70-200 f4 tested on Photozone

Started 3 months ago | Discussion thread
PatrickP
Contributing MemberPosts: 551
Like?
Re: Don't understand the score
In reply to anotherMike, 3 months ago

Hi Mike,

I've shot both lenses (f/2.8 VR2 and the f/4) at moderate landscape distances (1/4 of a mile +) as well as indoor at MFD, and have these observations: (more or less mirrors yours)
1) Stopped down to f/8, at 200mm, at 1/2 mile distance, the f/4 is a bit sharper across frame. but only a bit.
2) At close to MFD distance, when both lenses are shot at 200mm f/4, the f/2.8 is a bit sharper, again only a tiny bit.
3) Coinciding with Lloyd Chamber's observation in his member only review, the VR2 at MFD, shot wide open, does have frequent occurence of auto focus errors likely due to the spherical abberations. For using 51-point 3D AF and try to nail the focus at the eye of a moving kid, at 200mm f/2.8 the AF is not exactly good enough for this extreme test. The f/4 version does this perfectly fine, with close to 100% accuracy at 200mm f/4. The VR2, stopped down to f/4, does reasonably well however.  (FYI, for this 'eye-tracking' test 24-70/2.8 @2.8 does great, the 85/1.8G a bit behind but still good)

4) TC-14EII : Stopped down to f/8, the f/4 version does better at 0.5 to 1 mile distance. Again, shooting wide open at closer distances, the VR2 does *significantly* better with a TC14 on. It doubles as a 280mm f/4 perfectly well.

5) TC-20E III : I might have gotten a bad copy of TC-20. Both of my lenses does rather poorly. occassionally the VR2 does give something exceptionally sharp (close up of birds within a few meters). at distance it really sucked. images from the f/4 did not impress me no matter what.

My own rough conclusion : the f/4 version might be better for distant landscape, but the VR2 is not exactly that far behind. you lose a stop of aperture. and when the TC-14 is mounted, the difference between 280mm f/4 and 280mm f/5.6 is huge (AF speed, DOF isolation, etc). If one already own the VR2 and actually likes it, the $1400 asking price of the f/4 seems to be a hefty price to pay for a lighter lens for travel. It's a very bitter pill to swallow.

And imagine if oneday a AF-S 80-400 optimized for all-around use is released....

/Patrick

anotherMike wrote:

Personally the F/4 didn't impress me for me to consider buying it - don't read that wrong - by saying it didn't impress me means it wasn't BETTER than anything I already have (the VR2, the 85/1.8G, the 200/2, all of which are just better lenses in the distance ranges *I* work at), but it still is a very good lens, albeit perhaps one optimized more for distance work than closer in. And that's the whole thing I've been harping about for years now - lenses are often optimized for certain distance ranges and tasks, and if that distance range and/or task falls outside of what the test sites use for their tests, the lens isn't going to be reviewed as well; hence, one really needs to evaluate them on their own or read ALL of the sites along with subjective opinions from users who do test at multiple distances.

-m

---
D800E, 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8, 70-200 VR2, TC-20E3, 28-300VR, 24/1.4G, 50/1.8G, 85/1.8G.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow