New Nikon 70-200 VR II

[arash_hazeghi]

I was about to put an order for this lens when I saw a few threads on dpreview.com that seem to indicate the actual long focal length for this lens is substantial shorter than advertised (150mm-160mm) at medium to close working distances (portrait etc.) It is not uncommon for zoom lenses to be a few mm shorter at the long end but 50mm is a lot and somewhat cheating, has anyone here used the new lens to confirm this?

[Dave Courtenay]

Well i have had the lens just a few days and didnt have a MK1 to measure it against, What i can say is that its a beautiful lens-very very sharp, I did put up a few test images a couple days ago on my blog-http://wildlifeacrossthewater.blogspot.com/

Dave

[Desmond Chan]

I think so far the story is it's not a 70-200 lens at close range; it's a 65-165 lens. It is or very close to a 70-200 beyond that range.

Nobody has doubted its image quality though, i.e., better than the VR1 version.

Have thought about getting it (never have a 70-200). Not sure now.

[Don Lacy]

The issue is discussed here as well as other places.
http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/v...?f=57&t=167250

[arash_hazeghi]

And here

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00V9pI