Full Version: Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 200mm f/2 G ED VR (DX)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1295508403' post='5671']

I just love how people take two photos taken under fundamentally differnt lighting conditions and with different camera to subject distances and seriously believe they can darw any valid conclusions from such comparism. In any event, whatever lens is better, the Canon lens is not going to fit anybdoy's Nikon mount (at least not with AF enabled) so what the heck is going on here?


I didn't give only 2 pictures, now did I? I gave a number of very different images to just show that the qualification "creamy bokeh" is a bit misplaced. Did I anywhere state that the Canon lens should be placed on the Nikon lens?


On the surface (very different pictures) it looks like the canon does an excellent job resisting flare. I presumed you work in an industry that cater to these shots or are these personal pictures? Anyways quite nice.

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1295445124' post='5644']

For comparison, here's the Canon 200/2L IS's flare:

The contrast has been kept low in this one to make the skin look more flattering - http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/3567080200/

[Image: 3567080200_6031025377_o_d.jpg]

Here the WB has been stylised to give a "gold" look but if you look at the garment you can see fairly deep blacks - http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/3929464372/

[Image: 3929464372_decba1b941_o_d.jpg]

Umm if you mean 400g lighter than the 2900g of the 200 f/2 VR then the Canon 200 2L IS is exactly that:


<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />




Was this the case? If so does the newer versions (which I blindly assume differ) have better resistance to flare? The flare is really quite poor. For years (before digital) I used a very inexpensive contax kit and had grown use to the lenses being highly flare resistant (the specific flare that I hate is when contrast/colour is washed out due to reflection in the barrel).

[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1295448337' post='5647']

The tested version does not have the Nano Crystal Coating...<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1295531235' post='5684']

Was this the case?[/quote]

Yes <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1295531235' post='5684']

If so does the newer versions (which I blindly assume differ) have better resistance to flare?


Honestly: I don't know. I haven't handled the new version. Or even had a chance to compare both side by side.

Optically, they are identical except for the Nano coating. I would expect the newer version to be better in this regard, but still not great. Nano coating helps to reduce flare, but cannot completely eliminate it.

-- Markus


Wait wait, Nikon performs better is some test cases

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F20JRHFt6jY&feature=related"]Canon vs Nikon[/url]

The test was performed several times with different canon cameras. The test conditions ware the same and even the Canon WHITE loose the ground.

Now serious. The coating shows huge progression last decay. Evapooration /e-beam and boat sources/, Ion Assisted Depositio, Magnetron Sputter Deposition, Ion Beam Sputtering. are good example. At the end of th day the photographer profit from it.

Have fun,

Pages: 1 2 3