Home    Search    Gallery    How-To    Books    Links    Workshops    About    Contact

Nikon 200mm FX Corner
Sharpness Comparison

© 2008 KenRockwell.com. All rights reserved.

Please help KenRockwell..com

85mm Center Comparison

85mm Corner Comparison

105mm Center Comparison    

105mm Corner Comparison   

200mm Center Comparison   

200mm Corner Comparison (this page)

 

May 2008        More Nikon Reviews

 

Introduction

Some online weenies whined about the performance of the spectacular Nikon 70-200mm VR on the D3. I got curious, and decided to whip out a few lenses that covered 180mm to 200mm and have a good old-fashioned shoot-out.

These all look the same when shot properly by a real photographer. Shot improperly as I do below, and you can see some differences.

I used to worry about these meaningless details, but in 1991 I started to shoot 4x5" film and the results were so far beyond anything from 35mm cameras that I rarely shot these small formats again. 4x5" is still the standard up to which pros still wish their digital cameras measured for sharpness, and if you want better quality, you can shoot even larger formats.

Note: This is for the FX format, as in the Nikon D3. This has no relevance to any DX cameras, since their corners are way inside the FX frame.

Warning One:          top

These lenses are all very sharp. I'm doing something stupid to make them look this bad. I'm misusing these lenses, and showing which are most resistant to misuse.

See Lens Sharpness for why none of this really matters.

Only an idiot worries about the far corners. I told my wife what I was working on while doing this page, and she agreed: who cares about the last millimeter in the corners? Especially with a telephoto, the corners of a real image worth making are always either blank or out of focus. Good photographers know to keep any important details away from the edges and corners to keep your eyes from running off the page. Only the naïve look at pixels.

Warning Two:          top

I'm only showing the farthest possible few millimeters. All these lenses look the same after you get your eyes out of the corner. The sides, for instance, are the same.

Frame

Full images. Red box shows 3.8 x 3.8mm (0.15 x 0.15") crop area.

These images are all crops from 100% images shot at ISO 200 on my D3. The full images would be 43" (110cm) wide at this magnification. I never print this large; do you?

These are so highly magnified and made under such special conditions that I'm showing differences too minute to be significant for almost any sort of photography.

Each crop is only 460 x 460 pixels out of a 4,256 x 2,832 pixel image, or less than 2% of the entire image. I'm showing the worst possible 2% of each image: the very far corner. See what a sucky image it is? Why would anyone put a tree in the corner like that?

Warning Three:          top

All these lenses look almost identically sharp in the center. Since it takes me forever to jack all these images around in Photoshop in order to present them here, I'm only going to show the very farthest top corner of each image.

Warning Four:          top

This stupid tree is 600 feet (200 meters) away, and even in the suckiest enlarged images below you still can see every leaf!

 

Guide to the Lenses Compared          top

Nikon 70-300mm VR (2007)

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (2004)

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR + TC-17e
(zoom ring set to 117mm = 200mm)
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR + TC-20e
(zoom ring set to 100mm = 200mm)
Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5-n AI (1979)
Nikon 50-300mm f/4.5 ED AI-s (1987)

Technik          top

The use of a natural target is intentional. Leaves have a fractal nature which means they have sharpness at all spatial frequencies at all magnifications in all axes. This makes sharpness obvious at every level and magnification and in any diection, and makes any smearing obvious.

Artificial objects, like buildings and classified ads, have sharp lines. Lines have detail only at some spatial frequencies (usually at odd-ordered harmonics) and only in some directions. Sure we can see differences in sharpness with these targets, but we can't see as much at the same time.

I put the camera on a tripod. Exposures were 1/500 at f/8, and 1/4,000 and faster at f/2.8 and larger.

At Maximum Aperture          top

200mm f/4 Micro

At f/8         top

200mm f/4 Micro

 

Summary          top

Look for yourself, but beware that the corners, as shown here, have little to nothing to do with the real performance of a lens for real tele subjects.

As seen here, the 70-200mm VR is the worst in the corners at 200mm, but simply using the TC-17e and zooming out to get 200mm works great. The 70-200 VR and the D3 is intended for sports, action and low light, not for weenies who should be shooting landscapes on 4x5."

I use the 80-400mm VR myself, and am happy to see that it's sharper in the corners. The 80-400 is awful for action, and excels for still subjects.

The old manual-focus 80-200mm f/4.5n AI is also among the sharpest - in the corners.

The Canon wipes them all off the slate, but that's because the 5D is sharper than the D3. Just to rub it in, these all were shot on a tripod (with VR OFF), except for the Canon, which was hand-held.

 

PLUG

If you find this as helpful as a book you might have had to buy or a workshop you may have had to take, feel free to help me continue helping everyone.

This page is free to read, but copyrighted. If you've gotten your gear through one of my links or helped otherwise, you're family, so feel free to make a printout of this page and images for your own comparisons.

If you haven't helped me and if you'd like permission to make prints for comparison (only), please help me with a gift of $5.00. I have to feed six mouths in addition to my own.

Not only does this stuff take a lot of time, creating it takes far more effort than looking at it. I almost went blind!

Thanks for reading!

Ken

Home    Search    Gallery    How-To    Books    Links    Workshops    About    Contact