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

1234689

Comments

  • TabazanTabazan Posts: 29Member
    Er ... what's more, if you use the cam with a big lens attached only to tripod by the cam, you get something completely unbalanced. So depending on the head (a ballhead for example) it will be much more difficult to set precisely (which is the total opposite of what we're waiting for in working with a tripod where it's sometimes needed to go millimeter by millimeter) - that's why the collar is needed. Maybe not maths, but basic logic.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    @ Tabazan

    I agree fully, and this is the same logic to using an "L" plate with ARCA Swiss mount....to maintain balance.
    Msmoto, mod
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    @tabazan: I agree with the physics of it, I still don't think, the bigger 70-200 is driving the bayonet or it's junction to the limits of breaking off. Also I don't know the word for something like "torsion-moment" (that's a guess in translation from German) and admit I didn't want to look at in a dictionary. "bloody Ken" made me suspecting you found him wrong although you didn't say so.

    @Msmoto: I agree on possibility of misinterpretation, but then... A lot of our posts could also be misinterpreted, couldn't it? Anyway, the Manfrotto idea I posted some posts ago, could be a solution, if one doesn't like to align to tripods or simply has no space to do so. And so far I haven't read of broken bayonets but with enough bad luck anything can happen. I lost a bit of interest for the D600, on Friday the price went up 20% here in Switzerland. Maybe Nikon's sponsoring battle prices against Canon has been over at the end of January?
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    Er ... what's more, if you use the cam with a big lens attached only to tripod by the cam, you get something completely unbalanced. So depending on the head (a ballhead for example) it will be much more difficult to set precisely (which is the total opposite of what we're waiting for in working with a tripod where it's sometimes needed to go millimeter by millimeter) - that's why the collar is needed. Maybe not maths, but basic logic.
    Needing to go mm by mm excludes clearly a ballhead, a geared head will do the better job, no matter of balance. And if the collar or it's counterpart on the lens is not stiff enough, you only get a well balanced but shaky construction.

    And now I gonna take this fabulous lens and take some shots with it, without tripod but with lots of fun :)

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    Broken lens mount on D600

    http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=12226

    Suggests the mount is less sturdy than a pro body.

    Al this discussion is really how we like to have our cameras feel in our hand. And for some, hand holding is almost always the rule unless the lens is a super tele or PC lens.

    @ JJ_SO

    Go grab some nice photos and post on PAD...I think the new 70-200mm f/4 is going to prove to be one of Nikon's best.
    Msmoto, mod
  • GhostRider117GhostRider117 Posts: 29Member

    Well, because I don't want to find myself with a 2000 bucks 70-135mm f/2.8 whenever shooting closer than infinity. But maybe that issue has been exaggerated...
    Just a bit - a great deal in fact. Question: Do you believe everything you read on the Internet?

    But back to your original comment - you stated that the 'breathing issue was a deal breaker' and I wondered why? This has nothing to do with any nonsense regarding a supposed "70-135 at anything less than infinity" - I have both lenses and I've never noticed any real difference, but then what do I know.

    I know writing doesn't convey tone, but your comment seems aggressive... Dude, as I mentioned, I will test it to see if this is as bad as it is said to be. And if it is, then it would be a dealbreaker for me. Now, if you're not happy with that, I don't care.

    So, if you want to vent some steam, grab your sneakers and go for a run. You're implying that I'm stupid, but the fact that you don't see the link between breathing and a supposed 70-135mm proves you're no reference when it comes to brains.

    Anyway: your testimony suggest indeed that it would be fine under most (normal) uses. Done arguing with stupidity.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    Whoa there GhostRider, I didn't see or feel the hostility from Darkslide's comments that you returned back. Let's try to address the issues, not the person. Remember the Internet has no feelings, just facts :-)
  • ... the fact that you don't see the link between breathing and a supposed 70-135mm...
    You're right - I don't. Care to enlighten us please?

    PS. My name isn't "Dude"

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    Let's all be very careful about the name calling......
    Msmoto, mod
  • ... the fact that you don't see the link between breathing and a supposed 70-135mm...
    You're right - I don't. Care to enlighten us please?

    No response - was the question a bit difficult?

  • GhostRider117GhostRider117 Posts: 29Member
    ... the fact that you don't see the link between breathing and a supposed 70-135mm...
    You're right - I don't. Care to enlighten us please?

    No response - was the question a bit difficult?

    Well, I'm sorry to admit that, contrary to you it appears, I do have a life besides this forum, so sorry if I'm not answering you right away. You now, people, work, grabbing my gear and go out to shoot rather than spend my time talking about gear but not using it.

    Breathing, in the context of a lens, being the change in focal lens as the focus distance changes. I hope you will now understand. Or is a sentence with more than 5 words a bit difficult?

    And you're right, we don't have to believe everything we see on the internet. But the fact is, I don't believe you. See, making progress.

    Anyway, Ghostrider out.
  • I'd like to ask a question to the readers of this post - can someone please explain the link between a lens 'breathing' and a suggested change in the maximum focal length of a zoom lens?

    (Original quote "...the fact that you don't see the link between breathing and a supposed 70-135mm...")

    I fully understand the physical movement of the air inside a lens as the moving parts change position, but the person who brought this up suggests a link between this and the fact that certain lenses have different focal lengths focused at infinity, or at a closer distance.

    What do you think - is there indeed a link?
  • GhostRider117GhostRider117 Posts: 29Member
    edited February 2013
    I'd like to ask a question to the readers of this post - can someone please explain the link between a lens 'breathing' and a suggested change in the maximum focal length of a zoom lens?

    (Original quote "...the fact that you don't see the link between breathing and a supposed 70-135mm...")

    I fully understand the physical movement of the air inside a lens as the moving parts change position, but the person who brought this up suggests a link between this and the fact that certain lenses have different focal lengths focused at infinity, or at a closer distance.

    What do you think - is there indeed a link?
    Ok, I got caught up on reading some other interesting post from Msmoto on a low-light DX, so : now we are just not talking about the same thing. I am NOT talking about the movement of air inside the lens. At all. What I'm used to see be called "breathing" is actually, as I wrote (re-read it, please, there's no way it can be made more clear), the change in focal length as the focus distance changes.

    Now, you may, if you want, interpret what I didn't say and invent that I said it, but all you're doing is being ridiculous.

    You need a link, big boy? Try googling "70-200 focus breathing"...

    Now if you'll excuse me, I've got post-processing to do, since the weather out here is uninteresting...

    PS: what's next? when we will say that the 400mm f/2.8 allows more light than the 500mm f/4 you'll say than neither are light and that we are stupid?
    Post edited by GhostRider117 on
  • CorrelliCorrelli Posts: 135Member
    Focus breathing has got nothing to do with air being pumped in and out of the barrel. Focus breathing describes the fact, that the effective angle of view changes with the distance.

    The 70-200 f/2.8 has got an angle of view at closer distance that is more like a 135 mm lens than a 200 mm lens. To me that would mean that if I already own a 135 mm lens (e.g. the f/2) and I wanted to buy the 70-200 for being more flexible at portrait photography I would gain flexibility towards wider shots. But as the 200 mm at closer distance (e.g. head shots) is more like a 135 mm lens I would not gain anything here.

    There is a nice video from "that nikon guy" about focus breathing. I don't have the link at hand but it should be easy to google it.
  • @Correlli Many thanks for the explication - I stand corrected. This is the first time I have heard the phrase used for a change in focal length - until now I understood it to be the movement of air from within the lens (surely more reasonable ;) ) Hence my question to GhostRider117. I apologise unreservedly to all concerned.

    It's interesting, to me, to see that in less than 40 words a definition can be explained without the need to resort to name calling ('Dude', 'Big boy' come to mind) - worth remembering...
  • GhostRider117GhostRider117 Posts: 29Member
    edited February 2013
    @Correlli Many thanks for the explication - I stand corrected. This is the first time I have heard the phrase used for a change in focal length - until now I understood it to be the movement of air from within the lens (surely more reasonable ;) ) Hence my question to GhostRider117. I apologise unreservedly to all concerned.

    It's interesting, to me, to see that in less than 40 words a definition can be explained without the need to resort to name calling ('Dude', 'Big boy' come to mind) - worth remembering...
    Darn post-processing... Never get quite what I'd like to do. Anyway...

    Since when is "dude" an insult? Your unwarranted sarcasm earned you the big boy ;)

    Btw I don't have a word for the movement of air in a lens (except for "movement of air" or "sucking air"). Possibly because, as you noted, it doesn't matter optically (at least until it sucks some dirt into your lens... I guess than can happen).

    Anyway, many lenses "breathe". The 18-200mm is also a breather. The 105mm f/2.8G is supposedly a breather, but I must admit I never really noticed it.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    @Darkslide: Donde es el Flamenco? :)
    I'd love to see what you've got. Moliere was off the charts.
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    Wickedly good, esp. the motion blur on the one in the middle. Thanks. Looks like Aldonza straight out of "Man of La Mancha" (which uses Flamenco, even if that's not quite right historically...)

    Seems like the lighting was more hospitable than the Moliere...
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    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.

    70-200mm f/2.8 Close Focus Test

    70-200mm f/2.8 Close Focus Test

    135mm f/2.0 Close Focus Test
    Msmoto, mod
  • GhostRider117GhostRider117 Posts: 29Member
    Indeed - no candles this time - I still leave the camera on Auto-ISO, and as you can see from the EXIF data it really cranks it right up to my limit (8000) - but they're not bad as snap shots from a rank amateur...
    ISO 8000? The noise doesn't show... what body are you shooting with?

    @ Msmoto: could make sense that it is wider at 135mm. I guess the whole zoom range "compresses" towards 70mm while you focus closer. Still, I'll try both at the store, to see how it shows, even if it's suboptimal to try it in the store rather than using it for a day or two.

    I dot have a question: how did you come to the effective 170mm? What are the calculations involved (if you want to explain, I might suggest you open up a thread for that...)
  • CorrelliCorrelli Posts: 135Member
    Msmoto thanks for this comparison. So why does photozone claim the 70-200 f/2.8 has got a viewing angle of a 135 mm lens at close distance when your comparison shows it's closer to 170 mm? Most likely because the 135 mm f/2.0 also shows some focus breathing! How can you tell? Focus on a close subject using the 135 mm lens and then change focus onto something farther away. You will see your first object will change its size slightly - just like a breathing body, hence the expression focus breathing.

    Is that a problem in photography? In most cases it is not and we should not worry about it. It does make things slightly more complicated in macro photography. You might need to recompose when you changed focus. Also when you do focus stacking. I never did this but I have read that most focus stacking software takes care of this.

    Another field where the focus breathing is not wanted is video (e.g. when you change focus back and forth from a person in the foreground to someone in the background).

    From what I understood so far photo lenses are generally not designed not to show focus breathing - it would make them much more expensive. There are lenses for cinematography that are designed not to show focus breathing.

    Anyways, I would not spend too much time on this. It is something most lenses show more or less and most people would not even know. Especially with zoom lenses you usually zoom until your frame is correct and not for a special focal length...
  • GhostRider117GhostRider117 Posts: 29Member
    Msmoto thanks for this comparison. So why does photozone claim the 70-200 f/2.8 has got a viewing angle of a 135 mm lens at close distance when your comparison shows it's closer to 170 mm? Most likely because the 135 mm f/2.0 also shows some focus breathing!
    Or possibly (and more reassuring?), that the focal length drops mainly between 2m and 1.4m (close focus limit).
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    edited February 2013
    The calculations involve ratios between the diagonal viewing angle and the focal length. And, as one can see the 135mm f/2 has very little breathing other than the normal change in angle as a result of close focus.

    However, the 70-200 when set to 135mm, is clearly wider than the 135mm f/2. An interesting point, when one looks at lens patents, often, a 200mm lens may actually be 196mm or some ether actual focal length. The "name" is only an approximation.

    The point of this is to demonstrate at a subject to film plane distance of roughly 2 meters, the 70-200 at 200 is only a 170mm focal length. If this 15% is enough to turn someone off...well, I suppose they need to get a 200mm f/2 then. Enough money will solve all the problems....
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    Interesting that Photozone's recent review of the F4 makes no mention of issues with the tripod collar, price aside.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    One other thought on the breathing of long lenses. As one gets closer, more light is required. For example, at 1:1, I believe the light on the sensor is only 25% of that at infinity. This requires two f/stops of compensation.

    Thus, with a 200mmm focal length, as one gets closer, the maximum aperture cannot be changed, thus the only way to compensate is to effectively shorten the focal length, and that is why the 200mm position when focused at 2 meters away, is only a 170mm lens.

    Hey, these Nikon folks may know something...I would hope we have an optical engineer who will comment on this.
    Msmoto, mod
Sign In or Register to comment.