07-09-2011, 06:46 AM
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1310131369' post='9815']
Hi, I don´t have this lens (yet) but would like to ask the owners/experienced ones... Ok, there is a general consensus that the Nik.70-200/2.8 is actually something like 70-135/f2.8 when shooting at short distances. So naturally I also understand that the lens behaves like 135/2.8 in terms of depth of field under these conditions, am I right or not? [/quote]
Like has been confirmed, the lens does start to be have like a 130mm or so lens at MFD, so, field of view is wider, like a 130mm lens, and DOF is that of a 130mm lens also.
At 2 meters 147mm, at 3 meters 164mm, at 5 meters 176m, and 10mm 186mm.
186mm is not a stranger value for a 200mm lens anymore.
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1310131369' post='9815']
So when shooting at close range, not only I get the magnification like from the 135mm lens only but also the DOF like from the 135/2.8 (and not the shallower DOF like I would expect from the real 200/2.8). Is it correct?
[/quote]
Correct. You do not just get the magnification, but also the wider field of view of a 130mm lens, and with that comes the DOF of a 130mm lens.
For photographers like me, it would be a problem, I use my 70-200mm a lot at or close to MFD and specifically to get the narrow FOV. For other photographers, like Markus, it is not an issue as they use it as a tele at longer distances.
So, whether you should see it as an issue, or not, totally depends on your photography and your use of such a lens. And, as Markus pointed out, the Sigma OS version is not an alternative, as it also shows the same breathing as the Nikon VR II.
If you need the shallow DOF belonging to 200mm f2.8 at closer distances (or the narrow field of view at 200mm, like me), the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8, 70-200 VR, Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 are alternatives.
If not, the 70-200mm VR II is fine.
Hi, I don´t have this lens (yet) but would like to ask the owners/experienced ones... Ok, there is a general consensus that the Nik.70-200/2.8 is actually something like 70-135/f2.8 when shooting at short distances. So naturally I also understand that the lens behaves like 135/2.8 in terms of depth of field under these conditions, am I right or not? [/quote]
Like has been confirmed, the lens does start to be have like a 130mm or so lens at MFD, so, field of view is wider, like a 130mm lens, and DOF is that of a 130mm lens also.
At 2 meters 147mm, at 3 meters 164mm, at 5 meters 176m, and 10mm 186mm.
186mm is not a stranger value for a 200mm lens anymore.
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1310131369' post='9815']
So when shooting at close range, not only I get the magnification like from the 135mm lens only but also the DOF like from the 135/2.8 (and not the shallower DOF like I would expect from the real 200/2.8). Is it correct?
[/quote]
Correct. You do not just get the magnification, but also the wider field of view of a 130mm lens, and with that comes the DOF of a 130mm lens.
For photographers like me, it would be a problem, I use my 70-200mm a lot at or close to MFD and specifically to get the narrow FOV. For other photographers, like Markus, it is not an issue as they use it as a tele at longer distances.
So, whether you should see it as an issue, or not, totally depends on your photography and your use of such a lens. And, as Markus pointed out, the Sigma OS version is not an alternative, as it also shows the same breathing as the Nikon VR II.
If you need the shallow DOF belonging to 200mm f2.8 at closer distances (or the narrow field of view at 200mm, like me), the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8, 70-200 VR, Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 are alternatives.
If not, the 70-200mm VR II is fine.