Those are nice images, but actually, measurements DO tell the whole story, and without the noise of subjective interpretations of images that are taken using infinitely varying conditions and parameters. This is the same problem we have in audiofoolery. While you can't "see" what the charts mean, they are an objective method with which to compare lenses. The measurements will broadly hold across images taken.
Thank you for the compliment, I'm glad you enjoyed the images.
Unfortunately, we disagree somewhat. Lens measurements are simply that: lens measurements. They do not quantify
rendering or
overall presentation of the resulting images. Only taking images yourself will tell the story on that. And for that, as I said, the end user simply has "to use the damned thing," in order to determine whether or not the lens will suit him or her.
Your argument essentially boils down to "it's good enough for me, therefore it's good enough for everyone". While it's great that the combo works for you, it does not help the OP to disregard objective data.
I would say if it's good enough for me it is likely good enough for anyone. I own and deploy the some of best lenses on the planet. For example, there is
no one who shoots with higher-end birding gear than I do. No one.
Not too many people have owned more macro lenses than I have. I've shot every macro lens Canon makes, most every macro lens Nikon makes, including three iterations of the Micro-Nikkor 200/4. I've also shot the Sigma 180 APO, in both Canon and Nikon mounts, not to mention the Voigtländer 125 APO and 65 APO macros, the Leica 100 macro Elmarit, etc. I know what the results from the finest macro lenses look like, deploying them in both the studio as well as in the field.
That said, the Z 70-200/2.8 S belongs in this company. Easily. And no it's not a macro lens. And that's where actually using the lens, versus "looking at charts" tells the real story.
Before I decided to part with the Micro-Nikkor 200/4, I took it in the field and shot it
alongside the Z 70-200 S, for butterflies specifically. Butterfly photography is one of my passions.
Even knowing the fact that the 70-200 S has its lowest MTF figures @ 200, and even knowing the fact that this is likely going to be augmented with a 2x TC as well, I still had "to shoot the damn thing" to make a final assessment. Reading charts does nothing for me. I already knew, going into it, that the bare Micro-Nikkor would likely beat the 70-200,
if I was able to fill the frame identically. The trouble is, trying to get that close with the 200 macro lens was far more difficult than getting close enough with the 70-200 zoom + TC
These are the kinds of things no "chart reader" will be able to discern is
how many more keepers one gets when using the 70-200 S + TC (400mm w/ .4x reproduction ratio) versus
how many misses one will get trying to deploy the Micro-Nikkor 200/4 in order to get "close enough" to obtain the same shot.
Not only that, with the VR of the of the 70-200, combined with the IBIS of the Z7 II, I was able to nail so many more butterfly shots
handholding, than I ever could nail with the Micro-Nikkor – which does
not lend itself to handholding, nor does it even work with the Z system. I would always have to deploy a tripod, and get several steps closer, using the micro-Nikkor which cost me the shot more often than not.
So while, yeah,
if I can get the same framing, and use a tripod, I might be able to do better with the Micro-Nikkor 200/4, in a perfect world.
However, buy "having used the damned things," in the field, I can guarantee that 99% of field photographers would find the Micro-Nikkor 200/4 to be a paperweight, and would always deploy the 70-200 S + TC instead, if they had this choice as an option.
And that's to speak nothing of the other benefits, for me. I'm a reptile photographer also. It's been a passion since I was eight years old. The Z 70-200/2.8 S operates
at its uttermost between 70 and 135 mm. At 70 mm, the 70-200 actually out-resolves the Voigtländer 65/2 APO, wide-open @ f/2.8. For me this is huge! I actually sold my 65/2 Voigtländer, because it served no useful purpose for me anymore, since my zoom was better @ 70mm than the 65/2.
To the OP, I've gone back and forth on this as well, and my current thoughts are that the fairest comparison is to put the 1.4x TC on both lenses. So the decision is between:
Lens 1: 70-200 f/2.8 or 100-280 f/4 with TC
Lens 2: 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 or 140-560 f/6.3-8 with TC
To put it politely, this is nothing but "mental gymnastics," it's not actually deploying these lenses in the field.
I must admit, in order to walk my talk, I will have to have to buy the 100-400 myself, and use it myself, in order to determine its utility for me.
The trouble is, once start approaching 400mm, then my 400 FL ED can be deployed, and I highly doubt the 100-400 5.6 zoom is going to make me part with the 400/2.8 FL ED
Although it only has a .16 reproduction ratio, with the D500 (1.5x crop), along with a 1.4x TC, I have the framing equivalent of .34x — from 9 feet away! Although I use this lens more for birding, takes pretty awesome butterfly shots itself, and from distances so great that even the 70-200 would fail to get the shot, let alone any macro lens:
Tawny Emperor
The Queen
Mexican Yellow
Still, the zoom might make its way into my bag, ultimately, as it is lighter, and (more importantly) the Z 100-400 zoom has
a native .38x reproduction ratio, which is pretty huge if one is shooting butterflies. This is even truer sense "the charts" show it operates at its best at the long end.
So I'm not downing the 100-400, I see its use. But as somebody who already owns a 400 FL ED, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to buy. If I didn't have this FL ED lens already, or the 70-200 S, then I might be sorely tempted to opt for this upcoming zoom instead.
If it was a continuous f/2.8 (or possibly even f/4), I would be more tempted to purchase it. But because I personally shoot a lot of reptiles, and because the Z 70-200 is a continuous f/2.8, and because of already compared it directly against the Micro-Nikkor 200/4, I'm pretty satisfied with what I have. YMMV
Good luck,
