Upload & Sell: Off
| p.3 #6 · 70-200mm f4 VR vs. 70-200mm 2.8 VR II |
Ben Horne wrote:
Ben Horne 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
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.