AF-S 70-200mm f2.8G VR lens Available!

[Watcher]

Ok, ok, for those of you who don't want to search, here are some reviews:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS70-200VR_rev00.html

http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/AFS_VR/afs_vr.html - by Ron Reznick on his home page, and comments at DPReview

 

[kingpin]

Watcher - thanks. Useful. Both of the reviews mentioned by you are found on the nikonlinks website.

There are 3 reviews of the AFS 70-200 VR G lens on www.nikonlinks.com. Look under zoom lens. All mostly favourable. One reviewer Ron Reznick mentioned that he tried it with the TC14E and the VR worked well with it. Images at 280mm ie 200x1.4 is said to be slightly softer and lower contrast to the prime Nikon 300mm lens. Another review by Simon Stafford had a comparison table of the AFS 70-200 VR with AFS 80-200 and the 80-400 VR. Useful for those of us looking at these 3 lens. Third review is by Bjorn Rorslett he had some interesting discussion of the bokeh of the 70-200 VR. Recommend you to read these reviews for those who are evaluating whether to get the AFS 70-200 VR.

 

[Jed]

Actually, speaking of bokeh, I agree with what I assume Bjorn is saying although I haven't read his review - the bokeh isn't the greatest.

 

[roti]

wa...sounds gd to me........but then hor....broke liao.........

 

[kingpin]

Originally posted by Jed
Actually, speaking of bokeh, I agree with what I assume Bjorn is saying although I haven't read his review - the bokeh isn't the greatest.

Actually Bjorn seem rather favourable of the bokeh of the AFS 70-200 VR. He compared the bokeh to that of the prime Nikon 85mm f1.4 lens. Although bokeh is not as good as the 85 mm's he did state "the images have an attractive bokeh up to the very best of lenses." He also mentioned that the bokeh is worse with the VR on and it improve at the longer focal length ie 200 mm bokeh better than at 85 mm.

 

[Watcher]

I second kingpin's comments. He (Bjorn) was quite favourable about the brokeh, even though it is not equal to (in his opinion) the best, it is better than most...

 

[Jed]

Eep. Well he's entitled to his opinion, and having a reputation he's always going to be believed before I am. But you're perfectly entitled to believe him. I just think it's a bit poor really... and bokeh better at 200mm compared to at 85mm? Really, you don't say?

 

[kingpin]

Originally posted by Jed
Eep. Well he's entitled to his opinion, and having a reputation he's always going to be believed before I am. But you're perfectly entitled to believe him. I just think it's a bit poor really... and bokeh better at 200mm compared to at 85mm? Really, you don't say?

Ya you are right Bjorn is reputable. He have a few images posted in the article to illustrate his point. Seems like he did test shots. He did say bokeh at 200mm is better. U should read his article. U have the lens? Like to see your shots to understand what u mean by poor bokeh. I'm keen to find out more before buying the lens.

 

[ckiang]

Some test shots here.

Regards
CK

 

[kingpin]

ckiang - saw your shots. Replied on your thread. Thanks.