Jump to content

400mm f/3.5 AI-s on modern DSLRs


Andrew Garrard

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi all. I'm curious about how the 400 f/3.5 behaves on a modern DSLR. Specifically, Bjørn raises

concerns about chromatic aberration on a D200/D2x, but I'm unclear whether this refers to lateral chromatic

aberrations (which a more modern body would fix automagically, and which is trivial to correct in post) or

longitudinal chromatic aberration (which is harder to hide - I consider the bokeh to matter for a lens of this

specification).<br>

<br>

Anyone tried such a combination? It may be the nearest to a 400 f/2.8 I'd be able to afford in the forseeable

future - not that I'm shopping just yet - and for portraits and some wildlife I might get away without needing AF

and VR. I'm thinking mostly full-frame (D700), if that makes a difference. I'm not expecting sharpness to match

the 400 f/2.8 VR, but I'll take what I can afford. Or at least, not afford, but by less. Thanks in advance.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Thanks, Walt - I'll watch the market prices. I'd been thinking I'd prefer the speed to the length (and I'd prefer a new 400 f/2.8 to a 500 f/4), but maybe once I'm down to f/3.5 I'd rather have the physical aperture. Besides, I'm already looking at a 200 f/2 + teleconverter combo, so a separate 500mm may be better than an alternative 400mm. Can you comment on the bokeh and whether the chromatic aberrations are primarily lateral or whether there's any detectable longitudinal (colour bokeh fringing)? Bjørn seems to suggest the former by claiming they're correctable.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I own this lens, but do not use it very often with my D 300 and D 300s. I will be glad to post a JPEG taken with the lens at f 3.5 or whatever f stop you want if that will help you. Just so you know my raw processor is Nikon capture NX2 and it might automatically correct for the aberrations you were referring to. When I used this lens a lot in my film days it was a very sharp lens.<br>

Joe smith</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I normally don't shoot objects on white backgrounds where I might see purple fringing so honestly I don't worry about CA that much. Maybe I should test it and try to correct for the minor amount that Bjorn says is there but I've never bothered. I <strong>am</strong> concerned about bokeh and I think the 500 f4 P is pretty good in that regard. I'll post a few images. </p>

<p>Have you looked at KEH? I just checked the manual focus inventory and they have bargain grade versions of the 400 f2.8, 400 f3.5, 500 f4, and 600 f4 all for under $2000. I'm actually kind of tempted to pick up a 400 f2.8 but I bought a 200-400 f4 VR last year so my 500 f4 doesn't get as much use these days.</p><div>00XHN9-280421684.jpg.71590fec38f7d27519de537cb284e659.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have used this lens on the D200 and D300.Over the years I've been tempted to sell it but then I take a few images with it and fall in love with it all over again. The image quality and sharpness is outstanding. I also have an AF ED 300 2.8 and with a lot of comparision testing I struggle to find any difference in the images. I highly recommend it.</p>

<p>I have had it serviced recently so this may have a lot to do with the perfect condition of the glass. I think it's the Ai version. I will attach an image of the lens and some samples.</p><div>00XHV5-280549584.jpg.a66da81c824d490bb4cf31a78592c5ad.jpg</div>

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wow - thanks, everyone. Neither lens seems to have the visible LoCA of the 135 DC, which saves one concern. Not that I'm ready to go shopping yet, but I'll keep an eye out for both the 400 f/3.5 and 500 f/4.<br>

<br>

Walt - I'd not checked KEH; good thought. (I tend not to think of them because I'm in the UK, but I'll bear them in mind.) I certainly don't care about the cosmetics of the lens - in fact, both my 135 f/2.8 AI and my F5 are deliberately beaten-up, in the hopes nobody would try to steal them - so maybe I can reach to an f/2.8 after all.<br>

<br>

Kelly: sweet picture of Ellie May. Sorry for your loss.<br>

<br>

Andrew: that's a good point. I'd been thinking that the newer cameras autodetect lateral chromatic aberration, but you're quite right that they may just have a list of corrections to apply. Actually, I usually shoot raw, so my concern is whether any chromatic aberration is lateral and therefore <i>can be</i> automatically corrected, as opposed to longitudinal (which can't), rather than whether the camera will do it for me. I assume the 500 f/4 P would be corrected in-camera, but you're probably right about the 400 f/3.5 - the problem with posting after a long day is that I tend to talk gibberish. Still, I'd like to know the answer to what I meant, if not what I asked! (To an extent, the posted images tell me what I need to know, although if anyone's got a crop lying around...)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As an aside, can anyone tell me whether I'd be right in suspecting that trap focus on the current DSLR range would work with a 500 f/4 P because it's chipped, but not with a 400 f/3.5? (I know it works with AF-s lenses and not with my 135 f/2.8 AI, but I've not heard a conclusion about P lenses.) It might be a deciding factor between options. Cheers.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...