Reading mode: Light Dark

70-200/2.8 VRII vs VRI vs 105/2 DC - part 1: vignetting

Go to last post
T

teodorian2

Senior Member
Messages
1,870
Reaction score
22
Location
SE
I have tested 70-200/2.8 VRI, VRII and AF 105/2 DC on my Nikon D3s.

Conclusion:

All three lenses suffer from light falloff in the corners at f2.8. Best is still the prime (105/2 DC), just slightly ahead of the new VRII. VRI is the worst of the three as we already knew.

Here I have made a side by side comparison using the left half of an image of a window from our house. The files are raw processed in View NX and finished i Photoshop.

 
an interesting test - and thanks for the work.

when looking at subject (window/flower pot) peripheral vision equalizes results -- in terms of vignette and even resolution -- even further IMO.

think this proves the prime superior and that still the zooms not what one should use for landscape -- just need the right tool.
--

http://mlmusto.zenfolio.com/
 
Then your conclusion is surely correct. Although I find the difference with the new 70-200 VR rather small.

S0 I can draw another conclusion: don't be ashamed to only have the old 70-200 VR ! Even on FF.

lock
 
lock said:
Then your conclusion is surely correct. Although I find the difference with the new 70-200 VR rather small.

S0 I can draw another conclusion: don't be ashamed to only have the old 70-200 VR ! Even on FF.

lock
Click to expand...
You could always tell an amateur shooter.

They're the ones crying about the soft dim corners of the 70-200 VR I. Those are the same corners that get cropped 99% of the time and don't effect the scene or image otherwise.

Pro's will continue to make money with version I. It's among the best lenses ever on a FX camera.

Max Green
--
Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II (Pending), Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM
 
This is off from what the OP started but I feel that Mr Green's remark deserves a reply.

I know many amateurs that are as good & often better than many pros. Some of us do not care to be pros but we are very dedicated to the craft of photography. We often have better equipment & spend significant amounts of time making ourselves better photographers. We chose to be amateurs as we have other careers. Pros may well make more than half their income taking pictures but that doesn't always make them better photographers.

And lots of amateurs are nice people who don't put others down & pretend to be on a higher level.

Fred
 
ffnikclif said:
This is off from what the OP started but I feel that Mr Green's remark deserves a reply.

I know many amateurs that are as good & often better than many pros. Some of us do not care to be pros but we are very dedicated to the craft of photography. We often have better equipment & spend significant amounts of time making ourselves better photographers. We chose to be amateurs as we have other careers. Pros may well make more than half their income taking pictures but that doesn't always make them better photographers.

And lots of amateurs are nice people who don't put others down & pretend to be on a higher level.

Fred
Click to expand...
I talk straight, Fred. Amateurs are often to blame for very bad information circulating and the nearly idiotic complaints about the old 70-200 are a perfect example.

Outside of making money with my gear I don't "pretend" to be anything here. I don't post pictures, nor do I even give my identity or website here. You are free to editorialize as you wish. That said, my statement is factual. The design goal of the 70-200 was still realized on FX sensors and the issues presented by gear heads had no effect on 99% of the images taken with it.

But reading this and other forums sadly gave many the idea that the lens was grossly flawed and no longer worthy to be used on FX. The best part is that this info was parroted again and again by people who had no 1st hand knowledge at all. In fact most complaints I read were from non-owners!

I'm not putting anyone down; only highlighting an issue. If that offends someone, well too bad. And if that removes me from the "nice people" list, so be it.

Max Green

--
Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II (Pending), Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM
 
ffnikclif said:
This is off from what the OP started but I feel that Mr Green's remark deserves a reply.

I know many amateurs that are as good & often better than many pros. Some of us do not care to be pros but we are very dedicated to the craft of photography. We often have better equipment & spend significant amounts of time making ourselves better photographers. We chose to be amateurs as we have other careers. Pros may well make more than half their income taking pictures but that doesn't always make them better photographers.

And lots of amateurs are nice people who don't put others down & pretend to be on a higher level.

Fred
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with you, Fred.
Thanks to the OP for the work.
And best wishes for you all.
 
I admit, he did not chose his words very eleganty.

And in between he probably insulted Nikon's best amateur, ....but I think we should try to find his message.

I think he meant to say that "the VR I is that good, there is no real need to buy the new one".

I don't know if that if true. I do not have the new one, only the old one. And I bought it second hand, after having hired a sample several times. It's on a D300 as well, so I cannot judge the vignetting problem really well.
But from what I see here, I wouldn't make a big deal of it.

lock
 
Seems there's a lot of thin-thinned skin people around here, Max. :> ) I did want to point out, and maybe you know this, that one of those leading the charge for the 70-200 upgrade, or least providing information that others cite, is Bjorn Rorslett. His Nikon lens reviews are well-respected. He had been a staunch supporter of the VRI until shooting it on full frame. Here's his review of the VR1 and it's rating for cropped vs. full-framed DSLRs. http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AFS70-200VR . I doubt Nikon upgraded the lens because of comments from amateurs.

