200-400 VR does not equal prime lens sharpness?

Started Nov 2, 2006 | Discussions thread
devenh Contributing Member • Posts: 895
Sharpness is not everything

If you posted some test pictures like Wilkman did then we could see the differences that you are describing.

I wrote the article appearing here:

http://www.biglens.com/reviews/nikon300200400.htm

I found the sharpness of the 300mm AF-S II very close to the 200-400. As others have mentioned in this thread, the ability of the AF system to get the focus right is going to have a bigger impact on sharpness than any underlying difference in the optics. The 300mm f2.8 probably has a bit of an advantage here decause it is one stop faster.

But let's not forget that image sharpness is not everything. A lens like the 200-400 is not going to be used for landscape photography or portraits. It is most likely going to be used for sports or wildlife photography where being able to quickly compose the scene is critical. In this regard the flexibility of having a zoom may (depending on your priorities) well be worth a slight -- may I dare say insignificant -- loss in sharpness.

As I said in an early post in this thread, the 200-400 is the sharpest 250mm and 350mm lens Nikon makes, without question!!

Deven

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow