- Dimensiones del producto: 20,9 x 8,7 x 8,7 cm ; 1,5 Kg
- Número de modelo del producto: 2185
- ASIN: B002JCSV8U
- Fecha de disponibilidad en Amazon: 3 de agosto de 2009
- Valoración media de los clientes: 3 opiniones de clientes
- Clasificación en los más vendidos de Amazon: nº24.222 en Electrónica (Ver el Top 100 en Electrónica)
Compara Precios en Amazon
+ Envío gratis
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F/2.8 G ED VRII - Objetivo con montura para Nikon (distancia focal 70-200mm, apertura f/2.8, estabilizador de imagen)
|Precio recomendado:||EUR 2.529,00|
|Precio:||EUR 2.241,00 Elige envíos GRATIS más rápidos con Amazon Premium o elige envío GRATIS en 4-5 días|
|Ahorras:||EUR 288,00 (11%)|
|Precio final del producto|
- Introduzca su número de modelo más arriba para comprobar que sirve.
- Montura para Nikon
- Estabilizador VR integrado
- SWM para enfocar de forma silenciosa y ultrarrápida
- Peso del producto: 1,5 Kg
Comprados juntos habitualmente
Los clientes que compraron este producto también compraron
Detalles del producto
¿Quieres informarnos sobre un precio más bajo?
Descripción del producto
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8 G ED VRII - Objetivo con montura para Nikon (distancia focal 70-200mm, apertura f/2.8, estabilizador de imagen)
Más información del producto
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Ⅱ
Objetivo con zoom de teleobjetivo profesional, de rápida apertura, función Reducción de la vibración y recubrimiento Nano Crystal. Ofrece un excelente nivel de nitidez y de brillo en los bordes, y un autofoco silencioso que proporciona imágenes de extraordinaria nitidez en condiciones de poca luz. El cuerpo es hermético y está fabricado en aleación de magnesio para satisfacer las necesidades del profesional más exigente.
- Tapa delantera de presilla del objetivo LC-77 de 77 mm
- Tapa trasera del objetivo LF-1
- Parasol de bayoneta HB-48
- Estuche semiblando CL-M2
Alcance del zoom de 70-200 mm.
Sistema de estabilización de la imagen mediante la Reducción de la vibración II (VR II) con los modos Normal y Activo. Permite usar velocidades de obturación hasta 3,5* puntos más lentas.
Revestimiento de nanocristal que reduce las imágenes fantasma y los brillos
Siete elementos de cristal ED que minimizan la aberración cromática.
SWM (Motor Silent Wave, motor de onda silenciosa) para un autofoco rápido y silencioso.
Distancia de enfoque más cercana: 1,4 m
Sello de goma.
Prioridad instantánea del enfoque manual (M/A).
Se incluye parasol desmontable y estuche blando.
¿Qué otros productos compran los clientes tras ver este producto?
Opiniones de clientes
Principales opiniones de clientes
Lo único malo, su precio. No es apto para todos los bolsillos.
Excelente en todos los sentidos. Una pasta, eso sí, pero merece la pena.
Opiniones de clientes más útiles en Amazon.com (beta)
I then took the lens for a real-world test few days later on my last wedding of the year. To give you some background - I always use this lens during ceremonies and in churches while knowing my movements are limited. I usually capture journalistic ceremonial actions as well as the reactions at either end of the pews at about 10-20 feet distance to produce intimate images. Something struck me as odd this day. I initially felt the reach was somehow inadequate, especially at 200mm, but, knowing that I should just love this lens, I quickly attributed this to the large church I was shooting in. However, after reading some reviews and complaints, I reluctantly compared this new version to my original 70-200mm VR 2.8 and then the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 ED (as a second opinion) and found out that at 200mm, this lens indeed comes in shorter. It's like a 65mm-155mm equivalent at about 7 feet distance comparing to the other two lenses. The original 70-200mm VR 2.8 and the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 ED was about the same at 200mm which the latter zooms in just a tiny bit closer. Unfortunately for those who doesn't owned the original 70-200mm VR 2.8, it would be hard to compare. But if you have the original on hand, please try it for yourself. Use a tripod and shoot a fix subject with all these lenses. It's easy to compare the older and the newer versions, simply turn both to 200mm and shoot it. As for the 70-300, dial the ring to 200 and align the middle zero to the indicator dot on your focal ring, you should get a solid 200mm reading from your EXIF data. The difference should be obvious. I am well aware that there's going to be variations between lenses, but as for the same manufacturer and essentially the same lens, the difference is simply too great. I will wait for the New Canon 70-200mm which I doubt would have this issue (Update 4/24/10 - The new Canon 70-200mm IS II is simply amazing - without the Nikon magnification shrink issue).
With the exception of a flimsier hood and the magnification shrink issue, this lens is overall slightly better in just about every other aspect than the Original (since the original is already a "CLASSIC", it's hard to do much better). Nonetheless, there's definitely improvements in color, vignette control, CA, distortion, and the VR is simply "incredible". Also, this lens is just a tiny bit shorter and it doesn't look like a "Bamboo" stick as the original:)
(It breaks my heart to rate this "new version" 4 stars not because it's performance and construction but simply because that it does not "replace" the lens that it's "supposed to" replace. The focal length changes with the distance so the 65-155mm is a rough average while shooting within 30 feet. The closer you are to your subject, the worse it gets. For instance, at minimum focusing distance, the new 200mm is about the equivalent of 130mm on the original!! And more unfortunate for me, I shoot most of my subjects within 30 feet distance. Here's the full comparison at under 30 feet distance(added 1/10/10) - I did the test personally using Manfrotto 190 CXPRO3 and a tape measure:
New 70-200 VR II........Original 70-200 VR
30ft. 200mm.....................190mm (even at 30 feet, it's still not a 200mm comparing to the original)
So picture this, if you are in a tight church 10 feet away from your subjects and crouched between a rock and a hard place, would you say that it's okay when you want to use a "200mm" lens for close-ups of a ring exchange(for instance) but realize that you only have a "170mm"?!! Sure you can crop, but that means you are going to lose 3-5 megapixels of resolution! This is exactly why I felt the reach was "inadequate" during my initial real-world test. Yes, if you move away far enough from your subject the effective focal length will eventually equate to the original but then again, it simply isn't the same application anymore.
Some has brought up the issue of magnification ratio (in comment, thanks to ATK!!) - everyone knows that one can get the same 1:1 ratio from a 50mm vs 60mm vs a 105mm etc.. But that's not really the issue "here". With macro applications, one can simply change the mag ratio/distance by moving a few inches to and fro the subject but with real human subjects, a few inches becomes a few feet!
Hence, if one normally use this lens at various distances within 30 feet, you will notice a huge change. The closer you get, the more severe it will be. While capturing moments as it unfolds in a fraction of a second, this lens' focal length just isn't as effective comparing to the original version. I love all my Nikons gears and this is perhaps the first real disappointment that I had to encounter for a while. (Perhaps another is the SB-900's overheating problem.) This focal length issue may not be too serious to many people but as far as my personal applications specifically assigned to this lens, and perhaps to many others like me, it is quite irksome.
One last thing, to capture normal human movement(not fast action), 1/100th of a second is a good start. I usually opt between 1/80th -1/160th as minimum - depending of the speed of the movement. So for this application, the VR will only keep your lens steady but it will not stop action. You will undoubtedly get a motion blur at 1/10th, 1/15th, 1/30th, 1/40th, etc.
Thanks - Sean Marshall Lin
So let's have a look at this beauty!
The new lens is actually quite close to the size and weight of the original. I've put it on a D700, D3 and D90. I find it balances well on the D700 with grip as with the D3. On the D90 it's poorly balanced. Just for kicks I also put on my baby D40, which had almost absurd handling, but one could get used to it. The loss of the focus lock button was not missed by me. This is a heavy lens and it can tire a person out over the hours on a job.
Well, I think we all knew what to expect and got it. I'm not sure that the 70-200 is built better than the old version, but it might be. It's 100% top notch.
The new lens focuses as quietly as my old lens, but the VR noise is cut by half or more. In fact you have to strain to hear it. Nice little improvement!
Thus far I find sharpness exceeds all of my other lenses and that includes a new Tamron 180. Previously I found the Tamron 90 and 180 sharper than the Nikon 200, 24-70, 105 vr, 28-70 2.8 and so on. But the new zoom is so stunningly sharp wide open, that it's truly a marvel.
This shot, wide open at 2.8 and set for 200mm, proves what kind of performance is to be expected...
Color, Contrast and Bokeh Rendition
It's difficult to say if the new lens exceeds the original for color, but the obvious improvement in contrast certainly helps. The nano coating is doing it's job and the results, even around strong stray light sources appear to be universally superb. Bokeh is also what we'd expect. At the same apparent focal lengths it's on par with the original lens, but the micro-contrast makes images pop more and that may lead some to think bokeh is improved.
This is probably going to effect many people more than any other single aspect of the design. This lens exhibits severe magnification loss which may significantly effect your work, especially at distances below 15 feet. This has been discussed and outlined (at last), but to put it in a nutshell....at about 4.6 feet away you'll be at 128mm, which is a loss of 36%. While every other zoom of this range and caliber exhibit this effect, none have ever lost so much. This is unique to the 70-200 II and it will effect wedding & event shooters, not to mention photojournalists. It's significant enough that Nikon is seeing lenses returned. My source for that info is a Nikon rep and a saleperson at B&H photo. While some people are compelled to debate this issue, you simply need to say "135mm at 10 feet away is NOT the same as 190mm at 10 feet away." If you can say that and understand BASIC photography, then you already know that even 10mm makes a huge difference for some types of shooting. Sadly, we're looking at a LOT more than 10mm loss here.
Here is a series of shots taken at a party:
While the shots are passable, some also required heavy crops at distances where the original 70-200 would have required little to none. My usage of the lens on a job led me to a simple conclusion: The loss of magnification is a problem. But the lens is so good at close range at it's typical focal lengths that it's still worth keeping. Using with DX or with a TC are also viable options. I've seen one informal test showing that the 70-200 II with a TC 1.4 is still sharper than the older version and that's with both set for F4. That's amazing!
Still, people who enjoyed using this lens for heavy portrait work may be unhappy. The lens was known for it's flexibility in that regard and it's clear that some of that is lost. A major online reviewer actually dared to suggest that 135mm at 6 feet was "good enough because that's a classic portrait focal length."
Can you imagine anyone saying such a thing? With the original version of this lens, 185mm was a pretty classic focal length too! It's amazing what depths people will plumb to protect their interests.
I don't know exactly how or why, but my focus hit score yesterday was nearly 100%, which is on par with my 24-70. I was always closer to 90% with the old 70-200. So I'm going to say, rather offhandedly, that this lens has better AF. If so....it's a BIG deal!
No huge surprise here. You can, with some good technique, hold this puppy down for sharp shots below 1/10. I could do that with the original but worked a LOT harder to make it work.
Well, you can kick yourself in the head every day and say it's fun, but a lot of people will call you crazy. The new version costs 2400.00 US and that's nearly 800 more than I paid for the VR I. But most people think the old one's price was insane, so why worry. High end lenses cost a lot of money. I paid 3K for my speakers and a lot of people would call that nutty as well. Tomorrow I'll do a job using the new lens that will easily pay for it, so for a professional it's much less of a question. Do we get 500 dollars worth of improvements? Heck no, not with the loss of FL! Is the new lens worth having? Heck yes, especially with the better IQ and VR! If I was a hobbyist shooter I'd probably stick with my old version and be happy.
The 70-200 VR II is a bit perplexing. It's IQ is really beyond most expectations. My copy shows sharpness that exceeds a stopped down 85 1.8 and my macro primes as well. But a good deal of people will be troubled by the loss of apparent FL at closer range. One fellow on another forum has already explained clearly why this hurts wedding work or even shooting someone standing at a podium from 12 feet away. If you typically used the previous version at closer distances, you'll either adapt or be unhappy. Adding a TC helps, but now we have a 2800 dollar lens! So if someone wanted a pro zoom for event work and they wanted to do a LOT of ultra tight portrait shots, this would probably not be a top choice anymore. In the end the ultimate value of this lens is somewhat diminished by the obvious advantages at MFD of the original. Yet we do get stellar state of the art IQ that's hard to pass up, even at 128mm MFD. My choice is simple. I've decided to keep mine and use a TC 1.4 or 1.7 and also learn to use it on DX more often if the situation demands it. It's not as sleek a solution as I hoped, but the resulting images should be better overall. I rate the lens at 4 stars. For it to hit 5 stars it would have come close or matched the MFD ability of the original. You simply can't ignore how good the original was in that respect and I'm disturbed by seemingly intelligent shooters out there who are content to present misinformation on this point. One of the most famous online reviewers actually said that the new 70-200 VR II exceeds the performance of the original in every way. Of course that's patently impossible when the new version can't even come close to the near focus focal range of the original. Whatever fuels this "Protect Nikon" position, it does only harm to the photographic community.
I'm hoping that mainstream reviewers present honest detailed reviews that pull no punches with a lens that is unique against every other 70-200 and 80-200 on the market when it comes to losing magnification at less than infinity. A reviewer should respect the full scope of applications for a pro lens, report on a products strengths and weaknesses and leave his own agenda at the door.
So: The new 70-200 VR II is going to be a fantastic upgrade for some shooters and a serious letdown for others. For me it falls somewhere in the middle. Based on your individual style and job requirements, YOU must make your own ultimate judgment.
It's a crying shame that Nikon failed to maintain the reach factor at close focus as in the original 70-200. If they had, then this would be among the greatest lenses ever designed. Failing that I rate as basically equal overall to the original version. which is really better for some types of shooting.
Here are my initial impressions after using this lens and comparing it with the earlier version of this lens, the VR1.
This professional-grade telephoto zoom lens is very well-made. Its focus is lightning fast and it produces very sharp photos with very good contrast and dynamic colors even when shot wide-open at f/2.8. The increased sharpness at the corner is easily noticeable even at f/2.8 and now makes this lens suitable for landscape shots. I find this increased sharpness at the corner beneficial even for portrait shots when I shoot off-center rule-of-thirds portrait shots. The improved color and contrast is easily noticeable in certain shots in back-to-back comparison against the VR1.
The VR mechanism is very effective and helpful in keeping the photos sharp even when shooting at low shutter speeds in low-light conditions. The 1-stop improvement over the earlier version, the VR1, makes a very big difference, specially when shooting this lens from extended to maximum focal length with no monopod or tripod support. Being able to shoot handheld at 1/10th at 200mm is no easy task but it is possible with this new version.
The tripod leg support is nothing less than excellent ... slim yet very sturdy, with provision for two-screws mounting support. The tripod support can easily be rotated for shooting in vertical portrait position or downside up for easy hand carry. The tripod leg can easily be detached if needed for a less-obtrusive hold when shooting handheld.
Though this lens is heavier than the VR1, the added weight is not immediately noticeable. The shorter length and larger diameter makes for a more balanced hold when shooting handheld.
How does this lens compare with the earlier version, the VR1? Here is a quick and easy to read summary:
First, a definition of terms. The term "FX" refers to full frame Nikon camera bodies (D3x, D3s, D3 and D700). The term "DX" refers to cropped/APS-C Nikon camera bodies (D300s, D300, D200, D100, D2, D1, D90, D80, D70, D60, D40, D5000, D3000).
THE ADVANTAGES OF THIS LENS OVER THE VR1
1. Sharp corners on FX and DX, even when shooting wide-open at f/2.8
2. Less vignetting on FX and DX when shooting wide-open at f/2.8 (vignetting on DX at f/2.8 now irrelevant)
3. 1-stop improvement in VR (1-stop improvement really makes a big difference when shooting at 135-200mm).
4. Improvement in the bokeh compared to the VR1
5. Improvement in color and contrast, specially when shooting backlit subjects against the sun
6. More resistant to lens flaring (due to nano-coating)
7. Shorter more compact length makes it easier to pack, carry and use in crowded spaces
(the lens and the hood of the VR2 are both shorter than the lens and hood of the VR1)
THE DISADVANTAGES OF THIS LENS OVER THE VR1
1. More expensive than VR1
2. Slightly heavier than VR1
3. Not as good as the VR1 when used with teleconverters in DX bodies for long reach
4. Shorter reach or magnification than the VR1 when shooting at close range
(e.g., shooting at 200mm focal length is equivalent to 164mm when shooting from 10 feet away)
For FX users who still do not have a 70-200mm f/2.8G zoom lens, go ahead and acquire this lens. The corner sharpness of this newer version is remarkable, specially when stepped down for landscape shots. Even for portrait shots, the increased sharpness at the corner is beneficial when shooting rule of thirds portrait shots.
For FX users who already have the VR1, you will need to gauge whether the advantages will be worth the cost of getting this lens. If you need to shoot at this lens maximum focal length of 200mm, the lower magnification or the shorter "effective focal length in terms of field of view" when shooting at near range may be a major concern for you. This is specially a concern for events or wedding photographers. Note however that some photographers have adapted to this and actually found it helpful that the magnification remain near constant which minimizes the need to zoom out as the photographer approaches a subject or when the subject gets closer to the photographer. For some photographers, the reduced magnification when shooting at closer range is thus something that one can adapt to and take advantage of. It would still be best however to try the lens first and see how this impacts on your shooting style.
For DX only users who already have a VR1, I currently see no advantages to upgrading to this new version unless you need the one-stop advantage of the VR2, and/or if you want even less vignetting (easily corrected in post-processing), and/or if you want a lens that is more resistant to flare ... and/or more importantly, planning to upgrade or to add an FX body.
For DX users who still do not own the VR1, I recommend that you seriously consider getting this lens. Not only do you get the benefits of the newer version as listed above, getting this lens means that you will be well-positioned when you upgrade or add an FX body. Once you acquire or add an FX body, it will not surprise me that you will be doing a lot more shooting with the FX than with the DX. Since this lens is optimized for the FX, then getting this lens over the VR1 may prove to be a good decision. With regard to the issue of a shorter effective reach when shooting at near ranges, this should not be an issue with DX due to the 1.5X field of view of the APS-C sensor. If anything, it may even be an advantage when shooting up close.
Ultimately, both versions of the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G have their strengths and their weaknesses and it is up to the user to decide which version best fits his/her requirements.
As an FX and DX user, I have bought this new version knowing full well its strengths and its one limitation. The VR2 improved on what is already an impressive performance of the VR1, and then some. Except on the issue of lower magnification or focus breathing which hardly matters for me, the VR2 is an impressive step-up from the VR1.
I did retain my VR1 but this is primarily as a substitute to using a Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 VR. Matched with my 3 kinds of Nikkor teleconverters, the The VR1 is my lighter (and less expensive) version of the Nikkor 200-400mm and I use this with my DX D-300. The excellent center resolution of the VR1 is an asset when used in this manner. The other time when I use the VR1 on my D300 is when my VR2 is already on my D700. For all other usages however, I use the VR2 whether on FX or DX.
EDIT: For those who need to shoot up-close at 200mm focal length for maximum reach, this bit of info will be helpful.
Distance of subject / Effective focal length in field of view of the Nikon VR2 at 200mm
(Nikon 70-200mm VR2 at 200mm compared against a Nikon 200mm prime/fixed focal length lens)
1.27m ............... 128mm
1.40m ............... 132mm
2.00m ............... 147mm
3.00m ............... 164mm
5.00m ............... 176mm
10.0m ............... 186mm
Credits: Marianne Oelund
Edit: Sept. 13, 2010: I sold my Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and retained only the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR2.
Last year, we decided to Safari in Africa. Now the G1 is nice, but I needed some serious glass and it was time to go digital so I started researching. Nikon just launched the Nikon D90 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) and it looked like a good choice for the money, and while not as good as Contax or Leica, I always liked the Nikon lenses so I started looking for a few good lenses to take with me. I still want to travel light, so 2 zooms were the answer.
