08-10-2013, 01:26 PM
In another test, Markus, you asked if it's worth to buy 85/1,4G while 85/1,8G gives you 95% of it's performance at 1/3 of the price.
Same question for 70-200/2,8 VR II vs. 70-200/4 VR (III): I tried a friend's f/2,8 and found thenVR of the f/4 is able to equalise the lack of speed to a certain point. Of course, if one needs faster aperture because of sport / bird / wedding shooting, it has to be the expensive one. Resolutionwise, they are very close.
And although I could have afford the more expensive f/2,8, I'm a happy user if the more modern, lighter and smaller f/4.
So, in my eyes the test is a bit outdated: both FX and DX users have these days sensors available with 50% more resolution and faster AF, at least the D7000 vs D7100 is more sensitive and a bit faster, thus not more precisely. I see the reason to get comparable results, but this comes with open questions how those lenses perform with new cameras?
Same question for 70-200/2,8 VR II vs. 70-200/4 VR (III): I tried a friend's f/2,8 and found thenVR of the f/4 is able to equalise the lack of speed to a certain point. Of course, if one needs faster aperture because of sport / bird / wedding shooting, it has to be the expensive one. Resolutionwise, they are very close.
And although I could have afford the more expensive f/2,8, I'm a happy user if the more modern, lighter and smaller f/4.
So, in my eyes the test is a bit outdated: both FX and DX users have these days sensors available with 50% more resolution and faster AF, at least the D7000 vs D7100 is more sensitive and a bit faster, thus not more precisely. I see the reason to get comparable results, but this comes with open questions how those lenses perform with new cameras?