Lens Review - Nikon 180-400

https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test= ... est_ob=531

Certainly looks like a step up from the previous version(s), although the TC doesn't perform quite as well as hoped, at least in this review.
Scott

Thanks for that Scott.  Very interesting.  Between the 180-400 range being described as simply sensational for a zoom instrument with the tailing off as mentioned on this sample with the convertor in use.  

Not a critique on the test, but was surprised it was based on using the D3x, but hey, there you go.  (probably the only full frame body he had as other was the D500)..

Added an edit as spent some time looking at the sample images presented.  Not a good advert for the author's skills.  Quite a few have missed critical focus on the birds eye/head and there are a few D500 shots showing subject and camera movement.   For example, one having shot at 1/100 sec, another at 1/80, and quite a few more shot at too low a ss to get the best sharpness.  Difficult to see it as a valid test, there being in my view, camera technique issues. Some are nailed, some not.  No mention of support used and am feeling that some softness is user induced. 

Not dismissing it, as any info is useful, but I am inclined to disregard some of the sharpness comments as they seem more influenced by photographer technique than the lens.

Thanks for posting Scott.  appreciated

Completely counter to my experience testing this lens thoroughly for several days. It blows the doors off of the Canon and compared to the original Nikon 200-400 (I and II) it is in a completely different universe...
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/180-400.pdf

I remember reading E.J.'s review when he first posted it. The contrasting results raise the question of whether the problems the linked reviewer had with the TC in place are a function of a bad sample or poor testing technique (or both).

Kerry wrote:I remember reading E.J.'s review when he first posted it.  The contrasting results raise the question of whether the problems the linked reviewer had with the TC in place are a function of a bad sample or poor testing technique (or both).

Or maybe he did AFFT with the TC out and didn't redo it with the TC in...  The camera can record both separately.

Or maybe he used Nikon's built in AFFT which is a one way ticket to an out of focus lens...

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Kerry wrote:I remember reading E.J.'s review when he first posted it.  The contrasting results raise the question of whether the problems the linked reviewer had with the TC in place are a function of a bad sample or poor testing technique (or both).

Or maybe he did AFFT with the TC out and didn't redo it with the TC in...  The camera can record both separately.

Or maybe he used Nikon's built in AFFT which is a one way ticket to an out of focus lens...

All of which sounds like fleshed out examples of poor testing technique.

Kerry wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Kerry wrote:I remember reading E.J.'s review when he first posted it.  The contrasting results raise the question of whether the problems the linked reviewer had with the TC in place are a function of a bad sample or poor testing technique (or both).

Or maybe he did AFFT with the TC out and didn't redo it with the TC in...  The camera can record both separately.

Or maybe he used Nikon's built in AFFT which is a one way ticket to an out of focus lens...

All of which sounds like fleshed out examples of poor testing technique.

If you read the full review they quite clearly tested the lens to see if it needed AFFT with and without the TC.