Nikon Z 24-200 f/4-6.3 compared to Canon RF 70-200 f/4

Karl Huber wrote:

starbase218 wrote:

You can’t compare across systems, even if the sensors are the same resolution.

Nonsense.

https://www.opticallimits.com/lens-test-faq
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65447731

All I say is what my eyes tell me, and that's FAR more meaningful than any graphs.

On my Z7II or Zfc, the 24-200 is extremely sharp at 24mm and 200mm. I have the 24-70 2.8 S and 70-200 2.8 S, so I think I know what "sharp" is all about.

The 24-200 performs at a level that is fairly shocking. I really didn't believe the hype, took a shot and ordered one for casual use. It has exceeded my expectations.

Robert

MrHollywood wrote:

All I say is what my eyes tell me, and that's FAR more meaningful than any graphs.

On my Z7II or Zfc, the 24-200 is extremely sharp at 24mm and 200mm. I have the 24-70 2.8 S and 70-200 2.8 S, so I think I know what "sharp" is all about.

The 24-200 performs at a level that is fairly shocking. I really didn't believe the hype, took a shot and ordered one for casual use. It has exceeded my expectations.

Robert

Oh, I’m not saying it’s not a good lens. All things considered though, I’d expect a 2.8x constant-aperture zoom that’s closed down a bit through most of its range to outperform a smaller, lighter 8.3x variable-aperture zoom that’s half the price.

Virtual Photon wrote:

z2122 wrote:

starbase218 wrote:

You can’t compare across systems, even if the sensors are the same resolution.

I think it is ok to compare ... the output is in lines/picture height and that is total compareable

See Kenw's explanation above. Those data charts are the result of two different systems not just two different lenses.

the explanation frim kenw doesn't help -  a lot of knowledge but at the end if the day it counts which system gives more resolution and here the Z7 with the 24-200 is better

starbase218 wrote:

MrHollywood wrote:

All I say is what my eyes tell me, and that's FAR more meaningful than any graphs.

On my Z7II or Zfc, the 24-200 is extremely sharp at 24mm and 200mm. I have the 24-70 2.8 S and 70-200 2.8 S, so I think I know what "sharp" is all about.

The 24-200 performs at a level that is fairly shocking. I really didn't believe the hype, took a shot and ordered one for casual use. It has exceeded my expectations.

Robert

Oh, I’m not saying it’s not a good lens. All things considered though, I’d expect a 2.8x constant-aperture zoom that’s closed down a bit through most of its range to outperform a smaller, lighter 8.3x variable-aperture zoom that’s half the price.

Tech marches on!

Some of today's lenses are in "wildest dreams" territory if you go back just 10 years. And in another 10 years we'll see even more advancement.

Robert

kenw wrote:

DaveR43 wrote:

starbase218 wrote:

You can’t compare across systems, even if the sensors are the same resolution.

The tests used same chart, the same test conditions (lighting etc), same sensor resolution.

How would you explain the differences in results?

The R5 uses an AA filter and the Z7II does not thus the Z7II will always report a higher MTF50 than the R5 when using the very same lens. That's why comparisons across systems don't work well. You aren't testing the lens - you are testing the lens+camera and there is more going on than just sensor resolution (i.e. pixel pitch).

Besides the AA filter there is the effective fill factor of the sensor. A lower fill factor results in slightly less sensitivity for the sensor but an increased MTF50 (and aliasing) for the sensor. In fact some testing has shown the Z7/Z7II likely do have a slightly smaller fill factor than other sensors of the same resolution.

So here we are getting a double whammy with the R5 having an AA filter and the Z7II having a lower fill factor. This means that even for identically performing lenses the Z7II will show a higher MTF50 than the R5.

You can see this effect in the plots posted. By F/22 the center resolution is going to be totally dominated by diffraction and not really depend on the lens design at all. Notice that for the R5 shots the center resolution is right around 2000 LW/PH at every focal length at F/22. For the Z7II it is right around 2500 LW/PH.

your explanation is good , but at the end the whole system counts and not only the lens.

Perhaps.  But then let’s say this system is better than that system.  Not this lens is better than that one.

z2122 wrote:

Virtual Photon wrote:

z2122 wrote:

starbase218 wrote:

You can’t compare across systems, even if the sensors are the same resolution.

I think it is ok to compare ... the output is in lines/picture height and that is total compareable

See Kenw's explanation above. Those data charts are the result of two different systems not just two different lenses.

the explanation frim kenw doesn't help - a lot of knowledge but at the end if the day it counts which system gives more resolution and here the Z7 with the 24-200 is better

michaeladawson wrote:

Perhaps. But then let’s say this system is better than that system. Not this lens is better than that one.

To your point in another post, I agree that the original thread title could have said something like

"Nikon Z 24-200 f/4-6.3 on Z7 II compared to Canon RF 70-200 f/4 on R5"

Unfortunately once posted, titles cannot be changed, so far as I am aware...

BasilG wrote:

MrHollywood wrote:

All I say is what my eyes tell me, and that's FAR more meaningful than any graphs.

Yeah, who needs actual data when they can have guesswork.

On my Z7II or Zfc, the 24-200 is extremely sharp at 24mm and 200mm. I have the 24-70 2.8 S and 70-200 2.8 S, so I think I know what "sharp" is all about.

The 24-200 performs at a level that is fairly shocking. I really didn't believe the hype, took a shot and ordered one for casual use. It has exceeded my expectations.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-70-200mm-f2-8-vr-s/4

Sharpness comparison between the 24-200 and the 70-200. Not even close at 200 mm.

True.  But it would be interesting to see how the Canon RF 70-200 f/4 on an R5 compares to the Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8 on an R5, both tested under the same conditions.

michaeladawson wrote:

Perhaps. But then let’s say this system is better than that system. Not this lens is better than that one.

I’m not sure why Canon chose to equip the R5 with an AA filter. But if it was because if the possibility of moire, what is “better” suddenly becomes less obvious.

MrHollywood wrote:

starbase218 wrote:

MrHollywood wrote:

All I say is what my eyes tell me, and that's FAR more meaningful than any graphs.

On my Z7II or Zfc, the 24-200 is extremely sharp at 24mm and 200mm. I have the 24-70 2.8 S and 70-200 2.8 S, so I think I know what "sharp" is all about.

The 24-200 performs at a level that is fairly shocking. I really didn't believe the hype, took a shot and ordered one for casual use. It has exceeded my expectations.

Robert

Oh, I’m not saying it’s not a good lens. All things considered though, I’d expect a 2.8x constant-aperture zoom that’s closed down a bit through most of its range to outperform a smaller, lighter 8.3x variable-aperture zoom that’s half the price.

Tech marches on!

Some of today's lenses are in "wildest dreams" territory if you go back just 10 years. And in another 10 years we'll see even more advancement.

So what you’re saying is, the Canon RF 70-200/4 should be better, because it’s about 9 months newer?

I really don’t understand why people can’t just say “I love it, it’s sharp” without having to allude to it being sharper than a competitors much more expensive and potentially less compromised optic.

This thread seems to be generating a lot of "heat".

The OP and not the web site seems to have prepared the side by side comparison.

MTF 50 uses a 1000:1 contrast chart which is much smaller than a landscape subject.

1000:1 contrast is much greater than in many photographic subjects.

When comparing this type of result the sensor MP plays a part - though in this comparison MP is so close to equal as to be unlikely to make a significant difference to the comparison.

I agree the 24-200 does very well in this comparison, though whether in another comparison of perhaps a detailed landscape scene is not critically tested.

I would expect the Canon - which I have not handled - to have faster AF at 200mm wide open - and it has the benefit of f4 depth of field when used wide open.

My view is an MTF 50 result in isolation provides some useful information - rather than the wide range of information I need to choose to buy a lens.

In the background the Nikon lens cannot be directly fitted to a Canon body, or vice-versa

Something I would like to see is an MTF 50 comparison with the same Nikon S lens on a Z6 and Z7 body.

The Z7 seems in general to have about 15% more resolution than a D810 using MTF 50 -based on the sites slightly apples to oranges test reporting using the D810 and Z7.

In theory the Z7 with a high resolving lens should be able to produce around 25% more image resolution than the Z6 - assuming the aim is highest resolution.

jetstream wrote:

The Z 24-200 is even sharper than the Z 70-200/2.8:

I'm afraid that just does not match reality, fine all-round lens though the Z 24-200mm is.

I own both lenses, and when shooting them on the same camera and in the same conditions, the Z 70-200mm S is clearly ahead in terms of centre and corner resolution - at any focal length and aperture.

Check the review.

”For this review, the lens was tested on a Nikon Z5using Imatest.”

Explains why the scores from f/2.8 to f/8 are all in the same ballpark.