That's got nothing to do with this particular lens. DX sensors have the sweet spot advantage as most problems (vignetting, sharpness, CA) increase exponentially towards the edges.The 70-200VR is a fantastic lens on my D2H. On my D3...not so much. It suffers a little when asked to work in FX format.
It's a great lens on a camera with a DX sensor. It's only a pretty good lens on a D3, and on any subsequent FX cameras that Nikon brings out. Likely, the people buying those upper level cameras are the same ones who are willing to spend $1600 on a lens. They will be unhappy with the vignetting and lack of corner sharpness that the 70-200VR provides (they already ARE unhappy).That's got nothing to do with this particular lens. DX sensors have the sweet spot advantage as most problems (vignetting, sharpness, CA) increase exponentially towards the edges.
The 70-200 is a very good lens. The question whether it's worth it to spend more compared to the 80-200 is another one, it's a very good lens in its own right.
You're repeating what you've already said.It's a great lens on a camera with a DX sensor. It's only a pretty good lens on a D3, and on any subsequent FX cameras that Nikon brings out. Likely, the people buying those upper level cameras are the same ones who are willing to spend $1600 on a lens. They will be unhappy with the vignetting and lack of corner sharpness that the 70-200VR provides (they already ARE unhappy).
That lens has served me well for almost 5 years...right up until I bought a camera with a full-frame sensor. Overall, it would be worth $1600 if it weren't for the fact that anyone willing to spend that kind of money on a lens is also highly likely to be looking at a FX format sensor at some point in the next few years.
You're repeating what you've already said.
None of this is news. And none of this has to do with the 70-200 being a `particularly problematic lens.' Canon has to deal with this for a long time now. In all lens tests I've seen, Canon lenses have received worse marks on FF bodies than on crop bodies (commonly known as sweet spot advantage). This is not because Canon doesn't know how to make good lenses, but because their lenses respect the laws of physics. In some comparisons, the D2X even beat the Canon EOS-1 Ds Mark II in terms of effective resolution because of the sweet spot advantage. I don't want to regurgitate an old argument here, though.
If you dig a little deeper, then you also find out that digital sensors have a different behavior from film (which is more dramatic for wide angle lenses), so the same lens usually fares better on film.
Also, ever since switching from film to digital, people have become more attentive (or obsessive) with lens problems, thinking that they can't take good pictures. They forget that the lenses we have today are (on average) a lot better than what was available 15, 20 years ago or so. And that things like vignetting can be easily corrected (unlike 15 years ago), all I need to do is fire up Aperture and tell it to devignette. If someone needs more explicit control, they can use Photoshop or their favorite RAW converter. I don't want to sound like an old fart (mostly coz I still consider myself young ), but back in the film day, I don't think you would have seen such an uproar among enthusiasts. People today are spoiled by the IQ and the price/performance they get.
Lastly, even if you don't care about all what I've said, there is no better alternative available on the market today. Even if you look beyond Nikon, you will find that its direct competitors have the same problem and that their lenses don't fare substantially better in a full-frame vs. crop frame comparison (same physics applies).
That's got nothing to do with this particular lens.
Of course it does have an impact on the recommendation.I don't get your point. Maybe all of what you are saying is correct, but it doesn't makes the recommendation Hmac is giving incorrect. Whatever the cause of the slightly lower performance of the 70-200 in the D3 is worth mentioning when spending so much in one lens.
No, this is at most part of the story.I disagree- if there's a problem, and reports abound of one, then it's because of the particular lens design.
Incorrect. The 70-200 was brought to market in 2003 which was when the D70 (Nikon's first mainstream dslr) was released. Most non-pros were still shooting analog (my camera of that day was the venerable F80) and even many pros were still using film. Nikon's engineers did not design that lens for APS-C-sized sensors. Nor do I think did they abandon the heritage they have with their previous 80-200 lenses which have all been designed for full frame. I have yet to read a review that claims the IQ has gone down from the latest 80-200 to the 70-200.This particular lens's optical design was done at a time when Nikon had committed to APS-C, and it's design may show that.
