trenchmonkey wrote:
That's what I'm thinkin' too, Lee Love to be proven wrong...
but seriously doubt the IQ can touch the 80-400G at 400 f5.6
Few reasons: no Nano, 3 ED vs 4 ED & 1 Super ED elements.
MFD much worse and I wouldn't want to be limited to 200mm
on the short end (for those 'bonus' wildlife close encounters)
At 400 @ 5.6 it should be $900 better!
I'll wait and see before passing judgment.
" but it'll appeal to noobs and entry level DX shooters...and that's fine."
As a proud noob and DX level shooter, I approve this message! Pre-ordered the 200-500 yesterday.
Boggles my mind to see people here comparing the new 200-500 to other lenses like the 200-400 f4. Price matters to a lot of people and $1400 vs $7000 is a big difference.
Batty_F wrote:
" but it'll appeal to noobs and entry level DX shooters...and that's fine."
As a proud noob and DX level shooter, I approve this message! Pre-ordered the 200-500 yesterday.
Boggles my mind to see people here comparing the new 200-500 to other lenses like the 200-400 f4. Price matters to a lot of people and $1400 vs $7000 is a big difference.
It is all about the price very true , that would be nice if they put a big EFFORT on quality , brand name is always better than third party equipment , let's hope they will make it Very Good that way people wouldn't go to other lesser brand.
Batty_F wrote:
" but it'll appeal to noobs and entry level DX shooters...and that's fine."
As a proud noob and DX level shooter, I approve this message! Pre-ordered the 200-500 yesterday.
Boggles my mind to see people here comparing the new 200-500 to other lenses like the 200-400 f4. Price matters to a lot of people and $1400 vs $7000 is a big difference.
^^^ This.
80-400 $2300
200-400 $7000
200-500 $1400
If it's 95% of the other two, it's a bargain and a winner. If it is, I'm in.
With lenses, you pay a premium for slight gains.
Constant aperture, 2.5 x zoom, OEM AF = theoretically better performance for tracking wildlife than the rickety third-party zooms. 2.3 kg will be too much of a beast for many casual shooters, but if it's balanced better than the admittedly front-heavy 200-400 I'll be tempted myself :-)
At 400 @ 5.6 it should be $900 better!
I'll wait and see before passing judgment. $600 in my case (and already paid for in print sales)
Losing 80-199 mm as well as MFD diff., etc. a no go for me.
Wasn't "passing" judgement, just a reality check for those
that might be interested.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Remember that while the 80-400 is a 5x zoom (and the Sigma and Tamron 4x zooms), the new Nikkor is only a 2.5x zoom. Much easier to make, and something that hopefully will show in the image quality.
With considerable focus breathing the "new" 80-400mm isn't 400mm. So the added 100mm plus is great if optimized for the long end. Ultimately IQ is of utmost importance as well as AF speed. The AF speed of the "old" 70-300VR is pretty decent, so I wouldn't expect that to be a problem at this price point. Good to have more choices for those that can't afford several grand for a long tele.
p.2 #12 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
johnctharp wrote:
Looks sharp enough for web work, and the OOF rendering does look cleaner than shots from the 80-400G I've seen posted here, if not prime quality!
The samples do look good, but they are small size. Sadly it seems that we'll have to wait a long time for proper reviews.
p.2 #14 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
lustinp states the key point... the images posted are too small to pass any kind of judgment. BTW, these are the pics posted on the Nikon USA site and were up yesterday. I had hoped that they included links to larger pics, but no such luck. ... time will tell, but I am sure that there are a lot of people interested in seeing how this lens stacks up when compared to Tamron, Sigma, Canon and Nikon's other offerings.
p.2 #15 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
If there's one thing I"ll say about Nikon's sample images, it's that they are rarely representative of what a lens is capable of haha. They often have some pretty bad samples up on their website.
I've seen the full resolution samples and they are pretty good but like all their samples, I doubt they show the maximum the lens is capable of.
Lots of negativity here, but the strong MTF charts and small zoom ratio compared to the competition are very promising IMHO. Looking at lenses like the 1.8G primes you can see that Nanocoating and gold rings don't always mean much. If you believe the charts, center resolution is better than the AF-S 80-400, Canon 100-400 IS II and Sigma 150-600 Sport all at their maximum focal lengths wide open. The resolution doesn't fall off too much into the corners either, only dropping to about 0.85 which is still in the "excellent" range. I look forward to the objective tests from places like LensRentals since MTFs don't tell the entire story.
Here's a couple full rez...look pretty good to me given that they aren't the greatest photos, and we have no idea what PP has been done if any. Even the tiniest details are clearly visible. Bokeh looks pretty good too. I don't think it will be a miracle lens but I think it will be a good deal for the price. I also think most people buying this lens will have it pegged a 500mm/5.6 most of the time especially on FX.
p.2 #16 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Thanks for finding these CanadaMark...
So far, the images are better at full resolution than I expected. The bokeh in the bird image is very nice and give the low light conditions of the shot, I'd say that it is plenty sharp... This can't be good new for the value of my 200-400mm f4 VR , but it might be good news for my back as I want to continue to be a mobile photographer as I age...
Love to be proven wrong...
$600 in my case (and already paid for in print sales)
