• 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 / Nikon 70-200/2.8S vs 70-200/2.8E — Siemens star at 200 mm, CDAF

Nikon 70-200/2.8S vs 70-200/2.8E — Siemens star at 200 mm, CDAF

October 6, 2020 JimK 2 Comments

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

So far, I’ve tested the 70-200 mm f/2.8S lens against the E version using a foliage for a subject. THis morning I made a series of shots intended to test the two lenses against each other with a more demanding target, a Siemens Star. Unfortunately, the test proved to be more about comparing the way the camera auto-focuses with the lens, rather than a test of the lens itself.

Here’s the test protocol:

  • Focal length 200 mm
  • Subject distance: 41 meters
  • ISO 64
  • Manual exposure, ETTR in live histogram.
  • Subject in the center and the upper right corner.
  • AF-S pinpoint focusing, so as not to have to deal with the terrible Z7 focus by wire algorithm.
  • Three shots at each setting, focusing anew for each shot, picking the best. This method calibrates out focus curvature.
  • Developed in Lightroom
  • Sharpening set to amount 20, radius 1, detail 0, which is quite a bit less than Lr’s default sharpening.
  • Daylight white balance
  • 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

We’ll look at some tight crops.

If you’ve seen these here before, just jump to the images. If not, I need to spend some time telling you how to interpret them. They’re at roughly  250% magnification, enlarged to 700 pixels high on export from Lightroom. If you just want a rough idea of the differences, just look at the images as displayed in-line in the posts. However, if you wish to compare these images in detail, you should view these images by clicking on them to see the source files, then set your browser for 100% zooming. Even better, download them and make Photoshop stacks.

No matter what you do, these crops are all going to look horrible. I’m blowing them up so much so that they will represent the original file after JPEG’s discrete cosine transform has had its way with them. If you want to get a good idea of what the images would look like printed, get far away from your monitor. No, farther than that. Put a bunch of the images up on the screen and back up until the best one starts to look good. Then look at the others. There’s another reason why these images won’t look like the best thing the camera/lens combination can deliver. They’re demosaiced with Lightroom. Lightroom is not awful, but for a particular image, there are usually better raw processors. I use Lr because it’s a de facto standard, because I know it well, and because it’s got good tools for dealing with groups of images.

Here’s how to use these highly-magnified crops. The dimensions of the Z7 sensor is 8256×5504 pixels. If we make a full-frame print from the Z7 on a printer with 360 pixels per inch native driver-level resolution, like the Epson inkjet printers, we’ll end up with a 26.4×17.6 inch print. The 317×246 pixel crop you’re looking at will end up 0.8×0.68 inches.  Let’s imagine that you or your viewers are critical, and will look at the 27×18 inch print from about 18 inches (conventional wisdom is that the distance would be a little greater than that, or 28 inches (the diagonal), but you did buy a high-resolution camera for a reason, didn’t you?).

The next step is dependent on your monitor pitch, which you may or may not know. Turns out, you don’t have to know it. Just take the 250% crops and view then at 1:1. How high are they? Get out your ruler and measure, or just guess. Let’s say they are 6 inches high. 6 inches is about 7 times 0.8, so in order to view the crops the way they’d look from 18 inches on the print is to view them from 7 times as far away, or 10.5 feet.

Everything here scales proportionately. If the image on your screen is bigger than 6 inches, increase your viewing distance by the ratio of your image height to 6 inches. If you think your viewers are going to almost get their nose to that print and look at it from six inches, divide that 10.5 feet by 3, and look at the image on the monitor from three and a half feet away.

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

 

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

The S limage is out of focus. Not terribly so, since there is still some aliasing, but enough to invalidate this test as a comparison of the lenses. The pinpoint AF system on the Z7 seems to have more trouble with this subject with the S lens than with the E lens. This was true in all three images from each lens. We are looking at something systematic here, not just a random good image for the E lens.

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 S at 200 mm, center, f/4

 

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 E at 200 mm, center, f/4

Now the E lens doesn’t look quite as good.

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 S at 200 mm, center, f/5.6

 

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 E at 200 mm, center, f/5.6

More high-frequency contrast with the E lens.

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 S at 200 mm, center, f/8

 

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 E at 200 mm, center, f/8

The E is a bit better.

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 S at 200 mm, center, f/11

 

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 E at 200 mm, center, f/11

The S lens image is more out of focus. Not that far, though, since it still shows some aliasing.

In the corner:

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

 

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

There is a lot of corner light falloff in both cases. The E lens appears to have roughly equal sagittial and radial aberrations. That’s not true of the S lens.

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 S at 200 mm, corner, f/4

 

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 E at 200 mm, corner, f/4

I suspect the S image is out of critical focus.

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 S at 200 mm, corner, f/5.6

 

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 E at 200 mm, corner, f/5.6

These look about the same, although the E image has slightly more high-frequency contrast.

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 S at 200 mm, corner, f/8

 

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 E at 200 mm, corner, f/8

Similar.

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 S at 200 mm, corner, f/11

 

Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 E at 200 mm, corner, f/11

Very similar, and both obviously affected by diffraction.

I’m going to have to go back and redo this test using manual focusing. That’s going to be no fun at all. In the case of the S lens, I’m going to have to put up with the Z7’s brain-damaged focus by wire algorithm. In the case of both lenses, I’ll have to deal with the way-too-twitchy focus rings. I don’t think that Nikon thinks anybody is going to focus these lenes manually, at least for critical work.

 

 

Nikon Z6/7

← Nikon 70-200/2.8S vs 70-200/2.8E — foliage at 70mm Nikon 70-200/2.8S vs 70-200/2.8E — Siemens star at 200 mm, PDAF, MF →

Comments

  1. Erik Kaffehr says

    October 7, 2020 at 6:09 am

    Jim, you may need to dust of your focusing rail for that test.

    🙁 Erik 🙁

    Reply
  2. David Berryrieser says

    October 7, 2020 at 1:47 pm

    Its interesting but I guess not shocking that we haven’t seen the same jump in image quality as we have with mirrorless normal and wide zooms when compared to their SLR predecessors.

    Reply

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 Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.