You're repeating what you've already said.
None of this is news. And none of this has to do with the 70-200 being a `particularly problematic lens.' Canon has to deal with this for a long time now. In all lens tests I've seen, Canon lenses have received worse marks on FF bodies than on crop bodies (commonly known as sweet spot advantage). This is not because Canon doesn't know how to make good lenses, but because their lenses respect the laws of physics. In some comparisons, the D2X even beat the Canon EOS-1 Ds Mark II in terms of effective resolution because of the sweet spot advantage. I don't want to regurgitate an old argument here, though.
If you dig a little deeper, then you also find out that digital sensors have a different behavior from film (which is more dramatic for wide angle lenses), so the same lens usually fares better on film.
Also, ever since switching from film to digital, people have become more attentive (or obsessive) with lens problems, thinking that they can't take good pictures. They forget that the lenses we have today are (on average) a lot better than what was available 15, 20 years ago or so. And that things like vignetting can be easily corrected (unlike 15 years ago), all I need to do is fire up Aperture and tell it to devignette. If someone needs more explicit control, they can use Photoshop or their favorite RAW converter. I don't want to sound like an old fart (mostly coz I still consider myself young ), but back in the film day, I don't think you would have seen such an uproar among enthusiasts. People today are spoiled by the IQ and the price/performance they get.
Lastly, even if you don't care about all what I've said, there is no better alternative available on the market today. Even if you look beyond Nikon, you will find that its direct competitors have the same problem and that their lenses don't fare substantially better in a full-frame vs. crop frame comparison (same physics applies).
I have understood very well what you've said.Yes, I'm repeating it because I don't think you understood what I said (twice).
And this is exactly what I was addressing in my first post. The perception of what is and isn't acceptable has changed from the film days up until when dslrs have become mainstream. People have become concerned with IQ a lot more, not just with lenses, but with stuff like noise and sensor size. (I'm all for techno babble, don't get me wrong )... because you get vignetting and corner-softness, and that problem is bad enough that it is unacceptable performance for a $1600 lens. I understand WHY it doesn't work well on a full-frame sensor, but that doesn't help justify the price for a lens with marginally-acceptable performance on a line of cameras that represents the future of Nikon's camera lineup.
But that expensive, professional lens doesn't work well on Nikon's expensive, professional camera, nor is it going to be any better on Nikon's FX cameras-to-come over the next few years, because you get vignetting and corner-softness, and that problem is bad enough that it is unacceptable performance for a $1600 lens.
Am I the only one who understands what OreoCookie is saying?
Since ALL full frame lenses will perform worse on a full frame sensor, with allt he problems you mentioned above (ie: vignetting, corner softness), exactly which $1600 (and up) lens is worth its value? From your reasoning, no lens is. So where do you want pros to turn for lenses? Nothing suits you.
In that case, please stick with DX. Pros are happy with their 70-200 mm VR lenses, and all their full frame lenses, knowing full well that the sweet spot advantage is gone now that they own a full frame camera. Heck, those lenses may produce even better results in some ways. The pixels are so much bigger on a D3, that the lens doesn't have to be as perfect in order to get a sharp image.
Time for a redesign.
....
You're not wrong, just the part about the 70-200 being inferior all around.
Plus, newer lenses get better. Lenses that are designed for digital sensors, not film.No offense but there is a post above that states just this, in a much more factual and not opinioated way. I don't mean any negative tone, HL's opinion and yours are justified, but they seem a bit skewed and over emphasized.
It's not horrible at all, but the vignetting is most definitely intrusive
Plus, newer lenses get better. Lenses that are designed for digital sensors, not film.
Incorrect. The 70-200 was brought to market in 2003 which was when the D70 (Nikon's first mainstream dslr) was released. Most non-pros were still