The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Suggestions for best lenses for use with 800E
- Thread starter algrove
- Start date
stngoldberg
Well-known member
The 200-400mm is a spectacular lens for any purpose. It is very sharp and stays sharp with the 1.4 attached-the profile you refer to is irrelevant.
Stanley
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Geez Stanley ..irrelevant ? When ever i acquire a new lens I spend time to both test the lens and to read as many test reports as I can . If the reports highlight a weakness then I look for it in my tests . Some are relevant to what I shoot and others are not . In many cases the differences between current Nikkors are small enough to matter only in extreme conditions (as in using a 2x extender ) .
I have and use all the lenses in question..the 3 zooms 24-70/2.8,70-200/2.8VR2 and the 200-400/4 VR plus the 200,300,400and 600 prime lenses . It is not uncommon for zoom lenses to be sharper at the shorter focal lengths ..you can see this in any test . It is also not unusual for the zoom lenses to be optimized for near to mid distances .
This does not mean that the lens isn t any good or should never be used at infinity or at the long end of the range . (some are actually better at the long end it depends on the design). Extenders are by their nature a compromise ...some have been almost perfectly matched to specific prime lenses and result in minimal loss of IQ.
From this post we have inadequate information from the OP to really get the recommendations perfect and good enough is in the eye of the beholder . But relative comparisons are easy .
My experience is as follows and I believe its consistent with most test reports .
1. The 200-400/4 is weakest at 400mm and infinity . It is noticeably inferior to the 400/2.8 VR lens in any measure of IQ . This does not mean its a bad lens ..its just not the best.
2. The 70-200/2.8 VR is a superb lens ..but again better at focal lengths short of 200.
3. Neither lens is near its best when using any of the extenders . You can of course stop down 2 stops and get acceptable results but then you are shooting at T11 or T16 with F5.6 /F8 DOF . So you will give back IQ by going to a higher ISO .
However the most important unanswered question is are you really sure you want to try a long telephoto on a D800E ...at near 40Mp you will need peerless technique to avoid visible camera or subject motion . For anything that might move you will have a devil of a time getting the subject in focus .
So let me summarize ... a 200-400/4 Af and 2x extender on a D800E is probably not a good match.
stngoldberg
Well-known member
I have no desire to have an argument over the value of a 200-400 lens. I have used it extensively (recently for three days at Nickerson Beach and Jamaica Wildlife Refuge shooting shore birds in flight). I raised the ISO to a level which allowed me sufficient shutter speed to obtain images that we sharp and did not exhibit ANY camera motion or subject motion.
I have used the 400mm VR and agree it is a superb lens and perhaps it is sharper than the 200-400mm lens at the long end-but when I printed comparative images at 24x36 inches, I could not see the difference.
I agree with you regarding the 2X extender, but the 2x extender deteriorates my images on my 500mm lens as well as my 600mm lens both of which are awesome lenses
Stanley
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Interesting - I tried today the Sigma APO 120-400, hand held, all images at 400 were just tack sharp
Also I would say at 120 it is even much better.Does this lens for a price around $800.- hold up against the 200-400? Hmmm - I think the IQ differences are pretty small and given the huge price difference for me this is a no brainer.
But you need to use lens profiles - e.g. in LR. And then you also can easily remove and remaining CA.
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Ok .....avoiding arguments generally works best when you don t label others points of view as “irrelevant “ . Keep in mind I never said the 200-400 was a Coke bottle but rather that in my experience it was much sharper in the middle distances than at infinity . Shooting surfing I noticed this and verified my feelings with a number of tests and sports shooting evaluations . Just my experience as you have given yours .
Hi Oamkumar,
Prior to the D800/e, I tested 9 recent samples (store was going out of business) of this Tamron to come up with the best possible one. Tests were initially performed on a 12MP NIkon body. Six of them were clearly subpar in a number of areas, one was passable (decent) and of the two remaining ones which were excellent and extremely close in performance, I purchased one. When the D800/e was first released, I tested this copy on it. Like many excellent lenses which perform superbly on 12 MP bodies, the demands of the 36MP sensor of the D800/e often reveals some of the weaknesses of these lenses, especially on the sides and corners. This is not exclusely a property of the Tamron, as many other fine Nikon's on 12MP bodies, also struggled on the D800/e.
