200-500f5.6 Priced Under $1,400: Are You Excited?

BVS

Lot's must or they would not bother to start at 70. I bet most buy it for the wide end and want the long end "just in case".

But isn't 70mm what your mid-zoom is for? I feel like if you're switching to your tele-zoom it means the subject is already farther than 70mm and you need the longer range, so the short end feels more for "just in case". Well, just my 2 cents anyway. Sorry for getting OT.

spraynpray

I'm with you BVS.

heartyfisher

Not everyone has mid range zooms ... in fact many only have one zoom and most likely its the 70-200 range because its in a range where you cant "zoom with your feet"

sevencrossing

But isn't 70mm what your mid-zoom is for? I feel like if you're switching to your tele-zoom it means the subject is already farther than 70mm and you need the longer range, so the short end feels more for "just in case". Well, just my 2 cents anyway

One advantage of zooms is you do not have to change lenses

So I prefer a fairly big overlap

eg 16 -35 ; 24 -120 ; 80 -400 ( this is on Fx)

BVS

Not everyone has mid range zooms ... in fact many only have one zoom and most likely its the 70-200 range because its in a range where you cant "zoom with your feet"

One advantage of zooms is you do not have to change lenses

So I prefer a fairly big overlap

eg 16 -35 ; 24 -120 ; 80 -400 ( this is on Fx)

True, and I agree. Having a flexible zoom range is useful. I wasn't saying that tele-zooms shouldn't have short ends. I was just debating which end would benefit more from max sharpness.

I guess if you're only carrying one lens, then making the short end the sharpest makes sense, but if you have a second lens for close range then making the long end (or at least somewhere in the middle) of the tele the sharpest makes more sense (to me at least).

Photobug

I await tests. If it is anything like the 70-300VR, no I'm not excited. It needs to be sharp at the long end. If it is, great, can't wait.

I never buy a lens until I have read the Internet reviews (the ones that count - DXO & others) ) and the Popular Photography lab test and user comments.

TriShooter

Nikon's new lenses are outstanding, I have two of the new lenses so far. and agree they are both excellent, the new 80-400 for a walk around lenss and the 600mm E FL. The 600mm is an incredible piece of glass, and the quality with the TC-17EII is really breathtaking. The amazing thing is that I would have rated the TC-17EII just above awful, but on the 600mm this teleconverter screams quality.

sevencrossing

but I've never understood why so many tele-zooms are sharp on the short end and weak on the long end.

Think of a tele zoom, as a lens with built in variable TC , the more powerful the TC the greater the loss of IQ

snakebunk

but I've never understood why so many tele-zooms are sharp on the short end and weak on the long end.

Think of a tele zoom, as a lens with built in variable TC , the more powerful the TC the greater the loss of IQ

Sorry, but isn't that totally wrong? My understanding of a zoom lense is that the lenses can be moved to vary the focal length. Converters sit between the aperture and the sensor and spread out the image, which will (kind of) turn a full frame camera into a crop camera.

WestEndFoto

but I've never understood why so many tele-zooms are sharp on the short end and weak on the long end.

Think of a tele zoom, as a lens with built in variable TC , the more powerful the TC the greater the loss of IQ

Sorry, but isn't that totally wrong? My understanding of a zoom lense is that the lenses can be moved to vary the focal length.

Actually, I think he has hit the nail on the head. Whether a zoom is more like an extension tube or a tc may not be important. Most are likely a combination of both. Great observation Sevencrossing, even if a lens engineer quibbles a bit.

sevencrossing

Actually, I think he has hit the nail on the head.

Thank you
As a rule, there, is no such thing as free lunch
otherwise we would all use superzooms

snakebunk

I am lost. It sounds to me like: "You cannot optimize a zoom lense for the long end because you can think of it like a variable converter." Maybe I'll figure out what you are getting at during the day .

spraynpray

When you do, let me know eh? )

WestEndFoto

I am lost. It sounds to me like: "You cannot optimize a zoom lense for the long end because you can think of it like a variable converter." Maybe I'll figure out what you are getting at during the day .

Read reviews for TCs. The best is always a 1.4, then a 1.7 and the 2.0 being the worst. Nikon does not bother with a 3.0, though a few third party manufacturers do.

spraynpray

Teleconverters will always multiply errors so only the very best lenses still produce high quality images when used with teleconverters - that much is clear.

Snakebunks point about why telephoto zooms can't produce their best quality at the longest focal lengths is not answered by the analogies written above. If anybody knows the correct technical reason that zooms can't be sharper at their long ends than they are at their short ends (apparently), then perhaps they could enlighten snakebunk and I.

