Nikon 70-200 F4 vs F2.8 , anyone tested ?

JJ_SO

@PB_PM: What gives you the idea, photozone had a collar to test it? I don't see it, neither on D7000 nor on D3 - and usually the picture shows, what they tested.
@Msmoto: I'm not an optical engineer, but you're comparing pears and apples - or maybe not and I'm wrong. Both zoom lenses are IF, the 135/2 is not (at least it looks that way to me. Focal length, as we see it engraved on photo lenses, very simplified is the distance from film/sensor surface to the top peak of the front lens when focussed to infinity. If you shoot objects closer, the front lens is moved forward on the 135/2, which means, the closer you get, the longer is the actual focal length.
The zoom's front lenses are not moving which leads me to the idea, the closer you get, the shorter focal length will become.
Maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, I don't mind the absolute focal length as long as I get the picture I want. And the advantages of IF - stable lens tube, no moving parts outside, easier to be sealed against dust and water are more worth to me than identical focal lengths on different lens constructions.

PB_PM

Umm look at the second picture on the first page of the review.

pippigurl

As an FYI the 70-200 f4 collar made by Vella that B&H is selling for around $60US does not fit the barrel of the lens. It is too large and will not hold the lens securely. Might save you some frustration.

JJ_SO

@PB_PM: Thanks for mentioning that picture, I didn't scroll down "> . To me it's more a product illustration than a sure proof, he did test the lens with it. Maybe Markus is gonna reply my question in his forum.

[Deleted User]

As an FYI the 70-200 f4 collar made by Vella that B&H is selling for around $60US does not fit the barrel of the lens. It is too large and will not hold the lens securely. Might save you some frustration.

As previously mentioned, the cheap (35$ in your money) Chines copy fits REALLY snug - which is really good news, of course, if you're never going to use it :P

Msmoto

@ JJ_SO

Just a note...on my post of the comparison photos showing the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is only 170mm effective focal length when focused for a subject 2 meters away is just that. There is no "lens comparison" as the 135mm f/2 (which is an IF lens) was shown only to allow demonstration of another lens at 135mm and the difference between the 135mm setting on the 70-200 and the 135mm of a prime lens.

JJ_SO

That lens 135/2 D DC is not an IF as well as this one is also no IF. IF, as I read it on Nikon's website, means Inner Focus. Both 135 have no inner focus, the front lens is moving forward when focusing to closer distances. I could not find a modern Nikkor 135/2 with IF - please show me the one you're referring to.

PB_PM

@JJ_SO Might want to check Nikon's website, before you say the AF 135mm F2 DC has no IF (Internally Focusing) design... The 135mm F2 actually has a rear focusing design, so by definition is IF.

JJ_SO

I did check the website before. No IF mentioned. And on photozone.de it appears the front lens is moving, but on second look, it's only the lens hood. So I misunderstood the picture, but still: IF is not focussing with the front or rear element. The glossary of Nikon names it RF, what is happening with 135/2 D DC, rear focus.

I understand the graphic of Nikon.ch that they see it as a difference.

PB_PM

Ummm what?

The length of the lens remains constant regardless of the focus setting and the front element does not rotate due to an RF (Rear Focusing) design.

From Photozone review. RF is IF. The focus in INSIDE the lens, thus it if Internally Focusing.

JJ_SO

Exactly. Both IF and RF happen in the lens, with no visible movement of the dimension. But it appears to be a difference between RF and IF.

Edit: Of course, I don't know what this means concerning different angles for "135mm" which I would expect to be more or less the same on each lens,

PB_PM

It is a simple matter of where focus happens. In this case the rear element rotates, rather than one of the elements closer to the front the lens. Regardless it is still an IF design. The AF-S 300mm F4 is IF and it's a RF design as well. Heck... Nikon even has IF in the name... AF-S300mm F4D IF-ED. In fact all Nikon super telephoto lenses (200mm F2, and 300mm +) are RF, IF designs.

JJ_SO

Yep, but they do give two explanations and the movement in the graphics is different as well.

So, if IF is moving forwards in the lens and RF is moving backwards, I see as a result a difference in focus length.

PB_PM

NM

JJ_SO

Try to help you

But I doubt if it helps: They describe two things, IF and RF, but not in a way I could understand the difference to the field of view.

PB_PM

The terminology is the different, but it does the same thing. Regardless of whether the element rotates one way or another, it is still focusing within the lens barrel. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

heartyfisher

The answer to the question of "breathing' in the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII
Calculations indicate at a focal plane to subject distance of 2.032 m. the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II has an effective focal length of approximately 170mm.

The basis for this was a test using the AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D and a AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II, on a D4. The images are as follows:

If you like, you may do this yourself, or believe that after an hour of struggling, these figures are fairly accurate. In doing this project I also discovered at the 135mm setting the 70-200mm was also wider than the 135mm f/2.

Hi, was just thinking about the focus breathing tests you did to compare between the 70-200 and the 135 F2. Was thinking that the 135 may also have focus breathing as well.

Can i suggest a modified test if someone is willing to try... assuming that at 200mm set to infinity that the lens is actually 200mm
1) Photo one taken focused at some "close distance" at 200mm.
2) same subject distance and at 200mm but this time manually focused at infinity and aperture set to max ie F22 or more so that we can make out the objects even though its a bit blur.

PB_PM

hearty, all lenses have "focus breathing" to some degree. Some are just more noticeable than others. Lenses focal lengths are based on use at or near infinity. Kind of like F stops marked on the lenses are just close to or an average.

Ironheart

All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. All rear focus lenses are internal focus, not all internal focus lenses are rear focus. I doubt this has any bearing on focus breathing.

Msmoto

@ heartyfisher

You are trying to make me work, correct? And, if I can find the time... I will attempt the exercise. I think I can use a chart and make this almost scientific. Maybe next week or something like that.

Correlli

Hi, was just thinking about the focus breathing tests you did to compare between the 70-200 and the 135 F2. Was thinking that the 135 may also have focus breathing as well.

The Nikkor 135 f/2 DC has got a rear focusing element, so it is very likely that it "suffers" from focus breathing as well. From what I understood most lenses that use IF or RF will show this to some extend. To get around this one would have to use extension rings (lens focused to infinity). So if you really wanted to do this you might want to add 20 mm extension rings to a 200 mm lens with focus set to inifinity. If I am not mistaken this should focus to app. 2 m. Take that image. Remove the extension rings and use the lens focus mechanism to focus to that same distance. Take that image as well and compare.

heartyfisher

good plan correlli but you need extension tubes :-)

heartyfisher

@ heartyfisher

You are trying to make me work, correct? And, if I can find the time... I will attempt the exercise. I think I can use a chart and make this almost scientific. Maybe next week or something like that.

LOL! sorry ...

Correlli

good plan correlli but you need extension tubes :-)

:-)
I still do. And I did a very quick and unscientific check with the 135 mm f/2 lens using the PK-11A. Distance was app 2 m (maybe a bit more). Handheld I took one image with the extension ring and lens set to infinity and one image without the ring using the AF of the lens. On the camera monitor I did not see any significant difference between the two shots, but again, I did not use a tripod nor did I upload the images to the PC. I might repeat this on the weekend if the weather stays as bad as it is right now, this time with tripod and ruler etc. If anyone is interested I can also post the results (maybe in a new thread).

Vipmediastar_JZ

I checked out both lens.
Both are amazing by themselves.
I would like to own the f4 for my street work and everything else in between.
The 2.8 is the best choice if I want to get serious with portraits and sports but I would need a monopod for sure.
Im going to rent the 2.8 for a week and decide then.
The copy that I tested had no focus breathing.

Now my only reasoning for getting the f4 is that i have an 85mm 1.8g and that lens can be used when the 1.8-2.8 is needed.