Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR has very soft corners

I'm fairly familiar with various attributes of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR: AF-

S, VR, Bokeh, minimum focus, flare and ghosting, and so on. With my handling,

those proved all true and there are no surprises. However my main concern is

image sharpness: how it holds up against Nikon primes in the focal range. I

know it won't be fair, but I want to find out how close this heavy and

expensive modern zoom can come. I'm especially interested in wide open

comparison.

 

I take it seriously that the 70-200 performs better on DX format than film, so

the first part of the test is using my D50, shooting close distance (~ 1.6m),

at focal lengths of 70mm, 85mm, 105mm, 180mm, 200mm. I have 85/1.4 AIS, Tamron

90/2.8, 105/2.0 DC, 180/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AIS, all sharpness champions. Hopefully

even the 50-135/3.5 and 75-150/3.5 can pitch in. All shots are sturdy tripod

mount, timer triggered, 1/500 sec shutter with manual flash sync. Camera is

carefully aligned against the wall plane. I'm aware of the D50's inadequate

viewfinder, so at each aperture I take 3 AF shots (if available) and 5 MF shots

with focus bracketing and then pick the sharpest.

 

I'm only starting on this project, but I'm already surprised at how soft the

corners can be on the 70-200, even before any comparison with other lenses.

This lens has been universally praised for superb sharpness. Maybe I'm picky

but I only found this to be true with the center portion. I re-read reviews by

Bjorn Rorslett and Thom Hogan. Neither of them mentioned corners except light

fall-off issues. Ilkka on this forum has raved on the 70-200 and it has

superceded other primes including the 105 DC on his D200. I'm doubtful that on

two Nikon digital bodies the same lens performs so differently. I'm wondering

if I got a bad copy?

 

Here is the full view of the test shot:<div></div>

Center image portion of 70-200mm lens, f/5.6, 100% crop:<div></div>

Center portion of 105mm DC lens, f/5.6, 100% crop:

 

(Note that though center sharpness on the 70-200 is very good, on the 105 DC it is even better and can resolve paper texture.)<div></div>

Edge portion of 70-200mm lens, f/5.6, 100% crop:<div></div>

Edge portion of 105mm DC lens, f/5.6, 100% crop:<div></div>

Wide open: edge portion of 70-200mm lens, f/2.8, 100% crop:<div></div>

Edge portion of 105mm DC lens, f/2.8, 100% crop:<div></div>

If your sole purpose is to take pictures of newsprint or perhaps brick walls I can understand why you might be pissed off.

I went through three 70-200/2.8 VR before getting one with reasonable corner sharpness. The first two were simply abysmal: the image was not only extremely soft, but also suffered from a disturbing amount of CA, especially on one side. Nikon tried three times to adjust the first lens, then they agreed to replace it. The second one was acceptable until I had to get the VR unit replaced. When I got it back it was worse then the previous sample. They replaced it once again and this last one is pretty good.

 

<p>As far as I know Ilkka's 70-200 is pretty soft at the borders (though not as bad as my first two lenses, if I recall correctly) and even the lens tested by Photozone, I quote, "suffered from a rather pronounced centering defect" (see here: <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_70200_28vr/index.htm">http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_70200_28vr/index.htm</a>).

 

<p>My personal opinion is that these lenses are exceedingly difficult to adjust: not only they have a large number of elements (21 in 15 groups) but one group (in the VR unit) is floating. Getting a good sample is probably just a matter of luck.

 

<p>As a matter of fact yours doesn't look so bad. The first two I had and Ilkka's are (were) worse than that. Or even much worse: I realized my first 70-200 sample had a problem when trying to take a picture of a wooden beam with a very interesting pattern, not a newspaper! I checked the display of my camera and saw that one side of the picture was very soft. I checked that the back of the camera was aligned with the surface of the beam, checked that I stopped down the lens a couple of stops, verified that the tripod head was locked and tried again. In the end I realized the problem was the lens, not my technique.

Not just looking at curved field at (relatively) close range are we? Almost no lenses give of their best at full aperture. Interesting though. I recently put some of my "best" lenses through this sort of process and there were a few surprises! Doesn't really affect the real world quality of my pictures though.

 

JayDee

As I have pointed out numerious times before, the only time I would use a newspaper for test shots is when I test macros. I wouldn't expect a 70-200mm zoom to be at its best when focusing down to 1.6 meter or around 5 feet.

 

I once compared my 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S against my 200mm/f4 AF-D macro at infinity, and the zoom is far better. Different lenses are designed for different purposes.

 

I have compared the 70-200 VR against the 200mm/f2 AF-S VR and 300mm/f4 AF-S at around 30 feet/10 meters. There is little doubt that the primes are somewhat sharper.

Two comments:

 

1) The 105DC outshines most lenses in its focal range. Shooting newspaper clips (Ok it was a bookshelf in my case) the 105DC proved to be better than my 105micro Nikkor f2.8 AFD (the pre-VR version) at closest focussing range of the 105DC lens. Not bad for a non-macro lens beating a macro lens here :-)

 

2) This zoom lens is not at its best a close range - the images you show "feel" about right what I expect from a zoom under these conditions. A zoom "should" not be as good as one of the best primes Nikon ever built:-)I would re-shoot at say 20-40 m range and compare again. Results should be slightly better but not a world apart. The zoom better than the 105DC _ rofl I want to see that.

Yes, you could have a lemon, but realistically, I think Shun and Walter nailed it. Testing a tele-zoom that is optimized for performance at moderate distances against a near subject and at wider apertures will get you results like this.

 

I learned this the hard way a trip to Mexico with my then-new 80-200mm AF-S. Thinking that it would be the silver bullet, I left my 105mmm Micro at home to save weight. What a mistake. NONE of my near range images were of acceptable sharpness, even those shot stopped down. Whatever it is about the optical design of these lenses, they are definitely geared toward the middle and farther ends of the focusing range.

 

That being said, the 80-200mm is one of my bread-and-butter lenses and I can't imagine being without it. What it does for me, no other lens has been able to. But, I know when to use it and when not to. If the shoot will require critical sharpness of small subjects at near-focus range, then the 300mm AF-S would come along.

 

This test might have some mathematical value, I suppose, but trust me when I tell you: Nikon has yet to make a bad 70/80-200mm. It's all in how you use it. Good luck.

See my "Coke bottle" shots between the 70-200mm VR and 200mm/f2 AF-S VR:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DrKh

go and ask for replacement from nikon, I had exactly the same thing with my 55-200mm which is much cheaper. Nikon replaced it with another one which is just fine.

 

Beshr

I suppose I got lucky with mine. But,then again, I only shoot landscapes. Doesn't seem to be much point in shooting close-ups with a long tele-zoom. Have you actually used this lens outdoors?

Heh, before I compared the 70-200 with 105 DC, I knew there is a winner :)

 

Many years ago I recommended the 80-200/2.8 to a friend, even though I use primes and warned him it's heavy and pricey. To this day he is very satisfied and I have seen many nice landscape as well as family shots. When Nikon brought out a new/better design with VR built-in, I know I can't say no again. I saved and even skipped the D200 to get this lens.

 

For photographing people you need to isolate the subject and beyond nine feet it's getting too far, so I suspect the occasion arises often when the lens is used at close range wide open, near the 70mm end. This is the turf owned by 85/1.4 and 105/2 DC, but for pro glass distinction I expect the 70-200 to be not far behind.

 

I haven't done a systematic test yet at the mid to long range but that seems a foregone conclusion (otherwise what else to keep). There is a photogenic fire hydrant about twenty yards outside my window. My handheld shots with VR on are good enough compared to tripod mount results from the 180/2.8. No sharpness issues throughout the frame. As I mentioned, the lens is fine and gives no surprises otherwise.

 

Shun I'm a fan of your coke bottle shots :) Thanks to you and others, I often get a glimpse at what is capable from Nikon's premium glass. Your quick comparison agrees with my perception of primes vs. a modern zoom like the 70-200: visibly "better", but incremental rather than revolutionary.

<p>The original, full size shot by the 70-200 lens at f/2.8, ~1.6 m focus distance can be viewed <a href="http://www.csr.umd.edu/~ming/DSC_0294.JPG">Here</a>.</p>

 

<p>First, I'm looking at the image entirely by itself. No reference to other lenses. In fact, the center is remarkably good (wide open), but about a quarter of image size from the left and right edges, sharpness drops precipitately. The softening toward the edges is nothing but graceful. I have watched for wide open behaviors of Nikon lenses, primes and zooms alike (such as the 75-150mm f3.5 E) and have not seen anything like this.</p>

 

<p>I very much appreciate comments from Roberto and Erik - since this is my only hands-on experience with the 70-200, I'd like to make sure it is not a lemon. If other users have seen far better results in similar situations, obviously the lens has to be repaired/exchanged. After all, with the price tag you may even buy several deluxe mattresses, on any of which you are assured of a lifetime's good sleep ;)</p>

Should be: "softening toward the edges is anything but graceful."

Bin, if I were you, I would retest the 70-200 VR with subjects that are at least 10 meters away. The 105 DC is designed to be a protrait lens with subjects from around 2, 3 meters away. The 70-200 VR is not.

 

When I first got my 70-200 VR last year, I shot a roll of Velvia film to test it against my 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S, at various focal lengths and apertures. My test subjects were like street signs from 10 meters away to things at infinity. I checked my slide very carefully under a 10x loupe and both lenses are more than good enough for me.

For closer than 6 ft, it would seem that attaching a Canon 500D close-up lens might give acceptable photos with your 70-200 Nikkor.

You cannot extrapolate lens performance on a high-res digital camera based on results obtained on a lower-resolution sensor.

 

My test of the 105mm DC and the 70-200mm were at a distance of approximately 2 m. Nevertheless the images from the zoom were clearly better at f/2.8. The reverse was true of the 180mm AF-D vs. the 70-200mm zoom at 180mm - the prime beat the zoom in this case very easily at f/2.8.

Hi,

 

You might have a slight bad sample but to be honest I think you have just showed us Ilkka is wrong and why some people prefer prime lenses. Seriously the claims zooms can outperform primes are just science fiction.

 

WJ

Absolutely true: "the 180mm AF-D vs. the 70-200mm zoom at 180mm - the prime beat the zoom in this case very easily at f/2.8."

 

- though seems that some people have trouble to accept this, and can even remove your post if your opinion differs.

"Seriously the claims zooms can outperform primes are just science fiction."

 

Ever used the Nikkor 17-35mm?