LensTip review: Nikon AF-S 180-400 mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR

[ahsanford]

https://www.lenstip.com/531.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_180-400_mm_f_4E_TC1.4_FL_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html

TL/DR version -- it's brilliant ...provided you don't use that 1.4x (bold below is my emphasis):

"If you decide to use the teleconverter, though, the situation is quite different and MTFs - distinctly lower. Resolution decrease is noticeably sharper than in the case of other contemporary, expensive, high quality telephoto lenses cooperating with a teleconverter. I admit the performance fell short of our expectations; we thought that such an optically complex teleconverter, designed to cooperate with just one model of lens, would perform much better than traditional, external devices which, after all, are supposed to fit many professional telephoto lenses of a given system.

As a result, even if the performance at 550 mm cannot exactly be called weak, as the results allow you to enjoy fully useful, good images, it is not something we expected from such an expensive lens."

Ouch. They don't typically report T/C results and we have no Canon 200-400 1.4x review at LT to compare to, but they went so far as to say above that traditional modular T/C use on a good telephoto lens does better, not worse, than this dialed-in and fixed T/C does. That's somewhat shocking.

- A

 

[AlanF]

I too was shocked when I read it. A good 1.4xTC should not lose more than 10% of the MTF, which is what the 1.4xTC III does on the 100-400mm II. The stunning Panasonic-Leica 200mm f/2.8 is hardly weakened in the centre by its custom-designed 1.4xTC. The Nikon is a disaster.

 

[ahsanford]

I too was shocked when I read it. A good 1.4xTC should not lose more than 10% of the MTF, which is what the 1.4xTC III does on the 100-400mm II. The stunning Panasonic-Leica 200mm f/2.8 is hardly weakened in the centre by its custom-designed 1.4xTC. The Nikon is a disaster.

Has this finding been backed up with other reviewers? Any chance they just got a crappy copy or possibly this is a test-chart-too-close-for-a-big-lens sort of deal and this would never be the real world performance?

- A

 

[AlanF]

I too was shocked when I read it. A good 1.4xTC should not lose more than 10% of the MTF, which is what the 1.4xTC III does on the 100-400mm II. The stunning Panasonic-Leica 200mm f/2.8 is hardly weakened in the centre by its custom-designed 1.4xTC. The Nikon is a disaster.

Has this finding been backed up with other reviewers? Any chance they just got a crappy copy or possibly this is a test-chart-too-close-for-a-big-lens sort of deal and this would never be the real world performance?

- A

Read further on in the report - they found it weak in the field with the D500: "That weaker performance can be noticed not only in photos of our testing charts or measurements but also in our sample shots. With the lens and the D3x set, where you deal with a full frame 24 Mpix sensor, the photos taken at 550 mm and examined in the 1:1 scale might seem to be still of good quality but if you shot them with a much more densely packed sensor of the Nikon D500 you can feel unsatisfied. "

 

[ahsanford]

Read further on in the report - they found it weak in the field with the D500: "That weaker performance can be noticed not only in photos of our testing charts or measurements but also in our sample shots. With the lens and the D3x set, where you deal with a full frame 24 Mpix sensor, the photos taken at 550 mm and examined in the 1:1 scale might seem to be still of good quality but if you shot them with a much more densely packed sensor of the Nikon D500 you can feel unsatisfied. "

Sure, in that comparison, that's like -- at least pixel density-wise -- hearing 5D3 people would be fine with it but 5DS people wouldn't. That's not a surprising find at all.

- A

 

[AlanF]

Read further on in the report - they found it weak in the field with the D500: "That weaker performance can be noticed not only in photos of our testing charts or measurements but also in our sample shots. With the lens and the D3x set, where you deal with a full frame 24 Mpix sensor, the photos taken at 550 mm and examined in the 1:1 scale might seem to be still of good quality but if you shot them with a much more densely packed sensor of the Nikon D500 you can feel unsatisfied. "

Sure, in that comparison, that's like -- at least pixel density-wise -- hearing 5D3 people would be fine with it but 5DS people wouldn't. That's not a surprising find at all.

- A

Well, my 400mm DO II is tack sharp with both a 1.4xTC and a 2xTC on a 5DSR and there are 7DII birders in this group who are very happy with the 1.4xTC and 400mm DO as well as 500 and 600mm so I find it surprising.

To add more from Lenstip:
“To be honest when I took the tested lens attached to the Nikon D500 for an outdoor session I spent a lot of time trying to calibrate the autofocus at the 550 mm focal length in many different ways. The photos I got simply seemed so fuzzy to me that I suspected some front- or back-focus problems. There were no such problems after all and the impression of fuzziness was created by the huge contrast between the performance at 400 mm, excellent indeed, and quite average results you get when you employ the teleconverter. ”