Is my 80-200mm F4.5-5.6 really this sharp?

[RaymondC]

<p>I just got myself a 70-200mm F4 and ran some tests on a tripod inside. The file names are self explanatory. I compared it to my 80-200mm F4.5-5.6D. I also tested my 85mm 1.8D and my Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro but those were not uploaded. I can if you want ...</p>

<p>Is my 80-200mm F4.5-5.6 really this sharp or is my 70-200mm F4 not quite right?</p>

<p>I tested the 80-200mm at 80mm and 200mm. The 70-200mm at 70mm and 200mm. I also tested the 70-200mm at 85mm which might be better than at 70mm? Anyway, the images are here, love to hear your assessment.</p>

<p>I added 2x far away test images also. The far away images, the 70-200mm is better. Maybe at closer distances the 80-200mm has some credit?</p>

<p><a href="https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lnvcy3mzb69jvmc/AADFrvrK7UWFq4yG-8eEpMfBa?dl=0">https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lnvcy3mzb69jvmc/AADFrvrK7UWFq4yG-8eEpMfBa?dl=0</a></p>

<p> </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Judging by the small sample, the 80-200 seem better. Apparently the 70-200/4 is lacking, since it should do better. I wonder what Nikon would say to your test ? Just stating the obvious...</p>

<p>Les</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>From my own tests the 70-200mm while not so good as the 80-200. It is still better than my 85 1.8D and about par to my 35-70mm might be slightly better than it. So makes me think that the plastic 80-200 is an exception? Sounds strange. </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Ray, I'm surprised by your results on the 70-200mm f/4. Did you turn VR off? Nikon recommends turning it off when the camera is securely mounted on a tripod. (Page 17 of the multi-lingual user's manual.)</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Yes VR was turned off. I ran a second test to ensure that specifically.</p>

<p>I could throw in the 70mm tests with my 35-70mm F2.8 (non D) or the 85mm F1.8D if if you want. </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Yes VR was turned off.<br>

Then I would send the lens back and ask for another one or have it checked out by Nikon. Mine is unbelievably sharp.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I have owned and shot the 80-200/4.5-5.6D-AF (plastic-fantastic) Nikkor for 20 years. In fact, I have two of them now. It is a very good lens, and given its compact size and light weight, and LOW COST, it's a lens every Nikon shooter have on hand. In side-by-side tests with the 200/4 AiS and 70-200/4VR Nikkor, the 80-200 is never shamed, and at f8-11, it very much holds its own.</p>

<p>My 2¢</p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>How did you do the focusing?<br>

It is true that some lenses need af fine tune more than others! Was this factor taken into the test?</p>

[alan_wilder1]

<p>I own the 70-200/4 AFS and sharpness is about as good at all focal lengths compared to other primes or zooms that cover the same focal length. Your distance shot is much better with 70-200 as the image is definitely sharper with no visible CA compared to the 80-200. I would definitely check to make certain AF fine tuning is spot on correct before faulting the lens. There are various ways of doing this since fine tuning charts can be purchased or downloaded.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Hi guys,</p>

<p>Focussing - AF-S, single centre area and pressing the AF-L/AE-L button which has been set to as "AF-ON". Aperture priority, 3D matrix. </p>

<p>I have only used AF tuning with my prime lenses and not with any of my zooms. The thing is that if I take the cheap 80-200mm out, this 70-200mm is better than my 85/1.8D and my 35-70/2.8 (non D) at the 70mm mark. I had one 80-200mm before sold it, and rebought it, cos I found it is quite sharp. </p>

<p>My D600 2yrs ago was checked in Japan under warranty at Shinjuku Service Centre re: focus accuracy and came back fine (or within tolerance). And the fact that the 35-70 and my 85 doesn't have as much raw sharpness as the plastic 80-200 - surely can't be that both of those lenses and my 3rd 70-200/4 are all off (?). </p>

<p>I am in New Zealand, winter, indoors so the shutter speeds were like 2" or 4". Maybe I can try faster shutter speeds?</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>How does one AF fine tune with a zoom lens? I could go thru the 70mm and the 105mm, 150mm and 200mm and try all the numbers out, find out what is best. But then how do I select one value for the different FLs? </p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>Ray, there are some threads on pnet on af fine tuning of a zoom lens. Basically Nikon allows you to cover a space with a single point - one af fine tune value.<br>

It can be difficult as one may need different fine tune values depending on the focal length and the focusing distance. The aperture was not mentioned yet ;-)</p>

<p>Basically you - at your preferred shooting distance - define the fine tune value for the shortest and the longest FL. Then take the average and apply that value. I tuned my 80-200/2.8 focusing at 90 and 180 FL and then used the average as the fine tune value. At least focusing is much better now. It may be good to test the mid FL too to see how the need of fine tune behaves.</p>

 

[alan_wilder1]

<p>I would fine tune at the long end 200mm or possibly 135mm. If testing is done at slow speeds like 2-4 seconds with ISO 100 and room lighting is controlled by a simple switch in an otherwise completely dark room, one thing that makes a <strong>huge</strong> difference in sharpness is to completely bypass any shutter/camera vibration by turning off the lights, open the shutter for about several seconds and control the exposure by turning on/off the light for the exposure. This way lens performance is the <strong>only</strong> factor in measuring sharpness.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"....bypass any shutter/camera vibration by turning off the lights, open the shutter for about several seconds and control the exposure by turning on/off the light for the exposure."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Except if you don't have a solid floor. A sprung wooden floor can deliver an unbelievable amount of vibration over a period of 1/25th second or longer. It only takes a passing vehicle or shift of body weight. Using flash is easier and surer.</p>

<p>BTW Ray, I can't view that Dropbox link at all, and I'm sure I can't be the only one.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I am not sure why the link isn't working for you. </p>

<p>I tried it at work which I am not logged into Dropbox and it works. </p>

<p>I will try this in the weekend with a faster shutter speed and I will fine tune the focus.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>My own experience with my 70-200/4 AFS VR is that at 200mm the performance declines from superb at infinity to not so hot at close in. On the other end from 70-135mm or so up close is excellent and very good at infinity. Distance to subject counts a lot when trying to test a lens and compare to other lenses.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>If I ignore the 80-200 F4.5-5.6. The 70-200 F4 is on par / better than my 35-70 2.8 non D and my 85mm F1.8D (non G). So yeah .. that kinda makes sense. Maybe I am expecting too much? With the coffee jars up close the plastic 80-200 is better but from a far yeah the F4 is better. I have tried doing a bit last weekend, will try more this next weekend. The lens was maybe slightly more focus further away from the camera but the sharpness wasn't that much different. </p>

<p> </p>