The Legendary Nikkor 70-200

ImageX Photography · April 14, 2011

Can anyone explain to me why this lens is in a league of it's own? It's a zoom but still has an IQ that is above and beyond most anything out there. There may be sharper primes but they still don't have the same "look". It clearly would be many photographers only choice if they had to pick just one lens... including mine. I am just wondering what makes this lens so special! Is it simply the quality of the glass + focal length? Thoughts?

lfortier · April 14, 2011

On rare occasions, all the pieces come together and everything that you're trying to do results in something special. As much as you may try, this "special something" only happens once in a blue moon.

It is the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR

Now, just enjoy it, as another lens this special may never come along.

Icebear · April 14, 2011

JuJu. GrisGris.
Why does sex feel good?
Why is chocolate delicious?
How can fermented barley give us Johnny Walker Blue?
Who cares? Just enjoy!
But don't drop it.

rwells · April 14, 2011

Sounds like someone's looking for ingredients while stirring the pot

www.SGphoto.us · April 14, 2011

the 70-200 is greatness, its is constant 2.8, has vr 2 technology, and nanocoat, all of nikons latest technology but kind of long for if i could only choose one lens. i think the 24-70 is closer to perfection. either one of the two is pretty much as good as it gets though.

ImageX Photography · April 14, 2011

lfortier wrote: »

On rare occasions, all the pieces come together and everything that you're trying to do results in something special. As much as you may try, this "special something" only happens once in a blue moon.

I think this has to be it. ^^^ There are lots of great lenses out there but the 70-200 just has it's own look. Smooth, soft, and sharp.... all at the same time.

Sorry, rwells... not stirring any pot. You must be a canon shooter to even think that. The 70-200 is a stand out lens in it's own league and I was wondering what the definitive reasons might be.

www.SGphoto.us wrote: »

the 70-200 is greatness, its is constant 2.8, has vr 2 technology, and nanocoat, all of nikons latest technology but kind of long for if i could only choose one lens. i think the 24-70 is closer to perfection. either one of the two is pretty much as good as it gets though.

The 24-70 will be my very first lens I purchase when Nikon finally gives me the D800!

insanefred · April 14, 2011

ImageX Photography wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me why this lens is in a league of it's own? It's a zoom but still has an IQ that is above and beyond most anything out there. There may be sharper primes but they still don't have the same "look". It clearly would be many photographers only choice if they had to pick just one lens... including mine. I am just wondering what makes this lens so special! Is it simply the quality of the glass + focal length? Thoughts?

Are you talking about the newer VR II or the older variant?

www.SGphoto.us wrote: »

the 70-200 is greatness, its is constant 2.8, has vr 2 technology, and nanocoat, all of nikons latest technology but kind of long for if i could only choose one lens. i think the 24-70 is closer to perfection. either one of the two is pretty much as good as it gets though.

I am starting to believe that the Nikon 24-70 is the most over rated lens out there by now. It is good, but damn people, it isn't THAT great!

newb · April 15, 2011

I just got my VRI version, and after less then a dozen shots Im in love. I dont know what it is, or why it is. I just hope Nikon gives us more of it.

Icebear · April 15, 2011

newb wrote: »

I just got my VRI version, and after less then a dozen shots Im in love.

What . . ? You've only had it 15 minutes?

divamum · April 15, 2011

ImageX Photography wrote: »

Sorry, rwells... not stirring any pot. You must be a canon shooter to even think that. The 70-200 is a stand out lens in it's own league and I was wondering what the definitive reasons might be.

Canon has its own "pixe dust" lenses - the 135L, 85L and, I suspect, the 70-200is II will take its place among the "Hall of Fame" soon.

And it would be interesting to know what makes these "special" lenses different. For whatever reason, the recipe is just right and it was one fine cake!

ImageX Photography · April 17, 2011

insanefred wrote: »

Are you talking about the newer VR II or the older variant?

I have the VR1 but they are really both in the same league.

divamum wrote: »

Canon has its own "pixe dust" lenses - the 135L, 85L and, I suspect, the 70-200is II will take its place among the "Hall of Fame" soon.

And it would be interesting to know what makes these "special" lenses different. For whatever reason, the recipe is just right and it was one fine cake!

It IS a great cake! I guess we'll never really know but I can only guess that it's the focal length combined with quality. Imagine a distortion free 18-200 2.8 that performed as well the 70-200.

Nikon wouldn't dare.

ziggy53 · April 17, 2011

The highest tier constant-and-large aperture zooms from pretty much all manufacturers are of a much superior design compared to other zoom designs. Large aperture (f2.8 or better) lenses in general also trigger the center AF of many host cameras into a high-precision capability. Sports lenses, and the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm, f2.8G IF-ED VR certainly qualifies, also have the strongest and fastest ring-ultrasonic (Silent-Wave) AF drive motors of the line.

Combine these qualities and you begin to understand why they are coveted in the professional world.

wildviper · April 18, 2011

Ziggy....do you mind expanding on what you just said...

Large aperture (f2.8 or better) lenses in general also trigger the center AF of many host cameras into a high-precision capability

Only the center AF? Not the surrounding if they are cross type? I am just asking cause I have heard this before...and can't believe that the other focus points are not equivalent....at least the cross types ones.

ziggy53 · April 18, 2011

wildviper wrote: »

Ziggy....do you mind expanding on what you just said...

Only the center AF? Not the surrounding if they are cross type? I am just asking cause I have heard this before...and can't believe that the other focus points are not equivalent....at least the cross types ones.

Of those cameras which have a "high-precision" AF capability using lenses of aperture f2.8 or better, they all have at least the center point as high-precision. The reason for the center point to be the most precise is because the electronic rangefinder is most balanced along the center axis of the lens. As the AF points move from the center axis, the AF signal becomes less balanced and has to be compensated/adjusted for the off-axis signal, reducing both sensitivity and precision.

Some cameras do appear to have additional high-precision AF sensors, but it's not always clear how many. Canon is fairly forthcoming with this information for the highest tier camera bodies, but less so for the lower tier bodies. I could not find information for Nikon cameras but I believe that they are similar in the highest tier bodies providing the largest number of high-precision AF points.

Here is some rather old information relating to Canon EOS 3 film SLR autofocus, but I think it generally also applies to Canon 1D/1Ds models as well:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/eos3af.html

Nikon has a fairly nice video animation of how passive electronic rangefinder systems work on this page:

http://www.nikon.com/about/technology/core/software/caf/index.htm

r3t1awr3yd · April 18, 2011

insanefred wrote: »

I am starting to believe that the Nikon 24-70 is the most over rated lens out there by now. It is good, but damn people, it isn't THAT great!

Definitely isn't. It's tack sharp even wide open and can't get into triple digit focal lengths. What a piece of garbage. I'll buy yours for $10 if you really wanna get rid of it. I could use a second paper weight...

ImageX Photography · April 19, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

The highest tier constant-and-large aperture zooms from pretty much all manufacturers are of a much superior design compared to other zoom designs. Large aperture (f2.8 or better) lenses in general also trigger the center AF of many host cameras into a high-precision capability. Sports lenses, and the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm, f2.8G IF-ED VR certainly qualifies, also have the strongest and fastest ring-ultrasonic (Silent-Wave) AF drive motors of the line.

Combine these qualities and you begin to understand why they are coveted in the professional world.

Yeah, it's a well designed built lens. A thing of beauty and performance! I really was just wondering about the image quality itself and why most other lense's images don't look as good.... even if they too produce beautiful sharp images. It's just not the same and I haven't seen any lens produce IQ as good as the Nikkor 70-200. Soft and sharp at the same time. Just amazing IQ and a look of it's own. How come?

ziggy53 · April 19, 2011

ImageX Photography wrote: »

Yeah, it's a well designed built lens. A thing of beauty and performance! I really was just wondering about the image quality itself and why most other lense's images don't look as good.... even if they too produce beautiful sharp images. It's just not the same and I haven't seen any lens produce IQ as good as the Nikkor 70-200. Soft and sharp at the same time. Just amazing IQ and a look of it's own. How come?

I think I understand what you are getting at. At 200mm and using a relatively large aperture the subject can be in sharp focus and the background melts away. This is the effect of controlled DOF and bokeh. It can create images which have a feeling of "depth" despite their 2-dimensionality.

The Nikkor AF-S 300mm, f2.8G ED VR II has even more of what you desire with even more control over DOF and better intimacy with a subject at distance. Also the Nikkor AF-S 200mm, f2G ED VR II. These 2 lenses are very addicting to use, but very expensive to own.

newb · April 19, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

These 2 lenses are very addicting to use, but very expensive to own.

Seems to be a trend here.

Qarik · April 20, 2011

ImageX Photography wrote: »

Yeah, it's a well designed built lens. A thing of beauty and performance! I really was just wondering about the image quality itself and why most other lense's images don't look as good.... even if they too produce beautiful sharp images. It's just not the same and I haven't seen any lens produce IQ as good as the Nikkor 70-200. Soft and sharp at the same time. Just amazing IQ and a look of it's own. How come?

sharpness is not the only image quality that is atributed to the lens. The "intangibles" you are referring to are thing like local and global contrast, color rendition, and bokeh. These are not definable in a spec..they can only really be appriecated by looking at sooc images but these qualities are what make the lens "special".

insanefred · April 21, 2011

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

Definitely isn't. It's tack sharp even wide open and can't get into triple digit focal lengths. What a piece of garbage. I'll buy yours for $10 if you really wanna get rid of it. I could use a second paper weight...

I went through four copies of the 24-70 on two different bodies. It is good sharpness wide open. But far from "tack sharp" or maybe we have different definitions of what "tack sharp" means.
Sorry, I already sold mine.
Plus when there is really low light, 2.8 is just too slow. At least I can be creative with VR, or just whip out a MUCH faster AND SHARPER prime lens. And tripods can be too slow to deploy or not even allowed.

www.SGphoto.us · April 22, 2011

if 2.8 is still "just too slow" i think you're pretty much out of luck. i have shot in dark night clubs at f4 and even 5.6. With some skill, you can still do it. if its too dark for 2.8, then its pretty much too dark to be shooting

ImageX Photography · April 22, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

I think I understand what you are getting at. At 200mm and using a relatively large aperture the subject can be in sharp focus and the background melts away. This is the effect of controlled DOF and bokeh. It can create images which have a feeling of "depth" despite their 2-dimensionality.

The Nikkor AF-S 300mm, f2.8G ED VR II has even more of what you desire with even more control over DOF and better intimacy with a subject at distance. Also the Nikkor AF-S 200mm, f2G ED VR II. These 2 lenses are very addicting to use, but very expensive to own.

The Nikkor 300 2.8 is the first "dream" lens that I will acquire. Mainly do to the separation and bokeh as you mentioned. The 70-200 is great at it too at longer focal lengths... as are most 70-200 2.8's. Lots of lenses out there will do these things... but again.... the 70-200mm seems to have a "look" all it's own and I still can't figure out why! It can only be chalked up as a perfect combination of things. By soft and sharp at the same time... I didn't really mean the creamy bokeh. Just the over all image quality is razor sharp but still looks nice and soft(not out of focus) to the eyes. It's just beautiful.

ImageX Photography · April 22, 2011

insanefred wrote: »

I went through four copies of the 24-70 on two different bodies. It is good sharpness wide open. But far from "tack sharp" or maybe we have different definitions of what "tack sharp" means.
Sorry, I already sold mine.
Plus when there is really low light, 2.8 is just too slow. At least I can be creative with VR, or just whip out a MUCH faster AND SHARPER prime lens. And tripods can be too slow to deploy or not even allowed.

You can't expect the 24-70 to act like a 85mm 1.4. Perhaps you purchased the wrong lens for your needs or are asking more than what the lens was designed for?

I haven't used a 24-70mm but it will certainly be my first lens purchase when Nikon finally gives us the D700 replacement and I make the FX jump. I have a hard time believing that it's NOT tack sharp when used correctly.

The Legendary Nikkor 70-200

Comments