ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.7 #3 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released | |
bernardl wrote:
Btw, could you please share a link to these reports?
Thank you.
Regards,
Bernard
Here is one video.
At around 10:14 there is a side-by-side comparison though since these are not test chart photos, it's not an exact comparison. The maker of the video (Jan Wegener) says "the 100-400 has a slight edge in image quality but the differences are marginal." Personally given these two images the 70-200+2X would never get used, because the first impression of the two images the 100-400 image just pops with more clarity, and I can't shake such impressions and don't really want to, either. The 100-400, while a good zoom, isn't a reference lens at 400 mm. In tests, the inexpensive 180-600 beats the 100-400 at 400 mm (see e.g. Steve Perry's comparison), let alone 400/4.5 or 400/2.8. If I buy an expensive lens, it had better produce the best quality that is available within my price range at that focal length.
I should add that while lensrentals show there is significant sample variation in zooms (including lenses like 70-200/2.8 by various makers) where one sample is sharper (than other copies) in a particular area of the frame at a particular focal length and less sharp than other copies in other areas of the frame and/or at other focal lengths, I've never really noticed this in lenses that I've owned. However, where it comes to TCs I've never liked the results from them except well stopped down (which greatly limits their application). It's typical that at the longest focal length you need the fastest aperture so as to be able to freeze movement (as the subject and camera shake is magnified compared to shorter focal lengths), but when you add TCs, you lose aperture and the additional requirement to stop down adds nails on the coffin for me. Additionally there is an effect from the additional glass-air surfaces of the TC which makes me feel a bit like the photos had been shot through a window (slight exaggeration, but probably you get what I mean). It's not just my kit, when looking at printed images from the best wildlife photographers in the world in the WPY book or gallery, I also get the same impression. People use TCs because they have to, to get the shot, but the quality from 2X TC isn't comparable with what is obtained with a prime lens of the correct long focal length. The 1.4X is not bad and sometimes can be hard to tell that it's not a prime lens. TCs have the additional disadvantage that it's quite time-consuming to take them off and put them on because of the caps that are needed, and a lens like 70-200 with TCs is not as quick to change focal lengths from 100 mm to 400 mm, for example than the 100-400mm. Why is this important? If I'm photographing an outdoor concert for example, there is usually a lot of people near me and fiddling with TCs would result in the song ending before I am done switching the TC on/off. A 100-400 can do a whole band view and close-up of a performer in one turn of the zoom ring, more or less. Similarly if I shoot figure skating, in exhibition (theatrical) lighting I prefer the 200/2. The 100-400 is just too slow for that, and resulting images are suffering in quality. In competition lighting I can (just) use the 100-400 and cover a singles skate or ice dance from the end of the rink and while the close-ups at 400 mm f/5.6 are acceptable again they fall a bit behind from ideal quality (there is some noise and/or subject movement blur), but the advantage is being able to cover the performance without switching between setups. Quality-wise I prefer other lenses in this situation (primes or zooms with smaller range, so I can only get some shots but those that I do get will have better quality), but sometimes make the compromise for the coverage. A TC setup would give me neither coverage nor quality in this application. At shorter focal lengths the 100-400 isn't limited to f/5.6, in fact at least my copy is sharpest wide open across the range (at least in the central area of the frame), so I can in many cases shoot the widest shots at f/4.5 which makes it a bit faster than the 70-200 + 2X when the photographer has the TC stuck on the lens because they don't have time or inclination to take it off and put caps on etc. It might be raining or snowing, for example, and fiddling with TCs and caps is no fun. At the short end of the range and in the middle the 100-400 is really very good in image quality and its relative sharpness wide open makes it useful for me.
I recently got the Z 1.4X mostly for use with the 400 mm f/4.5 since some tests show that stopping down 2/3 stops puts it slightly above the 180-600 mm at f/8, and I already had the lens so I figured it would be a cost-effective and allow me to avoid purchasing the 180-600. It is indeed quite good at 560 mm f/8 and I would say the results in bright light are acceptable, but it forces me into a zone where I have to get a lot of shots to get some that are optimally sharp (due to subject movement and slow shutter speed), and this in turn leads to a lot of time spent afterwards on the computer to select shots. This time is away from field time, exercise etc. activities that I enjoy. Thus I would always choose to photograph with a setup where I can do something before taking the shot to ensure success and minimal editing rather than rely on luck and taking a lot of shots at a slower shutter speed. For small birds there isn't much choice if one wants enough depth of field to cover the bird from beak to tail, a small aperture may be needed, and in that case the best quality shots may often be a result of burst shooting, but this something I only do occasionally when there is an interesting opportunity, nature photography without any animal coverage can be a bit boring, so some setup is needed to make the whole a bit more alive.
I know there are a lot of TC users in particular in the wildlife/bird photography community. However, starting from the 70-200 and adding TCs doesn't quite seem like the best recipe in terms of quality you get for your money.
|
Both without mentioning other use cases with opposite results and even less the excellence of both options relative to real world situations and how images are used.