gdsf2 wrote: RoamingScott wrote: 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 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. 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.
Dec 23, 2021 at 04:24 PM
Previous versions of RoamingScott's message #15806390 « Nikon Z 100-400S discussion thread »
