Why is the Canon EF 100-400mm so good compared to Nikkor's 80-400mm ?

[Allen Herbert]

Vivek, spot on. You are a sharp little cookie.

 

Well, 80- 400m at the 400m tough end in low light....and i had a few beers at the time.<div></div>

[vivek iyer]

Allen,

 

Now, that (having had a few pints before the shot) justifies the use of an IS or VR lens!

[mark_chappell]

I'm one of the probably not too many people who have owned the Nikon 80-400 and the Canon 100-400. The samples I had were not particularly different from each other optically. Both were at their best at shorter focal lengths. Between 300-400 they are usable wide open but improve noticeably stopped down a little. If you forced me to pick the 'best' one, I guess the Canon might be a little better, but if there is a difference, it's small.

 

Besides optics, there are a couple of other things to consider. The Canon in better built, I think, and without the slightest doubt it focuses faster and more quietly, and has a slightly closer minimum focus. On the other hand, it's heavier than the Nikon and many users of the 100-400 find it a bit front-heavy when zoomed out to 400 mm, and dislike the push-pull zoom action (IMO, it's easy to get used to).

 

I think they're both very good, extremely useful lenses -- not as good as a top-quality prime at the long end, but that should be no surprise.

[d-h]

Gentlemen thank you for all for participating in this tread.

I wave the white flag in surrender and put my hands up to my wrong doing. I've only been doing this for a few months and have never read any books on photography or attended any courses....So i'm drowning and have no experience compared to all of you. Some of you may laugh your ar$es off now as i didn't know what DOF was until recently....there you have it your laughing at me lol.

 

Thanks again.....I'll return back to my hole.

 

Daren (No PN mates :)

[lex_jenkins]

I've had a chance to try both the 80-400 VR AF-Nikkor and 70-200/2.8 VR AF-S Nikkor in the same shop, same kind of sunny day, same subjects, handheld in VR mode and from a tripod with VR off, for about an hour with each lens.

 

Handheld shots were of moving targets (mostly passing automobiles) to evalute AF speed and VR effectiveness. Tripod mounted shots were to evaluate sharpness of subjects at or near infinity focus. Both lenses fared very well.

 

The 70-200 VR is good throughout its focal range. The 80-400 VR is probably best from 100-300mm, still a pretty fair range. And it's not bad at either 80mm or 400mm.

 

Stopped down two to four stops - the usual midrange sweet spot for any lens - I can't see any difference in image quality between the two lenses when comparing full size NEF files onscreen. I've compared untweaked and tweaked images using various kinds of software to be fair to both lenses.

 

The only drawbacks to the 80-400 VR is that it's a variable aperture zoom without that handy f/2.8 maximum aperture, and it has the "slower" screwdriver AF rather than the Silent Wave Motor. Frankly, how much difference AF vs. AF-S makes depends on your camera. On my D2H, which has an outstanding autofocus capability, it didn't make that much difference. The 80-400 VR could still be used for wildlife, sports and other action oriented photography tho' it would require a bit more care and better reflexes and anticipation.

 

I don't see much to criticize in the 80-400 VR. Sure, it'd be nice if the lens didn't extend like a telescope when zooming. Sure, it'd be nice if it were an AF-S type. But it's a lot of lens for the money if you need the extra reach and flexibility compared with the 70-200 VR or 80-200, and don't want the comparitive inflexibility of the 300/4 AF-S.

[aravind raman]

Autofocussing totally depends upon the body you use. I was totally surprised by the focussing capability when I used a 100$ 28-80 lens on a F90S body in a camera shop. . I still repent why I had bought my F80 after that particular day.

 

Aravind

[d-h]

Lex thank you for your efforts in replying to my originally stupid question. Your breakdown is both interesting and informative. Take care

[lex_jenkins]

You're very welcome, Daren. I didn't think it was a stupid question. Not everyone has access to camera shops that will let customers play with cameras, lenses, etc., with as much patience as my favorite local shops have.

 

That's why I try to buy locally when I can, even if it costs a little more. (I'm still doing penance for not buying my D2H at a favorite local shop because I thought nobody in the Fort Worth/Dallas Metroplex had any left. The shop owner gives me a hard time - tho' in a good natured way - when I walk in. Maybe after I've bought a few more things he'll let me have the "Gimme Shit" tattoo removed from my forehead.)

[d-h]

Cheers Lex. It seems I've been wearing similar 'ink' on here :)

[michael_millard]

Two things:

 

First, I wish I had more time to waste this afternoon (instead of working!). I would definitely fake-in a nice RED tongue on that lizard pic and drive home the post-processing argument big time. (Ha!!)

 

But also, Daren's initial observation may be more than it seems:

Basically, there's a "signal", (i.e., quality image capability) buried in a mountain of "noise" (i.e., lots of photographs taken with the different lenses, and not necessarily under like conditions.)

 

As an engineer, I can certainly appreciate signal to noise problems. If you took a million Cannon-lens photographs and a million Nikon-lens photographs, eventually, you could weed out (cancel out) things like photographer skill, lighting, etc..., and settle?, perhaps?, on an objective measurement. You just need a big enough sample size.

 

That said, the resulting "signal-to-noise" ratio could be so small as to be essentially meaningless.

 

That Photoshop-ed red tongue on the other hand....

[ilkka_nissila]

Unfortunately, web images tell nothing about lens quality. Because the 80-400 Nikkor is not AF-S, most serious users shy away from it, and this is probably behind you seeing better images taken with the 100-400. It has probably nothing to do with image quality, and everything to do with practical useability, mainly due to USM in the Canon lens.