Re: Puckering Up With The New 70-200/2.8 VR II Nikkor!!
RichA
Larry Thong wrote:
> Yep! Even on a snowy winter day the new 70-200 gets you close to the
> action.
>
> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Snow.jpg>
eNo
> RichA wrote:
> > So did they improve the edge definition on FF relative to the old one?
>
> narrower FoV on close focus (was expected), at least when compared to the
> first version. The bottom line, at least for most people, both lenses
> perform extremely well while delivering the goods. And these *percieved*
> problems are nothing more than a non-issue. I have both lenses and like
> them both equally well.
Yes. Over at DPR, WWIII is breaking out over this, especially among
those who insist on using this lens for portrait work in small
studios.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=33905493
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=33873434
Noons
Heh! I am sooo glad all the pixel-peepers have moved over to dpreview
forums!
At last one can talk photography and gear without a pack of mongrels
interfering with the "number of pixels off at 90 degrees, 1-3-5-10
metres away" and other similar inane crap.
clw
"Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
> eNo wrote:
> >> Yes, but due to the new optical formula and the way IF works they
> >> lost the narrower FoV on close focus (was expected), at least when
> >> compared to the first version. The bottom line, at least for most
> >> people, both lenses perform extremely well while delivering the
> >> goods. And these *percieved* problems are nothing more than a
> >> non-issue. I have both lenses and like them both equally well.
> >
> > Yes. Over at DPR, WWIII is breaking out over this, especially among
> > those who insist on using this lens for portrait work in small
> > studios.
>
> It seems the internet brings out all the retards! All I have to say is I'm
> loven' my new 70-200 and it even works great out in the snow!
Hell, my 55-200 works well in the snow.
What's your point?
George Kerby
On 12/7/09 5:43 PM, in article
saidnSTQy6D7DoDW...@supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
> eNo wrote:
>>> Yes, but due to the new optical formula and the way IF works they
>>> lost the narrower FoV on close focus (was expected), at least when
>>> compared to the first version. The bottom line, at least for most
>>> people, both lenses perform extremely well while delivering the
>>> goods. And these *percieved* problems are nothing more than a
>>> non-issue. I have both lenses and like them both equally well.
>>
>> Yes. Over at DPR, WWIII is breaking out over this, especially among
>> those who insist on using this lens for portrait work in small
>> studios.
>
> It seems the internet brings out all the retards! All I have to say is I'm
> loven' my new 70-200 and it even works great out in the snow!
>
>
I must admit it's a nice pic if you like to look at the north end of
southbound dogs.
Paul Furman
> New 70-200/2.8 VR II
Ah, that's why I saw a CL listing for trading for the old 70-200 VR...
I see there is a new 300/2.8 VR as well. I really really would like to
get one of the old 300 VRs if this makes them more affordable. It's not
clear to me that there is any difference in the optics for the 300. Is
that true?
I guess we'll hold onto our old 70-200 VRs for a while, or should I
panic & dump it for $1300 ? <grin>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam