| Moderated by: chrisbet, |
|
|
| If it seems too good to be true.... | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted by Eric: Wed Aug 8th, 2018 14:12 | 1st Post |
| ...it invariably is! The 80-400 is going back for a refund. Having done exhaustive tests this lens just isn't good enough.  At 400mm it's no where near as sharp as my 300mmP lens WITH the 1.4x teleconverter attached! Now I know you get lens to lens variation. I myself tried 3 different 17-35mm zooms back in the day before getting a sharp one. So maybe the first owner of this found it was soft too late and took a big PX hit on it. Hopefully they will refund my payment in full and I can start again. I could buy a new one and keep trying/buying till I get a good one. But strangely the WEX technical support were at pains to point out that the zoom isn't as sharp as the new prime...especially with a teleconverter added. Now they could have been trying to persuade me to hang onto it...but as I said "why would I want to keep something that's not as sharp as what I have already, at half the weight?". Or they may just have been spouting conventional wisdom re zooms versus primes. Whatever the reasoning I wasn't buying their thinking, any more than buying an inferior lens. My hope was to use the teleconverter on the 400mm...in fact it was my raison d'ªtre for buying it....I've already got 420mm! The drop off in IQ was significant on this lens even without the tc ...so no point. I am tempted to bide my time before buying another and wait to see what the 500m P lens delivers. There is no doubt the weight of the 80-400 is noticeable walking round a reserve all day ...being twice the weight of the 300mm f4. And I never used the zoom wider than 400mm, as everything was typically too distant....even when an egret flew passed the window it was at 400mm. So it will be interesting to see what the 500 weighs in at...kg and ££. In the meantime I will take my existing kit on holiday and decide course of action when I return. Who. knows...there may be a mirrorless Nikon to distract me this autumn while I wait the arrival of the 500mm. 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Wed Aug 8th, 2018 14:20 | 2nd Post |
| crop comparison .... each part was around 1/6th of full frame from middle of lens at f11 and 1/2000th.. Ok left image is bigger at 420mm...but that's not the iq difference. Attachment: 5E756F44-0532-4487-B081-E0BA18E6C14B.jpeg (Downloaded 14 times)
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Wed Aug 8th, 2018 14:58 | 3rd Post |
Not just the sharpness, the colour contrast is muted too. The green panel at the bottom of the image is muddy on the 400, nice and bright from the PF+TC.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Wed Aug 8th, 2018 15:24 | 4th Post |
| Definitely agree. Prime is sharper. If you want to practice your weighlifting the my 400mm f2.8 AFS can be yours as I will be trading it in now I have the 200-500.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Wed Aug 8th, 2018 16:32 | 5th Post |
jk wrote:Definitely agree. Prime is sharper. If you want to practice your weighlifting the my 400mm f2.8 AFS can be yours as I will be trading it in now I have the 200-500. You're all heart Jonathan.  I don't need 400mm...I've got 420mm. (Left example) I was hoping the 80-400 would give me 560mm...but THIS LENS is not right. I wish I had tried Graham's version when we were at Frampton to compare his lens against my 300mm. Hindsight again. 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Wed Aug 8th, 2018 16:33 | 6th Post |
Robert wrote:Not just the sharpness, the colour contrast is muted too. The green panel at the bottom of the image is muddy on the 400, nice and bright from the PF+TC. Agreed.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Wed Aug 8th, 2018 17:00 | 7th Post |
Eric wrote:I wish I had tried Graham's version when we were at Frampton to compare his lens against my 300mm. Well I did! But I guess there is no comparison with a mere 12Mp D3 FX (Lovely brick size pixels! LOL). I have just had a look, I have a few taken with Graham's lens, nothing spectacular but if you like I could post them, you might even have some shots of the same birds, taken with your combo.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Thu Aug 9th, 2018 02:29 | 8th Post |
| It is always difficult with these items. How good is a lens required to be? It is disappointing if you find another identical unit which performs better. That is the real issue, if we didnt have the comparison then we would be happy but as soon as you find it is less good we are disappointed. I dont know the answer as for each and every one of us it is different.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Aug 9th, 2018 04:43 | 9th Post |
jk wrote:It is always difficult with these items. Looking at this differently I might have an exceptionally good 300mm
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Aug 9th, 2018 04:49 | 10th Post |
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: Don't bother Robert. This lens is going back and at this stage knowing more about Grahams lens wouldn't change my mind. Graham may be coming up to Norfolk in late September....so that would be an ideal time to try his lens. It could give me reassurance there are better versions out there....but I still need to decide if 400mm is the most I need. In some ways I was considering it as an interim lens till the 500 could be assessed.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Thu Aug 9th, 2018 06:10 | 11th Post |
Eric wrote:In some ways I was considering it as an interim lens till the 500 could be assessed. Given our oft stated saying that lenses are never long enough for birding I think you have to choose the longest lens your Yorkshire upbringing will stand then find the cheapest example you can, bearing in mind there are soft samples out there which will have been returned/exchanged. Even of the very best Nikkor lenses, especially with VR and SWM. A small knock can put them out of kelter. BTW have you tried adjusting the auto focus on your sample? But then it wouldn't fix the lack of contrast...
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Thu Aug 9th, 2018 07:01 | 12th Post |
| Eric have you not checked out the Nikon 200-500mm lens? It is f5.6 but that is not an issue with D500 and D850 as the max aperture for AF has to be better than f8 (actually it is f11).
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by GeoffR: Thu Aug 9th, 2018 09:55 | 13th Post |
| If you bought the lens by mail order you can return it within 14 days without giving any reason, they have to give a full refund. If it isn't up to standard that is obviously a good reason to do so. I would be considering the 200-500 in your position, indeed I would quite like one myself.
|
| This is topic ID = 1565 | ||
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Lenses > If it seems too good to be true.... | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1323 seconds (68% database + 32% PHP). 102 queries executed.
Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1323 seconds (68% database + 32% PHP). 102 queries executed.