Nikkor 500mm F4 AI-s P vs. 80-400mm VR zoom

[joey1]

<p>On image quality alone at the 400mm zoom, anyone have experiences in comparing the images with the 500mm AI?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Helpfully, I'm going to say I don't have experience of the 80-400. However, the 500 f/4 AI-s P does handily do better than the 150-500 Sigma (which is not saying much - the Sigma is pretty good up to about 400mm but falls apart at the 500mm end, at least in some samples). On a D800, the 500 f/4 isn't tack sharp wide open, but it's pretty good by f/5.6 and better at f/8, in my brief tests (I've not had my D800 long enough to give it a full test yet).<br />

<br />

Of course, that it's manual focus is a pain (I have a modified TC-16A, which is okay near the middle on a D700 but looks a bit iffy on the D800) and, while I'm happy to hand-hold my 200 f/2, the weight distribution of the 500mm means it lives with a Manfrotto 393 on my tripod. And it's also the reason I want a bigger tripod than a 055CXPro3.<br />

<br />

I suspect the 80-400 is softer at the long end but vastly easier to use - for comparison, I've taken my 150-500 to Wimbledon (though I was shooting at f/11 the whole time to get even D700-level sharpness), but getting the prime in without a press pass might have been a tad tricky.<br />

<br />

But, if you're happy to accept the need to prefocus (or focus slowly) and keep it on a tripod, the 500mm is a nice bit of kit. It has persuaded me that I'll be saving for an autofocus 400 f/2.8 rather than the AI version, though.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I found the image quality of the Nikon 500mm f 4.0 P lens to be excellent on my Nikon D 200 and D 300 both with and w/o the Nikon tc 14B, the recommended tc for this lens. Many of my shots were taken at f 4.0. All were on a tripod with a gimbal head with good long lens technique. I have had no experience with the 80-400mm lens. Joe Smith</p>

[vince-p]

<p>How about an AF-S 300mm f/4 and the 1.4 converter? One hears this lens is superb. I suspect strongly it would be better than either alternative you name and a helluva lot cheaper than the AF-S 200-400 zoom (my dream lens...) or the AFS 400/2.8 which is your only other superior option. I don't own a car large enough for the 400/2.8 myself. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>or the AFS 400/2.8 which is your only other superior option</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, there's the 400 f/3.5 and the 400 f/2.8 AI-S, which may or may not be superior depending on what we're after... Joey, do you <i>want</i> 400mm, or 500mm?<br />

<br />

As for the 300 f/4 and TC-14, it <i>is</i> often recommended as the highest-quality convenient way to get past 400mm on a reasonable budget - and if you're thinking of an 80-400, it's worth a look. If you're considering the 500 f/4, you've already thrown out "convenient", though, and I'm certainly not convinced that the combination would outperform the 500 f/4 (and, of course, it's shorter). I've not experienced a 300 f/4 for long enough to judge whether it would be comparable to the 500mm on its own. If you're after a more modern option, the Sigma 500 f/4.5 might be available used for reasonable money.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, the 200-400 has never tempted me. For a 200 f/4, it's huge and expensive; for a 400 f/4, fine, but if I'm lusting, I'd rather either go faster (f/2.8) or longer (500mm). It's also apparently not very sharp at longer distances. Besides, I could achieve the same thing with my 200 f/2 if I got a TC-20 (probably with a small loss of quality, but then I've still got the f/2 at 200mm). If you really need a zoom - for sports or wildlife - then it's the big brother of the 70-200, but in terms of lustable optics, not so much. Besides, if we're going to gawp at big zooms, there's the 300-800 f/5.6 Sigmonster (silly money), the 200-500 f/2.8 Sigzilla (<i>really</i> silly money, also not as sharp as you'd hope, AFAICT) and the Nikkor 1200-1700mm f/5.6-f/8 (the other "P" lens that's not the 500 f/4 or - ironically - 45mm pancake). I'll stick to my eventually-achievable 400 f/2.8 lust, though.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<blockquote>

<p>On image quality alone at the 400mm zoom, anyone have experiences in comparing the images with the 500mm AI?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've owned the 80-400 VR and still have my AiS-P 500/4.</p>

<p>On image quality alone the 500/4 is superior. I tried both these lenses to perform the same task for me one after the other (photographing small birds at 7m - 15m distance)</p>

<p>Despite the 500/4 being heavier/longer/larger and more difficult to stabilise as a result I found the 500/4 produced crisper images at the same aperture settings as the 80-400 VR. Also and more importantly to me subjectively, the 500/4 produces magnificent bokeh - the 80-400 VR failed to tickle my fancy for bokeh at all. To add to my 500/4 image quality rave, it also produces very good images using the TC 1.7 EII and brilliant images using the TC 1.4 EII.</p>

<p>The above experience is all based upon tripod mounted shooting of the similar subject matter in similar lighting conditions on the exact same tripod location at the same time of year which is hardly scientific but plenty close enough for me to form my strong opinion.</p>

[joey1]

I should clarify I'm leaning towards the 500mm AI-P. Being an older design, I would surmise it's less contrasty and have

greater CA compared to the 80-400 zoom. I would think bokeh to be better than the zoom as well. I'm planning on using it

on Nikon film bodies and digital DX and FX. Thank- you for the responses!

[Mike D]

<p>If you still haven't made up your mind, check out Bjorn Rorslett's review of the 500 P.<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</a></p>

[Albins images]

<p><strong>Michael</strong> suggested checking Bjorn Rorslett's overview, which is always wise.<br>

<strong>Andrew</strong> mentioned (among others) the 300/4.0 + 1.4xTC - I have the <em>older</em> combination, which is certainly fine on DX sensor camera's. If you go that way, be sure to get the AFS combination, or you lose AF!<br>

Andrew also mentioned the 400/3.5, which I have and used extensively. It works well enough on DX sensor camera's in terms of quality - <em>without TC'</em>s. Focusing manually however is a very hard job with the small DX viewfinders. From my experience: it can be done, but you will miss shots as well, while being busy finding focus. Question is: will it be easier with the 500/4.0P? Probably not.. The reputation of the 80-400 is a mixed one, as you (<strong>Joey</strong>) will probably know, having image quality issues at 400 and slow AF.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>My 200-400mm f/4 lust is based on reported image quality, not a calculation of real usability. And, yes, based on the same IQ criterion, I'd certainly acquire, had I the disposable loot, the 200mm f/2 and the best 300mm AFS lens I could see springing for and carrying (likely the f/4) <em>before</em> I went for the 200-400mm which I'd take, you know, on the occasional safari or my weekly walks around the schoolyards.... </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Focusing manually however is a very hard job with the small DX viewfinders.</blockquote>

 

<p>I've been relying on the digital rangefinder, with moderate success - but I appreciate that having a three-segment one is nice. There's always live view...</p>

 

<blockquote>or my weekly walks around the schoolyards....</blockquote>

 

<p>Be careful what you say on the internet, lest it be taken (I hope) out of context. :-)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>For what it's worth, the 200-400 has never tempted me. For a 200 f/4, it's huge and expensive; for a 400 f/4, fine, </em></p>

<p>The way I think about it is like this: you only bring out a 200-400/4 if you'll be needing 400mm, f/4. And if you have enough light to shoot at 400mm, f/4, you also have enough light to shoot at 200mm, f/4. So the lack of increasing maximum aperture towards shorter focal lengths doesn't really constitute a problem for a typical situation where you'd use this lens. To haul around a 200-400 when you don't need 400mm seems silly since there are smaller and easier to handle lenses that can do those tasks.</p>

<p><em>if I'm lusting, I'd rather either go faster (f/2.8) or longer (500mm).</em></p>

<p>Is it possible to consider that <em>lust</em> or <em>ga</em><em>wping</em> is not the primary reason someone buys a lens? ;-) A 400/2.8 has the problem that it effectively immobilizes its user for the time they operate it (this has been very obvious at events I've seen people using such lenses; they don't exactly move about), and they also can't bring a lot of other lenses to the shoots where they use the big 400. If that's fine, great! But usually I want to do a <em>coverage</em> of an event which includes broad and long shots. A 200-400/4 isn't exactly lightweight, but when you consider that shots can be horizontal or vertical, the zoom lead to more possibilities for different types of images (single person vertical at 400mm to group of performers as a horizontal image at 200mm) or photographs of the subject at different ranges. If one is <em>only </em>going to be using the long end then a prime can make more sense. But for quite a lot of things the 200-400 range can help achieve some visual diversity especially if you can't bring other lenses along. What I see as the problem of this lens is that the bokeh isn't as nice as with the 200mm (f/2) and 300mm (f/2.8) primes even at the same aperture, and this can be distracting when one is used to shots from those primes (I haven't used a 400/2.8 as it is a lens beyond my ability to handle), also it's quite front heavy leading to more difficult hand-holding. I use the 200/2 because I happen to like 200mm focal length a lot and like the way my subjects look through it, and it's easy enough to hand-hold compared to the longer lenses (f/2 and VR II help, too, but above all the angle of view on FX is not too narrow for precise hand-holding). And in a pinch it can be extended to 280mm and 400mm with teleconverters, though not as sharp as the 300mm f/2.8 (with or without TC-14EII) and also not nearly as sharp at 400mm, f/4 as the 200-400/4 at normal distances (though stopped down to f/5.6 the difference is greatly reduced, but then the 200+2X becomes an extremely heavy 400/5.6). The nicest thing about the 200-400 is in my opinion that it's great at 400mm, f/4 and while it's tied to a tripod or monopod you can get the environmental shots as well without taking it down and switching to a different lens. I really dislike the fact that with TCs on a prime lens, switching focal lengths becomes an arduous process especially if the lens is mounted on a monopod (you have to take the lens and monopod down, lay them somewhere, take out the camera, play with caps, switch TCs, put the camera back on, place the remaining parts somewhere, rise the monopod and mount the lens back on). Not so with the 200-400 - you just turn the zoom ring and you're done. Also the TC adds its own layer of optical surfaces, reducing contrast and adding optical aberrations to the image wide open. TCs can be ok when the lens is stopped 1-2 down, and they do make for a more compact rig, but at least for me the quality of the images from the 200/2+2X is significantly worse hand-held than it is with a tripod, so while I can hand-hold the 200+2X for a short time, it's not giving me its best quality when used in this way. I think a slower 400mm prime would serve me better.</p>

<p><em> It's also apparently not very sharp at longer distances.</em></p>

<p>I was not able to demonstrate this for myself; at all distances I tested the 200-400/4 with it was clearly superior at 400mm, f/4 than the 200+2X. I do believe Thom Hogan, Brad Hill and others when they say the 400/2.8 is better at long distances but in my people photography it would be quite an extraordinary situation where I'd need 400mm at distances of e.g. 1km ;-)</p>

<p><em> Besides, I could achieve the same thing with my 200 f/2 if I got a TC-20 (probably with a small loss of quality, but then I've still got the f/2 at 200mm).</em></p>

<p>I disagree. The TC 20E III works ok with the 200/2 but at 400mm, f/4, the zoom is far sharper, easier to focus, and has a tripod mount better suited for 400mm work (though the 200mm mount can be replaced with something better).</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>The way I think about it is like this: you only bring out a 200-400/4 if you'll be needing 400mm, f/4. And if you have enough light to shoot at 400mm, f/4, you also have enough light to shoot at 200mm, f/4. So the lack of increasing maximum aperture towards shorter focal lengths doesn't really constitute a problem for a typical situation where you'd use this lens.</blockquote>

 

<p>I'd still rather have the DoF control of the 200 f/2, even in good light. I'm not actually claiming the 200-400 is a useless lens, just that it doesn't happen to appeal to me.</p>

 

<blockquote>Is it possible to consider that lust or gawping is not the primary reason someone buys a lens?</blockquote>

 

<p>You don't know me very well. :-) Actually <i>buying</i> a 200-400? If I could do that, I wouldn't be sitting behind a desk.</p>

 

<blockquote>I disagree. The TC 20E III works ok with the 200/2 but at 400mm, f/4, the zoom is far sharper, easier to focus, and has a tripod mount better suited for 400mm work</blockquote>

 

<p>Oh, I won't claim the 200 f/2 + TCs is a <i>good</i> substitute for a 200-400 - but nor is a 200-400 a substitute for a 200 f/2. I'd rather have a good 200mm and an okay 400mm than an okay 200mm and a pretty-good-but-not-the-f/2.8 400mm. But I'm prepared to accept that YMMV. :-) Btw, <a href="http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/4waysto400.html">this</a> may be of interest.<br />

<br />

Now, about the 500mm...</p>

[vince-p]

<p>Ima buy them all. It's the only solution. Then I'll hire a sherpa. </p>