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 hand in hand to produce a "sharp" image?
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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).
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 . . .
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
