Switched pre-order from 5d mk III to D800

[Dao]

The 100-400mmL is old design with push pull (I used to have a push pull telephoto lens before). But at 400mm, it is not bad at all.

If OP is looking for a zoom 400mm lens, this lens is certainly an option.

From Juzaphoto

"The results of this test are interesting, but they are in line with my expectations, at least for the 100-400 vs 70-200 comparison. The 70-200 lenses are not a good choice if you need reach; indeed, the Canon 100-400 offers much better image quality than every 70-200 + 1.4x or 70-200 + 2x. Even the expensive Canon 70-200 2.8 is much worse than 100-400, at 400mm." (I was amazed with the test result at his site with photos)

From Photozone
"You will find sharper lenses - primes that is - but it is very sharp for a zoom lens, especially considering its 400mm, and that's throughout the range at all relevant aperture settings. As such it is e.g. far better than the corresponding Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 ED or the recently tested Sigma AF 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM just to give you two other popular examples here"

From slrgear
"The 100-400mm is quite sharp, however, it is not consistently sharp between focal lengths and apertures. Its best results are seen at either 100-135mm and ƒ/8, or 300mm and ƒ/11; some slight corner softness is introduced at 200mm, and 400mm is generally slightly less sharp across the whole frame. At ƒ/8-ƒ/11, we're picking hairs; sharpness doesn't exceed 2 blur units, which we consider to be extremely good performance."


Of course, rumors said a new version is coming out soon. But not really sure when.

[Ads]

[poker_jake]

The 100-400mmL is old design with push pull (I used to have a push pull telephoto lens before). But at 400mm, it is not bad at all.

If OP is looking for a zoom 400mm lens, this lens is certainly an option.

If I was going canon this 100-400 would be top of the list along with 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f2.8 but I wish nikon made something similar with same performance.

[Overread]

Nikon 70-200mm VRII with 2*TC - should be about just as good as the 100-400mm in performance (the 100-400mm probably a touch sharper wide open with slightly faster AF but nothing massivly different).

[poker_jake]

Nikon 70-200mm VRII with 2*TC - should be about just as good as the 100-400mm in performance (the 100-400mm probably a touch sharper wide open with slightly faster AF but nothing massivly different).

That's what I was thinking, just not a big fan of tc's

[poker_jake]

How's the vr I version? Or the sigma version?

[Derrel]

Nikon 70-200mm VRII with 2*TC - should be about just as good as the 100-400mm in performance (the 100-400mm probably a touch sharper wide open with slightly faster AF but nothing massivly different).

The reviews listed above do NOT give a good representation of the NEW Nikon aspherical teleconverters,and how those perform with various lenses...the NEW, TC-20 E III aspherical element converter,when paired with the new 70-200 VR-II lens, performs pretty darned well, according to an exhaustive test I saw done by Marianne O, a dPreview poster and a serious photographic "expert", a while back. This new aspherical element converter is perhaps the world's best....and the tests I have seen indicate that the new 2x is imminently usable with the 70-200 VR-II, as well as the 200/2 and 300/2.8, 400/2.8 and 500/4--with image quality vastly better across the frame than we have ever seen from a lens + TC combo.

When a converter can be built and aimed at the $540 price point, a whole lot of possibilities emerge for the lens designers that just are not there when the price point is $300.

Lemme do a quick search here: Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Field Tests: Nikon Series III Teleconverters

[Derrel]

Nothing says Schmuck more than an expensive body and a cheaper lens.

Nothing says Schmuck more than somebody who thinks a more-costly lens offers better performance than a newer, better designed lens...

70-300mm AF-S VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan