70-200 f2.8, 1.4TC and 70-300 comparison

[tirediron]

Hardly a scientific comparison, but out of personal interest, I did a quick comparison between my 70-200 f2.8 (with and without 1.4 TC) and my 70-300 f4-5.6. All images were shot at f8, and are 100% crops (centre of image and upper, RH corner) of RAW images converted to 800x600 .jpgs. The results I have to admit are nowhere near as dramatic as I expected. (Edited to add: All Nikkor glass)

70 - 200 @ 200mm

70 - 200 @ 200mm w/ 1.4TC

70 - 200 @ 143mm w/ 1.4TC

70 - 300 @ 300mm

70 - 300 @ 200mm

Thoughts? Observations?

 

[Garbz]

Nope but the 70-300 doesn't go to f/2.8. Glass quality is very good even in cheap lenses these days. It's the glass size, build quality and the aspherical elements to retain quality when shooting wide open that make up the massive price difference.

I am not surprised they all look so similar.

 

[zemlin]

Would have been easier to judge if you used the same exposure on all shots.

 

[JerryPH]

I'm thinking that if more similar or closer circumstances were used, bigger differences would be visible... and of course, there is always the fact that the 70-300 cannot even compete in the same class in terms of speed.

In general kinds of shots like this, the true differences are going to be hard to spot... but change that forest scene to a face and/or start taking pictures in lower light situations, and things start to get very obvious, very fast.

 

[jlykins]

Jerry beat me to it. At f/8 they'll look the same. Get down to f/4, oh wait the 70-300 can't do that... : )

 

[jlykins]

For well lit situations though you're right, the cheaper, lighter lens will work just fine.

 

[tirediron]

The point of this [very] unscientific test was simply to compare a piece of top-end glass with a more 'every day' lens in a situation representative of "typical" use, hence the use of f8.

 

[sabbath999]

I own both of these lenses, the image quality in broad daylight is about the same... and both lenses lose just a bit to the awesome little 55-200 when it comes to absolute sharpness and clarity at 200mm at f/11.

Having said that, the 70-200 VR is a vastly superior lens in every other way.

 

[AlexColeman]

Could you compare them at 2.8? Oh wait .

 

[kundalini]

I did a very unscientificate comparison with the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 vs 300mm f/4 here.

It means nothing either, but worth a laugh.