Roger, thanks for your continued insight! Read your new article today, great work as usual! (Would appreciate it even more if you tested Nikon lenses 😇.
RCicala wrote:
There are some design issues (IMHO) that make it a lens that definitely won't take a drop well. But outside of that I've not seen lenses just loose sharpness over time. Whenever we work on one (including this one) that suddenly got 'less sharp' we almost always find something has broken inside. If I had one, I'd treat it rather carefully, but wouldn't worry that it would change optically over time.
I think a good way to consider lenses like this is take a step back and realize a new lens is made by committee. The designers, if they're aggressive want to make a best ever statement. The accountants want to bring it in under budget. The marketing people want amazing computer generated MTF curves they can pre-sell. That's where the power is.
The manufacturers division (and much of this is outsourced) are asked if they can meet specs, and often say yes even if they can't - because to say no means not getting the business or getting labelled 'can't do' within the company.
Sometimes this ends up with a lens designed to extremely tight tolerances that make amazing theoretical optics, but that can't be consistently manufactured to the needed tolerances. Preventing this actually comes from the bean counter businessman who, if they are old experienced hands may tell those young aggressive designers and marketers they've seen financial disasters when lenses don't meet expectations. Sony doesn't have old, experienced bean counters who have seen financial disasters yet, their lens arm is new and churning out new designs at a never seen before rate.
I think we're seeing a bit of 'wisdom comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement' here. I think going forward the GM division may back away from the cutting edge, tiny tolerance designs, stop believing when outside manufacturers promise to meet specs they can't possibly meet, and consistency will improve. But that doesn't generally happen half-way through a lens manufacturing run. It mostly happens when Version II comes out. ...Show more →
Blakehfreeman wrote:
Roger, thanks for your continued insight! Read your new article today, great work as usual! (Would appreciate it even more if you tested Nikon lenses 😇.
I do!! And I included all of the Nikon Cine Primes for that Cine Prime article
Mystik wrote:
MTF chart data is what it is...what I tend to question is the materiality of it all when it comes to actual photos being taken. The danger of putting too much weight into MTF charts and what not is the potential for confirmation bias....and basically looking for problems because of the reputation a particular lens has.
Believe it or not, but that is exactly my philosophy too and that is exactly why I am posting here. MTF charts can never tell me will I like rendering, only my eyes can tell me that, MTF charts are just one piece of information that might indicate whether there is something I should keep in mind while researching further (especially when they are contradicting).
Next is scouring number of reviews and forums for experiences and samples. If they are all leaving consistent impression (whether consistently positive or consistently negative) then I have gathered enough info to decide what is my next step (if consistently positive it is worth giving it a shot, if it is consistently negative it is likely my time and money would be wasted so I will pass).
But if that step too leaves me with data that is all over the place then I might ask for further info, like I did here.
RCicala wrote:
We've been doing some really cool experimental stuff as we roll out new software that I bet you'll like. There will be some stop-down MTF comparisons in a post today, but next week we'll be showing two new kinds of testing no on has seen before. I guarantee y'all will like "best possible MTF at each point tests".
Oh, oh, oh, don't tease us like that!
RCicala wrote:
I haven't touched the 100-400 yet. ... The 70-200 f/4 is not quite as good at 70mm and f/4 as the GM is at 70mm and f/2.8. At other focal lengths the f/4 is as good or slightly better at f/4 as the GM is at f/2.8. Of course, stopped down to f/4 the GM is better at all distances. Personally I like the f/4 because that focal length tends to be a vacation / walk around lens for me and the smaller size is important there.
Thank you again! I just placed an order for 2.8, 4, 4.5-5.6 and x2 TC so by the end of next week I should hopefully be able to form more complete opinion what to do next.
I think this is where the disconnect is when people disagree about the performance of the lens on the interwebs. Personally, I don't think the lens sucks. I think it is underwhelming for its price point. The rub is when content owners of the lens are offended by the harsh wording used by those that are underwhelmed by the lens for the given price point.
When I pick up a 70-200, I would like for it to perform well consistently and at varying distances at 200mm wide open. It's not that the GM "sucks" at 200. It's that it is underwhelming and not as good as several copies the Canon I previously owned at that FL.
In general, outside of 200mm, it has performed pretty well for me as it certainly "gets the job done" across the range. But is it impressive? Certainly not. It does exactly what you stated, make relatively flat and not the greatest bokeh images that are not at the sharpness level one would hope for at 200mm for a 2600 dollar lens. But again, this is not to say that it sucks. It is simply underwhelming but still gets the job done (especially if you need a native option for the range). ...Show more →
Underwhelming and unimpressive. I think those words are good choice. I think I will try to remember to use them instead of "sucks". Or sucks.
ZoranC wrote:
Believe it or not, but that is exactly my philosophy too and that is exactly why I am posting here. MTF charts can never tell me will I like rendering, only my eyes can tell me that, MTF charts are just one piece of information that might indicate whether there is something I should keep in mind while researching further (especially when they are contradicting).
Next is scouring number of reviews and forums for experiences and samples. If they are all leaving consistent impression (whether consistently positive or consistently negative) then I have gathered enough info to decide what is my next step (if consistently positive it is worth giving it a shot, if it is consistently negative it is likely my time and money would be wasted so I will pass).
But if that step too leaves me with data that is all over the place then I might ask for further info, like I did here.
With regards to the 70-200GM, my experience is that rendering and bokeh are larger considerations than sharpness. Again I've never found myself faulting the sharpness of the lens in real world photos. But the GM lenses do have a very flat rendering...I tend to like this for the 85GM, as that's very specifically a portrait lens and that flat rendering leads to more pleasing skin tones and a nice portrait glow. For a more general purpose lens like the GM, I'm not overly fond of the flat rendering. Same with the 24-70GM which is highly regarded for its MTF performance.
Bokeh is not the best, but this tends to be the case with zooms in general...including the Canon 70-200II. If you want pleasing bokeh, it's best to use a prime....and when I had the Canon 70-200II, I owned the 135L next to it.
ZoranC wrote:
My interpretation of your words was that you were suggesting one shouldn't judge this lens if it underwhelms sharpness wise, that one judges a picture. Thus I did feel my response was related to it because a) this thread is not about pictures, it is about lens, and lenses are judged based on their technical performance, and b) to be able to tell how "good" or "bad" certain lens is one has to compare it against competitors in same class and class is typically determined by price ballpark. Yugo was never in class of Porsche, nor it aspired to be, neither through price nor through name (_Grand Master_ Yugo). But if it was it would've been judged based on performance against Porsche. ...Show more →
That is not what I was suggesting at all - that the picture is what really matters. That would indeed be irrelevant in a thread about a lens. I mentioned briefly that I have abandoned pixel peeping.
I still love the lens and am happy with its technical performance. In my experience it is far superior to the Sony f4. I do not have and have not tested the Canon, which I understand is much beloved, because I shoot only Sony and Leica bodies and prefer not to adapt expensive lenses.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
I think this is where the disconnect is when people disagree about the performance of the lens on the interwebs. Personally, I don't think the lens sucks. I think it is underwhelming for its price point. The rub is when content owners of the lens are offended by the harsh wording used by those that are underwhelmed by the lens for the given price point.
When I pick up a 70-200, I would like for it to perform well consistently and at varying distances at 200mm wide open. It's not that the GM "sucks" at 200. It's that it is underwhelming and not as good as several copies the Canon I previously owned at that FL.
In general, outside of 200mm, it has performed pretty well for me as it certainly "gets the job done" across the range. But is it impressive? Certainly not. It does exactly what you stated, make relatively flat and not the greatest bokeh images that are not at the sharpness level one would hope for at 200mm for a 2600 dollar lens. But again, this is not to say that it sucks. It is simply underwhelming but still gets the job done (especially if you need a native option for the range). ...Show more →
$2,600 is a lot of money, but whether or not the lens is worth it depends on how you derive the value of the lens. A 70-200 lens is a workhorse lens for me....and getting the job done is actually a greater priority than pure optical quality for a lens like this. Would I feel better about the purchase if it measured better than the Canikon versions? Of course...its a lot of money and its nice to have some hard data validating the purchase. But I don't find the Sony inferior to the Canon when it comes to real world images, and comprehensively, things like eye AF and more accurate AF are big upsides to the GM, so there's a give and take. Wide open at longer focal lengths, the DOF on these lenses is very narrow, the keeper rate is much higher on the Sony, and for my uses, that's more important as pure MTF performance.
At one point I had both the Canon and the Sony 70-200II's in hand. People here were asking me if I compared them and the answer is no, because regardless of the outcome, the Sony is the better lens for me.
Mystik wrote:
$2,600 is a lot of money, but whether or not the lens is worth it depends on how you derive the value of the lens. A 70-200 lens is a workhorse lens for me....and getting the job done is actually a greater priority than pure optical quality for a lens like this. Would I feel better about the purchase if it measured better than the Canikon versions? Of course...its a lot of money and its nice to have some hard data validating the purchase. But I don't find the Sony inferior to the Canon when it comes to real world images, and comprehensively, things like eye AF and more accurate AF are big upsides to the GM, so there's a give and take. Wide open at longer focal lengths, the DOF on these lenses is very narrow, the keeper rate is much higher on the Sony, and for my uses, that's more important as pure MTF performance.
At one point I had both the Canon and the Sony 70-200II's in hand. People here were asking me if I compared them and the answer is no, because regardless of the outcome, the Sony is the better lens for me. ...Show more →
I am not so much concerned about needing hard data to validate my purchase. To this day, I still haven't actually looked at an MTF chart for this thing.
What actually prompted me to start looking into the lens further was when I was getting consistently unimpressive results at 200 when first using the lens. It seemed odd to me so I decided to investigate.
Prior to getting the lens, it was actually one of few purchases I had made in recent memory where I didn't mull over it too much since I knew I needed the FL range and I wanted something native.
I'm not one to care about MTF charts whether theoretical or real world tested as they are seldom ever indicative of how I will feel about what I can do with it in my hands.
While I agree that worth is based on how you derive value from the lens, I believe that your description of said value is based heavily on being a part of the captive audience in what you need and what is available. That doesn't necessarily equate to something being generally worth it. As by this logic, the GM 70-200 could've been an even worse performer and a user like you or I would still consider it worth it.
My point is, as a 70-200/2.8 lens, it is intrinsically (when compared to other options in other systems) underwhelming.
elizabeth77 wrote:
That is not what I was suggesting at all - that the picture is what really matters. That would indeed be irrelevant in a thread about a lens. I mentioned briefly that I have abandoned pixel peeping.
I still love the lens and am happy with its technical performance. In my experience it is far superior to the Sony f4. I do not have and have not tested the Canon, which I understand is much beloved, because I shoot only Sony and Leica bodies and prefer not to adapt expensive lenses.
Thank you for the clarification I too prefer not to adapt lenses _if_ I don't have to but when left with no worthy choice I consider all options available to me.
RCicala wroteThere are some design issues (IMHO) that make it a lens that definitely won't take a drop well. But outside of that I've not seen lenses just loose sharpness over time. Whenever we work on one (including this one) that suddenly got 'less sharp' we almost always find something has broken inside. If I had one, I'd treat it rather carefully, but wouldn't worry that it would change optically over time.
Your repair article showing that potential for serious internal damage with very little apparent external signs of a drop was what concerned me far more than MTF charts re the GM 70-200. I've dropped my canon 70-200 f2.8 L II a couple times this past year, once on gravel and the other on concrete, and aside from a couple scuffs it still performs flawlessly. I'm pretty confident I could use it to defend myself in a zombie apocalypse and still put it back on my camera without issues.
That said, I agree with the rest here that understand that AF performance (speed and accuracy in non-ideal light) has a far greater affect on apparent sharpness than perhaps a slight difference at sharpness for some copies, at certain focal lengths. For now the GM 70-200 f2.8 is the only native option and adapted glass just can't compare in challenging conditions (even if adapted glass can perform quite well in ideal light).
Even if I don't dip my toes back into the Sony E mount, I love its existence! It's pushing Nikon to innovate and that's incredibly healthy for all involved. The biggest winner is the consumer so I'm happy 🙌🏻👍🏻
I do hope Sony figures out the issues that prevented this lens from hitting its theoretical MTF when they release a Mark 2 as that'll push the industry forward. sungphoto wrote:
Your repair article showing that potential for serious internal damage with very little apparent external signs of a drop was what concerned me far more than MTF charts re the GM 70-200. I've dropped my canon 70-200 f2.8 L II a couple times this past year, once on gravel and the other on concrete, and aside from a couple scuffs it still performs flawlessly. I'm pretty confident I could use it to defend myself in a zombie apocalypse and still put it back on my camera without issues.
That said, I agree with the rest here that understand that AF performance (speed and accuracy in non-ideal light) has a far greater affect on apparent sharpness than perhaps a slight difference at sharpness for some copies, at certain focal lengths. For now the GM 70-200 f2.8 is the only native option and adapted glass just can't compare in challenging conditions (even if adapted glass can perform quite well in ideal light)....Show more →
Supposedly it only addresses focusing beyond f11, but manufacturers sometimes include other fixes without disclosure. Especially if they've never acknowledged a problem in the first place.
Supposedly it only addresses focusing beyond f11, but manufacturers sometimes include other fixes without disclosure. Especially if they've never acknowledged a problem in the first place.
With hybrid AF CDAF is used to focus at wider apertures too, it's just that at smaller apertures it uses CDAF exclusively. Interested in seeing what the impact really is in real world shooting.
Mystik wrote:
With hybrid AF CDAF is used to focus at wider apertures too, it's just that at smaller apertures it uses CDAF exclusively. Interested in seeing what the impact really is in real world shooting.
Haven't had a chance to run it after installing last night. In the quick testing in my living room last night (metering around f/2.8, 1/125th, ISO 5000), it appeared to be much snappier than I remember (especially when going from completely defocused to focused). But that may just be the placebo effect. Will report back when I get a chance to actually shoot it in the wild.
I like the results I get with this lens. At full res these images are crisper but you get the gist. I actually think it has character but then, I think that of most of the GMs.
elizabeth77 wrote:
I like the results I get with this lens. At full res these images are crisper but you get the gist. I actually think it has character but then, I think that of most of the GMs.
I have recently sold my Nikon D810 along with the very latest iteration of their 70-200 FL lens - great combo - bought a7rIII and the 70-200 GM - I am happy with the trade-offs, and have found few shortcomings for my style of work with the Sony lens - which is saying something since that Nikkor is the best of its kind "on paper." I also owned Canon's equivalent.
If you are shooting on Sony and need the full speed and function of this lens genre, the GM is it over adapted lenses. Is the Nikon on Nikon better than the Sony on Sony? More the same than different - like the average Democrat or Republican. Small differences, but the same thing.
ZoranC wrote:
I've taken at samples you've posted above (thank you!) and I hope you will not misunderstand me when I say performance of the lens in them did not impress me, quite the opposite.
Show us your images that will impress people with you 70-200 of choice.
.
I too prefer not to adapt lenses _if_ I don't have to but when left with no worthy choice I consider all options available to me.