This Tamron sample did well on the D800/e. Corners at 28mm were weaker than the rest of the frame, but it didn't take too much stopping down at this focal length to correct this. The rest of the focal lengths performed quite well. The lens in general is not the pinicle of performance as compared to some superb single focal length lenses between 28 and 75mm when used on the D800/e, but as a travel lens that one also wants to have performing at a reasonably high level and take advnatage of the 36MP body, a good sample of this Tamron can fit the bill....provided you find a good sample.
Dave (D&A)
QUOTE=stngoldberg;448198]I have no desire to have an argument over the value of a 200-400 lens. I have used it extensively (recently for three days at Nickerson Beach and Jamaica Wildlife Refuge shooting shore birds in flight). I raised the ISO to a level which allowed me sufficient shutter speed to obtain images that we sharp and did not exhibit ANY camera motion or subject motion.
I have used the 400mm VR and agree it is a superb lens and perhaps it is sharper than the 200-400mm lens at the long end-but when I printed comparative images at 24x36 inches, I could not see the difference.
I agree with you regarding the 2X extender, but the 2x extender deteriorates my images on my 500mm lens as well as my 600mm lens both of which are awesome lenses
Stanley[/QUOTE]
I cannot adaquately comment with regards to the use of these lenses and teleconverters on the D800/e (although I have tested some of them on that body), but can quickly summerize my findings with regards to their use on a 12MP body such as the D3s. I've posted many of my observations extensively on older posts here on GEtdpi, so I'll be extremely brief here.
The 200-400 can be an excellent lens, especially used in it's native form (no teleconverters). It's of course strongest at 200-300mm, but still very good-excellent at 400mm as long as subject distance is somewhere between close range and mid-distance. Sharpness can often deteriorate at the longer distances, especially towards infinity.
What is acceptable to one shooter may not be to another and this has to be kept in mind. I've found that use of any teleconverter with this lens was unsatisfactory for my purposes. It could be used in a pinch, maybe at 200-300mm at short subject distances, but even then I was not pleased with the results. Needless to say, the latest Nikon 2x was a "no-go" with this lens (manual focus of not).
I found the 1.4x superb with most of the Nikon single focal length super telephoto's, starting with the 200 f2 on up except for the 500 f4. It did alright some of the time with the 500 f4 but not always and it wasn't due to tripod support or technique. I often tested this combination but results were not always consistant. On two occasions I used the 1.4x with the 600 f4 it was difficult to get the kind of images and quality I expected but I did with a moderate degree of regularity. This may have been more due to technique than anything else, hard for me to say..but I always felt the 1.4x worked better with the 600 f4 than the 500 f4.
The 1.4x could even be used on the 70-200 f2.8 if one would accept a often times notcable decrease in performance, to a degree.
With regards to use of the latest Nikon 2x, I found it did unexpectedly well (especially when all other shooting parameters were optimal), with the 200 f2 and 300 f2.8, moderately to fairly good with 400 f2.8. I'll reserve comments regarding the 2x with the 600 f4 as I often struggled with the 1.4x on that lens.
My comments are not meant to be comprehesive nor detailed...just an overview. My own personal requirements for sharpness from these lenses and teleconverters are dependent on image output to large format prints. for the most part. Everyones expectations/requirements and what they may observe can certainly be different. It also greatly depends how such lenses/teleconverters are used and the shooting techniques employed. Opionions often vary greatly.
Dave (D&A)
I have used the 400mm VR and agree it is a superb lens and perhaps it is sharper than the 200-400mm lens at the long end-but when I printed comparative images at 24x36 inches, I could not see the difference.
I agree with you regarding the 2X extender, but the 2x extender deteriorates my images on my 500mm lens as well as my 600mm lens both of which are awesome lenses
Stanley[/QUOTE]
I cannot adaquately comment with regards to the use of these lenses and teleconverters on the D800/e (although I have tested some of them on that body), but can quickly summerize my findings with regards to their use on a 12MP body such as the D3s. I've posted many of my observations extensively on older posts here on GEtdpi, so I'll be extremely brief here.
The 200-400 can be an excellent lens, especially used in it's native form (no teleconverters). It's of course strongest at 200-300mm, but still very good-excellent at 400mm as long as subject distance is somewhere between close range and mid-distance. Sharpness can often deteriorate at the longer distances, especially towards infinity.
What is acceptable to one shooter may not be to another and this has to be kept in mind. I've found that use of any teleconverter with this lens was unsatisfactory for my purposes. It could be used in a pinch, maybe at 200-300mm at short subject distances, but even then I was not pleased with the results. Needless to say, the latest Nikon 2x was a "no-go" with this lens (manual focus of not).
I found the 1.4x superb with most of the Nikon single focal length super telephoto's, starting with the 200 f2 on up except for the 500 f4. It did alright some of the time with the 500 f4 but not always and it wasn't due to tripod support or technique. I often tested this combination but results were not always consistant. On two occasions I used the 1.4x with the 600 f4 it was difficult to get the kind of images and quality I expected but I did with a moderate degree of regularity. This may have been more due to technique than anything else, hard for me to say..but I always felt the 1.4x worked better with the 600 f4 than the 500 f4.
The 1.4x could even be used on the 70-200 f2.8 if one would accept a often times notcable decrease in performance, to a degree.
With regards to use of the latest Nikon 2x, I found it did unexpectedly well (especially when all other shooting parameters were optimal), with the 200 f2 and 300 f2.8, moderately to fairly good with 400 f2.8. I'll reserve comments regarding the 2x with the 600 f4 as I often struggled with the 1.4x on that lens.
My comments are not meant to be comprehesive nor detailed...just an overview. My own personal requirements for sharpness from these lenses and teleconverters are dependent on image output to large format prints. for the most part. Everyones expectations/requirements and what they may observe can certainly be different. It also greatly depends how such lenses/teleconverters are used and the shooting techniques employed. Opionions often vary greatly.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
stngoldberg
Well-known member
I cannot adaquately comment with regards to the use of these lenses and teleconverters on the D800/e (although I have tested some of them on that body), but can quickly summerize my findings with regards to their use on a 12MP body such as the D3s. I've posted many of my observations extensively on older posts here on GEtdpi, so I'll be extremely brief here.
The 200-400 can be an excellent lens, especially used in it's native form (no teleconverters). It's of course strongest at 200-300mm, but still very good-excellent at 400mm as long as subject distance is somewhere between close range and mid-distance. Sharpness can often deteriorate at the longer distances, especially towards infinity.
What is acceptable to one shooter may not be to another and this has to be kept in mind. I've found that use of any teleconverter with this lens was unsatisfactory for my purposes. It could be used in a pinch, maybe at 200-300mm at short subject distances, but even then I was not pleased with the results. Needless to say, the latest Nikon 2x was a "no-go" with this lens (manual focus of not).
I found the 1.4x superb with most of the Nikon single focal length super telephoto's, starting with the 200 f2 on up except for the 500 f4. It did alright some of the time with the 500 f4 but not always and it wasn't due to tripod support or technique. I often tested this combination but results were not always consistant. On two occasions I used the 1.4x with the 600 f4 it was difficult to get the kind of images and quality I expected but I did with a moderate degree of regularity. This may have been more due to technique than anything else, hard for me to say..but I always felt the 1.4x worked better with the 600 f4 than the 500 f4.
The 1.4x could even be used on the 70-200 f2.8 if one would accept a often times notcable decrease in performance, to a degree.
With regards to use of the latest Nikon 2x, I found it did unexpectedly well (especially when all other shooting parameters were optimal), with the 200 f2 and 300 f2.8, moderately to fairly good with 400 f2.8. I'll reserve comments regarding the 2x with the 600 f4 as I often struggled with the 1.4x on that lens.
My comments are not meant to be comprehesive nor detailed...just an overview. My own personal requirements for sharpness from these lenses and teleconverters are dependent on image output to large format prints. for the most part. Everyones expectations/requirements and what they may observe can certainly be different. It also greatly depends how such lenses/teleconverters are used and the shooting techniques employed. Opionions often vary greatly.
Dave (D&A)[/QUOTE]
Both of these images were shot with the 200-400mm lens with the 1.4 extender attached-they appear real sharp to me-both were at 550mm-I rest my case
Stanley
Last edited:
Hi Stanley,
Without actually having the pre adjusted RAW files of your two bird shots in hand, it's hard for me to accurately assess them, regardless how sharp they look at screen resolution. I'm not saying the 200-400 with 1.4x isn't capable of sharp shots...but generally I and others have found it's inconsistant and often not nearly sharp enough. Certainly not for my particualar applications. This is especially so when the 1.4x and 200-400 is used at the 400mm setting and at subject distances greater than close to mid distance range. Towards infinity subject distances, the lens is optically its weakest and with the 1.4x, it simply compounds things. Just a guess, but it looks like your birds were somewhat closer to mid distance range lens as opposed to infinity.
Again after the multitude of real world and test shots with this combination over an extremely long period of time, I felt it resulted in subpar results for my use. Other professionals I often work with also came to the same conclusion. Thats not saying this combination isn't used successfully by some. It all depends on their expectations and applications and also how much they can rely on the consistancy of this combination. So in my opinion it goes well beyond the statement of "I rest my case"...but alternatively its about whether their use together is acceptable or not to a given shooter. In my case it's not, at least not in the majority of the shooting circumstances I've tried it with.
*** Stanley, just a side note. In your post above, the way your quoted and then presented txt...it appears the quote at the top of your post is mine (it's not, its your quote) and the body of the txt looks like it came from you (it didn't...virtually all of it is my own words!). You might want to look at other GEtdpi posts to see how quotes that quote from other people's previous postings show up in "gray color" and then thetxt underneith the quote should be yours in black with white txt. In the case above, it came out the reverse!! Otherwise it looks like the body of your most recent post above this one is mostly words coming from you, when in actuality its my original posting (words)...and it then ends up looking like I posted twice. Just suggesting this to avoid readers being confused.***
Dave (D&A)
Without actually having the pre adjusted RAW files of your two bird shots in hand, it's hard for me to accurately assess them, regardless how sharp they look at screen resolution. I'm not saying the 200-400 with 1.4x isn't capable of sharp shots...but generally I and others have found it's inconsistant and often not nearly sharp enough. Certainly not for my particualar applications. This is especially so when the 1.4x and 200-400 is used at the 400mm setting and at subject distances greater than close to mid distance range. Towards infinity subject distances, the lens is optically its weakest and with the 1.4x, it simply compounds things. Just a guess, but it looks like your birds were somewhat closer to mid distance range lens as opposed to infinity.
Again after the multitude of real world and test shots with this combination over an extremely long period of time, I felt it resulted in subpar results for my use. Other professionals I often work with also came to the same conclusion. Thats not saying this combination isn't used successfully by some. It all depends on their expectations and applications and also how much they can rely on the consistancy of this combination. So in my opinion it goes well beyond the statement of "I rest my case"...but alternatively its about whether their use together is acceptable or not to a given shooter. In my case it's not, at least not in the majority of the shooting circumstances I've tried it with.
*** Stanley, just a side note. In your post above, the way your quoted and then presented txt...it appears the quote at the top of your post is mine (it's not, its your quote) and the body of the txt looks like it came from you (it didn't...virtually all of it is my own words!). You might want to look at other GEtdpi posts to see how quotes that quote from other people's previous postings show up in "gray color" and then thetxt underneith the quote should be yours in black with white txt. In the case above, it came out the reverse!! Otherwise it looks like the body of your most recent post above this one is mostly words coming from you, when in actuality its my original posting (words)...and it then ends up looking like I posted twice. Just suggesting this to avoid readers being confused.***
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
paulraphael
Member
It's worth emphasizing that this can be more about particular working habits than about standards.
In the 80s, before I ditched 35mm for large format, my favorite lens was a nikkor 35-105 zoom that I semi-permanently borrowed from my dad. This lens had a reputation for being optically terrible. And for the most part it deserved it. But I found that at around 70mm, and around f8, it was exceptionally sharp. It also had a slightly dreamy look, kind of like an old uncoated lens, thanks to having lots of elements and lots of flare. This is practically the definition of a crappy lens, but it happens that I used it mostly around 70mm and f8, and that its nostalgic look suited the work I was doing at the time.
So, in conclusion, it was a crappy lens, and a great lens for me. This kind of thing might explain a lot of disagreements over lenses.
stngoldberg
Well-known member
Nikon 200-400 with 1.4 extender attached-shot with Nikon d3 -hand held--birds obviously at a considerable distance from the camera-razor sharp eyes at 100% on my monitor-picture should be worth a thousand words
Stanley
Stanley