Nikon 70-210mm f/4 AF is not as great as Ken Rockwell claims

[calvin_lee]

I find alot of what Ken Rockwell has to say interesting or amusing.

But I have found that the 70-210mm f/4 lens is not as great as he

claims (at least not my sample). In an unfair comparison (one lens

costs 5x more than the other), here are 100% crops taken with my D2x

and 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D Lens & 70-210mm f/4 AF Lens. No

sharpening was done to either file, only levels adjustment. Both

lenses were set at 80mm. Yes, I know, this is another useless

comparison. But here it is anyway.

 

http://members.cox.net/leecw/Nikon80-200mm@f5.6.jpg

 

http://members.cox.net/leecw/Nikon70-210mm@f5.6.jpg

[frank uhlig]

Are you sure they both have usable collars? Taken at what speed? More questions than answers, I am afraid.

[calvin_lee]

Here are the 2 images combined into one jpeg for easier comparison:

 

http://members.cox.net/leecw/NikonTeleLenses@f5.6.jpg

[calvin_lee]

Both photos were taken while tripd-mounted at 1/8 second. Neither lens was mounted via lens collar to make things a little more fair (the 70-210mm has no lens collar). The tripod was screwed into the camera body for both pics.

[ken_kartes]

I would hope that a lens that costs 5x as much would perform better. I have the F4 and think it was a good buy still. Does Ken Rockwell say or suggest that both lenses will perform the same? Thanks for the test and thanks for posting it Calvin.

 

Ken K (not Rockwell)

[lee hamiel]

I also read Ken's site - I tend to follow Bjorn Rorslett's opinions more so - see:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

 

He rates it at a 2.5 of 5 - feels it's well made but optically not there.

[constance_cook]

It's the only lens I've ever sold. I only got a few acceptable-quality photos with it.

Conni

[lee hamiel]

After reading Ken's opinions - did you manually focus or use AF?

 

Sounds like the AF is a bit off so you may want to focus manually.

[alistair o]

I used to own the old 70-210/F4 and always liked it but I do think that i had a particlularly good example. I usually used it at the long end, often wide open where I found it excelled. I found that it was average only at the short end (which your tests seem to bear out). I would be interested in a comparison at 200 and 210mm respectively, one at 2.8 and the other at 4.0. (i.e. both wide open).

[john schroeder]

Be careful about what you say about Ken Rockwell. I made a tongue-in-cheek comment about him charging for email replies and was I ever chastised. I haven?t read Ken's comments on the lens but judging from the photos the 70-210 does really well considering its cost. It's not as good as the pro lens but it's not a pro lens. Once again we are reminded that a person's opinion is just their opinion and nothing more. You can agree with them or not, it's just a matter of opinion. If there is one thing we all can agree on is that Ken Rockwell is opinionated. He is also highly respected by many in the photographic community, me included. I don't always think he is right and he shouldn't charge for email replies.

[dan_brown14]

There is also sample-to-sample variation to consider.

 

BTW, I have been really pleased with the 80-200/f4.5-5.6D-AF Nikkor on my D100

[lex_jenkins]

Unless the lens is fairly short and lightweight testing it with the camera body attached to the tripod you may not be getting the best possible results.

 

There are long lens supports available to allow two-point support for camera body and lens but this is probably more expense and hassle than it's worth for a mid-priced lens.

 

You might retest using a sandbag or similar simple support and manually focus.

 

Also, most zooms are at their best within a relatively limited sweet spot. Your zoom may be okay between, say, 100-150mm. Won't know until you test it methodically.

 

But I wouldn't expect a lower priced zoom to perform as well as the more expensive toys, and there's likely to be more sample variation.

[Mike_R1664876643]

I have the 80-200 f2.8 and it is very sharp for a long zoom, and it's one of my most used lenses, but in defense of the 70-210 and Ken Rockwell I do know that some so called "consumer" lenses like the 70-210 are sharpest at around F8 to F11. Stopped down it may be a little sharper than at 5.6, whereas 5.6 may be the sharpest aperture for the 80-200. I bought the 70-210 a long time ago but quickly returned it because the push-pull zoom seemed to creep when I pointed the camera up. Otherwise, it seems like a well made lens.

[calvin_lee]

During the same shoot, I also tested the 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S lens against the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D lens. I tested the 2 lenses at their widest focal lengths as well as at 35mm. I took 3 shots with each lens:1. wide-open, 2. at f/5.6, and 3. at f/16. To my surprise, the 18-35mm AF-D seemed to be sharper at every setting. I'm still having a hard time believing it, since I paid more than twice as much for the f/2.8 lens. With the 17-35mm lens, however, distortion seemed to be better corrected. At least there's that.

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't think the lens support is really an issue at 80 mm focal length, even on a D2X. Think about it, no 80 mm lens requires tripod mount to perform well. However, it is not a good idea to mount the 80-200 from the camera just for the sake of the health of your camera, and the risk of tipping over the setup.

 

I absolutely believe your result. Why do you think Nikon discontinued the lens so quickly?

 

Rockwell is a joke in bad taste. His comments don't really need any justification either way - they're worse than the average photographers opinion because he writes like he thinks he knows something, while at least 50% of the time in actual use his comments turn out totally off base.

[ilkka_nissila]

Ok, maybe not 50% of the time, but far too often to justify going to his site for anything but laughs.

[armando_roldan]

Ken Rockwell also predicts hurricanes and stock market and football odds. I trust him. I made a mint last week on the Chicago Bears, Redskins and Steelers game on a 3 team parley.

 

Yet he hates the D2h since it ONLY has a 1/250 flash sync max.

[asaf_tzadok]

Calvin,

 

There are other aspect to consider besides sharpness. Flare and ghost for instance are a real problem when you deal with telephoto zooms. Mike is right. sharpness usually improve when you stop down. You can try and compare the maximum sharpness (without considering aperture).

 

Asaf.

[Jerry_]

If you spent the $$$$s for a D2X body, why worry about how 'great' a $200 or $300 lens is going to perform? With all the film savings you are sure to get, you should make Nikon happy and get a AF 85mm f1.4D Nikkor, then compare how the images taken look....

[trygve_thorsen4]

The other thing to remember is that digital and film are quite different in what they demand from the optics to get a sharp picture.

Some lenses that do quite well with film gives poor results on a digital camera, and I guess you have found one of them. Other lenses do better on digital than on film due to the smaller image circle.

 

I use the 70-210mm f4 on film cameras and find it to be an excellent lens.

[marco_p1]

As someone else has already said, judging from these images the 70-210 f4 is not bad, it's just a little softer and has less contrast than the 5x cost pro zoom, which is by no means 5x better.

By the way, i used the 80-200 f2,8 push-pull with my F3 on a tripod and was worried for the camera bayonet. I would not dare to put my D70 on a tripod and that lens on that camera. Bye, Marco

[alan_chan4]

Well, people believe everything one says when he/she is famous. He even reviewed something he have never seen or touched, but claimed they are opinions only, not bad. The AF Nikkor 70-210/4-5.6D was recommended too, but it's a junk lens optically. I owned one new, tested it carefully against my other consumer telezoom, maybe a lemon? If one speaks nonsense, stop reading or you will be brainwashed sooner or later. Good luck.

[lex_jenkins]

Ken is far from the most humorously dubious person I've heard. Some of his statements are deliberately uninformed. How can you fault a guy for admitting he hasn't handled a lens, hasn't read anyone else's opinion about it, read any valid tests, and is still generous enough to offer his opinion? Hell, *I* do that for FREE.

 

Now, the funniest dubious statement I've ever heard was made by the wife of a former coworker. This fellow was somewhat given to tall tales, but nothing out of the ordinary for a Texan.

 

During one such tale told while we sat around drinking beer at a company picnic, his wife suddenly exclaimed "You exaggerate more than ANYONE else in the ENTIRE universe!"

 

Well. How can one argue with that? My only thought was that they were a match made in ... the universe.

[photojim]

Trygve's point is insightful. The 80-200/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses have ED glass, which prevents chromatic aberration. Film is far less susceptible to chromatic aberration causing degradation than digital sensors are. This means that the 70-210/4 may make perfectly acceptable and indeed excellent film images, yet appear to have less resolution as a digital photography lens. It's not coincidence that Nikon didn't bother using ED glass on lenses shorter than 70mm until digital cameras came into vogue; film cameras didn't need ED glass on short lenses (and still don't).

 

Also, just because a lens is expensive doesn't make it superior to less expensive alternatives. The AF 50/1.8D can kick the butts of almost all Nikkors and it costs less than $100 US. It's easier to build a slow lens than a fast one, and it's easier to make it good. To be sure, not all inexpensive lenses are really excellent optically but many are.

[john schroeder]

Marco, Just FYI, I use the 80-200 f2.8 one touch zoom on my D70 and it's fine on a tripod. Yes, I would rather have a tripod mount on the lens but the D70 mount can handle the weight.