How sharp is a pro lens? Nikon 70-200 F4.0 AF-S VR

Forums › Digital Imaging › How sharp is a pro lens? Nikon 70-200 F4.0 AF-S VR

rayonline

1633 posts

Uber Geek

# 175821 13-Jul-2015 08:42

I just got this lens after selling my 80-200 F2.8D non AF-S in 2009. So been a while. That one didn't focus well unless you were at least 10m away sent it to Nikon centre but came back fine so I sold it. This 70-200mm is much better in that regard but I don't see it much sharper than a 85mm F1.8D non AF-S non G lens - the previous version.

Can anyone provide me a 100% crop of an unedited RAW file of what I should be seeing on mine. Considering getting the service centre to check it out.

I came across this page and down about 3/4 there is the picture of the model's eye at a 100% crop. I don't get that sharpness but I am unsure how they shot it, what make up, what post processing.

Thanks.

timmmay

15335 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1341932 13-Jul-2015 09:12

dpreview.com is probably the place to look for this. I can do a 70-200 F2.8 crop if that helps, the 4.0 will be similar.

Can you post a crop from your camera/lens? Did you have your camera looked at with the 80-200? That could be the problem.

Have to say my D700s focus is awesome - fast (AF assist required some times) and bang on. Nikon pro lenses with pro bodies are awesome.

rayonline

1633 posts

Uber Geek

# 1341943 13-Jul-2015 09:22

Will post the crop image tonight.

At the time in 2009 all I had was my D70. No I didn't send them the lens and the body. Maybe I should have. The D70 was checked in Japan by itself and re-calibrated that I requested, after I got an allen key and whacked it out so they had to adjust it LOL. Instead of saying it was within spec.

This time it is my D600 which was bought after my 80-200.

Actually here is a link I did last time some days ago.
The 80-200 is my plastic fantastic F4.5-5.6 and the 70-200mm is this F4. The full size JPEGs are exported out of Lightroom initially shot in RAW.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lnvcy3mzb69jvmc/AADFrvrK7UWFq4yG-8eEpMfBa?dl=0

Ooops, the page I was referring to is this 3/4 way down. Model's eyes crop.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f4g-vr/

Geektastic

13421 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1341961 13-Jul-2015 09:45

Firstly, the f4 is not a pro grade lens. Secondly, expecting a zoom to deliver comparable sharpness to a prime is usually an expectation you won't meet.

Thirdly at what aperture is your problem? You probably need to stop it down from f4 to at least 5.6 or even 8 to get maximum sharpness.

Fourthly, if your body has AF Fine Tune, have you carried out the procedure to fine tune the AF for your body/lens combination?

Fifthly, are you 100% sure that the lack of sharpness is a lens issue, not a mis-focus or technique error? You'll need to test this by placing the camera/lens on a solid tripod and shooting a fixed, well lit object.

Sixthly, are you getting the same result in AFS and AFC? Using AFC for stationary subjects will sometimes result in less than best focus

Seventhly are you using VR or not? VR used in the wrong circumstances will cause a loss of sharpness.

rayonline

1633 posts

Uber Geek

# 1341983 13-Jul-2015 10:17

The reason I ask is that people say the F4 lens is "unbelievably" sharp. People also say the 24-70 is sharper than many primes. They also say the 70-200 F4 is on par with the F2.8 with sharpness.

Those primes were the 1990s versions.
It was shot on a tripod, VR off, AF-S with the centre focus sensor. Wireless remote with mirror lock up. From my samples it looked like the 80-200 F4.5-5.6 is sharper than the F4 but that might be a one off? The F4 is on the similar path with the 35-70 F2.8 and with my 85 AFD lens.

AF fine tune not used yet. I tend to use that for fixed focal length lenses only. Would it be easier to let the service centre calibrate it then if it was required.

Pretty much at any aperture the plastic lens was better with the coffee jar. But at a far distance of the hills / houses the F4 was better.

Some say at closer range the F4 isn't that sharp but at further away it is more sharp, I will do more tests later in the week then prob in the weekend with daylight. By the time I get home it is dark. At closer range it is on par with a 1990s AFD prime lens so that's not bad right.

timmmay

15335 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1342054 13-Jul-2015 11:26

Your images look fine. The 70-200 F4 looks like it's built to a similar quality to the F4, if it's not pro grade it's not far off.

Your images you linked to look fine to me - what problems are you seeing? I don't use focus tuning as you often need different tuning wide, medium, and long focal lengths, and again different for close and distant subjects. If it's not up to scratch I have it calibrated.

My 70-200 and 24-70 are very sharp. 16-35 is good too, but you don't see sharpness as much with wide lenses. 50 F1.8 G is pretty impressive for the price.

rayonline

1633 posts

Uber Geek

# 1342071 13-Jul-2015 11:51

Only issue is that. When comparing the plastic (dropbox) 80-200 to the 70-200 F4. At least at closer distances with the coffee jar the 80-200mm appears more sharp?

However at a distance at afar the F4 is better.

Fred99

8792 posts

Uber Geek

# 1342074 13-Jul-2015 12:02

The 70-200 f4 has much less focus breathing than the f2.8 VRII (at minimum focus distance, the F2.8 is only about 130mm).
Focus breathing is normal for IF telephoto lenses, some are much worse than others. The f4 is as good as the f2.8 is bad for this aspect of performance.
The old 80-200 f2.8 AF-D isn't an IF design (the front element rotates and extends as the lens is focused - even though the outer lens barrel and filter ring etc stays fixed). There's some optical issues at long focal lengths and close focus distance which causes back-focus with PDAF. It's gone by the time it's zoomed back to about 135mm - or beyond 5 or 10 metres or so when set at 200mm - (it's a curly comparison with the 70-200 f2.8, which are only 135mm lenses when set at 200mm and close focus distance - so you're not comparing apples there even if you think you are). The 70-200 VRII is sharper at 200mm f2.8 at longer distances, unsurprising for a lens 20 years newer in design.
I wouldn't worry much about the f4 being slower at the 200mm end, as even f4 gives very shallow DOF (but YMMV). OTOH, at the 70mm end, then f2.8 is possibly much more useful for subject isolation.
Even if you're going to obsess about "sharpness" differences between the f2.8 and f4, there's nothing in it any sane person should worry about - or could see in a photo - which is what the lens is for - right?

timmmay

15335 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1342075 13-Jul-2015 12:03

One person supports this post

They look very similar to me, both more than acceptable. Stop worrying, go take photos.

rayonline

1633 posts

Uber Geek

# 1342146 13-Jul-2015 13:23

Thanks all.

The 80-200 F2.8D two touch the front filter thread doesn't rotate I had this some yrs ago. The older ones were not IF though.

I got the F4 b/c I didn't do event work or low light handheld much. I do mostly tripod stuff on a tripod at F11. For a social lens maybe a 35mm F1.8 would be ok for that or even a F2.0D old one. I have my 35-70mm F2.8 for the meantime that I scored for $250. I see that wedding and journalists shooters tend to get the F2.8 and landscape people tend to prefer the F4.0.

Batman

Mad Scientist
21078 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1342198 13-Jul-2015 13:58

rayonline: The reason I ask is that people say the F4 lens is "unbelievably" sharp. People also say the 24-70 is sharper than many primes. They also say the 70-200 F4 is on par with the F2.8 with sharpness.

Those primes were the 1990s versions.
It was shot on a tripod, VR off, AF-S with the centre focus sensor. Wireless remote with mirror lock up. From my samples it looked like the 80-200 F4.5-5.6 is sharper than the F4 but that might be a one off? The F4 is on the similar path with the 35-70 F2.8 and with my 85 AFD lens.

AF fine tune not used yet. I tend to use that for fixed focal length lenses only. Would it be easier to let the service centre calibrate it then if it was required.

Pretty much at any aperture the plastic lens was better with the coffee jar. But at a far distance of the hills / houses the F4 was better.

Some say at closer range the F4 isn't that sharp but at further away it is more sharp, I will do more tests later in the week then prob in the weekend with daylight. By the time I get home it is dark. At closer range it is on par with a 1990s AFD prime lens so that's not bad right.

people say a lot of things.

the-digital-picture.com has your sharpness chart of most lenses and you can compare.

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

Fred99

8792 posts

Uber Geek

# 1342210 13-Jul-2015 14:10

rayonline: Thanks all.

The 80-200 F2.8D two touch the front filter thread doesn't rotate I had this some yrs ago. The older ones were not IF though.

I got the F4 b/c I didn't do event work or low light handheld much. I do mostly tripod stuff on a tripod at F11. For a social lens maybe a 35mm F1.8 would be ok for that or even a F2.0D old one. I have my 35-70mm F2.8 for the meantime that I scored for $250. I see that wedding and journalists shooters tend to get the F2.8 and landscape people tend to prefer the F4.0.

Yes - the 80-200 F2.8D two-ring and older one-touch versions, the filter thread doesn't rotate, but the front element group inside the barrel both rotates and extends as it's focused, hence it's not a true "IF" (internal focus) design.
If buying a 70-200VR, I'd buy the f4 version too - for the weight saving. You'll always take better shots with the lens you've got with you than the one you left behind because it was too big/heavy to lug around.

The 35-70 AF-D has a similar issue with focus as the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D. With most Nikon camera manuals, this gets a special mention in lens compatibility tables - but they only tell you part of the story - that the focus confirmation dot can't be relied upon for accurate manual focus. Of course AF isn't accurate either, as it's using exactly the same system as is used to make the "dot" system work. At the 35-70 range, the mis-focus in some conditions will be much less of a problem than it can be at 200mm.

In-between the old AF-Ds and newest lenses, Nikon made an 80-200 AFS non-VR, and a 28-70 AFS F2.8. Optically very nice, but beware "bargains" - as these were Nikon's entree to ultrasonic ring-motor, they are getting old, there are many reports of problems with failed focus motors which are very expensive to fix if they fail.

rayonline

1633 posts

Uber Geek

# 1342226 13-Jul-2015 14:23

Yes the 28-70 F2.8 is quite cheap on eBay with the whistling noise (?) that the motor is aging. Not that I am interested but for some could be a ok bargain for a hobby you never know how long it may last for. But I get your point. Also the 17-35mm F2.8.

rayonline

1633 posts

Uber Geek

# 1342230 13-Jul-2015 14:24

joker97:
rayonline: The reason I ask is that people say the F4 lens is "unbelievably" sharp. People also say the 24-70 is sharper than many primes. They also say the 70-200 F4 is on par with the F2.8 with sharpness.

Those primes were the 1990s versions.
It was shot on a tripod, VR off, AF-S with the centre focus sensor. Wireless remote with mirror lock up. From my samples it looked like the 80-200 F4.5-5.6 is sharper than the F4 but that might be a one off? The F4 is on the similar path with the 35-70 F2.8 and with my 85 AFD lens.

AF fine tune not used yet. I tend to use that for fixed focal length lenses only. Would it be easier to let the service centre calibrate it then if it was required.

Pretty much at any aperture the plastic lens was better with the coffee jar. But at a far distance of the hills / houses the F4 was better.

Some say at closer range the F4 isn't that sharp but at further away it is more sharp, I will do more tests later in the week then prob in the weekend with daylight. By the time I get home it is dark. At closer range it is on par with a 1990s AFD prime lens so that's not bad right.

people say a lot of things.

the-digital-picture.com has your sharpness chart of most lenses and you can compare.

I guess with that point was for a $2k 70-200 F4 at close range at least and pixel peeping the $100 plastic lens was getting its bang for buck.