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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Archive 2013 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone
  
 
jhinkey
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


sjms wrote:
did you take in account the more then subtle weight difference between the f2.8 and f4 models. the extra 20oz (1lb 4oz) hanging off your camera may make you a little less steady and the VR work a little harder making up for it

wgt of the f2.8 is 54.4oz with the mount
wgt of the f4.0 is 30oz w/o a mount on it. even with 4oz added for the optional mount that's still ~1lb difference.

if the f2.8 VR was less superior the that of the f4 why would the f2.8 nail the focus more then the f4 since VR/focus sorta go
...Show more

For me, lighter lenses are easier to hold, but the shake has much more high frequency content which, in my experience, makes the VR work harder. Heavier lenses I can actually hand-hold to lower shutter speeds without VR because, although I'm still shaking a bit, the frequency is much slower because you just can't move a larger mass as fast.

Anyways it's easy to differentiate blur due to motion vs. focus error: Lens motion blur has everything blurry - usually in one direction - while focus blur has areas that are more in focus than the area you wanted to focus on. There's also subject motion too.

I did not notice any difference in focusing speed between the two - they both are very snappy. I think perhaps the focus error that I seem to be seeing with the f/4 version is either an AF fine tune issue or there is just more error in the focus calculation by the lens/body due to having one stop less light to deal with.

Tonight I'll be using both on a monopod with a min shutter speed of 1/250 sec and we'll see if things improve.



Feb 06, 2013 at 04:29 PM
Alan321
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


I'd expect that any lens capable of speedy AF in good light will work quickly in low light too if the camera AF is capable of handling the low light. i.e. the lens is already shown to have the fast moves needed to respond to the camera, so it's up to the camera to do its job quickly in the low light. Some will work better than others, and the f/4 is likely to slow them down some as the light drops very low.

No lens AF performance should be assessed without first getting the AF fine tuning right. Likewise, it should not be relied upon for the money shots until the AF fine tuning is right.
It seems a pity that we can no longer just buy a lens and use it reliably.


The only things holding me back from buying the new 70-200 are my desire for a new 100-400 that would render it redundant, and the significant flare shown in the PZ review.

- Alan



Feb 06, 2013 at 06:57 PM
Mark_L
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


adam613 wrote:
My thoughts exactly. I'm sure this lens is wonderful, but if I were going to spend $1400 on a 70-200, I can't imagine why I'd get this over the VR1.


Better optical quality (especially on full frame) and lower weight if you don't need f/2.8.



Feb 06, 2013 at 08:25 PM
nandadevieast
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


I was expecting much better resolution figures...at least compared to a 25 years old lens...take a look at this:
180 F2.8:
3545/2958/2892 @ F2.8
3649/3079/2943 @ F4
3734/31342982 @ F5.6
70-200: (@200mm)
3616/3046/2977 @ F4
3690/3116/3018 @ F5.6
180 resolves more in the center and corners as well. Its just the extreme corners where the zoom has a marginal lead. Zoom doesn't have f2.8 so that's a mute point..



Feb 07, 2013 at 03:51 PM
jhinkey
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


Well, my experience with the 70-200/4 is that it does much better at infinity than at near distances at 200mm FL. As I recall Photozone does not perform their lens tests at infinity-like distances.

I had the 180/2.8 up until a little while ago and the 70-200/4 is significantly better at true far distances - especially away from the center of the frame (@200mm).

As I've reported previously, my experience thus far is that at far distances this lens is much better at 200mm than at 70mm with this being reversed at very near distances.

It's still a pleasure to have in the bag compared to the 70-200VRII due to it's much reduced size and weight. If I don't need f/2.8 then the f/4 comes along.

John



Feb 07, 2013 at 04:21 PM
Ripolini
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


nandadevieast wrote
I was expecting much better resolution figures...at least compared to a 25 years old lens...


The age of a lens has no relationship with its quality. Some 'old' Leica glass is outstanding even today. Consider for example the Apo-Telyt 180/3.4 or 100/2.8 Apo-macro. This means that both basic knowledge and technology for manufacturing extremely high quality lenses were available even long time ago.

nandadevieast wrote
take a look at this:
180 F2.8:
3545/2958/2892 @ F2.8
3649/3079/2943 @ F4
3734/31342982 @ F5.6
70-200: (@200mm)
3616/3046/2977 @ F4
3690/3116/3018 @ F5.6
180 resolves more in the center and corners as well...


Resolves more ?
At f/4 we are speaking of about 0.9 % more in the center, and in the corners the zoom is even better!!!
It's a very good result for a zoom to have figures comparable to one of the best Nikkor primes.

jhinkey wrote:
Well, my experience with the 70-200/4 is that it does much better at infinity than at near distances at 200mm FL. As I recall Photozone does not perform their lens tests at infinity-like distances.


Good point.
MTF tests should be performed at various focusing distances to describe the overall behavior of a lens and to draw conclusions.
Everybody should read this page carefully.



Feb 07, 2013 at 06:41 PM
Danner
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


Regarding AF speed of the f4. I haven't shot the 2.8VRii, but I have shot a good range of Nikkors over the years, and the f4.0 is one of the snappier lenses I have used, so I would say the AF is rather quick and accurate (on my D800).


