Gear Talk > Lens Talk

DXOMark tests Nikkor 400/2.8 FL VR

(1/6) > >>

Jan Anne:
DxOMark tested the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR on the D810 and compared to the model it replaced and its Canon competitor:
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-400mm-f2.8E-FL-ED-VR-lens-review-Revised-design



IQ wise the new FL model merely approaches the performance of the older model, it seems that the use of fluorite elements was purely chosen to save weight and not because it makes the 400 a better performing lens.

Maybe Tony can chip in, curious if he noticed any differences in IQ when using these big boys in the field.

Ilkka Nissilä:
Whenever I've seen images from the VR 400/2.8G in large sizes (e.g. NHM WPY gallery in London) the images have had striking sharpness (not to mention the vivid colour) compared to almost any other lens in the same show. It seems with the FL version Nikon solved the primary issue with that lens (i.e. weight and its distribution) and were able to maintain excellent image quality. I think with this class of high performance lenses, the image quality isn't going to change in large humps  as these lenses have a history of relatively frequent updates with the latest optics and technology. I wish Nikon put as much love into their shorter tele lenses (135mm please!).

Ilkka Nissilä:
I notice that lenscore.org which test using a much higher resolution sensor, rate the 400/2.8E second highest of all the lenses they tested. 400/2.8G is 13th. This suggests that with the D810 the sensor resolution does not allow the new lens to show its best cards yet. Perhaps with a D7200 or a TC there is greater difference?

Lance B:
As Ilkka Nissilä has stated, LenScore has the 400E as the sharpest super telephoto that they have tested and they use a 200Mp sensor so the lens score is not sensor limited. Also, LenScore tests at 5 different camera to subject distances rather than the single camera to subject distance of all other test sites (that I know of) which gives a better indication of the lens's performance in real world conditions. This seems to be borne out when using TC's as I have found that the 400 seems not to be affected by distance when using any of the TC's, it seems as sharp in the distance as it does close up, whereas just about every other Nikon telephoto that I have used seems to have a observable drop in IQ at distance. My 300 f2.8 VRII and my 500 f4 VR both drop off IQ over about 20-30mts and it is noticeable. The 200-400 has been notorious for this issue. Maybe Nikon have paid attention to these criticisms of previous telephotos and have addressed this on the new 400. It may lose a point in sharpness at standard close up tests distances (however I dispute this - I think lens variation is probably the culprit), but excels at longer distances and hence why LenScore has ended up with much higher resolution figures for the new lens.

Having used the 400E for over 5 months and over 40,000 images, I can say it is the sharpest lens I have ever used. I own the 300 f2.8 VRII and the new 400 is sharper than that lens, but on DXO Mark the 300 gets the same score for sharpness. A good indication of this is that I get quite a bit more moire/false colour with the 400, not so much with any other lens.

What I will also say is that all the extreme tele's are bloody sharp and no-one could probably tell them apart as far as sharpness goes.

Erik Lund:
Please state what TC you're referring to ;)

I have fine IQ from the TC14E and TC20E III  on 300mm AFS 2.8

Sure these long lenses are outstanding  :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page