• 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

#41 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 20 October 2016 - 07:38 AM

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.

Actually I did just that yesterday... used my 70-200, although a Canon one, with tubes to shoot a colorful caterpillar I chanced upon when doing a very different kind of shooting. :) I also donned an extender to boot. :D I don't own a macro lens because I only rarely shoot this stuff and I own too many lenses already! Besides, the tubes are versatile because you can put them on any lens (not all will work but I've had reasonable success shooting electronic components with the 16-35 @35mm plus tubes).
A 180/200 prime cannot fully replace a 70-200 zoom anyway... For one thing, none of them have IS, and Nikon's is an old, screw driven lens.

#42 Studor13

Studor13

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 20 October 2016 - 07:59 AM

Actually I did just that yesterday... used my 70-200, although a Canon one, 

 

Sure, why not?

 

I have done it also even though I have 2 macro lenses plus a number of close-up attachments.

 

Joju rode his bike from Switzerland to Bohinj. Apparently, he is planning to do likewise across Russia. Why not?

 

But I only do such crazy things when my mind needs such non-sense.

 

There is nothing wrong (as such) with doing irrational stuff every so often. But when you start to think that it is “normal” you have a problem and you don't even realise it.


From the sunny side of the Alps.

#43 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 October 2016 - 08:06 AM

Well, riding on other lenses' / camera's weaknesses is also a bit part of this "doing weird stuff" -and we all enjoy it. Or watching Tony's videos when he talks a lot and says not much. Kai is doing the same, but very entertaining and I think, to watch his videos is like waiting to "will he chop this time his hands as well into pieces or is he just buning another magenta coloured camera body?" And I like his accent, I admit. And his clumsiness as special skill for his job...

 

There are pearls amongst the YouTubers but most of them are just wasting bandwidth.  :D Hell, why not?



#44 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 20 October 2016 - 10:02 AM

Sure, why not?

I have done it also even though I have 2 macro lenses plus a number of close-up attachments.

Joju rode his bike from Switzerland to Bohinj. Apparently, he is planning to do likewise across Russia. Why not?

But I only do such crazy things when my mind needs such non-sense.

There is nothing wrong (as such) with doing irrational stuff every so often. But when you start to think that it is “normal” you have a problem and you don't even realise it.

But that's the thing... I don't own a macro lens, nor do I think it's a sensible purchase for me - hence the use of extension tubes (I even totalled the most used one, 21mm, in May while shooting insects in Kyrgyzstan). Ditto the extender - it's a compact and economic way of increasing reach when getting a longer lens is impractical, bulky, impossible (as in no lens with such parameters being available at all), or all of the above, which is my case. :)

 

By the way if Joachim comes here I'd be happy to meet him. :)

Well, riding on other lenses' / camera's weaknesses is also a bit part of this "doing weird stuff" -and we all enjoy it. Or watching Tony's videos when he talks a lot and says not much. Kai is doing the same, but very entertaining and I think, to watch his videos is like waiting to "will he chop this time his hands as well into pieces or is he just buning another magenta coloured camera body?" And I like his accent, I admit. And his clumsiness as special skill for his job...

 

There are pearls amongst the YouTubers but most of them are just wasting bandwidth.   :D Hell, why not?

 

 

I hate "video reviews" with a passion, and dread to think what happens if / when they become ubiquitous. I would much rather read a well written text, picking out the bits that interest me more, at my own pace instead of waiting through the duration of the video, having to practice language comprehension AND wasting bandwidth. :D


  • Brightcolours likes this

#45 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 20 October 2016 - 10:17 AM

I second that.

With a written article, you can select what to read, whenever you want to. A quick glance and you can find the info you're looking for.

With a video, you have to watch the whole damn thing.

Plus it seems that these days most of the video reviews are crap anyway.