I do know that it is possible to buy lenses that are plenty sharp at the long end (200-400 and even 80-400) if you pay more, so it is possible. I think that it is probably therefore possible to 'tune' a zoom to give its best performance at the long end if that is the intent. A sharp 300mm image is croppable of course so by making it soft, the softness renders the image uncroppable thus a longer lens must be purchased... Don't forget that a lot of people onthis forum have a decent overlap between zooms, so a sharper, shorter zoom could be used to cover the less sharp end of the longer zoom.

sevencrossing

While the 80 -400 is sharp 400mm Dxo shoes it is slightly better at 80mm
Zooms work in a similar way to TCs and they will multiply errors
the greater the multiplication the greater the error
Zooms and TCs they are both compromises in both cases an equivariant prime will be sharper

spraynpray

Yes, I agree with all of that seven, but for me, my 70-200 f4 is very acceptable in terms of sharpness, contrast, distortion and chromatic abbs., but that doesn't really tell me WHY it is (possibly) not possible to tune for best performance at the long end. Maybe @Ironheart or @Jonnyapple have a view on this?

sevencrossing

From Wikipedia

all zoom lenses suffer from at least slight, if not considerable, loss of image resolution at their maximum aperture, especially at the extremes of their focal length range

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_lens

you can indeed "turn" a tele zoom for best performance at the long end but it will still be a bit better at the short end

Ultra wide angle zooms are not the same. I suspect this is because they are retro focus

TriShooter

I agree with spraynpray that teleconverters simply multiply the problems our lenses.

Zoom lenses are a compromise, and they can be sharp on either the short, the long end, or in the middle depending on the design, or reasonably sharp across the entire range like old 35-70mm, and the soon to be old 24-70mm.

When I put the TC-17EII on the latest Nikon 600mm E FL lens, which is insanely sharp out to infinity, I was not expecting much from the combination, but got results because of the quality of the new 600mm; so I agree the better lens will outperform the lesser lens with a TC.

The main weakness of the old 300mm f/4 with the TC-17EII was toward infinity; close in it worked fine. The solution, like spraynpray said is to change the focal length to 400mm/500mm/600mm. or the 800mm if you are fortunate enough own one, or move closer to the subject.

People buy zooms expecting them to be absolutely sharp throughout their entire zoom range which is not the real world. I tend to shoot at the longer end of a zoom most of the time so align the front / back sharpness toward the long end.

The other point spraynpray made on lens range overlap is excellent. Missing a good shot because of not having the right focal range is a bummer. The image shot is always superior to the sharper image I missed because of having the wrong focal length lens on my camera. Experience tells me which zoom will handle best for each situation taking into account the weight of the lens, the anticipated distance to the subject the lighting, will I be shooting free hand, or using a monopod, or have a light duty tripod versus one that will carry 70 pounds with a Wimberley Gimbal mount, or some combination of these with a prime. There is no one ideal lens that does it all for all situations.

My lenses overlap a lot: Sigma 120-300mm; and Nikon's 35-70mm, 24-70mm, 24-120mm, 70-200mm, af-s 80-400mm. All of these longer zoom lenses work well with either the TC-14EII, or III with the exception of the Sigma 120-300 which is a killer lens with Sigma's 1.4X tc. I am minus the Tammy 150-600mm having sold mine, but will replace it.

PB_PM

but I've never understood why so many tele-zooms are sharp on the short end and weak on the long end.

Think of a tele zoom, as a lens with built in variable TC , the more powerful the TC the greater the loss of IQ

A teleconverter is basically a magnifying glass, put behind a lens to magnify it's optics. A zoom on the other hand is not designed to magnify, but rather change the physical position lens elements. As you zoom the optical formula changes, making it at the focal length marked. Not even remotely the same as a variable teleconverter. In fact the fixed 300mm F4E VR PF is closer to being a teleconverter in design than most zooms.

spraynpray

As you mentioned DxO Mark seven, I checked out the 70-200 f4 and it is not worse at 200 than it is at 70 so it shows there is no reason other than a cynical marketing one perhaps?

snakebunk

I think it is possible to optimize a zoom for the long end. One way to think about it is if you start with a long prime lense and then add zoom to a shorter focal length while keeping the long end as intact as possible. I think you would end up with a zoom that is terrible at the short end but really good at the long end.

I think it is more critical to make a high quality lense as the focal length increases, because small errors are enlarged. I think this is what sevencrossing is pointing out. And, I think this is why less expensive zoom lenses are not as good in the long end. In other words I think it is a combination of the zoom functionality and the inherent comlexity of making a long lense.

I agree with BVS that the long end is the most important on these kind of lenses. At least in the hands of a bird photographer. If I owned this lense I would probably use it at 500 mm close to 100% of the time.

Finally, there is a great article on wikipedia about the basic construction of zoom lenses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_lens

PB_PM

I can name one zoom that is better at the long end than the short end, the 28-300mm VR. It is somewhat soft at 28mm, but very sharp at 300m. I believe the DX super zooms are similar.

sevencrossing

I think it is possible to optimize a zoom for the long end. One way to think about it is if you start with a long prime lense and then add zoom to a shorter focal length while keeping the long end as intact as possible

yes I think you might but it would be very expensive and heavy

snakebunk

yes I think you might but it would be very expensive and heavy

Agreed. I meant that as a thought experiment.

Slightly off topic: Has there ever been a variable (zoom) tele converter? It sounds like an interesting idea.