tomrath • Forum Member • Posts: 84
Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
Dec 28, 2021
I’m trying to find a 70-200 to put on my Z6. I’ve looked at the Tamron G2, Sigma Sport, and now the Nikon VR II. They are all similarly priced used, the Tamron usually being a couple hundred less. I’ve heard a ton of complaining about focus breathing on the VR II, but is it really a problem? Given that I would be using an FTZ, it would be ideal to use genuine Nikkor glass to ensure the best compatibility. I suppose my budget could stretch to get a used copy of the FL version but there’s a pretty significant price difference that could just as easily go towards another lens entirely. Most of my paid work is in portraiture so that’s the priority, but I love taking landscapes and doing indoor and outdoor sports. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!
Nikon Z6 Nikon Z 24-70mm F2.8 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8E FL ED VR Nikon Z 85mm F1.8
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to tomrath • Dec 28, 2021
doesn't bother me. I shoot normal sports - football, basketball, NASCAR, never noticed a situation it came up.
-- hide signature --
Ann Arbor, MI USA www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark
Nikon D4S Nikon D500 Sony FX30 Sony a6600 Nikon Zf +29 more
ormdig • Senior Member • Posts: 2,581
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to tomrath • Dec 28, 2021
Hi, I've shot one for 9 years, sports and then portrait work. It never was a problem. Incredibly fast and accurate focus plus very good image quality.
Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED +7 more
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to tomrath • Dec 28, 2021
2
tomrath wrote: I’ve heard a ton of complaining about focus breathing on the VR II, but is it really a problem?
That is for you to decide
Pre Z lenses most macro, wider angle primes, many variable aperture zooms and some fixed aperture zooms breathed - sometimes a lot!
Heavy breathing can be a nuisance zooming during video. If you do a lot of video perhaps think about a 70-200 that does not breathe a lot - like the 70-200 S.
-- hide signature --
Leonard Shepherd In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else.
Nikon Z9 Nikon Z8 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +22 more
X Ray • Contributing Member • Posts: 856
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
8
Leonard Shepherd wrote:Pre Z lenses most macro, wider angle primes, many variable aperture zooms and some fixed aperture zooms breathed - sometimes a lot!
Heavy breathing can be a nuisance zooming during video. If you do a lot of video perhaps think about a 70-200 that does not breathe a lot - like the 70-200 S.
Never a missed opportunity to try and convince someone to buy current production model Nikon gear. You're working overtime, Leonard! Do the sith lords at Nikon ever give their shills a break?
X Ray • Contributing Member • Posts: 856
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to tomrath • Dec 28, 2021
3
tomrath wrote: I’ve heard a ton of complaining about focus breathing on the VR II, but is it really a problem?
The 70-200 VRII is a great lens in every way. Don't let the focus breathing deter you. It's not a huge deal.
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to tomrath • Dec 28, 2021
1
I've got the 70-200vr II and always thought it was a very nice lens. Clearly better than the 80-200 I replaced with it.
Optically, according to Lensrentals, the 70-200fl is noticeably better primarily around 135mm. Not a lot of difference otherwise. I can't imagine the AF speed is any better on the newer lens.
Personally I rarely use this lens as - for me - it is very specialized, and I tend to live in a world of generalized needs. Mostly I do, or did, travel photography, and I prefer more focal range than fast aperture so I carry an 80-400g instead. The 70-200f2.8 gets relegated to event shooting. It can do portraits too, but I tend to prefer using an 85F1.4 instead for that, if only because the lens is lighter.
Focus breathing - it's there, and it's well-documented. I remember when the lens first came out that Thom Hogan reviewed this 'feature' and declared that you basically need to add a 1.4tc to get the same field of view at 200mm and close focus as the vr I version.
It's basically possible to fill the frame with a face at 200mm with the older lens but not the newer one. [If I recall various articles correctly.] For me, never an issue I noticed, but I didn't come to it from the vr I version either.
-- hide signature --
Phoenix Arizona Craig www.cjcphoto.net "I miss the days when I was nostalgic."
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D800E +46 more
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to tomrath • Dec 28, 2021
1
I suggest you take a look at your past portraiture and see what focal lengths you’ve used and at what distances. I’ve used the 70-200mm VR-II for years and it hasn’t been an issue for me for stage, sports, or event photography. But I’m not a pro and it’s not my first choice for portraits. I also found that if I needed to I could work around the issue by using a short extension tube. By all accounts the FL is a better lens in all respects except power consumption and compatibility, but I feel no call to switch.
That said, if you are shooting professionally, perhaps you should be thinking “buy once, cry once” and get the Z-mount lens. Not just for optical performance or less focus distance breathing, but because an adapter is one more thing that can fail.
-- hide signature --
Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight. Catch some today!
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D800 Nikon 1 V2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon D7200 +49 more
RealVSK • Contributing Member • Posts: 709
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to tomrath • Dec 28, 2021
2
Hi,
My recent 70-200 story, for any interest ... I have an 80-200 that I love. I did some video with it on a Z6II, focusing manually for outside band videos. I am happy with the results but I would like to send the rig up overhead over a crowd, so I wanted an afs autofocus. I am only a poor corrupt official so a new Z 2.8 would be too high for me.
I got a 70-200 2.8 AFS VR II on eBay. About $900. It's heavier, which I would live with. The focus ring was a little dry / sticky, the afs auto-focusing seemed a little clacky, not squeaky though.
Perfectly fine for pictures but I wanted to use it for video.
I sent a note for a rebuild estimate to Photo Tech in NYC.
Wandering eyes went to Adorama's web site, their prices for the used FLs seemed a little less than another big site. I boxed up my 70-200 2.8, an 80-400 d I never use any more, an older Mavic 2Zoom drone, and some goodies and went to the store to trade in, I am lucky to live close. The counter guy said they would have a nice used FL coming from the warehouse later that day. Just as I was giving my stuff to the used equipment guy, I saw an FL on the shelf for $1800. I picked it up and it was no contest, really felt lighter, beautiful shape, buttery smooth rings.
If you carry it around a lot, I would say the FL has a definite weight advantage. I was going to bite the bullet for a new one but they said they were on backorder.
Photo Tech got back to me and said I would have to send the older VR2 lens to Nikon for service as they can't get parts. I was lucky to have them replace a 600mmf4 AFS2 motor for me a couple of months ago. He said 90% of Nikon lenses would have to go to Nikon for service.
Anyway, weight is a good consideration.
vsk
Nikon D7200 Nikon D850 Nikon Z6 II Nikon D5 Nikon D500 +35 more
OP tomrath • Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
Michael Benveniste wrote:I suggest you take a look at your past portraiture and see what focal lengths you’ve used and at what distances. I’ve used the 70-200mm VR-II for years and it hasn’t been an issue for me for stage, sports, or event photography. But I’m not a pro and it’s not my first choice for portraits. I also found that if I needed to I could work around the issue by using a short extension tube. By all accounts the FL is a better lens in all respects except power consumption and compatibility, but I feel no call to switch.
That said, if you are shooting professionally, perhaps you should be thinking “buy once, cry once” and get the Z-mount lens. Not just for optical performance or less focus distance breathing, but because an adapter is one more thing that can fail.
Yeah, I’m trying to adapt that mindset. I’ve heard that the Z mount 70-200 is about as good as they come, so I almost certainly wouldn’t have to upgrade, and not having to use an FTZ would be really nice. Having to spend the $$ would kind of suck but I’m sure it would be worth it. I’ll have to decide what the best option is! I’m also looking to buy a wideish-standard zoom, and the Z 24-70 2.8 has been catching my eye for sure. I suppose I’ll have to decide where I want to prioritize my money, if that’s the telephoto or the standard.
Nikon Z6 Nikon Z 24-70mm F2.8 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8E FL ED VR Nikon Z 85mm F1.8
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to tomrath • Dec 28, 2021
2
tomrath wrote: I’m trying to find a 70-200 to put on my Z6. I’ve looked at the Tamron G2, Sigma Sport, and now the Nikon VR II. They are all similarly priced used, the Tamron usually being a couple hundred less. I’ve heard a ton of complaining about focus breathing on the VR II, but is it really a problem? Given that I would be using an FTZ, it would be ideal to use genuine Nikkor glass to ensure the best compatibility. I suppose my budget could stretch to get a used copy of the FL version but there’s a pretty significant price difference that could just as easily go towards another lens entirely. Most of my paid work is in portraiture so that’s the priority, but I love taking landscapes and doing indoor and outdoor sports. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!
No.
Nikon D70s Nikon D800E Nikon D700 Nikon D300 Nikon D4 +51 more
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
Michael Benveniste wrote: I’ve used the 70-200mm VR-II for years and it hasn’t been an issue for me for stage, sports, or event photography. But I’m not a pro and it’s not my first choice for portraits.
It would not be my first choice for portraits either.
Dividing 1.5 inches [FX image length] by the magnification in the Nikon specification of 0.12 the answer is a 12.5 inches long dimension subject at 200mm minimum focus.
This is the same magnification as for the 85mm1.4 G of its era
If the aim is more image magnification without accessories neither lens is ideal,
-- hide signature --
Leonard Shepherd In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else.
Nikon Z9 Nikon Z8 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +22 more
IainD • Senior Member • Posts: 2,996
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to tomrath • Dec 30, 2021
2
I had one for years and never noticed it once. My new 70-200 FL is excellent and I believe it doesn't have much focus breathing but I have not really looked for it. It just works.
I would not hesitate except to wonder about the future availability of parts.
I
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to IainD • Dec 30, 2021
IainD wrote: I had one for years and never noticed it once. My new 70-200 FL is excellent and I believe it doesn't have much focus breathing but I have not really looked for it. It just works.
Very fair comment.
Also based on actual usage
-- hide signature --
Leonard Shepherd In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else.
Nikon Z9 Nikon Z8 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +22 more
Yep... it's TERRIBLE!
In reply to tomrath • Dec 30, 2021
3
Terribly heavy... terribly overpriced. Big fan of the 70-200 Nanocoat F4 here... much lighter... much more reasonably priced. And with today's amazing low light sensors in Nikon cameras... do you REALLY think you need that measily 1 stop of light?... not even!
Gretchen at the Select Models Weekday Beach Minishoot.
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon D750 Nikon D5600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F4G ED VR +14 more
scokill • Veteran Member • Posts: 6,746
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to tomrath • Dec 30, 2021
2
tomrath wrote: I’m trying to find a 70-200 to put on my Z6. I’ve looked at the Tamron G2, Sigma Sport, and now the Nikon VR II. They are all similarly priced used, the Tamron usually being a couple hundred less. I’ve heard a ton of complaining about focus breathing on the VR II, but is it really a problem? Given that I would be using an FTZ, it would be ideal to use genuine Nikkor glass to ensure the best compatibility. I suppose my budget could stretch to get a used copy of the FL version but there’s a pretty significant price difference that could just as easily go towards another lens entirely. Most of my paid work is in portraiture so that’s the priority, but I love taking landscapes and doing indoor and outdoor sports. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!
I used the VRII for years and certainly didn't have any issues. For landscapes, indoor/outdoor sports you won't really notice the impacts of focus breathing at all. It can show up for portraits. I did buy the FL when it came out and it is noticeably better. If this is your bread and butter lens I would say buy the best you can afford. I would go with the Z version vs. FL but easy for me to spend your money.
Nikon D4 Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8E FL ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
OP tomrath • Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to scokill • Dec 30, 2021
scokill wrote:tomrath wrote: I’m trying to find a 70-200 to put on my Z6. I’ve looked at the Tamron G2, Sigma Sport, and now the Nikon VR II. They are all similarly priced used, the Tamron usually being a couple hundred less. I’ve heard a ton of complaining about focus breathing on the VR II, but is it really a problem? Given that I would be using an FTZ, it would be ideal to use genuine Nikkor glass to ensure the best compatibility. I suppose my budget could stretch to get a used copy of the FL version but there’s a pretty significant price difference that could just as easily go towards another lens entirely. Most of my paid work is in portraiture so that’s the priority, but I love taking landscapes and doing indoor and outdoor sports. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!I used the VRII for years and certainly didn't have any issues. For landscapes, indoor/outdoor sports you won't really notice the impacts of focus breathing at all. It can show up for portraits. I did buy the FL when it came out and it is noticeably better. If this is your bread and butter lens I would say buy the best you can afford. I would go with the Z version vs. FL but easy for me to spend your money.
Yeah, that’s what I’m trying to figure out. I don’t really think that a 3lb hunk of glass is something I’m going to be carrying with me all the time, so I’m not sure it’s wise to spend the bulk of my money there. While I do a lot of portraiture, I would be more likely to use my 50mm for the kind of portraits that I like to take, and maybe an 85mm would be handy too. I’ve actually looked into something like the Sigma 135mm 1.8; not quite as versatile of a focal length but might be in the strike zone of what I want a lens to do.
Nikon Z6 Nikon Z 24-70mm F2.8 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8E FL ED VR Nikon Z 85mm F1.8
nikpharm • Contributing Member • Posts: 955
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to tomrath • Dec 30, 2021
tomrath wrote:scokill wrote:Yeah, that’s what I’m trying to figure out. I don’t really think that a 3lb hunk of glass is something I’m going to be carrying with me all the time, so I’m not sure it’s wise to spend the bulk of my money there. While I do a lot of portraiture, I would be more likely to use my 50mm for the kind of portraits that I like to take, and maybe an 85mm would be handy too. I’ve actually looked into something like the Sigma 135mm 1.8; not quite as versatile of a focal length but might be in the strike zone of what I want a lens to do.tomrath wrote: I’m trying to find a 70-200 to put on my Z6. I’ve looked at the Tamron G2, Sigma Sport, and now the Nikon VR II. They are all similarly priced used, the Tamron usually being a couple hundred less. I’ve heard a ton of complaining about focus breathing on the VR II, but is it really a problem? Given that I would be using an FTZ, it would be ideal to use genuine Nikkor glass to ensure the best compatibility. I suppose my budget could stretch to get a used copy of the FL version but there’s a pretty significant price difference that could just as easily go towards another lens entirely. Most of my paid work is in portraiture so that’s the priority, but I love taking landscapes and doing indoor and outdoor sports. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!I used the VRII for years and certainly didn't have any issues. For landscapes, indoor/outdoor sports you won't really notice the impacts of focus breathing at all. It can show up for portraits. I did buy the FL when it came out and it is noticeably better. If this is your bread and butter lens I would say buy the best you can afford. I would go with the Z version vs. FL but easy for me to spend your money.
sigma 135mm 1.8 weighs 1130g/2.3lbs.
With 50mm and 85mm. total will be more than 3lbs.
-- hide signature --
Regards MK
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to X Ray • Jan 7, 2022
2
X Ray wrote:Leonard Shepherd wrote:Never a missed opportunity to try and convince someone to buy current production model Nikon gear.Pre Z lenses most macro, wider angle primes, many variable aperture zooms and some fixed aperture zooms breathed - sometimes a lot!
Heavy breathing can be a nuisance zooming during video. If you do a lot of video perhaps think about a 70-200 that does not breathe a lot - like the 70-200 S.
I was reading Leonard's post and it was going through my mind. Leonard's trying to sell a bit of Zee gear. I scroll down and this post is next. Too funny.
You're working overtime, Leonard! Do the sith lords at Nikon ever give their shills a break?
-- hide signature --
A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear. ---
Canon PowerShot G5 Nikon D850 Nikon D500 Nikon D4S +5 more
hikerdoc • Veteran Member • Posts: 3,513
Re: Is the 70-200 VR II really that bad?
In reply to tomrath • Jan 7, 2022
I never really noticed the breathing with the II until I got the E. It sounds like you are now leaning toward shorter primes for your portrait work. At the desired focal lengths you are discussing for your portraiture the breathing issue with the II is irrelevant as you have focal length range on either side at 85mm to fine tune framing, wouldn’t be able to achieve 50 mm with any 70-200mm, and at minimal focus distance fully zoomed are at about 135mm which you deemed too long for your portraiture.
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads
Latest sample galleries
Latest in-depth reviews
The Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR delivers a 35mm full-frame equivalent field of view and stands out due to its small size and weather-resistant build. However, it faces stiff competition from lenses with faster F1.4 apertures. In this review, we tell you what you need to know about this popular lens.
The EOS R100 is the cheapest way to get into Canon's RF-mount system. But, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for, since its older components make the R100 feel dated.
The Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that adds the latest Expeed 7 processor and features such as 3D Tracking AF to the $2000 price bracket. We're not sure the experience lives up to the looks.
The Sony a9 III is the world's first full-frame mirrorless camera to feature a global electronic shutter with simultaneous readout. We've been using a full production version of this 120 fps sports camera, to see what you gain [and, perhaps, lose].
The Aura Carver 10.1" HD Digital Frame is a great way to put your portfolio on display and a great way to surface forgotten memories. The colors are vibrant, and the build quality is solid, but the Carver isn't without a few quirks.
Latest buying guides
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.