70-200 2.8E

WestEndFoto

$600 bucks more in the US than the G. $2,799.

Sports

Everything looks attractive, except, ugh, that's some price increase!
Still, those paying $2800 should consider themselves lucky, in a way.
Increases get amplified when VAT gets added, of course, but in addition, Nikon's European, Canadian, and Australian "penalty" could easily get us very close to $4000.
D500 in particular and D810 have this penalty added.
The D750 doesn't, for some reason, at least not in Denmark, so you never know....
Usually, Sigma doesn't add such a penalty, btw.

MegapixelSchnitzel

A hair under $2,800 at Adorama. Hmmm.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I got the 70-200vrii and loved it. Then i got the 70-200 f4 and loved it even more. The f4 works great for dual camera event shooting. I still take the 70-200 2.8 to events as a backup but haven't used it 2 years maybe. I know I wouldn't get the new one unless I sold both the 2.8 and f4 versions but that will be a tough call. I enjoy the 300mm f4e more though. Mostly because it is a prime. IF I didn't have either zoom I would probably get the least expensive as the 2.8 vr2 besides the focus breathing is great and f4 is not far behind with a the weight reduction.

DenverShooter

WestEndFoto said:

This lens has a fluorite element? This would be a first in something other than a supertele.

Nikon says it has a single Fluorite element.

Denver Shooter

Ironheart

That will make it lighter and should correct most of the remaining CA. Should be a winner, can't wait for some pics

BabaGanoush

$2800 is not a bad price, especially when the early rumors were claiming $3200, but the IQ needs to be top notch to future-proof the lens for the next generation of very high MP sensors, which could come as early as 2017, so I'm in a waiting mode. I own the VR2 model and will not upgrade for my D7200 since I use the 80-400mm more often these days. If I owned a D5, I'd be really tempted. An A+ camera deserves A+ lenses...and sometimes they carry the Nikon logo at a premium price, and other times they carry someone else's at a significantly lower price.

WestEndFoto

I think that if you want a A+ lens in terms of IQ, this may not be the best choice. I think you are in top end prime territory to make a 50mp+ sensor a limiting factor.

Sports

Even if this is the best ever 70-200, a high end prime will always be sharper, but high end zoom lenses are not at all bad.
The more narrow the zoom range, the better IQ, as proved by the new Sigma DX lenses that cover, basically, only 2 x zoom.
70-200 is actually not that wide a range, and according to DXOMark (for what it's worth) the current Canon resolves 33 Mp, so the new E could easily be a bit higher than that, I would say.

MsT

A tad shy of $2800. I'll keep my 2 year old VRII, which hasn't failed me yet.

WestEndFoto

Here is the link to the MTF chart.

http://www.nikon-image.com/products/lens/nikkor/af-s_nikkor_70-200mm_f28e_fl_ed_vr/spec.html#mtf

I compared this to the one that Rockwell has on his site for the G. The wide end looks the same, but the telephoto end is a significant improvement.

starralazn

its nice that it can focus a little bit closer. about 20% closer. apparently focus breathing is much improved...
idk if i'm willing to get another 70-200mm at this point tho, lol

WestEndFoto

It was actually focal length breathing, not focus breathing, that the G has issues with. At closest focus 200mm becomes about 130mm.

starralazn

focal length breathing is focus breathing.

BabaGanoush

WestEndFoto said:

Here is the link to the MTF chart.

http://www.nikon-image.com/products/lens/nikkor/af-s_nikkor_70-200mm_f28e_fl_ed_vr/spec.html#mtf

I compared this to the one that Rockwell has on his site for the G. The wide end looks the same, but the telephoto end is a significant improvement.

Are those charts based on actual measurements of lens performance or are they calculated (i.e., theoretical)?

WestEndFoto

Starralazn, the issue I am describing is different from focus breathing, where the the focal length changes as I adjust focus. All but the best cinematic lenses have this but it is not a particular issue with this lens.

The issue that I am describing is that if I zoom to 200mm at a reasonable distance, say five metres, then move closer to my subject, there will be a distance where the lens can no longer focus at that distance "at 200mm" but will maintain focus by shortening the focal length - to about 130mm at closest focus I believe.

So both issues involve focus but they are very different issues.

Babaganoush, those charts are always theoretical. However, it is Nikon's statement on how sharp a lens is and if they are overstating a lens, say by "double", then they are likely overstating all their lenses by "double" as they will be using a consistent testing and measurement methodology.

Where I become very skeptical is when I compare two MTF charts from two different manufacturers.

As a side note, Nikon doesn't make their MTF charts very easy to find. I wonder why that is?

Ironheart

"focus breathing, where the the focal length changes as I adjust focus"
"maintain focus by shortening the focal length"
Two sides of the same coin my friend

WestEndFoto

I suppose so, but heads is quite different than tails.

heartyfisher

Sounds exactly the same to me ... ... whats the difference again ?

vtc2002

@WestEndFoto I think the following from Nasim over at Photography Life in his review of the 70-200mm VRII is saying the same thing that you are but it is worded a little different. Thought this might help.

@Ironheart Well put, +1.

"At the closest focus distance (4.6 feet) @ 200mm, the lens is like a 120mm lens. As you move about 10 feet away from the subject, the focal length changes to approximately 165mm-170mm. When the lens is near infinity, the focal length is very close to actual 200mm. Does this present a problem? For most people it doesn’t. For those that like to get close to smaller subjects, it sure does. At longer distances and when focused close to infinity, the new and the older lens have almost exactly the same field of view (near 200mm)."

I tend to agree with Nasim as to whether this is a problem or at least a problem for most people. I can only think of a couple of instances where is was for me but it is rather annoying when it does happen.
I am considering the new version but given the price I will be looking for more than fixing the focus breathing to justify purchasing the lens. It does look like Nikon has improved the sharpness on the long end of the lens. I am not sure why they reversed the focus and zoom rings. I think this will be annoying and frustrating. If I am shooting with two cameras at a event one with the new lens and one with the 24-70mm unless I shoot in auto focus mode I could see it being an issue and where I would miss a shoot. I will have to play with the new lens to see how big of a deal it will be. If I did not have the 70-200mm VRII I think it would be harder to justify the $800 price difference between the VRII and the new lens. If you look at a refurbished or used VRII the difference is significant.

WestEndFoto

Thank you VTC2002, that is basically the point that I am trying to make. One “issue” is a trivial curiosity of no practical consequence unless you do video. The other “issue”, as Nasim’s article has pointed out, could be an issue for some though I doubt I would care.

Starralazn may have me on a technicality, but even then I wonder. One “issue” is a trivial by product of lens design that receives little attention unless it is obnoxious as the lens designers rightly focus on issues important to the end user. The other “issue” is a carefully considered strategy to balance competing objectives and is very intentionally built into the design for the purpose of delivering reasonably close focus which would be much more important to an event photographer than faithfully maintaining focal length.

If you are an accountant (like me) you will see no difference in the two issues. If you are a marketer, it is night and day.

Vipmediastar_JZ

does the focus breathing affect DOF? or bokeh? I dont remember why I cared once i found out the technical part of focus breathing but i know the f4 didn't have it and besides the weight it is one reason I enjoy it more. I like to shoot 200-300mm wide open.

starralazn

@Vipmediastar_JZ when i shoot with the current 70-200mm 2.8G, focus breathing is hardly an issue (although i'm not doing dof calculations). also, all lenses have some degree of focus breathing, but most newer lenses, the focus breathing is controlled enough to not be noticeable.

@WestEndFoto there are times where i think that it is important to maintain the same focal length when focusing on a subject as you move closer. however, i'm probably not a very good photographer, because i never seem to notice when shooting portraits with the 70-200mm.
definitely, the current 70-200 2.8G would be difficult to be used in critical applications where you need 200mm at < 10 ft

WestEndFoto

You are probably a great photographer because you are not letting the technical mumbo jumbo get in the way of a good shot.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Sometimes you let the technical stuff get in the way but learning technical stuff does help improve the photograph. It helped me (self taught) better my image when I learned diffraction, dof, etc. Before that I would pick up the camera and took snapshots. Now I'm at the point where I can visualize what I want to accomplish and pick the lens for the job and knowing my limitations is second nature. Its years of practice and knowledge and NRF helping my understand the physics and technical stuff.