johnctharp wrote:
If I had to pick a fault- and there isn't much- it'd be that the backgrounds come off a tad noisy, if your benchmark is the 300/2.8. Still, better performance than the 80-400G here, and I have to wonder if the bare lens will tend more toward the big glass when shot bare.
Thank you for your kind comments and thoughts, John.
I didn't do any noise reduction on any of the images and I would have processed these images in the same manner as my 300 f2.8, guessing that they would look similar. The reason I say this is that I would have set the camera up the same way, which is that I was using auto ISO and that means the camera would ramp up ISO to suit the shutter speed and aperture chosen.
Thank you very much for your lovely comments and thoughts, Leif.
I couldn't agree more!
It's such a small and light lens, it's quite amazing what can be achieved. With the lens hood attached to the new 300 f4 VR, it is the same length as the old f4 lens without the lens hood extended!!
If they do use PF it in the new Fluorite version of the 300 f2.8 VRII, I just hope they don't ruin the other attributes of that lens, being the superb bokeh etc. They haven't used PF in the new 400 f2.8 FL, so maybe PF technology only works on slower aperture lenses or shorter focal lengths. ...Show more →
It might be the cost and difficulty of making fresnel elements. Canon have a 400mm F4 lens and a small zoom only. Why no 600mm F4 lens? Or maybe it is simply that they sell so few of the big guns that the return on investment would be low and take ages, whereas a 300mm F4 lens should sell bucket loads. My guess is a combination of both explanations.
There are lots of bird photographers who would buy this lens to use with a TC. Nice to see it can use current TCs too.
Yep, it works brilliantly with the TCs and as you say this is what could be very important to many users.
I appreciate you posting such early samples, they sure look good.
I'm surprised at the quality of the swallow with the 1.7x. I've used the 300mm f/4 + 1.7x extensively and I'm used to a small amount of smearing of the fine feather detail - areas like the tip of the tail where you might normally lose sight of the individual ... uh, barbs I think they are called?
Looks pretty nice to me. My wallet just jumped off my desk and hid in the corner.
Lance B wrote:
Thank you for your kind comments and thoughts, John.
I didn't do any noise reduction on any of the images and I would have processed these images in the same manner as my 300 f2.8, guessing that they would look similar. The reason I say this is that I would have set the camera up the same way, which is that I was using auto ISO and that means the camera would ramp up ISO to suit the shutter speed and aperture chosen.
Lance, no complaints about the processing!
What I'm looking at is the background rendering, where the bokeh exhibits just a tad bit of noisy character. What I'm looking for here is what might separate the 300/4E VR from it's much more expensive siblings; if it isn't smooth, likely due to the use of Phase Fresnel optics, then one can easily understand why PF technology has not yet been used in the top of the line lenses.
Lance, as previously stated, it's the photographer first, equipment second. Well done.
Having said that, I'm very impressed with the lens and the AF of the 810. So much that now I really want them!
Thank you for posting these. They look wonderful! Of couse ths talented photographer has a lot to do with it. I preordered mine , can't wait to get it now .
LeifG wrote:
That makes sense, this is new for Nikon, but why haven't Canon gone to larger DO lenses? My guess is that DO 1 was not a big seller, as the optics were not quite top,grade, but DO 2 being better might herald some big lenses from Canon.
Anyone know how they grind and polish the fresnel element?
***********************
The Canon version of a DO lens was some time ago and had some major flare issues. Maybe something in the design or manufacture process has changed to allow Nikon's current implementation to be better in terms of IQ ... time will tell.
Andre Labonte wrote:
The Canon version of a DO lens was some time ago and had some major flare issues. Maybe something in the design or manufacture process has changed to allow Nikon's current implementation to be better in terms of IQ ... time will tell.
I had no flare issues even shooting directly into some harsh trade show lighting at CES.
Fantastic shots! This lens seems like a really positive step for Nikon. Very very impressive to be able to take shots like these with such a relatively small, light, reasonably priced lens.
The Canon version of a DO lens was some time ago and had some major flare issues. Maybe something in the design or manufacture process has changed to allow Nikon's current implementation to be better in terms of IQ ... time will tell.
Not sure if you know, but Canon recently introduced an improved version of DO that greatly improved performance. As you say, the original version was flawed. I am excited to see how the Nikon performs. I have the AFS lens, which is a beauty, but heavy.
Jan 17, 2015 at 03:08 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
LeifG wrote:
Not sure if you know, but Canon recently introduced an improved version of DO that greatly improved performance. As you say, the original version was flawed. I am excited to see how the Nikon performs. I have the AFS lens, which is a beauty, but heavy.
*********************
I did not know that Canon had a new version of the DO out. I used to follow Canon more years ago when I was still sorting out systems, but now that I'm firmly invested in Nikon and all my family and friends have stayed or converted to Nikon, Canon does not pull much interest for me.
Interesting ... how does the new Canon lens perform? DO may be the wave of the future for the long tele lenses should these early lenses prove popular.
Jan 17, 2015 at 03:14 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
The lens makes it easy to get great results.