The controversy about the Nikon 80-400 (long)

Started Feb 5, 2008 | Discussions
Paul Robertson Senior Member • Posts: 1,932
Re: 80-400mm and more...

bkrownd wrote:

Bobby Handal wrote:

The 50-500mm Bigma beats this Nikkor completely out of the ballpark
at a cheaper price.

Eh? First time I've heard anything like that.

Not the first time it's been said- I own both and it's obvious in prints. The other folks i know who own both all agree. It's also obvious by the MTF charts from each manufacturer. The fact that it's cheaper and 100mm longer is just a bonus.

Paul
--
http://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com

Paul Robertson Senior Member • Posts: 1,932
Re: 80-400mm and more...

VRII wrote:

Bobby Handal wrote:

It is a fact that for any price the 80-400mm Nikkor is not good.

The 50-500mm Bigma beats this Nikkor completely out of the ballpark
at a cheaper price

Bobby

You are now pronounced the KING of misinformation and distribution of
falsehoods. Your statements above are not a FACTS, but merely your
own misguided negative rhetoric.

I own and have tested both lenses, do and have you? Look at the MTF charts from both manufacturers. The Sigma is clearly better at resolving detail at 500mm than the Nikkor is at 400mm.

"I have gotten sharp 1/13 sec. exposures at 80mm, and at 1/8 sec. the
yield is over 50%, which is truly amazing. By over 50% I mean that

Yes, at 80mm the Nikkor is nice and sharp- if it were as sharp at 400mm it'd be a great lens, but it isn't.

Look at Nikon's own MTF for the lens at 400mm, that's a measurable test, not a subjective opinion. You're mostly parroting opinions , and you're not looking at side-by-side tests. I personally know two other photographers who tested side-by-side and came to the same conclusions. Sharpness isn't subjective when you're shooting the same subject and looking at prints from each. Three samples of each lens in three independent hands is pretty compelling. But here's something- test both lenses and see what your results are- because until you do, you're just a misguided fanboy- and I'll bet you get exactly the same results if you test in a consistent manner.

My 80-400 is pretty-much on permanent loan- but then I mostly shoot with a 400 prime these days. If you think I'd sideline an $1100 lens on a whim, you're crazy.

On it's own, it takes good, but not great pictures. Compared to the longer Sigma both at maximum focal length, it's a dog.

Paul
--
http://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com

OP Eduardoo Regular Member • Posts: 432
Re: The controversy about the Nikon 80-400 (long)

David Banner wrote:

I'm curious if you ever find that you want to zoom out from 500mm and
can't since it is a prime. I've always been interested in a long
prime (not quite 500), like maybe 200, but I've always thought I'd
regret not being able to zoom out.

Finally, how does the 500 compare to the 70-200 2.8?

I haven’t used the 70-200 2.8 so I can’t comment.

The 500 AF-S is simply put the best lens I have ever used. It is, in my opinion, equal or better than the already amazing 300 2.8 VR, with one exception: the 300 2.8 takes the 1.4TC better. (maybe this is due to the fact that the resulting 1050mm is much more difficult to handle).

For birds you almost never want to zoom out. For those exceptional circumstances I have the 300 2.8

Regards,

Eduardo.

VRII Senior Member • Posts: 2,529
Re: 80-400mm and more...

Paul Robertson wrote:

Bobby Handal wrote:

It is a fact that for any price the 80-400mm Nikkor is not good.

The 50-500mm Bigma beats this Nikkor completely out of the ballpark
at a cheaper price

I own and have tested both lenses, do and have you? Look at the MTF
charts from both manufacturers. The Sigma is clearly better at
resolving detail at 500mm than the Nikkor is at 400mm.

There are 30 users who have used the 80-400 VR and rated it 4.09 (very good), by comparison 32 sigma users gave the 50-500mm a 2.58 = Average
Based on these real world user ratings it looks like the Nikon is way ahead.

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand= 'Nikkor'%20OR%20brand='Sigma%20AF'%20OR%20brand='Tamron%20AF'%20or%20brand='Tokina%20AF'%20or%20brand='Vivitar%20AF'%22

I do not have anything negative or positive to say about the sigma, but I have extensively used the 80-400 VR and it is an excellent lens, and the VR is simply fantastic, I can get clean crisp shots hand held up to 400mm @ 1/80s. I very seriously doubt that you can do that with a non VR lens

Anyhow you are entitled to your own opinion but it is just that, your own singular opinion, contradicted by the overwhelming number of ratings provided by users and highly respected professional photographers.

Paul Robertson Senior Member • Posts: 1,932
Re: 80-400mm and more...

VRII wrote:

Paul Robertson wrote:

Bobby Handal wrote:

It is a fact that for any price the 80-400mm Nikkor is not good.

The 50-500mm Bigma beats this Nikkor completely out of the ballpark
at a cheaper price

I own and have tested both lenses, do and have you? Look at the MTF
charts from both manufacturers. The Sigma is clearly better at
resolving detail at 500mm than the Nikkor is at 400mm.

There are 30 users who have used the 80-400 VR and rated it 4.09
(very good), by comparison 32 sigma users gave the 50-500mm a 2.58 =
Average
Based on these real world user ratings it looks like the Nikon is way
ahead.

But that's a completely subjective measurement. Once again, I own both lenses, I've shot with both lenses, I've compared the actual results of both lenses. Do the same and you'll gain some credibility, continue to spout subjective results and you're looking like a fanboy who has to justify his purchase with a popularity poll.

Come over to the real world and actually compare the two. Look at the MTFs and compare them. Print some images and compare them. The Nikkor looks good until you put it next to the Sigma. After that, the only thing you can say about the Nikkor is that the contrast is better, everything else isn't.

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand= 'Nikkor'%20OR%20brand='Sigma%20AF'%20OR%20brand='Tamron%20AF'%20or%20brand='Tokina%20AF'%20or%20brand='Vivitar%20AF'%22

I do not have anything negative or positive to say about the sigma,
but I have extensively used the 80-400 VR and it is an excellent
lens, and the VR is simply fantastic, I can get clean crisp shots
hand held up to 400mm @ 1/80s. I very seriously doubt that you can do
that with a non VR lens

I've used it exenstively too, and I don't classify it as an excellent lens especially at 400mm. Your idea of crisp and mine must differ- that's fine, I'm happy you like the lens- but that doesn't change the MTF charts one iota, and from the MTFs you can tell it's not a high-resolution lens. Heck, my 400mm prime looks better with a 1.4x TC on it.

I've shot hundreds of shots with the 80-400VR, 50-500 "Bigma" and 400/2.8 AFS-II. Only the 80-400 is a VR lens, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not great optically- even with VR off and locked down on a tripod that easily handles the 400/2.8 it's simply not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Hey, the 24mm AF-D prime isn't sharp either. Mine sits on a shelf, because my 20-35mm AF-D is sharper at 24mm. That doesn't mean the 24mm can't take acceptable pictures, it just means it is optically inferior, just like the 80-400VR.

Your requirements may not be that stringent, but that doesn't change the real-world facts. I've sold images made with all three telephotos, and out of the three, the 80-400VR is the worst in terms of resolution and overall image quality. When you get some actual experience with a Bigma, then come back, but a keyboard ranger just doesn't hold credibility against real-world experience.

Anyhow you are entitled to your own opinion but it is just that, your
own singular opinion, contradicted by the overwhelming number of
ratings provided by users and highly respected professional
photographers.

No, it's a result of a direct comparison under the same conditions, which is different than an arbitrary opinion by a self-selected group on the Internet. Once again, do your own direct comparison, as you've failed to cite even one. While the Universe of folks who have both lenses don't seem to disagree at all on this point (really, do searches for people who've tested both at the same time.)

You do understand the non-validity of surveys of self-selected anonymous samples in terms of results, don't you?

Heck just look at the manufacturer's MTF charts for both lenses- the Nikkor isn't capable of out-resolving its own MTF chart- that's just physics. Care to explain the difference? Of course you can't other than by the fact that it's an optically inferior lens to the 50-500. However, since you've never compared the two, you're just talking like a fanboy.

I expected to lose quality by going to 500mm with the Sigma, and I gained it- since you haven't compared both lenses and you're basically trying to argue in this thread with two people who own and have shot both lenses, it's looking pretty bad for your objectivity or ability to evaluate lenses.

Paul
--
http://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com

Kerry Pierce
Kerry Pierce Forum Pro • Posts: 19,757
Re: 80-400mm and more...

Paul Robertson wrote:

I own and have tested both lenses, do and have you?

Yes, I do. Both are sitting on the shelf beside me. I've owned both since 2004.

Look at the MTF
charts from both manufacturers. The Sigma is clearly better at
resolving detail at 500mm than the Nikkor is at 400mm.

The point that continually gets lost (ignored) in these posts is that the lenses are designed for different applications. MTF charts only tell part of the story.

The sigma is designed for and needs to be used on a good tripod. The nikkor is designed for hand held use. If you're willing and able to always use a tripod, there is absolutely no reason to buy the nikkor. There certainly are sharper lenses available than the 80-400.

OTOH, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I can consistently produce sharper images hand held, at relatively low SS, with the 80-400 at 300mm and above than with any lens that lacks VR or OS. That should be true with any user that has good hand held technique. That is the reason I still own both the 50-500 and the 80-400.

Suitability to task is the key. Attempting to put a square peg into a round hole doesn't work, and is the same as comparing the 80-400 to the 50-500 on a tripod and especially comparing it to fast, expensive primes on a tripod.

-- hide signature --

my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 Kerry Pierce's gear list:Kerry Pierce's gear list
Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 EX DG HSM Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +17 more
Paul Robertson Senior Member • Posts: 1,932
Re: 80-400mm and more...

Kerry Pierce wrote:

Look at the MTF
charts from both manufacturers. The Sigma is clearly better at
resolving detail at 500mm than the Nikkor is at 400mm.

The point that continually gets lost (ignored) in these posts is that
the lenses are designed for different applications. MTF charts only
tell part of the story.

I've not ignored that, I've simply stated that the Bigma is an optically superior lens, trying to change the scope of the discussion without acknowledging the truth is disingenuous of VRII. Since the Nikkor has a VR-off switch and a tripod collar, I'm not sure you can exclusively point to it being designed for different applications than the Sigma, though the reverse is certainly true- the Sigma wasn't designed for the same application set as the VR lens.

Nikon only offered the 80-400VR and 400/2.8 as options at 400mm when I got my 80-400, and I couldn't afford the prime at the time. In general, one would expect a 5x zoom to outperform a 10x zoom- and in general they do. In this case, they don't.

The reason mine's lent out and not gone is that the one time every year or so that I need to shoot from a moving platform and the light is good, I'll have it. That and contrast are its strengths, but that doesn't mean we should ignore its weaknesses.

The sigma is designed for and needs to be used on a good tripod. The
nikkor is designed for hand held use. If you're willing and able to
always use a tripod, there is absolutely no reason to buy the nikkor.
There certainly are sharper lenses available than the 80-400.

Both of these lenses need a lot of light, so both work best with a tripod (I believe the "DigiLloyd" article on sharpness showed a distinct advantage in a tripod over VR on the 80-400, but it's been a few years since I read it.)

I've gotten acceptable images from the Sigma hand-held, but it's not something I go out of my way to do. Heck, I've gotten acceptable images hand-held with my 400/2.8, but after about four minutes it's got to go on the tripod for a few seconds so I can rest and it's not my normal MO.

OTOH, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I can consistently
produce sharper images hand held, at relatively low SS, with the
80-400 at 300mm and above than with any lens that lacks VR or OS.
That should be true with any user that has good hand held technique.
That is the reason I still own both the 50-500 and the 80-400.

The key is "relatively low SS-" but that's where subject movement starts to intrude on most of my shooting. The guy I bought my 400/2.8 off of could get stellar images HH with it to at least 1/125th- but he was a competitive pistol shooter in the past and his physical support structure is better than a lot of people's tripod technique. If the 80-400 had the IQ of say the 70-200 VR, the Sigma would pretty much be obsolete.

Suitability to task is the key. Attempting to put a square peg into
a round hole doesn't work, and is the same as comparing the 80-400 to
the 50-500 on a tripod and especially comparing it to fast, expensive
primes on a tripod.

The 80-400 has a tripod collar, it's got a VR off switch for the times it's on a tripod, I don't think that's unfair. The 70-200VR works and performs well on a tripod, so does the 200-400VR. Obviously Nikon isn't substituting VR for a tripod with these lenses all the time. Since the sharpness results for the 80-400 are better on a tripod than with VR, it's simply a matter of how well the lens performs in ideal conditions.

I mention the prime just so that people understand that my experience with sharpness is likely to be different than theirs if they're simply comparing "prosumer" zooms, and my "on a tripod" means on a sturdy support mechanism where technique matters. However, as in the case of the 24mm prime, the prime doesn't always win.

The 80-400 would be optically better in an ideal world, and quoting opinion sites doesn't change its optical performance one bit.

Paul
--
http://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com

Cornelis Regular Member • Posts: 315
Re: 80-400mm and more...

I have the renowned German magazine Foto Magazin in front of me, with an overview of all their lens tests conducted over a number of years. They do rate the optical performance of the Nikkor 80 - 400 at 9.2 (out of 10), with some criticism about its behaviour at 400 mm. The Sigma 50 - 500 is optically rated at 9.4, with some loss of brilliance on the edges noted at 500 mm.

VRII Senior Member • Posts: 2,529
Re: 80-400mm and more...

Paul Robertson wrote:

VRII wrote:

Paul Robertson wrote:

Bobby Handal wrote:

It is a fact that for any price the 80-400mm Nikkor is not good.

"> > > > > The 50-500mm Bigma beats this Nikkor completely out of the ballpark

at a cheaper price

I own and have tested both lenses, do and have you? Look at the MTF
charts from both manufacturers. The Sigma is clearly better at
resolving detail at 500mm than the Nikkor is at 400mm.

There are 30 users who have used the 80-400 VR and rated it 4.09
(very good), by comparison 32 sigma users gave the 50-500mm a 2.58 =
Average
Based on these real world user ratings it looks like the Nikon is way
ahead.

But that's a completely subjective measurement.
like a fanboy who has to justify his purchase with a popularity poll.

Helllooooo, over 30 Sigma users rated it average you want me to throw out the opinion of 30 people for your 1 opinion. Get Real !

You and Bobby need to live in a dictatorship where the voice of 1 tries to quiet the voice of many. ( Sadaam, Pinochet, Chavez)

Come over to the real world and actually compare the two. Look at
the MTFs and compare them.

MTF Charts?? Are you Kidding Me??? You say MTF are the real world?? Maybe the real world for a lab mouse!

That's like deciding which plate of food tastes better based on calorie count or if one speaker sounds better based on pink noise charts.

How many lens users do you think carry their own MTF equipment? probably .0001% the rest of people in THE REAL WORLD go by their eyes and prints, and over 30 users in the real world have rated the lens average.

But if you like MTF charts go back to the Lab with the white mice.

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand= 'Nikkor'%20OR%20brand='Sigma%20AF'%20OR%20brand='Tamron%20AF'%20or%20brand='Tokina%20AF'%20or%20brand='Vivitar%20AF'%22

Heck just look at the manufacturer's MTF charts for both lenses- the
Nikkor isn't capable of out-resolving its own MTF chart- that's just
physics. Care to explain the difference? Of course you can't other
than by the fact that it's an optically inferior lens to the 50-500.
However, since you've never compared the two, you're just talking
like a fanboy.

You are still on the MTF charts? Listen "LABBOY" you need to read up a bit, here is a bit of info regarding MTF and it's value in the real world:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

"People have repeatedly asked me to provide an overview of these and other lenses to show their image-producing potential. True, a number of excellent resources for evaluating lenses are found on the Net. Many are based upon subjective evaluation of the items in question, but only a few sites can provide a truly encompassing overview based on a single person's experience. On the other hand, sites exist that overwhelm you with MTF plots purportedly providing indisputable facts. MTF methodology has a genuine scientific foundation and there is nothing "wrong" with MTF as such. I even understand the mathematical equations. However, such statistics basically are as helpful as knowing the mass of a lens - on its own, MFT testing cannot predict the pictorial outcome of any lens. Thus, MTF tests will not show all problems from field curvature, colour fringing, flare and ghosting, the variability in performance that arises from near or distant focus, the subjective 'feel' of the images and in particular the out-of-focus rendition (given the buzz word of 'bokeh'), the way a lens handles under actual use, and so on. MTF data can just indicate there is a problem with a lens, or that a particular lens might be an excellent piece of glass. All of this information can be obtained as easy (but likely not as fast) just by shooting pictures with the lens. Averaging MTF numbers to arrive at a single value in order to rank lens quality is simply impossible and largely a waste of time."

So please LAB-BOY keep wasting your time with MTF charts and feeding the lab mice, while the rest of us keep evaluating based on real world conditions.

Bobby Handal
Bobby Handal Veteran Member • Posts: 5,757
Re: will some one get some pamprin for VRII ?

Geez. okay, you like the 80-400, ok, its very good for you and the rest of the world should keep quiet. keep on using the 80-400, or at least keep on reading on web sites about it.

the main thing is to enjoy photography with what one has, otherwise, please buy this quite urgent:

http://www.chattem.com/products/pamp.asp

 Bobby Handal's gear list:Bobby Handal's gear list
Olympus TG-5 Nikon Coolpix AW130 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon 1 V1 Sony Alpha NEX-6 +78 more
JimPearce
JimPearce Veteran Member • Posts: 9,272
All of this Bigma sharpness talk increases my expectation...

that the forthcoming 120-400 OS (or it's 150-500 sibling) might just be the lens many of us want.
--
Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D500
Paul Robertson Senior Member • Posts: 1,932
Re: 80-400mm and more...

VRII wrote:

Helllooooo, over 30 Sigma users rated it average you want me to throw
out the opinion of 30 people for your 1 opinion. Get Real !
You and Bobby need to live in a dictatorship where the voice of 1
tries to quiet the voice of many. ( Sadaam, Pinochet, Chavez)

Actually, I rate it as average to good as well. I simply rate the 80-400 as below average. Since we don't know what any of the users are comparing it to, their level of experience, or their method of evaluation- let alone how the groups compare to one another, the information is basically useless to use for comparison. Perhaps if the Sigma owners all owned the Nikkor, they'd have rated it higher.

Come over to the real world and actually compare the two. Look at
the MTFs and compare them.

MTF Charts?? Are you Kidding Me??? You say MTF are the real world??
Maybe the real world for a lab mouse!

Since nobody in this thread who owns both lenses (in the real world) has rated the Nikkor higher optically, in the real world, the Nikkor loses. Once again, feel free to either (a) test the two yourself or (b) find a plurality of folks who've done side-by-side tests to support your position.

That's like deciding which plate of food tastes better based on
calorie count or if one speaker sounds better based on pink noise
charts.

No, it's simply a good way to compare the basic optical qualities. A lens with a bad MTF won't outperform its MTF- so it's a good way to evaluate the high bar. Obviously there are other criteria, but putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it not a pig.

How many lens users do you think carry their own MTF equipment?
probably .0001% the rest of people in THE REAL WORLD go by their eyes
and prints, and over 30 users in the real world have rated the lens
average.

Sure, but we don't know how those same users would rate the 80-400, so it's not a valid comparison. I know not everyone understands how to normalize out subjective evaluations, but really this isn't rocket science. Try to keep up.

You are still on the MTF charts? Listen "LABBOY" you need to read up
a bit, here is a bit of info regarding MTF and it's value in the real
world:

Unlike you, I understand its value in the real world- and it has value, which is why optical engineers keep producing them.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

"People have repeatedly asked me to provide an overview of these and
other lenses to show their image-producing potential. True, a number
of excellent resources for evaluating lenses are found on the Net.
Many are based upon subjective evaluation of the items in question,
but only a few sites can provide a truly encompassing overview based
on a single person's experience. On the other hand, sites exist that
overwhelm you with MTF plots purportedly providing indisputable
facts. MTF methodology has a genuine scientific foundation and there
is nothing "wrong" with MTF as such. I even understand the
mathematical equations. However, such statistics basically are as
helpful as knowing the mass of a lens - on its own, MFT testing
cannot predict the pictorial outcome of any lens. Thus, MTF tests
will not show all problems from field curvature, colour fringing,
flare and ghosting, the variability in performance that arises from
near or distant focus, the subjective 'feel' of the images and in
particular the out-of-focus rendition (given the buzz word of
'bokeh'), the way a lens handles under actual use, and so on. MTF
data can just indicate there is a problem with a lens, or that a
particular lens might be an excellent piece of glass. All of this
information can be obtained as easy (but likely not as fast) just by
shooting pictures with the lens. Averaging MTF numbers to arrive at a
single value in order to rank lens quality is simply impossible and
largely a waste of time."

You'll notice that Bjorn, who unlike you apparently understands what an MTF chart is for doesn't once mention sharpness or detail in his list of things an MTF chart doesn't measure. While "will not show all problems" is true, they do show problems, and it's a pity the 80-400VR has them.

If you can open your mind, you might find the following link informative:

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/how_to_choose_a_lens.html

You'll note that I only discuss MTFs in terms of how well or poorly the lenses in question resolve. That's because I understand the value of the tool, as well as what it doesn't measure.

So please LAB-BOY keep wasting your time with MTF charts and feeding
the lab mice, while the rest of us keep evaluating based on real
world conditions.

Hey, SURVEY-BOY, since you really haven't evaluated the 50-500 based on "real world conditions" and I have, it's rather specious of you to attempt to claim that ground. When you actually do a "real world evaluation" let me know.

Everyone who's done a real world evaluation has the Sigma winning in terms of optical quality. Everyone.

Paul
--
http://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com

OP Eduardoo Regular Member • Posts: 432
Please VRII, calm down.

Regards,

Eduardo

Kerry Pierce
Kerry Pierce Forum Pro • Posts: 19,757
Re: 80-400mm and more...

Paul Robertson wrote:

OTOH, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I can consistently
produce sharper images hand held, at relatively low SS, with the
80-400 at 300mm and above than with any lens that lacks VR or OS.
That should be true with any user that has good hand held technique.
That is the reason I still own both the 50-500 and the 80-400.

The key is "relatively low SS-"

Of course it is, which is why I mentioned it. But, I'm not talking about shutter speeds that would impact anything other than camera shake for the focal length. Obviously, subject motion blur would affect any lens.

If SS are at 1/FL or less, I have no doubt that the average person will consistently get sharper shots hand held with the 80-400 at 400mm than he would with any other lens that doesn't have VR, prime or otherwise. It wouldn't surprise me that you'd need to at least double or triple the shutter speed to get the same level sharpness with a prime, such as the 300 f/4 with TC.

starts to intrude on most of my shooting. The guy I bought my
400/2.8 off of could get stellar images HH with it to at least
1/125th- but he was a competitive pistol shooter in the past and his
physical support structure is better than a lot of people's tripod
technique.

I was a competitive pistol shooter for 20 years. I can't beat good technique on a monopod or tripod now and probably never could.

Suitability to task is the key. Attempting to put a square peg into
a round hole doesn't work, and is the same as comparing the 80-400 to
the 50-500 on a tripod and especially comparing it to fast, expensive
primes on a tripod.

all the time. Since the sharpness results for the 80-400 are better
on a tripod than with VR, it's simply a matter of how well the lens
performs in ideal conditions.

As I said, suitability to task is the key. I don't care about ideal conditions, when I know that I'll be using a lens under less than ideal conditions. That's why I bought the 80-400 and is why it was used far more than the sharper lenses I have at my disposal. The same holds true for the 70-200 and 200-400. People don't buy those lenses because they're the sharpest lenses available. Ideal sharpness isn't everything. It is only one of many factors.

I mention the prime just so that people understand that my experience

I understand. I own the 70-200vr that you mention and I also own several primes, within the focal range, that are much sharper wide open, especially when used on a tripod. That doesn't make the 70-200 a bad lens any more than similar tests prove that the 80-400 is a bad lens.

The 80-400 would be optically better in an ideal world, and quoting
opinion sites doesn't change its optical performance one bit.

Of course it could be better, ideally. That's one of the reasons most every 80-400 owner wants a refreshed update to the lens. That doesn't negate the opinions of the users cited. The use of the lens in the manner for what it is designed obviously makes for a happy user, in spite of the fact that it isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

-- hide signature --

my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 Kerry Pierce's gear list:Kerry Pierce's gear list
Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 EX DG HSM Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +17 more
hea
hea Regular Member • Posts: 354
Re: The controversy about the Nikon 80-400 (long)

Eduardo

instead of continuing with this discussion, could you post more pictures of the SouthAmerican Rainforest birds ?, they are amazing and beautiful taken

 hea's gear list:hea's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D40 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +2 more
VRII Senior Member • Posts: 2,529
Re: Please VRII, calm down.

Eduardoo wrote:

Regards,

Eduardo

Edoardo

No worries, I'm as cool as the other side of the pillow

VRII Senior Member • Posts: 2,529
Re: 80-400mm and more...

Paul Robertson wrote:

Actually, I rate it as average to good as well. I simply rate the
80-400 as below average. Since we don't know what any of the users
are comparing it to, their level of experience, or their method of
evaluation- let alone how the groups compare to one another, the
information is basically useless to use for comparison. Perhaps if
the Sigma owners all owned the Nikkor, they'd have rated it higher.

Ahh so you are suggesting that Sigma owners are better at lens evaluations and that is why they rated a superior lens as "average" where as Nikkor owners are "easily impressed" and they rated an average lens as "very good" . Just stick to the facts, what you don't know is exactly that, what you dont know, trying to "guess" the users experience and frame of mind and "bending it" to match your idea is a comical attempt at best.

The Sigma lens was rated way lower than the Nikkor and thus blows away your argument.

Paul, Bottom line, you want to parade you MTF charts, go for it! It will never overcome the overwhelming amount of FACTS , positve reviews and user ratings which rate the Nikkor Higher.

VRII Senior Member • Posts: 2,529
Re: will some one get some pamprin for VRII ?

Bobby Handal wrote:

Geez. okay, you like the 80-400, ok, its very good for you and the
rest of the world should keep quiet.

Bobby

1-) I like lenses that perform with no particular blind faith

2-) I like to use the right tool for the right job. A F/5.6 lens in very limited light is not the right tool.

3-) I do not like people who come across as dictators and impose their opinions as FACTS. If you would have had the common courtesey to state that it was your opinion based on your many years of usage, fine I respect that. But your opening line was 'The Fact is .....

4-) I do not like attempts to use lab measurements to void real world results.

5-) I do not care for people who try to void or devalue the results of 30 other people and impose their own.

Cheers!

OP Eduardoo Regular Member • Posts: 432
With pleasure. This is the bizarre looking Hoatzin.

This bird is not related to any other known bird. It is so strange that a Family has to be created just for him: Opisthocomidae.

Fortunately its meat is not too tasty so natives usually leave it alone. It can still be found in remote varzea lagoons inside the Amazonian region.

Regards,

Eduardo

hea wrote:

Eduardo
instead of continuing with this discussion, could you post more
pictures of the SouthAmerican Rainforest birds ?, they are amazing
and beautiful taken

OP Eduardoo Regular Member • Posts: 432
another one

This is one of my favorites, the Masked Trogon. Very tame, it tolerates with curiosity the proximity of the photographer. There are almost ten different Trogon species in Ecuador.

hea wrote:

Eduardo
instead of continuing with this discussion, could you post more
pictures of the SouthAmerican Rainforest birds ?, they are amazing
and beautiful taken

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads