Reviews > Ramblings of the Fierce Bear of the North
The new fluorite generation: AFS 600 mm f/4 Nikkor FL E
Bjørn Rørslett:
To remove any lingering doubts or duplicities, the left image is D3S, the right-hand side is D800.
Do keep in mind the D800 only offers about 70% better resolution than the D3S and its ilk. Easy to notice with a test target in a lab, not entirely equally dramatic in the field.
I consider long-range shots actually being excellent test subjects for lens contrast. Only lenses with inherent high contrast will be able to overcome the attenuation and decline of subject contrast that atmospheric haze introduces. The visibility of turbulence depends also on shutter speed.
I guess with less exotic tripods than the heavy-duty Sachtler and its Fluid Head you will encounter signs of lens vibration from 1/100 sec and longer. Some of these can be combated by VR some not.
Frank Fremerey:
The shadows are much cleaner with the D800 and the atmospheric disturbance is well resolved.
Bjørn Rørslett:
I never said there wouldn't be differences. Obviously, there are. Upsampling from 12 MPix will not give you equally clean 36 MPix as the native sensor. But seen in the light of what the photos eventually are used for, perhaps the megapixel frenzy isn't as important as many tend to think.
Another way of "getting more" is to add a TC. The 600/4 FL apparently copes well with TCs and the TC 14E Mk.3 is an easy approach to extract more details from the scenery.
Same camera stand point as the photos posted already. 100% crops to show the naked lens (left) and with the TC 14E.3 (right). Pixel peepers and other nit pickers might find a tiny increase in CA, all other sensible people just note the better resolution of minute detail due to the increase in magnification. AF still functioned without a hiccup with the TC attached.
Bjørn Rørslett:
Going now from the remote subjects to the near range of the 600 FL: Here I'm capturing a late-flowering Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare). The lens was used hand held and VR engaged in Normal Mode. Camera was my Nikon D800. I operated the lens around its near limit at 4.5 m.
Shots around 1/100 sec in general lacked the last degree of sharpness to make me consider them passable. However, in a pinch most could be used after being downsized and judiciously sharpened, so they weren't complete write-offs.
After seeing the results, I increased ISO to get 1/400 sec shutter speed, and results now were much improved in their rendition of critical detail. Still not the equivalent of what a tripod-mounted lens would deliver, but getting there despite vestiges of double contours around the bright white rays of the flower head. One easily observes the very shallow zone of acceptable sharpness at this close range.
First, the overall scene captured to show everything in the background is completely thrown out of focus (the alder stems in the background were located about 4 m further away). Then, a 100% crop to show the attainable detail. Do note the slight tendency for blue fringing, and occasional double contours.
BW:
I did some side by side comparisons between the "old" and the new 600 mm in october and it seemed to me that the new FL-version didnt have as narrow FOV as the old version. Do you have any comment regarding this apparent discrepancy? Looking at pictures side by side on the computer gave me that impression straight out of camera and also when I toggeled between the two pictures on the lcd-screen on the camera.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version