Man, maybe I'm blind here but it looks like it lives up to the 2.8 version just fine. Almost indistinguishable to me! Awesome! Well done, Nikon. Now where's mah new 80-400mm :P
I did some tripod shots and the differences were less noticeable. At 200mm there is very little difference between the two lenses in terms of corner/edge and center sharpness. At 70mm. the 2.8 lens still had a slight edge... in the center and corners-- but seriously the differences were pretty minimal and I think with handheld shooting-- and without pixel peeping... not noticeable. There is a bit more CA with the f4 lens.
mark1958 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Here's a comparison that includes f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8. The RAW files were processed with Aperture using the default sharpening amount. No other alterations were made. The comparison at f/4 is most interesting. Even when you stop the f/2.8 VR II down to f/4, the 70-200mm f/4 VR has a slight edge. By f/8, they are nearly the same.
Ben Horne wrote:
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.
They are almost dead nuts, but the 2.8 seems to have an ever so slight lead. I have more comparisons I will be posting in the next hour or so....Show more →
None of these look particularly good - all a bit soft. Or is it just me?
Alistair1 wrote:
None of these look particularly good - all a bit soft. Or is it just me?
Default sharpening in Aperture is very low --- almost like no sharpening at all. I find it's best to compare with this rather than oversharpening the photos and obscuring the true qualities of the lens. I prefer to use photoshop for my raw processing, but I don't have CS6 so I don't have support at the moment.
AndreasE wrote:
This little girl watched the performance with attention. Standing on the side of the audience. It was quite dark
D600, 200mm, 1/30 sec, f4, ISO 3200
this shot is amazing in TWO ways... very sharp for 200mm at 1/30, PLUS the fact that the little girl was so still that there was no motion blur at 1/30!! i rarely if ever can grab candid shots of people at that shutter speed. good example shots!
Nice test shots Ben, thanks for putting in the time to do those. I agree with you regarding default Aperture sharpening especially when viewing 100% crops!
My f4 is sitting at UPS for pickup, since I rarely shot the f2.8 VR2 at f2.8 figured there was no reason to haul it around.
thanks to Andreas as well for all his posted images with the new lens!
snooked123 wrote:
None of the shots that I have seen so far are sharp. I wonder what is going on?
Make sure you read my posts. The images intentionally have very little sharpening applied. I think many people are use to seeing images with extreme sharpening applied, but that's not very useful when evaluating a lens.
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.
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.
Ben Horne wrote:
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?
