Lance B wrote:
Not trying to trun this into a pi55ing contest, but LenScore has the 400E as having more resolving power than the 800E, scoring 1466 to 1323, but I would suggest for wll intents and purposes they are very close. The 400G gets a score of 1290, again very close.
The 400E also gets the highest overall score from LenScore at 1427, compared to the 800E at 1356 and the 400G at 1344. The 400E is the sharpest extreme tele lens they have tested and is only bettered by the Zeiss 85 f1.4 Otus at 1647, the Leica APO-Summicron 50 f2 at 1622, the Zeiss 55 f1.4 Otus at 1532 and the Leica Summilex 50 f1.4 at 1578. However, for overall score, the 400E is still second best of all the lenses at 1427 only behind the Zeiss 85 f1.4 Otus at 1459.
What does all this mean? Well, the testing was done on a 200Mp specially designed sensor, ie it takes a 200Mp sensor to see these minor differences in socre between the top performing lenses. They also take resolution measurements at different camera to subject distances, also across the lens frame and at different apertures, so quite a comprehensive set of readings to come to an overall result, not just at one camera to subject distance like just about every other testing site.
I think you'll find that your comment about the 400E and the 400G being a dead heat in real world shooting is probably similar to the 400E and 800E in real world shooting, ie very close if you were twice the distance away as the 400 when using the 800. What you are probably seeing is that the 800 has more reach and therefore gets closer to the subject and thus not needing to go as far as to pixel peep, whereas the 400E and 400G are the same focal length and therefore you pixel peep at the same size. To test the 800 against the 400 correctly, you would need to be twice as far from the subject as the 400.
Apologies if it seems so, not trying to turn this into a pi55ing contest at all. Just reporting my experience which seems to concur with the lens manufacturer(who should know if anyone does):
Bill Graham wrote:
Apologies if it seems so, not trying to turn this into a pi55ing contest at all.
Then why bring the 800E into a discussion about the differences between the 400E and 400G? Not once, but twice. (now 3 times).
Just reporting my experience which seems to concur with the lens manufacturer(who should know if anyone does):
The figures you show are from Nasim Mansurov, not Nikon. Nikon has never shown test results other than MTFs for the lenses wide open. Also, these figures shown are tested at only one camera to subject distance, not like LensScore that tested at different camera to subject distances as well as different apertures and across the frame. The 400E garnered a higher score for resolving power as well as overall score than the 800E.
However, in real world shooting, I am sure there would be basically no difference as these exotics are in a class of their own and the fact is these lenses are outresolving the current sensors so, I doubt you would see the difference anyway. However, LensScore has a 200Mp sensor and thus can see any difference when tested as that sensor would be outresolving the lenses.
Using LensScore as a data point, we see that per their site that the 400 FL is at the top of the Nikon heap today. We also see that the "G" versions of the super telephotos are ranked quite differently from what many have said. Under resolving power we have: 200 @1358, 600 @ 1319, 300 @ 1320, 400 @ 1290, and 500 @ 1212. The FL version of the 400 has leaped to the forefront today. This also gives much hope for all of us when the updated 200, 300, 500 and 600 show up since we can pretty much assume there will be some IQ and AF improvements in those lenses. Then we can have a long term verbal fight as which "FL" lens is the best. It will be fun. The lenses will be better. Our wallets will be lighter!
What's not to like. No pi$$ing contest, just healthy debate.
If i could choose i would of course take the 400E because of the weight/length savings, but these things have an price point for those of us who don't have endless of $$.
So i opted for the older model because i got it NEW at the store 3weeks ago for 40% less than the 400E model, i saved 4900$ on this, and for that amount i can carry the 20% extra weight. 400G also fits in my backpack with TC&D800 mounted, no problem.
Performance :
Why don't anybody talk about the extremely good AF, this is what shocked me the most with this purchase, sharpness is as expected.
Sharpness is perfect at 400mm, my best lens.
with TC14 not any obvious differences, maybe at pixel peeping after 1/2 hour study.
with TC20III it is softer, but hey still very good, a LOT better than my old Sig150-500+TC1,4 witch was useless at this range, (the SIG is ok for the $ its only 1/10 of the price of an 400/f2.8.)
I assume that the Nikon 800FL is much sharper than the 400+TC20lll, but i will never own one of those 18ooo$ lenses. Lets get back too reality, for 18k$ i am going travel for 5x3weeks taking photos anywhere i want in the world and that's what i am doing.
Rant on:
On forums it seems that there is abundant with prosumer people throwing around 10-30k at new equipment (every year) beacuse a new model of something came out. People write about Otus lenses as they just now are going to buy them, they just have to decide if not to have them ALL or just one etc, i call BS.
Rant off.
Ok, my 2cents.
I had a 400 2.8vr and it was a great lens as it was extremely hard to beat, but I sold it here on FM to a well respected person.
I made a lot of money with that lens and found it hard to believe that there could be another lens that
would be better.
I now own the 400FL lens and I can assure you that this lens is in fact better than I thought.
In fact I shot mostly with a 200-400 vr2 lens all last year covering from college to pro football.
I didn't use my 400vr lens all year because the lens was to heavy for me due to health reasons.
I currently own -2- D4s bodies and an D810 body.
I definitely have a much better hit/miss ratio with the FL lens as its very fast FOCUSING and smooth.
The shots are just simply amazingly sharp and have that extra pop over the original 400vr.
Im basing this on real world sporting events while on paid assignments as I don't give a
damn about what some spec sheets or test charts scores tell me.
The bottom line is making money doing what I love to do.
I am a professional sports photog and if the FL gives me the edge over the competition, even if by the
smallest amount then I am happy with my choice. I will continue to shoot with the FL and have many happy clients,
while some of you will continue to stand back and justify why the FL is overrated or complain that the charts say the difference is
very minimal or nonexistent to the older 400 lens.
My gain is your loss as I am a proud and happy owner of the new FL lens.
BTW, the new 1.4xIII is simply awesome to have. I have never been a fan of TC's bc it takes away the overall sharpness and quality.
I used it for covering Baylor vs SMU football for the 1st half and was surprisingly shocked at how well it handled the tele.
I know there are a couple of photogs here on FM that will witness the end result as they were there with me in
viewing the overall quality and sharpness that the 400 FL produced and one of them has a D4 with a 400vr 2.
Nikon made something that was already great in the 400vr into something really special in the FL with simply awesome results.
pburke wrote:
this is one of those threads that will most likely cost me a lot of money...
If you want to save a few thousand dollars, do not borrow or rent one of these "E" lenses. It will be a costly experience. I know from experience times 2.
RoyC wrote:
If you want to save a few thousand dollars, do not borrow or rent one of these "E" lenses. It will be a costly experience. I know from experience times 2.
Actually, I wasn't planning buying getting the new model, but those awful last generation lenses. Even a used last gen lens is still rather expensive from my point of view, but it would probably pay for itself in the longrun.
I am actually about to rent one of these two 400mm's for a week, just to see how it works out. I am not even sure I will pay the extra 70 bucks to rent the new model just to see how that handles. I currently do a lot of hand holding with a 13.9 pound lens, so even the old version is lighter.
I am more interested in the image quality and performance with various TCs to replace my vintage 600mm f/4 AIS lens. AF speed is irrelevant to me. I mostly care about the image quality with and without TCs, as it seems an extremely versatile lens once you add some TCs and D810 1.2x crop mode to the equation.
I shoot mostly motorsports with these things and I always considered the weight of big lenses a bonus - saves me a gym membership.
The 400E balances a lot better than the 400G when handheld because of the lighter flourite front elements. The 400G is an outstanding lens IQ-wise, whether the reduction in weight and the balance improvement makes enough of a difference to justify the cost of the E version is up to you. I'd suggest you spend the extra $70 on the rental before you make that decision.
IQ-wise, the E is marginally better than the G but you have to be doing some serious pixel-peeping to tell. Both are excellent, the E is a little more so than the G but not by much.
I got an exceptionally good price on a lightly used E so I upgraded. I probably wouldn't have if I'd had to pay full retail for the E but I'd just gotten back from a February trip to Yellowstone and spent a week crawling in and out of a snowcoach with the 400G and D4s hanging off my neck. So that couple of pounds difference was still fresh in my mind. YMM obviously vary.
Marginal IQ difference means in my world the lenses will generate pretty equal output, and from what I can see, both will be generations ahead of what I am used to.
Balance and weight is pretty much a luxury I cannot afford. Great if you have that kind of spare change and can get the very best, but I am used to doing things with the gear I can afford, and a $12k lens at this point in time isn't a wise use of funds, especially with two kids heading into college next year, wanting cars, etc...
In fact, I am looking at a modern super tele to make some money, so the less the investment, the earlier I can break even One day, when the E is down to half it's current new price on the used market, because a new generation has appeared, I may upgrade. I don't even want to get tempted, so I am sure I won't be renting the new version either.
I'm about to place a lensrentals order for next week - 400mm G, D810, 1.4x and 2x. What about the 1.7x TC instead of the 2x? I plan on shooting mostly with TCs at Road America, where 400mm is a little short in most locations I have access to.
I have only a little experience with the G but a lot with the E version. Have tested it will all three TCs and I recommend you stick with the TC1.4III and TC2.0III. At 800mm f5.6 you will be about 10-15% behind the 800mm E, IQ wise. At 560mm one will have a hard time seeing any IQ loss as compared to the 500 f4.
I just rented the 400 G with 1.4x and 2x extenders along with a D810 to use for a week starting Thursday. 4 days at the race track in that period will give me plenty of A/B comparison time under identical conditions with the lens I am thinking of replacing.
the A/B test I plan on doing is 400 G against my old lens ( I am not replacing a 400mm F), so I can't help you with that. My observation will be more interesting to those who use old AIS glass.
The G and F output is so similar that the price difference is simply not in the budget for me. Even a used G lens is expensive for what I do with these things, which is the reason for the rental. It needs to produce results that convince me to make the "investment."
It needs to produce results that convince me to make the "investment."
hehe, if most photographers had your attitude to this, than sales would go down to a fraction.
Many of us including me its a hobby that gets a bit out of hand, and i used buy things just to try them out. After i switched away from Canon 2,5years ago i have not seen much tempting.
I will not even buy the "D900" if its only got 50mp and the same DR&ISO as D8?? series,
i need 60-90mp and at least the same DR&ISO of D8!! to do be considered an investment.
i have gotten into your ballpark of assessing investments. This means that if i can not SEE OBVIOUS better results at my 42" printer at home, then i will not buy it.
And buying the 400G a few weeks ago sat deep with me, but it is justified compared to a cheap zoom Sigma, one can see the results immediate.
I had the 400 VR and now the FL and I can tell a difference from fast focusing to keeping the subject in my viewfinder in focus much better than the VR.
The overall quality is noticeable as it has a little bit more pop and the bokeh appears to look more pleasant to my eyes. Oh, did I mention its lighter than the VR? Thats the least of most photogs worries, but in my case, its a Godsend since my health is in question.
I've used the G version for 4 days now - weight isn't a problem for me. I can hand hold the lens for an entire race session without any issues. Compared to my old lens (14 pounds) it is significantly lighter.
If there are image quality differences, they are too marginal for me to consider the new lens. However, I have to say, I am totally sold on the 400mm f//2.8 and will sell my old 600mm f/4.0 AIS in the coming months. AF performance isn't an issue for me, as I have no other AF lens to compare it to. I rarely have a need for AF. or maybe I have so far been able to work around the fact that my lens didn't have AF. It certainly increased my keeper rate by at least 50%
When I tried a few challenging AF shots, it was glued to whatever was is in front of the AF point I select, even in challenging conditions.
Example - This bouncy little kart zooming past me at 50mph at close range, every frame was locked on and you can see the tool marks on the bolts of that thing. Handheld.
Color rendition is better than any lens I ever owned. Image quality is superb without TCs. With TCs, I am not too impressed, though. At least wide open, the difference between this lens and my old glass isn't that big. Once stopped down, the lens does perform well even with TCs. The main difference could have been due to atmospheric conditions, though. I will shoot some more today and really focus on the TC performance at various apertures.
It will be fun. The lenses will be better. Our wallets will be lighter!