View Full Version : 70-200mm VR and 200mm VR comparison


zandy_marantal
09-23-2006, 12:03 AM
As requested by the guys from Dave's thread, here are the details of the tests I've conducted...

Introduction
The measurebator in me have always wanted to do this but unfortunately, I just haven't had the time and also the weather hasn't been good the past several weeks. Thankfully, the stars were aligned last weekend and I finallly had a chance to get some test shots. Disclaimer: I just want to emphasize that this test is in no way scientific. It was just done to satisfy my curiosity. Also, the results only compared my copy of these lenes. Yours may perform better or worse. Anyway, so much for my babbling and on to the comparison.

Testing Methodology
The setup consisted of placing the camera on Kirk Bh-3 ballhead attached to a Gitzo 1325 tripod with G1321 leveling head. The camera exposure delay mode was turned on (option d5 on the D200) and the shutter was triggered by a 10 second timer. A couple of sets of tests were taken. One with VR enabled, and one with VR turned off. For each set, 2 shots were taken and the less sharper image was discarded(they were mostly identical). The camera was set in aperture mode (light was changing as the clouds come and go) and matrix metering was used.

Image Processing
The images were captured in RAW mode then converted to jpeg using Nikon Capture using the "excellent" jpeg conversion setting. The images were then scaled down to 72ppi using Photoshop CS2. Then after, 100% crops were taken and used for comparison.

VR
The result set for the 70-200 with VR on was discarded as enabling VR made the output worse almost to the point of being unusable. The VR setting on the 200mm however wasn't a factor as the lens was able to detect whether or not it was on a stable platform.

Optimum Aperture
The aperture where both lenses were at its sharpest was at f/5.6. (The image started to degrade past that)

The Lenses
There a lot of sites out there that gives plenty of information about each lens so I'm not going to discuss them here. What i'm going to show though is a couple of shots of the lenses side by side so you can get an idea of how they differ size-wise.
http://zandy.smugmug.com/photos/92758633-M.jpg

Without their respective hoods (the 200mm VR is actually shorter)
http://zandy.smugmug.com/photos/92758685-M.jpg


Image captured
Below is a sample of the full test image that was taken using both lenses. The red square is where the crop was taken from.
http://zandy.smugmug.com/photos/97108579-L.jpg

to be continued since the forum only allows up to 4 images per post...:)

zandy_marantal
09-23-2006, 12:04 AM
Image Comparison (100% crops)
Below are the crops compared side by side.

Both lenses wide open. 70-200mm @f/2.8, 200mm f/2.0 @f/2.0
http://zandy.smugmug.com/photos/97101519-L.jpg


Both lenses at optimum aperture(f/5.6)
http://zandy.smugmug.com/photos/97021584-L.jpg


The 70-200mm at optimum aperture(f/5.6) compared to the 200mm wide open (f/2.0)
http://zandy.smugmug.com/photos/97015603-L.jpg

Parting Words
I'll leave it up to you to form your own conclusions. I have crops available at f-stops till f/11 for both lenses and also have links to the full resolution images(1.5MB each) in case anyone wants to peruse them.

regards.

dave_deluria
09-23-2006, 12:09 AM
Beautiful! Great job on the comparos!

zandy_marantal
09-23-2006, 12:10 AM
http://zandy.smugmug.com/photos/96999842-L.jpg

http://zandy.smugmug.com/photos/96999811-L.jpg

http://zandy.smugmug.com/photos/96999824-L.jpg

http://zandy.smugmug.com/photos/96999851-L.jpg

Marton_Benitez
09-23-2006, 12:15 AM
Amazing! :) Thank you very much for the review and comparison :)

Daniel Tan
09-23-2006, 12:51 AM
very nice reviews & samples.. really appreciate it....

i wud really consider the 200mm f2.

btw how wud a 200mm f2 compare with a 300mm f2.8 kaya?

zandy_marantal
09-23-2006, 01:41 AM
Thanks Dave, Marton, Daniel.

@Daniel
I don't have an answer to your question as I haven't had a chance to play with a 300 f/2.8 VR. I'm pretty sure though that it's also an excellent optical performer like the 200mm. You just have to make sure that it's the focal length you need. 300mm is too long for what I shoot and requires better shooting technique because of its longer focal length and smaller aperture.

I chose the 200mm because of it's flexibilty (lowlight, sports, portaiture, etc..). It can be a 200mm f/2.0, 280mm f/2.8, 340mm f/3.4, 400mm f/4 with the the help of TC's.

Lastly, a monopod is a must for these long and heavy lenses. If you're style of shooting doesn't lend itself to this, you may not be able to make much use out of it. Something to think about before you plunk down that hard earned cash.

regards.

Aris Guerrero
09-23-2006, 05:05 AM
thank you sandy! nice comparo.

tj_parpan
09-23-2006, 08:17 AM
Nice test Zandy! It just confirms that the 200 f2 is a lens I'm surely getting. As to when, well that's another issue altogether...

Earl Gonzalez
09-23-2006, 08:18 AM
Wow... Look at the size of that thing... Nice thread Zandy! :)

Sonny Thakur
09-23-2006, 08:58 AM
Very nice comparison man. This is amazing!
I guess prime's really do outshine the so called "Zoom-primes"
btw, can anyone make comparissons to with some of the older primes with the Defocus control mechanism? Thanks

kentamayo
09-23-2006, 11:32 AM
I hate you so much Zandy! :D
I was thinking about your VR beast so much when i was shooting with my back-focusing 70-200 APO that it made me cry and switch to my 85 1.8.
I only wish I could afford that lens. :(

Peace!

Earl Gonzalez
09-23-2006, 06:02 PM
I hate you so much Zandy! :D
I was thinking about your VR beast so much when i was shooting with my back-focusing 70-200 APO that it made me cry and switch to my 85 1.8.
I only wish I could afford that lens. :(

Peace!

:D Now this really cracked me up... It happens to the best of us Ken...
No choice but to start saving up... That's how I did it... :Grin:

dindin_lagdameo
09-23-2006, 08:47 PM
@Zandy

This study makes me want to have that 200/2!!! But, but, but... hayyyyyyyyyyyyyy...

Anyway, the photos are amazing and the kids are just so adorable!

zandy_marantal
09-23-2006, 09:09 PM
I hate you so much Zandy! :D
I was thinking about your VR beast so much when i was shooting with my back-focusing 70-200 APO that it made me cry and switch to my 85 1.8.
I only wish I could afford that lens. :(

Peace!


Sorry Ken :) I know the feeling. There's a thread over at Nikon Cafe about this lens that's more than 80 pages long which I used to go to to drool about this lens. I said to myself someday...

Also, remember that my comparison involved 100% crops. I doubt you would notice the difference between the 70-200 unless you print poster sized images. The 70-200mm is more versatile than the prime. Try shooting your Sigma always at 200mm and see if that appeals to you. The 200mm VR is more of a specialty lens.

regards.

Earl Gonzalez
09-23-2006, 09:22 PM
Also, remember that my comparison involved 100% crops. I doubt you would notice the difference between the 70-200 unless you print poster sized images. The 70-200mm is more versatile than the prime. Try shooting your Sigma always at 200mm and see if that appeals to you. The 200mm VR is more of a specialty lens.


That's the punch of reality... It's really not for everyone...:)

kentamayo
09-24-2006, 09:49 AM
@ Zandy

It's all good, I've been drooing over this lens for the better part of a year now, but with all my other incidental expenses I really don't have any resources I can devote to purchasing this lens. The APO 70-200 is a terrific lens, but my copy tends to backfocus a lot more than I want to. :D

Peace!

zandy_marantal
09-24-2006, 02:06 PM
@Zandy

This study makes me want to have that 200/2!!! But, but, but... hayyyyyyyyyyyyyy...

Anyway, the photos are amazing and the kids are just so adorable!
Thanks Dindin. Yung dalawa lang parating target practice ko kaya alam na nila gagawin pag hawak ko yung camera :)


Also thanks Aris, TJ, Sonny, and Earl. You're all very welcome. I also got to learn a few photoshop cropping techniques while doing this so it was well worth it.

vernes_go
09-24-2006, 11:57 PM
thank you Zandy for the comparison!! that 200mm 2.0 is so much sharper compared to the 70-200 2.8!!! :Dum: ganda ng lens... at least nothing can stop me from dreaming :Grin:

jameslgo
09-25-2006, 12:36 AM
this shows that primes still are in. a lot of people said zoom lens is the way to go now a days but this proves them wrong. this lens just went up my need list. hehe

Earl Gonzalez
09-25-2006, 07:23 AM
this shows that primes still are in. a lot of people said zoom lens is the way to go now a days but this proves them wrong. this lens just went up my need list. hehe

James, primes have never been "out"... It just so happens that those with zoom lenses are noisier voicing out their convictions 'coz of their sheer number... :D

Carlo R. Lopez
09-25-2006, 09:05 AM
James, primes have never been "out"... It just so happens that those with zoom lenses are noisier voicing out their convictions 'coz of their sheer number... :D

i couldnt agree more. i only have one zoom in my bag. the rest are all primes. i guess i am still a primate.........

Sonny Thakur
09-25-2006, 09:35 AM
i couldnt agree more. i only have one zoom in my bag. the rest are all primes. i guess i am still a primate.........

One rich primate :D

kentamayo
09-25-2006, 09:36 AM
i couldnt agree more. i only have one zoom in my bag. the rest are all primes. i guess i am still a primate.........

LOL! Because of you guys I think I'm evolving into a primate as well! :D :D :D

Peace!

Earl Gonzalez
09-25-2006, 09:43 AM
i couldnt agree more. i only have one zoom in my bag. the rest are all primes. i guess i am still a primate.........

Can't imagine a Homo Erectus Punjabicus holding a "Noct." lens... :D hehehehehe... Carlo, it's all humour... :Grin: