If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lensby $1000
On 5/03/2013 6:14 PM, RichA wrote:
The new 80-400mm costs $2700. Obviously the new lens was needed, but what could have possibly been done to merit such...inflation? http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03...6-G-ED-VR-zoom Just looked and I would not buy one at that price. The 70-300 is quarter the price. Half the weight 745gms/1570 gms |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lens by $1000
Rob wrote:
The new 80-400mm costs $2700. [...] Just looked and I would not buy one at that price. If you don't need a lens like that, the price makes little difference. The 70-300 is quarter the price. Half the weight 745gms/1570 gms If that lens is satisfactory, then you have no need at all for the new 80-400mm lens. But the 70-300mm is not equal to the older 80-400mm AF-D lens, and is no where near the same as the new lens. Here are the specification pages for each: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...g_if/index.htm http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...-56d/index.htm http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...d_vr/index.htm Here are the MTF charts for maximum focal length at maximum aperture for each: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...if/pic_003.gif http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...6d/pic_003.gif http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...vr/pic_003.png Some data points from those MTF charts tp show the significance: S30 M30 70-300mm G @ 10mm 0.72 0.55 80-400mm D @ 10mm 0.72 0.52 80-400mm G @ 10mm 0.81 0.81 70-300mm G @ 15mm 0.74 0.55 80-400mm D @ 15mm 0.80 0.47 80-400mm G @ 15mm 0.73 0.74 70-300mm G @ 20mm 0.69 0.43 80-400mm D @ 20mm 0.80 0.47 80-400mm G @ 20mm 0.65 0.67 Clearly for a DX camera body the new lens is *vastly* sharper at 10mm from the center of an image that is 24mm across. It is apparently significantly sharper at 15mm from the center too. Compared to the older AF-D version the new lens does not exhibit the same astigmatism (that is also present in the 70-300mm to a lesser degree). Given the faster focusing speed expected from AF-S compared to the older AF-D version, plus the second generation VR, this lens looks like a real winner. The 70-300mm of course doesn't do well with a 1.4x TC, so there is no real comparison at all if 400mm is needed. On top of that, it does appear that the new lens will probably work very well with a 1.4x TC on newer Nikon bodies that can AF at f/8, and be much sharper than the older AF-D with a TC. Hence, while any given photographer may not find this lens useful at that price, there is little doubt that many wildlife and bird photographers are going to snap these up in a heartbeat. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lensby $1000
On 6/03/2013 1:08 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Rob wrote: The new 80-400mm costs $2700. [...] Just looked and I would not buy one at that price. If you don't need a lens like that, the price makes little difference. I was considering the old 80-400 some time ago but the focusing wasn't to smart, and what I did see was poor results from a couple who were using them, not very suitable for sporting events (attributed to slow focus). The 70-300 is quarter the price. Half the weight 745gms/1570 gms If that lens is satisfactory, then you have no need at all for the new 80-400mm lens. But the 70-300mm is not equal to the older 80-400mm AF-D lens, and is no where near the same as the new lens. I do have the 70-300 lens and find it light to carry and stay mobile, running up and down a beach. Here are the specification pages for each: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...g_if/index.htm http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...-56d/index.htm http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...d_vr/index.htm Here are the MTF charts for maximum focal length at maximum aperture for each: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...if/pic_003.gif http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...6d/pic_003.gif http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...vr/pic_003.png Some data points from those MTF charts tp show the significance: S30 M30 70-300mm G @ 10mm 0.72 0.55 80-400mm D @ 10mm 0.72 0.52 80-400mm G @ 10mm 0.81 0.81 70-300mm G @ 15mm 0.74 0.55 80-400mm D @ 15mm 0.80 0.47 80-400mm G @ 15mm 0.73 0.74 70-300mm G @ 20mm 0.69 0.43 80-400mm D @ 20mm 0.80 0.47 80-400mm G @ 20mm 0.65 0.67 Clearly for a DX camera body the new lens is *vastly* sharper at 10mm from the center of an image that is 24mm across. It is apparently significantly sharper at 15mm from the center too. Compared to the older AF-D version the new lens does not exhibit the same astigmatism (that is also present in the 70-300mm to a lesser degree). Given the faster focusing speed expected from AF-S compared to the older AF-D version, plus the second generation VR, this lens looks like a real winner. The 70-300mm of course doesn't do well with a 1.4x TC, so there is no real comparison at all if 400mm is needed. On top of that, it does appear that the new lens will probably work very well with a 1.4x TC on newer Nikon bodies that can AF at f/8, and be much sharper than the older AF-D with a TC. Hence, while any given photographer may not find this lens useful at that price, there is little doubt that many wildlife and bird photographers are going to snap these up in a heartbeat. I have no doubt that the new 80-400 is a far superior lens to its old counterpart, just the AF-S alone. I can't imagine that Nikon would release a new lens which was an inferior replacement. I hate lugging weight around nowadays, I'm over that and having all the toys with me, just in case. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lens by $1000
On 2013-03-05 14:35:32 -0800, Rob said:
On 6/03/2013 1:08 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Rob wrote: The 70-300 is quarter the price. Half the weight 745gms/1570 gms If that lens is satisfactory, then you have no need at all for the new 80-400mm lens. But the 70-300mm is not equal to the older 80-400mm AF-D lens, and is no where near the same as the new lens. I do have the 70-300 lens and find it light to carry and stay mobile, running up and down a beach. My old 80-400mm (bought in 2004 for $1400) has become a dust collector and hasn't been a regular occupant of my bag since 2009. The 70-300mm VR is a surprisingly good value and performer, and the only areas in which the 70-300mm VR is not equal to the old 80-400mm is in the 80-400mm's unbelievably poor low light performance, slow focus and the only performance benefit, the extra reach. I certainly couldn't have made this capture with the 80-400mm. http://db.tt/6SuM0WTp I have no doubt that the new 80-400 is a far superior lens to its old counterpart, just the AF-S alone. I can't imagine that Nikon would release a new lens which was an inferior replacement. I hate lugging weight around nowadays, I'm over that and having all the toys with me, just in case. I hate lugging weight I might never use, in this case the 80-400mm. I usually have these in my bag, or on the camera, but mostly it is just the D300S + 18-200mm VRII for basic walk-around and spontaneous shooting; 18-200mm VRII 70-300mm VR 35mm f/2.0 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Extra battery My G11 ....and if I think I might need it an SB-800. The 80-400mm sits at home unless I have some odd notion that I might need it for a long shot such as this one taken so long ago it was shot with my D70. http://db.tt/U3bG5A3W -- Regards, Savageduck |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lens by $1000
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 15:35:05 -0800, Savageduck
wrote: I certainly couldn't have made this capture with the 80-400mm. http://db.tt/6SuM0WTp Hey thats a great shot! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lens by $1000
On 2013-03-05 19:10:46 -0800, said:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 15:35:05 -0800, Savageduck wrote: I certainly couldn't have made this capture with the 80-400mm. http://db.tt/6SuM0WTp Hey thats a great shot! Thanks! I have posted my Dropbox gallery in the photo groups a few times as well as some of the individual shots in a.b.p.o. where we both show up from time to time. ;-) Here are 30 I got that day. Warbirds Over Paso -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lens by $1000
Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-03-05 14:35:32 -0800, Rob said: On 6/03/2013 1:08 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Rob wrote: The 70-300 is quarter the price. Half the weight 745gms/1570 gms If that lens is satisfactory, then you have no need at all for the new 80-400mm lens. But the 70-300mm is not equal to the older 80-400mm AF-D lens, and is no where near the same as the new lens. I do have the 70-300 lens and find it light to carry and stay mobile, running up and down a beach. My old 80-400mm (bought in 2004 for $1400) has become a dust collector and hasn't been a regular occupant of my bag since 2009. The 70-300mm VR is a surprisingly good value and performer, and the only areas in which the 70-300mm VR is not equal to the old 80-400mm is in the 80-400mm's unbelievably poor low light performance, slow focus and the only performance benefit, the extra reach. I certainly couldn't have made this capture with the 80-400mm. http://db.tt/6SuM0WTp Relatively what you say is true. The 80-400mm has the advantage of a focal length range that extends to 400mm vs 300mm and being about equal to the 70-300mm at 300mm. For many purposes that has great significance, and of course for many others it has none. The 80-400mm is not exactly great in any way at 400mm focal length, but it is nearly as good in the center of the frame at 400mm as the 70-300mm is at 300mm. The 80-400mm uses the built in focus motor, so the top of the line models (such as the D2X, D3, and D4) would see significantly less difference between the 80-400mm and the 70-300mm compared to what would be experienced by other bodies in terms of AF, particularly in low light. That might color the experience of some users compared to the experience of others. Regardless of all of that, the new 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G lens appears to be more significantly better than the 70-300mm in every way than that lens is over the older 80-400mm in any way. The biggest thing to note in the MTF curves for the new lens is the match between the sagittal curves and the meridional curves. To compare lenses, the lower value of the two curves is probably the most significant. For example the 70-300mm at 15mm from the image center has an S30 value of 0.74 and an M30 value of 0.55, while the older 80-400mm has S30 at 0.80 and M30 at 0.47. The S30 value is higher for the 80-400mm, but *what counts* is that it's M30 is lower by 0.07, which is significant but not huge. On the other hand the new 80-400mm G lens has S30 at 0.73 and M30 at 0.74. Not only is that a very large jump above the 0.55 of the 70-300mm, the fact that the S and M values are so close indicates virtually no astigmatism with the 80-400mm G. In fact the 80-400mm G lens, at 20mm from the center (basically this is in the very diagonal corners of a full frame image) has S30 at 0.65 and M30 at 0.67, still showing no astigmatism and being sharper than the 70-300 is even at 10mm from the center (M30 is 0.55). *To put it mildly, the new 80-400mm G is a much sharper* *lens than the 70-300mm G.* It doesn't mean everyone will value that sharpness higher than the 70-300mm when also accounting for weight and cost. But there is little doubt that those who seriously shoot sports and wildlife are going to snap up this lens immediately. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lensby $1000
On 3/7/2013 7:13 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
On the other hand the new 80-400mm G lens has S30 at 0.73 and M30 at 0.74. Not only is that a very large jump above the 0.55 of the 70-300mm, the fact that the S and M values are so close indicates virtually no astigmatism with the 80-400mm G. In fact the 80-400mm G lens, at 20mm from the center (basically this is in the very diagonal corners of a full frame image) has S30 at 0.65 and M30 at 0.67, still showing no astigmatism and being sharper than the 70-300 is even at 10mm from the center (M30 is 0.55). Have the same S and M values does NOT imply that there is no astigmatism! That's because these are white light MTFs. Therefore they include lateral chromatic aberration. A lens could have lateral chromatic plus astigmatism adding up the the same blur in S and M. Of course, having both small is better. Nevertheless, white light MTF has the problem that if part is lateral chromatic, and it is small, one can digitally fix it. What one needs is both white light MTF and MTF in R, G, and B. Doug McDonald |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lensby $1000
On 3/5/2013 9:08 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Rob wrote: The new 80-400mm costs $2700. [...] Just looked and I would not buy one at that price. If you don't need a lens like that, the price makes little difference. The 70-300 is quarter the price. Half the weight 745gms/1570 gms If that lens is satisfactory, then you have no need at all for the new 80-400mm lens. But the 70-300mm is not equal to the older 80-400mm AF-D lens, and is no where near the same as the new lens. Here are the specification pages for each: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...g_if/index.htm http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...-56d/index.htm http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...d_vr/index.htm Here are the MTF charts for maximum focal length at maximum aperture for each: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...if/pic_003.gif http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...6d/pic_003.gif http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens...vr/pic_003.png Some data points from those MTF charts tp show the significance: S30 M30 70-300mm G @ 10mm 0.72 0.55 80-400mm D @ 10mm 0.72 0.52 80-400mm G @ 10mm 0.81 0.81 70-300mm G @ 15mm 0.74 0.55 80-400mm D @ 15mm 0.80 0.47 80-400mm G @ 15mm 0.73 0.74 70-300mm G @ 20mm 0.69 0.43 80-400mm D @ 20mm 0.80 0.47 80-400mm G @ 20mm 0.65 0.67 Clearly for a DX camera body the new lens is *vastly* sharper at 10mm from the center of an image that is 24mm across. It is apparently significantly sharper at 15mm from the center too. Compared to the older AF-D version the new lens does not exhibit the same astigmatism (that is also present in the 70-300mm to a lesser degree). Given the faster focusing speed expected from AF-S compared to the older AF-D version, plus the second generation VR, this lens looks like a real winner. The 70-300mm of course doesn't do well with a 1.4x TC, so there is no real comparison at all if 400mm is needed. On top of that, it does appear that the new lens will probably work very well with a 1.4x TC on newer Nikon bodies that can AF at f/8, and be much sharper than the older AF-D with a TC. Hence, while any given photographer may not find this lens useful at that price, there is little doubt that many wildlife and bird photographers are going to snap these up in a heartbeat. I agree with much of what you say, but: my 80-499 focuses a lot faster on my D800 than on the D300, but only if I use center focus. My Nikon TC extenders will not fit because of the protrusion of the rear element. It does fit on the Kenko 1.4, but the image is horribly soft. I have no reservations about trying the new 80-400. but only if it will work with a 1.4 extender, as I would like a 500mm. -- PeterN |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lensby $1000
On 6/03/2013 12:32 PM, PeterN wrote:
I agree with much of what you say, but: my 80-499 focuses a lot faster on my D800 than on the D300, but only if I use center focus. My Nikon TC extenders will not fit because of the protrusion of the rear element. It does fit on the Kenko 1.4, but the image is horribly soft. I have no reservations about trying the new 80-400. but only if it will work with a 1.4 extender, as I would like a 500mm. On those very rare occasions I can use my 500mm f5.6 Mamiya MF lens - used manually, attached with a Zork converter. ( Nobody wanted to give me any money for the lens so I kept it) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best software for increasing resolution? | SS | Digital Photography | 37 | November 24th 07 11:39 PM |
Increasing DOF | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 27 | November 14th 06 06:30 PM |
Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? | Dave Lotek | Digital Photography | 37 | August 5th 06 12:48 AM |
Increasing Crop Size on Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED | David Gintz | Digital Photography | 7 | May 1st 05 08:47 AM |
Increasing Crop Size on Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED | David Gintz | Digital Photography | 0 | April 30th 05 05:26 AM |