Nikon 70-200 f4

[Issy]

Hi All

Does anyone have the 70-200 f4, Is it worth buying over the f2.8.
I 'm using d90 with a battery grip and would be using it hand held.

Craig

[fotog]

Hi Craig I don't have either lens but I too would like to hear about how the f4 performs. Obviously if money isn't a consideration the f2.8 would be the better buy, there is no doubt it is a fine lens. The f4 is cheaper but not as fast, but if it is as sharp as the f2.8 then it might be worth buying.

[Wayne]

Reports from respected reviewers suggest it is a very good lens, showing better mid and extreme corner sharpness than the 2.8GVRII. The 2.8VRII shows better centre of frame sharpness. The f4 apparently has more CA, distortion and vignetting.
It does come in almost $1k cheaper, so that may be a consideration.

[arthurking83]

The last known test I've seen of this lens seems to indicate that it's not quite as good as it can be for some reviewers.
All that this could mean, is that there may be some quality issues in manufacture.


FWIW: I think, that unless you want a smaller lens at these focal lengths, the better option would be either a Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS, or the Tamron version of the same type of lens.

Both of those lenses will provide similar if not better IQ in aperture ranges that coincide with the f/4 lens, but of course have the option of that extra 1 stop of aperture.
This also means a slightly brighter viewfinder too.

But where the Nikon f/4 lens has an advantage, is in it's weight and size.

Unless prices tumble quickly with this lens, it just doesn't represent very good value for money.

[Puzz1e]

I second the suggestion for the Sigma. What are you going to be shooting? do you need the extra stop of light? Is weight an issue?

I'm a big strong guy, and the Nikon 2.8 version is annoying even for me. The Sigma is only about 100g lighter. The f4 version is more manageable (almost half the weight). At current prices, I wouldn't touch the f4. Sigma is half the price of the Nikon 2.8 and performs nicely.

[Lance B]

It is supposed to be a superb lens, the equal of the 70-200 f2.8 VRII and even taked TC better!! Read this:

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html

[arthurking83]

for a comparison to another lens tho, someone's opinion is great and whorthhile, but is not really reflective of what the lens is actually capable of .. ie. when compared to a lens of similar ability or performance.

So HERE's (http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=822&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=833&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2) a review that compares images taken with the Nikon f/4 lens against various other lenses.
Use the dropdown boxes to compare other lenses at various settings too.

Also the beauty of this particular site is their reviews with TC's included. If TC's are an option for use with these lenses, then (the way I see it judging by the images on this site) .. there is no competition the thirdparty lenses shot one stop down comprehensively better the 70-200/4 with it's TC's.
(I haven't searched the site to see which TC's were employed with each lens tho .. I'm assuming Nikon's and Canon's TC's were used)

the f/4 lens has very good corners which you would really expect to see anyhow!, but at f/4 both the Sigma and Tamron 70-200's seem to have better overall image quality where it really counts 2/3rd into the frame from centre.
The extreme corners on a 200mm lens at f/4 are rarely expected to be sharp anyhow, as this is usually where the blur zone is .... ie. bokeh.
It's quite rare to expect or need a lens at 200mm and f/4 to be so sharp right into the far corners, you generally tend to stop down for this sort of scene rendering.
But having said that, having sharp corners is not an unwanted quality of any lens!

I had the f/4, the Sigma OS and the new Tammy VC lenses all on my shortlist of lenses to get as a replacement for my now old Tammy 70-200/2.8, primarily as I want image stabilisation now.
So far on price and ability, the Sigma is top of the pops, followed by the Tammy.
Once the Tammy reaches price parity with the Sigma, than the Tammy will be my preferred choice.

Unless the f/4 lens drops below the $900 range(extremely unlikely!) it's out of the running now, especially considering that a separate purchase is required for a tripod collar! ..... hopefully by about mid year, I'll have to push the purchase button on one or another.

Note too! that the Nikon glass in that review is at an advantage over the thirdparty lenses, as the Nikon glass is rendered with a higher resolving camera. Not an important point, but something else to note.

[Lance B]

for a comparison to another lens tho, someone's opinion is great and whorthhile, but is not really reflective of what the lens is actually capable of .. ie. when compared to a lens of similar ability or performance.

So HERE's (http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=822&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=833&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2) a review that compares images taken with the Nikon f/4 lens against various other lenses.
Use the dropdown boxes to compare other lenses at various settings too.

Also the beauty of this particular site is their reviews with TC's included. If TC's are an option for use with these lenses, then (the way I see it judging by the images on this site) .. there is no competition the thirdparty lenses shot one stop down comprehensively better the 70-200/4 with it's TC's.
(I haven't searched the site to see which TC's were employed with each lens tho .. I'm assuming Nikon's and Canon's TC's were used)

The f/4 lens has very good corners which you would really expect to see anyhow!, but at f/4 both the Sigma and Tamron 70-200's seem to have better overall image quality where it really counts 2/3rd into the frame from centre.
The extreme corners on a 200mm lens at f/4 are rarely expected to be sharp anyhow, as this is usually where the blur zone is .... ie. bokeh.
It's quite rare to expect or need a lens at 200mm and f/4 to be so sharp right into the far corners, you generally tend to stop down for this sort of scene rendering.
But having said that, having sharp corners is not an unwanted quality of any lens!

I had the f/4, the Sigma OS and the new Tammy VC lenses all on my shortlist of lenses to get as a replacement for my now old Tammy 70-200/2.8, primarily as I want image stabilisation now.
So far on price and ability, the Sigma is top of the pops, followed by the Tammy.
Once the Tammy reaches price parity with the Sigma, than the Tammy will be my preferred choice.

Unless the f/4 lens drops below the $900 range(extremely unlikely!) it's out of the running now, especially considering that a separate purchase is required for a tripod collar! ..... hopefully by about mid year, I'll have to push the purchase button on one or another.

Note too! that the Nikon glass in that review is at an advantage over the thirdparty lenses, as the Nikon glass is rendered with a higher resolving camera. Not an important point, but something else to note.


I have heard from a number of people, who's opinion I respect highly, that this site is not really the best site for testing. Their results are suspect amd I tend to agree.

[Puzz1e]

I have heard from a number of people, who's opinion I respect highly, that this site is not really the best site for testing. Their results are suspect amd I tend to agree.

What are they basing their opinion on?

According to DXO Mark, the Nikon f4 and Sigma 2.8 perform quite similarly. They do rate the f4 as sharper, but the Sigma as faster to focus. The sigma is also cheaper and gives you an extra stop of light.

[arthurking83]

I have heard from a number of people, who's opinion I respect highly, that this site is not really the best site for testing. Their results are suspect amd I tend to agree.

This isn't the place to debate such matters, as it's going OT to the OP's question, but my feeling is that a lot of people have their allegiances to various sites for whatever reason.
While I'm curious as to what their facts are, it'd be better to post such info in a separate thread.

But from my 'research' in following much more than just this and a couple of other sites .. all reviews seem to coincide.

That is, if you use PZ as another resource to compare say the Tammy 70-200/2.8(non VC) on a Canon against the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VRII on a D3x, the numbers posted seem to be about as close to similar to what you visually get to see on TDP(my link).

Imaging resource uses a different approach to outputting their results, so it's harder to compare, but again .. estimating comparisons between lenses is still doable and relevant from that site .. and again, the results seem to be about similar.

The word of caution tho for anyone else looking simply at test results to compare lenses, this shouldn't be the only measure of how well a lens performs too .. it's simply one part of a suite of reviews that should be used to make an informed decision.

FWIW: all review sites have their opponents, and The Digital Picture is not immune to these people .. the 'highly regarded' DxO which many people seem to think is gods word for reviews has many critics, some of which have very highly respected reputations too. I make my own choices on what information is relevant and pertinent, and tend to only read other's points of view(usually ignored tho).

for example the massively over quoted Dxo sensor performance data, whilst it can be useful, is actually pretty meaningless for most of us

.. whoopsy! I did say this wasn't the place for this discussion :o

we can take this into another thread if you wish.

[Lance B]

What are they basing their opinion on?

Evidence that they have due to a wide experience with a range of lenses and brands.


According to DXO Mark, the Nikon f4 and Sigma 2.8 perform quite similarly. They do rate the f4 as sharper, but the Sigma as faster to focus. The sigma is also cheaper and gives you an extra stop of light.

Not really questioning the speed of the focus and it is a given that the Sigma has an "extra stop of light", but it is the results of the actual resolution that are suspect.

[Wayne]

What are they basing their opinion on?

According to DXO Mark, the Nikon f4 and Sigma 2.8 perform quite similarly. They do rate the f4 as sharper, but the Sigma as faster to focus. The sigma is also cheaper and gives you an extra stop of light.

Apples with Apples...

It stands to reason on the same body, in the same laboratory controlled light, the lens with the larger aperture will focus faster if both have suitable in-built focus motors.

The Sigma also;

Has lower light transmittance
Distorts more
Vignettes more
Does not focus as close, in fact MFD is 40% greater

I also note in the DXO mark tests on the D4 and D700 the Nikon is the clear winner...

[Lance B]

This isn't the place to debate such matters, as it's going OT to the OP's question, but my feeling is that a lot of people have their allegiances to various sites for whatever reason.
While I'm curious as to what their facts are, it'd be better to post such info in a separate thread.

But from my 'research' in following much more than just this and a couple of other sites .. all reviews seem to coincide.

That is, if you use PZ as another resource to compare say the Tammy 70-200/2.8(non VC) on a Canon against the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VRII on a D3x, the numbers posted seem to be about as close to similar to what you visually get to see on TDP(my link).

Imaging resource uses a different approach to outputting their results, so it's harder to compare, but again .. estimating comparisons between lenses is still doable and relevant from that site .. and again, the results seem to be about similar.

The word of caution tho for anyone else looking simply at test results to compare lenses, this shouldn't be the only measure of how well a lens performs too .. it's simply one part of a suite of reviews that should be used to make an informed decision.

FWIW: all review sites have their opponents, and The Digital Picture is not immune to these people .. the 'highly regarded' DxO which many people seem to think is gods word for reviews has many critics, some of which have very highly respected reputations too. I make my own choices on what information is relevant and pertinent, and tend to only read other's points of view(usually ignored tho).

for example the massively over quoted Dxo sensor performance data, whilst it can be useful, is actually pretty meaningless for most of us

.. whoopsy! I did say this wasn't the place for this discussion :o

we can take this into another thread if you wish.

We can if you like but you won't be able to prove anything and I am sure neither will I. Although, I know I am correct. :D The problem with lens testings is that they test at one distance and that distance is not necessarily the best distance for the lens being tested, etc. Ther are other considerations that I won't go into here.

The OP asked about whether the Nikon 70-200 f4 was a better lens than the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and I linked to a site which I have the utmost faith in because his results mirror mine exactly, and this site shows that the Nikon 70-200 f4 handles the TC's better than the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII. Only marginally, but better. Hell, I have the 70-200 f2.8 VRII and I know how good it operates with TC's, so the Nikon 70-200 f4 would have to be bloody good to be better than it! Also, I am loathe to admit that the "lowly" f4 could be better than the very highly regarded f2.8 when TC's are added. However, I do trust Brad Hill implicitly as he has been correct and absolutely spot on with every one of his lens evaluations that I have ever read.

[arthurking83]

....

The Sigma also;

Has lower light transmittance

not according to the DxO I visit.
Sigma wins by a fraction, but the difference between them is insignificant to the point that even side by side comparisons will not reveal a difference.
According to DxO's data, Sigma is at about 0.1% from manufacturer's specs, Nikon f/4 lens is about 0.2% slower than mfg specs.

TDP don't measure this.


Distorts more

Again, not according to the DxO site I visit again.
Sigma is about 0.1% less distortful(if that's even a word??) The Nikon has more barrel at the wider end, up to about 135mm, and then a wee bit more pincusion at the longer end from 135mm and up. At about 135mm they match.
Anything less than 1% distortion is only noticeable when a dead straight line is captured in the frame .. for these sorts of lenses and the uses they're generally used for, that's not a common issue to deal with.
Again the differences are too minimal to warrant comparison.


Vignettes more
At apertures values that they share, there is no difference between them to warrant a comparison again. Of course at f/2.8 the Sigma will vignette more, this is an issue with all fast lenses.



Does not focus as close, in fact MFD is 40% greater
Given. but more importantly is the measurement given for magnification ratio. MFD as a spec on it's own is a irrelevant measurement with internal focusing lenses, as they tend to breathe(focus) as they focus closer. That is they shorten the focal length to accommodate a specific MFD value. What's more important is the actual magnification ratio, and the Nikon f/4 is slightly greater, if this is an important measurement to consider.
maximum magnifications for each lens are Nikon - 0.27x : Sigma - 0.13x so it appears that the Sigma focus breathes a little bit(shortens it's focal length to achieve it's MFD. Both values are very low in terms of magnification tho.



.... I also note in the DXO mark tests on the D4 and D700 the Nikon is the clear winner...

That may well be, but I fail to understand why DxO can't post measurement values at f/4 for an f/2.8 lens!! :confused013
It's as if they seem to think that f/4 is not a commonly used aperture setting on a 70-200 f/2.8 lens.
So there's no real way to accurately assess these apples on DxO's website!

Don't get me wrong tho, as I already said, I like DxO for some of the data they do provide .. I suppose as a community service for those of us that are unwilling to gamble with their hard earned dollars. But their data has to be taken into context and apart from a few small anomalies, a lot of their findings between these two lenses are, once again, mirrored on TDP .. just as they are on PhotoZone.

FWIW tho, I've mostly avoided DxO's lens testing site(not the data, the actual website itself) ... confusing, mostly illegible, unintelligible for the most part, and this idea of an 'overall score' and their P-Mpix figure ... I suppose it's too hard for me to visualise easily.
I'd prefer to see single figure ratings for many aspects of the lens, rather than an overall score. That is, a score for f/2.8, and then f/4 at all marked focal lengths .. etc, etc.

Or if they insist on an overall single digit figure to assess a lens, then they sould do it in a way that helps the reader determine which lens is best for them at a given price at a given moment in time .. that is a score divided by a $ value, where the user inputs a dollar value to see if one lens is better value for money than another.
for example, a lens may have a score of 21 or 23 but then this is divided by the actual cost of the lens at the time of the user's purchase.
So if lens A has a score of 21, but costs $1000, the score will be 21/1000 and if lens B has a score of 23 and it costs $1300, then the score will be 23/1300 this gives you an overall idea of value for money.

Lance, I don't doubt that the Nikon 70-200/2.8 is a great lens, in fact I know it is from a very brief experience with it too .. which is where I eventually realised that I needed VR too(just never did anything about it all these years!
But then again, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the Tamron 70-200/2.8 lens is an absolute ripper lens too.
But all this talk of the respective greatness of lenses is meaningless when it comes time to compare lenses against each other, which most of us can't do in meaningful way, as we usually have out own lens and that's it.
That is, do you know how much greater(or otherwise) the Nikon 70-200/2.8 lens is compared to another lens of similar type?

This is what has been the point at issue here, for the OP. They're unsure about whether Lens A is better or Lens B is better, and is it worth getting one over another.
I find that, mostly, folks that post these questions are open to other options as well, in the form of third party lenses, and usually the sort of question that the OP posted is usually a hidden reference to the value for money equation. That is, do I save some $ and get the cheaper but obviously lower spec lens, or do I fork out big time for the lens I think I really want?

The topic of Sigma and Tamron came up as alternatives with subsequent data to present their value for money ideology.

[Issy]

Thanks Everyone,

I think the suggestion to wait for the price to drop is a good idea. I think looking at the Sigma f2.8 is also a good idea as the price is about $400 cheaper but I do like the weight of the f4 as I guess most people will.

[J.davis]

Have a look here and judge the examples for yourself
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=13405&camera=none&perpage=12&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3

[arthurking83]

to add more confusion to the topic of what to get, Tokina have enteered into this market segment! :D

Tokina 70-200 f/4 with stabilisation (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/01/29/tokina-exhibits-70-200mm-f4-fx-and-12-24mm-f4-dx-lenses-at-cp%2b)

[Lance B]

Lance, I don't doubt that the Nikon 70-200/2.8 is a great lens, in fact I know it is from a very brief experience with it too .. which is where I eventually realised that I needed VR too(just never did anything about it all these years!
But then again, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the Tamron 70-200/2.8 lens is an absolute ripper lens too.
But all this talk of the respective greatness of lenses is meaningless when it comes time to compare lenses against each other, which most of us can't do in meaningful way, as we usually have out own lens and that's it.
That is, do you know how much greater(or otherwise) the Nikon 70-200/2.8 lens is compared to another lens of similar type?

Only anecdotal evidence from those who have used both. I have yet to see any report from anyone that has found that Sigma or Tamron was better. Here are two test results from Photozone, (a testing site I do trust and not because the results suit me but because their test results seem to back up the anecdotal evidence, as well other reputable testing sites, and many people who's opinion I respect also think that Photozone is one of the more reputable sites) one for the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII and the other from the Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 EX OS HSM (FX).
Nikon:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/511-nikkorafs7020028vr2ff?start=1
Sigma:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/763-sigmaex7020028os?start=1

Basically, the Sigma doesn't even come close in any department. My point is that there is no evidence to suggest, anecdotal or from any reputable testing site, that any Nikon mountable 70-200 f2.8 lens is as good as the Nikon VRII.

However, this does not mean that the Sigma isn't good, far from it, it is an excellent lens and you will get superb results from it I am sure if you owned one. :)


This is what has been the point at issue here, for the OP. They're unsure about whether Lens A is better or Lens B is better, and is it worth getting one over another.
I find that, mostly, folks that post these questions are open to other options as well, in the form of third party lenses, and usually the sort of question that the OP posted is usually a hidden reference to the value for money equation. That is, do I save some $ and get the cheaper but obviously lower spec lens, or do I fork out big time for the lens I think I really want?

The topic of Sigma and Tamron came up as alternatives with subsequent data to present their value for money ideology.

Not disputing whether you shouldn't bring other lenses into the equation, I only questioned the testing site you referred to as nobody that I know uses it as a reference and many respected people I know question it. You may disagree and that is fine, just stating my case. However, all I did was answer the OP's question and showed where the f4 version was considered a very good lens by a particular site operator and a site which I believed was reputable because his findings mirrored mine exactly with every other lens he has tested and used. Remember, this person not only tests them, but actually uses the lenses in the field in his day to day job. That is all I can do, give my experiences and thoughts. Here is another such tester, someone who actually uses these lenses on a day to day basis. Again, his reports mirror my findings on the particular lenses he has used and tested:
http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8g-vr-ii

[arthurking83]

...... I only questioned the testing site you referred to as nobody that I know uses it as a reference and many respected people I know question it. .....

I don't think it's a matter of my agreeing with your collective thoughts on TDP .. but what's pretty obvious when comparing TDP's actual images with other sites findings is that they're pretty much on par.

I can't understand how when a review site A seems to get similar results to review site B, review site A is not a trustworthy operator!
I'm afraid it's simply beyond my ability to see that as logical.

And it must also be remembered that not every site will get exactly the same results from the lenses they test compared with the test data from other sites, due to sample variation from each lens.
And while it's a populist approach to denigrate the likes of Sigma and Tamron among others for their higher levels of sample variance with their products, the issue is not strictly limited to these non primary manufacturer's!
Photozone, who I always keep a watchful eye on myself had an interesting review of the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR(original version) .. where they tested multiple lenses of which a couple were good, or great and others which were .. quote .. "suffered from a rather pronounced centering defect".
On the original test for the 70-200VR, Markus only referred to testing two lenses, but in a subsequent post on another forum he went on to explain about 4 lenses being tested in total!

And this is a site that you do trust!

I'm not entirely sure that a site should be trusted if take such liberties with one brand, but not extend the same testing procedure with others brands too!

How sure can we be that PZ's copy of the Sigma 70-200/2.8 didn't suffer from some unknown defect? Did they attempt to test another copy to be sure that it wasn't transport damaged, or something like that?

Anyhow, as I already said, if you look at the data on TDP, it basically mirrors what PZ has found anyhow, with slight differences which can be explained via sample variation ... where the central resolution of the Sigma is approximately 93% of what the Nikon VRII lens is capable of .. and this is regarded as "doesn't come close in any department".
I'm not sure which dictionary this explanation comes from, but it's certainly not one that I ascribe too.(that one would be definitely deposited into a bin in my household)
But of course the corners of the Sigma on PZ fail badly, as per their test. But then they never spoke about decentering and testing another copy of that lens anywhere on that review page!
I have my theories on why this is.
(refer to my comment above about trust!)

Like I said, I trust only what I see and read, and make my conclusions based on what I believe is happening and subsequently referenced to other sites both known and unknown ... not what 'my mates and their mates' think this guy is doing and what his motives may be. I realise that there's an absolute glut of respected folks out there that known a few things about certain aspects of photography. And I'm not going to be one to argue with them about their ingrained ways .. they more than entitled to their opinions on their preferred sites!
My point is that I'm not closed to any site as a source of info, unless the info is obviously idiotic!!!
And one particular name springs to mind the moment i think of such as topic .... Kay .... Ahhhhh! ;)
But even then despite all the lunacy of contradictory information on that site, it does have a few rare moment of normality and competence too(yep! hard to believe, but true)

I can't see any reason to distrust The Digital Picture's testing based on the images they present as data for each lens.
Apart from an anomaly or two here and there with the actual images, which is most likely due to variance between lenses, I see very similar IQ and patterns of IQ across the frame with the mutual lenses I have in my possession!
Of course my test target is much smaller than theirs are, and I use mine simply as a first step to determine what action I need to prepare for with any new lens .. but once that's done the chart I have never gets used again for months or years.

Anyhow, the (slightly off)topic has been bashed to a pulp from my end, and now there's a new kid on the block .. but my mind is almost now set(about which 70-200 I'll end up with in a few months), even tho I haven't yet sen enough proof to warrant my decision.

[Wayne]

I have the Nikon glass, if someone wants to send me their alleged equivalent Sigma or Tamron, I would be happy to do any side by side comparison and post the results. That would yield real world results, not simulated lab tests.

[Lance B]

I don't think it's a matter of my agreeing with your collective thoughts on TDP .. but what's pretty obvious when comparing TDP's actual images with other sites findings is that they're pretty much on par.

I can't understand how when a review site A seems to get similar results to review site B, review site A is not a trustworthy operator!
I'm afraid it's simply beyond my ability to see that as logical.

And it must also be remembered that not every site will get exactly the same results from the lenses they test compared with the test data from other sites, due to sample variation from each lens.
And while it's a populist approach to denigrate the likes of Sigma and Tamron

Populist to denegrate Sigma and Tamron? Really? The latest Sigma 35mm f1.4 has been shown to be a superb lens and outresolves the equivalent Nikon by quite a margin (a lens I have I might add) and the bokeh from the Sigma is also considered excellent and there is a flood of Nikon users showing outstanding results from it, and from what I have seen I agree, so you can't use that hoary old chestnut that "only propriety lenses get the accolades" excuse as that just isn't the case. When a top quality third party lens comes along, then it gets the deserved accolades.


among others for their higher levels of sample variance with their products, the issue is not strictly limited to these non primary manufacturer's!
Photozone, who I always keep a watchful eye on myself had an interesting review of the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR(original version) .. where they tested multiple lenses of which a couple were good, or great and others which were .. quote .. "suffered from a rather pronounced centering defect".
On the original test for the 70-200VR, Markus only referred to testing two lenses, but in a subsequent post on another forum he went on to explain about 4 lenses being tested in total!

Can you link me to that info?


And this is a site that you do trust!

Well of course!! Because they took the time to make sure they obtained a good copy and ensure that the lens they tested reflected what could actually be expected of the lens. I don't find that strange at all.


I'm not entirely sure that a site should be trusted if take such liberties with one brand, but not extend the same testing procedure with others brands too!

How sure can we be that PZ's copy of the Sigma 70-200/2.8 didn't suffer from some unknown defect? Did they attempt to test another copy to be sure that it wasn't transport damaged, or something like that?

Sorry Arthur, but talk about paranoia. It's quite simple, the Sigma they tested didn't have the centring defects. They apply the same controls for the Sigma as they do all lenses and they have had to get better examples of other Sigma/Tamron/Canon lenses in othe lens tests due to decentring and other manufacturing irregularities. No need to think there is a conspiracy against Sigma or Tamron because it ain't.


Anyhow, as I already said, if you look at the data on TDP, it basically mirrors what PZ has found anyhow, with slight differences which can be explained via sample variation ... where the central resolution of the Sigma is approximately 93% of what the Nikon VRII lens is capable of .. and this is regarded as "doesn't come close in any department".
I'm not sure which dictionary this explanation comes from, but it's certainly not one that I ascribe too.(that one would be definitely deposited into a bin in my household)

In my book that isn't close when you look at other lenses tested and can easily be seen when viewing the difference in IQ. I have had both lenses of tests that have been tested on Photozone that show differences of less than 7% and that can be clearly seen. The Sigma 35mm f1.4 mentioned above will probably only have a resolution figure in the order of 5-10% more than the Nikon 35mm f1.4, similar to the difference you pointed out for the 70-200's, but to me that is a significant enough difference to plainly see. Again, it doesn't make the Nikon poor as it isn't, it is a superb lens, it's just not as good as the Sigma version and just like your Sigma 70-200 f2.8 isn't a bad lens, it's just not as good as the Nikon.


But of course the corners of the Sigma on PZ fail badly, as per their test.

Isn't this also part of my "isn't even close" comment?


But then they never spoke about decentering and testing another copy of that lens anywhere on that review page!
I have my theories on why this is.
(refer to my comment above about trust!)

Again, paranoia. Photozone has had to get decent copies of other brands lenses due to decentring and other irregularities. It's not a conspiracy.


Like I said, I trust only what I see and read, and make my conclusions based on what I believe is happening and subsequently referenced to other sites both known and unknown ... not what 'my mates and their mates' think this guy is doing and what his motives may be. I realise that there's an absolute glut of respected folks out there that known a few things about certain aspects of photography. And I'm not going to be one to argue with them about their ingrained ways .. they more than entitled to their opinions on their preferred sites!
My point is that I'm not closed to any site as a source of info, unless the info is obviously idiotic!!!
And one particular name springs to mind the moment i think of such as topic .... Kay .... Ahhhhh! ;)
But even then despite all the lunacy of contradictory information on that site, it does have a few rare moment of normality and competence too(yep! hard to believe, but true)

Maybe so, but how do you know when to trust that particular site?


I can't see any reason to distrust The Digital Picture's testing based on the images they present as data for each lens.
Apart from an anomaly or two here and there with the actual images, which is most likely due to variance between lenses, I see very similar IQ and patterns of IQ across the frame with the mutual lenses I have in my possession!
Of course my test target is much smaller than theirs are, and I use mine simply as a first step to determine what action I need to prepare for with any new lens .. but once that's done the chart I have never gets used again for months or years.

Anyhow, the (slightly off)topic has been bashed to a pulp from my end, and now there's a new kid on the block .. but my mind is almost now set(about which 70-200 I'll end up with in a few months), even tho I haven't yet sen enough proof to warrant my decision.

If you are shooting Nikon, then I think you will find that the 70-200 f4 will be hard to beat if you take price into consideration and the fact that VR seems to be up to 5 stops of handholdability. Quite remarkable. Added to that, it works brilliantly with TC's, better in this regard than the highly regarded 70-200 f2.8 VRII. If I didn't have the f2.8 version, I would be very swayed by the new 70-200 f4.

[arthurking83]

......


Can you link me to that info?


......

I won't link the other forum, but it is a well known Nikon centric site.
But the info about the problematic 70-200VR is right there in the original incarnation of the review .. i.e D200 test.

[swifty]

Just adding to the confusion :P
Another option has just appeared in the form of a soon to be launched Tokina 70-200 f4 with stabilization. Tokina's also well reputed as a quality alternative to original manufacturer's lenses.
My personal opinion is you're splitting hairs in terms of IQ at equivalent apertures. If you need/want the f2.8 your penalty is weight and cost and your shooting habits will dictate which one's more suited. I personally have the f2.8 VRII version and its my most used lens. If I had the money I'd love the f4 in addition but it can't replace it for my line of shooting.
I've also had less success in the past with third party lenses but you can't draw conclusions from my one sample point. And despite this I'm still considering a Sigma lens (35mm f1.4 to be exact) as my next purchase so gone are the days where original manufacturer lenses automatically meant better performance so definitely consider third party alternatives as has been suggested, particularly if you're pushing your budget.
Good luck with your choice :)

[arthurking83]

Photozone has tested the 70-200/4.

As expected it's almost as good as the 70-200/2.8VRII ... not better, as some experts seem to think.

It seems that (according to PZ's comments) the VR feature is better than earlier incarnations of VR.
But I'd reckon it has more to do with the lower weight of the lens too.

[I @ M]

Looking at the photozone test it appears that the F/4 would be a perfectly logical choice for someone who primarily photographs hand held, the price point and IQ look very appealing. But --- as swifty notes, the Tokina might give it a big run for the money when it is released.

[Lance B]

I think the issue with all of these testing sites is that they only test at one subject to camera distance. Some lenses work better at longer camera to subject distances and some work better at closer camera to subject distances. It would be great if they could do 2, or even better 3, camera to subject distance tests to show where each lens' strengths and weaknesses are.

[arthurking83]

They only test different focused distances at various focal lengths and sensor formats used ... that is, the 70mm will be closer to the target than the 200mm test will be.
I think the idea is that they try to fill the focus chart to the framing.

This then means that a 200mm lens tested on a full frame camera is going to be tested at a shorter working distance if that same lens is mounted on a smaller senor camera(APS-C or 4/3rds .. etc).

Anyhow, the point is that these tests aren't supposed to be absolute. That is each test is not the definitive last word on the performance of the lens in every possible permutation and combination of each variable.
Anyone that supposes that their test is the last word about the performance of the lens is seriously deluded.
These tests are supposed to be an indication of what you could expect to see if you compare one lens to another. Expecting anything else is not a realistic proposition in the real world.

So, to perform the set of guidelines as you propose is both futile in the real world, and would end up a logistical nightmare to boot.
It's a futile effort in that all that testing will be made for no real gain .. my copy of that lens is almost certainly going to perform differently than your lens and their lens. So the point of their extended effort is what?
For sure more test data will be available, but is it really relevant, and necessary?
Anyhow ... it's simply not necessary .. and this is where opinion based reviews come in handy(such as this Brad Hill fella), and their more extensive findings.

There are many of these Brad Hill's in the world, and in Nikon circles(that I know) the most respected is Bjorn Rorslett, in both his analyses and methods(he gives simple scores) all based on testing in usage not focus targets. He explains if a lens is better at infinity or closer up, and so on and so forth. But his knowledge of technical aspects is pretty much unsurpassed.

[Lance B]

They only test different focused distances at various focal lengths and sensor formats used ... that is, the 70mm will be closer to the target than the 200mm test will be.
I think the idea is that they try to fill the focus chart to the framing.

This then means that a 200mm lens tested on a full frame camera is going to be tested at a shorter working distance if that same lens is mounted on a smaller senor camera(APS-C or 4/3rds .. etc).

Anyhow, the point is that these tests aren't supposed to be absolute.

I am fully aware of that and I never intimated they were, just that if they did use different focus distances that it would give a better indication of lens performance for people to get an idea of how it performs for a specific task that the potential purchaser may use it for. Take a macro. What's the use of doing a test at 50x focal length when it will be used at probably less than 5-10x focal length for most of it's life.


That is each test is not the definitive last word on the performance of the lens in every possible permutation and combination of each variable.
Anyone that supposes that their test is the last word about the performance of the lens is seriously deluded.

Never suggested that I ever thought they were the last word in testing as I have a great deal of experience with a vast array of lenses. However, "seriously deluded"? Awfully strong words regardless. What are you implying? I am deluded? Thank you for the heads up on that.


These tests are supposed to be an indication of what you could expect to see if you compare one lens to another. Expecting anything else is not a realistic proposition in the real world.

So, to perform the set of guidelines as you propose is both futile in the real world, and would end up a logistical nightmare to boot.

I don't see why and I completely disagree. It would not be difficult to not only test for the ususal 50x focal length and say 500x or 1000x focal length and then display two resolution figures for a prime and say 3 for a zoom. They do at least 3 tests for a zoom as it is, on the 70-200 it is 70mm, 135mm and 200mm, so what's wrong with doing a prime at at least 2 focus distances?


It's a futile effort in that all that testing will be made for no real gain .. my copy of that lens is almost certainly going to perform differently than your lens and their lens. So the point of their extended effort is what?

Well, I don't think that is correct. In this instance, it seems that there is enough anecdotal evidence that the 70-200 f4 does perform better at distance over the 70-200 f2.8 and visa versa. From what I have read about other lenses that I have and compared them to what others say about their versions of those same lenses is that mine behave very similar if not exactly the same way as theirs. So, I have to disagree when you say that each lens of the same type is that much different. If there was that much difference between lenses then these tests would be completely futile.


For sure more test data will be available, but is it really relevant, and necessary?

To someone who wants to know how their lens behaves at distance rather than a test chart at 50x focal length, yes.


Anyhow ... it's simply not necessary .. and this is where opinion based reviews come in handy(such as this Brad Hill fella), and their more extensive findings.

There are many of these Brad Hill's in the world, and in Nikon circles(that I know) the most respected is Bjorn Rorslett, in both his analyses and methods(he gives simple scores) all based on testing in usage not focus targets. He explains if a lens is better at infinity or closer up, and so on and so forth. But his knowledge of technical aspects is pretty much unsurpassed.

Then we may as well not have these test sites at all and just resort to these reports from these users. Personally, I would rather have both, but with the test sites doing a more thorough job, not just a small snippet that only tells part of the story.

Anyway, I am not going to be convinced otherwise as I have more than enough evidence that suggests lenses behave quite differently at distance compared to the standard focus distances that these tests adhere to. You are free to think what you like as I do not want to get into a pi55ing contest.

Just a final note. Here is a link to Lens Rentals and how they test lenses. It might be of note that they suggest that you do a near and far test. Half way down the page on this link:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/11/how-to-test-a-lens

It states:
"
Near distance widest aperture. Zooms should be checked at their widest, middle, and longest focal length.
If your zoom is variable aperture, be sure to mark down at what distance the aperture changes. You know your f4-5.6 zoom is f4 at the wide end and f5.6 at the long end, but do you know when it changes? Its good to know that shooting at 160mm instead of 170mm will give you f4.
At each location the lens should be checked with aperture wide open, and stopped down in incremental (1/2 or 1 stop) steps to f8. You can assume the lens has reached maximal sharpness by f8. Some may sharpen further in the corners at f11, but they’ll usually start sacrificing center sharpness there.
The same tests should be repeated at far distance.
Testing distances will vary depending on the lens, but I find it logical to test at the distances I’m likely to shoot at. I don’t shoot the 16-35 f2.8 at 4 feet away so near testing may be 10 or 12 feet for it.
Unless you’re going to really shoot at the minimum focusing distance, don’t test there. The lens will usually be sharper a few feet away."

[Sar NOP]

Photozone has tested the 70-200/4.

As expected it's almost as good as the 70-200/2.8VRII ... not better, as some experts seem to think.

It seems that (according to PZ's comments) the VR feature is better than earlier incarnations of VR.
But I'd reckon it has more to do with the lower weight of the lens too.

Why the VR is more efficient on a lighter lens ?
You'd reckon that the VR on a 70-200/2.8 is more efficient than the one on a 200/2 ?

[Lance B]

The Reason the VR is better is because it is the latest incarnation of Nikon's VR, being the new VRIII lens, not a VRII lens. Nikon are touting up to a 5 stop handholdability over the previous VRII which was supposed to be up to 4 stops.

[arthurking83]

I just read Bjorn's review on the VR of this lens, and he says that for all intents and purposes it feels about the same.

The efficiency of VR is always going to be a subjective and personal aspect I guess.

VR on a smaller and lighter lens should allow more handholdability for most users.

That is, at say 200mm with both the f/4 and f/2.8 lens, you should see a greater success rate from the stabilisation system with the f/4 lens at say 1/30s, than you would see with the f/2.8 lens.
This would be more likely due to the lighter weight of the smaller lens.