Thom article and the 200-400mm

Started May 20, 2008 | Discussions thread
Mike Neary Veteran Member • Posts: 3,355
Re: Thom article and the 200-400mm

Anastigmat wrote:

Mike Neary wrote:

Anastigmat wrote:

For $5K, it better be a good lens. This is a Nikon lens forum, but
it is hard not to bring up a semi-comparable Canon lens, the
100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L. Not as fast as the Nikkor for sure, but
perhaps just as good optically and a bit wider at the wide end, for a
fraction of the price. If Nikon makes a lens comparable in sharpness
and price to the Canon 100-400L, it would be wildly popular.

The Canon 100-400 is not in the same class as the Nikon 200-400. And
Nikon does make a lens comparable in sharpness, aperture, and focal
range to the Canon: the 80-400 VR.

Cheers

Mike

http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm

According to somebody named Thom Hogan, the Nikon 80-400mm VR is not
very usable at 400mm. Too much AF hunting and too much loss of image
quality above 300mm.

I don't think that is Thom's opinion of the 80-400 VR. In fact, I've heard him say that it ranks ahead of a 70-200 VR + TC-20E in IQ at 400mm, and a tiny bit behind the 300 f/4 AF-S + TC-14E.

And, since I incidentally own all three of these lenses, I can concur with Thom

AF speed with the 80-400 VR strongly depends on the body motor. On my D300 it is quite fast, but on my wife's D80 not quite so fast.

Look around on the forum - you will find plenty of images that show what the 80-400 is capable of. Easily a match for the Canon 100-400, IMO.

Of course, the 200-400 VR blows both of these out of the water - but it had better, for $5K.

Cheers

Mike

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