I purchased this lens back in December, and just recently was able to take it on a landscape road trip to the Palouse in Eastern Washington State. I fell in love with it's flexibility, and wonderful renditioning. I have made several 24" X 36" prints and they are tack sharp edge to edge. There are no complaints from me in this regard. It now really has made my Z70-200mm redundant. Hopefully, if there is ever a Z8, I will use the 70-220 as partial trade.
Clearly your definition of tack sharp is a bit loose! Did you watch the video? The 400 f4.5 is sharp where the 100-400 clearly doesn't come close by comparison.
@@WIDGI the lens wasn’t tested at landscape distances, although it looked plenty sharp in the vr and focus breathing tests. Could be sharper and optimized at distance instead of close up test chart range. I previously suggested Christopher add a near and far distance sharpness test since it’s more thorough. Cameralabs tested close and far and it did great in both scenarios… could be lens variation.
@@mlai2546 yes, I agree, but sharp by comparison to other zooms doesn't make it "tack sharp". It's just an overused phrase that is starting to become meaningless.
I've heard the 180-600 has sharpness problems in the corners and slow AF. Have you gotten ahold of the lens to offer an opinion? I pre ordered it anyway, but didn't get one with the first batch. The announcement of the 600PF has me contemplating getting that and canceling my 180-600.
@@uhoh7541 Not yet. Still waiting for a comprehensive review, hopefully there will be one specific about shooting in Indian jungle conditions. I love how you’ve used “slow AF” here. The touch of humour here can only come from a true lensman. 😃
I've been ogling over this lens along with the 400mm /4.5 for a while now, trying to consider which one would be a better fit for what I do. It's a good thing I can't afford either of them, makes the decision much easier. Thanks for the review.
Well, at least a good thing is that at f/8 a lot of the tests seemed to sharpen up a bit (or reach their max sharpness) making this a good option for landscape shooters that perhaps also want a wildlife lens. Of course it's not as sharp as the 70-200 Z, but they are also sort of in different classes, and the 70-200 lacks about half of the focal range, despite being 1.3-2 stops faster overall. But I think even PhotograhyLife said to get the same useable range with the 70-200 you'd have to use a 2x TC which then puts the 70-200 behind the 100-400 in terms of sharpness, so if you favor speed over focal length, then get the 70-200, otherwise the 100-400 is a good option, but like I said, they are sort of for different purposes with the overlap being wildlife and landscape.
It's not only just heavy, it's front heavy when zoomed in. It's really unpleasant to use after shooting it continuously for more than 3 or 4 hours consecutively.
I couldn’t agree more and like you would choose the prime for its outstanding performance. However, I already own the 500pf so have decided to stick with this. I’m going to get myself a 2xTC to use with my 70-200 for when I feel I need the versatility 👍 great work though Nikon 😀
I also have the 500PF and couldn't justify buying the 400 4.5, the 500 is actually sharper in lab testing. I bought the 100-400 but it rarely comes out of my backpack.
Hi and thanks for this review. Because I like to push the boundaries, I’m actually using this lens on a Nikon Zf, ergonomics be damned. It’s not easy, even with the added grip. I am wondering if you have any suggestions on how to carry this lens on a camera handheld. First, would it balance better on a Z6/Z7 body compared with the Zf? I know a Z8 would give a nice balance, but I’m not ready for that kind of purchase. Trying to find a way to carry that makes sense. Put the whole setup in a sling back and take out when shooting? Clip on a backpack with a Peak Design capture clip? It may be the best lens I have ever used. Even with the 1.4 TC, it is amazing. However, I struggle to hand hold it for long periods of time and need to find a way to free up my hands for periods of rest.
makes for a great companion to the 24-120... I will take the flexibility any day of the week instead of the wide open sharpness of the 400mm as I tend to go to f/8 anyways on the really long ends.
Excelent video! Thanks for the review. I do have a question, how would you say the sharpness of this, the canon 100-500 and the sony 100-400 GM stack up against each other at the long end? And more specifically how they stack up against each other at their closest focus distance? I'm still wavering between systems and all 3 look very compelling so far.
Most of those cost way too much. 3rd party lenses may not be as good, but they do generally cost a lot less. :) That's also why I went for the Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3, which is also stabilised. It's good enough for me, and at a much lower cost than the Canon 100-400mm! :)
Sad that Nikon was unable to delivery an exceptional lens here, specially for that price. The lens is not great at 400, which is the most important for my use cases. For now I will continue using my Canon 100-400 IS ii adapted with Fringer EF-NZ. The AF and everything works great on my z6ii and now the Z8.
I agree the 100-400 is priced slightly high. But I think this might be Nikon's strategy now - price bodies lower (Z9), get more people in the Z system, and rely on higher-end lenses for increased profit.
There is one question that FX camera user's would or could ask . The image that is produced using both lenses when switched from fx to Dx . I have a two times z converter on the 70-200 z lens. connected for testing . Quick note at 400 mm on the z70-200 it did out performed my tamron 150-600. Still to days lenses would have no value if they didn't improve the final image. But just as I am ordering the z 8 body up pops nikon with the 180-600 to adto my confusion. So knowing that this channel will soon be doing the review may be even testing the z180-600 against the z 4.5 400 .... gets me to my final request. When using cart to test on dx mode ... could you considers switching or adding the camera body effects more ( Dx I know you do sometimes but more photos not charting ) mode and taking a similar stand point . More so with wild life birds to test how much detail we lose or gain . How much crop values are compared... quality wise? This would I hope be interesting to lots of us. The truth is camera auto focus which you test makes a difference to final image when taken hit rates matter a little one to ten idea helps us viewers ... Testing of lenses using FX and dx for wild life / stills / sports would or could effect a purchase. Hit rates helps I am Not much of a bird photographer my self . I have chosen Macro as my specialist questions , here again the dx on a fx closeness increase against megapixel loss it is so huge. .... your always looking to test a lens .. this new inclusion may earn a lot more fans. All the best Christ I remember your early videos. Before you even met your wife .... so thanks for many interesting insites.
Said not the fastest AF, but that's not all a lens issue, depends what camera body you're using too. Using the original Z7 does slow the AF down some. Not sure how you're measuring AF performance?
I am perpetually annoyed that even the most expensive and most modern zoom lenses never prioritize image quality at the longest focal length. Bring back the 200-400.
Christopher I am a subscriber to your channel and by and large I think your videos are very interesting & informative, however I don't agree with your findings on this lens. You are comparing it with the 400mm prime which of course is going to be better. I have had it for 8 months now and I am very happy with it, the image being very similar to the 70-200 Z. There are plenty of very positive reviews of this lens elsewhere if anybody cares to look.
I always wonder why zoom lens suffer at long end and a prime lens with same aperture at long end does show better performance. For example in this video the zoom 100-400 at 400mm focal length has f/5.6 aperture. Whereas the prime 400mm f4.5 lens even if the aperture stopped down to f/5.6 will definitely beat the zoom lens by very big margin. Is this design issue or the optics issue? Curious to know. I prefer zoom lens because it is kind of versatile. Could you please review the Nikon AF-S 200-500 F/5.6E and Z 180-600
The sharpness at 400mm is honestly a little disappointing. Sony's 100-400 seems to hold up way better than this at the long end, which is where it matters the most IMO. Just doesn't really hold up to the good reputation Z lenses usually have.
@@livejames9374 I don't know, i'm not a professional photographer, but wouldn't this extra sharpness be useful when cropping into the image? I tried bird photography myself, though be it with lenses not nearly in such a class as this one and I found myself cropping very often. Also if you use 2x Teleconverters the lack in sharpness could maybe be quite a bit more noticeable.
@@benni1015 no it wouldn’t help. The Sony and Nikon lenses have similar sharpness. You’d need to get a high resolution camera if you wanted more resolution using these lenses.
70-200 is $2700 on B&H... Lokk at RF prices... Sony GMs too... Glass will be only more expensive.... On the other hand, there are tons of Chinese manual options...
It is odd to compare a prime lens to a zoom lens … they serve totally different purposes. If you need a zoom, you wouldn’t even be looking at a prime, and vice versa. I love the sharpness and image quality of my 100-400mm … if I need longer I have TCs, or the Z 800mm. If I need shorter I can use my 14-24/2.8, 70-200/2.8 or 300/2.8, 300/4, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 105/2.8…but the 100-400 is just a wonderful light workhorse …
@@haydennettleton3272 that's true, unfortunately, as well as for the Sony 100-400. You can get the same focal equivalent a lot cheaper on Fuji X if you're willing to accept APS-C drawbacks, but I can understand why one wouldn't. But that much money for a single lens is just silly for all but professionals that can get tax writeoffs on it :/
@@phjacI agree entirely, no way I'd drop this amount of money on a variable aperture zoom that isn't even that sharp at 400mm. maybe in few years once they start hitting the secondhand market I'll buy one, in the meantime there's plenty of good options for Nikon like the 200-500, 70-300 etc even the 300pf is quite affordable when brought secondhand.
I feel this lens is overpriced, looking at your review of the Canon Rf 100-400 it seems much sharper with better contrast and costs less than half the price of this lens. Quite disappointing.
Can't really compare the two, since the test chart has slightly changed between the two reviews. The lab test on Photographylife shows a score of 2808 on in the centre at f/5.6 400mm, that's an extremely impressive score for a zoom lens, even a bit higher than the very sharp 800 PF prime wide open. But I agree that, in this test, it really doesn't look that great for some reason.
Honestly, this lens is really disappointing, especially for the price they ask for it. Nice build quality, but it's really not going to make up for the poor image quality at the long end. That SLOW AF is just adding to the disappointment. The Z6, Z7 and Z5 lines of cameras are already having problems with their outrageous AF system, compared to canon or sony, at all price ranges. Honestly, I think Nikon is just ripping people off with this one. Put a little more $ and get the 400mm 4.5 all day, every day. What's the point of getting this lens and shoot at F8 in order to get decent image quality? It's not worth it. Better get the Sigma 60-600mm from DSLR's and I bet it's better than this one. Heavier, yes, but better zoom, better image quality, and similar built quality. And still cheaper than this one.
A bit disappointing to be honest. Could be sample variation but if Nikon sent you this lens, that's on them. But then I wouldn't really consider this lens to start with, because of the weight. The OLED screen does look rather gimmicky. This is the first video where I get a good idea of what it can do. But yeah, not very impressed with it.
You might be right about sample variation. Cameralabs results do not match with this review either. I also know some people who had to go through multiple copies before being satisfied due to softness issues. Ironically this lens is made in Japan.
I own this lens and it has turned into my most used and favorite lens.
I'm a Sony shooter, but always enjoy your videos regardless of what system you're reviewing.
After watching lots of reviews I went for the 400mm f4, don’t regret it, Sharpe and light to carry.
F4,5, not F4 ;)
I purchased this lens back in December, and just recently was able to take it on a landscape road trip to the Palouse in Eastern Washington State. I fell in love with it's flexibility, and wonderful renditioning. I have made several 24" X 36" prints and they are tack sharp edge to edge. There are no complaints from me in this regard. It now really has made my Z70-200mm redundant.
Hopefully, if there is ever a Z8, I will use the 70-220 as partial trade.
Clearly your definition of tack sharp is a bit loose! Did you watch the video? The 400 f4.5 is sharp where the 100-400 clearly doesn't come close by comparison.
@@WIDGI the lens wasn’t tested at landscape distances, although it looked plenty sharp in the vr and focus breathing tests. Could be sharper and optimized at distance instead of close up test chart range. I previously suggested Christopher add a near and far distance sharpness test since it’s more thorough. Cameralabs tested close and far and it did great in both scenarios… could be lens variation.
@aspieman1970 i think he is comparing to zoom lenses. You don't compare a zoom lens with a prime.
@@mlai2546 yes, I agree, but sharp by comparison to other zooms doesn't make it "tack sharp". It's just an overused phrase that is starting to become meaningless.
@aspieman1970 yeah, it's relative I guess. If the 100-400mm is as sharp as the 70-200mm, then I would consider it tack sharp :)
It would be interesting to see this compared to the Canon RF 100-400 f/5.6-8
And of course the RF 100-500 would be the actual lens you'd want to compare it to.
Would love to see a thorough comparison of the z 100-400 vs z 180-600 for wildlife photography.
I've heard the 180-600 has sharpness problems in the corners and slow AF. Have you gotten ahold of the lens to offer an opinion?
I pre ordered it anyway, but didn't get one with the first batch. The announcement of the 600PF has me contemplating getting that and canceling my 180-600.
@@uhoh7541 Not yet. Still waiting for a comprehensive review, hopefully there will be one specific about shooting in Indian jungle conditions.
I love how you’ve used “slow AF” here. The touch of humour here can only come from a true lensman. 😃
The z180-600 is good, but it's not a prime S-line lens. I going for the z600pf and z400 f/4.5.
Another Awesome Review...!
Waiting for Nikkor Z 85mm 1.2 to be released so you could compare it with Canon RF 85mm 1.2 ⚡
I've been ogling over this lens along with the 400mm /4.5 for a while now, trying to consider which one would be a better fit for what I do.
It's a good thing I can't afford either of them, makes the decision much easier.
Thanks for the review.
I am already for few months not sure which one to buy: the 100-400 or the 400/f4.5
what di you end up buying???? I have a tampon 35-150mm so I might go with 400mm f4.5@@jurrydevries4006
I ended up buying the 100-400 for flexibility plus bought the 600 PF for reach and am very happy with that combo@@jakaufma1933
Well, at least a good thing is that at f/8 a lot of the tests seemed to sharpen up a bit (or reach their max sharpness) making this a good option for landscape shooters that perhaps also want a wildlife lens. Of course it's not as sharp as the 70-200 Z, but they are also sort of in different classes, and the 70-200 lacks about half of the focal range, despite being 1.3-2 stops faster overall. But I think even PhotograhyLife said to get the same useable range with the 70-200 you'd have to use a 2x TC which then puts the 70-200 behind the 100-400 in terms of sharpness, so if you favor speed over focal length, then get the 70-200, otherwise the 100-400 is a good option, but like I said, they are sort of for different purposes with the overlap being wildlife and landscape.
The Nikon 200-500 5.6 is a great other option, has a better range for most things, ok, it's heavier but you can get it for 1/3 price...
It’s good for its price, but have to keep few things in mind - it’s also considerably bulkier, have to rotate zoom ring a lot, no weather sealing.
its not mirrorless though we need to see a newer version
I use the 200-500 f5.6 with my Z7 + FTZ and it’s awesome for relatively cheap. Not great for handheld moving birds though.
Just got the 200-500 5.6 today
It's not only just heavy, it's front heavy when zoomed in. It's really unpleasant to use after shooting it continuously for more than 3 or 4 hours consecutively.
I couldn’t agree more and like you would choose the prime for its outstanding performance. However, I already own the 500pf so have decided to stick with this. I’m going to get myself a 2xTC to use with my 70-200 for when I feel I need the versatility 👍 great work though Nikon 😀
I also have the 500PF and couldn't justify buying the 400 4.5, the 500 is actually sharper in lab testing. I bought the 100-400 but it rarely comes out of my backpack.
I have the exact same setup with the 2X, 70-200, and 500 pf and love it. Very versatile and have taken many wonderful images with them. Good luck!
Wondering how it compares to the Sony 100-400 and Canon 100-500.
Thanks Chris. Any chance you will get around to testing the Nikon 300pf?
Pretty happy with my RF 100-400 for $600. Would love to see it tested on the r7 if you get a chance
Hi and thanks for this review. Because I like to push the boundaries, I’m actually using this lens on a Nikon Zf, ergonomics be damned. It’s not easy, even with the added grip. I am wondering if you have any suggestions on how to carry this lens on a camera handheld. First, would it balance better on a Z6/Z7 body compared with the Zf? I know a Z8 would give a nice balance, but I’m not ready for that kind of purchase. Trying to find a way to carry that makes sense. Put the whole setup in a sling back and take out when shooting? Clip on a backpack with a Peak Design capture clip? It may be the best lens I have ever used. Even with the 1.4 TC, it is amazing. However, I struggle to hand hold it for long periods of time and need to find a way to free up my hands for periods of rest.
makes for a great companion to the 24-120... I will take the flexibility any day of the week instead of the wide open sharpness of the 400mm as I tend to go to f/8 anyways on the really long ends.
Excelent video! Thanks for the review. I do have a question, how would you say the sharpness of this, the canon 100-500 and the sony 100-400 GM stack up against each other at the long end? And more specifically how they stack up against each other at their closest focus distance? I'm still wavering between systems and all 3 look very compelling so far.
400mm f4.5 is FANTASTIC
Seems too expensive like a lot of modern lenses designed for FF mirrorless systems. I'll be sticking to my DSLRs and 200-500mm f5.6 lens.
Most of those cost way too much. 3rd party lenses may not be as good, but they do generally cost a lot less. :)
That's also why I went for the Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3, which is also stabilised.
It's good enough for me, and at a much lower cost than the Canon 100-400mm! :)
Keep on truckin, Chwis
Very curious how this lens compares to its predecessor, the af-s 80-400 f/4.5-5.6
How does this compare to the Nikon DSLR lens 80-400 ED VR AF lens? I'm trying to encourage a buddy to go mirrorless.
Sad that Nikon was unable to delivery an exceptional lens here, specially for that price. The lens is not great at 400, which is the most important for my use cases. For now I will continue using my Canon 100-400 IS ii adapted with Fringer EF-NZ. The AF and everything works great on my z6ii and now the Z8.
The lens is exceptional and at 400 at least it is on my Apsc Z50
I agree the 100-400 is priced slightly high. But I think this might be Nikon's strategy now - price bodies lower (Z9), get more people in the Z system, and rely on higher-end lenses for increased profit.
I am going to watch lemur videos now. It's on you.
Hello. You have some dirt on your Nikon camera sensor. You can clearly see it at the time stamp 1.50 in this video....
With the telephoto zoom adapter im sure the quality is boosted
Hi Christopher, did you get your hands on a Fuji 100-400XF to test already?
There is one question that FX camera user's would or could ask . The image that is produced using both lenses when switched from fx to Dx . I have a two times z converter on the 70-200 z lens. connected for testing . Quick note at 400 mm on the z70-200 it did out performed my tamron 150-600. Still to days lenses would have no value if they didn't improve the final image. But just as I am ordering the z 8 body up pops nikon with the 180-600 to adto my confusion. So knowing that this channel will soon be doing the review may be even testing the z180-600 against the z 4.5 400 .... gets me to my final request. When using cart to test on dx mode ... could you considers switching or adding the camera body effects more ( Dx I know you do sometimes but more photos not charting ) mode and taking a similar stand point . More so with wild life birds to test how much detail we lose or gain . How much crop values are compared... quality wise? This would I hope be interesting to lots of us. The truth is camera auto focus which you test makes a difference to final image when taken hit rates matter a little one to ten idea helps us viewers ... Testing of lenses using FX and dx for wild life / stills / sports would or could effect a purchase. Hit rates helps I am Not much of a bird photographer my self . I have chosen Macro as my specialist questions , here again the dx on a fx closeness increase against megapixel loss it is so huge. .... your always looking to test a lens .. this new inclusion may earn a lot more fans. All the best Christ I remember your early videos. Before you even met your wife .... so thanks for many interesting insites.
Said not the fastest AF, but that's not all a lens issue, depends what camera body you're using too. Using the original Z7 does slow the AF down some. Not sure how you're measuring AF performance?
I am perpetually annoyed that even the most expensive and most modern zoom lenses never prioritize image quality at the longest focal length.
Bring back the 200-400.
Along with the landscape/wildlife utilization for this lens, would this also be a good lens to use if I want to take pictures of the moon?
Christopher I am a subscriber to your channel and by and large I think your videos are very interesting & informative, however I don't agree with your findings on this lens. You are comparing it with the 400mm prime which of course is going to be better. I have had it for 8 months now and I am very happy with it, the image being very similar to the 70-200 Z. There are plenty of very positive reviews of this lens elsewhere if anybody cares to look.
I compared side by side z70-200 and z100-400 at 200mm. 100-400 is even sharper.
Wondering how does this lens. Compare to the just released Z180-600?
Thanks for great review!
How does this lens compared with the older but cheaper Nikkor F-mount 80-400mm lens?
I always wonder why zoom lens suffer at long end and a prime lens with same aperture at long end does show better performance. For example in this video the zoom 100-400 at 400mm focal length has f/5.6 aperture. Whereas the prime 400mm f4.5 lens even if the aperture stopped down to f/5.6 will definitely beat the zoom lens by very big margin. Is this design issue or the optics issue? Curious to know. I prefer zoom lens because it is kind of versatile.
Could you please review the Nikon AF-S 200-500 F/5.6E and Z 180-600
Hi, can you please test Nikon 24-200mm? Thanks!
The sharpness at 400mm is honestly a little disappointing. Sony's 100-400 seems to hold up way better than this at the long end, which is where it matters the most IMO. Just doesn't really hold up to the good reputation Z lenses usually have.
Why worry about some minute sharpness difference only noticed by zooming 200%. The Nikon lens is better in many other areas and overall.
@@livejames9374 I don't know, i'm not a professional photographer, but wouldn't this extra sharpness be useful when cropping into the image? I tried bird photography myself, though be it with lenses not nearly in such a class as this one and I found myself cropping very often.
Also if you use 2x Teleconverters the lack in sharpness could maybe be quite a bit more noticeable.
@@benni1015 no it wouldn’t help. The Sony and Nikon lenses have similar sharpness. You’d need to get a high resolution camera if you wanted more resolution using these lenses.
Wish manufacturers don't add what's not necessary like the little display. We don't know how long they'd last.
I guess with that VR it would be great lens for wild life video shooting.
Another excellent video 📹
I am at the point of having nightmares over choosing between these two lenses...
how about test christopher frost nikon 24-200？😅
70-200 is $2700 on B&H... Lokk at RF prices... Sony GMs too... Glass will be only more expensive.... On the other hand, there are tons of Chinese manual options...
It is odd to compare a prime lens to a zoom lens … they serve totally different purposes. If you need a zoom, you wouldn’t even be looking at a prime, and vice versa. I love the sharpness and image quality of my 100-400mm … if I need longer I have TCs, or the Z 800mm. If I need shorter I can use my 14-24/2.8, 70-200/2.8 or 300/2.8, 300/4, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 105/2.8…but the 100-400 is just a wonderful light workhorse …
great sharing 😍😍
I'm sure that in the middle of Nikon office standing billboard: If don't know what to do - build 400mm lens.
But i am wrong if i say that Nikon lenses are superior to Sony lenses. Maybe it's just my impression.
I bought the 100-400 thinking it's a Z lens so it should be better on my Z9 than my F mount lenses. Very disappointed with it.
I would be very curious to know if 70-200 "Z" + TC20 would be on par with this lens. Much more versatile.
Christopher, this video is unlisted!
Glad you fixed it 🥳
Wow these results are a bit disappointing.
Great video as always! I shoot fuji, so it’s hard to justify spending almost 3k on a zoom lens this incosistent
Finally
I was excited about this until I heard the pricing 😅 almost 3 grand is just comedy
It's expensive but then so is the Canon version..
@@haydennettleton3272 that's true, unfortunately, as well as for the Sony 100-400. You can get the same focal equivalent a lot cheaper on Fuji X if you're willing to accept APS-C drawbacks, but I can understand why one wouldn't. But that much money for a single lens is just silly for all but professionals that can get tax writeoffs on it :/
@@phjacI agree entirely, no way I'd drop this amount of money on a variable aperture zoom that isn't even that sharp at 400mm. maybe in few years once they start hitting the secondhand market I'll buy one, in the meantime there's plenty of good options for Nikon like the 200-500, 70-300 etc even the 300pf is quite affordable when brought secondhand.
@@phjac Tamron dx lens 18-400mm. On a z50 with a 1.5x crop effectively gives a 27 - 600mm for less than a 1000 dollars.
@@haydennettleton3272 yet the canon is faster focusing and a bit sharper I believe.
I feel this lens is overpriced, looking at your review of the Canon Rf 100-400 it seems much sharper with better contrast and costs less than half the price of this lens. Quite disappointing.
Can't really compare the two, since the test chart has slightly changed between the two reviews. The lab test on Photographylife shows a score of 2808 on in the centre at f/5.6 400mm, that's an extremely impressive score for a zoom lens, even a bit higher than the very sharp 800 PF prime wide open. But I agree that, in this test, it really doesn't look that great for some reason.
Honestly, this lens is really disappointing, especially for the price they ask for it. Nice build quality, but it's really not going to make up for the poor image quality at the long end. That SLOW AF is just adding to the disappointment. The Z6, Z7 and Z5 lines of cameras are already having problems with their outrageous AF system, compared to canon or sony, at all price ranges. Honestly, I think Nikon is just ripping people off with this one. Put a little more $ and get the 400mm 4.5 all day, every day.
What's the point of getting this lens and shoot at F8 in order to get decent image quality? It's not worth it. Better get the Sigma 60-600mm from DSLR's and I bet it's better than this one. Heavier, yes, but better zoom, better image quality, and similar built quality. And still cheaper than this one.
Howdy
Ouch!
A bit disappointing to be honest. Could be sample variation but if Nikon sent you this lens, that's on them. But then I wouldn't really consider this lens to start with, because of the weight.
The OLED screen does look rather gimmicky. This is the first video where I get a good idea of what it can do. But yeah, not very impressed with it.
Hmm.. Matt Granger seems to have nothing but praise for this lens though. Maybe it is sample variation.
@@starbase218 Matt Granger praises everything Nikon
You might be right about sample variation. Cameralabs results do not match with this review either. I also know some people who had to go through multiple copies before being satisfied due to softness issues. Ironically this lens is made in Japan.
@@starbase218 Granger is a fanboy praising everything.
@@muttishelfer9122 Disagreed.
Worse than the Tarmon 50-400?
I'd also like to see a comparison between the two