NikonPoint

The 70-200 VR Mk.2 is excellent for IR. No hot spots. (AF won't work of course unless you have an IR camera with the IR filter over the imager and my hunch is that the focus would be significantly off anyway. So a LiveView system is recommended for IR)..

Half way through the technical tests now. Analysing the data will take some time. I did notice that focus shift during zooming is present, yet is very small, so would in practice go undetected unless you're shooting f/2.8 in the close range. Image contrast is remarkable even with the lens wide open.

Although the tripod collar and foot look fairly similar to the Mk.1, the lens behaves much better on a tripod. Certainly its tripod mount is a vast improvement compared to the 200 VR.

VR is a typical example. Today, nearly all my test shots with the TCs (1.4, 1.7x) on the 70-200 were ruined simply because I had the lens mounted on a tripod and forgot to switch VR off. Control shots done with VR off were very crisp indeed at the same shutter speeds.

This shot was with the D3 at ISO 200, and the 1.7 TC-E added to give 340 mm. Exposure data 1/20 sec and f/8. Now, at first glance the shot appears OK, but a look at the 100% crop tells another story: there is no critical sharpness present at all, and the blurs of the raindrop highlights are streaked instead of being circular, thus showing the a movement has occurred during the exposure.

Anyway, shooting into bright light sources was not the forte of the predecessor, Mk.1. In contrast, Mk.2 is happy with such a challenge and the shots produce only the minimum of flare and almost no ghosts. Quite impressive for a 21 element design, the nano-coatings sure must be busy making the flare go away.

The into-the-sun shot was at f/22. Now, setting the lens wide open will give more flare (of course, happens with any lens), but little increase in the propensity for ghosting (not an equally common trait).

A question raised earlier was how the new 70-200 stood up against the 200/2 VR. Here is the answer. D3X, 100 ISO, the same lichen-encrusted parking sign as shown before, now only the 100% crops. Since the focal lengths aren't equal (at approx. 3m ghooting distance), the details are slightly more magnified with the 200VR compared to the 70-200. Keep that in mind when you compare.

Well, the differences to consider are fairly tangible: f/2 vs. 2.8, 2.5 vs 1.5 kg, 200mm prime vs 70-200 Zoom. Both are AFS and VR, though.

They are different instruments crafted for different purposes. The 70-200 likely is the most versatile of the pair.Some compromises always occur when images are shown as jpgs on the web and the differences in favour of the 200 might be slightly larger than appear here. But as stated before, we're into nit-picking territory and in practice the zoom lens should be very hard to discern from the 200 prime. I'd like to add that each frame was carefully focused using Liveview at maximum enlargment; in fact, I think that any perceived difference could go in either direction had the lenses been autofocused or focused by viewfinder means. You do get what you pay for here. True professional quality.

The 70-200 does deliver slightly more contrasty images, yes. Not always an advantage, but with RAW files of no practical concern either.

ben hat geschrieben:Hat schon jemand mit Konverter getestet? Mich würde die Leistung am langen Ende mit TC 17E interessieren.....

Paddy hat geschrieben:Mit Glück habe ich meines am Mittwoch, versendet ist es jedenfalls. Ich freue mich riesig auf das Teil. Die Vignettierung des alten Modells an FX ging auf Dauer gar nicht … Dann lebe ich lieber mit dem Brennweiten-Manko, das stört mich nicht wirklich. Wenn ich Zeit habe, werde ich vor Sonntag einen kleinen Vergleich neu/alt machen. Dann läuft die ebay-Auktion aus und ich werde mich vom alten Exemplar trennen.