Feb 07, 2013 at 06:49 PM
jhinkey
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


I ended up shooting the f/2.8 VRII instead of the f/4 last night because at f/4 the f/2.8 VRII was giving me more light at the same shutter speed, etc. At least it seemed that way.
I was starved for light so I took the 1/2 stop or so extra.

Photozone tests seem to indicate more vignetting at f/4 for the f/4 than the f/2.8 which could be the cause of what I seemed to observe.

I will have to test this out in a more controlled environment later on . . .



Feb 07, 2013 at 06:55 PM
M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


jhinkey wrote:
Well, my experience with the 70-200/4 is that it does much better at infinity than at near distances at 200mm FL. As I recall Photozone does not perform their lens tests at infinity-like distances.

I had the 180/2.8 up until a little while ago and the 70-200/4 is significantly better at true far distances - especially away from the center of the frame (@200mm).

As I've reported previously, my experience thus far is that at far distances this lens is much better at 200mm than at 70mm with this being reversed at very near distances.

It's still a pleasure to have in the
...Show more

John - better in what way? Sharper? Can you elaborate a bit for a semi-noob?



Feb 08, 2013 at 01:53 AM
runamuck
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


I've had a Sigma 70-200 I haven't used in years because it is soooo heavy. I hope you guys are right because I just ordered one.



Feb 10, 2013 at 03:27 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



jhinkey
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


M635_Guy wrote:
John - better in what way? Sharper? Can you elaborate a bit for a semi-noob?


It's sharper at infinity than near the minimum focusing distance (like for a close head shot).

John



Feb 10, 2013 at 04:55 AM
leonkoum
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


This lens is good,very very good almost good aw the f2.8






Mar 04, 2013 at 06:11 AM
lsutigerfan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


I think the lens will prove to be excellent in all regards. I'm waiting on the slightly used/refurbished market to open up. The 180/2.8 is a prime lens, but yes -- at that age in design, you'd expect a newer lens to markedly outperform. Aspherics, lens coatings, advances in R & D, better materials, etc. usually are VERY RELEVANT -- regardless of the gentleman who commented about your "25 year old lens" statement. the 70-200 is a tele zoom, though, and the comparison is not exactly apples to apples.




Mar 04, 2013 at 06:05 PM
M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


I wound up getting an f/4 - I love it.


Mar 04, 2013 at 06:08 PM
sb in ak
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


lsutigerfan wrote:
I think the lens will prove to be excellent in all regards. I'm waiting on the slightly used/refurbished market to open up. The 180/2.8 is a prime lens, but yes -- at that age in design, you'd expect a newer lens to markedly outperform. Aspherics, lens coatings, advances in R & D, better materials, etc. usually are VERY RELEVANT -- regardless of the gentleman who commented about your "25 year old lens" statement. the 70-200 is a tele zoom, though, and the comparison is not exactly apples to apples.



I have a hard time buying at the new to the market prices as well. I'm looking to add one to my landscape kit due to the lighter weight, but I'm waiting for refurbs to show. Or possibly the Tokina 70-200, but that will probably be longer than I want to wait.



Mar 05, 2013 at 04:58 AM
M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


sb in ak wrote:
I have a hard time buying at the new to the market prices as well. I'm looking to add one to my landscape kit due to the lighter weight, but I'm waiting for refurbs to show. Or possibly the Tokina 70-200, but that will probably be longer than I want to wait.


I'm surprised Tokina announced so far ahead of time - would love to see that lens ship and see some comparisons. In the meantime, I'm really thrilled with the f/4 so far.



Mar 05, 2013 at 02:48 PM
c4change
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


I had the 2.8VR II and I am under the impression that AF speed are comparable.


Mar 09, 2013 at 09:21 PM
iseeq4life
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


So the test shows the 70-200mm F/2.8 VR1 is sharper at F/4.

A used F/2.8 is about the same price as a new F/4 but you gain a stop of light (which is not the same as lower shutter speed with better VR) at the cost of weight.

Why wouldn't I want a used F/2.8 VR1 which gives me a shallower DOF and more light if I need it if I can bear the weight.



Mar 15, 2013 at 02:00 AM
M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


iseeq4life wrote:
So the test shows the 70-200mm F/2.8 VR1 is sharper at F/4.

A used F/2.8 is about the same price as a new F/4 but you gain a stop of light (which is not the same as lower shutter speed with better VR) at the cost of weight.

Why wouldn't I want a used F/2.8 VR1 which gives me a shallower DOF and more light if I need it if I can bear the weight.


If you can bear the weight, you would want the f/2.8. Weight had me leaving my 80-200 out of my bag most of the time, and the f/4 is terrific to carry.



Mar 15, 2013 at 02:12 AM
Johnny McClung
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · 70-200 f4 VR tested on Photozone


I just sold my 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 along with my D700 to get a D800E. When I save up, getting the 70-200 f/4 because my shoulder can't take the weight anymore. Seriously, if you shoot photography for your job and have to travel, it sucks lugging all that gear. I have a ThinkTank and over the last 2 years have enjoyed slowly lightening my bag. Went from a 17" macbook pro to a 15" retina macbook pro. Now D800E (slightly less that D700) and soon the 70-200 f/4. Did the same by using my 24-120 f/4 instead. You lose a stop of light by going f/4, but you have VR3 which gives you 5 stops. That plus high-iso and clarity of D800E = no-brainer.


Mar 15, 2013 at 12:51 PM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password