more tested than tolerance or theory, you'll be much closer - but those suckers cost a lot more too!

thiswayup wrote:

Wow! You actually care about the image. That's amazing and I'm sure it's true of no one else here. And my previous belief, which was that people like the OP want a certain focal length and aperture to get a certain type of image - in this case one with much flatter perspective to stop the hands looking over-large in beauty shots - is completely wrong!

(Also: I suspect that your 1/3 stop claim is bs - it seems to possibly trace to this piece of idiocy: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3519899. And also that you don't know the difference between a t-stop and an f-stop.)

I've owned a number of 50 1.4s that were brighter than 1.2s I owned. Not a lot - the largest difference worked out to something like .15 stops according to Photoshop. Those were fixed manual lenses too; for an auto zoom, they ALL get darker as they zoom out (minus a few weird designs that go in reverse) - it's just not noted because it's mostly corrected, and averages out to around 2.8 or whatever. In reality, even as perfect tolerance it's more like 2.7 - 2.9.

I would guess that a third stop is an awful lot if you're comparing Zeisses, etc. ... But if an Otus runs bright (as the Germans tend to rate conservatively, especially on higher-end glass) and you're comparing it to a Nifty Fifty, a third stop actually seems pretty optimistic.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
The thing about numbers and lenses is that all products have tolerances. Very rare is a lens exactly what is marked on it. in terms of lens speed the standard in Japan was +/- 1/3 of a stop so between two identical lenses in theory you can have 2/3 of a stop difference (same for shutter speed and meter accuracy).
In theory a 200mm lens could be longer than a 210mm.
Personally I am more concerned with the images than the numbers.

For beauty like product photography you're in a world where you trying to avoid things, such as one photographer pointed out, about hands being too big, if using a zoom range you're looking to avoid distortion, and to achieve a powerful image of beauty that will cause a creative director to hire you. If a canon lens can do 200mm at its closest focal range and a Nikon has difficulty then you're competing at a disadvantage if you have the Nikon. I spent $1600 with tax on a lens that for beauty doesn't do what the rival CANON lens does. Now, does it do a better look, does the look have a medium formatish wonderfully sharp look? Yes, but without a reliable 200mm at its closest focal point, its not what I wanted to buy. Since I'm in Nikon and I really like the d750 I didn't want to jump to Canon. I've invested in Nikon glass so based on what Nikon claims that now on the 700-200 FL VR its fixed the issue I upgraded with the same store. I have to test it on a beauty shoot. I think it's going to rock based on the testing I've done. And that lens with tax is $3000.  It has four buttons on the barrel to lock focus which is important to sport's photographers. It's a lens that can shoot beauty and some product photography, events and sports. There are sport's photographers who love this lens and why mention that: Canon has ruled the sports photography market. Canon has offered some glass that for years has won sports photographers over, and now Nikon has made some glass that makes for a very competitive lens. Some reviews have said that is the best 7-200mm on the market right now. That could change next month when the Mighty Canon unleashes its update. So yes, specifications, precision, performances of lens matter, as does getting what you paid for.

LA StarShooter wrote:
How many of you have a 70-200mm 2.8 lens? I bought mine on last Saturday. In the Nikon lineup the latest version costs $2700. It boasts improvements on its predecessor. I bought the predecessor on Saturday at Samy's Camera, at location that wasn't near me. the VRII cost with tax $1600.

In shooting beauty you end up often desiring a 200mm lens.

The saleswoman had warned me the lens she was supposed to be holding for me the 80-200mm was slow. Happily, in her confusion she pointed to a lens that had been returned just after it was bought-a lens that I knew by reputation.

My 105mm micro lens is sharp but when it comes to beauty, this VRII is a great beast of a lens. You can't get closer to focus than 4 and a half feet. It's sharpness is phenomenal, much sharper than the 105 I had previously used for beauty.  It does have barrel distortion.

Do you use yours for weddings and how long have you had it? I can't imagine selling this or trading it for the newer "better" version. I used it on Sunday on model who has been shot for Loreil makeup and Sepphora.

Yes, I would like to buy the 200mm 2.0 but its very pricey

You got a good deal.  I have the old Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 and 70-300mm 4.5 VR for my work and it was fine.  I wanted a 2.8 upgrade with IS for both my Nikon a Canon bodies so I got the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 V2 both lenses new were a lot less than the newest Nikon 70-200 2.8.  This works for me.  I'm glad that their are some very good alternatives for creators on a budget. Until money is no object, these upgrades will be more than fine. Enjoy your new acquisition.

HV images wrote:
What about the 105mm f1.4

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-105-1-4- … B01J4S9YRI

Yeah... but that's alittle too pricey for me.  You won't be able to find one for less than $1900..

martin b wrote:
We have a copy of the last two 70-200 nikon lenses and are happy with both.  The big difference is the focus breathing . Both lenses are super heavy at a wedding day and both of them are carried by tiny filipino girls standing 5' nothing. 

Enjoy your lens.  We love the nikon system as well.  They both focus very fast and accurate.

There was a pretty major change between the VRI and VRII, but if you're using it for weddings then it probably doesn't affect you in the least. It certainly didn't affect my wedding or portrait work.

Wide open, they're both soft in the corners; f/2.8 lenses will do that. But the VRII will sharpen up in the corners as you stop down, and be pretty much even across the frame around f/8. The VRI will continue to get sharper in the center, but the edges never get much sharper than they are at f/4. This is mostly because when the lens was designed Nikon didn't have any FF cameras, and most 35mm film stocks weren't able to resolve that difference; not the ones you'd be likely to use with a fast zoom, anyway.

Granted, people don't generally buy that lens so they can shoot it at f/8 - I just thought it was worth a mention, for anyone stumbling into this thread while trying to determine which to buy.

Zack Zoll wrote:
/quote]

You are probably right.  We just use them for events and weddings.  I never really noticed any difference unless there was a group shot and people were on the edges.  Now that you bring it up it might make a difference to someone that likes to put people on the outer part of the lens.  My group has been growing and to keep up we kind of became a mishmash of a few different brands.  We love them all.  Tamaron, Sigma, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic.