Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews
  
FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell  
1       2      
3
       end
   

70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II
  
 
workerdrone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


No they are tested at equivalent apertures


Dec 10, 2012 at 11:40 AM
jmcfadden
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


Alistair1 wrote:
Ben Horne wrote:
snooked123 wrote:
No not a retina display. I do understand that you have kept sharpness at a minimum but I would still expect them to be not so soft. I felt the same way viewing dpreview's sample shots of the same lens even those processed by ACR. I don't feel the same way about Canon's 70-200mm f4 IS. I am pretty sure that I am missing something but I don't know what.

I didn't want to sharpen the samples because that would mask some of the differences between the lenses. The 2.8 VR II is regarded as an extremely sharp lens, and I've found that the f/4 VR is on par with it, and perhaps a hair sharper at some settings.

I downloaded the RAW to NEF converter, then opened the image in photoshop CS4. I then did a RAW conversion that included sharpening, then further sharpened it using unsharp mask. Let me know what you think about this comparison.





A lot better - the RHS one looks very good, the LHS less so. Presumably the RHS is the 2.8?


I think you will be suprised with the answer


J


Dec 10, 2012 at 02:33 PM
Alistair1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


jmcfadden wrote:
Alistair1 wrote:
Ben Horne wrote:
snooked123 wrote:
No not a retina display. I do understand that you have kept sharpness at a minimum but I would still expect them to be not so soft. I felt the same way viewing dpreview's sample shots of the same lens even those processed by ACR. I don't feel the same way about Canon's 70-200mm f4 IS. I am pretty sure that I am missing something but I don't know what.

I didn't want to sharpen the samples because that would mask some of the differences between the lenses. The 2.8 VR II is regarded as an extremely sharp lens, and I've found that the f/4 VR is on par with it, and perhaps a hair sharper at some settings.

I downloaded the RAW to NEF converter, then opened the image in photoshop CS4. I then did a RAW conversion that included sharpening, then further sharpened it using unsharp mask. Let me know what you think about this comparison.





A lot better - the RHS one looks very good, the LHS less so. Presumably the RHS is the 2.8?


I think you will be suprised with the answer


J

Really? the RHS is the F4 lens? Were these both shot at F4 or were they both shot wide open(same thing for the F4 lens obviously)? If the former then this is very good for the new lens but I am surprised that the F2.8 is so poor. Is an error of technique possible?


Dec 10, 2012 at 02:45 PM
Ben Horne
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


Alistair1 wrote:
Ben Horne wrote:
snooked123 wrote:
No not a retina display. I do understand that you have kept sharpness at a minimum but I would still expect them to be not so soft. I felt the same way viewing dpreview's sample shots of the same lens even those processed by ACR. I don't feel the same way about Canon's 70-200mm f4 IS. I am pretty sure that I am missing something but I don't know what.

I didn't want to sharpen the samples because that would mask some of the differences between the lenses. The 2.8 VR II is regarded as an extremely sharp lens, and I've found that the f/4 VR is on par with it, and perhaps a hair sharper at some settings.

I downloaded the RAW to NEF converter, then opened the image in photoshop CS4. I then did a RAW conversion that included sharpening, then further sharpened it using unsharp mask. Let me know what you think about this comparison.



A lot better - the RHS one looks very good, the LHS less so. Presumably the RHS is the 2.8?

Both shots are at f/4, and the RHS is the 70-200mm f/4 VR.


Dec 10, 2012 at 05:00 PM
Ben Horne
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


Alistair1 wrote:
jmcfadden wrote:
Alistair1 wrote:
Ben Horne wrote:
snooked123 wrote:
No not a retina display. I do understand that you have kept sharpness at a minimum but I would still expect them to be not so soft. I felt the same way viewing dpreview's sample shots of the same lens even those processed by ACR. I don't feel the same way about Canon's 70-200mm f4 IS. I am pretty sure that I am missing something but I don't know what.

I didn't want to sharpen the samples because that would mask some of the differences between the lenses. The 2.8 VR II is regarded as an extremely sharp lens, and I've found that the f/4 VR is on par with it, and perhaps a hair sharper at some settings.

I downloaded the RAW to NEF converter, then opened the image in photoshop CS4. I then did a RAW conversion that included sharpening, then further sharpened it using unsharp mask. Let me know what you think about this comparison.





A lot better - the RHS one looks very good, the LHS less so. Presumably the RHS is the 2.8?


I think you will be suprised with the answer


J

Really? the RHS is the F4 lens? Were these both shot at F4 or were they both shot wide open(same thing for the F4 lens obviously)? If the former then this is very good for the new lens but I am surprised that the F2.8 is so poor. Is an error of technique possible?

The shots were tripod mounted, and focused via magnified live view. VR was turned off, and the camera was set to mirror lockup. I waited roughly 3 seconds to trigger the shutter after engaging mirror lockup with my MC-30 remote. With all the various setups I've shot, this is the pattern I've seen. The f/4 version tends to be a hair sharper at f/4 than the 2.8 VR. By the time you reach f/8, they are roughly the same. I've done all my testing at 200mm.



Dec 10, 2012 at 05:05 PM
Alistair1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


Ben Horne wrote:
Alistair1 wrote:
jmcfadden wrote:
Alistair1 wrote:
Ben Horne wrote:
snooked123 wrote:
No not a retina display. I do understand that you have kept sharpness at a minimum but I would still expect them to be not so soft. I felt the same way viewing dpreview's sample shots of the same lens even those processed by ACR. I don't feel the same way about Canon's 70-200mm f4 IS. I am pretty sure that I am missing something but I don't know what.

I didn't want to sharpen the samples because that would mask some of the differences between the lenses. The 2.8 VR II is regarded as an extremely sharp lens, and I've found that the f/4 VR is on par with it, and perhaps a hair sharper at some settings.

I downloaded the RAW to NEF converter, then opened the image in photoshop CS4. I then did a RAW conversion that included sharpening, then further sharpened it using unsharp mask. Let me know what you think about this comparison.





A lot better - the RHS one looks very good, the LHS less so. Presumably the RHS is the 2.8?


I think you will be suprised with the answer


J

Really? the RHS is the F4 lens? Were these both shot at F4 or were they both shot wide open(same thing for the F4 lens obviously)? If the former then this is very good for the new lens but I am surprised that the F2.8 is so poor. Is an error of technique possible?

The shots were tripod mounted, and focused via magnified live view. VR was turned off, and the camera was set to mirror lockup. I waited roughly 3 seconds to trigger the shutter after engaging mirror lockup with my MC-30 remote. With all the various setups I've shot, this is the pattern I've seen. The f/4 version tends to be a hair sharper at f/4 than the 2.8 VR. By the time you reach f/8, they are roughly the same. I've done all my testing at 200mm.


Very interesting. Many thanks for sharing this.


Dec 10, 2012 at 05:43 PM
mark1958
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


I get very similar results as Ben gets at 200mm. At 70 and 105mm-- the 2.8 lens wins at f4 and 5.6. THe center is minimally better and the corners are better on the 2.8..


Dec 10, 2012 at 07:21 PM
Rooster L200
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


the F4 is the clear winner underlining new is always better......


Dec 10, 2012 at 07:57 PM
 



Alistair1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


mark1958 wrote:
I get very similar results as Ben gets at 200mm. At 70 and 105mm-- the 2.8 lens wins at f4 and 5.6. THe center is minimally better and the corners are better on the 2.8..

If anyone with both lenses can maintain the will to live long enough to post comparisons of a couple more focal lengths I am sure you will earn the undying gratitude of board members (me included!).


Dec 10, 2012 at 09:06 PM
allstarimaging
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


Can you post some test shots from the 70-200 F4 taken at F2.8?

Jack


Dec 10, 2012 at 10:12 PM
jhinkey
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


allstarimaging wrote:
Can you post some test shots from the 70-200 F4 taken at F2.8?

Jack

No, but I can post some shots from the 70-200 at f/2.8 after I've left it home because it weighed too much to take along on my hikes and/or climbs.


Dec 10, 2012 at 11:40 PM
rd4tile
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


I got mine today and agree that 200mm is the strength of this lens where 70-100mm was the strength of my f2.8 VR2. The TC20 III works fine on the f4 as well, the same AFAIC as it did on the f2.8. The corners are all great on mine at f4 at all zoom lengths.






  NIKON D600    400 mm    f/8.0    1/1250 sec    400 ISO    -0.3 EV  








  NIKON D600    400 mm    f/8.0    1/1600 sec    400 ISO    -0.3 EV  








  NIKON D600    400 mm    f/8.0    1/1000 sec    400 ISO    -0.3 EV  
Dec 11, 2012 at 03:25 AM
Peter Burian
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


Nice to see work being done with the new lens; I am planning to buy one.

DP Review has also started working with it an posted a preview AND sample photos. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/12/05/nikkor-70-200mm-f4-samples-gallery


Dec 11, 2012 at 06:57 PM
Peter Burian
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


That's exactly why I listed my f/2.8 VR II lens on the buy and sell board this morning. I shoot a lot of events where I must walk for very long distances and want a lens that is smaller/lighter.


Dec 11, 2012 at 06:58 PM
rd4tile
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II


Some random test shots with the f4.






  NIKON D600    200 mm    f/5.6    1/640 sec    100 ISO    -0.3 EV  








  NIKON D600    75 mm    f/4.0    1/1000 sec    100 ISO    -0.3 EV  








  NIKON D600    200 mm    f/4.0    1/400 sec    100 ISO    -0.3 EV  








  NIKON D600    70 mm    f/4.0    1/125 sec    100 ISO    -0.3 EV  
Dec 11, 2012 at 10:23 PM
1       2      
3
       end
FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Lost your password?