• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / Nikon Z6/7 / 70-200/2.8 E vs S at 200mm, quantitative

70-200/2.8 E vs S at 200mm, quantitative

October 12, 2020 JimK Leave a Comment

This is the eleventh in a series of posts about the Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 S lens for Nikon Z cameras. The series starts here.

In a previous post in this series, I found that my copy of the Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 S wasn’t quite up to the high standard set by the F-mount version, the 70-200 mm f/2.8 E when both lenses were set to 200 mm. In this post, I set out to quantify that. Several people have said that the S lens is slightly better than the E lens wide open at 200mm. I am reminded of one of Roger Cicala’s bon mots: if you return a zoom lens because it doesn’t perform well at one focal length, you’ll get back a lens that doesn’t perform well at a different focal length. Nevertheless, I persevered. I created a target that combined a 144-spoke sinusoidal Siemens Star and a slanted edge, both at low contrast.  I photographed it from a distance of 22 meters.

Other particulars:

  • ISO 64
  • f/2.8
  • Manual exposure, ETTR in live histogram.
  • Subject in the center and the upper right corner.
  • AF-S pinpoint focusing.
  • Six shots at each setting, focusing anew for each shot, picking the best using the Imatest sharpness ranking utility. This method calibrates out focus curvature.
  • Developed in Lightroom
  • Sharpening set to zero.
  • White balance set to gray background on Siemens Star target
  • Adobe Color Profile
  • Minor exposure adjustments, with same adjustment applied to all images from both lenses, so corner darkening is unaffected.
  • Chromatic aberration correction turned off.
  • Everything else at default settings

The scene, with  the target centered using the S lens wide open.

The target:

MTF on axis, using the slanted edge:

Nikon 70-200/2.8 S at 200 mm, center

 

Nikon 70-200/2.8 E at 200 mm, center

These results are very close.

In the corner:

Nikon 70-200/2.8 S at 200 mm, corner

 

Nikon 70-200/2.8 E at 200 mm, corner

Again, I’m not seeing much difference here. The E lens is a little sharper, but not much.

Looking at sharpness in all directions, using the Siemens Star part of the target:

Nikon 70-200/2.8 S at 200 mm, center

 

Nikon 70-200/2.8 E at 200 mm, center

Again, the two lenses look very similar.

In the corner:

Nikon 70-200/2.8 S at 200 mm, corner

 

Nikon 70-200/2.8 E at 200 mm, corner

The E lens is better, but it’s certainly not night and day.

 

 

Nikon Z6/7

← Sony 135 mm STF on GFX 50R 70-200/2.8 E vs S at 200mm, more quantitative →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.