Ripolini
Online
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread. | |
Lance B wrote:
Well, it is a 100% crop and at 1/160sec meaning the bird may have moved slightly but it still looks sharp to me considering it is a zoom and using a 2x TC. I wasn't expecting miracles, maybe you were.
Did I ever say I was expecting bitingly sharp pictures from a 70-200+2X combo?
Anyway, I told you in a previous post that the picture could be affected by motion blur; the swallow seems stuffed so I exclude subject movement: I'm afraid the IBIS/VR didn't work properly. Uhmmm .... a 400 mm FL at 1/160s, less than 2 stops IBIS performance ... It's time you go with Sony?
Lance B wrote:
As for my comments, they are my findings of the lens and how I did the test and not about what Canon are doing or whether Nikon should have made a retracting lens. That sort of discussion is for your own thread and I invite you to start a thread about the failings of Nikon and the Z lenses and telling us why Canon has got it so right for you.
Yes I could start a thread. Thank you for the permission.
BTW, I think that Nikon made the right choice at the beginning, differently from Canon: Nikon decided to produce f/1.8 primes with very good quality, even w/open, better than G siblings, not so large, at reasonably higher prices (Canon instead made f/1.2 primes that are optical gems for sure, but very very expensive and *heavy*). Nikon also introduced f/4 zooms, again with reasonable prices and compact size. This is what many people ask to a ML system: portability.
Then, Nikon introduced the 24-70/2.8 S; being a zoom starting at wide-angle focal length, it could take advantage of the short flange (nothing new: think at Leica M wideangles), thus providing better performance than the G sibling (Canon makes a fantastic RF 28-70/2 L lens, whose design and performance was possible thanks to the short RF mount).
Most likely, for the same reasons, the 14-24/2.8 S will be better than the G sibling.
Finally, Nikon announced the 70-200/2.8 S lens, and it was not difficult to predict that such a zoom could not have outclassed the FL version. Actually, the *calculated* (not measured) MTF charts published by Nikon suggest a slightly better corner performance of the S version @f/2.8 (honestly, as a photographer I don't care of corner performance in a fast zoom w/open ... I need even sharpness for tripod work, cityscapes, landscapes, etc.). Telephoto lenses have no real advantage from the short Z-mount. IMO, they should have *copied* what Canon did: make a shorter, more compact, lightweight 70-200/2.8 and let the photographer decides to accept or not the limitations of such a design (i.e. the lack of TCs). The excellent alternative already exists, both for Canon and Nikon shooters.
|
