DXO: Older 400 2.8 Nikkor a little sharper than the new FL

It surprised me when I learned that DXO tests show that the new FL 400 Nikkor is not quite as sharp as the older one, yet the MTF graphs show the 400 FL as better than the older model.

Why?

1.  I thought E.J. and maybe a few others might want to shed some light on this one.  Sure do not mean to put you on the spot and wouldn't think less of you if you do not know.   I know it is far over my head.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/S ... 792_1369_0

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nik ... -D800__792

I am guessing you will say the sharpness difference is so small, that the much lighter-weight FL would still be advantageous to most folks.  Just a guess.

To me, for weight, compactness and sharpness, the old standby 300 2.8 with the 1.4/2.0 TC's (w/D810) might well be the standard-setter.  I find myself shooting my only current tele (80-400 AFS) offhand most of the time.  Still like it a lot.  But lately, I have come to accept something that a lot of you supertele/tripod folks have known all along:  The advantages of staying still behind the tripod with a very long lens.   In photography, it always comes down to a trade-off.

Thanks ahead.

Sample variation can come into play with lenses (lens rental does the best at using multiple copies) plus when close, testing variations can cause differences. Even if your 300 is exceptional with TCs, it still is losing resolution. For me compactness is not something I crave, it is ergonomically easier to use a longer lens (handholding) than a short squat one. I have 500 and 600 f4s plus 70/400 and my new Tamron 150/600 is a joy to use (I recently injured my shoulder and the big boys don't get used). A light 400 2.8 would win me over anytime.

That is the case for the 600 also but the difference isn't something you are ever actually going to see so the weight savings is worth the switch if you have the means to make the switch. I'm guessing it won't be the case for the 500 though because the 500 that is being replaced was the weakest of the nikon super teles. Before owners of that lens get all up in arms (I also own the lens) I'm not saying the old 500VR is weak, just weaker than it's sibblings and it required extreme AF fine tune with any Nikon 1.4x.

I agree with Mike on the compactness. I recently purchased a Nikon 300mm F-4 VR PF lens with the notion that the light weight and compact design was the holy grail.... NOT! First the lens was to light and to compact to hold steady, especially in a good breeze. Second, if you use teleconverters the Nikon 1.7x and 2.0xlll are useless,(my copy of the lens). Lastly, the lens sucks in low light shooting and shutter speeds under 1/250s,(my copy of the lens). SN # 211338. IMO, the 200-500 is a better lens, yes I have tried this lens too. I got rid of the 300mm F-4 vr PF and got the Nikon 300mm F-2.8 VRll. I shoot a D7200, and all three teles work great with the 300mm F-2.8VRll

George Whalen wrote:I agree with Mike on the compactness. I recently purchased a Nikon 300mm F-4 VR PF lens with the notion that the light weight and compact design was the holy grail.... NOT! First the lens was to light and to compact to hold steady, especially in a good breeze. Second, if you use teleconverters the Nikon 1.7x and 2.0xlll are useless,(my copy of the lens). Lastly, the lens sucks in low light shooting and shutter speeds under 1/250s,(my copy of the lens). SN # 211338. IMO, the 200-500 is a better lens, yes I have tried this lens too. I got rid of the 300mm F-4 vr PF and got the Nikon 300mm F-2.8 VRll. I shoot a D7200, and all three teles work great with the 300mm F-2.8VRll

IMHO, the Nikon 1.7x and 2x are pretty much useless on any lens but they really only elevate to mediocre on low megapixel cameras on the f/2.8 prime teles, anything else including all f/4 lenses and any high megapixel body they are utter garbage.

As for weight, in my book, as long as the image quality doesn't suffer too much, lighter is always better.  As a photographer, it's easy to add mass if you need it but it's impossible to remove it.