Yongnuo YN-560 II Speedlight Flash for Canon and Nikon. GN58.

Yongnuo YN-560 II Speedlight Flash for Canon and Nikon. GN58...

GET Yongnuo YN-560 II Speedlight Flash for Canon and Nikon. GN58. By Yongnuo

Most helpful customer reviews

319 of 328 people found the following review helpful.
Hands down, a GREAT Investment!
By J. Patterson
This flash is excellent for SO MANY REASONS! If you are just beginning in photography, you should check out this flash. If you are a pro and you need either a back-up, a slave, something to experiment with, and/or if you love to work in manual, you should check out this flash. Yes, it doesn't have any automatic functions, but for the price to feature ratio, you get more than enough to up your game with flash photography.

I have been shooting as a pro for about 2 years now. Before that, when photography was just a hobby, my first flash was the Canon Speedlite 270EX Flash for Canon Digital SLR Cameras. Even though it helped, it was not by much however, my knowledge of strobist photography was non-existent at the time. After a while, I graduated to the Canon Speedlite 580EX II Flash for Canon EOS Digital SLR Cameras. When I got the 580EX II, I realized that I missed out on sooooo much just shooting with the 270EX. In addition, I ended up getting a Canon 430EX II Flash and the Speedliter's Handbook: Learning to Craft Light with Canon Speedlites. After studying this book, my photography has not been the same since.

Even though I love my 580 & 430, I could not afford to buy 2 or 3 more of those flashes and even if a miracle happened, how much harder would it be for me to replace those flashes if one or more is lost or damaged. So I did my research and came upon the original YN560. For a cheap flash, it had the best reviews I came across, especially for a flash under $100. I was skeptical at first because I was so used to Canon equipment, however, I thought $70 couldn't hurt me tooo bad. When I finally got one I was COMPLETELY BLOWN AWAY!!!!! This is EXACTLY what I needed as a slave only flash! The build quality is similar to the 580, they take the same accessories, and it is just as powerful as the 580. I bought a second one that same day.

2 years after using the original YN560s, I saw that Yongnuo came out with the YN560III, which has a built-it receiver for the YN602/603 triggers! At one time, this flash wasn't in stock for almost 2 months because they were selling out SO FAST! As soon as they were available, I purchased as many as I could since demand was and still is crazy for this flash.

If you are a pro looking for a cheap flash, here are my reasons why I would recommend this flash to you:

1. YN560III has a built in radio trigger, which adds a crazy amount of convenience to your workflow!
2. YN560III has also 2 built in optical slaves modes, 580 has one but is limited to work with canon flashes only.
3. Cheaper to replace & add additional flashes.
4. Provides a sound when the flash has charged to fire again.
5. Similar build quality as the 580.
6. Accepts the same accessories as the 580.
7. Just as powerful as the 580.

If you are a beginner, and/or someone who is considering the cheap route when it comes to buying your first flash:

1. Built-In Radio Receiver.
2. The YN560III can be triggered by ANY on-camera flash, whether you have a professional camera or a simple point-and-shoot camera. Unless you have a Canon 7D or newer with a pop-up flash, triggering most of Canon's flashes have complex limitations.
3. Price to feature ratio.
4. Pretty much the same reasons why a pro would buy this flash!

If you are a beginner and are not aware of the 580EX II, it is a very good old school Canon flash. Take away the automatic functions and the weather sealing, you pretty much have the YN560III. If you are a pro, yet again, the YN560III is just a cheaper and manual-only version of the 580 (With a Built-In radio receiver!).

Also, as a comparison to Canon's new flagship model flash, the Canon 600EX-RT Speedlite Flash (Black), you can purchase 5 YN560IIIs plus a set of Yongnuo RF-603 C3 2.4GHz Wireless Flash Trigger/Wireless Shutter Release Transceiver Kit for Canon 1D/5D/7D/50D/40D/30D/20D/10D Series for the price of only ONE of Canon's own built-in radio flashes! Having an automatic flash with a built-in radio triggering system is AWESOME I must say however, you WILL PAY a large sum for Canon's system. Pretty much, five 560IIIs and one set of RF-603s is less than $500 total. 3 Canon 600EX-RTs and one ST-E3 transmitter is about $1,800 total! If you have the money and Canon equipment, go for the Canon system however, most people are like myself and cannot afford Canon's top notch system as of yet.

If you are a beginner, the reason why you want radio triggers is so your flashes can be triggered with fewer limitations. Triggering your flashes by radio waves is MUCH MORE RELIABLE than triggering them by a flash of light from a camera or another flash in general. The science and math behind how this works can get very technical and is much easier to understand if the system is seen in action. Check out YouTube for several examples of 'off-camera lighting.'

Also, for most photographers using off-camera flashes, you had to at one time, have a receiver for every flash you have; (You still do in some cases.) If you have 4 flashes, you would have to buy 4 receivers and also have a trigger on your camera. With the YN560III, you now only need one RF-603 Transceiver (a receiver & transmitter built into one device), which is awesome since you are saving money and also, you don't have to buy extra batteries for those receivers you would have needed before! NOTE: RF-602 and RF-603 triggers from Yongnuo are the only triggers compatible with the built-in receiver inside this flash. I hear that the RF-604 X2-C Wireless Flash Trigger for Canon EOS 1D series, 5D series, 7D, 6D 60D, 50D, 40D, 30D, 20D, 10D, 650D 600D 550D, 500D, 450D, 400D, 350D, 1000D Powershoe G10, G11, G12, G15 G1X SX50 may be compatible as well. NOTE: If you decide to purchase the Meyin 604, I hear that it only works on channel 16 with this flash, which might be a deal breaker to some ;-).

For a lot of situations, I only need to shoot with the YN560s. If I needed to have an automatic flash, my Canon flashes will do just fine. Also, I like the challenge and consistency of shooting in manual.

The YN560s work really well at weddings & events when you need multiple off-camera flashes to bounce light off of the ceiling to illuminate dark venues. Because they are relatively in expensive, being able to purchase multiple YN560s take the stress out of shooting in poorly lit conditions. Also, I've found that the more flashes I have, the more creative options I have like overpowering the sun, applying color gels, etc! Make sure you look up tutorials and books on strobist photography to learn this stuff! :-)

Truly, these flashes are one of THE BEST INVESTMENTS I'VE MADE TOWARDS PHOTOGRAPHY! I'm very grateful to God for being able to share some knowledge with you! I hope it helps. Take care and happy shooting!

473 of 490 people found the following review helpful.
Comparison to YN560 (mk I), Canon 580EX II
By MiRSD
EDIT: A problem that I didn't experience at first - while the LCD screen is bright and easy to read in most situations (looking straight at it), I found out that it's not so easy to read from other angles. For example, if you put it on an umbrella swivel (for an umbrella, beauty dish, softbox, etc..) and have it angled it can be impossible to read. If tilted 90 degrees forward, it appears as if everything lights up on it (the LCD screen uses something similar to a digital alarm clock - so it looks like "1/188" which allows the "88" to light up certain parts to form different numbers. So it could be 1/1, 1/2.. 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128) Again, the problem is that at odd angles (like 90 degrees forward) it appears as "1/188" instead of what the actual power is. On the other hand, tilting it 90 degrees backwards it will look blank.. so the viewing angle isn't great and creates some readability issues. Another example is if it's sitting lower to the ground and you're looking at it from a standing height it will appear blank. You need to bend down and look at a better angle to see the actual power. This could be considered a big downfall for some and does show that there is an advantage to the original YN560's LED system.
For comparison, the Canon 580EXII does have a similar issue but not nearly as bad. Tilting it 90 degrees forward it is still easily readable.

Over the last couple years, YONGNUO has made a name for themselves in the photography world. They've released some very nice, high quality alternatives to the "name brand" products out there as VERY nice prices. One of their better lines of items are their Speedlites (portable flashes).

I own and use many of their Speedlites - the YN460, YN460-II, YN465, YN560 and now the YN560II. I've used them for years and they all still work perfectly (the only issue was with a YN560 (original) that arrived with a broken zoom). For the prices they sell for, I find them to be very reliable. I have dropped them onto concrete from small heights (2-3 feet) and they continued to work fine.

Owning several of these, I'd like to compare them for anyone who was in the same situation as I was when looking for a flash. For the record, these units were purchased for:
YN560 - 70 bucks
YN560II - 100 bucks (NOTE: That was the price from a US Seller. From China they can be found for about 70 bucks, the same as the YN560)
580EXII - 500 bucks
Design:
Right off the bat, all 3 pretty much look the exact same. YONGNUO basically made a copy of the 580EXII mold (right down to including fake buttons on the sides which are REAL buttons on the 580EXII). The nice thing about this is that it means all accessories designed to fit the Canon 580EXII will work just fine with the Yongnuo YN560 (and 560II).
The obvious difference is the back of the flash. The original YN560 uses a LED system to indicate the power and zoom range - this means if 1 LED is lit, it's 1/128 power.. if 2 are lit, it's 1/64.. 1/32.. 1/16.. 1/8.. 1/4.. 1/2.. 1/1. This makes it easy to glance at from a distance and see "All the lights are lit, it's full power" opposed to an LCD screen which can be tough to read in the dark or from a distance.

LCD/Back display:
The YN560II and 580EXII use an LCD screen which tells you the actual power: 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, etc..
The better option for back display (LCD vs. LED Lights) comes down to preference - I have no issues with either. Both LCD screens (YN560II and 580EXII) have a backlight option - the Canon 580EXII has a specific "light" button which will turn the backlight (green) on for a few seconds. The YN560II will automatically turn the backlight (red/orange) on whenever any button is pressed. I like the YN560II's method as you can easily see the information no matter wherever you are when adjusting power - lit or dark areas (with the 580EXII you need to press the light button to see the light - so if you're in a dark area and changing power, you need to press the LIGHT then change the power (or vice versa) to see what level it's at - the YN560II will light up as soon as you start adjusting the power). The YN560II does not, however, have a dedicated LIGHT button but you can press any button (even the "enter" button which won't have any effect on the settings) to turn on the light for a few seconds.

The LCD screen on the YN560II is much more basic. You get the MODE you're in (M/S1/S2/MULTI (more on these later), the power (1/1, 1/2, 1/4...), the zoom level (24mm, 28mm, 35mm, etc..), the AUDIO indicator (more on this later..) and some others which will come on from time to time. One of the most helpful is the LOW BATTERY icon - unfortunately it doesn't give a constant indicator of battery life, only when it's "low". The 580EXII, on the other hand, has the same information but it's laid out in a much nicer presentation.
I will say that I prefer the YN560II LCD somewhat as everything is VERY BIG ON THE SCREEN. The power level is about 3 times as big as that on the 580EXII (so you can easily see the power level from a distance).. same for the zoom level. Doesn't look as fancy, but the information is easier to read on the YN560II. Again, the YN560 does not use an LCD, only light up LED lights - you can even say that the YN560 is easiest to get an idea of the power level from a distance since you can see how many LED's are lit from almost any angle.

Modes:
The CANON 580EXII includes: MANUAL, ETTL (automatic flash exposure), MULTI (a strobelight-like effect where you can control how many times it flashes and how frequently), a MASTER mode (to control other CANON flashes) and a SLAVE mode (to be controlled by a camera like the 7D, a transmitter like the ST-E2 or another 580EXII flash).
The YN560 and YN560-II include: MANUAL, SLAVE1, SLAVE2 (and the YN560II includes MULTI). SLAVE1 and SLAVE2 on the Yongnuo are nice as they let you trigger these flashes using any other flash (SLAVE1 is for other manual flashes (or flashes without an ETTL metering), SLAVE2 is for cameras that use ETTL metering). These are great modes to have and are not on the CANON 580EXII. On the same hand, the 580EXII includes the ETTL ("automatic") and High-Speed sync mode for the flash while the YONGNUO models are all automatic and do not include high-speed sync (YONGNUO makes the YN565 flash which does include ETTL, but not high-speed sync)

Power:
All 3 have roughly the same amount of power output. They can be adjusted anywhere from 1/1 (full power) down to 1/128. I believe some of the earlier Yongnuo flashes only went down to 1/64 power. You can also fine-tune the power, so if you want something between 1/2 and 1/1 power, you can set it to 1/2 and then add +0.3, +0.5 or +0.7 compensation - this is done with the up/down buttons on the YN560 and YN560II. It is MUCH easier to read on the YN560II since it will say: "1/2 +0.3" while the YN560 only has 1 set of LED lights (which display flash power output, zoom level and flash exposure compensation, depending which one you're looking at. The YN560II will display all at once).

FUNCTIONS:
All 3 flashes have a zoom function on the flash - the YONGNUO are the easiest to operate as they have dedicated +/- buttons (canon requires you to press a button first and then change the zoom).
The YONGNUO flashes also allow easier control of the power (also a +/- button while the 580EXII requires you to press the SET button and then turn a wheel). This is a toss-up on who wins - the YONGNUO ones are easier to adjust, but that also makes them easier to hit by accident and change the power levels when you didn't want to.

BUTTONS:
The YN560II and YN560 have similar looking buttons (rubber-like), but the YN560 buttons are somewhat mushy/soft while the YN560II has firm buttons which feel a bit nicer. Both are usable.
The YN560II uses similar buttons to the 580EXII, except the 580EXII uses a wheel instead of the left/right/up/down/SET button on the YN560II. I actually prefer the buttons on the YN560II as they're easier to pick up and use, but all 3 work fine.

CONNECTIONS:
The YN560 and YN560II have a metal hotshoe (the YN560 originally released with a plastic hotshoe, but was quickly replaced). They also use the turn-to-lock clamp for the hotshoe while the Canon 580EXII uses a rubber gasket with a switch you flip to lock it down (this also keeps it somewhat water-sealed on the hotshoe). I prefer the 580EXII style lock for sure, but the others do work fine.
All 3 have a PC-Sync input and a high-voltage battery socket to connect an external battery pack to (such as the CP-E4). I use the Pixel TD-381 battery Power Pack for for Canon Speedlites 580EX II, EX580, EX550, MR-14EX,MT-24EX, extremely stable fast recycle time 1.24S and highly recommend it! These greatly speed up recycle times and give you a longer battery life.

