I assume most people don’t look at these on a 4k monitor like I do. Certainly that would affect my perceived level of sharpness since the Sony resolution holds up better.
RoamingScott wrote:
I assume most people don’t look at these on a 4k monitor like I do. Certainly that would affect my perceived level of sharpness since the Sony resolution holds up better.
gdsf2 wrote:
Me too. And then I re-read his post and it made no sense to me. Left was Nikon, and I felt it had the edge. But they are very close. Nikon seems to have better micro contrast which helps perceived sharpness.
That might be, not up on all that but just looking I kept thinking it was the left one I liked!
4K Eizo.
To be very honest, the Nikon 100-400 looks as if it is not completely 100% as it should be. You would expect critical sharpness from a lens of this class in the crops you are showing, just as the Sony is showing. And I simply cannot imagine the slightly lesser resolution of the Z7II playing any role here.
The Nikon looks a bit veiled or diffused to me.
Funny when different people see things differently! That's not a bad thing and it's really what makes the world go around! Probably in the end both are very capable and it depends on your taste in images.
My almost final verdict is that the Nikon is superior to Sony in weight, throw, handling, and microcontrast. Even in IQ around f8 (any discrepancies probably resolution differences). Only worse in sharpness wide open.
Probably the quirk of my particular copy. Overall, judging by the totality of metrics, it’s a solid lens.
Bang on. I have plenty of R3/100-400 shots with better critical sharpness wide open. I’m not sure if this is worth returning or hounding my dealer about.
If anyone is happy with my tests and prefers the Nikon, you can have it for retail and free shipping
ChrisMak wrote:
4K Eizo.
To be very honest, the Nikon 100-400 looks as if it is not completely 100% as it should be. You would expect critical sharpness from a lens of this class in the crops you are showing, just as the Sony is showing. And I simply cannot imagine the slightly lesser resolution of the Z7II playing any role here.
The Nikon looks a bit veiled or diffused to me.
RoamingScott wrote:
Bang on. I have plenty of R3/100-400 shots with better critical sharpness wide open. I’m not sure if this is worth returning or hounding my dealer about.
If anyone is happy with my tests and prefers the Nikon, you can have it for retail and free shipping
RoamingScott wrote:
I assume most people don’t look at these on a 4k monitor like I do. Certainly that would affect my perceived level of sharpness since the Sony resolution holds up better.
I use both a self calibrating 4K 32 inch Eizo and 2K NEC 32 inch.
The 4K screen is actually more forgiving because pixels are smaller. I use the NEC to check sharpness.
What you report about the 100-400 isn’t aligned with what other reviewers have been saying. I would definitely return your copy of the lens. It isn’t behaving as it should.
ChrisMak wrote:
4K Eizo.
To be very honest, the Nikon 100-400 looks as if it is not completely 100% as it should be. You would expect critical sharpness from a lens of this class in the crops you are showing, just as the Sony is showing. And I simply cannot imagine the slightly lesser resolution of the Z7II playing any role here.
The Nikon looks a bit veiled or diffused to me.
Are you looking at the numbers (charging scale)? That is where the focus point was. Nikon seems clearly sharper to me wide open.
bernardl wrote:
I use both a self calibrating 4K 32 inch Eizo and 2K NEC 32 inch.
The 4K screen is actually more forgiving because pixels are smaller. I use the NEC to check sharpness.
What you report about the 100-400 isn’t aligned with what other reviewers have been saying. I would definitely return your copy of the lens. It isn’t behaving as it should.
Curious for the Nikon shooters, if you were shooting a perched bird/stationary moose/electric mower charging station, would you use AF-S with single point?
On Sony, I almost never come out of AF-C, no matter the subject type. For this, I'd always use AF-C with small flex spot (equiv of single point).
I could certainly redo this test with both bodies on AF-C, but the day is short, pumpkin bread needs baking, and it's not a lot of fun to do
I see no reason to redo the tests. They show the two lenses are essentially the same. If you shoot Nikon buy the Nikon. If you shoot Sony buy the Sony. If you shoot both, you like to spend money, so buy both.
gdsf2 wrote:
I always use AF-C with BBF for everything.
I see no reason to redo the tests. They show the two lenses are essentially the same. If you shoot Nikon buy the Nikon. If you shoot Sony buy the Sony. If you shoot both, you like to spend money, so buy both.
Every "pro" review (likely with borrowed copies) effusively glows, and apparently every user sample on FM sucks. You can't have it both ways. I thought my real world samples were soft...but when up against Sony they magically win? Reeks of strong implicit bias to me.
I hope more people do some tests to get some idea of what the "baseline" performance of this lens is wide open.
RoamingScott wrote:
Every "pro" review glows, and apparently every user sample on FM sucks. You can't have it both ways. I thought my real world samples were soft...but when up against Sony they magically win?
I hope more people do some tests to get some idea of what the "baseline" performance of this lens is wide open.
Not sure how you got this from my reply? I said your test is fine. And I really don’t care about the Sony vs Nikon thing. That was your choice to compare. I only care how Nikon lenses perform as I only own Nikon bodies. That is not a knock on Sony, it is just how it is. If the Sony were better I would think “that is nice…who cares.”
The pics on the tripod are well shot. They tell the story of the lens. Interpret them however you want. If you don’t like the lens then just return it. I saw nothing in the tripod shots that would make me not own this lens.
gdsf2 wrote:
Not sure how you got this from my reply? I said your test is fine. And I really don’t care about the Sony vs Nikon thing. That was your choice to compare. The pics on the tripod are well shot. They tell the story of the lens. Interpret them however you want. If you don’t like the lens then just return it. I saw nothing in the tripod shots that would make me not own this lens.
Your initial comment was "bad shutter speed, bad copy, or bad technique". So...we've eliminated technique...if you want to call 1/400 bad shutter speed on a shot at 310mm, that's not in line with any lens in this category I've ever shot...
Now we're down to "bad copy", but it looks "fine".
This isn't a Sony vs Nikon thing. My old Canon 100-400ii fared better than these tests wide open. It's about determining the place this lens fits into the 100-400 market for various applications. Landscape, great. Lower light birding...maybe not so much.
Personally when I buy glass, I like to know how it stacks up against the competition, especially if it's thousands of bucks. The 24-120 performance over Sony is getting me to switch to Nikon. I would have never known that if I said "I just shoot Sony and it's good enough, whatever".
I am just talking about your tripod shots. You did control for everything. If you are not happy with the results, then return the lens. Your choice if you want to try another copy.
I did not see anything wrong with your tripod shots so maybe I am the wrong person to give advise here.
And when I buy a lens I like to know how it performs versus other options open to me. Since I shoot Z, my other options are Z or F glass. I am very invested in Nikon glass. I would never change platforms for one lens. Doing so, in my opinion, is not wise because next year some other brand will have the best X lens. I would constantly be switching and my photography would not improve.
IMO, if you shoot Nikon, Canon, or Sony, you have an ecosystem of gear you can do anything with. No reason to worry about the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.
