jbledsoe wrote:
These were shot today. Some background:
a. cloudy, dark, sometimes showers, generally really poor flat light.
b. all shot at ISO 1600 due to the poor light. All were shot off-hand with VR on.
c. all are shot 300-400mm, I have not fine tuned AF, just put it on the D3s and shot.
d. nothing special for camera settings, standard and some on the fly exposure comp.
e. the photos were all pulled into lightroom, cropped, and no other changes.
f. exported from lightroom with only sharpening for screen used.
My point is not to show really nice pics, but to give an idea what you can expect right from the camera. Of course I'd rather have nice light to test it in, but I'm thinking this is ok, I figure they will only get better with nicer light.
The keeper rate and general IQ doesn't come close to the 500VR, but I'm thinking it's a keeper considering the intended purpose and cost.
Thank you for this pictures. I am certainly interested in this lens. Sharpness seems quite/very good. I am not sure yet about bokeh. But let's see more pictures before a definite conclusion.
Thanks for providing the sample shots, guys! They look pretty good to me, at least as good as, but likely much better than the best I can get out of my old 80-400.
Thanks for posting the 100% files, David. It's useful.
It looks like the heron is a very heavy crop, and thus was pretty far away, but there's still a reasonable amount of detail.
Do either of you have other similar lenses to compare it to, like the 300mm f/4, or the 70-300, or the 70-200, etc.? I.e. not the "big guns" but other lenses of a more consumer-targeted price range?
aFrIcanSH wrote:
not to nitpick but there's something about the bokeh i'm not quite digging
Pretty typical of this class of lens. It could also be PP methodology, as global contrast / clarity adjustments can exacerbate already nervous bokeh. I will say some of these shots look even "extra" nervous but again could be setup of the shot (short-distance greenery) or the PP...hard to tell.
I think when i last saw nikon's samples the backgrounds used were pretty clean. I expected them to be a tad cleaner though (cause of the price maybe?), but the sharpness and detail are there for all to see. Obviously bokeh wouldn't be the focus of this lens anyway. Great stuff.
aFrIcanSH wrote:
I think when i last saw nikon's samples the backgrounds used were pretty clean. I expected them to be a tad cleaner though (cause of the price maybe?), but the sharpness and detail are there for all to see. Obviously bokeh wouldn't be the focus of this lens anyway. Great stuff.
At this price point, good to very good bokeh is important to me. Sharpness near wide open at 400mm seems like a possibility though too soon to tell.
lorac wrote:
At this price point, good to very good bokeh is important to me. Sharpness near wide open at 400mm seems like a possibility though too soon to tell.
I agree. A good or bad bokeh can make a world of difference in a picture. Bokeh contributes to a high extent in the overall look of a picture.
At this price point, good to very good bokeh is important to me. Sharpness near wide open at 400mm seems like a possibility though too soon to tell.
the bokeh in the examples posted above are very similar, perhaps a little better, to my 300mm f4 AF-S +TC14E. it's not so much the price point which determines bokeh, but the lens design. for this many elements, and this small a minimum aperture, the bokeh is about as good as it gets. if, at this reach, soft bokeh and sharpness are a photographer's priority, they might be better off looking at doubling the current price point, or dialing down to a lens with less reach but a wider maximum aperture.
nunatak wrote:
the bokeh in the examples posted above are very similar, perhaps a little better, to my 300mm f4 AF-S +TC14E. it's not so much the price point which determines bokeh, but the lens design. for this many elements, and this small a minimum aperture, the bokeh is about as good as it gets. if, at this reach, soft bokeh and sharpness are a photographer's priority, they might be better off looking at doubling the current price point, or dialing down to a lens with less reach but a wider maximum aperture.
I understand price point doesn't determine bokeh, I'm just saying for me over $2000 better buy me good bokeh. I've seen tons of examples of bokeh with the 300mm f4 with and without the TC14E, that were creamy and smooth. Obviously a lot of factors beyond lens design determine quality of bokeh, the nature of the BG, f stop, distance between subject and BG etc. So few examples with the new 80-400m I'm reserving much judgement and just grateful for those sharing their first ventures with this lens.
far148 wrote:
$2,699.95.... Well, isn't that a kick in the nuts
Indeed, that's my problem with this lens. I expect wide open sharpness to be pretty good, but I'd never expect bokeh to be very good. It has its place, but not for US $2700............
I was really excited about this lens but to be honest, I'm not so sure now. It will be prove useful for a long-reach travel lens as it's compact and relatively light when put on the scale with its peers but if you're not constrained by weight and size, there's definitely better and cheaper options.
I'm getting one for when I go to Africa in May but I'm also backpacking for 2.5months and the 200-400 is a wee too big
m.sommers00 wrote:
I was really excited about this lens but to be honest, I'm not so sure now.
What has put you off of it? The samples I am seeing are pretty much exactly what I hoped for given its size/weight/price.
It will be prove useful for a long-reach travel lens as it's compact and relatively light when put on the scale with its peers but if you're not constrained by weight and size, there's definitely better and cheaper options.
That's a pretty big "if." What's better and cheaper, though? I mean, for $2700, your options that get you to 400mm are pretty small. Sigma, of course, but I'm not sure there's evidence (yet) to believe that's an optically superior option. The 300mm f/4 + teleconverter is cheaper but with no VR and no zoom you're hampered in flexibility - and the combo, while sharp, is not so unbelievable as to make me assume it has to be substantially better than this. You can't sneak into the 300mm f/2.8 for this price range to get VR.
I suppose you could look into older, manual focus 500mm lenses, but that sure gives up a lot of flexibility. They're great, don't get me wrong, but it's not really the same ballgame.
I'm not trying to argue, just trying to figure out what you had in mind?
The two lens combos I was thinking were 300 f/4 +1.4 or the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, $1870 and $2,800 respectively. I was also thinking of the Bigma ($1500) which at 400mm isn't terrible. Additionally, is the new AFS version much better than it's predecessor?
The samples so far have just reminded me a lot of my 70-300 + D300s combo I used to have. I likely have jumped the gun to determine it's validity so far given the smaller sample size of pictures available (and I'm buying it anyways so I guess I don't hold much water!).
I've seen tons of examples of bokeh with the 300mm f4 with and without the TC14E, that were creamy and smooth. Obviously a lot of factors beyond lens design determine quality of bokeh, the nature of the BG, f stop, distance between subject and BG etc. So few examples with the new 80-400m I'm reserving much judgement and just grateful for those sharing their first ventures with this lens.