These images were processed via Aperture with standard sharpening settings. I do prefer photoshop for RAW conversion, but I need to update to CS6. I'm only running CS4.
This is the first in a series of test shots I did today between the 70-200 f/4 VR and the 2.8 VR mark II. My D800 was tripod mounted, focused via magnified live view, and triggered with mirror lockup via cable release. VR was turned off.
Thanks for posting. I am curious as to how good the f/4 turns out to be. I guess a couple of advantages for the f2.8 is that the f/4 can't shoot f/2.8 and won't take a TC as well.
Here are some more 100% crops at f/8. I also shot each of these scenes at f/4, but in each instance, either the f/4 or the 2.8 was unusable due to some sort of issue... possibly shake from not letting the mirror settle long enough while using mirror lockup. Luckly, the f/8 shots were solid.
This example was shot as TIFF files, and all processing was done in camera via default processing.
interesting Ben, the f4 seems just ever so slightly more contrasty than the 2.8 version perhaps just a bit of veiling flare across a larger piece of glass?
In truth the images would be impossible to tell apart if printed
I have both lenses and did a test today with the D800. All the shots I took were handheld. I shot in RAW and used CS6 for conversion. I shot at 70, 105, 200mm at f2.8, 4, 5.6, and 8. In terms of center sharpness- both were very close. I would say at 70 and 105 my 2.8 lens had a minimal advantage. At 200mm the center was quite similar perhaps a slight edge to the f4 but I was outside and the light was changing so if there was a difference it was ever so slight. The real differences came when i looked at the corners. Again it was a D800 so full frame. At 70 and 105mm the 2.8mm lens was better in the corners. THe differences were less noticeable as I moved towards f8. At 200mm, the f4 lens was a bit better at the corners at all apertures I tested.
I'd be a lot more curious as to some comparisons at f4.0 to see how the new lens compares wide open against the f2.8 at f4. If it's really good wide open I bet a lot of people would be jumping on the new lens.
SSISteve wrote:
Thanks for posting. I am curious as to how good the f/4 turns out to be. I guess a couple of advantages for the f2.8 is that the f/4 can't shoot f/2.8 and won't take a TC as well.
Steve
Steve,
the AFS 70-200mm/4 VR takes TC as well as the 2.8 VR II does. Here is an example
To your question. Compared to all 2.8 versions (which I have) , imho is the 70-200mm/4 VR is a great lens. From a size perspective, it gets this focal range back to a size comparable to the inititial AF 80-200mm/2.8, which is handy. Except with the 2.8 VR II, the f4 lens is optical better than all previous 2.8 versions.
I posted some early impressions here at fm.
dj dunzie wrote:
I'd be a lot more curious as to some comparisons at f4.0 to see how the new lens compares wide open against the f2.8 at f4. If it's really good wide open I bet a lot of people would be jumping on the new lens.
I'll take some more samples that show them at f/4. I didn't post any this time because they didn't seem favorable toward the 2.8 lens --- so I figured something must have went wrong with those shots.
I'm really interested in the f/4 version for my d800. I'm bummed at the extra price for the collar, though. Anyone know if Kirk or RRS has or will have a collar with arca Swiss foot?
Yeah but f2.8 gives ya twice the SS or 1/2 the ISO, and the best subject isolation/gorgeous bokeh & OOF areas.
Don't see how one can compare apples and oranges...certainly didn't buy my mine to shoot at f4 just sayin'
trenchmonkey wrote:
Yeah but f2.8 gives ya twice the SS or 1/2 the ISO, and the best subject isolation/gorgeous bokeh & OOF areas.
Don't see how one can compare apples and oranges...certainly didn't buy my mine to shoot at f4 just sayin'
But some of us DID buy the 70-200VRII for shooting at f/4 and above because of the lack of viable alternatives (and my 70-300VR never measured up for me). You also need to compare the nearly twice the weight and volume and the hefty price of the f/2.8 version.
You can compare apples and oranges, you just can't expect them to taste the same.
I will likely own both and use the f/4 and f/2.8 versions where they are the appropriate tool for the task at hand. I personally would like to know how the f/4 version stacks up against the f/2.8 version because there are times when f/2.8 is a nice to have and weight/size are not paramount, but the f/4 could do the job as well. As soon as my local pro shop calls me with a 70-200/4VR I will be able to directly compare them (my first copy of the f/4 had centering issues)
I would differentiate the "double shutterspeed" topic.
1) Yes it is true and super important when shooting things in motion
2) Its kind of irrelevant when shooting things not in motion - the VR compensates this more or less easily.
just sayin'