--Florent

Flickr Page


#46 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,374 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 20 October 2016 - 10:24 AM

Interesting tidbit in the info about the 19mm f4 PC-E.... It has similar limitations as the existing PC-E's: Movement can be limited by the pentaprism hump. Not sure why this remains an issue for Nikon, Canon has a bigger mount and shorter flange distance and yet no such issues with the TS-E's.

 

"Models that can be used without any limitation: D5, D4 series, D3 series, D810 Series, D500

Models that can be used with some limitations: Df, D800 series, D750, D610, D600, D300 series, D7200, D7100, D5500, D5300, D5200, D5100, D5000, D3400, D3300, D3200, D3100"



#47 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 October 2016 - 11:03 AM

The pentaprism hump is as necessary as a mirror. For Nikon, that is.  :D Especially because most of the time it hostst the little flishyflashy thing, The space for the prism or the mirror on the cheaper bodies is not that big. I think they need that design to give their cameras the appearance of a grumpy, yet thoughtful gorilla. Don't dare to eat banana in front of a Nikon. 

 

 

 

But it still can be adapted to Canon or Sony.  :lol:



#48 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,374 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 20 October 2016 - 11:12 AM

Well that is the (a) thing, JoJu. It can't be adapted to Sony and Canon like most other lenses can, because it is a E lens (electronic aperture control). Although it is only a matter of time till for mirrorless smart adapters come along that will allow for at least Sony cameras to control the aperture?



#49 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 October 2016 - 11:52 AM

It was meant as a joke, man! Who needs to adapt Nikon lenses, when there are cheaper and equally good, yet shorter FL Canon for exisiting adapters available?

 

And for that price it better is pretty good wide open.

 

But even if the hump is blocking the shift vertically upwards: When do you need in landscape orientation ... alright, You do need  :D

 

The shift goes in both directtions. I don't know how much of the ± 12 mm are blocked. More shift is needed in portrait orientation, I guess. And if I'd really need the full 12 mm perpendicular to landscape orientation, I would turn the camera upside down and shoot tethered.

 

So another "issue" which needs a lot of bad will to become one in reality.  :P



#50 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,374 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 20 October 2016 - 11:55 AM

It was meant as a joke, man! Who needs to adapt Nikon lenses, when there are cheaper and equally good, yet shorter FL Canon for exisiting adapters available?

 

And for that price it better is pretty good wide open.

 

But even if the hump is blocking the shift vertically upwards: When do you need in landscape orientation ... alright, You do need  :D

 

The shift goes in both directtions. I don't know how much of the ± 12 mm are blocked. More shift is needed in portrait orientation, I guess. And if I'd really need the full 12 mm perpendicular to landscape orientation, I would turn the camera upside down and shoot tethered.

 

So another "issue" which needs a lot of bad will to become one in reality.  :P

And you think I did not get that it was a joke? Doh. I found it funny that you can't even adapt it to Canon DSLRs, a joke within the joke.



#51 Studor13

Studor13

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 20 October 2016 - 12:58 PM

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:

 

 

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

 

I can't comment on Thom's samples because I don't want to use his images inappropriately so I can only make my own comparisons.

 

Here is a side by side shot with 200mm f4 on the left and 70-200mm on the right. The 200mm has a MFD of 1.8m so I have to say that the 70-200 has the advantage since its MFD is 1.4m.

 

The point is that for all this talk of losing FOV it should be clear that it's much of a muchness. And with a smallest amount of cropping the FOV would be identical.

 

If you are shooting macros then yes, FOV would matter. But I would say that Nikon's market for this lens are those who actually use the whole focal length and real-world working distances.

 

And if you think that you need to get closer to say a rock band (as per the whingers in Thom's article) then good luck to you! You can see in the other image just how close you are already to the lead-singer's face.

Attached Files


  • JoJu likes this
From the sunny side of the Alps.

#52 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 October 2016 - 01:18 PM

I always use macros for lead singers. Most of them are very small...  -_-


  • Studor13 likes this

#53 Studor13

Studor13

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 20 October 2016 - 04:03 PM

 Well you did ask!!

 

 

 

So, I tracked down what he actually said. It is from his own website:

 

That dream ended after a couple of shoots with the D810 and the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 II. The D810 did great, but the Nikon had a severe problem: at headshot range, it wasn’t 200mm… it wasn’t even close. In fact, we measured it at about 135mm.

Our signature headshots suddenly didn’t have the same background blur or compression of facial features; a portrait at 135mm just isn’t the same as a portrait at 200mm. Forget using it for a wedding, where you need all the reach you can get.

 

Well here is a snap that I took of daughter below.

 

Do you think:

1. It needs more compression

2. Improvement in background blur

3. I should forget about weddings

4. I need to get closer to the bride

5. I need more reach in a wedding

 

The image is at 200mm f2.8 1/40 and just a little further than MFD.

 

It really drives me crazy when people spread non-sense over the internet and even more so when people start to think that they are a source of absolute fact.

(Wedding shot at 200mm)

Attached Files


From the sunny side of the Alps.

#54 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,374 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 20 October 2016 - 04:08 PM

Yeah we get it. The VR II is perfect and anyone wanting 200mm is being just silly. 

 

That is what you wanted to hear, right?



#55 Studor13

Studor13

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 20 October 2016 - 04:21 PM

No. I want people to stop spreading non-sense.

 

For example,

 

Forget using it for a wedding,...”.

 

Got it?


From the sunny side of the Alps.

#56 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 912 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 20 October 2016 - 05:49 PM

Anyone who has done weddings knows he needs shots between 70 and 200mm at something like a meter distance or less in almost every wedding.
Maybe it's less than 10% of the shots but you do need it, for pictures of the bride having her makeup done, a picture of the wedding rings, a closeup of the champaign glasses, the wedding invitation amongst the roses, for all those standard "clichés" you do need good performance at close focus distances.
Wedding photographers either use 24-70 or 105mm macro for those shots, having decent performance at this range is surely a reason for many wedding guys to upgrade.

#57 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 October 2016 - 06:51 PM

"like a meter distance or less"...

 

Just check the specs of these lenses before you post such nonsense!! Also, check your own pictures how close you really were instead of estimating wild stuff. Really, you're wasting a lot of time with posts like this. With MFD from 1.1 m or 1.4 of the elder version, how can you get closer and what kind of pictures are these? Close-ups from a part of the ring or what?

 

And it's not the problem, that the elder lens was not good enough at "200" mm and MFD, it was just not 200 mm enough.



#58 Studor13

Studor13

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 20 October 2016 - 07:17 PM

Jo, I don't think you need to go so hard on Toni. I think that he is a good decent guy.

 

But when we get links to people who not only say non-sense but somehow become self anointed experts we should be hard on them.

 

Anyways, I think that the new lens is a move forward but the pricing is a bit steep, IMO.


  • toni-a likes this
From the sunny side of the Alps.

#59 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 21 October 2016 - 01:19 AM

 It's no easy task shooting weddings, so kudos to you toni!



#60 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 21 October 2016 - 08:43 AM

No, that is not really true.

The Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8's did not have the widening of the FOV near MFD. The AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR did not have that either. No Sony (A or FE mount) has shown it. The old Pentax 80-200mm f2.8 did not either. Nor does the Nikkor 70-200mm f4 VR. Or the older Sigma 70-200mm's. Or the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 Di LD Macro.

 

Only 3 lenses in this class do: The Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 USD VC, the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG HSM OS  (to lesser extent I think?) and the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II.

 

The specs of the new Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f2.8E FL VR tell the story (1.1m MFD 0.21x max. mag.).

AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II: 1.4m MFD, 0.12x max. mag. .

 Yes true, I wasn't counting the 80-200 oldies nor the slow focusing but inexpensive Tamron.

 

BTW The new Pentax focus breathes strongly also!






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de