stanj Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
lighthound wrote:
Stan, the BG looks nice in your second image of the house finches. How far from the birds were you and how far behind them were the trees?
Metadata says focus distance around 12m, and I'd say the trees are once more that far, maybe a tad more. I can bust out the laser measure over lunch
Compared to your 100-500, what do you think of the IQ?
Firstly, it's a bit comparing apples to grapefruits (like them both), because I'm spoiled by years of DXO PR and I don't have that for the new lens yet. Don't recall seeing a non-DXO'd file in years. Having said that, a few things are immediately obvious:
- The IS is much worse. Yes I know I'm comparing an 800 to a 500, but I know what I can hand hold with the 100-500, and no way can I get close to that with this lens.
- The 100-500 is decidedly sharper wide open. However, the 200-800 sharpens up nicely.
- There's more CA and overall less micro contrast with the 200-800. It definitely looks cheaper.
- The AF with the R5 definitely struggles. I know what behavior I'll get with each of my lenses, including 100-500, and this lens is at the very bottom of the totem pole. I didn't try it with the R3 yet, but I don't see ever using this lens with the R3 IRL, so it doesn't really matter for me.
- The zoom ring is a non-issue for me. The lack of a focus ring much more so, because I'd like to give the lens a hint where to start focusing since it's struggling so much. That's how I missed the bobcat in the thicket - I could see it, but the camera just couldn't figure it out. I will have to program the ring to be MF.
- It's HUGE compared to the 100-500, especially since I can't remove the foot that I'll never use. This will be decisive if I actually take the lens with me: walk down the creek? Sure. My planned drive from Darwin to Alice? Not so sure.
Overall, the overall combo is so-so, it's for a casual walk in the park.
|