Is this copy of a 70-200 2.8 considered sharp?

[nextelbuddy]

i see so many people always throwing this in there "taken wide open @ 200 mm as they are implying that the image is sharp for being taken at 200m @ 2.8


i recently sold my 80-200 2.8 and upgraded to this 70-200 vrI


i had 0 buyers remorse with this lens like i did on the 80-200 but still was curious about the overal sharpness of this copy.


one thing im curious about all the people that say "my copy is razor sharp, tack sharp, super sharp wide open @ 2.8 200mm is what do they mean by this?

are they comparing to say the same image at 70mm @ 2.8?

are they saying that at 200mm @ 2.8 that their image is so sharp that they literally have no reason to stop down for any further sharpness other than stopping down for more depth of field?



i took these 2 images both with VR on normal hand held in day light..

both images had the focus point on the license plate

and the third image the focus point was on the text itself.


my purpose was to see if the text was sharp as in were the letters and numbers clear enough to read.

first one is at 2.8


second one is at f4.




would the 200mm images @ 2.8 be considered sharp or not?



im just so confused because i honestly think so many people have different takes on what is sharp and what could be sharper....


Exposure 0.003 sec (1/320)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 200 mm
Focal Length 201.6 mm
ISO Speed 200

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

200mm @ f2.8 by nextelbuddy, on Flickr



Exposure 0.006 sec (1/160)
Aperture f/4.0
Focal Length 200 mm
Focal Length 201.6 mm
ISO Speed 200

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

200mm @ f4 by nextelbuddy, on Flickr




and one last one on its own @ 2.8 while on a hiking trip

Exposure 0.003 sec (1/320)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 200 mm
Focal Length 201.6 mm
ISO Speed 200

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

200mm @ f2.8 by nextelbuddy, on Flickr

 

[static808]

people mention about the 200mm wide open setting on their VR1's since that can be the lens' weak point. with that said, i've seen quite a wide variety of performance from the 70-200vr. some copies have been sharp, some have been soft, one weird copy i tried was sharper AND had less vignetting at 200mm than at 70mm.

a fairly good copy of the 70-200vr should be razor sharp wide open from 70-180mm in the center majority portion of the frame. from 180mm to 200mm, the center sharpness deteriorates a tiny bit in comparison to the smaller focal lengths, but a good copy should still quite sharp. regardless of focal length, wide open the corners are fairly soft and dark.

it seems you have a decent copy of the 70-200, from your provided samples. try to capture subjects with a little more fine detail to help your analysis.

 

[Kingfisher]

My advice is don't sweat it! Those images look razor sharp. Too much internet exposure causes many people to get obsessed over stuff they read on the internet and have unwarranted concerns and worries. You have a spectacular lens that will provide a lifetime of wonderful images. My advice is use the lens in real world situations and if the images are pleasing to you that is all that matter.

 

[nextelbuddy]

My advice is don't sweat it! Those images look razor sharp. Too much internet exposure causes many people to get obsessed over stuff they read on the internet and have unwarranted concerns and worries. You have a spectacular lens that will provide a lifetime of wonderful images. My advice is use the lens in real world situations and if the images are pleasing to you that is all that matter.

thanks but then look at the guy above me.. he says

"a fairly good copy of the 70-200vr should be razor sharp wide open from 70-180mm in the center majority portion of the frame. from 180mm to 200mm, the center sharpness deteriorates a tiny bit in comparison to the smaller focal lengths, but a good copy should still quite sharp. regardless of focal length, wide open the corners are fairly soft and dark."

but then says

yo have a decent copy..


so what just made mine a decent copy and not a fairly good copy? is it not as sharp as he would expect it at 200 @ 2.8?

 

[Kingfisher]

It is all subjective. The VR1 does have some softness in the corners, but, and I say but, does it affect what you are going to use the lens for or severely impact your shooting style? You will find in real world shooting situations the supposed corner softness isn't as much of an issue as it is made out to be. Personally, I think it is not much of an issue and you will fall in love with that lens when you use it more.

 

[rooster]

I'd take some shots at 1/1000 of second with your lowest ISO (native). Your shutter speed may be questionable; not to say you can't get a sharp image at those speeds. I don't have the 70-200 but when an image clicks you'll know without a doubt it's sharp.

 

[static808]

so what just made mine a decent copy and not a fairly good copy? is it not as sharp as he would expect it at 200 @ 2.8?

apologies if my comment caused some concern or seemed contradictory! let me rephrase that, you seem to have a sharp copy of the 70-200vr! but again, i say "seem" since we are attempting to judge a lens by only the few samples you've given us. from the few samples, your copy does indeed look like a good copy. however, only you will be able to tell after shooting with the lens much more, and making sure the images you've captured are up to your standards. and of course, you didnt just buy a 200mm prime. make sure that everything between 70 and 200 work as you expect it to. this is why i made my inital comments earlier. from what little we've seen, it would be hasty for me to proclaim that your copy was indeed a very good/sharp copy of the 70-200vr, but things are looking bright as of now.:smile:

now quit worrying and get out there and start shooting!:biggrin:

 

[vindex1963]

people mention about the 200mm wide open setting on their VR1's since that can be the lens' weak point. with that said, i've seen quite a wide variety of performance from the 70-200vr. some copies have been sharp, some have been soft, one weird copy i tried was sharper AND had less vignetting at 200mm than at 70mm.

I've read so many comments that Nikon is superior because of quality control. I guess that one just went out the door. They must be like everyone else right? but lots more money.

 

[static808]

I've read so many comments that Nikon is superior because of quality control. I guess that one just went out the door. They must be like everyone else right? but lots more money.

two things:

a) i've never said that, and im a nikon snob. every company is susceptible to producing a lemon, nikon included. you must have me confused with some other nikon fanboy...

b) i have no idea how your comment is productive with regards to the OP's original post.

thanks.

 

[vindex1963]

two things:

a) i've never said that, and im a nikon snob. every company is susceptible to producing a lemon, nikon included. you must have me confused with some other nikon fanboy...

b) i have no idea how your comment is productive with regards to the OP's original post.

thanks.

From you:
"i've seen quite a wide variety of performance from the 70-200vr. some copies have been sharp, some have been soft, one weird copy i tried was sharper AND had less vignetting at 200mm than at 70mm."


I think the quote says it all.....looks like you said that.


How does it relate to the OP original post...Didn't he wonder if his sample was sharp or not at said f/stop and your comment was that there are sample variations.

Man people are defencive. I was just making a comment.
Nikon fanboy, I like that. :smile:

 

[static808]

I think the quote says it all.....looks like you said that.

let me clarify, ive never said that nikon's "superior" quality control is infallible. i should have made that clear in my response.

How does it relate to the OP original post...Didn't he wonder is his sample was sharp or not at said f/stop and your comment was that there are sample variations.

Man people are defencive. I was just making a comment.
Nikon fanboy, I like that. :smile:

did you even read your original comment?? it was fairly disparaging, insinuating that the OP "wasted" his money on nikon products which cost more money yet perform like less expensive third party lenses. thats what you meant right?? if it is, i stand by my line of thinking that it serves little to no purpose to the OP's original post.

 

[Electromen]

I have two 70-200 f/2.8 VR lenses. I send them to Nikon service every other year. They always come back with more accurate focus.

 

[static808]

I have two 70-200 f/2.8 VR lenses. I send them to Nikon service every other year. They always come back with more accurate focus.

quick questions: do you notice the gradual degradation in IQ or AF performance? and is there something we can do to prevent that??

so far, my copy has performed the same since purchasing roughly a year ago...

 

[Joseph]

[URL]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3508/5752294224_ed45586fe6_b.jpg[/url]
200mm @ f2.8 by nextelbuddy, on Flickr



[URL]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3575/5751751675_123baa8825_b.jpg[/url]
200mm @ f4 by nextelbuddy, on Flickr



[URL]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3587/5751753481_affff97584_b.jpg[/url]
200mm @ f2.8 by nextelbuddy, on Flickr

IMO you have a sharp copy.

A bad copy would produce something like THIS.

 

[Electromen]

quick questions: do you notice the gradual degradation in IQ or AF performance? and is there something we can do to prevent that??

so far, my copy has performed the same since purchasing roughly a year ago...

I don't notice any loss of IQ or AF over time. Sometimes at weddings they get bumped in close quarters on chairs. There are no marks or anything blemishes on them but I think that causes a slight need for adjustment.

 

[Electromen]

This 70-200 VR is about five years old. I think you'll agree it's sharp. Sometimes when I shoot at 200mm, f/2.8 with an ISO of 12,800 I question the lens, but then I realize the demanding settings I'm forcing it to shoot at and know it's good.

Grandson, 28 months
130mm, f/5.6, 1/320 sec.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[fabulas]

take a few more pics and post them. These are not enough to judge.