Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 22 posts | 
by Richard B. on Thu Mar 22, 2018 2:38 pm
Richard B.
Lifetime Member
Posts: 283
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Location: Central Massachusetts
Member #:01199
Steve Perry has his short term review of the news lens on his web site - www.backcountrygallery.com

https://backcountrygallery.com/nikon-18 ... omparison/

Lots of sharpness comparisons with other zooms and primes. 

Richard
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:23 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Seems odd not to compare it to the lens it is replacing ...
Also would like to see tests at distance because that's where Nikon long lenses have a history of faceplanting although he does say that the problem is fixed but doesn't show testing.

It does show how incredibly good the 300PF is, even with the 1.4x.
 

by Woodswalker on Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:48 am
Woodswalker
Forum Contributor
Posts: 432
Joined: 12 Apr 2008
I think he tested it against lenses he already owns perhaps. At $15,000 here in Canada it had better be sharp at distance!
 

by Swissblad on Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:50 am
User avatar
Swissblad
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2434
Joined: 17 Jun 2016
E.J. Peiker wrote:Seems odd not to compare it to the lens it is replacing ...
I think that would have meant renting 2 lenses.... 

It does show how incredibly good the 300PF is, even with the 1.4x.

the little 300mmPF is indeed a stellar performer..... only lens we have 2 copies of...:)
 

by Andy Trowbridge on Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:03 pm
Andy Trowbridge
Forum Contributor
Posts: 991
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: New Zealand
Ephotozine has also posted their review of the Nikon 180-400mm.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-180-400mm-f-4e-tc1-4-fl-ed-review-32085

Quite a drop in resolution at 400mm on their MTF charts compared with shorter focal lengths. 
All comments & suggestions welcomed and appreciated.
_______________________________________

Andy Trowbridge http://www.andytrowbridge.com 
Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/AndyTrowbridgePhotography
 

by Tim Zurowski on Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:28 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Swissblad wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:Seems odd not to compare it to the lens it is replacing ...
I think that would have meant renting 2 lenses.... 

It does show how incredibly good the 300PF is, even with the 1.4x.

the little 300mmPF is indeed a stellar performer..... only lens we have 2 copies of...:)
For me, even more it showed how well the 200-500 stacks up (other than at 200mm) for a lens that is basically 1/10 of the cost. I would rarely use the 200-500 at 200mm anyway. 

So to put it in my perspective, here in Canada for the price of one 180-400 f4 lens you could purchase a D850, D500, 200-500 VR, TC-14E III, Sigma 150 f2.8 macro, Sigma 24-35 f2, Nikon 50mm f1.8 G, SB-910, Gitzo Tripod, Gimbal head and have a fantastic fairly well rounded system with some cash left over. That says it all for me. ;)
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:33 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Yeah but the 200-500 isn't very good in the corners in his test (neither is the 80-400 at 2x the cost - that's the real slouch in the group). It might be fine for birds, especially on DX bodies but I wouldn't want to use it for anything that needs corners as sharp as the center on full frame.
 

by Tim Zurowski on Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:57 am
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
E.J. Peiker wrote:Yeah but the 200-500 isn't very good in the corners in his test (neither is the 80-400 at 2x the cost - that's the real slouch in the group).  It might be fine for birds, especially on DX bodies but I wouldn't want to use it for anything that needs corners as sharp as the center on full frame.
My impression was that it was only a problem at 200mm. At 300mm the 200-500 was almost as good in the corners. For most of what I use a 500mm for the corners don't really matter anyway.
 

by mlgray12 on Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:24 am
User avatar
mlgray12
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Location: Fort Davis, Texas
Member #:01023
Another point that seems to being skipped over here is the build quality - both the 80-400 and the 200-500 - are basically really inferior in build quality - I have had both versions of 80-400 and that mistake will not be made again- yes with tight budget I van see a reqal problem with this lens at 12,000 plus - however the other huge drawback for both of the less expensive lens is the fact they are not weather sealed and are basically push pull lenses - While in Ecuador in rainy season - one of the other guests was using a Canon 100-400mm (push-pull) and in middle of trip - just before heading down to Amazon basin - had her gear completely fog up and when she managed to dry up lens it was basically unusable due to all the dust and debris let inside lens - had to shot in Amazon with nothing bigger than 200mm - tough for birds etc... unless she managed to get new lens while traveling through Quito.

And these lens are terrible when shooting on gimbal head and as Tim pointed out with lots of bird photography corners are not critical - but in many cases especially big birds in vertical format or managing to work at really close range corners do come into play and sometimes even the most critical point the eye - had several situation on last trip where birds eye was outside focus points on D850 and required reframing
Michael L. Gray
Wildlife and Conservation Bum
 

by ilkka_nissila on Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:53 am
ilkka_nissila
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3
Joined: 7 Nov 2014
Andy Trowbridge wrote:Ephotozine has also posted their review of the Nikon 180-400mm.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-180-400mm-f-4e-tc1-4-fl-ed-review-32085

Quite a drop in resolution at 400mm on their MTF charts compared with shorter focal lengths. 

Yes, but this is on a D850 which shows small differences more clearly. I think the 400mm results are still very detailed.

Regarding the relative performance of the 180-400 and 200-500, Steve noted on his site that "One thing of note though is that I believe I have a very sharp copy of the 200-500. This is my third copy and the 180-400 would have murdered the first two copies." So, you cannot consider his comparison a representative showing of a typical 200-500 but a "good" sample.

Photographylife.com also note sample variability with the 200-500 in their review. I think this is a worrying issue from the point of view consumer protection.

What I like about lensrentals blog tests is that they test many samples and report the average and in many cases, standard deviation as well. However, they do not test lenses longer than 400mm.

I think from these two tests we can conclude that the 180-400 is somewhere between a good copy of the 200-500 and supertele primes in quality. This is as expected. I think the special value of the 180-400 is in the quick changes in focal length illustrated in the beginning of the video. The 200-500 takes time and effort to change the focal length and it may not be possible to do fast enough for a rapidly approaching subject.


Last edited by ilkka_nissila on Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:55 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Andy Trowbridge wrote:Ephotozine has also posted their review of the Nikon 180-400mm.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-180-400mm-f-4e-tc1-4-fl-ed-review-32085

Quite a drop in resolution at 400mm on their MTF charts compared with shorter focal lengths. 

Yes, but this is on a D850 which shows small differences more clearly. I think the 400mm results are still very detailed.

Regarding the relative performance of the 180-400 and 200-500, Steve noted on his site that "One thing of note though is that I believe I have a very sharp copy of the 200-500. This is my third copy and the 180-400 would have murdered the first two copies." So, you cannot consider this a representative showing of a typical 200-500 but a "good" sample.

Photographylife.com also note sample variability with the 200-500 in their review. I think this is a worrying issue from the point of view consumer protection.

What I like about lensrentals blog tests is that they test many samples and report the average and in many cases, standard deviation as well. However, they do not test lenses longer than 400mm.
I agree, my personal experience in calibrating about two dozen 200-500's is that this lens has a lot of sample to sample variation.  
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:03 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I have my first one in house and have been testing it this afternoon.  Some initial impressions:

Con:
EXPENSIVE
Not readily available
No click stops on lens collar

Pro:
Incredibly well built
AF is lightning fast even with 1.4x
No sign of infinity focus acuity issues

This lens is sharper with the 1.4x in than the previous version 500mm or 600mm f/4 VR lenses were at infinity.  It is dramatically sharper through the zoom range than any other zoom lens in the range, that includes the Sigma and Tamron 150-600s, the older 200-400, the 200-500, the Canon 200-400/1.4x, any 80-400 except the Sony 100-400 FE lens which is in a similar league but a stop slower at 400mm and much less sharp with a 1.4x to get it to 560.  There is much less falloff in image quality when the 1.4x is inserted than there is on the similar but older Canon 200-400 with 1.4x built in.

Overall, based on initial impressions, this is a seriously impressive lens.  Price and availability make this a high entry point lens but if you ahve the means to get one, it is very impressive.

If it weren't USD $12,400 I'd replace the Sigma 150-600 in a heartbeat :)
 

by Neilyb on Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:18 am
User avatar
Neilyb
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2763
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Munich
My personal experience with the Canon has not been all that great and I will stick to long primes for the serious stuff. Glad to hear Nikon have bettered it to be honest.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:18 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I spent pretty much the last 48 hours with it non-stop, ran many tests, some real world shooting and comparisons. I wrote a mini review based on that. It's an exceptional lens and blows the doors off the Canon, especially with the TC inserted, and kills any other zoom I have ever used. It's essentially indistinguishable from a prime and finally solves the Nikon infinity focus sharpness issue... Quite frankly I wanted to not be as good as it is because then I wouldn't have FOMO and would continue to be happy with my Sigma 150-600 Sport, but that didn't happen... :( Here's a link to my write-up:
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/180-400.pdf
 

by david fletcher on Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:08 pm
User avatar
david fletcher
Moderator
Posts: 34208
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Location: UK
Member #:00525
thanks for that review EJ. on the money. which means on that note, I'll be looking to spend some... LOL. Appreciate your time.

On an aside, one element that means much is that the sharpness is retained more as one approaches the edge of the frame. Meaning a vertical / reframed shot on a bird/mammal should retain the sharpness around the eye when that part is moved off centre. If that makes sense
Make your life spectacular!

NSN00525
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:38 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
david fletcher wrote:thanks for that review EJ.  on the money.  which means on that note, I'll be looking to spend some... LOL.  Appreciate your time.

On an aside, one element that means much is that the sharpness is retained more as one approaches the edge of the frame. Meaning a vertical / reframed shot on a bird/mammal should retain the sharpness around the eye when that part is moved off centre.  If that makes sense
Hi David, while I didn't show that, I should have commented on it and have edited it to comment on corner sharpness.  I ran resolution tests on a full frame D850 camera and found the corners to be excellent.  The lens outresolved the limits of the test chart, 4000 lines per frame, all the way into the corners
 

by Gary Irwin on Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:19 pm
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Thanks E.J., very interesting review. Honestly, if this lens was 2 lbs lighter it would already be in my bag. Still might be some day. Kind of makes me even more excited about another recently rumoured lens from Nikon in the 600mm range that I can’t mention here. :D
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:14 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Gary Irwin wrote:Thanks E.J., very interesting review. Honestly, if this lens was 2 lbs lighter it would already be in my bag. Still might be some day. Kind of makes me even more excited about another recently rumoured lens from Nikon in the 600mm range that I can’t mention here. :D
You mean the one that adds letters P and F to the alphabet soup of lens naming... :D
 

by Gary Irwin on Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:37 am
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
E.J. Peiker wrote: You mean the one that adds letters P and F to the alphabet soup of lens naming... :D
Ummm....maybe.  :mrgreen:

BTW, if you get a chance E.J., I’d be very interested to see a quick test of this lens with an external TC14EIII. I’m not a fan of TC’s by any means, but if this lens is so sharp, it would be interesting to see if it could do a decent 800mm @f8 (i.e. not stopped down). If sharpness was passable, that would make this lens a really interesting all-in-one option.
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by Scotty on Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:29 am
User avatar
Scotty
Forum Contributor
Posts: 447
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Location: Tetonia, ID & Pocatello, ID
E.J. Peiker wrote:I spent pretty much the last 48 hours with it non-stop, ran many tests, some real world shooting and comparisons.  I wrote a mini review based on that.  It's an exceptional lens and blows the doors off the Canon, especially with the TC inserted, and kills any other zoom I have ever used.  It's essentially indistinguishable from a prime and finally solves the Nikon infinity focus sharpness issue...  Quite frankly I wanted to not be as good as it is because then I wouldn't have FOMO and would continue to be happy with my Sigma 150-600 Sport, but that didn't happen... :(   Here's a link to my write-up:
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/180-400.pdf


Thanks for the great review - just curious if the Nikon 180-400 required much (if any) in the way of focus tuning to get it that sharp?
http://www.ecotonephoto.com
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
22 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group