[Klaus]

[quote name='compleatangler' timestamp='1304007277' post='7951']

Several other reviews would seem to disagree with your findings. Possibly you had a bad sample. My 80-400 is very sharp at 400mm. All the best!

[/quote]



Examples ? I'm referring to technical reviews, not prosa.

[mst]

[quote name='compleatangler' timestamp='1304007277' post='7951']

Several other reviews would seem to disagree with your findings.

[/quote]



Like?



[quote name='compleatangler' timestamp='1304007277' post='7951']

Possibly you had a bad sample.

[/quote]



Allow me to be sarcastic: this seems to be the default assumption for any lens reaching less than 3 stars.



[quote name='compleatangler' timestamp='1304007277' post='7951']

My 80-400 is very sharp at 400mm.

[/quote]



On a D3x?



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='compleatangler' timestamp='1304007277' post='7951']

Several other reviews would seem to disagree with your findings. Possibly you had a bad sample. My 80-400 is very sharp at 400mm. All the best!

[/quote]

Most reviews do not test the lenses technically (measuring) like photozone does. Most "reviews" are written by Nikon-only buying people. ColorFoto does measure, and found the 80-400 VR to not be too impressive either. They especially didn't like the big loss of contrst at the long end, and were not too impressed by the resolution at 400mm either.



I think it is highly unlikely that they tested the same sample as photozone.



SLRgear also does real measurements. Even though I do not trust their findings often (the often write weird stuff), their findings are not all too positive about the 400mm performance either.



It does not mean this lens is unusable of course, it is very compact for its reach and includes VR, making it still an interesting, albeit expensive, package, even if its AF is too slow for tracking and its contrast and resolution at the long end are a bit of a disappointment.

[hotbird]

First of all I think that the reviews of PZ are an excelent and precise evaluation of lenses and I trust and use it all the time to make decisions to buy or not to buy a lens. So thanks for your great work so far.



But some of the coments and conclusions about the optical quality of the Nikon 80-400 in relation to the Canon 100-400 are in my view contradicting to your own MTF data for these two lenses. Comparing this data directly the Nikon shows a better MTF performace from the wide end to about 200mm and the Canon improves from than on to the far end at 400mm. In my view both lenses have their strong areas and their weeaknesses. Even if a comparison does not make real sense, because the lenses can not be used on the competitors bodies, I think 3,5 stars for the Canon versus 2 stars for the Nikon in "Optical Quality" seem not to represent your own MTF values and may not represent the true picture.



Strong and weak areas are about equal on both leses so in my opinion the number of stars for this category should be more or less the same. I can not judge on the Canon lens by experience, but I own and use the Nikon since many years. Generally I totally agree on what the data shows. The lens is quite a good perfomer between 80mm and 200mm and still okay at 300mm. At 400 mm it is definately lacking resolution and contrast. Looking at the MTF data the Sigma is no winner in any area and for that reason not an option for any of the two at all, but it did recieve more stars in the "Optical Quality" section, which I find a bit mislading to readers. Not that I have seen any test in the past were the Sigma outperformed either, the Canon or the Nikon. Also the "Price/Performance" section with 2 stars for Nikon ( around 1500 €) and 4 stars for Canon (around 1400 €} seems not to represent reality as for a very similar price there is a very similar perormace of both lenses with a lack in eiter end of the zoom range, according to your own MTF dataset.



For the ones who always point at the Nikon 200-400 they would get instead and which is clearly the performance winner. There are many jobs were weight and size matters so much more than resolution and therfore both, the Canon and Nikon extreme-zooms are a very good compromise even though they are lacking a bit in performance.

[popo]

Try looking at it this way - MTF charts only:



The Canon performance is generally consistent regardless of focal length. On the scale used by Photozone it borders excellent/v.good in the centre and around the region of v.good/good in the corner.



The Nikon is better than the Canon on the wide end, at 200mm they're loosely comparable, but at 300mm while the middle is still strong, you see it dropping in the corners, and getting worse all round at 400mm.



Now, if you're in the market for a 400mm zoom, the chances are you need 400mm often enough in the first place so I'd argue that is a more important area. If 400mm wasn't important, you'd look at shorter zooms instead. Systems aside, which do you think would be preferable? A lens that was consistently decent, or a lens that is great at one end and worse at the other?

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='hotbird' timestamp='1305474937' post='8333']

First of all I think that the reviews of PZ are an excelent and precise evaluation of lenses and I trust and use it all the time to make decisions to buy or not to buy a lens. So thanks for your great work so far.



But some of the coments and conclusions about the optical quality of the Nikon 80-400 in relation to the Canon 100-400 are in my view contradicting to your own MTF data for these two lenses. Comparing this data directly the Nikon shows a better MTF performace from the wide end to about 200mm and the Canon improves from than on to the far end at 400mm. In my view both lenses have their strong areas and their weeaknesses. Even if a comparison does not make real sense, because the lenses can not be used on the competitors bodies, I think 3,5 stars for the Canon versus 2 stars for the Nikon in "Optical Quality" seem not to represent your own MTF values and may not represent the true picture.



