ffstory Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
colincarter46 wrote:
Well... I'm not interpreting charts. I actually own both lenses and have shot with them both.
You are comparing two lens samples then. It is always tricky. True, MTF charts are not perfect, but they are usually correct, especially when comparing manufacturer's data and the results are backed by imatest reviews.
colincarter46 wrote:
the 80-400 has better lens coatings than the old 300 f4, which is in need of a serious update (probably before christmas)
Well, better coatings are always good. However, they can't really improve sharpness, they can only help optical surfaces to distort less light or improve flare resistance.
The 300mm is indeed due to upgrade, but primarily to add VR. I am sure Nikon's engineers need to think hard how to do that without compromising the performance of the current lens.
An in case of multiple-element zooms, these exotic coatings have to compensate loss of light that inevitably happen on every of its many glass/air surfaces.
The 80-400G is a very good lens, but a very complex optical design. It has twice as many elements as the 300mm prime (10/6 vs 20/12). It is well corrected for various off-axis aberrations, but I don' believe it can really match the Nikon primes as far as sharpness is concerned and MTF charts and reviews clearly show that. It is fighting against law of physics, which is always hard On the other hand, it is true that the 80-400 is the best zoom yet.
|