Back in the day I became addicted to low light lenses. I LOVE the ability to shoot in low light without a flash and to control depth of field. My favorite SLR lens from was a 55 mm 1.4. At 4 or 5.6 it shot better looking photos than the slower lenses. Once I decided that I wanted f/2.8 and a zoom, I started looking at what lenses would go with my D90. I also make up my mind to spend more on lenses than on the body for two reasons. I could always upgrade the body and get more features, but the lenses I would keep for a long time. Also, the lens has more of an effect on the quality of the photo than the body.
I knew I would be shooting wildlife, so 300mm seemed to be the minimum I could get away with. More on that later. The FX lenses give you a 1.5x boost in focal length on a DX body. So the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S NIKKOR Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras actually works like a 105-300mm on my D90.
Before the trip I shot some shots around Park City and the results were stunning. I practiced on deer, elk, horses and even some landscape shots. I could not believe the quality at just about any focal length and f-stop. My biggest surprise came when my wife asked me to shoot a play the girls were in. I took my camera and armed with only a monopod, shot about 200 shots of the girls on stage with only available light. I know plays and shows look like there is a lot of light, but anyone who has attempted to shoot in that situation will tell you, there is simply not enough light. The detail and sharpness were stunning. Even shooting at f/2.8 the photos were clear and with and effective 300mm I could get very close. After my wife saw the photos, I was out of the dog house with the high price tag of the new camera outfit.
I needed one more wide angle zoom for snapshots so I got the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens and just for nostalgia i also picked up the 55 f1.4. I packed everything up into a Lowepro Fastpack 250 (Black) and set off for Africa. Read the blog at and view photos at View some Photos at: [...]
I shot about 4000 photos and while on Safari and either I am a better photographer now or a good camera can bring out the best in a person. Now I know people shoot photographs, not cameras - but I also know a musician will not use a beginner instrument to perform once they become proficient.
The photographs were excellent. The Vibration reduction came in handy and together with the wide aperture, allowed me to shoot clear photographs using a monopod or handheld. The color and detail were exceptional. I was able to get some wonderful shots of wildlife and the countryside. With one of the slower to focus lenses I would have missed about 20% of my shots.
The only negatives: The lens if heavy and long, so if you are not as concerned about quality you can get a DX lens for less money and save your back. But I wanted the versatility of f/2.8 and the sharpness of pro lens. I hiked tons of miles and do not regret having to carry this lens at all. It is expensive, but if you have the money, get the lens. If you decide like I have to upgrade to an FX format camera this lens will serve you well.
Here is my biggest recommendation, if you are going on Safari, 300mm is about the SHORTEST lens that will work. I found myself wanting more OFTEN. I would recommend going to 500mm if you are looking to shoot wildlife. The large game shots were good, but smaller game needed more, and if you are looking to shoot birds, I would say 500mm is the minimum. Who knew that Africa was so rich in bird life? I was not prepared and as such got very few good photographs of birds.
In summary, if you need to shoot sports or shows in available light, this is your lens. If you are looking for an excellent quality lens to shoot action or wildlife outside - this is your lens. If you are looking to shoot birds, go long - very long.
I had read so many great things about this lens that I was convinced to spend the money, which for me is quite pricy. It's such a popular lens among Pros that I had a tough time finding one in stock. I ended up buying it online from a vendor in NY and I shot with it this weekend.
My first impression when unboxing it was, how the heck am I going to hold that thing up for more than 2 seconds without shaking like crazy? Yes, it is incredibly heavy. I shot with it for the first time this weekend on a family portrait session. I knew the weight of it was too much for me to hand-hold for 2 hours without getting a lot of camera shake (even with the VR), so I used it with a monopod and it worked out quite nicely.
I am so blown away by the quality of the photos from that shoot. This lens, in one word, is AWESOME. On my Nikon D4, the lens focused lightning fast! The photos are sharp where they should be and the bokeh is gorgeous and creamy!
I'm happy to say that I am absolutely sold on this lens and can't wait to shoot again with it this weekend. I'm sure with time I will get used to the weight of it as well.
I still love my primes, but I am now sold on Nikon's pro zoom lenses and will definitely be buying the other 2 lenses of Nikon's "Holy Trinity" (the 14-24 and 24-70).