Unscientific comparison of 70-200/4 and 200-500/5.6

[David Paterson]

 - at 200mm, natch and f8.    

The unscientific part begins with the 70-200 being mounted on the D800, and the 200-500 on the D600. And I was hand-holding ("real world").

The two files were given identical, minimal conversions in CNX2 - black and white points were established and the files were saved as 48bit tiffs. In PS CS6, a mild two-stage sharpening was applied and a 10% increase in saturation. Nothing else. Viewed at full screen, the two images show almost identical angle of view, contrast and colour; however, if we look at 100pc crops, the big zoom is contrastier and very much sharper than its little brother. So much so, that I must re-test the 70-200, on a tripod.

[Andrea B.]

(I have both those lenses and love 'em both.)

When handheld, is it possible that the heavier lens could be steadier? I've always thought that to be the case for me. I'm much more prone to inadvertent motions when using lightweight gear. This is because I have never successfully been able to stop my heart beating while shooting and I can sometimes see/feel the beats in my hands. On those days, the tripod is a must. 
But of course, everyone's MMV on this.

So, yes, it would be interesting to see a follow-up comparison on-tripod.

And a question -- was the VR engaged on either lens? Sometimes that darned VR can cause more vibes than it prevents.

Also, the D800 has 36MP and the D600has 24MP. Do you think that the 36MP can be a factor in catching motion blur? I've convinced myself that I cannot handhold 36MP at all while I think I might be able to manage 24MP. (Prolly just kidding myself!)(((I really really hate tripods.)))

Meanwhile, I'm enjoying this nice snowy mountain scene.

Added later:  It would be interesting to put the 70-200/4 on the D600 and the 200-500 on the D800??

[David Paterson]

Andrea - thank you for that very interesting post. As far as handholding is concerned, I think the difference between the two lenses is that the 200-500 has a greatly superior version of Nikon's VR. I had VR switched on  - both lenses - for all of yesterday's shots.

I do also think that the smaller pixel-pitch of the D800 may make camera-shake more obvious.

I am familiar with the heartbeat problem, and my tremor sometimes rules out handling completely. Hey Ho.

I have repeated yesterday's shot with the 70-200 only, but this time the lens is on the D600 (on a tripod, VR off) so the comparison is more direct.

The upper slopes of Beinn Ghlas ("The Smooth Hill") received a little more snow overnight, otherwise conditions were very similar. There is no doubt the use of a tripod has let the true quality of the 70-200/4 shine. It is as sharp as the 200-500 at f8, 200mm, but the bigger lens has better contrast, which often results in better perceived sharpness.

[Andrea B.]

.....the bigger lens has better contrast, which often results in better perceived sharpness.

Ah yes. Good point.Do you think that if a lens has less contrast, that can be made up for in conversion/editing?Global contrast is of course easy to tweak. But microcontrast - such as a good lens provides - might be a little more difficult to emulate with a sharpening tool? I've tried various formulas for that over the years. Sometimes I like the results. Sometimes not.Also, adding microcontrast or using a "detail" slider in an editor usually increases the noise a bit. Good microcontrast in a lens does not seem to do that.What has your experience been on this?

I'm happy to see that the 70-200/4 holds up well enough on a tripod. I do like that lens. It is great for butterflies amongst other things.

[rosko]

There is a another point we could consider :

I have always noticed that any zoom is sharper at its smaller range, then the sharpness decreases as you zoom to its maximum range.

But  this is rather a scientific explanation !.

[Jan Anne]

Interesting findings Dave, thanks for sharing.

The 200-500VR is slowly entering my tele shortlist again in combination with the D500, it all depends on what Sony will be doing this year with the a7 MKIII or a9 series performance wise. I love the IQ and metal construction of my Canon 100-400 MkII but on the a7RII the AF and framerate are way too slow for wildlife, so if a body upgrade doesn't bring the needed performance upgrade a more drastic gear change is needed.

[Ron Scubadiver]

I don't own a 70-200, but I have the 200-500 and it totally kicks ass.  In the 200 to 300 range it is way better than the 70-300 VR.

[chris dees]

Interesting findings Dave, thanks for sharing.

The 200-500VR is slowly entering my tele shortlist again in combination with the D500, it all depends on what Sony will be doing this year with the a7 MKIII or a9 series performance wise. I love the IQ and metal construction of my Canon 100-400 MkII but on the a7RII the AF and framerate are way too slow for wildlife, so if a body upgrade doesn't bring the needed performance upgrade a more drastic gear change is needed.

You could get a 7DII for your 100-400