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

[wj_lee]

Some say 17-35mm is better than primes while others say not quite. One needs to test best samples of 17-35mm against best samples of equivalent primes at every aperture and most of the focusing distances. I still think primes will edge out. The reasons for zooms getting so close to primes, especially for nikon, is mainly due the fact that Nikon hasn't updated their primes for many years, especially with ultra wides, while these super zooms are relatively new.

 

I think it's about time Nikon updated their primes and while at it where are the dedicated DX primes? Lack of DX primes makes me to believe that full frame is on the drawing board.

[ShunCheung]

IMO, it is rather silly to make blanket statements such as primes are better than zooms.

 

To me, photography is about creating great images and getting the shots. Lenses are merely means to achieve the goal. I mainly use zooms because of their conveniences and flexability. However, there are simply no f1.4 zooms or even f2 among Nikkors. If I have to shoot in dim light, sometimes a 35mm/f1.4 or 85mm/f1.4 is a must.

 

I never really care about the minute sharpness difference from one lens to another. Nobody is going to tell me that my pictures are great or not because of the lens used. In fact, most people cannot tell exactly which lens is used. Otherwise, I would have sold my 70-200mm VR immediately after I had bought it. To me, it was very obvious from day 1 that it is not as sharp as other tele primes I have. The same is true for my 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S.

[erik_loza]

"Some say 17-35mm is better than primes while others say not quite. One needs to test best samples of 17-35mm against best samples of equivalent primes at every aperture and most of the focusing distances. I still think primes will edge out."

 

Well, I guess someone needs to be the Proponent of Theory around here. I'll just stick to commenting on what I have firsthand experience with, since I have owned both the 28mm f2.0 and 35mm F1.4, which were subsequently replaced by the 17-35mm. Of course, both my primes could have been lemons and my 17-35mm could be unusually excellent example. Or, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. What do you think?

[ilkka_nissila]

WJ wrote:<i>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.</i>

<p>

If this wasn't the internet I might consider your comment an insult.

<p>

In many ways the 17-55 DX and 70-200 VR are better than many Nikon primes in their respective ranges, when used on a D200 or D2X. I wasn't prepared to believe this but eventually since there are no good wide angle primes for DX I was forced to go get one of the DX beasts - and it turned out to be a really good purchase. I have also taken pictures with the 12-24 DX and found it to be spectacularly good in clarity of the images, especially when stopped down. Much better than any of the Nikkor wide primes I have used (including 14/2.8, 20/2.8, and 24/2.8) on the D200. Many highly regarded professionals, including Bjorn Rorslett, Ellis Vener, Brian Caldwell have posted similar findings.

<p>

Perhaps I should have Nikon check the condition of my 105mm DC, and I recommend that Bin have Nikon adjust his 70-200. The above performance on the 70-200 is definitely not at the expected level of this zoom. I agree it gets soft in the corners of the 35mm format frame but it should be ok on DX.

<p>

While these comparisons might seem superfluous and geeky, I often find that I need to use an aperture like f/2 or f/2.8 and performance at these apertures is very important to me. I don't make tests unless there is a problem. At f/5.6 every one of my 35mm/DX lenses performs great, while some are obviously better in terms of flare than others.

[wj_lee]

I have every right to express my opinions and I won't simply change my mind because I'm bullied into it.

 

The only people who can claim whether Nikon zooms are better than the Nikon primes are the engineers from Nikon, who can test the best samples of each in a scientific test under laboratory conditions. The comments from any other people are nothing more than subjective opinions and cannot be taken as hard facts. I will maintain my subjective opinions about primes will edge out zooms, especially when there is so many contrasting views, until technical people from Nikon comes with hard facts to prove me wrong. But then if Nikon were to say the zooms perform better than primes then, really, they seriously need to update their primes or maybe it's time to consider Zeiss perhaps?

 

"If this wasn't the internet I might consider your comment an insult."

 

I am sorry that you feel that way, but I always thought this is a board to express your views and opinions about photography and the comment is totally unnecessary in so many ways.

[wj_lee]

"Well, I guess someone needs to be the Proponent of Theory around here. I'll just stick to commenting on what I have firsthand experience with, since I have owned both the 28mm f2.0 and 35mm F1.4, which were subsequently replaced by the 17-35mm. Of course, both my primes could have been lemons and my 17-35mm could be unusually excellent example. Or, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. What do you think?"

 

No one claimed you don't know what you are talking about although you sound little arrogant. You mention 28mm f2 and 35mm f1.4 but there are other versions of such focal lengths such as 28 f1.4 and 35 f2. Need to test the best versions as well as best samples of the primes. Really show me hard scientific facts and I will believe it, otherwise it's nothing more than subjective opinion. Again that is something only Nikon can do.

[bin ming]

I started the thread not to debate primes vs. zooms, but to put the new 70-200mm f/2.8 lens under some kind of scrutiny. I use primes, but are open-minded about zooms too. As the situation gets muddied, my concern has narrowed down to whether I have got a lens copy with representative performance. While I agree there are many other factors contributing to image quality and good photographers with good techniques can shoot better with lowly gear etc. etc., there is nothing wrong spending a few hours to find out strengths and weaknesses of the lenses you are going to use for a long time. If done right, the results are not subjective.

 

All of us have heard and read a lot about the 70-200. I submit to the wisdom of the forum since I don't have enough experience with this particular lens to know what to expect. My initial impression of its overall sharpness is it depends on what you compare to, but certainly not superlative and unconditional. In the end, the combination of fast glass, VR, and AF-S is irresistable. I heartily agree with Ilkka that wide open performance is very important.

 

By the way, I remember a while ago Ilkka's improbable demand of apology from Lex regarding the 70-200's tripod mount. I had my share of seeing opinions and myths that are downright wrong, but the sometimes conflicting information is exactly what makes this forum great. there is no need to get personal.

[ilkka_nissila]

WJ, categorical statements about primes and zooms are not justifiable. You can compare individual lenses, not groups of lenses since the differences between individual lenses in each category are sometimes greater than the differences between the mean performances of each category.

<p>

Tests of selected samples do not give a true picture of how the lenses that you or I can actually purchase perform. What can be tested is individual lenses owned by individual people. That's all that matters. Theoretical performance is only relevant if you can purchase a theoretical lens.

<p>

Nikon's motivation for selling 1970s prime lens designs and 2000s zoom designs is unknown to people outside of the company itself. My take on this is that they will update their prime lenses when the digital technology settles. They made a 14mm prime lens which is excellent on its intended body (D1) and produces what I consider miserably poor image quality on a D200. They don't want to repeat the mistake so they will only implement those lenses that are in high demand until some convergence is observed in the digital technology.

<p>

<i>

"If this wasn't the internet I might consider your comment an insult."

<p>

I am sorry that you feel that way, but I always thought this is a board to express your views and opinions about photography and the comment is totally unnecessary in so many ways.

</i>

<p>

This board, I believe, is meant to allow photographers to help each other educate each other about Nikon-related aspects of photography. I don't see how your unsubstantiated claim that I am wrong about my testimony about the performance of these lenses fits into that category. Your post implies that I am either lying or incompetent. It is not based on factual evidence but a religious belief about the superiority of some lens group over another, a belief which has been testified to be not true by a number of photographers with a background in science and/or professional photography.

[daniel_bliss]

It shouldn't be acting like this. Here's the MTF graph from Nikon . .

 

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af-s_vr_zoom70-200mmf_28g_if/index.htm

 

As you can see; trremendous edge-to-edge on DX digital (out to about 14mm from the

center); the soft corners should show up only on film or full-frame digital. You'll see if

you look around the Nikon site that it is also directly competitive with the 180/2.8 on

digital. Note Nikon's MTF charts measure wide-open performance only.

 

Here's my own experience. I tried two samples. The first one wasn't crisp. A little behind

the 80-200 2.8. It also seemed to be backfocusing a bit. The second one was much

better, a little ahead of the 80-200 2.8. In both cases on digital the performance is

extremely even across the frame. These results are on a D2HS.

[bin ming]

Daniel - I agree it is ridiculous on DX format. The lens has been sent back for an exchange (too bad the center is extremely sharp at all stops). I will see.

[kahl_olsen]

<p>I own this lens, I do not believe these are even real world issues, corner softness and falloff wide open? Wide open, my corners are almost never in my focal plane so corner softness/sharpness is irrelevant and I only use it wide open in low light situations like sports or stage shows and fall off is the last criteria my images have to meet.<br>

The only time I could imagine these two issues affecting a photographer in reality is if you are stitching panoramas! This said I would shoot landscape panoramas at f11 so falloff would be close to negligible anyway.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Kahl, I suggest you take a look at my images that demonstrate this problem in the following thread: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rdrl">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rdrl</a></p>

<p>Whether this is a real-world problem or not highly depends on whether you need corner-to-corner sharpness at 200mm. It may be a total non issue if you shoot portraits, sports, weddings, etc.<br>

The bigger problem is that this issue cannot be resolved by stopping down.</p>