Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
glassartist wrote:
I'm going to take you to task Lance as I've been contemplating picking up the 70-200S along with the 2xTC and using it in place of my 300 f4. I'd lose a stop but gain a zoom and an extra 100mm - so I've been curious as to how the IQ compares. Certainly, the native 200 excels and the scattered reports suggest the 2xTC is in a different league than the old versions. So you are not making credit card start to vibrate . . .
Some of those images have relatively low shutter speeds for the FL. I presume those were handheld and that's the VR doing its magic?...Show more →
All were handheld and thus were a bit of "torture" test of both the VR and IQ. I was sort of going almost worst case scenarios with the first set of shots, many wide open with the lens bare and wide open with the TC's attached. This was also to try to keep the ISO's as low as possible to get least impact of high ISO. I probably wouldn't normally shoot wide open with a TC.
I'm not going to make any rash statements about which lens is better at this stage, I'll leave that to the expert reviewers.
I did some quick newspaper taped to a flat board test shots from about 4mts with my Z7 using both the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR and the 70-200 f2.8S with both the 1.4x TC and 2x TC on both lenses at 200mm on each lens, tripod mounted. So, it was 200mm bare, 280mm with the 1.4x TC and 400mm with the 2x TC. I also did wide open and one stop down.
I think I have two exceptionally good F mount TC's as I've always thought that it was a very viable alternative to gain reach on appropriate lenses like my 400 f2.8E FL VR, my 300 f2.8G VRII when I had it and my 70-200 f2.8G VRII when I had that lens. Interestinlgy, I never tried the 2x TCIII on my 70-200 f2.8E FL VR until today!! I just never got round to it, but having other lenses that will do the trick, like my 500 f5.6 PF and the 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR, meant that if I thought I was going to shoot long, then they would get the nod. Also, TC's are not as consistant as their dedcated (especially zoom) lenses like the 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR or similar. Things like AF fine tune and slower AFing etc all combine to maybe cause an issue, especially on a DSLR. Thankfully the Z cameras seem to have no issue with AF fine tune and that was the case withthe 70-200 f2.8E FL VR + TC's.
Now, we have to remember that the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR is a stupidly sharp lens and arguably the best 70-200 f2.8 you can buy up until now. I know my 70-200 f2.8E FL VR is just stupid sharp, too sharp for any zoom has any right to be, IMO. Not only that, but superb overall IQ. Having done the test shots on the newspaper, all I can say is that I can hardly tell the difference between these two outstanding lenses with or without TC's. Looking at the MTF's of the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR bare compared to the new 70-200 f2.8S they are basically as sharp as each other except the new lens is probably sharper towards the edges and I would probably concur. The new lens may be slightly more contrasty but it is still very close. I tested them wide open and one stop down and both were better at one stop down to the point that other than a loss of contrast they are excellent even with the 2x TC. Also, this was just at one camera to subject distance which is always a limitation as well as only one focal length. The limitation here is the test newspaper subject as it was difficult to see any large difference. The 70-200 f2.8S might have the edge but it is really splitting hairs at 100%.
AF speed was close, the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR *felt* faster as it was more "violent" with it's focusing, you felt the torque of the AF motor thumping it into focus, wheras the new lens was a softer feel and thus didn't "feel" as fast when is all reality the difference was marginal if at all, at least when focusing on this test chart. I think this is where part of the belief that the DSLR's *seem* much faster to AF as they are more abrupt and violent where the AF of the Z's seems softer and less commanding. In reality they difference isn't as much as it is made out to be. This is why I keep getting shots on my Z7 that I would think I may have missed but I did get as the softer AFing doesn't instil confidence as the abrupt violent AF of a DSLR, moreso with the pro spec lenses like the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR etc.
These are just my tests and I won't publish them here as I do not want to get into a debate about whether they were done correctly as there may be slight alignment issues as they were not scientific, just for my own judgement. I am more of an in the field tester as that is where you use a lens and all the sharpness tests are meaningless if the lens can't focus accurately or fast or whatever. I also don't have the time or incling to do the processing of many images in order to show every intricate detail of center and corner sharpness of multiple images with each TC, the lens bare, at differing focal lengths, differing distances and different apertures, then to find out I did something slightly wrong and have to do it all again! I will leave all that to the experts like Photography Life, CameraLabs, Ephotozine etc.
So, according to the MTF's and the preliminary reviews by on line reviewers, the new 70-200 f2.8S is the new top dog as far as lenses in this zoom range and max aperture. My tests were limited by my lack of testing equipment, time, will power and expertise in proper testing. Is the new lens better? From my testing it is minimal and the new lens may be a hair sharper but it is really difficult to tell with this limited test "chart". The TC's look as though they are also better but I can't see a huge difference in my limited testing on a test chart. What I will say is that the new lens superbly built and the finish and everything is top notch. If the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR was a 9/10 for build, the new lens may be a 9.5/10. AF is also difficult to say. The E FL VR may be a touch faster in real life but again it is possibly what *feels* fster by the violent AF of the E FL VR compared to the new lens.
Edited on Dec 11, 2020 at 09:59 PM · View previous versions
|
I thought you might have taken the new baby to the zoo 
