• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

confirmed prices for Nikon 19f4 PCE and 70-200f2.8 VR


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#21 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 19 October 2016 - 03:50 PM

Come on, Rover:

  • the 19 mm PC was a rumor for longer than one year,
  • the 70-200 is just a bit new wine in old barrels, expensive Made in China glass
  • the 105/1.4 already is beyond the price range of most Nikon owners,
  • the "high-end point&shoot" DL-series are delayed due to thermal problems
  • the action cameras have to convince some GoPro users and the drones are already the next hot shit in town
  • nothing for the 1 series

did I forgot something? The usual problems of new-to-market bodies like Dave's D500? Shiny successful brands do have more convincing items im their portfolio.

 

Cute is a D5500 Astrology version - but this is not made by Nikon... An italian manufacturer does this alternative to D810A at 2/3 of the price, but with a cooling element to the sensor.



#22 Studor13

Studor13

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 306 posts

Posted 19 October 2016 - 06:46 PM

Nikon finally fixed the big issue the AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II had: the widening of FOV towards MFD.

I would like just one person on the entire planet to demonstrate that this is "a big issue".

It's not like the lens is giving you 135mm fov from a couple of metres to infinity. The so called problem is at minimum focus.

From a couple of meters onwards and with a small amount of cropping, no one is going to notice.

People seem to overlook the fact that the lens is ultra sharp at every focal length and aperture. Focus is super quiet and accurate.

The only thing that some people like to point out is this focus breathing non-issue.

Anyone who actually owns and uses this lens, and is thinking about upgrading because of this "issue" needs to have his head examined.
  • JoJu likes this
From the sunny side of the Alps.

#23 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,467 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 19 October 2016 - 07:09 PM

I would like just one person on the entire planet to demonstrate that this is "a big issue".

It's not like the lens is giving you 135mm fov from a couple of metres to infinity. The so called problem is at minimum focus.

From a couple of meters onwards and with a small amount of cropping, no one is going to notice.

People seem to overlook the fact that the lens is ultra sharp at every focal length and aperture. Focus is super quiet and accurate.

The only thing that some people like to point out is this focus breathing non-issue.

Anyone who actually owns and uses this lens, and is thinking about upgrading because of this "issue" needs to have his head examined.

The issue is progressive from infinity to MFD. So, set at 200mm, except for infinity, the lens always will have a wider FOV than other lenses. For tele, that always is an issue, small at many meters and bigger closer up.

 

For me, it would be indeed be a big issue, as I use my 70-200mm almost exclusively at 200mm setting, and most of the time near/at/past MFD.

 

That the lens is sharp is an entirely different subject, and the lens is not alone in being sharp. Nikkor's 70-200mm f4 VR is a sharp lens. Canon's 70-200mm f4 L IS USM and 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II are very sharp lenses. Sony's A mount 70-200mm f2.8 lens is sharp, Sony's FE 70-200mm f4 and 2.8 lenses are sharp. None have the widening FOV issue, all have a narrowing FOV at MFD. So that the outgoing Nikkor is sharp has NOTHING to do with the widening FOV at MFD. The new Nikkor fixes the issue, and apparently it is sharp too.

 

Anyone not understanding that for others indeed it can be an issue need their head examined. ;)


  • thxbb12 likes this

#24 Studor13

Studor13

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 306 posts

Posted 19 October 2016 - 07:32 PM

The problem I have is that to date not one single person on the planet has demonstrated HOW they are effected.

Saying you shoot this or that is meaningless. People need to SHOW where this so called issue is.

So, can you or someone you know of show how this is a "big issue"?
From the sunny side of the Alps.

#25 Studor13

Studor13

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 306 posts

Posted 19 October 2016 - 07:39 PM

Oh, you bought the 70-200 so that you can use it exclusively at 200mm and at minimum FD?

Either you are joking or the full moon is having an effect on you.
From the sunny side of the Alps.

#26 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts

Posted 19 October 2016 - 07:56 PM

I would like just one person on the entire planet to demonstrate that this is "a big issue".

 

 

 Well you did ask!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and Tony's comments in the first few minutes of the video on the new Nikon 70-200!

 

BTW I really like these guys!


  • Brightcolours likes this

#27 Studor13

Studor13

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 306 posts

Posted 19 October 2016 - 08:13 PM

Well you did ask!!
 

I wasted 7 minutes of my precious life watching this.

Please, next time tell me where in a video I need to skip to.

The video is some 25 minutes long. Do you expect me to listen to a guy for this entire period of time who doesn't even know how to pronounce Nikon property in the off chance that he actually has something worth looking at?
From the sunny side of the Alps.

#28 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 19 October 2016 - 08:33 PM

Come on, Rover:

  • the 19 mm PC was a rumor for longer than one year,
  • the 70-200 is just a bit new wine in old barrels, expensive Made in China glass
  • the 105/1.4 already is beyond the price range of most Nikon owners,
  • the "high-end point&shoot" DL-series are delayed due to thermal problems
  • the action cameras have to convince some GoPro users and the drones are already the next hot shit in town
  • nothing for the 1 series

did I forgot something? The usual problems of new-to-market bodies like Dave's D500? Shiny successful brands do have more convincing items im their portfolio.

 

Cute is a D5500 Astrology version - but this is not made by Nikon... An italian manufacturer does this alternative to D810A at 2/3 of the price, but with a cooling element to the sensor.

Well, a rumor doesn't make a lens - I don't need to tell anyone that not all rumors turn out to be true. :) I'm not entirely sure of how much the new 70-200 is different from the old one, though - the existing one was already very good (but the new one surely isn't just repackaging as you claim - since it has fluorite elements, there must've been changes to the optics). The 105/1.4 is a one of a kind lens, and a great one any way you slice it. The non-SLR stuff, sorry, I'm not watching it that closely.

 

I do agree that the prices have gone through the roof...



#29 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,467 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 19 October 2016 - 08:45 PM

The problem I have is that to date not one single person on the planet has demonstrated HOW they are effected.

Saying you shoot this or that is meaningless. People need to SHOW where this so called issue is.

So, can you or someone you know of show how this is a "big issue"?

No one can show "how they are affected" (not effected).

Simply because they either use a lens which does not do it, and can't show what does not affect them, or if they have the lens, they again can't show it, because one can only SHOW it by making A-B comparisons.

 

Explain what you do not understand about wanting a certain FOV, and not being able to get it with one lens and being able to get it with another lens.



#30 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,467 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 19 October 2016 - 08:50 PM

Oh, you bought the 70-200 so that you can use it exclusively at 200mm and at minimum FD?

Either you are joking or the full moon is having an effect on you.

I bought a 70-200mm to get some tele reach, indeed. Not to shoot 70mm. This is a very common reason. 
What I actually did write above:
"For me, it would be indeed be a big issue, as I use my 70-200mm almost exclusively at 200mm setting, and most of the time near/at/past MFD."
 

So, yeah, I do use it almost always at 200mm.
And I do use it very often photographing butterflies, flowers, mushrooms, leafs, bees, so close up distances upto MFD and beyond MFD (with an extension tube).

What that has to do with the full moon, I am not sure about. The moon would be at infinity.

FOV does matter, and so does magnification. Both would be severely impacted by a lens with strong widening of FOV towards MFD.
  • dave's clichés likes this

#31 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts

Posted 19 October 2016 - 09:26 PM

I wasted 7 minutes of my precious life watching this.

Please, next time tell me where in a video I need to skip to.

The video is some 25 minutes long. Do you expect me to listen to a guy for this entire period of time who doesn't even know how to pronounce Nikon property in the off chance that he actually has something worth looking at?

  You asked a question, it got answered and in "only" seven minutes.

 

  Sounds like you just didn't like his opinion to me.

 

   

 

  The best thing is never to expect anything in life, that way you are not disappointed.

 

 

  BTW. I agree with BC wholeheartedly and Tony Northrup.


  • Brightcolours likes this

#32 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 19 October 2016 - 11:29 PM

Well Dave, Tony is not the most fluent speaker on YouTube... often he wants to tell a lot, unfortuantely all at the same time and is not always focused on what he's saying.

 

Having a YouTube channel means looking good (check, but Chelsea is looking better and Chris, oooh this Chris with his cute hair and getting drunk with his cameraman at the end of the year), speaking to the point (he and Matt Granger advert a lot their books and/or workshops...) and having something to say. (Sometimes he has, but it's embedded in a lot of blurb).

 

Ideally. And unpaid...

 

Well, reality is different. And I would not do better, for sure. No need to thank me for not running a YouTube channel.  ^_^



#33 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts

Posted 20 October 2016 - 12:59 AM

Well Dave, Tony is not the most fluent speaker on YouTube... often he wants to tell a lot, unfortuantely all at the same time and is not always focused on what he's saying.

 

  You don't find Tony fluent? 



#34 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 October 2016 - 01:34 AM

Nope.

 

He's often stopping, has to repeat and at the same time gives me the impression as if he is hunted and time is ticking. But worse than him are Theoria Apophasis (who never hesitates to repeat the repetition) and some German guys. Oh, and a gazillion other YouTubers as well. It has a reason why TV anchorman and woman make speech training....



#35 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 991 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 20 October 2016 - 05:29 AM

Back to the lens discussion, remember 70-200f2.8 is mostly a portraits lens, for portraits you do need close focus distance, not macro but let's say less than one meter and you need a very decent performance at this distance, at such distances.
Nikon 105mm is very common amongst wedding photographers just for such shots, so yes this makes a very useful addition.
BTW I never watch video reviews it's pointless can't they write normally like Klaus? The alphabet is here since 5000 years just for this
  • Rover and obican like this

#36 Studor13

Studor13

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 306 posts

Posted 20 October 2016 - 05:41 AM

You asked a question, it got answered and in "only" seven minutes.
 
  Sounds like you just didn't like his opinion to me.
 

Strange how some people interpret what is written to suit themselves.

The guy did not mention the 70-200 having any focus breathing issues in the seven minutes that I watched.

I was not willing to watch to the end in case you had maybe posted the wrong link!

I said where in the 25 minutes is his demonstration of the issue at hand, and your reply is that I don't like his opinion?

BTW, my life is and has been full of disappointments. But it also has been and continues to be full of wonders and achievements.
  • JoJu likes this
From the sunny side of the Alps.

#37 Studor13

Studor13

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 306 posts

Posted 20 October 2016 - 05:57 AM

So, yeah, I do use it almost always at 200mm.And I do use it very often photographing butterflies, flowers, mushrooms, leafs, bees, so close up distances upto MFD and beyond MFD (with an extension tube).

I know you are not serious. I think you are just trolling.

No one in their right mind is going to put an extension tube on the 70-200 to shoot at MFD. Next you are probably going to tell me that you have the whole rig on a heavy tripod running around after these critters? Didn't someone tell you that Nikon invented a macro lens decades ago?

I am also certain that you know that there is the 180mm f2.8 which would meet your needs better, if you were actually shooting "exclusively" at 200mm and at MFD.

Affected or effected? You are going to have to do better than this to wind me up.
From the sunny side of the Alps.

#38 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,467 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 20 October 2016 - 06:11 AM

I don't like Tony Northrup's videos too much, because quite often he says things that are nonsense. He does not do that on purpose, he is not a bad guy at all, but just not that into his videos.

Lets be clear, the issue of the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR II is not focus breathing (focus breathing is a change in FOV when going through the focus range), it is the way it focus breathes. All of these lenses focus breath, but this Nikkor loses so much focal length that it widens FOV towards MFD, where other lenses, like the new Nikkor, lose so little that they narrow FOV towards MFD. The difference in FOV can be very striking indeed.
 

Thom Hogan shows the difference between the AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR and the AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II at MFD at 200mm:

http://www.bythom.co...-VR-II-lens.htm

 

(Note from Klaus: removed the image - you shouldn't do deep linking into other sites for copyright reasons)

 

For those who do not need the lens to be near 200mm at closer distances, sure, it will be a minor or no issue. And for those who do want to lens to be near 200mm at closer distances, it obviously will be a bigger issue.

 

Nikon has addressed the issue now by introducing a replacement.  Good for Nikon.



#39 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,188 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 20 October 2016 - 06:21 AM

I think you can use a 70-200mm for shooting at MFD. Not all zoom lenses perform poorly in such a scenario.

e.g. the Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 has a floating system just like in a macro lens. 

Personally I wouldn't use such a lens for macro but then why not?


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#40 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 October 2016 - 06:59 AM

I think I never saw somebody calling a 70-200 a "portrait lens" but then, why not?

 

It's a long journey from here to the Chinese wall by bicycle but then, why not?

 

It's a common lens in it's x-th version and as such I'm wondering why Nikon asks 2700$ for it, but then... and transfers this to 3280.- Swiss francs (official price recommendation by Nikon.ch), but then why not? More than double the price for one f-stop more...

 

:rolleyes:

 

I get it! Nikon watches the prices of µ 4/3 and X-lenses and just puts the 1.5 × equivalence plus the "superior from Nikon" bonus on it! Clever dudes, they are.  :D


  • Studor13 likes this




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de