RECYCLE TIMES:
I loaded fresh rechargable batteries (same brand, all bought at the same time and freshly charged) into all 3 flashes, connected them to a radio trigger to set all 3 off at the same time. The YN560 recycled the faster (barely beating out the YN560II), and the 580EXII slightly slower than all 3. The difference was about 1/2 to 3/4 seconds difference between all 3. With the external battery pack (above) connected, all were fully recycled and ready for the next shot within about 1-2 seconds from full power (and all ready about the same time).

OTHER:
The YN560 and 580EXII both go from lowest power (all the way left) to highest power (all the way right) and stop at each. If you go to full power (1/1) and press right, nothing happens. If you go to lowest power (1/128) and press left, nothing happens. The YN560II changes this - if you go to full power and press Right, it goes back to 1/128 (and if on 1/128 and pressing left, it goes to 1/1). I'm not sure how much I like this, since you can easily change the flash power greatly without noticing it if you press a button.
All 3 flashes have a Pilot light which indicates Charging (green) and Ready (red). When ready, you can press the light in to trigger the flash -- this is very easy to do on the 580EXII and YN560II, but with the older button types on the YN560, it's a bit tougher.

EXTRAS:
The YN560 and YN560II have an optional sound function - this means you hear a "beep beep" when the flash fires and a long "BEEEEEEEP" when it's ready again. This is helpful to know if a flash fired (sometimes looking through the viewfinder you can't tell) and to tell when it's ready to go again (so you don't take a shot before it's charged). The 580EXII does not have this feature.
The YN560II seems noticeably louder than the YN560, making it somewhat hard to hear the YN560 (if using one of each flash) - it can also be quite loud if used in quieter areas (to the point you wish it had a volume control -- I never had this issue with the YN560).

The YN560II and Canon 580EXII include a nice nylon carrying pouch to hold the flash and the coldshoe (more on that later..), the YN560 just comes in a thin carrying bag.

All 3 include a coldshoe (so you can set the flash on the ground, standing up). The YN560 included a nice one with metal around certain areas (like the tripod threading) while the 580EXII and even the YN560II included an all-plastic cold-shoe.

All 3 include a wide-angle diffuser panel and a popout bounce card.

The 580EXII can swivel 360 degrees (180 degrees left, 180 degrees right), the YN560 and YN560 are limited to 180 degrees left or 90 degrees right.

So overall, what do I recommend?
The 580EXII is obviously in a different class (and a much different price range!). I didn't want to compare it against the Yn560II directly to determine which is better, but I owned it and wanted to throw in some comparisons - I'm not expecting the YN560 and YN560II to be the 580EXII, but they both held up very well against it (and even exceeded in some areas)!
Some of the features in the YN560 and YN560II are great, and not even part of the much more expensive 580EXII (such as the sound indicator, low battery indicator and slave-modes).
With both YN560 and YN560II being very close in price, it's up to you whether you find the few new features on the YN560II (the LCD screen and MULTI option) to be worth the extra money. I own 2 YN560's, a handful of YN460's, YN460II's and YN465's and am considering getting another YN560II due to the low price and great features. Highly recommended - either the Yn560 or YN560II.

EDIT: Just bought another YN560II. Love this thing!

226 of 233 people found the following review helpful.
Great value in a manual flash
By Kian O'Connell
I haven't shot enough with it to determine consistency, but I'm pleased so far. Flash is a bit large for the output, but it is still decent. I did some test shots and was getting f8 at 18 ft. This tells me that the GN is just about 144. The specs put it at just 58. (Maybe that was supposed to be meters and not feet). This is almost as good as I got from the Sunpak PZ42XC at full on manual.
Build is similar to the Sunpak flashes. Swivel and bounce feel no less solid and click into place just fine without shifting. The built in diffuser AND mini bounce card are nice although small. My sunpak PZ42XC doesn't have that. There is a PC sync and a power supply connection on the side which my sunpak doesn't have either. Then there is the optical slave which works well with two levels of sensitivity and of course my sunpak lacks that as well.
With all of that said, this flash isn't for just anybody. This is just a plain dumb manual flash without TTL or even a thyristor. THERE IS NO AUTO FUNCTION. If your intent is to use this as a camera mounted flash for candids, forget it unless you know how to manually setup for every shot by adjusting your aperture as needed. It is not intended for that purpose.

The flash came with a base that has a threaded hole in the bottom so it can be mounted to a stand. It would do a terrific job providing fill or backlight capability. It swivels 180 degrees and straight up so bouncing into an umbrella or through a diffuser while the slave sensor faces forward for a stationary photo shoot are ideal uses of this flash. So is placing it behind a subject for a backlight. My Lumiquest gel holder fits very tight due to the large flash head, but it fits.

The controls and lights on the back seem a bit confusing and the manual isn't a lot of help since the translation from Chinese to English is about the same quality as you get from Google translate..... I was able to figure it out but it took some time experimenting with the unit.

Recharge is quick - even at full power. I was very impressed. Of course it has less output than the Sunpak and uses the same number of batteries but still, I was pleased.

One other note. When i first tried to turn it on it wouldn't do anything and I was immediately afraid it was DOA. I found that to turn it on, you must hold the on-off button for a couple seconds. When you press it down, the lights on the bar progress from left to right and if you don't hold it down till the lights get to the far right, it just shuts off. Awkward, but easy to deal with if you are aware of it.

Altogether, I'm quite pleased with what I have assuming it lasts a a while. The build seems solid so I'll just have to wait and see. I'm confident enough in the product that I'm going to buy a second one so I can have one for fill and the other for a backlight for impromptu studio shots.

If you need a slave flash with some power and manual controls I really think this is the best thing out there. Almost everything else in this price range is a single power or auto-flash without the ability to make manual output adjustments. You can get this output with no slave, the slave with no manual,or you can spend twice as much. But if you need a speedlight with auto functions for camera mounted shots, get something with auto functions.

See all 1691 customer reviews...More...

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras..

Buy Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras By Nikon

Most helpful customer reviews

599 of 616 people found the following review helpful.
Great zoom lens for full frame/FX and cropped/DX Nikon camera bodies
By LGO
I am writing this review from the perspective of someone who also owns the earlier version of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras. This new lens will be referred to as "VR2" in this review while the earlier version of this lens will be referred to as the "VR1".

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.

233 of 249 people found the following review helpful.
Greatest lens - but beware, beware of focal length change!!!!
By dilemnia
Speaking as a professional photographer - I have been using the original 70-200mm VR 2.8 for a while now and loved every moment of it. It doesn't matter how familiar I am with this lens, it still feels magical at times to be able to separate subject and background while pulling the background in as smooth bokeh. As most pros will tell you, the 70-200mm VR 2.8 "is" the bread and butter wedding portrait lens and more. That was then. This is now - as soon as I saw the announcement of this "new version", I pre-ordered it. While reading colleague Cliff Mautner's blog, I simply couldn't wait!! It finally arrived early this month(12/2009), I did some quick in-home test and was extremely impressed!! Not to reiterate on the amazing optical quality, the new version VR allows me to get a sharp image down to 1/5th!! and consistently at 1/15th. (The best $2400 I've ever spent!!). I packed up the original version and was getting ready to eBay it the following week!

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

4ft. 200mm.....................130mm
6ft. 200mm.....................150mm
10ft. 200mm.....................170mm
15ft. 200mm.....................175mm
20ft. 200mm.....................180mm
25ft. 200mm.....................180mm
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

88 of 95 people found the following review helpful.
Great Lens, but BEWARE
By Capt RB
The original 70-200 AF-S VRI is a legendary optic that continues to be among Nikon's most popular professional zooms. We had all hoped, at least in professional circles, that the new version would eclipse the old in every respect. Sadly, this is not the case. The new lens is optically superior over the same focal lengths, but this new lens exhibits the strongest focal breathing effect ever seen in a pro lens of this type. No other 70-200 or 80-200 will be stunted in reach as this new one is. It's quite unique in that respect and this issue will be a deal breaker for some event, wedding and portrait shooters. It is not a small issue and it cannot be corrected. Stranger still is the voices of several prominent online reviewers who seem bent on masking or underplaying this significance of a 70-200mm zoom that falls 72mm short at close focus. It's hard for many of us to believe that they are not protecting a relationship with Nikon. Typically, when shooting a wedding, we found that the new lens was too short and images required cropping. At a children's party the same issue presented itself. At 10 feet away it was not possible to frame a face as the original lens could do. And yet this lens is absolutely state of the art in every other respect. Likely, this will be one of Nikon's most debated lenses, though those who shoot over typically longer distances will find this lens ideal. Still, Nikon has a clear error on their website. They claim that the 70-200 maintains it's full zoom range at minimum focus. And it most certainly does not. Any honest shooter should not debate this issue. It WILL effect some professional applications.

So let's have a look at this beauty!

Handling:
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.

Build Quality:
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.

Sonics:
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!

Sharpness:
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.

Zoom Range
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.

Focus
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!

VR II
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.

Value:
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.

Summary:
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.

See all 208 customer reviews...More...

Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy II, 4 x 6 Inches, 100 Sheets (2311B023)

Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy II, 4 x 6 Inches, 100 Sheets (2311B023)..

Grab Now Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy II, 4 x 6 Inches, 100 Sheets (2311B023) By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

48 of 50 people found the following review helpful.
The Best photo paper for Canon printers
By Aaron D. Christianson
Canon photo paper Plus II gives me amazing results on my Canon printer.
I've tried Costco photo paper (returned it) and HP photo glossy (It's OK, but doesn't seem to give the same depth.)

Canon papers have always treated me well and I'm sticking with them!

35 of 36 people found the following review helpful.
A Great Value
By Jennifer L. Wawrin
This paper produces nice photos. It's inexpensive but doesn't look or feel cheap, like some other brands I've tried. Other inexpensive paper tends to roll up around the corners, but not this paper. I use this paper with my Canon Pixma3500. The paper produces prints that look and feel like photo lab quality prints. I highly recommend this product for people with Canon printers.

22 of 22 people found the following review helpful.
Great Photo Paper - at a very good cost point
By John D. Hillmer
I have a Canon PIXMA iP6220D Photo Printer and use Canon Paper for all my photo printing (usually 4x6 or 5x7, but some 8x10 too). I figure Canon makes the printer, the ink, and the paper, so they MUST test all three of those together, and that combination should produce good results. AND, I can say that it does! Photo paper is usually pricey in the local stores, so I buy mine online (Amazon!) and I've been really happy with this specific purchase of Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy II, 5 x 7 inches, 20 Sheets (2311B024) paper. Results from my setup look like they came from the local photo processing store. The paper is packaged nicely, protected in a nice box, with cardboard inserts on each side of the paper deck, in a resealable plastic bag. I recommend keeping the paper in the sealed plastic and in the box while it's on your shelf waiting for use.

See all 574 customer reviews...More...

Bose SoundDock Series II 30-Pin iPod/iPhone Speaker Dock (Black)

Bose SoundDock Series II 30-Pin iPod/iPhone Speaker Dock (Black)..

Special Price Bose SoundDock Series II 30-Pin iPod/iPhone Speaker Dock (Black) By Bose

Most helpful customer reviews

654 of 692 people found the following review helpful.
Hear Bose sound before you bash it
By Sahak D
I did quite a bit of research before getting the Bose SoundDock II. I wanted a dock that would work with my iPod touch 2G, have superb sound quality, and preferably charge my iPod while docked. Well I have to say that I got all i wanted and then some with this unit.

I read some reviews online written by "audiophiles" and supposed "sound experts" bashing Bose for selling overpriced and underpowered equipment. These people just don't get it. I won't go on to bore you in detail about the ridiculous things that were said but I will mention that these people are comparing the SoundDock to a home stereo setup that entails having a receiver with two separate wired speakers. Is this a fair comparison? I beg to differ.

To summarize this product it's a compact unit you can have in virtually any room in the house minus a bathroom (for safety purposes) and its sound can be described as warm and beautiful with deep enough bass to make your sound come alive but not wake the neighbors. Clear, never distorted at any volume. You get what you pay for.

Thanks Bose!

174 of 186 people found the following review helpful.
A great way to play your tunes easily.
By Terry Schoenberger
The Bose SoundDock has the Bose quality sound you would expect. It is a great way to play your IPOD, just plug it into the dock and play. You do not have any control over bass and treble, just volume. The remote has a good feel to it and responds well. There is a small green light in the dock that lights up each time you press a remote button. You will usually use the remote to change the volume, select the next or previous track and turn it on/off. The SoundDock itself only has 2 buttons for volume up and down.
The volume goes louder than I expected and I never have turned it up all the way, even when the kids are playing their IPODs.

There are a few things they could have improved......The power cord has the transformer built into the middle of the cord, it should have been built into the unit. The power cord plugs straight into the back of the SoundDock with a small round plug and it will come out easily if the unit is moved. The docking station is a seperate piece that is attached and it moves around a little which makes it feel loose. There isn't an on/off switch on the unit, just the remote, so you have to turn the IPOD off or use the remote to turn them both off, or just pull the IPOD out. My SoundDock was missing one of the stick on rubber feet on the bottom. I called Bose support and they mailed me one free.

Overall it's a great quality unit where it counts but Bose cut corners where they could on the rest of it.

We do love it and use it almost everyday.

221 of 257 people found the following review helpful.
Good Sound, Poor Functionality
By E. F. Mendelson
The sound quality is very good for the price point and the size. That said, the remote does not interface correctly with my ipod. Specifically it does not allow the user to move through the menus as it is supposed to. I thought at first the Bose system was defective so I returned it for a new one but the second one has the same problem. All the other remote functions work properly but in order to navigate through the menus on the ipod I either have to hold onto it in the docking station (it doesn't have a snug fit-another drawback) so that the pins don't come loose, or else I have to take the ipod out of the docking station all together, make my music selection and then put it back in the dock. This is a major flaw in an otherwise good product.

See all 761 customer reviews...More...

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens..

Buy Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

275 of 285 people found the following review helpful.
Going on vacation?
By Eric Slay
Many people have stated the facts about this lens. Instead of restating them, let me add what I use it for:

For nature photography, this is the only lens I need. Just put something pretty in the foreground (flowers, rocks, etc.) and let the lens magically stretch out the horizon to add drama and flair to the shot. Makes beaches MAGICAL... Makes forests imposing. Adds desolation to the desert.

And from a business perspective:

As a wedding shooter, I use it to stretch out small/boring churches and make them more dramatic. It is also great to use from above for dancefloor shots and really makes the shots DYNAMIC and interesting.

And finally:
If you are deciding between this and the 17-40, let me save you some time... there is a huge difference between 16mm and 17mm. Don't waste time buying the 17 and then selling it at a loss to upgrade like I did.

If you're going to go wide.. go wide baby. ;)

119 of 121 people found the following review helpful.
Does exactly what its supposed to...a great UWA Zoom.
By Amazon Customer
I've read some pretty critical reviews of this lens; from my perspective some of these could be due to an occasional bad copy, but others are likely due to the owner expecting way too much from a UWA zoom lens. Most complaints center on lack of corner sharpness and/or light fall off/vignetting at the wide end and wide apertures. I've owned and extensively tested 4 high end UWA Zooms to date now; the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L II, the 17-40 f4 L, the EF-s 10-22, and the Nikon 14-24 2.8 ED (the accepted gold standard for UWA Zooms), and can tell you that the Nikon is the only one that can reasonably (but not perfectly) hold the corners at the extreme wide ends of FL and aperture. Not surprisingly however the Nikon is yet another $400-$500 more expensive than the 16-35II (even more when you factor in the adapter to shoot on a Canon). In real world shooting at f/8 to f/16 however, I can confidently state that you are not going to see any meaningful difference between the 4 lenses without resorting to some serious pixel peeping gymnastics, and even then I'll gladly take bets that most couldn't tell the unlabeled photos apart. So confident in fact that I finally traded in my revered Nikon for an excellent copy of the 16-35II.

Yes, this lens exhibits some corner softness and light fall off at the wide end and/or at f2.8, however this starts to clear up nicely even as low as f/4 and is gone by f/8. By comparison, if you really want an eye opener, look at the vignetting on the 17-40 wide open (f/4) - two thirds of the image is dark with only a small central spot unaffected (incidentally, those that post that the 17-40 suffers no corner vignetting are probably shooting JPEG and not examining the RAW image). Contrast this to the 16-35 wide open at f/2.8 where only the extreme edges and corners are dark. Same with corner softness, it does exist at f/2.8 but clears up nicely by f/8. In all cases, if you shoot this lens at the same settings as the 17-40, it outperforms its smaller cousin in all aspects (and the 17-40 an excellent lens in its own right). The 16-35 is more than just a 17-40 that goes to f/2.8, it is a significant improvement at all apertures and focal lengths.

I did some extensive testing with filters and found, contrary to claims in other reviews, no detectible difference in vignetting between a slim or regular UV filter at the 16mm wide end. Maybe there is a slight difference that some purists can see, but for the life of me I can't tell the difference, so I use a regular thickness filter for the convenience of being able to use the normal dust cap. The 82mm filter size is also often cited as a point of criticism. Yes, 82mm filters are larger and more expensive, but that's the price you pay for a lens with these specifications. At least this lens will accept filters, try that with the Nikon. Finally, I've also heard criticism that this lens starts to go soft above 24mm, but I personally haven't seen any evidence of this either. Maybe those are bad copy issues again? But mine is perfectly sharp (stunningly sharp in the center) throughout the entire range.

In short, if you absolutely must have a UWA Zoom that has razor sharp corners at f/2.8, you're going to need to go to other extreme measures such as the Nikon 14-24 or maybe a Zeiss, but then you've got all of the manual focus/exposure issues to deal with. In most real world applications at f/8 to f/16, this lens easily holds it's own against the Nikon 14-24 and definitely edges out the 17-40. In my experience, if I am shooting at f/2.8, I'm likely trying to blur the background anyway, so why would I care if the corners are soft? And if shooting in low light I can't notice the vignetting in the corners either. In any case, it's easily corrected in DPP anyway.

244 of 258 people found the following review helpful.
Modest improvement mostly for full frame users
By George
I have owned both this and the original version. The new lens is better in the corners and flares less but the corners are still a little soft at f2.8 and you can get the lens to flare a little if you try. I haven't seen the loss of clarity above 20mm that others reported. Perhaps you would see a slight difference in eyelashes if you did a lot of portraits but this is probably not the best choice for a portrait lens. It is a somewhat better lens for shooting landscapes and other shots where edge to edge clarity is important.

But the differences between the two versions are minor and in some instances irrelevant. If you don't shoot a full frame camera the soft edges don't appear in the photo. And flare is a minimal issue at most. It rarely appears and is easy to fix in Photoshop if it does. I would opt for the original if I didn't shoot full frame based on the price difference alone.

My only problem with the original was when I had to shoot hand held. Sometimes you can't bring a tripod along which rules out shooting at f16 or 22 so I occasionally ended up with shots that were soft in some of the edges. The new lens will solve that. That is the only reason I decided to upgrade.

I haven't used many other lenses in the same range so I can't compare quality with other makers but I'm not aware of anything reputed to be better. I have Canon primes as well as other Canon zooms and in actual use all are generally close in quality. I use the primes if possible when I plan to crop or enlarge a lot but I could still get by nicely with the zooms.

So, if you shoot less than full frame or if price is an issue, get the original. If you shoot full frame but need maximum clarity in the center (portraits for example), test both versions first. If you shoot full frame and need maximum edge to edge clarity, go with the new lens.

Update: Having shot this lens for a long period I would discount the comments about problems above 20mm. I owned the first version as well and I don't see a difference in the 20mm to 35mm range. On the contrary, I am increasingly impressed with the image quality and sharpness of this lens throughout the range. I recently used it into a very narrow slot canyon where I couldn't take more than the camera and the lens attached to it and took shots from 16mm up to 35mm that all came out very sharp and rich. Granted I wasn't shooting wide open because I needed lots of depth of field but the point is the lens delivered the best shots of that trip. In terms of versatility, this lens is unmatched for wide angle use by Canon owners. I also have the 14mm f2.8 II, 17mm f4. TS/E and 15mm fisheye for comparison. This is the one wide angle lens I always take along.

See all 166 customer reviews...More...

Bose® SoundLink® Bluetooth Mobile Speaker II - Leather

Bose® SoundLink® Bluetooth Mobile Speaker II - Leather..

Grab Now Bose® SoundLink® Bluetooth Mobile Speaker II - Leather By Bose

Most helpful customer reviews

665 of 697 people found the following review helpful.
Side by Side Review of Soundlink I vs Soundlink II...Amazing just got even more Amazing
By PositiveLogic
I'm tempted to do a video review of a side-by-side comparison between the SoundLink I and the Soundlink II, but, when all is said and done, it's the sound that matters and there's no way to convey that unless you yourself preview the sound difference live. That said, here's my assessment in comparing the two:

Yes, the sound is quite a bit fuller, yet better balanced with improvement on the mids and highs -- w/ crisper sound on the top end without beginning tinny, hissy or overly blaring. Another reviewer stated the treble was diminished on the SL II, but I'm hearing differently. From the big brassy sounds of 60s era Sinatra to the Edge's (from U2) guitar -- you actually get more of that nice shimmering mid-range and treble. The bass is solid and expansive without being exaggerated. There are times when it sounds and feels like I've got a dedicated floor standing subwoofer, and then I look over and I'm reminded that all that sound comes from something no bigger than a hardcover book. Some reviewers have said that they hear little or no difference between the Soundlinks I and II. So I'll add to points here:

--You will probably hear the difference in sound quality between Soundlink I and II if you play a wide variety different musical genres. I did.

