New Nikon 80-400 & APS C camera

Mike Gallo wrote: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.

IMO, whether the IQ is close depends on whether you're viewing the image at pixel level or not. Then after all the post-processing, pretty much nobody knows - if they do care - what lens the final images - printed or viewed on the web - were photographed with. If anyone is seriously concerned about weight, then buying the smaller lens should be a no brainer. From what I read, the new 80-400 is better than the old version.

Tim Zurowski wrote:

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.

I haven't found any butterflies, but I did find a bee.

Any chance of seeing a 100% crop of the bee?

Photos like that are pretty meaningless for assessing the quality of a lens even if presented at 100%.  You need a photo that has high frequency detail throughout the image including the corners and it needs to be taken with a full frame camera. As stated, it needs to be presented at 100%.  You simply can not make an assessment of any kind with a photo that only has something in focus in the center without high frequency detail and downrezzed to a miniscule fraction of the original pixels...  unless of course all you ever do is photos for tiny web representations but then why on earth would you need multi thousand dollar cameras and lenses, you could get one of those new super zoom point and shoots if 750x500 is all you ever need and even that would probably be overkill..

E.J. Peiker wrote:..  unless of course all you ever do is photos for tiny web representations but then why on earth would you need multi thousand dollar cameras and lenses, you could get one of those new super zoom point and shoots if 750x500 is all you ever need and even that would probably be overkill..

Except perhaps for fast action photographs then you may want to have cameras with good, reliable AF.

I've heard that 95% or even more of today's photographs go to the web (probably with higher resolution than 750x500), that include photographs from pros (some shoot just jpegs) who shoot with expensive gears.

Then get a V2 and save yourself thousands and still be in overkill mode. And you most certainly don't need a $2700 lens for web images.  But the point isn't that.  The point is that the photo, even if it were 100%, would not be one that is useful for determining how good this lens is.

Yes, what would be best are some images taken on somewhat of a flat plane, such as a butterfly wing where the entire frame, corner to corner, is in focus.......best in available light.

I realize that obtaining such an image is a bit of a challenge...... but this bee in the center of the image tells little about this lens.  

To be fair, it is a challenge to get nature macros this time of year......if Bill is in a northern latitude......Oops, sorry Bill, I see you live in Florida.

Come on Bill..........we're anxious to see what this thing does.

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote: To be fair, it is a challenge to get nature macros this time of year.....

But, you don't need to shoot a nature macro to get the right kind of image for lens evaluation purpose. There may be something in the house or around it that would do. Or just shoot the walls or newspapers.

E.J. Peiker wrote: The point is that the photo, even if it were 100%, would not be one that is useful for determining how good this lens is.

Agreed.

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote:Yes, what would be best are some images taken on somewhat of a flat plane, such as a butterfly wing where the entire frame, corner to corner, is in focus.......best in available light.

I realize that obtaining such an image is a bit of a challenge...... but this bee in the center of the image tells little about this lens.  

To be fair, it is a challenge to get nature macros this time of year......if Bill is in a northern latitude......Oops, sorry Bill, I see you live in Florida.

Come on Bill..........we're anxious to see what this thing does.

Well, after shooting with this lens for three days, I have a few shots that I would consider good, but none that are excellent. As E.J. correctly pointed out, we sometimes think that our new equipment is better than it really is.

Part of my issue is that I can make a shot look good because of my photoshop skills. Yes, some of the shots will look great on the Internet.

I have attempted to calibrate the lens three times. None of the adjustments made any difference in critical sharpness.

I am returning the lens, sadly, because its features were exactly what I wanted for 90% of what I do. I have observed that the VR is very good, one can actually see it take effect. But, when I look at my images objectively, taking out the emotions of what I want it to do, it fails in the one category that is most important - critical sharpness.

I am truly disappointed. Yet, when I sit back and look objectively, this lens is not acceptable.

In sum, I do not recommend this lens. Nikon offers far better.

Best regards,

Bill

Bill Lockhart wrote:Well, after shooting with this lens for three days, I have a few shots that I would consider good, but none that are excellent. As E.J. correctly pointed out, we sometimes think that our new equipment is better than it really is.

Part of my issue is that I can make a shot look good because of my photoshop skills. Yes, some of the shots will look great on the Internet.

I have attempted to calibrate the lens three times. None of the adjustments made any difference in critical sharpness.

I am returning the lens, sadly, because its features were exactly what I wanted for 90% of what I do. I have observed that the VR is very good, one can actually see it take effect. But, when I look at my images objectively, taking out the emotions of what I want it to do, it fails in the one category that is most important - critical sharpness.

I am truly disappointed. Yet, when I sit back and look objectively, this lens is not acceptable.

In sum, I do not recommend this lens. Nikon offers far better.

Best regards,

Bill

There must be something wrong with your copy. I think I have been the first to take delivery of the lens in Italy and I have been shooting it beside my 200-400 VRII and mine is VERY sharp, I can't tell the difference between the two lenses when it come to sharpness. While the 200-400 is in a different league for specific applications, I see myself using this new lens a lot in the future. Weight saving and excellent sharpness makes it a winner for me. 

