Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 429338" data-attributes="member: 12496">I think you have to judge it on other than sharpness.&nbsp;&nbsp; Do you want f/1.8 or not?&nbsp;&nbsp; The zoom may not do&nbsp; f/1.8, and it might be heavy and large and expensive, but it will do 70 through 200&nbsp; mm. That's a big plus.&nbsp; And it is exceptionally sharp.I suspect &quot;sharpness&quot; of prime vs zoom is a dated old notion, at least not true of todays good f/2.8 zooms, which do compete very well with primes. The 70-200 is one of the best ones, I'd sure regret seeing it go.See the numbers in these two lens tests at&nbsp; <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff" target="_blank">Nikon / Nikkor Full Format Lens Tests / Reviews</a>On measured resolution, the 70-200 VRII at 70 mm (not tested at 85mm), its resolution very slightly excels over the 85mm f/1.8.&nbsp;&nbsp; Not enough more to matter, but it certainly compares EXTREMELY WELL.And this is NOT unusual. Compare the 14-24mm zoom with a good 20mm prime, etc, etc.&nbsp; But of course, one is a fraction of the size and weight and cost of the other... which that and f/1.8 are the advantages of the prime.But it is NOT about image quality any more.Here is a 100% crop of my 70-200 VR I at 120 mm.&nbsp;&nbsp; (click it to enlarge it)&nbsp; The newer VR-II is said to be improved.<img src="http://www.scantips.com/g2/crop2.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />85mm would have had to stand too close for perspective, i.e., zooms are wonderful things. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 429338, member: 12496"] I think you have to judge it on other than sharpness. Do you want f/1.8 or not? The zoom may not do f/1.8, and it might be heavy and large and expensive, but it will do 70 through 200 mm. That's a big plus. And it is exceptionally sharp. I suspect "sharpness" of prime vs zoom is a dated old notion, at least not true of todays good f/2.8 zooms, which do compete very well with primes. The 70-200 is one of the best ones, I'd sure regret seeing it go. See the numbers in these two lens tests at [URL="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff"]Nikon / Nikkor Full Format Lens Tests / Reviews[/URL] On measured resolution, the 70-200 VRII at 70 mm (not tested at 85mm), its resolution very slightly excels over the 85mm f/1.8. Not enough more to matter, but it certainly compares EXTREMELY WELL. And this is NOT unusual. Compare the 14-24mm zoom with a good 20mm prime, etc, etc. But of course, one is a fraction of the size and weight and cost of the other... which that and f/1.8 are the advantages of the prime. But it is NOT about image quality any more. Here is a 100% crop of my 70-200 VR I at 120 mm. (click it to enlarge it) The newer VR-II is said to be improved. [IMG]http://www.scantips.com/g2/crop2.jpg[/IMG] 85mm would have had to stand too close for perspective, i.e., zooms are wonderful things. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification