Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2016 · 200-400mm f4 VR1 Compared to 200-500mm f5.6 VR

  
 
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 200-400mm f4 VR1 Compared to 200-500mm f5.6 VR


Well at the risk of overdoing the "how does this compare to that?" I finally ran the test I was waiting for someone else to do. First, I will flatly admit... I suck at lens testing. While I am a scientist, precise analytics is not my thing. I am an evolutionary ecologist... a dreamer and watcher of nature. Bench analyses bore me, though I do not object to digging into numbers and evaluating data.

With the pre-amble and disclosure over, I want to begin with why I decided to do the test. The first two images in this post say it all. This weekend I took my wife to photograph trumpeter swans. The light was nice and we were shooting side-by-side. While my position was lower (I was prone on the ice and she was sitting on her knees), we by luck happened to capture the same moment at the same time. I was using my D4 with the 200-400mm f4 @ 400mm and f4.5, she was using the 200-500mm on a D610 @ 390mm f5.6. We were both shooting at ISO 800 and, in my opinion, her shot was sharper than mine. So I began to wonder... was this a focus thing (my af point was at a different spot), was it a resolution thing (D4 = 16.x mp vs D610 = 24mp), or is the 200-500mm f5.6 just sharper than than my dated 200-400mm f4 VR1.

To save you the grief of reading the rest... the 200-500 f5.6 is close... it is very sharp, but it does not beat the heavier, faster and way more expensive optic (whew... that's a relief).

The test... test images will follow my outline. The caption below the picture will describe the settings.
So, being a biologist and biology teacher I happen to have some pretty good nature targets. So I brought my stuffed screech owl home from work (doesn't everyone have a stuffed screech owl ). I set it up in my home at a distance in which I might actually see one of these in the wild.
1. I did the test from a tripod with mirror lock-up and cable release.
2. All images where shot from the exact same location with my Nikon D4 at ISO 1600
3. I took only two shots per aperture and focal length. The first always began from infinity and relied on the AF system, and the second began from infinity but was LiveView AF-focus. I chose the sharpest image from the pair to display. Other than the images made with a 1.4x converter, the viewfinder AF system was as sharp or sharper than LiveView. With the 1.4x converter the LV shot was sharpest.
4. I shot the bird with the 200-400mm Lens at 400mm and f4.0, 400mm and f5.6, 500mm and f5.6 (w/ 1.4eII converter) and 550mm and f5.6 w/ 1.4eII converter)
5. I shot the 200-500mm at 400mm and f5.6 and 500mm and f5.6. I did not add a converter to the 200-500mm lens as we will not be using it with the converter.
6. Raw images were brought into lightroom, left in default settings and exported as full res jpeg files.
7. I imported each file into Photoshop CC, created a 1000x1000 72dpi canvas and pasted a 100% (full res) crop in the canvas. The 100% 72dpi file was sharpened with smart sharpen at 100, .3 radius.

Conclusions... in all cases the 200-400mm lens was sharper at equal apertures to the 200-500mm lens. When comparing the 200-400mm lens at 400mm and f4 is was not as sharp as the 200-500mm lens set to 400mm and f5.6. Considering that you could buy almost five 200-500mm f5.6 lenses for a new 200-400mm f4 VRII, it is absolutely amazing how good this lens really is... note all test shots were taken in low light (ISO 1600 and shutter speeds of 1/4 to 1/10 second)... a real torture test.

I hope that these findings are as interesting to you all as it was for me...



© BTLeventhal 2015


D4 w/ 200-400mm VR1 at f4.5





© BTLeventhal 2015


D610 w/ 200-500mm VR at 390mm and f5.6







200-400mm VR @ 400mm and f4 100%







200-400mm VR @ 400mm and f5.6 100%







200-500mm VR @ 400mm and f5.6 100%




Feb 01, 2016 at 08:19 PM
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 200-400mm f4 VR1 Compared to 200-500mm f5.6 VR


Linked is the rest of the test





200-400mm VR TC 14eII @ 500mm and f5.6 100%







200-500mm VR @ 500mm and f5.6 100%







200-400mm VR + TC 14eII @ 550m and f5.6 100%




Feb 01, 2016 at 08:21 PM
Christian H
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 200-400mm f4 VR1 Compared to 200-500mm f5.6 VR


Dude, no blurry moon shots? This test is useless!


Feb 01, 2016 at 09:06 PM
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 200-400mm f4 VR1 Compared to 200-500mm f5.6 VR


Christian H wrote:
Dude, no blurry moon shots? This test is useless!


Thanks for the laugh... it's been a long day!



Feb 01, 2016 at 09:11 PM
GSteele
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 200-400mm f4 VR1 Compared to 200-500mm f5.6 VR


Bruce,

This is a nice comparison. It does reinforce my opinion of my 200-400mm when I had it. It is a little soft at F/4. I know this may sound a little nit-picky, it is not to be meant that way, on the second owl picture you stopped you 200-400mm 1 full stop and as I would suspect it is sharper than the 200-500mm wide opened. I would have liked to have seen the 200-500mm stopped down to f/8 for comparison.

In all fairness though, you did add the TC to the 200-400mm to create a A/B comparison at full focal length of the 200-500mm.

I am surprised (not amazed) at how well the 200-500mm performs. I, like you, travel enough that I feel the 200-500mm maybe just what the doctor ordered. Shipping Prime lenses is a real pain in the butt and most all my photos don't need to be able to capture the speck of dirt on the nose hair of a bird to be in perfect focus.

Thank you for taking the time to do this comparison.

Gary



Feb 02, 2016 at 02:41 PM
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 200-400mm f4 VR1 Compared to 200-500mm f5.6 VR


GSteele wrote:
Bruce,

...

I am surprised (not amazed) at how well the 200-500mm performs. I, like you, travel enough that I feel the 200-500mm maybe just what the doctor ordered. Shipping Prime lenses is a real pain in the butt and most all my photos don't need to be able to capture the speck of dirt on the nose hair of a bird to be in perfect focus.

Thank you for taking the time to do this comparison.

Gary


You are welcome Gary. I had debated doing the 200-500mm at f8, but this gets to an aperture that becomes decreasingly useful to me. I am certain that the lens will sharpen at f8, as it is surprisingly good at f5.6. What I seemed more important was the performance difference when both lenses were shot wide open.

As have said before... it is a good time to be a wildlife photographer on a budget. For the first time in my photographic life (30 years or so...) there are many relatively affordable ways to get into a high quality super-tele lens.

bruce



Feb 03, 2016 at 02:40 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 200-400mm f4 VR1 Compared to 200-500mm f5.6 VR


Thanks, Bruce. When comparing two lenses of this focal-length, I don't believe you should stop down either lens. Most of us shooting at the far end are usually doing so with the lens wide-open.

Hope you don't mind if I toned down the highlights of the 200-500 shot to be closer to the 200-400 shot.

Might have adjusted a couple of other things also. Will remove it if you wish.

I used to have a stuffed Great Horned Owl and wished I had kept it for lens testing.

Tony







Feb 03, 2016 at 02:58 PM
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 200-400mm f4 VR1 Compared to 200-500mm f5.6 VR


Thanks for your thoughts Tony...
I tend to push a lot of my winter photos towards the high-key end of things, but I have to admit that the added detail in the wings and separation of the head from the snowbank make the image even stronger.

Thanks for sharing your spin on the post work,

bruce



Feb 03, 2016 at 07:35 PM
dtulis
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 200-400mm f4 VR1 Compared to 200-500mm f5.6 VR


Thanks for the test. I am a 200-400 advocate and I have noticed that f 4.5 is a big help vs 4.0.


Feb 05, 2016 at 08:07 AM
kaplah
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 200-400mm f4 VR1 Compared to 200-500mm f5.6 VR


Great test. I immediately knew the first image was from a 200-400, because of the lovely bokeh. But the 200-500 is no slouch.



Feb 05, 2016 at 12:57 PM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.