-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon AF-S 80-400mm not as good as Sigma 150-500mm?
- Thread starter kk123
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d7100
ralphcramdon
Senior Member
AFC 9 point will more often than not mean the camera is focusing somewhere other than you think
do you use afc d9 because your comment is incorrect and frankly ridiculous
Photo Pete
Veteran Member
That focus mode uses your selected focus point, but also uses the surrounding points to assist if the subject moves off your chosen point. For a subject like in the OP where there are different elements at different distances under those points it is very likely that the camera will select a point other than the one you selected, because it is a stronger target with more contrast. You will not see this in the viewfinder.
If you are not aware of this then you have a problem with the use of your camera. You may think it ridiculous, but I would prefer to think of it as a sensible lesson to help get photos in focus
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
If you are not aware of this then you have a problem with the use of your camera. You may think it ridiculous, but I would prefer to think of it as a sensible lesson to help get photos in focus
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
ralphcramdon
Senior Member
wow thanks for education Pete, I had know idea that's how it worksPhoto Pete wrote:
That focus mode uses your selected focus point, but also uses the surrounding points to assist if the subject moves off your chosen point. For a subject like in the OP where there are different elements at different distances under those points it is very likely that the camera will select a point other than the one you selected, because it is a stronger target with more contrast. You will not see this in the viewfinder.
If you are not aware of this then you have a problem with the use of your camera. You may think it ridiculous, but I would prefer to think of it as a sensible lesson to help get photos in focus
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
so if a bird is sitting still in a tree the camera might decide to focus on a different bird in another tree....
WOW who knew
LOL
www.RandyRimlandPhotography.com
be sure to checkout the wildlife section
Last edited:
ralphcramdon
Senior Member
ralphcramdon wrote:
wow thanks for education Pete, I had know idea that's how it worksPhoto Pete wrote:
That focus mode uses your selected focus point, but also uses the surrounding points to assist if the subject moves off your chosen point. For a subject like in the OP where there are different elements at different distances under those points it is very likely that the camera will select a point other than the one you selected, because it is a stronger target with more contrast. You will not see this in the viewfinder.
If you are not aware of this then you have a problem with the use of your camera. You may think it ridiculous, but I would prefer to think of it as a sensible lesson to help get photos in focus
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
so if a bird is sitting still in a tree the camera might decide to focus on a different bird in another tree....
WOW who knew
LOL
www.RandyRimlandPhotography.com
be sure to checkout the wildlife section
Pete, my post above was rude and out of line and I apologize for it (and so was my 1st post replying to you)
svx94
Senior Member
I tried later again and the result met my expectation. It seems my earlier AF mode was not correctly set.
I
inasir1971
Guest
Nice image.svx94 wrote:
I tried later again and the result met my expectation. It seems my earlier AF mode was not correctly set.
Have you adjusted AF fine tune yet? It looks like yours may be focusing slightly front of subject... I found that I was making a few small adjustments over the first couple of times shooting with it to get the best performance...
Glad it's working for you - the new AF and VR are a joy to use!
I started with bird photograhy about 5 years ago, starting with a crappy Sigma 70-300. But just 3 months later I went to Sigma 150-500, when it was brand new (I think I was the first one in Sweden to get it for Nikon). That took my photography to a new level. Since that I have changed my camera body twice, first going from D60 to D90, and about a month ago going from D90 to D7100.
That has improved my pictures a lot, but this Friday, the biggest improvement so far was experienced when I went to the new Nikon 80-400. I have just tested it a little during the weekend and the sharpness is really a huge step forward for me. I guess the Sigma 150-500 have been used for about 150.000 exposures, so of course my best pics with that one still can compete with the ones I tried over the weekend. But the general level of details are in a completly different leauge with the 80-400. I feel like I have moved from amatuer level to pro level in terms of possibility to get really good bird shots.
I don't know if I have a bad example of the Sigma, but it was a huge improvement when I bought it, and I have not yet fine tuned the AF on the Nikon so perhaps it can be even better. I must admit I was a bit nervous when I took it home, would the pretty large sum spent really be an improvement? I have done a lot of bad buys in my life and would not hesitate to tell you if this was one, but I really think this is a great lens, I'm really looking forward to use it! If interesting, I could try to do some more testing and post it.
/the new guy on this forum...
That has improved my pictures a lot, but this Friday, the biggest improvement so far was experienced when I went to the new Nikon 80-400. I have just tested it a little during the weekend and the sharpness is really a huge step forward for me. I guess the Sigma 150-500 have been used for about 150.000 exposures, so of course my best pics with that one still can compete with the ones I tried over the weekend. But the general level of details are in a completly different leauge with the 80-400. I feel like I have moved from amatuer level to pro level in terms of possibility to get really good bird shots.
I don't know if I have a bad example of the Sigma, but it was a huge improvement when I bought it, and I have not yet fine tuned the AF on the Nikon so perhaps it can be even better. I must admit I was a bit nervous when I took it home, would the pretty large sum spent really be an improvement? I have done a lot of bad buys in my life and would not hesitate to tell you if this was one, but I really think this is a great lens, I'm really looking forward to use it! If interesting, I could try to do some more testing and post it.
/the new guy on this forum...
still waiting
Member
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 1
After reading what must have been every last review of the AF-S 80-400 on the web there is no doubt in my mind that it is the best "compact" super zooms for Nikon on the market.
However, I still feel that it is just not quite good enough due a number of weaknesses including:
1) extreme focus breathing making it behave more like a 300mm at short-med distances. (Incidentally for birds I believe that this is the critical range at which the best photos are to be had)
2) significant CA for high contrast objects, especially at short-mid focal lengths
3) 2nd gen VR which has been reported as poor above 200mm, where it is needed most
4) a flimsy tripod collar/foot for which a 3rd party replacement is likely needed.
(not yet available and costing a couple hundred bucks)
5) other inherent design weaknesses such as slow aperture, pumping zoom, plastic construction etc.
6) costing half the price of a pro lens (such as the 300 f/2.8) and still requiring some sort of support for extended use due to its weight.
So is it better than the Bigma? absolutely! Is it worth the money for yet another do-it-all, compromised, not exactly light, super zoom. No.
However, I still feel that it is just not quite good enough due a number of weaknesses including:
1) extreme focus breathing making it behave more like a 300mm at short-med distances. (Incidentally for birds I believe that this is the critical range at which the best photos are to be had)
2) significant CA for high contrast objects, especially at short-mid focal lengths
3) 2nd gen VR which has been reported as poor above 200mm, where it is needed most
4) a flimsy tripod collar/foot for which a 3rd party replacement is likely needed.
(not yet available and costing a couple hundred bucks)
5) other inherent design weaknesses such as slow aperture, pumping zoom, plastic construction etc.
6) costing half the price of a pro lens (such as the 300 f/2.8) and still requiring some sort of support for extended use due to its weight.
So is it better than the Bigma? absolutely! Is it worth the money for yet another do-it-all, compromised, not exactly light, super zoom. No.
Ignacio A Rodriguez
Well-known member
Taken yesterday, Single point AF, center spot, AF-C.
Do not only look at the first comparison I made. Also the landscape picture revealed CA with the new AFS Nikon 80-400.
I'd say the Sigma has much better AF than the old Nikon 80-400 and even on focal length 500 gives better IQ than expected.
still waiting
Member
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 1
People might be interested in the review at Camera labs. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_80-400mm_f4-5-5-6G_ED_VR/
this one is quite good as well
http://www.backcountrygallery.com/photography_tips/nikon-under-3k-tele-comparison/
the lens has enough focus breathing at 16ft to make it equal to a 300mm! Even at 50ft it never does better than 377mm.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3467919
Other suggestions, sadly no. I guess for the low-low-price of 2700 dollars + tax its as good as it gets from Nikon.
Is it possible for Nikon to make a lens which will not have the above quality problems at this price point, size and weight? Absolutely, it would be f/4 or f/5.6 prime lens with half the number of elements. Will they make it, I doubt it, non-pros will continue to buy zooms like this one and they will keep making the huge, heavy and expensive f/2.8 or f/4 primes for the pros. We probably won't see uncompromised non-pro glass from Nikon until some new technology or maker (Sigma, Canon, Tamron, ... Apple lol) threatens to eat their lunch.
Maggie Smith
Member
I for one am loving my 80-400 on my D800 and D4 !! Have gotten some amazing
hand-held shots.
Maggie
hand-held shots.
Maggie
kbrkr
Senior Member
According to Ken Rockwell Focus breathing is a non issue for STILL photography. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2485afs.htm)
Focus Breathing (advanced and not related to still photography, feel free to skip!)
I shouldn't even go into this since it has no relevance to anything, but hey, it's my website!
This is only a concern to people using this lens in motion pictures, which won't likely happen. Focus breathing is what we call the effect when the image size changes slightly as the lens is focused. When this happens there is a "breathing" of the image size as the focus is pulled from one actor to another in the same shot.
With fixed focal-length conventionally focused lenses the image gets a little bit bigger as you focus closer. This is normal since the lens moves away from the film.
This effect is seen in the background of the image, which will otherwise be a constant size.
Many modern motion picture lenses like those from Panavision are internally focused (IF) and are deliberately designed to avoid this.
This 24-85 lens has a good deal of this effect, and in the opposite direction from a conventional lens. As you focus closer the image contracts a little bit. This is because the IF design of this lens, as most IF lenses, effectively changes focus not by moving the lens in and out, but by changing the effective focal length slightly to achieve the same effect. Thus as you turn the focus ring closer the lens actually is becoming a lens with a slightly shorter focal length and not moving. This is why the image gets very slightly smaller.
This has no effect on conventional photography.
Focus Breathing (advanced and not related to still photography, feel free to skip!)
I shouldn't even go into this since it has no relevance to anything, but hey, it's my website!
This is only a concern to people using this lens in motion pictures, which won't likely happen. Focus breathing is what we call the effect when the image size changes slightly as the lens is focused. When this happens there is a "breathing" of the image size as the focus is pulled from one actor to another in the same shot.
With fixed focal-length conventionally focused lenses the image gets a little bit bigger as you focus closer. This is normal since the lens moves away from the film.
This effect is seen in the background of the image, which will otherwise be a constant size.
Many modern motion picture lenses like those from Panavision are internally focused (IF) and are deliberately designed to avoid this.
This 24-85 lens has a good deal of this effect, and in the opposite direction from a conventional lens. As you focus closer the image contracts a little bit. This is because the IF design of this lens, as most IF lenses, effectively changes focus not by moving the lens in and out, but by changing the effective focal length slightly to achieve the same effect. Thus as you turn the focus ring closer the lens actually is becoming a lens with a slightly shorter focal length and not moving. This is why the image gets very slightly smaller.
This has no effect on conventional photography.
still waiting
Member
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 1
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3467919
I prefer this comparison of counting bricks in still photos ...
I prefer this comparison of counting bricks in still photos ...
Last edited:
Rockwell wrote that quite a while back and the breathing of the lens (24-85) is quite minimal. At that time a pro lens that gave up so much focal length at closer distances was not a factor as it is now.
Rockwell discusses it more with the 70-200 VRII, a lens that drops below 140mm at close focus! He suggests using the VR1 version if it's important to the shooter.
You can also look at Thom Hogan's view of this with comparisons of the 70-200 versions. We'll soon see the same for the 80-400.
In my opinion, Nikon should not have designed the lens with so much breathing. In my circle, the only people who are buying are the BIF shooters. The rest have passed and who is actually "happy" with a lens that drops to 250mm at close focus after paying for 400mm? This is not the same reaction found with the 70-200 VRII. Most people I know bought it anyway, but we're all hoping the next version is closer to the VRI specs...closer to a true 70-200mm lens. We call it the 70-150mm VRII.
Robert
Rick Knepper
Forum Pro
because I am seeing it the exact opposite if a quick correction for CA is performed on the 80-400 image.This is why side by side comparisons should not be conducted in the field. Shifts in light and movement (the target's and the photographer's) all conspire to muddle the results. Also, you have to manually set the aperture, shutter speed, WB and turn off all of the "helper" features in order get a correct apples to apples comparison. Sure a controlled test will be criticized as boring by those whose lens flunks the comparison, but if you really want to know the right score...do it right.
