Forum Twitter Facebook Google + RSS

Author Topic: Glad to see this tested finally  (Read 2110 times)

Offline Wade Tregaskis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Glad to see this tested finally
« on: May 29, 2013, 04:00:15 pm »
This a comment for this page on the website
I've been using the 80-400 for a couple of months now and am very happy with it.  I've favoured it in practice over the 70-200/2.8 VR II when light allows (I haven't tried the 70-200/4).  Not always sure why, though at least sometimes it's because of the extra reach and narrower depth of field (200/2.8 vs 400/5.6).

Good to see it compared against Sigmas, since they have quite a few big zooms at value price points.  It'd be interesting to see a comparison against the 50-500 and 150-500 too, as they're popular alternatives to the 80-400.

I caution that the 300/4 isn't an equivalent alternative, though.  In my experience the 300/4 is a pretty sharp lens - certainly better than your low-end zooms like the 55-300, but it's not as sharp as the 80-400 and has a lot more distortion (plus the lack of really useful features like instant manual focus override and the ability to zoom).  Fingers crossed it gets a refresh soon, though - could be amazing.

It seems evident, however, that your chromatic aberration test is only evaluating lateral chromatic aberration.  The 80-400 is indeed awesome in this regard.  But it does have a sadly large amount of axial chromatic aberration.  I don't know if it's better or worse than similar super-zooms or high-telephoto primes - which is why it'd be great if you'd consider testing for that in future. :)