# Nikon 70-200 II -- effective focal lengths at "200mm"



## MrLogic (Dec 2, 2009)

Interesting post by Marianne Oelund on the DPReview forums. The difference between the VR II and VR I is quite large at (relatively) short focal lengths: 





> I've measured the *effective focal length of the VR II *for some subject distances, as follows (zoom ring *at "200mm" mark* for all measurements):
> 
> Dist.; Focal length
> 
> ...


Measured focal lengths for the 70-200 VR I and VR II: Nikon D3 - D1 / D700 Forum: Digital Photography Review




> The VR II says "200mm" because it is - at far subject distances. It is only shorter when focused for closer subjects, which is the reason for its smaller max reproduction ratio as specified by Nikon.
> Personally, I feel this is a fair price to pay for the field flatness that the VR II exhibits at closer distances, which produces better corner-to-corner IQ.




http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=33853608


----------



## Derrel (Dec 2, 2009)

Marianne has a nice short post here, comparing the VR-I to the VR-II

VR II Looking Better at Closer Distances: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

plus some nice photo comparisons of the VR1, VR-II, and the 200mm f/2 VR-G prime lens shot both without, and with, with tele-converters are in this thread.

D3x scrutinizes the 70-200 VR models [Page 1]: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## MrLogic (Dec 3, 2009)

Thanks, Derrel. Much appreciated. 

This post may also help some DX users:



> The VR I model remains one of the best lenses money can buy for DX cameras. The only things the VR II model will offer DX users are:
> 
> 
> A little sharper wide open at f/2.8
> ...





My advice on the 70-200 models for DX: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## MrLogic (Dec 3, 2009)

Haha.... some people are pissed. 





> *70-200 II is a DISASTER*
> 
> 
> I'm the original Nikon fan....love...LOVE their stuff. But.....this new 70-200 is a utter goofball of a lens. It's a 70-150mm at best...read on!
> ...






thread: 70-200 II is a DISASTER: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## MrLogic (Dec 3, 2009)

Okay... one more and I'll stop. Originally posted by rb4u2c on the Digital Photography Review forums:

70-200VRII vs VRI quick test; I'm baffled!!: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review



> *70-200VRII vs VRI quick test; I'm baffled!!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wolverinepwnes (Dec 3, 2009)

personally the reason I invested in the VRII instead of VRI eventhough I have the D300s, is the fact that in the coming future, I will eventually upgrade to a FX body (D5?).  that was my reasoning at least


----------



## Derrel (Dec 3, 2009)

YES, the VR-II has internal focusing and is shorter overall than the original VF-I of 2003--and the new lens loses focal length, as do MANY lenses, both prime and zoom, as it is focused closer. The VF-II model seems to be 200mm at Infinity focus--it is testing out LONGER than the 200mm f/2 VR-G prime lens, but as it focuses closer, it appears it loses quite a bit of focal length. The flip side though, is that as it is focused closer, it has a flatter field, so it keeps the corners AND the center sharp at close ranges, which is something many zoom lenses fail to do.

It's always a tradeoff it seems, between one thing or another. But it is clear, the older, VR-I lens does not lose as much focal length as it focuses closer.


----------



## Shockey (Dec 3, 2009)

If you have a camera where you can fine tune focus maybe have a go at it with your VR1. Maybe I got a good copy but mine is tack sharp at 2.8.
Yeah Nikon is going to catch hell over this one!!!
Thanks for the info.


----------



## cfusionpm (Dec 3, 2009)

Derrel said:


> and the new lens loses focal length, as do MANY lenses, both prime and zoom


 
Do you have some examples or sources for this? Or of other brands? There seems to be a dramatic difference here between 200mm and "VRII 200mm;" so much so that it would deter me from buying that lens all together if I owned Nikon gear. It would be useful information for perspective lens buyers.


----------



## Montana (Dec 3, 2009)

This is disappointing. I was hoping for a homerun from Nikon on this lens.  Although the 2nd version appears much sharper wide open than version I.  Unless of course, the version I lens in the sample pics is just a soft copy.


----------



## Tinstafl (Dec 4, 2009)

DPreview and the Nikon Cafe have reported about a 36% loss of FL when you are under close in. Unfortunately it is in the range you stand when shooting a wedding and the exchange of rings... It is going to require a new shooting style to work around or going back to version one.


----------



## schumionbike (Dec 4, 2009)

The lost of focal lenght issue is only an issue when you're at the minimum focus point, the farther away the subject, the lessor it is of a problem.  At infinity, it's not problem at all.  In short, this lens probably suck for macro .  But for any other purposes when you're not at the mimimum focusing distant, then it won't be a problem at all.  A little extra space at the wide end might be a welcome to some .


----------



## Derrel (Dec 5, 2009)

cfusionpm said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > and the new lens loses focal length, as do MANY lenses, both prime and zoom
> ...



Yes, the macro lens field is chock-full of lenses that lose focal length as they focus closer; the Tamron 90mm drps to about 73mm at 1:1, and loses two f/stops in the process as well, being f/5.6 wide-open instead of 2.8 at In finity.

18-200mm AF-S DX VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan
In his review of the 18-200 VFR Nikkor, noted Nikon lens reviewer Thom Hogan writes:
"Finally, one word about focal length. As with most zooms, focus point shifts the focal length a bit. At infinity, the lens is 18mm at its wide end, and I think a few millimeters short of 200mm at the tele end (I've seen one measurement that says 193.5; all I know is that it's a bit shy of my 70-200mm at infinity). At very close focusing distances, which is where I'm at most of the time, the lens is almost down to 17mm at the wide end, with very little perceptible change at the tele end. Perfect! Just the way I want it to be.

16-85mm AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan
In his review of the 16mm-85 Nikkor lens, Hogan writes:

"Many Nikon DX users had already picked the 18-200mm VR as their walkaround lens, partly because they were seduced by numbers. Quick question, which gives you more range: the 18-200mm or the 16-85mm? The answer might surprise you a bit. The 16-85mm has a horizontal angle of view range of 16 to 73 degrees, the 18-200mm has an angle of view range of 7 to 66 degrees. However, because the 18-200mm changes focal length so much at the long end when focused close, for many situations its angle of view is only 10 to 66 degrees, which is not looking a lot better than the 16-85mm. I personally value those extra 7 degrees at the wide end much more than the extra 6 to 9 degrees at the telephoto end--they make a more dramatic impact on my photography."

From one thing I read, the new 70-200 VF-II is more like 65mm at the short end; to me, that would be more welcome than a few extra millimeters on the long end. And also, it's important to note that at Infinity, the new 70-200mm VR-II zoom lens is actually a little bit longer than the 200mm f/2 VR-G prime. The loss of focal length as the lens is focused closer is VERY normal for internal focusing zoom lenses, and for macro lenses as well. It's not that unexpected to people who are actually intimately familiar with optics. The new lens has flatter field at closer ranges than the old lens, leading to improved image quality. At very close ranges, internal focusing lenses may LOSE FOCAL LENGTH as a way to keep the actual, effective light transmission the same--note the use of the word "may". If a lens cannot change its overall length AND the user wants the actual, effective aperture of the lens to remain the same, the simplest solution is to allow the focal length to drop at very close focusing ranges. On the other hand, with a lens that focuses by extension of the barrel, like most old-style, non-internally focusing macro lenses, the aperture drop will be quite pronounced. A Tamron 90mm f/2.8 or old-style 105mm Nikkor D-series, the maximum aperture will DROP to f/5.6 as the lens is focused close, at 1:1 magnification.

It's clear the new 70-200 VR-II has had design optimization choices that favor a perfectly flat field at close ranges, leading to better edge-to-edge sharpness, and very little vignetting on full-frame. At Infinity, where actual focal length is important, the lens is *longer* than a Nikon 200mm f/2 prime lens. With ever-higher and higher MP sensors, the need is for a lens with the absolutely BEST optical performance--resolution, center sharpness, corner sharpness, contrast, and flatness of field and freedom from vignetting.

If anybody wants a lens that is optimized for something like a 24.5 megapixel FF Nikon D3x sensor, the new lens is that lens. For those shooting with DX camras, the old lens is stil quite good, and the new lens is a little bit better, but both are streets ahead of say, the 17-year old to 12-year old 80-200/2.8 lens designs.


----------



## MrLogic (Dec 8, 2009)

Effective focal lengths at "70mm" for the VR I & II, in case anyone is interested: 







> *Measured focal lengths at 70mm end of range*
> 
> Yes, I was referring to the short end, where the new lens is a little wider. However, it does not actually go below 70mm - it's just that the original 70-200 didn't quite open up all the way to 70mm, especially at close subject distance.
> 
> ...


Measured focal lengths at 70mm end of range: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## MrLogic (Dec 11, 2009)

Calculated focal lengths at minimum focus distance & "200mm" for 70-200mm and 80-200mm zooms (Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma), according to Thom Hogan:



> And should the manufacturer in question do so when others don't?
> Someone asked about the *Canon* 70-200mm, by the way. The answer via *formula calculation based upon published specs* is interesting:
> 
> 70-200mm f/4: *172*mm
> ...



Re: Response 1: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------

