03-21-2012, 07:26 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1332320672' post='16897']
[color="#0000ff"]Not sure how Wi[color="#ff0000"]m[/color]'s views on two different 70-200mm f4 L's, and how in his view they compare to the f2.8 pendant, influences you on your decision of choice between two f2.8 zooms... [/color]but oh well <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
On the actual subject of your two f2.8's:
The one you have, the 80-200, is not as sharp over the whole range as the AF-S 70-200 VR II. The VR (1st version of the 70-200) is on FF not as sharp as the VR II on the long end, it has soft corners.
The VR II focusses faster and silent than your 80-200.
Depending on your usage, your 80-200mm f2.8 has one BIG advantage over the 70-200mm VR II. The VR II has a heavy focus breathing. Which means that the closer you focus, the wider your field of view becomes. At the 200mm setting, the lens goes down to a field of view resembling that of a 130mm lens.
For me, this would make the 70-200mm VR II not an option at all. Others, who only may use it as a tele lens, may brush that negative aside.
[/quote]
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Possibly not so much the comments on the zooms, but on the faster primes... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Frank may well be saving for a Nikkor 135 F/2 now... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Kind regards, Wim
[color="#0000ff"]Not sure how Wi[color="#ff0000"]m[/color]'s views on two different 70-200mm f4 L's, and how in his view they compare to the f2.8 pendant, influences you on your decision of choice between two f2.8 zooms... [/color]but oh well <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> On the actual subject of your two f2.8's:
The one you have, the 80-200, is not as sharp over the whole range as the AF-S 70-200 VR II. The VR (1st version of the 70-200) is on FF not as sharp as the VR II on the long end, it has soft corners.
The VR II focusses faster and silent than your 80-200.
Depending on your usage, your 80-200mm f2.8 has one BIG advantage over the 70-200mm VR II. The VR II has a heavy focus breathing. Which means that the closer you focus, the wider your field of view becomes. At the 200mm setting, the lens goes down to a field of view resembling that of a 130mm lens.
For me, this would make the 70-200mm VR II not an option at all. Others, who only may use it as a tele lens, may brush that negative aside.
[/quote]
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />Possibly not so much the comments on the zooms, but on the faster primes... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.Frank may well be saving for a Nikkor 135 F/2 now... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....