Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR ...worth it?

[studio460]

<p>Ilkka said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IMO the crop of the rulers doesn't look bad for a lens on a DX cameraat 400mm wide open. Could you repeat which camera body was used and how it looks at f/8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, Ilkka, it was shot only as a .JPG on a Nikon D90. I don't think I shot at any other aperture other than wide-open. A small correction to my earlier post: my AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED is as sharp, or sharper, but exhibits noticeably more chromatic aberration (CA). Also, the 80-400mm was both sharper and had less CA than two of my other tested AF-D lenses: an older 80-200mm f/2.8D, and an AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D. It even bested a new AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G wide-open (which I subsequently returned since it was actually softer than my old AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D--I now have a second copy of the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G which is as sharp).</p>

[studio460]

<p>Here's another beach shot I took with the 80-400mm, used in an Emergen-C health supplements online promotional campaign:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/emergenc2.jpg" alt="" /><br>

AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED-VR @ 400mm<br />f/5.6 @ 1/2,500th</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>It even bested a new AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G wide-open</em></p>

<p>Right, but then it's not the same image (the shutter speed, depth of field, etc. will be very different). Stop down to the same aperture as with the lens you compare to, and the primes you mention should show very little CA. The 180/2.8D should be excellent from about f/3.5 onwards (maybe f/4 on DX).</p>

[studio460]

<p>Ilkka said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Right, but then it's not the same image (the shutter speed, depth of field, etc. will be very different). Stop down to the same aperture as with the lens you compare to, and the primes you mention should show very little CA. The 180/2.8D should be excellent from about f/3.5 onwards (maybe f/4 on DX).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correct. Those were not apples-to-apples comparisons.</p>