Giulio

It would be interesting to see controlled test samples at 100% between the 200-400 and the 80-400 (including corners), Giulio, as I find it hard to believe that the latter is as sharp at the same aperture and focal length.

Des wrote:It would be interesting to see controlled test samples at 100% between the 200-400 and the 80-400 (including corners), Giulio, as I find it hard to believe that the latter is as sharp at the same aperture and focal length.

I am travelling at the moment but I will. I did not do any scientific test but I use these as wildlife lenses and I am not sure about the corners...Pixelpeeping there will probably be some differences between the two, as the 200-400 cost double, weights double and has a fixed aperture, but, it's not so evident to me...Then of course, it's the old story of what value we attribute to specific differences. Me, I am VERY happy with this lens. I would not have used the old 80-400 and, having used the Canon 100-400 in the past, this is like night and day. It has the same flavor of the recent 70-200/4 VR.

Giulio

The only way to know for sure how good it truly is for sharpness is to put it on a test bench shooting resolution targets. There are too many variables otherwise. It also needs to be properly focus tuned by somebody that really knows how to do this. If you calibrated it three times and got three different results, unless there is something wrong with the lens or camera, you should get the same result every time. I'm happy to take a look at it and run it through the test suite if you want to send me the lens. I'll even do it for free to get a baseline for this new lens. You just pay shipping.

Here is a mini-review with some pics from the new 80-400 on the D800.  Pretty cool....and this man says he has a 600 f4 and 300 2.8 both VR II, so he is familiar with top glass.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bkushner/s ... 050082605/

1.  Click on the squirrel
2.  Then increase the image size to the very maximum.  I did it by hitting the magnifying glass and then choosing "Large" and the "2048" size.  This image is super sharp and appears (at least to me) to have no noticeable post sharpening..  Of course, it is also at quite close range.  I'll try it on one or two (if available) that appear to be taken from longer distances.

A few minutes later:
I just went back and tried a few more, i.e. the horse and then the cardinal.  I may be missing something or speaking too soon (which, as E.J. said, is the tendency to do here), but........this lens looks to be a VERY sharp lens indeed......."pro sharpness".  What am I missing here ?

Have to admit that I am getting excited about the potential of this lens........and can't wait to see a lot more images at the extremes, i.e. real close (at or near MFD) and at long distance (without atmospherics of course....in crepuscular light).

Keep 'em comin' !

Again completely meaningless.  The image has obviously been massively sharpened and there is absolutely not detail in the corners.  Heck for all we know that could be a crop of the center or a DX mode shot or whatever.   I'm pulling my hair out here.  YOU CAN NOT JUDGE A LENS BY SMALL WEB IMAGES WITH NO HIGH FREQUENCY DETAIL THROUGHOUT THE IMAGE.  It is a complete waste of time!  Even 2048 is small!

Ok. But what do you mean by high frequency?

The fur on the squirrel is high frequency detail but in that shot it has been heavily sharpened.  You would need some throughout the image, preferably some that is quantifiable like what you get on an ISO 12233 test chart.  MTF50 is also a great measure of high frequency detail.  MTF30 will do but it's not as good but that';s what Nikon uses for their MTF charts.  On this lens, you see a steady roll-off on the MTF30 plot for 400mm: By comparison, here is the 200-400: You can see significantly less roll-off as you get to the edge of the frame in the corners (ther right side of the plot)

Finally, here is the 400/2.8: It is even better.

All three are pretty good on low frequency detail MTF10, but the zooms are progressively worse than the prime on medium frequency detail.  this is an indicator that on high frequency detail (MTF50), the 80-400 would probably be pretty poor compared to the other two.  But we don't have those tests which is why i am offering to test one for free if somebody wants to ship it to me.

E.J. Peiker wrote:The only way to know for sure how good it truly is for sharpness is to put it on a test bench shooting resolution targets.  There are too many variables otherwise.  It also needs to be properly focus tuned by somebody that really knows how to do this.  If you calibrated it three times and got three different results, unless there is something wrong with the lens or camera, you should get the same result every time.  I'm happy to take a look at it and run it  through the test suite if you want to send me the lens.  I'll even do it for free to get a baseline for this new lens.  You just pay shipping.

Thanks for your offer E.J. but I have returned the lens. Two shots follow, the first was done using the 100-400mm at 400mm. The second was done using the 300mm f/4. The two images demonstrate my frustration. I hope I have not violated some posting requirement, if I have please just delete this post.

And you are correct, comparing these two images is totally without merit. But, the two demonstrate what I have experienced. Both are 100% crops with no sharpening applied, both were shot at f/8, the Heron at 1/2500, the Pelican at 1/3000. I did adjust levels in both shots. Both shots were taken with the same camera, the D800, both lenses have been calibrated. What I am seeing is that the 100-400mm simply will not focus critically.

And I repeat, this is not a valid test by any measure, it is entirely subjective.

Hmm, those look pretty good on this end for 100% crops and no sharpening.