MOST RELEVANT RESULT(S) FOR :


Author Topic: Glad to see this tested finally  (Read 1816 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. :)

 

DxOMark - Internal Server Error
500

INTERNAL SERVER ERROR

Looks like something went wrong!
We track these errors automatically, but if the problem persists feel free to contact us. In the meantime, try refreshing.