p.6 #1 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
I agree about the 80-400 holding together as it should at longer distances where the 200-400 didn't (in my two weeks of testing it). Long distance quality is essential for me.
I find the 80-400 is right there with the 70-200 vr II as far as sharpness is concerned at 5.6, from 80-200. Differences in focus or errors in technique are more apparent than anything between the lenses.
For practical purposes, a crop from the 80-400 on a D800 is remarkably close to a 500 on a 22mp camera as far as sharpness is concerned. Yes there is a clear difference at 100%, and there are other obvious differences like vignetting (not to mention putting a 500 on a d800), but the pictures look quite good side by side.
p.6 #2 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
My 1.4x + 80-400mm required a pretty massive AF tune - +17. However, that does seem to be the optimal value (after +17 it drops off), so I'm comfortable with it.
After fine tuning, the performance is pretty reasonable within the parameters of what I expect out of it. It's a complex zoom with an aperture of f/5.6 getting a teleconverter put on it - so I had doubts that it'd be usable.
As it turns out, it's eminently usable. Shot in the D7100's 1.3x crop mode, then cropped more, at 560mm and wide open. This should be worst case, and I'd say it's damn decent:
p.6 #6 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
These are both RAW, no in-camera settings applied. The first image has a small amount of USM applied from my normal resize process.
I did not try f/11 - I'll be testing a little more as I go along. The AF was so far out of whack that it wasn't even really usable until I could sit down and get it properly tuned. The objective comparison I did a few weeks ago (commented on earlier in this thread) was with a borrowed TC and manual focus.
Geez, you know, I just noticed that Photobucket actually modified the size of the original image and stripped the EXIF. Haven't used Photobucket in a while, guess I won't be doing that again. I replaced the originals above.
p.6 #8 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Hey Rich -
VR was on. It was at 1/640th, which is kind of on the edge for 560mm of focal length + pixel density of the D7100, and I was shooting handheld. I've never used a setup where the focus was this far off - on my first outing, I had a bunch of birds where their butt was in focus but not the eye.
I am going to keep experimenting, including trying to stop down a little and shoot from my tripod, and I'll post my results as I have them. In 3 weeks I'll be taking the whole kit to Africa so I'd better be comfortable with it by then!
I don't expect to use the TC for critically sharp photos, but I'm hoping it will be sufficient to get a shot I might not otherwise be able to capture.
p.6 #10 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Kerry Pierce wrote:
@binary visions, I like the bokeh in your sample. I don't think it's bad at all.
I'm thinking about this new lens vs the new Sigma 120-300. I have the old 80-400 and an old 120-300 Sigma, without OS. It's been a while since I used either one, but seems to me that the IQ of the Sigma with 1.4x TC was as good or better than the old Nikon, but with much better AF.
Given the hefty price of the new AF-S 80-400, I'm curious about the upcoming new version of the 120-300, so I am going to sit back and see how that pans out. Assuming that the new Sigma is excellent, the only real problem would be the weight and size that it brings to the table. I still use my old 80-400 when I want convenience.
p.6 #11 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
gugs wrote:
I have been using all three lenses... My summary:
The new 80-400VR: I am not happy with the breathing at short distances, but after taking more RL pics, I think it will become my favorite travel zoom: IQ is really excellent, AF is very good and the lens is relatively light and compact. And it takes TCs!
The 200-400VR, the best IQ of the long zooms, fast AFS, but very heavy to handle (I am just back from a 7 hours assignment with most of the time the 200-400VR hand held...) I used to carry it during my travels, but I am not sure anymore after using the 80-400VR more and more.
The 120-300OS is among my favorites too. IQ is excellent., AF is fast, OS works well. I use it a lot for concerts or other indoor shots. The only serious drawback is weight (similar in practice to handling the 200-400VR). Sometimes AF stops working in low light. Price is a serious advantage.
In other words, all those lenses are excellent, I love using all of them, the new 80-400VR being the most versatile and easiest to use combination, at a high price tag...
The 120-300 is a bargain as a top end recreation lens, and the 200-400VR is my lens for serious stuff.
Guy...Show more →
For those like me torturing between these lens options...just to believe all are very good and all have their pros and cons
