Published 2013/02/12

NEW (click HERE): A page with some commentary and images concerning use of this lens with the TC-20E III  2X teleconverter.

Feedback: Click HERE or post to the Forum where you found the reference to this page.

This page will be expanded with some real (not test) images as time permits. I dislike the tedium of equipment testing so please bear with my tardiness.

Introduction

The pros have produced or are putting together comprehensive lab tests for this lens. You will find these elsewhere. DXO is recommended for now. This page is a summary of personal first impressions and some simple field tests. I have had the unit for only a few days. Lately, I have attempted developing a somewhat objective system of meaning to adjectives such as "Good", "Excellent" etc. when describing equipment performance. You will find a complete description HERE but just skip that if not interested.

The Nikon 70 - 200 mm F/4 is a new offering that satisfies the need for a less costly yet high performance alternative to the well-known F/2.8. In lab tests seen so far it slightly outperforms the already fine F/2.8 but loses a stop in aperture. The F/4 has been criticized for not including a tripod mount which is available seperately as a rather costly accessory ($250). In my view, if the omission has resulted in the price being $200+ less than it would otherwise have been, making the mount optional is a welcome idea. The lens is very light and can be used on a tripod with the camera socket providing the fastening point although, of course, a mount on the lens would provide an even steadier arrangement. Owing to its small size and moderate weight I think this lens will find most use in handheld photography anyway. Doubtless, economical after-market tripod mounts will soon appear.

There are a couple of other apparent cost-cutting "features":

• Unlike the 24 - 70 mm which is not that much different in cost, there's no deluxe padded case - just the usual mouse-fuzz cloth bag with drawstring. Not a big deal but a proper case would have been nice.
• The sun-shade is a conventional non-petal design. A petal style shade is better but again, a small niggle.

Feel is excellent. Focus and zoom rings are silky smooth. There is no zoom creep. Focus and zoom are internal - nothing moves externally. There's a rubber gasket on the F-mount. Very classy.

The F/4 looks very much like the $450 70-300 VR. The 70-300 loses another stop toward the long end which is a significant disadvantage. Still, one cannot help but wonder with the F/4 being 3 times the price just how the two compare. Some test shots suggest an answer. Let's hope that gold ring really means something or we are spending a lot of money unnecessarily. Just for fun I included the Sigma 150 - 500 mm set to 200 mm and also a prime 200 mm Nikkor "Q" purchased in 1972. The latter has been modified by John White for compatibility with Nikon digital bodies and I highly recommend his fine service.

Field Tests

Testing photo equipment is time consuming, tedious and boring. For now I am offering only this limited evaluation at 200 mm. There may be more later.

Setup

• "Milano" tripod - carbon fiber.
• D800
• VR off
• Manual exposure setting
• ISO 200
• Pictures taken at F/5.3 and F/8. F/5 and a bit chosen because that is the lowest common denominator - established by the 70 - 300 mm at 200 mm. The final set of images features the new lens only, in all its glory, at F/4.
• Mid-morning strong, direct sunlight (except final set under overcast).
• Subject is an electrical utility installation somewhat over 100 ft from where the camera is set up. The subject contains a wealth of detail including some lettered plates. Readability of the latter is very sensitive to the quality of optics. There is fine wood grain which may or may not be fully resolved and sharp, contrasty boundaries are mercilessly revealing of chromatic aberration. I realize charts are a more definitive way to test but we already get that from the pro labs. This test concentrates on visual properties of one of the lettered plates. Proper test charts are much more diagnostic but for a quick comparison I have found this subject very useful over the years.

Procedure

With each lens the subject was photographed as follows:

• Centered in the frame
• In the lower left corner - a more extreme test than using long or short edge.
• All images prepared from "Fine" JPEGs and have received a small amount of in-camera sharpening but all images treated identically.
• The test had to be interrupted a few times so there is some small inconsistency in lighting.

As an interesting aside ... I repeatedly confirmed that on a tripod significantly sharper results are, in fact, obtained with VR off.

Comparison of Images

Note: The lenses compared are not to be considered potential substitutes for each other. The objective is to arrive at some understanding of what a variety of available optics can accomplish under the test conditions and, thereby, establish a reference for our expectations. The 70 - 300 mm may, however, represent a credible alternative to the 70 - 200 mm where its shortcomings (maximum aperture, in particular) will not be a problem. It is an especially attractive lense for DX owners.

First, here is the full frame view. Enlargements will be of the numbered switch assembly almost dead-center in this image. It's the black knob and there is a numbered plate behind it. All images have been resampled to 100 dpi and should appear at 100% if your monitor is running native mode. FWIW, this was taken with the legacy Nikkor "Q". Note some vignetting in this wide-open shot at F/4. It is the best performer in that category amongst these lenses. All the lenses exhibit some vignetting with the new F/4 having the 2nd least. I consider vignetting a very minor flaw as it is one of those things among the easiest to correct in processing. The original images are noticeably sharper than these because I am using a monitor with 25% higher than usual resolution. The re-sampling, JPEG compression and limited resolution of monitors exact a certain toll. 

F/5.3 Subject Centered

200mm Legacy                                             70 - 200mm F/4 (New)

70 - 300mm VR                                                      Sigma 150 - 500

F/5.3 Subject in Corner

200mm Legacy                                                       70 - 200mm F/4

70 - 300mm VR                                                      Sigma 150 - 500

F/8 Subject Centered

200mm Legacy                                                       70 - 200mm F/4

70 - 300mm VR                                                      Sigma 150 - 500

F/8 Subject in Corner

200mm Legacy                                                       70 - 200mm F/4 

70 - 300mm VR                                                      Sigma 150 - 500

70 - 200 mm (New) wide open at F/4

Left image is center, right is corner

Conclusions/Observations

General 

Clearly, lighting and setup will influence results. Obtaining total consistency out of doors is impossible so I wouldn't make definitive judgements on basis of the tiniest observed differences. 

The Sigma is surprising. Since introduced several years ago reviews have been mixed. Mansurov has decribed it as "horrible" while Hogan calls it merely "good" from 200 - 400 mm only. I agree more with those who find it a strong performer throughout its range. Unit to unit variation in quality is more of a factor with these third party products so maybe I got one of the good ones, made by happy elves on a Friday while looking forward to the weekend. I plan doing a shoot out with it against the fantastic Nikon 300 mm F/2.8 both with and without the TC-17E. Certainly here, at 200 mm, the Sigma acquits itself extremely well, edging out the 70-300 by a small amount.

The legacy 200 mm demonstrates the virtues of prime glass. In every test it gives the 70 - 200 a real run. Forty years ago I seem to recall it cost me around $350. Considering inflation it would probably go for a couple of thousand today.

The 70 - 300 receives favorable reviews in the 70 - 200+ range where it is extremely sharp so as configured here it is probably at about the limit of its sweet zone. At $450 a great bargain besides.

The new 70 - 200 wins each test but by mostly small amounts. To my eye, upon close examination, it shows better contrast and tonal gradation than its competitors. Performance holds up beautifully wide open and its very strong in the corners. At 200 mm as configured here it is at the long end. I'd expect it to perform even better at shorter FL but that awaits another test.

Not shown here but the prime has the least vignetting, followed very closely by the 70 - 200 with the 70 - 300 and the Sigma tied, having quite a bit each.

None of the lenses demonstrated photographically significant chromatic aberration. Flare is well controlled in all four and distortion low. The Sigma does, however, tend to put a tiny bit of haze around certain very bright specular reflections - a small flaw but a flaw just the same and occasionally quite visible.

F/5.3 - Centered Subject

The new lens wins this but it's close with the legacy 200mm providing a near tie. Note the 200 has a warm color balance compared to the other three. The 70-300 and Sigma are close behind. The Sigma features the least contrast and edges on the lettering show slight softness. It comes in last on this test but not by much. Note the fine machining ridges in the lettered plate. These are slightly more visible in the 70 - 200 shots (best micro contrast of the bunch). A "nit", perhaps, but noticeable. The 70 - 300 and the Sigma wash these out.

F/5.3 - Corner Subject

Surprising how close they all are but would give a very slight advantage to the 70 - 200. The 70 - 300 shows slightly more weakness than the other three.

F/8 - Centered Subject

Tough to spot any real differences. The D800 is diffraction limited between F/8 and F/9 so you would expect competent lenses to converge in resolution at this aperture.

F/8 - Corner Subject

Here the 70 - 300 trails the pack somewhat.

F/4 - Center and Corner, 70 - 200 only

With exception of the 200 mm the other lenses do not offer F/4 so this is a "stand-alone". The lighting had changed, unfortunately. I don't see any loss in resolution and the corner is practically as good as the center. An excellent performance - possibly better even than at F/5.3 so ... the unit strongly pulls ahead.

Ranking

1 - 70 - 200 mm F/4. It's faster than the other two available lenses and is extremely sharp wide open, has the best sharpness across the full frame and the least vignetting. It will take a TC (see link at top of page) and performs surprisingly well that way. In operation it does not extend or rotate and it's constant aperture. It is light and compact. You get it all except for F/2.8.

2 - 200 mm F/4 Nikkor "Q" legacy (a very, very close second).

3 - Sigma 150 - 500 mm, Nikon 70 - 300 mm  ... a tie at 200 mm, everything considered. These lenses have the most vignetting and on FX the 70 - 300 has the most corner weakness. Both are very sharp on-center.

 The big advantage of the 70 - 200 F/4 is probably the extra stop (excepting the 200 mm which hasn't been available for decades) where image quality actually gets a bit better. Note minimal vignetting as well. Sharpness holds up into the corners better than the 70 - 300 while providing somewhat better micro contrast than all rivals. Being a "pro" lens it probably has better build than either the 70 - 300 or the Sigma. Finally, it is constant aperture throughout the focal length range - another important advantage. In real-world photography (not demonstrated here yet) I find the 70 - 200 exceptional. Images are corner to corner sharp at 100% and even a bit beyond so it easily merits an "Excellent" to "Superb" rating. It all adds up to a confidence inspiring package with no noticeable weaknesses anywhere. 

For a versatile, long-ish "walkaround" I still like the 70 - 300, especially on a DX body where you avoid that slight corner weakness. It is optically excellent to 200 mm and you get the extra 100 mm even if it is not quite as good there. I find the long end performance very competent, at least, right out to 300 mm although chromatic aberration rears its ugly head near the edges of the FX frame. You save a lot of money but you do lose a stop where you really need it most to get higher shutter speeds - toward the long end. The barrel extends quite a bit when zooming but there's no creep or wobble.

The Sigma 150 - 500 is very slightly better than the 70 - 300 (at 200 mm anyway and - from experience - much, much better at 300 mm) but it's no walkaround being more of a lugaround unless you get someone else to lug it for you. Let's keep in mind it is a very different lens intended for very different uses and included here more as a curiosity. I consistently obtain excellent - even superb - results with this lens but beware the fact it is very slow - a sometimes serious drawback. Note the following:

• Only F/6.3 at the long end and never better than F/5 where, as we see here, it ever so slightly softens.
• Optical Image Stabilization (OIS), while miraculously effective, takes at least 2 seconds to get control of camera shake. That's a long time. I strongly suspect this leisurely response escapes some reviewers' attention and may account for at least a few of the unfavorable commentaries regarding sharpness. You have to wait ... and wait, while Elvis melts back into the crowd. When it finally does lock-in it is a wonder, however, and hand-held at 500 mm is routine in good light.

For total image quality and speed, the 70 - 200 is the easy but pricey choice. If you can afford it, why not? I don't have the F/2.8 but think this new unit should prove a very logical and cost effective alternative. It's difficult to fault this superb new lens but wish it would cost $300 less (considering aperture) or included the tripod collar at the price. Nikon will sell a lot of these anyway.

Best wishes,

JH

139