If I can’t produce a sharp pic at 400mm at 1/500 I have a problem and it’s not me
George DeCamp wrote:
Just noticed you're shooting tbe 100-400@ 1/500 hand held.
You're shooring the 24-120@ 1/400 hand held which means you must be much closer and much better shutter speed for that lens. Probably enough to produce a sharper image.
Is Ego charger sharpness testing the new hotness on FM?!
CKrueger wrote:
Hey Scott, I have the same Ego charger, so I can give you some apples-to-apples! Unfortunately it was already getting dark at 4:15pm here, but I was able to shoot outside with a tripod at ISO100 on my Z6.
Here's my results!
First shot is my 105 MC at f/5.6 a couple feet from the target. I'd call that an "ideal case"!
Second shot is my 100-400 at 100mm f/5.6 at the same distance.
First shot is my 100-400 at 400mm f/5.6 perhaps six feet from the target.
Second shot is my 500PF at f/5.6 at the same distance. As close to an "ideal case" as I can muster with my equipment. Note I did NOT correct for distance, cause I was running out of light!
Seeing pics above and on the 100-400 pic thread you likely have a bad copy. The lens itself can be very sharp and yours is less so. Not horrible but noticeable. But what is strange is how similar your copy is to your Sony lens. So if one is soft, both are. Strange indeed.
Hey Scott, I have the same Ego charger, so I can give you some apples-to-apples! Unfortunately it was already getting dark at 4:15pm here, but I was able to shoot outside with a tripod at ISO100 on my Z6.
Here's my results!
First shot is my 105 MC at f/5.6 a couple feet from the target. I'd call that an "ideal case"!
Second shot is my 100-400 at 100mm f/5.6 at the same distance.
First shot is my 100-400 at 400mm f/5.6 perhaps six feet from the target.
Second shot is my 500PF at f/5.6 at the same distance. As close to an "ideal case" as I can muster with my equipment. Note I did NOT correct for distance, cause I was running out of light!
What a lucky coincidence you have the same charger. These look great and are in close accord with Brad HIll's findings. Certainly plenty sharp enough for all practical uses to the point where other design objectives such as fringing, OOF transitions, colour, contrast, handling etc. become way more interesting.
Interesting to see the same style of softness here, even if not so obvious. I would estimate my range was closer to 10-15’.
CKrueger wrote:
Hey Scott, I have the same Ego charger, so I can give you some apples-to-apples! Unfortunately it was already getting dark at 4:15pm here, but I was able to shoot outside with a tripod at ISO100 on my Z6.
Here's my results!
First shot is my 105 MC at f/5.6 a couple feet from the target. I'd call that an "ideal case"!
Second shot is my 100-400 at 100mm f/5.6 at the same distance.
First shot is my 100-400 at 400mm f/5.6 perhaps six feet from the target.
Second shot is my 500PF at f/5.6 at the same distance. As close to an "ideal case" as I can muster with my equipment. Note I did NOT correct for distance, cause I was running out of light!
Not that I disagree, but adjustments are there for a reason, and it’s still worth knowing if you have an AF issue, a glass issue or the lens is just inferior. It’s probably 5-15-80 but still good to know the real source.
RoamingScott wrote:
I didn't try these things because 1) i shoot mirrorless to avoid having to deal with micro adjustments and 2) it should just work.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
Not that I disagree, but adjustments are there for a reason, and it’s still worth knowing if you have an AF issue, a glass issue or the lens is just inferior. It’s probably 5-15-80 but still good to know the real source.
Don’t forget that I’m on a Z6, so my resolution will be lower than yours overall.
Personally, I was impressed with how close the lens came to my “better” lenses. The differences here wouldn’t be visible in a 20x30 print unless the file were heavily cropped.
I definitely need to get some more real-world testing in, cause plastic doesn’t really stand in well for feathers and fur. I have a bunch of goose and seagull photos so far, and the results have been pretty good, but I often shoot my 500PF with a 1.4x, and I still have a hard time believing the 100-400 can handle that. I guess I’m skeptical because my Canon 100-400 absolutely fell apart (AF included) with a 1.4x. Probably not a fair prejudice…
Good question and to be honest I don’t know. Only one I’ve done it on was a Tamron 70-210, but that was done with their TAP Console. Thinking through it, I wonder if it might not be saved in the lens itself since the camera, basically by definition can’t be out of focus. But the lenses calibration can. Ie focus is plane X but lens is going X+1.
RoamingScott wrote:
Are the adjustments saved per lens in the camera?
Scott may have bad copy, the image from Flickr I posted here, and one Lance posted in the other thread are good examples that lens can produce great level of sharpness at 400/f5.6.
This makes me relaxed, but I have to think about strategy to be prepared to be able to swap it if I don't get good results.
My local store I'm inline at isn't the best at it, I may go to Henry's instead.
RoamingScott wrote:
I’m both heartened and mightily annoyed looking at the other folks’ examples wide open.
Fully understood, I went through similar with Fuji 100-400, first copy was pretty sharp in the center, but badly decentered in one corner, second copy was almost useless at 400/f5.6, I had to go at least to f7.1.
Looking to others, who could get amazingly sharp images made me very frustrated.
I dumped Fuji waiting for this to happen, but we still need to open our eyes, not every copy is perfect.
I would highly recommend making any sharpness tests on tripod and with EFCS (except of course Z9 which only has e-shutter) so that the influence of vibrations can be minimized. This allows any optical issues that might exist to be identified from other factors that might cause blur. Also with a lightweight 400 mm lens, wind can cause problems.
There is some sample variability in zoom lenses and one sample might be better in a specific part of the frame than another and it may be different depending on focal length (one lens copy may be better at a specific FL than another lens which may be better at another). However, Nikon seem to have put a great deal of effort into designing the 100-400 lens, its manufacture and testing to minimize such differences between copies (according to their web page).
I think the images shown from this lens are quite pleasing including RoamingScott's. I think the sharpness differences shown seem subtle. I quite like the contrast, colour, out of focus rendering make it very attractive. If someone is concerned about the sharpness of one's copy, testing against another copy may be helpful (with tripod, VR off and EFCS on). If the results still indicate subpar sharpness then it is best to either return the lens or take it to service. However, I haven't really seen anything that I would consider a red flag indicating a faulty lens.
It's good to be aware that in addition to focal length and aperture, distance can also influence the relative merits of different lenses.
If I get this lens it would be for landscape (high contrast desirable), outdoor concerts at large stages, and some wildlife. I would not be using it for subjects that require longer than 400mm focal length or deep cropping as it is best to choose a long prime lens for that for several reasons. Printing (or displaying in other ways) cropped shots makes noise more obvious and f/5.6 isn't the best starting point. Also for distant subjects separating the subject from background can benefit for a larger aperture (and shooting longer distance shots and then cropping then makes this even more important).
It’s a crappy situation, I agree. When I was shooting Canon EF, I’d generally buy two copies and keep the better one. There was often a considerable difference between copies. And I still remember testing a half dozen different TCs before ending up with a cracker of a Kenko 1.4x and Canon 2x.
Lens testing really sucks! I think many of us here are your samples and think “might not have a problem, needs more testing”, but that’s easy to say when you’re not the one staring down the barrel of a hundred frames of A/B testing.
Bottom line, if you’re not happy with it, swap it out. Cause even if it is actually a good copy, every not-quite-sharp image you ever get with it, you’ll blame on the lens, and you’ll come to hate it.
RoamingScott wrote:
I’m both heartened and mightily annoyed looking at the other folks’ examples wide open.
I would recommend taking as much time before your return window ends. Forget tests. Go take some real world shots and have fun. Then look at those. Don’t compare against anything, just look at them and see if you are happy with the results. If yes, you have a keeper. If not, try another one or return it.
There is nothing wrong with lens tests. I do them in a pinch. But you already did tests and they were somewhat inconclusive. More will be learned by using the lens. And you don’t NEED to post images here for everyone to tell you about your lens. You know what you are doing.