Alan
--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/
 
ARClark said:
Seems there's a lot of thin-thinned skin people around here, Max. :> ) I did want to point out, and maybe you know this, that one of those leading the charge for the 70-200 upgrade, or least providing information that others cite, is Bjorn Rorslett. His Nikon lens reviews are well-respected. He had been a staunch supporter of the VRI until shooting it on full frame. Here's his review of the VR1 and it's rating for cropped vs. full-framed DSLRs. http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AFS70-200VR . I doubt Nikon upgraded the lens because of comments from amateurs.
Click to expand...
Yes, and even Bjorn can be wrong. He's VERY clear in saying that the flaws on FX are an issue for landscape shooting only.

Now....here's the 10 million dollar question. Since Nikon optimized the 70-200 for shooting handheld VR on portraits, action, sports, WHY are people using such a lens for landscape work? Even the new model is bested for such work by several primes.

I respect Bjorn's comments, but since he's only being critical of a very specific application, are we to assume that nearly all users of the 70-200 were out shooting landscapes with it? C'mon.

Max Green

--
Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II (Pending), Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM
 
lock said:
I admit, he did not chose his words very eleganty.

And in between he probably insulted Nikon's best amateur, ....but I think we should try to find his message.

I think he meant to say that "the VR I is that good, there is no real need to buy the new one".

I don't know if that if true. I do not have the new one, only the old one. And I bought it second hand, after having hired a sample several times. It's on a D300 as well, so I cannot judge the vignetting problem really well.
But from what I see here, I wouldn't make a big deal of it.

lock
Click to expand...
I have the new one. It's better. But I'd be out of my mind to say that it's "much" better. For most applications the improvements are subtle. And most people won't ever SEE the differences in any practical measure.

The reason why it's improvements are not huge is because the previous version was so very good.

Max Green

--
Get your hands up or I'll shoot!!!

D700, D40, D90, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 70-200 II (Pending), Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-300 VC, Tamron 180mm Macro, Nikon 70-300vr, Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM
 
Thanks Max. As one who thought the "old" 70-200 VR I was an excellent lens on DX and FX (maybe I had a really good copy), and frankly thought there were many other lens that needed updating, I too sold the old and ordered the new. My expectations are low, in fact, I just HOPE it is agood as my old in all respects with improvement in the relatively minor soft edges-why, becaue there are times when I do use this lens for landscape.
--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/22388579@N08/
 
Jeff Klofft said:
I fail to see how this relates to the original post.
--
Jeff
Click to expand...
Have no clue?

Its clear the VRI suffers at the corners on FX. I see it in every shoot, and sometimes did wish it was sharper too.

The only difference betwen someone called a "pro" and an amateur ( with really good stuff ) is that the amateur has a different and likely very high paying job that allows him to dabble in esoteric and can spend lots of money and measurebate and pixel to his hearts content. The pro only cares that his equipment gets a shot that sells. Very different criteria from people with very different interests.

I still don't know what Max's point with his gruf reply was. Perhaps he can't afford it, perhaps someone made a comment about his lens... I too have the orginal VRI and it serves me well, but I too will likely leap to the new one very soon. Why, because it is measurably better and I can see it clearly and thus it is worth it! ;D
 
Max Green said:
Now....here's the 10 million dollar question. Since Nikon optimized the 70-200 for shooting handheld VR on portraits, action, sports, WHY are people using such a lens for landscape work? Even the new model is bested for such work by several primes.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing convenience and practicality of carrying 1 lens over about 5? John Shaw shot loads of landscapes with his 80-200mm f/2.8 (although I see from his web page he moved to the 70-200mm) - given all the praise he's got, I'm rather guessing he knows what he's doing... ;)

Personally, I've never used the 70-200mm on an FX body, so I can't comment on it being an issue or not - the test shots I've seen around here make it look like not too much of a big deal, although I do know 1 person that will not use their 70-200mm on their D3 because they think the corners are insufficient for any application. I guess it depends on the person?

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/
 
Btw, I knew you had the new one. And I'm sure you will enjoy it. Afterall, you did that wit the old one as well...

lock
 
I think to be more fair with the new 70-200 vs. the old 70-200 you should post comparison shots at 200mm. In my brief look at the new specs, mtf charts, etc. it seems that a lot of work may have been done to improve the sharpeness at the 200mm side of the zoom.

Another big curiosity of mine is if the new 70-200 focuses faster than the older one. Do you have an opinion on this to offer from your side by side shooting?
 
Max Green said:
Max Green wrote:

Yes, and even Bjorn can be wrong. He's VERY clear in saying that the flaws on FX are an issue for landscape shooting only.
Click to expand...
I also respect what Bjorn has to say but Bjorn's criteria are not always mine. Take what he says about the 300 F4 AFS. If his review was the only one on the lens, I would never have bought it. He doesn't like the lens foot, and rightly so, but doesn't comment how great the lens really is.

He makes a valid point about the foot being a springboard and Nikon being responsible for cutting corners, but add $150 for a kirk collar and this lens shines.

But that's one of the beautys of Internet, the variety of opinions which help us forge our own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top