Many thanks to Light Machinery, I have in my file a set of 5 photos taken under the same conditions, with Nikon D4, with tripod, and focal length adjusted (f4VR3) to match f2.8VR2, and thrown in for good measure, "chubby" 200mm f/2 as well (distance adjusted to match FOV, I imagine). Shots done at f/4 (all 3 lenses) and f/5.6 (f4VR3 and f2.8VR2). New meaning to the phrase "cost no object".
Not posting the shots as they are not mine, but of a lovely girl who no doubt is related to Light Machinery. Many many thanks.
1) Sharpness - Chubby wins hands down. The f2.8VR2 clearly out resolved the f4VR3 under the test conditions, which is head and shoulder portrait near MFD, at both f/4 and f/5.6. Difference is not subtle at f/4, closer at f/5.6. This bears out the theory that the focus breathing was induced by a technique Nikon engineers used to optimize sharpness at MFD in priority over the focal length shortening. I am convinced by my internet reading (I know this is not accurate but what I have to rely upon), however, that at normal shooting distances Light Machinery's observation is accurate, i.e. the f/2.8VR2 out resolves the f/4VR3 at f/4, and thereafter they are hard to tell apart, with possibly some advantage to the f/4VR3.
3) Focus breathing at MFD for f/2.8 VR2 is confirmed to be 135mm.
6) Contrast - this is an interesting observation. Under the same lighting conditions, same picture control etc, the 3 lenses produced shots of varying levels of contrast. Chubby 200mm f/2 with the lowest contrast, the f/2.8VR2 the next and clearly the f/4VR3 the highest contrast. Thus on one look, without critical examination, the f/4VR3 would
appear to be sharper. Critical examination would show the reverse. But contrast can be PP in, resolution cannot.
And in addition, I went back to the photos I took when I had a loaner (I borrowed to test a TC14EIII that was to match my AFS 300mm f/4D that was not yet delivered) and found that I didn't really notice the focus breathing until I read about it. And the lower contrast was also something I observed at the same time. Which was quite nice. I remember I said to myself "I want one of this".
Conclusion - I will abandon any thoughts about the f/4VR3 and will buy the f/2.8VR2. By middle of next month. But no Chubby. I would use my good old AF 180mm f/2.8, but that'd be another story for another day.
Many many thanks. :thumbsup:
Hello.
I have some shooting time with the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII and Nikkor 70-200mm f/4.0 VRIII. I pack the f/2.8 when I need the speed and the f/4.0 when my left elbow & back complains.
1) Sharpness, f/2.8 VRII is better that the f/4.0 VRIII when stopped down to f/4.0. It isn't noticeable at all unless you really do a 1 to 1 comparison under a controlled shooting environment. At aperture < f/4.0, they are about the same.
2) AF speed, f/2.8 VRII is much faster than the f/4.0 VRIII.
3) Focus breathing at MFD, the f/4.0 VRIII is better in this area. It has higher magnification compared to the f/2.8 VRII at short distances. Standing at same distance and focal length, the f/4.0 VRiii produces a tight head shot where else the f/2.8 VRII produces a head and shoulder shot.
4) Usage with TC14 and TC20, f/2.8VRII wins hand down. I have shot the 70-200mm f/2.8VRII + TC20 hand held, needs stopping down to f/8 to regain sharpness when zoomed to 200mm. The images are usable with some PP. Quite a lost of crispness and contrast.
5) Usage of f/4.0 VRIII with TC14, very good image. No complains. Image quality is better than the 70-300m f/4.6-5.6 VR. AF speed is about the same when used with the TC.
Difficult choice huh!
