Quote: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.
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. ^_^
Quote: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?
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....
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
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
10-20-2016, 05:11 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-20-2016, 05:17 AM by Klaus.)
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:
(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.
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?
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...
I get it! Nikon watches the prices of Âµ 4/3 and X-lenses and just puts the 1.5 Ã— equivalence plus the "superior from Nikon" bonus on it! Clever dudes, they are.