New Nikon 70-200 f/4G VR with 5-stop VR system

jdizzle wrote in post #15165807
Hehe! I'm curious to know where he got his facts from.


Imo, they're pretty much identical in IQ. If he knows what makes the Canon superior, I'd sure like to know. If he gives me the right answer then I'll agree.

I think people usually mention the focus breathing issue with the Nikon. Also the Nikon has a lot more CA (not that this really matters because it's 100% correctable). I don't think the VR is as good as Canon's IS, either. Some possibilities. Meh. They are both so good I don't think there's much diff. The sigma is also excellent.

jdizzle wrote in post #15165807
Imo, they're pretty much identical in IQ. If he knows what makes the Canon superior, I'd sure like to know. If he gives me the right answer then I'll agree.

The Canon doesnt have that focus breathing at 200mm which means you end up with more like a 135mm lens at 200mm and MFD...

Your mileage may vary on that, Some folks find that handy

Honestly, I'm mostly basing my opinion on what I've read from Nikon owners. The Nikon lens isn't a bad lens by any means, but it doesn't seem to have the same love that Canon users have for their 70-200.

In addition to the focus breathing, most online reviews I've read seem to give the Canon version a slight edge in optics.

http://www.photozone.d​e …canon_70200_2is​28?start=2
http://www.photozone.d​e …orafs7020028vr2​ff?start=2

jdizzle wrote in post #15165689
Could you tell me how the Canon one is a better lens? I own both.

That's funny how people suddenly throttles back down once they get questioned. Somehow reading reviews of other blogs makes em an expert without first hand knowledge.

Having owned both systems as well, I think a big reason you hear the nikon users complain is because the 70-200 VR I was such a stellar lens that it made for some very big shoes for the VR II to fill. The Canon 70-200 2.8 IS 1 was in my opinion kind of a dog (owned it, the old magic drain pipe, and an f4 L IS), while the L IS II was in a totally different league. Honestly they are both great lenses, but relatively the canon version was a much bigger improvement than the nikon.

The real laughable quote I heard the other day was someone saying the Canon 24-70 version 1 was better than the Nikon 24-70. Made me chuckle a bit.

As for this lens, I think the price is incredibly fair. People hear f4 and think it should be tons cheaper than the 2.8 and completely useless to pros because its not 2.8. Those people are idiots. The size and weight of an f4 lens in this range makes it incredible. I absolutely swore by my canon. Plus with 5 stop VR unless you are shooting sports or using an older body that can't handle anything above ISO 800 then you should be fine everywhere.

The real test will be the IQ though, the Canon has stunning IQ (not only sharpness it amazing color and contrast rendering).

gqtuazon wrote in post #15166454
That's funny how people suddenly throttles back down once they get questioned.

Where did I back down? I didn't see where I changed what I said.

woos wrote in post #15165828
I think people usually mention the focus breathing issue with the Nikon. Also the Nikon has a lot more CA (not that this really matters because it's 100% correctable). I don't think the VR is as good as Canon's IS, either. Some possibilities. Meh. They are both so good I don't think there's much diff. The sigma is also excellent.

As far as I can tell, I haven't seen the CA.

KenjiS wrote in post #15166138
The Canon doesnt have that focus breathing at 200mm which means you end up with more like a 135mm lens at 200mm and MFD...

Your mileage may vary on that, Some folks find that handy

This is the answer I was looking for. MFD is where Canon has the edge.

thenextguy wrote in post #15166249
Honestly, I'm mostly basing my opinion on what I've read from Nikon owners. The Nikon lens isn't a bad lens by any means, but it doesn't seem to have the same love that Canon users have for their 70-200.

In addition to the focus breathing, most online reviews I've read seem to give the Canon version a slight edge in optics.

http://www.photozone.d​e …canon_70200_2is​28?start=2
http://www.photozone.d​e …orafs7020028vr2​ff?start=2

Tbh, the focus breathing hasn't bothered me one bit. A minor gripe if you ask me. In my real world usage it is really hard to tell the difference.

gqtuazon wrote in post #15166454
That's funny how people suddenly throttles back down once they get questioned. Somehow reading reviews of other blogs makes em an expert without first hand knowledge.

Well, I'm no chart shooter when it comes to lenses.

jdizzle wrote in post #15165689
Could you tell me how the Canon one is a better lens? I own both.

Ummm, it doesn't AF on a Canon body?

Also this (all at f/2.8):

at 70mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

at 135mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0


at 200mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

It'll all be alright...

andrikos wrote in post #15166920
Ummm, it doesn't AF on a Canon body?

Also this (all at f/2.8):

at 70mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

at 135mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0


at 200mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

I'm not a chart shooter. You think those little differences carry a lot of weight? Hardly.

jdizzle wrote in post #15167076
I'm not a chart shooter. You think those little differences carry a lot of weight? Hardly.

And we all know that what you think is all we need.

Please shut down all lens comparison websites immediately!

andrikos wrote in post #15167161
And we all know that what you think is all we need.

Please shut down all lens comparison websites immediately!

Heresy! How else will we be able to tell our lenses apart when we're only shooting actual subjects?!

andrikos wrote in post #15167161
And we all know that what you think is all we need.

Please shut down all lens comparison websites immediately!

Haha! If there's one thing I like to measure, it would be camera sensors. I can do that all day!

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #15167194
Heresy! How else will we be able to tell our lenses apart when we're only shooting actual subjects?!

I can make a Canon file look similar to Nikon. If I were to post up samples w/o EXIF, you wouldn't be able to tell.

jdizzle wrote in post #15167209
I can make a Canon file look similar to Nikon. If I were to post up samples w/o EXIF, you wouldn't be able to tell.

They have a new high ISO banding removal plugin for canon?