Nikon to announce a new 80-400 VR lens this week?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apr 24, 2012
821
0
privatebydesign said:
Manufacturers measure their own MTF charts, and it is normally a computer generated estimate, just like MPG figures for new cars. Further, you can't compare MTF graphs within manufacturers if the focal lengths differ much, the only thing you can really glean from manufacturer supplied MTF charts is how good, or bad, they are compared to an earlier version.

Thank you, I didn't know.

Than we can only assume that it's definitely better than its predecessor. Will be nice to see how it behaves on the D800.
 
Upvote 0
privatebydesign said:
Manufacturers measure their own MTF charts, and it is normally a computer generated estimate, just like MPG figures for new cars. Further, you can't compare MTF graphs within manufacturers if the focal lengths differ much, the only thing you can really glean from manufacturer supplied MTF charts is how good, or bad, they are compared to an earlier version.

This isn't really true. MTF data is generated from theoretical data which would be the same for any lens built perfectly (ie no copy variation or manufacturing tolerances). You can compre MTF data between manufacturers if you know HOW to compare it and how to read the chart.

The Nikon 80-400 should be as good as the Canon 24-70 ii 2.8.

Copy variation and manufacturing tolerances do play a role though in the end result but those should cancel out more or less between manufacturers.
 
Upvote 0

RLPhoto

Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
Mar 27, 2012
3,777
0
San Antonio, TX
www.Ramonlperez.com
psolberg said:
RLPhoto said:
A little late to the 1998 USM party nikon?

As a prior owner of a dust blower 100-400, I'd send tat memo to canon....and their 50s inspired push, puller.


Great tech advancements at Nikon, Like how they still make bodies with screws to AF and Manual focus lenses. :p
 
Upvote 0
Mar 25, 2011
16,848
1,835
privatebydesign said:
If all manufacturers used exactly the same model and computer program, maybe, but they don't. You can understand it all, it isn't that difficult ( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml ), but unless the graphs are drawn from the same testing equipment using actual lenses MTF graphs are very limited in value. As for manufacturer supplied figures, don't forget it is the sales department that is showing you this stuff :)

Manufacturers MTF curves are accurate enough, but they are for the lens, and not for a lens-camera combination. So far, all the online lens reviewers including DXO do not measure lens MTF. They measure a combination camera body - lens MTF which will always be poorer. Lots of factors enter into this, but you can never achieve the lens mtf when its on a camera body because the camera body degrades the image significantly.

With film bodies, the film had a MTF as well, and degraded the image. MTF's were published for cinema film.
 
Upvote 0

docsmith

CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,223
1,109
Radiating said:
The Nikon 80-400 should be as good as the Canon 24-70 ii 2.8.

I wouldn't consider the 100-400L as good as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, and I will certainly be shocked if this new 80-400 is that good.

At f/8, it is very good. I don't think it is up to the 24-70 f/2.8 II. Wide open, it isn't that close. Still, good, but the 24-70 f/2.8 II starts in the >0.9 range even wide open. The 80-400 is around 0.85 to 0.87 range. Close, but not "as good" in either instance.

But I do think it is a fair point that there will be differences between Canon and Nikon.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 25, 2011
16,848
1,835
privatebydesign said:
Accurate enough for what? They could well be derived from completely different methods, so the one thing you can't do is accurately compare between manufacturers. You also can't compare different focal lengths! So whilst manufacturer presented MTF graphs might be "accurate enough", I was just adding a cautionary note to those who were comparing Nikon figures to Canon figures. Just like MPG estimates, they have very limited value and shouldn't be a serious basis for a purchase.

Lensrentals now has the equipment to measure lens resolution without being mounted (to a camera as we know it) so they can, at least, give genuine comparisons for lenses across manufacturers.
MTF is definitely not the final word, but its a starting point, and a lens is not going to be better than the manufacturers posted MTF. The values that the camera manufacturers are good enough precisely because of this, there is no use being accurate to 5 or 10%% because it is only part of the story.

Do you have a link to Rogers optical bench and colliminator? as well as the PHD's he has hired to run it? The last time I saw any information was that he used Imatest like all the other testers.

Measuring the MTF of a lens with a optical bench, slit illuminator, not only takes 500K of equipment, but also needs some very skilled technicians to intrepret the results. I had all of those in my lab at a large aerospace company, and it was a big investment assembled over several years of R&D budget. We had several lab techs and engineers / scientists using it. Its not something easily done.

Somehow, I wonder if Roger has acquired this ability, or even why he would want to, since Imatest is plenty good for what he does. But please give me a link and impress me.
 
Upvote 0

Rienzphotoz

Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Aug 22, 2012
3,303
0
psolberg said:
J.R. said:
psolberg said:
RLPhoto said:
A little late to the 1998 USM party nikon?

As a prior owner of a dust blower 100-400, I'd send tat memo to canon....and their 50s inspired push, puller.

Won't make any difference though ... the 100-400 still sells well

and it will sell well on ebay too once the ring zoom variant finally comes to canon l and ;)
So you see, even a used 100-400 L will sell far better than the current 80-400 which no one wants to touch even with a ten foot pole ;D
 
Upvote 0
privatebydesign said:
"Do you have a link to Rogers optical bench and colliminator? as well as the PHD's he has hired to run it? The last time I saw any information was that he used Imatest like all the other testers."

No. But you need to read him more clearly, he often says things like "A lot of my posts about lens resolution consist largely of showing the MTF 50 numbers from Imatest or our optical bench." and "I grew up in biological and medical research ".

It's a Well's OS-400 system, modified by Wells to take interchangeable mount lenses. We didn't hire any Ph. D.s, but had one come teach us how to use it. As mentioned above, it's not the be-all-end-all but it compliments Imatest nicely. Imatest's greatest shortcoming is it can't measure lenses at infinity and the optical bench does. Imatest does some other things much better than the optical bench, though.

And it's certainly not up to aerospace standards, this is a lower end (albeit still near 6 figures) system, but it does give use some really nice information, particularly regarding astigmatism and frequency response that Imatest just can't provide.

There's a picture and some output from it here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon
 
Upvote 0
Mar 25, 2011
16,848
1,835
RogerCicala said:
privatebydesign said:
"Do you have a link to Rogers optical bench and colliminator? as well as the PHD's he has hired to run it? The last time I saw any information was that he used Imatest like all the other testers."

No. But you need to read him more clearly, he often says things like "A lot of my posts about lens resolution consist largely of showing the MTF 50 numbers from Imatest or our optical bench." and "I grew up in biological and medical research ".

It's a Well's OS-400 system, modified by Wells to take interchangeable mount lenses. We didn't hire any Ph. D.s, but had one come teach us how to use it. As mentioned above, it's not the be-all-end-all but it compliments Imatest nicely. Imatest's greatest shortcoming is it can't measure lenses at infinity and the optical bench does. Imatest does some other things much better than the optical bench, though.

And it's certainly not up to aerospace standards, this is a lower end (albeit still near 6 figures) system, but it does give use some really nice information, particularly regarding astigmatism and frequency response that Imatest just can't provide.

There's a picture and some output from it here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon

Thanks Roger, I am impressed! I've seen the Wells systems online before, but you are the first I've heard of using one that wasn't a large corporation, or a R&D or educational institution.

The system we used was partially home made, a 5 X 10 foot slab of 4 inch thick Aluminum plate, that was milled flat and drilled to mount the fixtures. It also had a expensive shock isolation system to help dampen very low frequency vibrations. Our techs milled custom fixtures for us as needed for different applications, but we also bought some of the standard components. We used it for research on military and space applications. I'd love to have one to play with.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 24, 2012
821
0
Do I understand correctly that this lens doesn't extend while zooming? o_O
A good thing they did is reducing considerably the MFD, but since I see the magnification went down from 0.42 to 0.2 it seems the price to pay is heavy focus breathing.
However, it seems that Nikon delivered - again. The only problem is the price, which is way too steep at the moment. But we have seen the D600 and D800 fall down to a -30% in just a few months, so let's see.
 
Upvote 0
The tripod mount of this lens looks pretty flimsy for a 1.6kg (3.5lb) lens.

That's one thing you can guarantee with Nikon - flimsy mounts on their long lenses.

They may have clever optical engineers but it surely would not cost a lot to get a structural engineer with finite element software to check out the stiffness and vibration characteristics before they go for production.
 
Upvote 0
Personally, I'm not obsessed over MTFs, much less even think of comparing them across manufacturers. I much rather see images do the talking and even then, sample variation can mislead opinions.

ultimately this is a great lens choice for the Nikon shooter as it was one of the big problem lenses in their lineup because it lacked an USM motor. That seems resolved and from the specs, and use of superior glass, it should address every knock against the predecessor.

I really can't wait to see what it can do on today's high resolution world standard: D800/e.

The tripod mount of this lens looks pretty flimsy for a 1.6kg (3.5lb) lens.

That's one thing you can guarantee with Nikon - flimsy mounts on their long lenses.

They may have clever optical engineers but it surely would not cost a lot to get a structural engineer with finite element software to check out the stiffness and vibration characteristics before they go for production.

I'll let the field determine how good it is, but looks like it can be removed and replaced with a 3rd party mount so that is definitively a plus compared to fixed collars.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 25, 2011
16,848
1,835
privatebydesign said:
Thanks Roger, and welcome to the forum, I knew I had seen that picture in the blog but couldn't remember, or find, which post it was in. I am glad my memory hasn't failed me completely :)
And thanks for mentioning it. I try to read all of Rogers posts, but certainly missed that one.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.