ecopix

<p>Allow me to correct something I wrote earlier:<br> "3 Auto chromatic aberration correction in camera, and/or in software on the computer, which removes normal [lateral] CA - it just disappears. The magenta/green thing on highlighted out of focus objects remains, and sometimes needs handwork."<br> NX-D has an "Axial Colour Aberration" control, and that magenta-green thing also just disappears, but with a slight cost in overall saturation.<br> So the line should read, "Auto chromatic aberration correction in camera, and/or in software on the computer, which removes all CA - it just disappears."<br> Technology marches on and the result is that the old 400mm f3.5 IFED keeps marching in step with it!</p>

<p>Thought I'd give a little update to this thread for 2016. The 400mm f3.5 IFED remains an excellent tool on modern cameras. In fact I haven't found a better wildlife lens under about five grand. The lens keeps getting better with the new technology:</p> <ol start="1"> <li>Fast frame rates of 8fps+ allow for focus bracketing on the fly. I get more keepers manually focusing this way on small woodland birds than with my $3000 autofocus lens, which often gets tricked by contrasty foregrounds and backgrounds. Mirrorless bodies have even faster frame rates, but more difficult manual focusing on the fly (better manual focus for set up shots, though);</li> <li>High resolution, giving the prime a zoom potential. I mean that on a 24mp camera, one can crop to 6mp and still have a fine image for publication or a normal-sized print, making the lens a 400-800mm zoom (this only works with very sharp lenses);</li> <li>Auto chromatic aberration correction in camera, and/or in software on the computer, which removes normal CA - it just disappears. The magenta/green thing on highlighted out of focus objects remains, and sometimes needs handwork;</li> <li>In-body image stabilisation (IBIS), which brings that wonderful IS technology to this and other older lenses. True, Nikon bodies don't have IBIS, but Pentax bodies do, as well as many mirrorless cameras.</li> </ol> <p>I'm currently using a Nikon D7100 and a Pentax K20D with my 400mm f3.5 IFED for small birds and am pleased with the results. The Pentax is a 2008 model, bought cheap as an experiment, so it’s by no means the latest tech. A K3 or K3 II would be better, with resolution and frame rate comparable to Nikon, and a claimed improved SR (Shake Reduction - Pentax's IBIS).<br> I mount the lens on the Pentax with an adapter that has lens elements (for infinity focus). They have no effect on optical quality - sharpness or any other aspect, which surprised me. They do have an unexpected effect, though - the adapter acts like a 1.4x teleconverter! And a good one! On the Pentax, the 400mm becomes more like a 560mm f4.5 lens - hardly a disadvantage for bird photography.<br> I put a 70-300 VR or 120-300 f2.8 OS on whatever body I'm not using with the 400mm at the time, and have most situations covered – 70mm to 300mm and 400mm f3.5 (more often set to f4) on the D7100, and around 560mm f4.5 on the Pentax. Slower lens speed, but with IBIS allowing reliable hand holding down to 1/250^th or slower with a bit of luck (not bad considering it’s over 800mm full frame equivalent angle of view/magnification). That's about two stops better than the unstabilised Nikon, which is a stop faster (because of the adapter on the Pentax).<br> So all up, a one stop advantage to the Pentax for handholding, which is significant given shake can appear at 1/500^th without it, but the birds can often be stopped at 1/250^th. Image quality (feather detail) is identical with the two bodies, because while the image is bigger on the Pentax, the D7100 has higher resolution. If the Nikon image is cropped down to match, it is 15.3 megapixels, roughly matching the Pentax's 14.5mp. Native noise levels at 800iso (in raw) are also identical. I use a preset in ACDSee which cuts the noise but retains sharpness and detail – I can’t use it with lesser lenses because the NR algorithm can’t find enough edge to leave alone, resulting in the usual watercolour mush.<br> To summarise, the Nikon body has the higher resolution and frame rate, and auto diaphragm, and the Pentax has longer focal length and image stabilisation (and better light metering, by the way). Now that I know it works so well, I may jump to a K3 to take full advantage of the SR and focal length, only losing the auto diaphragm, which is unimportant when shooting wide open or at f4.<br> I've tried many solutions for wildlife photography (which I do full time), but keep coming back to my old 400mm f3.5 IFED, purchased in the 1980's. It performs better now than it ever did on the film bodies for which it was made. Like all genuinely fine things, it just keeps getting better.</p> <p>Pics:<br> 1. Nikon lens, Pentax body – yellow robin nice and sharp at 800iso.<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18249424-lg.jpg" alt="" /><br> 2. Virtually identical image detail between the D7100 and Pentax K20D at 800iso, same lens and distance, with the Nikon image strongly cropped. A K3 with the adapter would have an advantage.</p> <p> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18249425-lg.jpg" alt="" /><br> 3. 400mm with Pentax and adapter, compared to a 500mm f4 that gives a wider field of view on the Nikon body, and is a cumbersome beast. The 400/Pentax combo makes for a compact, hand-holdable, stabilised, fast long tele rig.<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18249426-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="667" /><br> 4. Closer of the adapter (a very cheap and good 1.4x teleconverter!).</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18249427-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>