soft 70-200?

Hi. I am currently awaiting the arrival of this lens from B&H. This would be my first major investment in Nikon glass and want to make sure I get a good copy... although I understand that there are very few bad copies of this lens.

In any case, I was wondering how unsharp (soft) does this lens have to be to be considered a "bad copy"? starting at what aperture? what focal length? i've seen seen the newspaper tests in previous posts, so i'll be sure to try that out when my lens arrive.

in the meantime, does anyone have any examples from a soft or bad 70-200 (from testing or from the field)?

Thanks,

wil..

Why unnecessarily worry about a lens that you haven't even received yet particularly when there are hardly any complaints about this lens. Start enjoying your lens once you receive it and stop unnecessarily worrying about it.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

I agree nothing more...but a bad copy from the 17-55 is more common, not?

Ciao, William

http://www.pbase.com/tutukaka/profile

U have been reading on this forum too much...

the defect rate for lenses, esp orig equip manufacturers e.g. nikon/canon is really very low.
Just use your lens and be happy with it.

It's a great lens that delivers great shots, I love mine.

Go out with it and shoot, don't waste your time shooting test charts/newsprints etc etc...

Do note that there's a learning curve so don't expect fantastic pics on your first day of use. e.g. the dof @ 200mm and f2.8 @ 6-10m is pretty shallow.

Also realise that post-processing is imp, many of the "supersharp" shots you see posted have gone thru post processing such as color enhancement and unsharp masking (USM).

Regards

I got this lens a few months ago and it is awsome.
There is one easy "test" that you can do which is purely
subjective, but that might assure yourself that you have
a "good copy" as they say.

Assuming you shoot raw and do some normal PP with
USM, compare the amount of USM that you need to do
with your new lens compared to a consumer lens (say the
18-200). I always have to cut back on the USM when
using the 70-200. I can't give you exact numbers because
that varies with what you are shooting, but
you will see what I mean when you do the PP.

Enjoy your new lens!

--
Lou

http://loutent.smugmug.com/

Tutukaka said:

I agree nothing more...but a bad copy from the 17-55 is more
common, not?

Click to expand...

It depends on what you consider as common. Out of 26 people I personally know that have 17-55, not a single person got a bad copy. Then do I consider apparently bad copy thingy as common? Obviously not. A large majority of people (mind you I am not saying everyone) who report such bad copy occurence have never used this lens or have bad technique.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta