[Brightcolours]

Those calculations mean nothing, Wim.



I have before already pointed out that what is important to the photographer is not focal length, but field of view.

What is problematic (for some) about the Nikon (and Sigma) 70-200mm f2.8 VR II (OS) is that the field of view gets a lot wider when focusing closer.

You do not get that with the canon or this new Nikon. In fact, the field of view gets more narrow with my Canon 70-200mm f4 when focussing closer.



So to all intends and purposes, the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II shows strong focus breathing, resulting in very evident wider field of view. The new nikon 70-200mm f4 VR does not show strong focus breathing, and will NOT show a wider field of view when focusing closer. Like the Canon(s), it will show a slightly more narrow field of view when focusing closer (if the published specs are reliable).



Or did you think that the calculated 174mm meant a wider field of view? I assure you, it does not. Again, it is not the rather theoretical focal length number that matters for us (photographers), but the widening field of view. Not many realize that focal length numbers are not fixed with a field of view figure.



As example the Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM focussed at MFD and infinity, Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC focussed at MFD and infinity.

Both are IF lenses, one (70-200mm f4) shows a narrowing of field of view, the other (18-50mm) a clear widening of field of view.

According to the specs, the new Nikon 70-200mm f4 is similar to the Canon.

[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]