Strong and weak areas are about equal on both leses so in my opinion the number of stars for this category should be more or less the same. I can not judge on the Canon lens by experience, but I own and use the Nikon since many years. Generally I totally agree on what the data shows. The lens is quite a good perfomer between 80mm and 200mm and still okay at 300mm. At 400 mm it is definately lacking resolution and contrast. Looking at the MTF data the Sigma is no winner in any area and for that reason not an option for any of the two at all, but it did recieve more stars in the "Optical Quality" section, which I find a bit mislading to readers. Not that I have seen any test in the past were the Sigma outperformed either, the Canon or the Nikon. Also the "Price/Performance" section with 2 stars for Nikon ( around 1500 €) and 4 stars for Canon (around 1400 €} seems not to represent reality as for a very similar price there is a very similar perormace of both lenses with a lack in eiter end of the zoom range, according to your own MTF dataset.



For the ones who always point at the Nikon 200-400 they would get instead and which is clearly the performance winner. There are many jobs were weight and size matters so much more than resolution and therfore both, the Canon and Nikon extreme-zooms are a very good compromise even though they are lacking a bit in performance.

[/quote]

The difference at the 80mm focal length between both lenses, according to the MTF results, is small. So small, that probably in print one would not be able to tell which is which.



At 400mm focal length, the difference between the lenses is HUGE, in comparison.



I do not know why you feel they would "equal out".



Especially, since one usually does not buy a 400mm zoom to shoot at 80mm, one gets such a lens especially because of its 400mm reach (and the zoom part just ads flexibility).



Then there is the CA performance... the Canon has characteristically low CA, but the Nikon shows very high CA.



It seems totally reasonable and understandable to give the Nikon a lower rating, because of its loss of contrast and resolution at the long end. That is what the lens is being bought for.



Price/Performance.... the Nikon evidently does not perform as well. Optically , it disappoints at the long end. AF wise, it can't compete with the Canon's fast USM action. And its tripod collar did not at all impress the reviewer. Yet it is a bit more expensive. It does not say "Price", but "Price/Performance". It would be strange if the Nikon got a higher rating here, as it is not just about the price!

[mst]

[quote name='hotbird' timestamp='1305474937' post='8333']

But some of the coments and conclusions about the optical quality of the Nikon 80-400 in relation to the Canon 100-400 are in my view contradicting to your own MTF data for these two lenses.

[/quote]





I don't think so ... no surprise, is it? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



The Canon outperforms the Nikkor at any focal length except the low end ... by quite a margin. In addition, the Nikkor suffers from much higer CAs and quite hefty distortion at the long end.



-- Markus

[wojtt]

Well, lets hope Nikon comes out with a decent substitute for the 80-400.. So far the average (occasional) tele shooter had to go with a teleconverter (1.7 or 2.0X) with theirs 70-200 f2.8 or 300 f4 lenses, apparently getting way better results with those outfits then the 80-400 at 300-400 range. Economically it makes sense with the 300mm f4 and despite Nikon saying otherwise, AF works with the 1.7 converter <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I wonder if the same applies to the new 2X mk III converter..



Anyways, it's just more handy to have a genuine 80-400 or 100-400 with fast AF <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> so I'd guess there is room for that kind of lens in the Nikon line <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[anyscreenamewilldo]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1303769659' post='7900']

Not really a lens to rave about.

-- Markus

[/quote]

- but i believe it has won the first prize in the lost shot awards for many years now

[Yakim]

[quote name='hotbird' timestamp='1305474937' post='8333']

First of all I think that the reviews of PZ are an excelent and precise evaluation of lenses and I trust and use it all the time to make decisions to buy or not to buy a lens. So thanks for your great work so far.



But some of the coments and conclusions about the optical quality of the Nikon 80-400 in relation to the Canon 100-400 are in my view contradicting to your own MTF data for these two lenses. Comparing this data directly the Nikon shows a better MTF performace from the wide end to about 200mm and the Canon improves from than on to the far end at 400mm. In my view both lenses have their strong areas and their weeaknesses. Even if a comparison does not make real sense, because the lenses can not be used on the competitors bodies, I think 3,5 stars for the Canon versus 2 stars for the Nikon in "Optical Quality" seem not to represent your own MTF values and may not represent the true picture.



Strong and weak areas are about equal on both leses so in my opinion the number of stars for this category should be more or less the same. I can not judge on the Canon lens by experience, but I own and use the Nikon since many years. Generally I totally agree on what the data shows. The lens is quite a good perfomer between 80mm and 200mm and still okay at 300mm. At 400 mm it is definately lacking resolution and contrast. Looking at the MTF data the Sigma is no winner in any area and for that reason not an option for any of the two at all, but it did recieve more stars in the "Optical Quality" section, which I find a bit mislading to readers. Not that I have seen any test in the past were the Sigma outperformed either, the Canon or the Nikon. Also the "Price/Performance" section with 2 stars for Nikon ( around 1500 €) and 4 stars for Canon (around 1400 €} seems not to represent reality as for a very similar price there is a very similar perormace of both lenses with a lack in eiter end of the zoom range, according to your own MTF dataset.



For the ones who always point at the Nikon 200-400 they would get instead and which is clearly the performance winner. There are many jobs were weight and size matters so much more than resolution and therfore both, the Canon and Nikon extreme-zooms are a very good compromise even though they are lacking a bit in performance.

[/quote]



Nikon's MTF are measured. Canon's MTF are calculated. Thus, they can not be compared.