Jump to content




The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


Photo
* * * * - 4 votes

AFS 80-400


  • Please log in to reply
289 replies to this topic

#181 rbeesonjr

rbeesonjr
  • Life Member
  • 5 posts
  • LocationClearwater, Fl.
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:43

Hi,
So you are saying to avoid protective filters (B&W UV filters) ?

Thanks,

Bob

#182 Erik Lund

Erik Lund

    _

  • Life Member
  • 6,446 posts
  • Location_
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:44

Here is a perfect sample from Leica M8, where we 'need' the UV/IR filter for daylight shooting...but that is another story...
Please note the two images are with and without filter... The one with filter has, apart from the big letters, also the light from lower left reflected upper right...

BTW the 80-400 is off the hook again :)

Edited by Erik Lund, 26 March 2013 - 12:46 .


#183 ilkka_nissila

ilkka_nissila

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,133 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 13:06

I think ghosts caused by the lens itself should not show such a linear translational pattern to the light sources as shown across a wide area of this image; they are just too regular. The ghosting pattern if caused by the lens should show some change from region to region because of the radial (and not translational) symmetry of the lens.

The window glass is my guess of the culprit here.

#184 Akira

Akira

    Homo jezoensis

  • Life Member
  • 5,266 posts
  • LocationTokyo
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 26 March 2013 - 13:14

Glad that the culprit for the ghost seems to be spotted.

John, we are looking forward to see the result of your validation. :)
"The eye is blind if the mind is absent." - Confucius

http://www.flickr.co...tos/akiraphoto/

#185 Erik Lund

Erik Lund

    _

  • Life Member
  • 6,446 posts
  • Location_
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 26 March 2013 - 13:46

Hi,
So you are saying to avoid protective filters (B&W UV filters) ?

Thanks,

Bob

Yes, not needed for general photography, use a strong lens hood for protection...

#186 Erik Lund

Erik Lund

    _

  • Life Member
  • 6,446 posts
  • Location_
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 26 March 2013 - 13:47

I think ghosts caused by the lens itself should not show such a linear translational pattern to the light sources as shown across a wide area of this image; they are just too regular. The ghosting pattern if caused by the lens should show some change from region to region because of the radial (and not translational) symmetry of the lens.

The window glass is my guess of the culprit here.

I agree for Johns images.

#187 jnh1379

jnh1379

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 249 posts
  • LocationChicago
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 26 March 2013 - 16:52

Interesting, I sent the picture to Nikon support and this is the reply I got: "Thank you for contacting Nikon. The lights in the images that you sent is are normal. If you would like us to evaluate the image further we will need more sample images".
regards john

#188 PedroS

PedroS

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,382 posts
  • LocationLisbon
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 26 March 2013 - 20:02

Normal formated answer...

There are two schools regarding "protective" filters. One that says they should be on all lenses, and the other no, never put a protective filter under normal conditions. I'm following the second one. A strong hood is all that's needed.

Hoya has a super strong glass for protection, but never used it and no need for it.
Protecting small lenses are non coherent if the big guns cannot (apart from the provided meniscus), much more expensive and prone to damage.

Edited by PedroS, 26 March 2013 - 20:03 .

Thanks
PedroS

www.pedrosfotografia.com

#189 TGB

TGB

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,240 posts
  • LocationAsker, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 26 March 2013 - 22:14

Putting a UV filter or similar for protection is like shooting through a window; not the best way to get the best out of your equipment :)

#190 Jan Anne

Jan Anne

    Noob

  • Life Member
  • 3,829 posts
  • LocationAmsterdam
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 26 March 2013 - 22:47

Speechless......

Only the mediocre are always at their best....

My Flickr


#191 jnh1379

jnh1379

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 249 posts
  • LocationChicago
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:59

It's easy to test whether the window causes the ghosts.

Find a suitable target (apparently, that's not an issue here).

Then, shoot one series with the lens angled to the left, then another of the same subject with the lens angled to the right. If the window pane is the culprit, the reflections should move to the opposite side in the two sequences.


My Condo is not so large that I can find a target with lens pointed to the left and then the same to the right. However I was able to have the target centered and then pointed slightly right and the ghosts did move from right side of point light star to top of point light star.

This would support bjorn's analysis.

As always, many thanks all.
regards john

#192 Hugh_3170

Hugh_3170

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 799 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:50

Can you talk the building manager of your condo into letting you make a time with him/her to shoot from the top of the building or from a floor that may have a window that can be opened? Worth a try.

#193 nfoto

nfoto

    Fierce Bear of the North

  • Administrators
  • 16,649 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:15

Probably not necessary. The observation that the ghosts move when the incidence angle to the window pane changes shows conclusively window. not lens, is causing the ghosting issue.
  • mossmanpix likes this
Bjørn

#194 Dalek

Dalek

    Member

  • Life Member
  • 12 posts
  • LocationMiami, Fl
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:22

I am not a pro but jest purchased a new 80-400. I tried irt first at the photo store. The price is a bit stiff. I find it handles the same as my 70-200 VR F2.8. The foot on the 80-400 is fixed with one attachment hole. I would have like a foot like the 70-200 - removable. I like the overall function of the lens. There is a noticable thud when the VR engages. The lens seems to be well built. Given the cost it should be. The images I took look very good on my iMac. At 80mm and 400mm I did not see any soft corners to my test shots. I used the lens on my D800 and will try it on a D7100 as soon as my wife lets me use her birthday present. I will be contacting RRS for a foot so I will be able to attach the lens to my tripod. I did use the lens with my monopod with no difficulty. I like the lens but the cost my prohibit many from the experience. I already have one of my shooting buddies wanting to try the lens.
Good shooting, Dalek

#195 nfoto

nfoto

    Fierce Bear of the North

  • Administrators
  • 16,649 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 27 March 2013 - 18:14

If you look more into the lens you'll see the foot *is* removable.
Bjørn

#196 TGB

TGB

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,240 posts
  • LocationAsker, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 27 March 2013 - 18:25

First thing I did was to remove the foot; would like a RRS replacement, but can live without since I will use the lens handheld 99% of the time.

#197 Tom

Tom

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,855 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 30 March 2013 - 20:52

First impressions from the lens:
- use VR even on the tripod (at 400mm and low light)
- similar performance to the AF-S 70-200/2.8G VR II plus Nikon AF-S TC-20E III 2x tele-converter at 400mm f5.6
Compare this (80-400, done from a tripod but still with VR=ON.):

Posted Image
Nikon80-400_400f5-6_64511 by Thomas, on Flickr

to that (70-200/2.8 + 2xTC, same settings):

Posted Image
Nikon70-200f2-8_400f5-6_64576 by Thomas, on Flickr
The 70-200+TC combo has comparable sharpness in this situation and less vignetting.

Click on those images to access the full-blown 36MP original. Processed as usual to Camera Standard in Lightroom 4 with CA-red=ON and sharpening set to 70/0,55/36/10.

Edited by Tom, 30 March 2013 - 21:02 .

Thomas (moderator and lens-tester at Camera Labs)
All my lens reviews, My Photography Blog, My photos


#198 Tom

Tom

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,855 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 31 March 2013 - 19:45

2nd comparison at about 150m and 400/5.6:

Posted Image
Nikon80-400_400f5-6_64919 by Thomas, on Flickr

The same image from the 70-200 + 2xTC can be found here but following is a screenshot of both side-by-side in 100% view:

Posted Image
Nikon_80-400_vs_70-200 by Thomas, on Flickr

Now there is a clear winner.

Btw: A set with different images in full 36MP resolution can be found here.

Edited by Tom, 01 April 2013 - 21:15 .

Thomas (moderator and lens-tester at Camera Labs)
All my lens reviews, My Photography Blog, My photos


#199 jnh1379

jnh1379

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 249 posts
  • LocationChicago
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 31 March 2013 - 19:58

First impressions from the lens:
- use VR even on the tripod (at 400mm and low light)
- similar performance to the AF-S 70-200/2.8G VR II plus Nikon AF-S TC-20E III 2x tele-converter at 400mm f5.6
Compare this (80-400, done from a tripod but still with VR=ON.):

Posted Image
Nikon80-400_400f5-6_64511 by Thomas, on Flickr

to that (70-200/2.8 + 2xTC, same settings):

Posted Image
Nikon70-200f2-8_400f5-6_64576 by Thomas, on Flickr
The 70-200+TC combo has comparable sharpness in this situation and less vignetting.

Click on those images to access the full-blown 36MP original. Processed as usual to Camera Standard in Lightroom 4 with CA-red=ON and sharpening set to 70/0,55/36/10.


What does CA-red=On mean in Lightroom? Where is that and what is the effect?
regards john

#200 jnh1379

jnh1379

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 249 posts
  • LocationChicago
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 31 March 2013 - 20:07

What does CA-red=On mean in Lightroom? Where is that and what is the effect?


I think I found it. But by on does that mean the slider is all the way to the right?
regards john




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



Receive a FREE CAMERA BAG from Think Tank Photo


An appeal to all Fotozones visitors: please help me to keep this site going by starting your gear purchases using any one of the affiliate links shown below:

Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama.com | thinkTank Photo | DigitalRev.com | OWC | B&H or Donate via PayPal

Starting your shopping here doesn't cost you anything more, but by using the links above (or any others found on the site) you are advising the affiliate that you support this website. This results in a small commission that helps with the running costs. If your preferred outlet isn't among those listed above you can also support the site by making a donation of any amount via PayPal (no PayPal account required). Any donation will be most appreciated.