--If you read the hundreds of Soundlink I reviews on Amazon, you will hear one consistent theme, the mid-range and highs on the Soundlink I sound muddy or muffled, especially compared with Big Jambox. While I hear the difference, the Soundlink I still provides me with a pleasant listening experience. If the Soundlink II did not exist, I'd be very happy with the Soundlink I. At the same time, the improvement in sound quality in the Sounndlink II will, I believe, address the concerns of those who did voice this concern.

I like the bi-fold cover, which now allows me to more easily carry the unit around the house while playing it. With the SL I, that the cover would be hanging awkwardly if you wanted to walk across the living room playing your music.

Battery indicator light now provides more information about battery status...going from green to yellow to red.

By the way, here's an important tip to anyone wanting to make an objective comparison between the Soundlink and any other portable speaker. Remember that the Soundlink has passive subwoofers that project backwards. Whether or not you are comparing it to something that does not have this feature, keep the Soundlink away from a wall, otherwise it would get that disproportionately boomy bass so that so many have complained about. I think this one little detail has inadvertently and , perhaps unfairly, negatively skewed a few Soundlink reviews. Personally, there are times when I like it close to wall because the music sounds more live that way...but it's a matter of taste.

All that being side, now that I've lived with the Soundlink for over a week, here are some further impressions:

LIKES
--Big, well balanced sound in small form factor. Like a book, it's easy to carry.
--Bluetooth pairs easily
--Versatility. You can also connect via wire
--New bifold cover allows for easier carrying while playing music
--Minimalist design. I like the fact that there is no software baggage, remove controls, computerized voices to deal with.
--Gives me a break from having to wear my iPod earbuds all the time.

DISLIKES
--Battery life not as long as others in this category
--No volume reading. While it is easy to adjust the volume, you cannot tell where the volume setting is relative to the highest and lowest settings.
--AC Adapter seems to be bigger than it needs to be.
--Distasteful, overly expensive covers.

Overall, the sound is better than some 2.1 systems with dedicated floor subwoofer I've heard. Also, while I admit I have not heard the Big Jambox, it's hard to imagine this would not turn some folks in that camp...particularly with the smaller, more portable SL form factor. When I was in my 20s, back in the component system heyday, I had Sherwood amplifier/receiver, turntable and cassette deck with...two giant speakers with 12 inch woofers. Today, I am carrying that same big sound around the house with from room to room, some times even playing the same music I used play. What a trip. Thanks Bose.

523 of 572 people found the following review helpful.
Incremental upgrade from original SoundLink offers marginal improvement in sound
By M. Erb
Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2KY34JS4YCLIZ UPDATE: Jul 28, 2013 - I've just reviewed the BoseSoundlink Mini and it has surprisingly good sound, I actually prefer the sound of the Mini to the SoundLink. The SoundLink however can produce louder sound and has more bass. But you should definitely see if you can listen to the SoundLink Mini before making a decision because it is a pretty amazing sounding speaker for its size. Here is the ink to my review of the SoundLink mini... http://www.amazon.com/review/R2LM0EQRW8AWY6

----

My rating is closer to 3.5 but Amazon only allows whole star values so that's why I've given it 3 stars.

The Bose SoundLink Bluetooth Mobile Speaker II is an incremental and evolutionary, not revolutionary, upgrade from the previous SoundLink speaker. You'll notice a ever so slightly tweaked sound profile that Bose claims extends the bass response while also improving the clarity and definition of the mid and high frequencies.

In my A/B comparison tests between the original SoundLink and SoundLink II, the aural differences were modest. Bottom line here is that if you have an original SoundLink you needn't worry about upgrading since the sound difference is minor. The only other significant difference between the two is the SoundLink II has a different cover which is of a bi-fold design. This results in a smaller footprint at the expense of stability.

If you are sold on the Bose SoundLink and are trying to decide between the two, I'd get the original SoundLink if the price is less than the SoundLink II. You certainly won't be giving up anything significant in the sound department and other than the bi-fold cover, the SoundLink II is practically the same speaker. There has been no improvement in battery life and both utilize the same 1700mAh battery. Cosmetically the two units appear identical with the only visible difference being the new bi-fold cover.

I have previously reviewed the SoundLink speaker and viewed that speaker as a decent sounding speaker with good build quality. The SoundLink II is virtually identical so my previous comments still stand. It is a substantial, solid feeling speaker that exudes quality. That quality comes at a fairly steep price however and with the plethora of bluetooth speakers entering the market, there are many competing speakers that also offer good sound at reasonable price points and with more features.

Operation of the SoundLink II is fairly straightforward. The speaker has the ability to remember pairing with up to 6 different devices. You may also connect a wired device via the AUX input on the back of the speaker.

Pairing is fairly simple although in my attempts to pair with my iPhone 4 and a MacBook Pro notebook computer, the pairing failed in my first two attempts with both devices. I have no explanation for that suffice to say that I eventually did get the unit to pair with both, but it wasn't foolproof in the first two attempts. The SoundLink will always first attempt to reconnect with the most recently paired device and if that device is not available will search for the any other device that it has been previously paired with.

When I received the Bose SoundLink II I knew that it did not include a remote or additional features. It is a bare-bones bluetooth speaker. But many other bluetooth spekars include useful additional features such as a remote, speakerphone capability and USB charging capability. If you plan on using this speaker in a vehicle, having speakerphone capability is a big plus. Some competing products such as the EcoXbt Grace Digital ECOXGEAR ECOXBT Rugged and Waterproof Wireless Bluetooth Speaker (Black) or the Jambox Jawbone BIG JAMBOX Wireless Bluetooth Speaker - Graphite Hex - Retail Packaging, include these useful extra features. I'm not saying either of those other speakers are comparable sounding, I'm just saying that there are lots of bluetooth speakers out there in the marketplace and many offer additional features at less cost.

Battery life is unchanged from the previous SoundLink and provides a maximum of 8 hours using the same 1700mAh battery, but you'll rarely see that kind of life especially if you listen at higher volumes. Typically you can expect more like 4-5 hours of sound at louder listening levels. Bose offers an optional car charger, Bose® SoundDock Portable® and SoundLink® car charger that will allow you to simultaneously charge the SoundLink as you listen to it but as far as I know there is no USB charging option which is a pretty big disappointment for me.

The speaker cover is user replaceable but the bi-fold design may or may not be an improvement depending on your use of the speaker. In the house where it will typically be on a shelf or table, the reduced footprint of the speaker may be a benefit. However for outside use, or in a car or boat, the reduced footprint results in significantly reduced stability and the speaker is prone to tipping over backwards if bumped or as a result of sudden movement or change in attitude.

As this speaker utilizes a passive, rear facing speaker, optimal sound is realized only when the rear firing speaker has a reflective surface such as a wall behind it. Thus if using the speaker outdoors, unless it is against a wall of some sort, bass reproduction will be reduced. And another consideration of this type of speaker is that it is not intended to be put in an enclosed space such as a cubby hold in a desk or something as that will adversely affect the sound.

Overall, the Bose SoundLink II is a well-built, solid speaker. If you like the "Bose sound" you will probably like this speaker. There is great competition in the bluetooth wireless speaker arena however and it is worthwhile checking out other speakers as you may find lesser priced speakers with more features that offer very good sound and certainly more accurate, unbiased sound. Bose still does not offer as many features as other comparably priced bluetooth speakers. For the premium price Bose is charging for this speaker, I expect more.

Ultimately, everyone has differing expectations and opinions of what constitues a "good sounding" speaker. You owe it to yourself to listen for yourself before deciding and ideally being able to do some A/B listening tests. It's not easy to describe the sound of a speaker and everyone has preferences in what sounds good to their ears.

PROS:
-Compact yet full-sounding
-Nice size for travel
-Solid feel and seemingly well-built

CONS
-No USB charging (a feature available in many other bluetooth speakers)
-No remote (a feature available in other bluetooth speakers)
-No Built-in Speakerphone (a feature available in other bluetooth speakers)

238 of 259 people found the following review helpful.
Fantastic rechargeable portable bluetooth audio system
By RST
In my experience with this rechargeable speaker, I think the majority of those interested in a portable self powered Bluetooth speaker will be thoroughly satisfied if not impressed with the SoundLink II.

Expectations

I came into this speaker expecting about the same performance of other speakers this size and shape, and I couldn't have been more wrong in my expectations. From the beginning I knew this unit was different-- it's heavy, relatively speaking, for a speaker it's size in the way that many Bose speakers are. Only once you fire it up will this customary heavy feel make sense. I'd kept my eye close on the Jawbone JAMBOX Wireless Bluetooth Speaker - Black Diamond - Retail Packaging but ended up with this one.

First Impressions

From opening the box, the unit is heavier than expected, but also thinner than expected from the picture (I'll be adding some of my own pictures). Charging took about 2.5 hours, and it is usable while charging. I did open the manual for about 5 seconds for Bluetooth pairing instructions and of course it was simple-- press & hold the Bluetooth button to pair. The device is svelte, stylish, minimalist and sounds great. My parents even thought it sounded better than their less-than-year-old Wave® Music System III - Graphite Gray. It's clear that the design was well thought out-- a durable but thin magnetic speaker cover folds under and back as a stand-- very similar to how the iPad Smart Cover works.
Sound

This speaker's ability to produce mids and lows is jaw-dropping for its tiny size-- in a way that makes you want to feel, touch and flip the thing around to see where the bass is coming from. You don't even feel the normal vibration of bass which makes it even more shocking. I actually had a grin on my face the first time I started testing out the unit because of the shock of how great the sound range is. The volume isn't tremendous but the sound could easily fill a room and host a room of party goers and provide all background music-- you might even want to turn it down a bit.

My thoughts on Bose

I'm not new to Bose-- I have had the Bose Companion 5 Multimedia Speaker System - Graphite/Silverfor my PC, I have had Bose in my vehicles before and now, and use their middle channel speaker on my home theater system. This one, however, outperforms its class more than any of the others. I don't buy Bose because of the name, but because of specific situations where I think the sound or utility is superior.

Operation

Operation is simple-- press power, volume up, volume down and mute, auxiliary if you don't use Bluetooth. There is no LCD or screen, just a few small very useful lights on the front-- bluetooth active, battery status, etc. Simple, understated useful lights.

Where to use

This would be perfect for a beach party if you are the careful type and wouldn't fill it with sand. A picnic, yard party, office desk, or if you travel in sales and want to provide an impressive audio presentation with a visual and don't want to carry wires & a speaker system are all things where this would have great application. Today I used it while visiting my grandma in the retirement community to provide some relaxing background music as she was having a rough day. The uses for this device are endless. this would be a perfect device for a traveling massage therapist! I never thought I'd be so enthusiastic about a Bluetooth speaker. It's that good.

Drawbacks

So far I've only discovered two drawbacks. First, the power adapter is a bit oblong as far as the wall brick is concerned. I found myself unplugging it accidentally a few times just in the first couple hours I was using it. This one small inconvenience is why I rated the speaker 4 stars instead of 5.

Second-- the unit is heavy! Maybe worth it if that weight is what makes the sound so great and battery life good but-- you'll be shocked when you pick up this brick.

Overall conclusions

I'm still exploring battery life but so far every other aspect of the speaker has been great. It is a premium product with a premium price. I don't think you'll be disappointed. If you have any particular questions I'm always happy to answer those in the comments below.

Update: I see a few "unhelpful" votes here, which is pretty uncommon. If you find my thoughts unhelpful, please post a note in the discussion to help me improve and meet your expectations.

See all 849 customer reviews...More...

AmazonBasics Wireless Remote Control for Canon T4i, T3i, T2i, T1i, XT, Xti, 5D Mark II, 7D, 70D

AmazonBasics Wireless Remote Control for Canon T4i, T3i, T2i, T1i, XT, Xti, 5D Mark II, 7D, 70D..

Special Price AmazonBasics Wireless Remote Control for Canon T4i, T3i, T2i, T1i, XT, Xti, 5D Mark II, 7D, 70D By AmazonBasics

Most helpful customer reviews

194 of 201 people found the following review helpful.
Great Product.
By Mr. Terry Miller
I just wanted to verify the despite being half the price of the Nikon badged item this is in my estimation a better product. The reasons for that evaluation are twofold. First, it comes with a better carrying case, a soft drawstring bag as opposed to Nikon's stiff plastic which uses velcro to secure it. Second, it is more powerful than Nikon's product. It has more range. My Nikon D90 only has an infrared receiver on the front left of the camera. None in the back. However indoors, this remote is powerful enough to trigger the camera with the remote behind the camera, using bounced signal off the ceiling or walls. I think this is a "best buy". I might add that I also own the Nikon product, also purchased from Amazon.

95 of 104 people found the following review helpful.
Simple product, works with most Nikon DSLR, Great for self/group portrait and long time exposure
By Sidarta Tanu
AmazonBasics Wireless Remote Control for Nikon works with most Nikon DSLR (including D3000, D40, D40x, D50, D5000, D60, D70, D7000, D70s, D80, D90) and Nikon P7000 camera. This is a simple product. One button to trigger the camera shutter. To use this remote, first remove the clear plastic battery insulator sheet (just need to do this one/first time), and it's ready to go. This remote can be used with the delayed remote mode or quick response remote mode. It can also be used for the long time exposure by setting the camera to M mode (manual mode) and when the remote is pressed 2 seconds in delayed remote mode, the shutter will remain open until the remote control is pressed again/the second time.

Three additional things (general condition to note when using this remote):
1. Sometime the camera will automatically cancel delayed remote or quick respose remote mode after idling for a while so you might need to set it again and this is normal (you can set how long you want the setting to stay before it revert to the normal mode)
2. When using built-in flash, the shutter remote will only trigger the shutter only after the flash is completely charged (with external flash it will not wait the flash to charged up fully so sometime photos can be underexposed if the external flash doesn't go)
3. The camera will autofocus (if it is set to autofocus mode) prior to taking the photo after you press the remote button so you don't need to autofocus beforehand

This is a comparable replacement for the Nikon ML-L3 remote control (i.e. both products are good, and work as it is intended). It is great for self/group portrait (using tripod) and long time exposure (reduce shake vs pressing the camera shutter button directly)

Sidarta Tanu

181 of 208 people found the following review helpful.
Really easy to use and reliable
By Rebecca N
Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/RGHZBANLUFDD5 This is really easy to use right out of the package. You just have to figure out how to set your camera to receive a wireless remote command.

Here's a video of me doing that for my D90. It's blurry, but it gets the point across, I believe. Good luck.

Bottom line, I'm very very happy to have this remote. It allows me to take pictures with friends without trying to hold the camera at arms length. I absolutely think everyone buying a nikon DSLR should get this along with it. It seems like a no-brainer must have accessory.

See all 769 customer reviews...More...

Wasabi Power Battery (2-Pack) and Charger for Canon LP-E6 and Canon EOS 5D Mark II, EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 6D, EOS 7D, EOS 60D, EOS 60Da, EOS 70D

Wasabi Power Battery (2-Pack) and Charger for Canon LP-E6 and Canon EOS 5D Mark II, EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 6D, EOS 7D, EOS 60D, EOS 60Da, EOS 70D..

GET Wasabi Power Battery (2-Pack) and Charger for Canon LP-E6 and Canon EOS 5D Mark II, EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 6D, EOS 7D, EOS 60D, EOS 60Da, EOS 70D By Wasabi Power

Most helpful customer reviews

61 of 65 people found the following review helpful.
No good decoding chip. Not recognized by 6D. Awesome customer service.
By Adam C. Joo
I've had some successful results with non OEM batteries in the past. Since lp-e6 format has been around for a long time I thought I'd give it a try. Just got the new 6D canon released. The battery is not recognized by the camera, BUT, it does work so I gave it at least the 2 stars. You just have to live with the empty battery meter. So it's not completely useless. I'll keep them as back up. Unfortunately, I have 4 of 'em. I'll try them in the battery grip pack, to see if that'll work.

EDIT #1 (2012DEC04). I actually got a call from one of the customer service rep within 24 hours of the post. They (WASABI) weren't aware of the compatibility problem with 6D due to being such new camera, i.e. battery hasn't been updated yet. According to the rep, they are aware of the problem and the compatible battery will be available in next 1-1.5 months. He offered to send a test battery to ensure compatibility with the new 6D when available. Now that's outstanding customer service (received a star bump today)! I will update once again when the new updated battery arrives and get to play with it. Possibly elevating more stars then. So for all you early adopters with a preordered 6D like myself, look to buy WASABI in Jan or Feb.

EDIT #2 (2012DEC17). The seller now updated the title to exclude 6D, so that should help. I've now been using these batteries daily 15 minutes to an hour or so exclusively on 6D for photos and videos. Again, everytime you put in these batteries the 6D asks if you want to continue with "irregular batteries". They seem to work fine but you don't know how much charge is left. So every 2-3 days I would replace the batteries and charge them. I have yet to run them dry to the point of shut off yet. So it's still useful.

30 of 31 people found the following review helpful.
Great Quality, Super Value!
By Fun Dad Pete
This is such a great deal. I have had these batteries for almost 2 years and they have never given me any problems so I just got some more. They came charged between 60% and 80%, nice. They are rated at a higher mAH than the canon lp-e6 so they might last a little bit longer, I haven't done side by side testing. What I do notice is that these batteries function just like canon batteries. Some other non-OEM will not be this way, for example these Wasabi Power will give battery info in the camera and will charge on the canon charger. They are are reading full recharge performance in my camera's battery info after around 2 years of use.

The value is clear, for $32 you get prime shipping, 2 batteries 1 charger and 1 car cigarette lighter adapter for the charger and the foreign plug if you're going to Europe. a canon battery cost just about $58 here on amazon.

I advise doing what I did which was get two of these packages, which gives you 4 batteries and 2 car ready chargers for a few bucks more than one canon battery! I will probably buy more, you can never have too many batteries! It gives you peace of mind, especially shooting video to know that you are covered.

2 batteries in a battery grip on the Canon 7D gave me approx. 3.5hrs of continuous video recording at 1080p. so half that to get how much a single battery will approx. give you.

I have never had any problems but Wasabi Power says it will replace any non working batteries no charge within first 30 days and with only a shipping charge within the first 3 years.

Pros-

- good quality
- inexpensive
- functionally identical to OEM Canon battery
- may have longer run time than Canon Battery
- 3 year warranty

Cons-

-None

Summary-

This is the kind of modern product I really appreciate, essential for powering the camera, affordable and long lasting. The company says that their goal is for every customer to be 100% satisfied and I think that with this product that every customer will be.

It would be cool to see them make a multi battery charger, maybe a Quad?

14 of 14 people found the following review helpful.
Worked well for about 5 months
By tagnal
So, at first, these batteries were great. At a fraction of the cost, they lasted longer than my OEM battery. After 5 months or so of use, they started not getting charged to 100% (according to the battery info menu in the camera). I was still able to get a good amount of use from each charge though so I didn't really pay it much notice. A few weeks after that, charging only got up to 73%-82%. Now, at 11 months, I am used to it only saying 73% after a charge. However, now when I use it, it goes from 73% to 40% normally, then suddenly drops to 0% or dead.

I was out shooting video on my 5D3 for a commercial and it died after 5 minutes. I had just charged all my batteries (these 2 wasabi ones and my OEM canon one) earlier that afternoon. I took maybe 15 stills with it, then we started using the camera for video recording. After 5 minutes, the camera just started shutting itself off. After a little troubleshooting, I noticed the dead battery light flashing. I didn't understand how that could be as this was a newly recharged battery. So, I pulled it out and used the Canon battery and it lasted perfectly fine for the next 3 hours. A few days later I recharged the wasabi battery and played around with it while sitting at my desk and was able to recreate the issue. I tried completely draining the battery as far as I can before recharging it several times. Hasn't improved. I think I'm giving up on these batteries.

Apparently they don't sell battery reconditioners for lp-e6 batteries so I can't try it on them to see if that would help.

It's too bad. These seemed like such wonderful batteries for the first 9 or so months. I have even recommended them to several people. Guess I have to bite my tongue now. I still don't believe in paying the insane prices for OEM batteries. For the amount of use I got out of it for the price I paid, it might be okay. But, I'll probably try a different brand next time first.

Update June 4, 2013
I started using the Wasabi charger to charge the Wasabi batteries exclusively and it seems to have helped a little. Both batteries are now back to working they way they did as I described above at the 11 month point. In comparison to the OEM battery, they now last 2/3rd's as long. Not so great considering my OEM is rated for 1800 mAh and these Wasabi ones are rated at 2600 mAh...

Something else to note, the wasabi batteries are specified as 7.2v, where as other batteries (ie STK) are 7.4v. So maybe as the battery is used and its voltage slowly drops, it goes below the minimum voltage threshold of the 5D3 even though there is still a good amount of power left sooner than the other batteries. *shrug* I did initially buy the Wasabi because it was 7.2v just like the Canon one though.

The most annoying thing about using these batteries in my 5D3 is the fact that once the battery charge indicator drops below 50%, the cameras FPS drops from 6 down to 3 or so. So every charge I get full performance from 73%-50%, then reduced performance from 49%-0%.

See all 447 customer reviews...More...