Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="480sparky" data-source="post: 208747" data-attributes="member: 15805">Today was a nice sunny day, and I decided to see how the 70-200 stacks up against my 'old reliable' 70-300 and 500.&nbsp; So I set up two tripods out in the yard with my D600s.&nbsp; One had the 70-200 on it, and the other I changed between the 70-300 and 500.I first pitted the 70-200 @ 200 against the 70-300 @ 300. I then cropped the 200mm image to match the 300mm image.&nbsp; The 70-200, even cropped to match the 70-300, was the clear winner.&nbsp; Better detail and contrast.I then tossed the 1.7 TC onto the 70-200, and set it to 300mm (had to check the shooting data on the monitor to get 300mm). So now both lenses are at 300mm.&nbsp; Results:&nbsp; It's a close call.&nbsp; They're equal in contrast and detail, but the 70-200 has a much better bokeh.Last step: 70-200 set to 300 (with the TC), against my old-school Nikkor 500 f/8 N mirror lens.&nbsp; The winner here is the 500.&nbsp; Even though it's '70's technology in an old-fashioned mirror lens, it clearly is sharper.&nbsp; Although it has less contrast, that can be corrected in post.I purchased the 70-200 2.8 with the intent of getting better glass in those focal lengths, and possibly selling my 70-300 and 500 if the 70-200 could do better even when cropped.&nbsp; Although the 70-200 meets my expectations in it's native focal lengths, it just isn't up to the task of competing at 300mm+.&nbsp; I really didn't know if it could, but now I know for sure.I thought if the 70-200, even with the TC, could do better at 300mm+, I would sell the 70-300 and 500.&nbsp; But it looks like I'll be keeping them.&nbsp; Not because the 70-200 is a slouch, but more because I was expecting too much from it.&nbsp; Each will have a niche for what I shoot.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="480sparky, post: 208747, member: 15805"] Today was a nice sunny day, and I decided to see how the 70-200 stacks up against my 'old reliable' 70-300 and 500. So I set up two tripods out in the yard with my D600s. One had the 70-200 on it, and the other I changed between the 70-300 and 500. I first pitted the 70-200 @ 200 against the 70-300 @ 300. I then cropped the 200mm image to match the 300mm image. The 70-200, even cropped to match the 70-300, was the clear winner. Better detail and contrast. I then tossed the 1.7 TC onto the 70-200, and set it to 300mm (had to check the shooting data on the monitor to get 300mm). So now both lenses are at 300mm. Results: It's a close call. They're equal in contrast and detail, but the 70-200 has a much better bokeh. Last step: 70-200 set to 300 (with the TC), against my old-school Nikkor 500 f/8 N mirror lens. The winner here is the 500. Even though it's '70's technology in an old-fashioned mirror lens, it clearly is sharper. Although it has less contrast, that can be corrected in post. I purchased the 70-200 2.8 with the intent of getting better glass in those focal lengths, and possibly selling my 70-300 and 500 if the 70-200 could do better even when cropped. Although the 70-200 meets my expectations in it's native focal lengths, it just isn't up to the task of competing at 300mm+. I really didn't know if it could, but now I know for sure. I thought if the 70-200, even with the TC, could do better at 300mm+, I would sell the 70-300 and 500. But it looks like I'll be keeping them. Not because the 70-200 is a slouch, but more because I was expecting too much from it. Each will have a niche for what I shoot. [/QUOTE]

Verification