--
Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy. TJ said, "Every generation needs a new revolution".
kk123 wrote:
I tried them out on Nikon D7100, and to my surprise the 1/4 in price Sigma did better optically. Test done on silhouette feral pigons far away.. Much CA with the Nikon lens. Better detail and sharper lines on the Sigma. If the Nikon 80-400 doesn't have better glass then this? The price is wild.
http://ketilknudsen.com
--
Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy. TJ said, "Every generation needs a new revolution".
Geomaticsman
Senior Member
I just picked up an 80-400VR yesterday ... took 100 pot shots in my back yard on my D800. First impressions:
Remarkably sharp for a 5x zoom...somewhere in between consumer and pro quality. But I wouldn't want to have to tack a TC onto it (though I haven't tried).
VR works great. No issues.
Focuses VERY fast on my D800.
Excellent contrast.
I was initially worried about focus breathing reducing it's effectiveness for butterflies & dragonflies but it's a non-issue even on FX. Practical focal length is just about perfect for my style of shooting.
Lens foot is kind of cheesy, but since I hand hold I don't care. I'd get a replacement foot if I need to use it on a tripod.
Excellent walk-around lens in terms of size, weight and flexibility. This lens might be good enough to replace my 70-200VRII as I don't need/never use f2.8, and my 70-200 doesn't take the TC17EII or TC20EIII well at all (the 80-400VR smokes those combos in terms of IQ).
I have 7 days to decide whether to keep it or return it. The deciding factor will be based solely on IQ. Since this lens replaces my old 200-400VR, and my most used lens is a 500VR, my standards are pretty high.
Price does seem a little high, but not really out of whack when you compare it to what else is on the market in this price range. It's not going to replace any of my primes, but if the IQ holds up, it will fill in my mid-range needs nicely. Possibly very nicely.
For what it is, Nikon did a good job IMO. All I can say right now is that it's not going back to the store right away.
--
Gary -- Some Nikon stuff -- and a preference for wildlife in natural light
www.pbase.com/garyirwin
Remarkably sharp for a 5x zoom...somewhere in between consumer and pro quality. But I wouldn't want to have to tack a TC onto it (though I haven't tried).
VR works great. No issues.
Focuses VERY fast on my D800.
Excellent contrast.
I was initially worried about focus breathing reducing it's effectiveness for butterflies & dragonflies but it's a non-issue even on FX. Practical focal length is just about perfect for my style of shooting.
Lens foot is kind of cheesy, but since I hand hold I don't care. I'd get a replacement foot if I need to use it on a tripod.
Excellent walk-around lens in terms of size, weight and flexibility. This lens might be good enough to replace my 70-200VRII as I don't need/never use f2.8, and my 70-200 doesn't take the TC17EII or TC20EIII well at all (the 80-400VR smokes those combos in terms of IQ).
I have 7 days to decide whether to keep it or return it. The deciding factor will be based solely on IQ. Since this lens replaces my old 200-400VR, and my most used lens is a 500VR, my standards are pretty high.
Price does seem a little high, but not really out of whack when you compare it to what else is on the market in this price range. It's not going to replace any of my primes, but if the IQ holds up, it will fill in my mid-range needs nicely. Possibly very nicely.
For what it is, Nikon did a good job IMO. All I can say right now is that it's not going back to the store right away.
--
Gary -- Some Nikon stuff -- and a preference for wildlife in natural light
www.pbase.com/garyirwin
ralphcramdon
Senior Member
finally an accurate review and comments about this lens, thanks Gary
The only thing I could add is the lens is even more amazing on the D7100, so much so that my D4 & D800 stay home now for wildlife and when you consider the D7100's cropability or it's 1.3 mode you now have a very good 160-800 f/5.6 lens
800mm at 5.6
BackroadsTraveler
Leading Member
Geomaticsman--PLEASE alert me directly or this forum on your ultimate decision on whether to keep this lens. I was leaning toward buying one until all the negative comments.
Thanks.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum