Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 200mm f/2 G ED VR (DX)
#1
Not much to say except ... WOW! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />



http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikk...afs200f2vr



First of three reviews that will finalize the D200-based DX tests.



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#2
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1295360487' post='5620']

Not much to say except ... WOW! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />



http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikk...afs200f2vr



First of three reviews that will finalize the D200-based DX tests.



-- Markus

[/quote]

Have to keep reminding myself what a heavy pigs this Nikon and its Canon counterpart are (besides being very expensive also). Because I would love to have one for my photography.



One comment about your review, though... although the bokeh is quite nice. Blurry, yes... it is f2 at 200mm after all. Dreamy, maybe yes. But creamy? A word too often used for lenses that do not really excel in bokeh quality.
#3
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1295362555' post='5626']

Have to keep reminding myself what a heavy pigs this Nikon and its Canon counterpart are (besides being very expensive also). Because I would love to have one for my photography.[/quote]

The Canon's easier to hold because it's a bit lighter and not as front heavy. Also the IS is to die for... 1/15 is not an issue if the mirror slap isn't strong. I'm sure the VR II has caught up in this regard but I've yet to see VR that's as good as IS <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />





[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1295362555' post='5626']

One comment about your review, though... although the bokeh is quite nice. Blurry, yes... it is f2 at 200mm after all. Dreamy, maybe yes. But creamy? A word too often used for lenses that do not really excel in bokeh quality.[/quote]

Yeah fast lenses get to cheat but bokeh testing is not standardised anyway. I mean, I've rarely seen people proportionally vary distances, etc. to keep the background blur amounts the same when comparing bokeh across different apertures and lenses, etc.



Also, just like how we frame the subject equally even when using lenses of different focal lengths, it's fair to say that a fast lens produces smoother backgrounds for a particular framing than a slower one, even if the slower one is actually/scientifically a better bokeh lens, don't you think?



GTW
#4
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1295369077' post='5629']

The Canon's easier to hold because it's a bit lighter and not as front heavy. Also the IS is to die for... 1/15 is not an issue if the mirror slap isn't strong. I'm sure the VR II has caught up in this regard but I've yet to see VR that's as good as IS <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />







Yeah fast lenses get to cheat but bokeh testing is not standardised anyway. I mean, I've rarely seen people proportionally vary distances, etc. to keep the background blur amounts the same when comparing bokeh across different apertures and lenses, etc.



Also, just like how we frame the subject equally even when using lenses of different focal lengths, it's fair to say that a fast lens produces smoother backgrounds for a particular framing than a slower one, even if the slower one is actually/scientifically a better bokeh lens, don't you think?



GTW

[/quote]

More blur (so smoother backgrounds), yes of course. But still the quality of the bokeh is something different than the amount of blur.. and creamy is about the quality of the blur, not the blur itself. Don't you agree?
#5
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1295370477' post='5632']

More blur (so smoother backgrounds), yes of course. But still the quality of the bokeh is something different than the amount of blur..[/quote]

Absolutely... but like I said in my relative framing example... we shoot fast lenses at wide apertures. So even if the bokeh of that lens at equal apertures is worse than that of a slower lens, we can use the fast aperture to blur more and hence smoothen things out. Btw, by bokeh I'm not referring to just the OOF highlights.





[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1295370477' post='5632']

and creamy is about the quality of the blur, not the blur itself. Don't you agree?

[/quote]

Yes... but keeping OOF highlights aside, more blur often results in smoother OOF areas.



GTW
#6
Quote:...

Also, just like how we frame the subject equally even when using lenses of different focal lengths, it's fair to say that a fast lens produces smoother backgrounds for a particular framing than a slower one, even if the slower one is actually/scientifically a better bokeh lens, don't you think?



GTW



I personally use "pleasant" for the bokeh quality. And by pleasant I consider the "nature" of the blur more than the "amount" of it. I believe the amount of the blur highly depends on the size of the entrance pupil. So, depending on the subject and background distance, you have more playground with the fast lenses (I'm not sure when it comes to the front bokeh). But the nature of blur depends on the (corrected) spherical aberrations. The image of CoC is almost homogenious in terms of brightness (no harsh outlinings or no harsh brightness transitions for example). In the bokeh test shots of this lens, the blurred highlight disks in background seem to be exceptional in that manner. And I think if the the word "creamy" could be used for the combination of both amount & nature of the bokeh, the bokeh of this lens is "creamy".



However, it still confuses me, howcome the statement "true APO lenses, which have less (or no) spherical aberration, don't show LoCAs and they're usually slower primes in tele field" could be true. I can't explain this to myself with regard to this lens. You guys have any idea?



Serkan
#7
Wow; the bokeh and loca look almost perfect but that flare - ouch. I thought the nano-coating was suppose to make that a thing of the past <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />



Still the lens is TOOOO heavy. If they could make one lighter than 400g it might be interesting <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' />
#8
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1295440110' post='5640']

However, it still confuses me, howcome the statement "true APO lenses, which have less (or no) spherical aberration, don't show LoCAs and they're usually slower primes in tele field" could be true. I can't explain this to myself with regard to this lens. You guys have any idea?

[/quote]

Slower and/or longer lenses are much easier to correct for CA. Honestly, I haven't seen anything faster than f/2 without LoCA. When it comes to standard photographic lenses, the lowest LoCA/LaCA lenses (from my experience with the exception of the 200 VR) are:



Canon 200 f/2L IS

Nikon 200 f/2 VR

Nikon 200 f/4D AF Micro-Nikkor

Olympus ZD 150 f/2



Nothing takes ones breath away like the 200 f/2L IS... well I'm sure the new double-fluorite autofocus telescopes in photography lens housing (i.e. 300 2.8 IS II and 400 2.8 IS II) would be even better.



But the one that's probably the best of them all:

Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR



Mirror lenses also exhibit exceptionally beautiful handling of CA but their contrast isn't the best.



GTW
#9
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1295441790' post='5641']

Wow; the bokeh and loca look almost perfect but that flare - ouch. I thought the nano-coating was suppose to make that a thing of the past <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />

[/quote]

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]



[quote name='you2' timestamp='1295441790' post='5641']

Still the lens is TOOOO heavy. If they could make one lighter than 400g it might be interesting <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' />

[/quote]

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

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revie...51&Units=M

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



GTW
#10
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1295444487' post='5643']

Slower and/or longer lenses are much easier to correct for CA. Honestly, I haven't seen anything faster than f/2 without LoCA.

[/quote]



... and my question is, why is that so? How does being a slower lens helps correcting spherical aberrations? Is that because of the coating (which allows less but collimated light) or polishment applied to the glass etc...



Serkan
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)