05-15-2011, 04:54 PM
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?
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?
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.