What Lenses for the D800?

[D&A]

Just took delivery of the VR1 200/2. OMG it is a freaking LASER, even wide open! DOF Is paper thin -- and thus my issue. This one back focuses slightly to the point I cannot correct it with -20 dialed in on my body It sits about 3cm behind PoF at 15 meters, and it's a 3cm you can see because the DoF is so freaking thin. Option one is to return it. Option two is to see if Nikon service will adjust it, but that sounds like a crap-shoot and a PITA to begin with. I am sick. Oh, and the 1.4x works great on it -- final image is still extremely sharp wide open -- a skosh behind the 200 naked, but still sharper than the 70-200 VR2 at 200 and f4... LASER!

Jack, there was no doubt the 1.4x was going to work with this lens. As for focus adjustment, if it's impossible to correct back focus through the camera"s AF adjusment, and all else is perfect about the lens, I would inquire about cost of Nikon adjusting the lens (assuming it's not under warranty). Nikon as been pretty good about back focus adjustment these days, especially with regards to the 200 f2. There have been reports though that some lenses that fall within AF adjustment on the D700/D3s, for whatever reason don't on the D800! Again just a suggestion to send it in, depending on the circumstances.

If you think the lens with the 1.4x is spectaculary good, you'll be quite impressed with the 2x when it has to be used in a pinch, depending of course on camera to subject distance. Both these converters work extraordinarily well (especially the 1.4) with the current 200 f2, the 300 f2.8 among some others.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Jack]

Dave,

I bought the 2x III at the same time, so it's already in the bag. I am debating what to do re the 200/2. It is a beast, so part of me is re-considering the 70-200 VR2 even though it clearly is not the laser the 200/2 is.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

What I would like to know is how well the 300/2.8 VR + 1.4x compares to the 500/4 VR...

 

[GrahamWelland]

Dave,

I bought the 2x III at the same time, so it's already in the bag. I am debating what to do re the 200/2. It is a beast, so part of me is re-considering the 70-200 VR2 even though it clearly is not the laser the 200/2 is.

Jack

Both work well. I'd return the 200/2 and go for another copy with better calibration. It is, quite simply, an AWESOME lens that the 70-200 VR II will never match. It is one of the few lenses that's missEd from moving from Nikon to Phase One. (ok, add the d3s and 35/1.4g & 24/1.4G & 14-24 plus 70-200VR II).

 

[D&A]

Dave,

I bought the 2x III at the same time, so it's already in the bag. I am debating what to do re the 200/2. It is a beast, so part of me is re-considering the 70-200 VR2 even though it clearly is not the laser the 200/2 is.

Jack,

Of course its a personal decision what to do, especially as to whether to stay with a 200 f2 or move back to the 70-200 f2.8 VRII. At 200mm with and without teleconverters, there is no question optically, the 200 f2 is clearly superior. The one thing many of us here on Getdpi who have owned the 200 f2 at one time or another have mentioned is that as exciting as it is to have the 200 f2, ofteh after a while, it gets left in the bag (ie: stays home), simply because of it's physical mass, it truly is a beast and eventually gets sold.

One other thing to keep in mind is the 70-200 f2.8 at 200mm at closer subject range, is more like a 140mm lens due to focus breathing. This is often heard as a complaint from some, regarding the lens. Additonally, even at greater distance where the 70-200 is a true 200mm lens, when one compares use of the 2x on each lens, the 200 f2 +2x wins hands down...not even close. At closer subject distances, it gets somewhat better for the 70-200 f2.8 +2x, although it still lags behind. Still a lens is no good if it simply gets left behind all the time.

As you well know, all these choices is about giving up something to get something...the usual tradeoffs. Unfortunately no "one" perfect ideal solution exists.

Dave (D&A)

 

[GrahamWelland]

:thumbs: What Dave said. Been there, done that - couldn't agree more.

And I still miss my 200/2 VR even though it spent a lot of time in the truck and not the bag.

 

[D&A]

What I would like to know is how well the 300/2.8 VR + 1.4x compares to the 500/4 VR...

Hi Jan,

I can tell you from personal experience and testing (since I originally had the same question when contemplating purchase of a 500 f4 VR) and additonally from a few extremely talented wildlife photographers I've known for quite some time (who also performed similar tests)....the combinations you inquired about "above", are extremely close. At closer subject distances, it's generally a toss up, but at greater distances, the 500 f4 has a slight-slight/moderate edge. If you posed the identical question, except substituted the 2x in place of the 1.4x....the 500 f4 is superior in all cases but again at closer range, the 300 f2.8 +2x can often do a very credable job at close and mid subject distances.

Dave (D&A

 

[Jack]

It's definitely a tough call. The 300/2.8 plus 70-200 and converters is probably a more versatile and logical combo...

 

[D&A]

It's definitely a tough call. The 300/2.8 plus 70-200 and converters is probably a more versatile and logical combo...

Thats basically what I did after selling the 200 f2. I purchased the 300 f2.8 VR and a 100-300 f4 . The 300 f2.8 was a purposeful lens (meaning it was only taken when the shoot specifically required it along with a monopod or tripod)...whereas the telezoom was a constant companion. The reason I previously gave up the 70-200 f2.8 VRII for the 100-300 f4, was simply for the work I was doing. Unfortunately close range shots with a max. of 140mm due to focus breathing (and without use of a converter) was a bit too short...but that was a personal decision. Otherwise the native 70-200 f2.8 VR II was an extremely good lens.

Dave (D&A)

 

[anGy]

Sorry if this question is silly:
Focus breathing reduces focal length of the 200mm to an apparent 140mm at close distance. But what about the 70mm range ? does it appears widest too at close focus distance?

 

[D&A]

Sorry if this question is silly:
Focus breathing reduces focal length of the 200mm to an apparent 140mm at close distance. But what about the 70mm range ? does it appears widest too at close focus distance?

Question is not silly, but a good one! The basic answer is "no". With the 70-200 f2.8 VRII set to 70mm, it's effective focal length is still 70mm throughout the focusing distance range of the lens....therefore focus breathing with this lens is almost exclusively at it's longest focal length setting. With this lens set to 200mm, it is only noticable at very close-to close subject distances and becomes progressively less as camera-to-subject distances become greater.

Dave (D&A)

 

[BSEH]

70-200 VRII focus breathing

70 is 70 at close focus and 72 from +3 m.

Marked 200mm is really:

1.4m = 134mm
2m = 147mm
3m = 164mm
5m = 176mm
10m = 186mm
Infinity = 192mm

(ref.: bythorm)

 

[Jack]

So let's go back to the 70-200 V1. It is also IF, so does it do the same thing? Looking at Photozone's reports, the V1 appears sharper centrally but worse edges than the V2, but the V1 appears to hold better center at 200 where the V2 falls back, and edges appear equivalent. So it appears from these tests at least, that the V1 may be the better option for 200mm than the V2. Unless I am missing something?

 

[BSEH]

So let's go back to the 70-200 V1. It is also IF, so does it do the same thing? Looking at Photozone's reports, the V1 appears sharper centrally but worse edges than the V2, but the V1 appears to hold better center at 200 where the V2 falls back, and edges appear equivalent. So it appears from these tests at least, that the V1 may be the better option for 200mm than the V2. Unless I am missing something?

A Nikon guy once told me that the 70-200 VR was built while Nikon thought the future was the crop sensor, and full frame would die. Nikons prof body's were cropfaktor and VRI was therefore optimized for it.

But when the forecast did not seem to hold, they rebuilt the 70-200, so it functioned optimally at Full Frame.

Don't think it was beer talk, we drank bourbon.


I think i will look into the new sigma 180 macro with OS - soon to come.

 

[Jack]

BSEH,

Given the significantly poorer edge performance of V1, that actually makes total sense.

 

[D&A]

So let's go back to the 70-200 V1. It is also IF, so does it do the same thing? Looking at Photozone's reports, the V1 appears sharper centrally but worse edges than the V2, but the V1 appears to hold better center at 200 where the V2 falls back, and edges appear equivalent. So it appears from these tests at least, that the V1 may be the better option for 200mm than the V2. Unless I am missing something?

Interestingly, the VRI version does not exhibit significant focus breathing at 200mm like the VRII. From what I understand, a different set of optical principals and design parameters were incorporated into the VRII"s design in order to extrat additional performance but this resulted in some compromises, one of which was focus breathing.

It's not strictly due to internal zooming. Although the VRI did not have stellar performance in the corners on full frame, it also wasn't exceptional in this area on a cropped sensor either. Keeping it a full 200mm at it's long end was something Nikon and other lens manufacturers tried to preserve with regards to full focal length range on all tele zooms designed. From my understanding, they weren't sure how significantly shorter reach zooms than the focal length advertised or marked would go over with shooters. Currently, it's now widely used and accepted and as a consequence, better performance is possible. It's an optical compromise.

I'm sure many of the reasons posted here in this thread were also discussed and considered during initial development.

Dave (D&A)

 

[tashley]

I vote for the V2. This is the second one I've had, the first was sold when I got rid of the D7000. Both are reliably very sharp everywhere, seem to have little distortion, focus brilliantly, have the best VR I've used. I really feel safe with this lens: it rarely gets anything wrong.