Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 124 posts | 
by Gary Irwin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:54 pm
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Baywing wrote:Shouldn't be too much longer, only took Nikon about 10 years to get afs in the 80-400 so I'm thinking by 2024 give or take a year......
Ouch! :lol:

I fear more true that not. I figure by the time Nikon get around to releasing a decent replacement for the 300/4 w/VR, or God forbid an actual 400/5.6 prime(!), or respond to Canon's MKII superteles, Canon will have finally figured out how to make a decent high DR sensor, and I'll be shooting white lenses exclusively. It's an interesting horse race but right now it's even odds. :)
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by Baywing on Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:29 am
User avatar
Baywing
Forum Contributor
Posts: 868
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Location: CT
Gary Irwin wrote:
Baywing wrote:Shouldn't be too much longer, only took Nikon about 10 years to get afs in the 80-400 so I'm thinking by 2024 give or take a year......
Ouch! :lol:

I fear more true that not. I figure by the time Nikon get around to releasing a decent replacement for the 300/4 w/VR, or God forbid an actual 400/5.6 prime(!), or respond to Canon's MKII superteles, Canon will have finally figured out how to make a decent high DR sensor, and I'll be shooting white lenses exclusively. It's an interesting horse race but right now it's even odds. :)
Well, half tongue in cheek with some exaggeration thrown in but a definate dig at Nikon.  I agree with Thom Hogan, I don't know why Nikon does what it does (and doesn't do).   It seems they are leaving $$ on the table.  They don't need to match Canon lens for lens, but they should try to give their customers what they want and not tell us what they think we should buy.  A real winner would be for Nikon to find the holes in Canon's line-up and fill them offering a versitility that can't be matched (at least for 10 years +/- which is about what it is taking Canon to market a 200-400).
Photos at: http://www.pbase.com/baywing
 

by Woodswalker on Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:52 am
Woodswalker
Forum Contributor
Posts: 432
Joined: 12 Apr 2008
I guess VR would improve the 300 F/4 which is older but still it's a stellar piece of glass now and one of my favourites. There are lots of reasons/excuses I miss shots but lack of VR isn't one of them, not with monopods, tripods and even beanbags available to me.
 

by Blck-shouldered Kite on Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:08 pm
Blck-shouldered Kite
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2669
Joined: 31 Dec 2010
Location: Maine
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Giulio Zanni wrote:Scott Kelby on D7100 + new 80-400. It does seem as a very nice and portable combo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIvK7ixsiEY
Note on his D7100 review where he is raving about the low noise, when he shows you the pictures on the LCD he was shooting in JPEG which has very aggressive noise reduction applied in camera when you get to those ISOs so the whole noise discussion he was having is complete nonsense unless you look at RAWs without in camera NR.  On the lens, you simply can not evaluate overall sharpness on hockey shots where the subject is in the center and the corners are white ice.  I'm sorry but this sounds like a Nikon promo video and not a real objective review.
Yup, I do understand your suspicions on that.

In fact, before reading your comment even I picked up on that white ice phenom.  I saw all that bright white around the blue (relatively neutral hockey player) and a red flag went off....."hey, that white ice can be hiding "imperfections"  that we photographers do not like".  He did say the lens is "crazy sharp", but yes, that is a relative term. 

I did not know about the RAW vs JPEG noise phenom you mention.  That is interesting.

But it just might be that this is not a Nikon-affiliated promo.  We are just going to have to wait to see the ratings from you and other pro entities.

I am keeping my fingers crossed because I hope for a "very" sharp telezoom that goes out to the equivalent of a 600 mm in DX, has quite high mass and is compact.  I could take that.  And I could work with rest of the cons, i.e. variable aperture, non-internal zoom.   Hard for me to believe that this thing with Nikon's latest 1.4 converter would be of any practical value.
 

by Blck-shouldered Kite on Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:00 am
Blck-shouldered Kite
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2669
Joined: 31 Dec 2010
Location: Maine
Tim Zurowski wrote:I am one who is still waiting for VR to be added to the 300 f/4. I think I may be waiting forever on that one :(  So this new 80-400 intrigues me and raises a few questions:

1) Does anyone know what the minimum focus distance will be at 400mm? Might it be as close as the 300 f/4?

2) Do you think this lens will be as sharp as the 300 f/4 at 300mm? As sharp as the 300 f/4 and 1.4x at 400mm?

If the minimum focus distance is similar and the lens is as sharp, then perhaps it can/will replace the need for VR on the 300 f/4.
I am thinking somewhat along these same lines Tim.  BTW.......the MFD is about 5.7 feet or a little under 6 feet.

There is no way that this new zoom is going to be as sharp as the 300 f4.  I do not believe it.  I am just hoping it is "somewhat close".  I will be very happy with that.  But it is going to have to be "crazy sharp" on the long end too......for me to be excited for it.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:57 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
As always a nice concise and frank opinion based on Imatest results from LensRentals.com on the new 80-400.  Bottom line - "Nice as the lens is, I wouldn’t pay $2,700 for it"

The data does show that it's significantly sharper than the lens it replaces and also sharper than the competition.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03 ... -80-400-vr
 

by Kerry on Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:50 am
Kerry
Forum Contributor
Posts: 920
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Chicago area/Wilmington, DE area
E.J. Peiker wrote:As always a nice concise and frank opinion based on Imatest results from LensRentals.com on the new 80-400.  Bottom line - "Nice as the lens is, I wouldn’t pay $2,700 for it"

The data does show that it's significantly sharper than the lens it replaces and also sharper than the competition.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03 ... -80-400-vr
After reading the review...more grist for the "wait for the price to drop" mill.
 

by Tim Zurowski on Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:34 am
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Well folks, I ordered one today, that is the 80-400mm.

The lens should arrive Monday or Tuesday of next week.

Give me a day or so to calibrate the lens with my D800 and the D800e, then I will go visit my favorite rookery and take some shots.

Will post RAW files you can download and pixel peep.

Stay tuned.


Bill
Bill, I would be really interested in seeing your test shots with this lens. If there is any chance that you could take some close up shots of butterflies or dragonflies, to show how sharp it is for that style of images, it would be greatly appreciated :) I would need to see them at 100%. I use my 300 f/4 almost exclusively for dragonfly photography, and REALLY miss having VR. I also use it most of the time with the 1.4x at 420mm, so if the new 80-400 VR is close the same IQ at 400mm, it will definitely interest me. My only concern is if the close focusing distance will be close enough, The excellent cropping abilities of the D800 will help me out a lot in that area.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:48 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Note that according to the LR test, if the old 80-400 is 400 at the long end then this new lens is only 385.
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:19 pm
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
Lens Rentals.com did a little test comparing the old and new 80-400 to the 70-200f2.8 with a 2x.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03 ... comparison
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:26 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Scott Fairbairn wrote:Lens Rentals.com did a little test comparing the old and new 80-400 to the 70-200f2.8 with a 2x.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03 ... comparison
Once again shows that 2x converters are evil with 36% less resolution...  yet you will still get person after person saying that there's is "tack sharp" and sharper than a prime - yadayadayada...

Emotional attachment to things simply because you paid money for it is not objective reviewing ;)
 

by Bill Lockhart on Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:20 am
User avatar
Bill Lockhart
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
Location: Safety Harbor, Florida
Member #:00215
Just found some shots done with the D800 and the new AF-S 80-400mm. You can download the full resolution JPEG. The ship is simply stunning.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/revi ... 93092.html

Where is the UPS truck with my lens? Grumble.
Bill Lockhart
[url=http://www.phototravelreview.com]Photo Travel Review[/url]
[url=http://www.bill.lockharts.com]Personal Website[/url]
 

by andre paul on Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:47 am
User avatar
andre paul
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1829
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
like tim and others i was waitnig for a 300mm afs with vr...
i am sure the new 80-400 is a nice lens, but i am still not convinced about the lens regarding its price and utility .... i might wait a bit, and maybe go through a more painful ( $$$) route and go with the nikkor 300mm 2.8 .... and use it with my 1.4 and 1.7 tc ...
andre reichmann
**sao paulo-brazil**
 

by Tim Zurowski on Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:40 am
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Bill Lockhart wrote:Just found some shots done with the D800 and the new AF-S 80-400mm. You can download the full resolution JPEG. The ship is simply stunning.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/revi ... 93092.html

Where is the UPS truck with my lens? Grumble.
Thanks for that link Bill. The long distance shots don't have much interest for me as I would never be using this lens like that. However, the flower shots do interest me and I must say they look horrible. If that is as sharp and detailed as this lens can get, then I have no interest whatsoever. I have wanted VR so badly in my 300 f/4 for so long, that I even considered switching to Canon at one time for it. If it wasn't for the D800, I might still consider it. Oh well, the 300 f/4 is still a great lens without VR, so I'll just continue to be happy with it and continue to wait.
 

by Bill Lockhart on Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:12 pm
User avatar
Bill Lockhart
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
Location: Safety Harbor, Florida
Member #:00215
Tim Zurowski wrote:
Bill Lockhart wrote:Just found some shots done with the D800 and the new AF-S 80-400mm. You can download the full resolution JPEG. The ship is simply stunning.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/revi ... 93092.html

Where is the UPS truck with my lens? Grumble.
Thanks for that link Bill. The long distance shots don't have much interest for me as I would never be using this lens like that. However, the flower shots do interest me and I must say they look horrible. If that is as sharp and detailed as this lens can get, then I have no interest whatsoever. I have wanted VR so badly in my 300 f/4 for so long, that I even considered switching to Canon at one time for it. If it wasn't for the D800, I might still consider it. Oh well, the 300 f/4 is still a great lens without VR, so I'll just continue to be happy with it and continue to wait.
Hi Tim,

Only time will tell. If my lens ever gets here I hope to post some shots and link to full resolution RAW files for all to see.

Where in the heck is the UPS Truck?

Grumble.

:-)

Best regards,

Bill
Bill Lockhart
[url=http://www.phototravelreview.com]Photo Travel Review[/url]
[url=http://www.bill.lockharts.com]Personal Website[/url]
 

by Bill Lockhart on Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:59 pm
User avatar
Bill Lockhart
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
Location: Safety Harbor, Florida
Member #:00215
The lens arrived. I grabbed my D800, mounted the lens and took some shots, knowing full well I need to calibrate. But, I gotta tell you, my first impression is rooted in the words "Holy Cats Batman."

I would compare the results to the Canon 300mm f/2.8L - it is that good. WOW. WOW. WOW.

Worth every penny and then some.

Tomorrow I will calibrate and go find light.

Stay tuned.
Bill Lockhart
[url=http://www.phototravelreview.com]Photo Travel Review[/url]
[url=http://www.bill.lockharts.com]Personal Website[/url]
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:17 pm
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
Bill Lockhart wrote:The lens arrived. I grabbed my D800, mounted the lens and took some shots, knowing full well I need to calibrate. But, I gotta tell you, my first impression is rooted in the words "Holy Cats Batman."

I would compare the results to the Canon 300mm f/2.8L - it is that good. WOW. WOW. WOW.

Worth every penny and then some.

Tomorrow I will calibrate and go find light.

Stay tuned.
Now it that puppy has fast AF, will it be a contender to the Canon 400f5.6??
 

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:37 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Trust me, it doesn't touch a 300/2.8 VR2 in any regime accept weight. That's just the emotions of having a new lens in the hands ;)
 

by Bill Lockhart on Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:03 am
User avatar
Bill Lockhart
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
Location: Safety Harbor, Florida
Member #:00215
E.J. Peiker wrote:Trust me, it doesn't touch a 300/2.8 VR2 in any regime accept weight.  That's just the emotions of having a new lens in the hands ;)
I am sitting here struggling to come up with a standard Internet reply. So far, I can't think of anything.

I'm too emotive. 8)
Bill Lockhart
[url=http://www.phototravelreview.com]Photo Travel Review[/url]
[url=http://www.bill.lockharts.com]Personal Website[/url]
 

by Mike Gallo on Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:57 am
User avatar
Mike Gallo
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6604
Joined: 9 Feb 2005
Location: Suburb of Chicago
Member #:00457
While I do not think that the new 80-400 is near prime time, I would like to see a comparison with the 200-400. At less than half the weight and $4,050.00 less in cost (B&H numbers), this may position the 80-400 as a better choice for some if the IQ is close.
Just havin' fun
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
124 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group