AFS 70-200mm/2.8 FL E - first impressions

[Andy]

//feel free to add your own comments/images to the thread

My copy arrived yesterday with my dealer and I had a chance to pick it up earlier today. Unfortunately, I had not much time for more extensive shooting/testing, but thought you might be interested in some initial impressions (and RAW files).

The size difference to the predecessor is not that much. If the precessor would not be around, someone would be inclined to say - same size, same weight. Not much change.
From a build perspective it feels similar as well
Boy, the AF is fast. Can't say with the limited shots I did today HOW much faster it is, but is significantly faster (tested on the D5). Nice.
The flipped AF/focus rings. 2 obstacles: One is real, one is just a habit thing.
1) The habit one. Years of 70/80-200mm lenses had it in same position and given the frequent use, it becomes over time an automatic, subconscious thing. B ut the new FL E had it arranged in the same way like the AFS 24-120mm. Depending where you come from, you might need to adjust your habit. No problem in normal shooting, but more errorprone when fast reaction is needed - the old automatism is still in my way. I am much more often changing focal length than manually changing focus, so from this perspective the new arrangement is (currently) the better one, as long I am shooting slowly (to avoid getting in my automatism trap). I do thing this arrangement will be much better when you I follow a fast moving subject and I have to change focal length while tracking and shooting (i.e. an object moving diagonal as it closes in) - to be verified.
2) The reversed sun shade issue: This is the same issue like with the AFS 24-120mm. If the sun shade is reversed in the park position, it is almost impossible to reach the focal length ring without removing the sun shade. It might cost precious time in those circumstances, where the photog need to react fast and the sunshade is still in travel position.

If the fast AF required the reversal of the rings, then I prioritize the fast AF benefit over the experience reversal of the rings. Don't know, if the 2 things depend on each other, just in case.

AF accuracy was out of the box very good with the D5. Didn't do any AF adjustment yet. Similar experience as with the AFS 105mm/1.4E, it just works. Haven't checked outer AF focus field accuracy yet (the Sigma Art AF test)

Very nice and unexpected close MFD at 200mm, seems to be longer with shorter focal length (need to check this again)

A few first and quick images, just resized down to 1500x1000 to save NG bandwidth. Please use the filename under the image as index to the RAW files in this directory, in case you wan't to check out the RAWs directly.

Photos:
1) Visible vignetting with f2.8
2) Same subject with f 5.6.
3) Taken at MFD (plus a few centimeters), f 2.8, AF+reframed
4) f 2.8, AF+reframed
5) like 4), but f8
6) Cat eyes on the border of the frame at f2.8
7) 200mm/f2.8 at 20m distance
8 ) Not sure where the reflections are coming from
9) 175mm/f2.8 at approx 50m distance

Next images will be nicer :-)

rgds, Andy

[Roland Vink]

First impressions:
- looks sharp - as you would expect
- vignetting is visible at f2.8
- background bokeh is smooth

One other early review noted that although the new lens is only 100g lighter than the previous model, the center of gravity is further back (less weight out front due to the Fluorite element), so that if feels much less of a lump.

[Erik Lund]

Thanks Andy, looks like the lens is very capable, close-ups confirm that the focus breathing is acceptable.

Your point 2) Is what I would call a non issue but maybe that's just me

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A few remarks:

The new 70-200, not unexpectedly, hot spots in IR.

The arrangement of focusing and zooming rings actually immensely improves hand-held operation. This was instantaneously obvious when I mounted the lens on smaller cameras such as the D5300 (for IR) or the Df. In fact, this is the first AFS lens that felt at home on my Df. Very easy to zoom and focus with the fingers on the left hand. The tripod foot, which is conveniently rounded in front, played an instrumental part as it cradles nicely into the palm of your left hand and thus adds support and enhances lens control.

[Erik Lund]

Andy can you explain the distortion of the rain gutter in the last image with the roof, is the house not straight or?

[Andy]

Comparing the placement of things on the last 3 generations.
Left: AFS 70-200mm/2.8 VR II
Center: AFS 70-200mm/2.8 FL E
Right: AFS 70-200mm/2.8 VR I

rgds, Andy

[Erik Lund]

They even made the front of the petal shaped lens hood flat again so that it doesn't tumble over when put down front first on the hood

[Andy]

Erik,
I would not try to analyse distortion from my first shots, they had been really "snapshots".


As focus breathing has been discussed, here a quick set of shots.
Distance target to sensor plane approx. 2 meter
1) AFS 70-200mm/2.8 VR I
2) AFS 70-200mm/2.8 VR II
3) AFS 70-200mm/2.8 FL E
4) AFS 200mm/2 VR I

rgds, Andy

[Erik Lund]

OK, but it looks like huge pincushion distortion,,, We will know later.

And all four at their respective minimum focus distance and 200mm?

[Andy]

And all four at their respective minimum focus distance and 200mm?

No, all at 2 meter distance (sensor plane - target) and set to 200mm.

[Erik Lund]

Sorry I was not clear.


I would like to see the images from minimum focus distace since that is the use case for focus breathing IMHO

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I would like to see the images from minimum focus distace since that is the use case for focus breathing IMHO

I guess it depends on the application. These different lenses have greatly differing minimum focus distances (MFDs) so the perspectives and image content in the case of 3D subjects would change as well, if shooting at MFD for each lens.  For me the comparison at a fixed distance as shown is more useful. If I'm shooting a wedding ceremony and want a close-up of an individual some distance awway, I am not going to walk to 1m of the subject to make the close-up possible with a shorter lens; my closest position is dictated by the circumstances and it would be inappropriate to get that close just to get a tight framing; I think the photographer should stay some distance back. For other purposes this might be perfectly fine, of course.

So it looks like there is less focus breathing than in the Mk II but more than with the prime. Good. I can save some money that is needed for a particular 19mm lens. 

[Andy]

Sorry I was not clear.
I would like to see the images from minimum focus distace since that is the use case for focus breathing IMHO

I see you point, but the 4 lenses have 4 different MFD's (1.1, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.9 meter) and magnification factors.
I thought the easiest comparision for a quick first assessment was to use a distance all 4 could accomodate.

How should the setup be, that the 4 shots at MFD are comparable or show an easy to understand difference ?

[Erik Lund]

Thanks Andy; A typical use for this lens is to be able to shoot a close-up portrait,,,

Illka, In your case, the wedding shooting at distance, focus breathing is a non-issue since you could just step one step forward, climb one row and that's it,,,

[longzoom]

Yes, by switching rings,  the FB problem is, mostly, addressed! At minimal distance, it will be about 170mm, what is fully acceptable, instead of 135mm on G version (actually, it is acceptable, too, but if someone is very picky...). Looks like it is new Nikon's winner, that E version!  Thanks, Andy, for very useful info!  LZ