180 prime: do you agree with this...?

<p>Hi, <br />I saw this page comparing 180 AFD F2.8 with 70-200 F2.8 VR..<br>

http://dipastro.pd.astro.it/~cosmo/bepi/Photography/Photo%20Tests/180%20vs%2070-200%20SHARPNESS%20TEST/index.htm<br>

<br />If you look at the crops shown, the prime is pathetically soft at 2.8, even in the center...<br />My question is, does it match your experience in the field?<br />The crops show that 180 is sharper than 70-200 at F8...if you look at the photozone review of the prime, it shows that there's not much difference between 2.8 and 5.5....F5.6 being the sharpest aperture...and F8 in fact goes down a bit. <br />regards,<br />anurag </p>

<p>I'm doubtful about the testing methodology. I see what appears to be camera motion blur in a few photos with both lenses.</p>

<p>It would be interesting to know more about the tripod and head used, how the 180/2.8 was supported (presumably via the body since that lens lacks a tripod mount), how the 70-200/2.8 was supported (body, lens or both?), how the camera was triggered (by hand or remote?). A 2-second self timer delay might not be enough depending on those factors.</p>

<p>There may also be sample variation in the lens. Most tests I've seen, even informal user tests, show the 180/2.8 usually fares very well in comparisons with the 70-200/2.8 VR.</p>

<p>No MLU, test data are insufficient to judge the test setup. Of course these are valid results that show what you may expect in real life but for judgement of the lens quality I'd go for people/sites that have proven experience in testing, like photozone, dpreview, etc. And take every test with a grain of salt.</p>

<p>I think this is the 1st version of the VR 70-200/2.8? It is especially good at long distances but softer at close distances at the long end. I compared the 180/2.8D with the 1st version of 70-200/2.8 at a few meter distance and the prime was sharper at f/2.8; the zoom caught up at f/4 and was maybe slightly better in the center at that aperture. However the 180/2.8 was better towards the outer parts of the frame at f/2.8 in my test up close, as it is in the comparison shown in the article with the longer distance test (areas 11 and 12). The 2nd version of the 70-200/2.8, the infinity performance is compromised relative to the 1st version (especially stopped down) but very high performance is obtained in the near distance range; better at f/2.8 than the 180/2.8D. The 2nd version of the 70-200/2.8 has improved corner sharpness over the original. Interestingly, Nikon recommends the 180/2.8D for astrophotography and i've obtained excellent results with the lens over distances of a few kilometers, in night urban landscape photography (where there are spot light sources).</p>

<p>Notice that the 180mm is notoriously difficult to focus precisely and I can only see this problem increasing towards infinity. This could contribute to the test results, as it certainly does to real world results. MLU should also be used since the lens doesn't have a tripod mount.</p>

<p>The advantage of the 180mm prime remains that it's much smaller, lighter and less conspicuous than the zoom. I sold mine in frustration with the focusing. If Nikon made an AF-S 180/2.8 with improvements in the precision of focusing, wide open sharpness and reduced LoCA, I would buy one in a heartbeat. However, I think the updates to the 135/2 and 105/2 are due earlier, as there is already a 200mm prime with AF-S and VR, no matter that it doesn't maintain the advantages of low weight and small size of the 180mm prime (actually this matters a great deal, but it is what it is). I use the VR 200/2 II myself now for situations where I need low light performance or smooth background blur and the 70-200/2.8 II for when I don't need those two. I'm not happy about the situation but understand that Nikon has a diverse customer base and they can't attend to everybody at once.</p>

<p>What's obvious from those tests is that the sample of 70-200 zoom used suffers quite badly from decentring. Just compare clips 10 and 11, and 7 and 9 to see that the righthand edge is much clearer than the left. I'm afraid that this is quite common with many modern zooms and some IF lenses, where a whole bunch of elements get shuffled about inside the barrel. This raises another issue, which is whether the 180mm prime was a typical or poor sample, but at least its image quality is consistent right across the frame and into the corners.</p>

<p>Anyway, that aside. It doesn't surprise me to see an older design of prime beaten by a newer zoom at wide apertures. The sharpest lens that I possess in that focal length is an old Vivitar Series 1 AF 70-210mm f/2.8 Apo. The pity is that it now has some misting inside that reduces its contrast a little.</p>

<p>Apart from the obviously slightly faulty sample of zoom, I don't think there's much wrong with the test methodology. MLU is grossly overrated, and does next to nothing if a sturdy enough tripod and/or high enough shutter speed is used. Besides, how would lack of MLU make the f/2.8 shots (presumably taken using an 8x higher shutter speed) look less crisp than the ones at f/8?</p>

<p>I use the 180mm f/2.8 frequently on a D700. It's nowhere near soft, and my results do not correspond with this test. Comparing to my AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 (sorry, no 70-200VR in my bags), I prefer the 180mm f/2.8 at wide apertures.</p>

<p>I never did any formal or remotely scientific testing of either lens, I just use the lenses and check the results. Yes, the AF of the 180mm seems to miss more often by an annoying tiny bit than my zoom (which in turn is not very sharp at short distances) - but when it's got it right, it gets it very right.</p>

The 180 mm lens looks too soft. I have the older manual focus version (AI-S with ED glass) and when downsampled from D600 to D700 image size it's sharper at f/2.8 than the crops in the article.

<p>I also have the 180 ED AIS, and must say, it is one of my favourite lenses - crisp and sharp from 2.8 onwards - plenty of detail and biting contrast from D3 all the way to D800. I've never used the AF version but by most accounts it sounds similar if not slightly better optically - certainly capable of producing better results than the examples above. I'm a huge fan of the 180, in my opinion, it is one of the finest lenses Nikon ever made and certainly has a character that is hard to define using MTF charts and other pixel-counting tests... Just my two cents...</p>

<p>My 180mm AF is sharp enough wide on D600 and D800 bodies. Stopping down even 1/2 stop increases sharpness significantly. The 80-200 AFS I have is probably a little sharper open vs. open, but, in practice, it is about 1/3 T stop slower, so in low light use the two are about a wash when transmitting the same light.<br>

For portraits, I like having the option for slightly soft at 2.8, or sharp at f4. Watch for high contrast backlight subject color fringing.</p>

<p>Hmmmm... I managed to make my language as complicated as possible. What I meant to say is: my 180 f/2.8 (AF, non-D) is sharp. From wide open on. Very sharp. Gets better at f/4, but is completely useable wide open.<br>

I think the test page deals with either a bad 180mm, or the AF was completely off.</p>

Mine is great. I've had the armored AF-D version since it came out, the earlier one was plastic. It has a really beautiful

rendition of faces and clothing etc at f4, so at one time when I used to shoot some bridal and formal fashions, that was a

go to lens for me. After a while, around 1999 I started experimenting using the amazing Hasselblad 180mm on 6x6 at

similar distances and just using the crop area from the big negative. That will make you forget the test above ;-)))

<p>I wonder how the new Sigma 180mm f/2.8 Macro would do in this test, it does have a bracket and optical stabilization.</p>

<p>My latest version 180/2.8 AF-D Nikkor is sharp on DX and FX, wide open. Sharper than the 70-200 VR1 or VR2.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'd go for people/sites that have proven experience in testing, like photozone, dpreview, etc. And take every test with a grain of salt.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This should be chiseled into marble with gold leaf in the letters.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks guys. Some of these tests can be little dis-heartening, especially if you're going to buy the equipment reviewed. <br>

Is there a possibility that at 100%, this is what you get, but when printed and at smaller sizes, the files look sharp...??<br>

This and some other lenses are older designs, so arguably they may not be as good as the newest. Unfortunately, in the prime land, Nikon has been slow in updating their lenses...some of the lenses can't walk with the cameras they make...though i have only read this, don't have first hand experience.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Anurag, At least 5 posters here that have used a 180 AF have offered the opinion that the 180 is at least comparable to various versions of the 2.8 zoom at f/2.8 settings. My experience is that minute focusing errors or motion blur would tend to compromise absolute image sharpness more than the inherit capability of the 180 itself. <br>

The D800 and to a lesser extent D600 cameras do seem to reveal more faults in operator technique than the D700 that I was using. I have upped the care I take to achieve good focus and minimal motion blur when using these cameras. Should have been operating with that same care all along, anyway. Sort of like using medium format vs 35mm. An in focus 35mm image would be better than a slightly out of focus MF image, for an analogy.<br>

As a side note, my 180 does not seem to be any more fussy about achieving focus than other lenses of similar length and opening, at least at somewhat close ranges, on the D800 and D600.</p>

<p>Robert, i have been looking at 180 for some time...now that i have bought a D800, i will have to purchase something in this range...the new 70-200/4 or the 180...right now i can't judge which one, so time will help me perhaps...i do have a 200-600 panasonic on my OMD, so till i decide, i will not left without pictures...</p>

<p>I think the 70-200/4 (or 2.8) VR would be considerably more versatile and at least as sharp, if not sharper, if you do not have anything in that range. A 180, 135DC, 105DC, 105VR, or fast 85 could be added later to "play" with. The 2.8 VRII my friend has is really very good, as is my older 80-200 AFS Don't know anybody with the f/4 version, but I am sure that it is excellent, as well.</p>

<p>Robert..<br>

I will perhaps buy the new F4 and wait for the prime update. <br>

Old 180s are available here in India readily. I will try pick up one if really cheap. <br>

Thanks a lot, appreciate. </p>

Photozone has tested the

new 70-200 f4 on D3X.

What's interesting is that

the 180 f2.8, which was

tested on the same very

camera, outresolves the

newer lens at f5.6,in the

center and equals it at f4.

Border and corners are

better with the new lens,

but not much better.

Pleasant surprise for the

20 year old prime..

Hi. Would like to edit the

earlier post...it was

incorrect.

 

Photozone comparison

reveals that the 180

resolves more in the center

and corners as well as you

can see below. Its just the

extreme corners where the

zoom has a marginal lead.

Zoom doesn't have f2.8 so

that's a mute point.

 

Prime:

2.8/3545/2958/2892

4/3649/3079/2943

5.6/3734/31342982

 

Zoom:

4/3616/3046/2977

5.6/3690/3116/3018

<p>Hi, <br>

Just to complete the loop: <br>

I bought a new 180 AF-D ED. <br>

:)</p>