Re: 200-400 VR does not equal prime lens sharpness?

User: Flat view
Navigation:   ^ Forum   |< First   < Previous   Next >   Next New >> 

Forum   Nikon SLR Lens Talk
Subject   Re: 200-400 VR does not equal prime lens sharpness?  [SIMILAR]
Posted by   Thom Hogan [PROFILE]
Date/Time   11:31:00, 02 November 2006 (GMT)

Jonathan F/2 wrote:
> I was looking at this review, and it made it seem like the 200-400
> VR was equal to the sharpness of the 300.
Did you look at the samples? It seems clear to me that the 300mm f/2.8 stopped down to f/4 gets a sharpness benefit of the stopping down that the 200-400mm f/4 doesn't get. So at 300mm f/4, the 300mm lens is a bit better, as you'd expect.

To get to 400mm, you have to add the 1.4x to 300mm (okay, we're now comparing 420 v. 400). Both lenses are now being used wide open, and the effects of the converter are now hurting the 300mm. The 200-400mm is now a bit better, again as you'd expect.

I see two problems with the 200-400mm:

1. Because it's f/4, you're almost always using it wide open. It isn't quite as good at f/4 as it is at f/5.6.
2. It doesn't handle TCs very well. Even the 1.4x requires you to stop down a stop to get what I'd call good results, so we're now at f/8, yuck. The 1.7x and 2x are unusable on the 200-400mm with a D2x, IMHO (you get the double whammy: at 2x you really need to stop down at least two stops to get the best sharpness, which puts you past the visible diffraction point of the D2x; moreover, you're at f/16, which means you're likely to have boosted ISO to keep your shutter speeds up).

> Honestly, I was somewhat disappointed image-wise with the 200-400.
> While very good, I would not say this lens is at prime quality as
> some people would say.
It's darned close (a better example to test against would be the 300mm f/4 AF-S, by the way), which is surprising for a big zoom. But it isn't as good as the f/2 or f/2.8 primes.

> If anything, I find this a very expensive
> complimentary lens as opposed to a neccessary purchase.
I would say it differently: it's a situational or compromise lens. There are a few situations where it excels due to the zoom flexibility. But if you're always using it at the long end as a replacement for a prime, you're making a slight compromise. The 400mm f/2.8 at f/4 is better than the 200-400mm, for example.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
www.bythom.com
Message  
Navigation  

Below is the navigator for this thread, you can use this to view other messages in this thread. You can use the previous and next buttons to scroll through the messages in this thread. Or the 'Next New' button to jump to the next newly posted message.

Subject Posted by When
Shortcut keys:
fForum
1First message
pPrevious
nNext
wNext new
rReply
qQuote
Back to:  Forum: Nikon SLR Lens Talk   Forums 
 
 
Copyright 1998-2008 Digital Photography Review, dpreview.com Ltd.