DXOMark scores for Nikon exotics

Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,126
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
Well, I believe their numbers and ranking for the 200/2, 300/2.8, and 400/2.8 - we know those 3 are absolutely stellar!

But the 500, 600, and 200-400 got some pretty mediocre scores - all of them are outscored by the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 for sharpness:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings/Optical-Metric-Scores

So what are they smoking at DXO???

Mike

PS I know some of you guys are not interested in reviews and lab tests - you guys should just ignore this thread :smile:
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,126
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Looks like the Nikon super-teles were a bit better than their Canon counterparts....

Sean
Not exactly - the 500 & 600 were pretty convincingly outgunned by the Canon versions...

You'll see it if you compare bodies with similar resolution - D600 or D3x vs 5D III, for example:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1174/(lens2)/393/(brand1)/Nikkor/(camera1)/834/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/795

Note the sharpness score of 15 for the Nikon combo vs 19 for the Canon!

Mike
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,126
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Wow! If you look at the DXO Mark scores, my little $396 85mm f/1.8 AFS did pretty well :smile:.
I don't even look at those silly DXOMark scores! It's some kind of average across sharpness, distortion, T-stop, and so on - with a significant amount of sensor DR and other things thrown in... Completely meaningless!

I was just looking at the optical scores alone, and their sharpness ranking in particular. 300/2.8 gets a 24 and 70-200 f/4 gets a 21 on the D800 - but the 500 f/4 only a 16!!!

Mike
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
5,725
Location
Annapolis
Well, I believe their numbers and ranking for the 200/2, 300/2.8, and 400/2.8 - we know those 3 are absolutely stellar!

But the 500, 600, and 200-400 got some pretty mediocre scores - all of them are outscored by the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 for sharpness:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings/Optical-Metric-Scores

So what are they smoking at DXO???

Mike

PS I know some of you guys are not interested in reviews and lab tests - you guys should just ignore this thread :smile:

Waste of time and a ploy to generate web hits. I got the 200/2 and 500/4 and I can't say enough good things about those two lenses. Even the 70-200/2.8 kicks butt!!!!
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,126
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
Forget DXO, their results are meaningless rubbish.
They seem to be getting it right for some lenses, though... Few would argue that the 200/300/400 VR aren't the sharpest lenses Nikon makes, or that the 70-200 models aren't the best zooms.

But the 500 & 600 scores look like outliers to me. Perhaps their long lens technique is lacking :biggrin:

Mike
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
1,643
Location
Central, FL USA
Mike,
I've owned from the 200 f2 to the 600 f4 and in IQ department rate them in the following order from my experience shooting them. In my experience the 200 and 400 did show the difference from the others when it came to sharpness and focus speed.
This is the order I rank them in sharpness.
200 f2
400 2.8vr
300 2.8vr
600 f4 vr
500 f4 vr

The 300 is pretty much up there with the 400 and 200..
I found the 600 sharper than the 500 but then you would really have to pixel peep to see the difference. I do agree with DXO's marks on all but the 500. They probably got a bad sample as the 500 f4 is a very sharp lens.
I went from a 600vr back to the 400vr for that very reason. I love the IQ from the 400vr and it has never let me down, whether shooting wildlife in Yellowstone or Africa to shooting sports and even on commercial fashion shoots. If I was a bird shooter I would have kept the 600vr as it was extremely sharp and handled the 1.4 tc very well.
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
3,508
Location
North East, UK
Real Name
Colin Carter
They seem to be getting it right for some lenses, though... Few would argue that the 200/300/400 VR aren't the sharpest lenses Nikon makes, or that the 70-200 models aren't the best zooms.

But the 500 & 600 scores look like outliers to me. Perhaps their long lens technique is lacking :biggrin:

Mike
i think that the big telephotos are all so close that its just a case of picking the focal length you need. No one could pick out a shot taken with a particular lens in a line up.

the New 80-400 is also as good as the 70-200 unless you need f2.8 of course.

in fact the 80-400 is on a par with the 400vr at f5.6 for sharpness, but the 400vr has 2 stops of additional subject isolation available if the shooter needs it.

but if you pick your backgrounds carefully the 80-400 is as goos as anything but i doubt that DXO mark would show that

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,126
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
Mike,
I've owned from the 200 f2 to the 600 f4 and in IQ department rate them in the following order from my experience shooting them. In my experience the 200 and 400 did show the difference from the others when it came to sharpness and focus speed.
This is the order I rank them in sharpness.
200 f2
400 2.8vr
300 2.8vr
600 f4 vr
500 f4 vr

The 300 is pretty much up there with the 400 and 200..
I found the 600 sharper than the 500 but then you would really have to pixel peep to see the difference. I do agree with DXO's marks on all but the 500. They probably got a bad sample as the 500 f4 is a very sharp lens.
I went from a 600vr back to the 400vr for that very reason. I love the IQ from the 400vr and it has never let me down, whether shooting wildlife in Yellowstone or Africa to shooting sports and even on commercial fashion shoots. If I was a bird shooter I would have kept the 600vr as it was extremely sharp and handled the 1.4 tc very well.
Thanks Michael,

That makes a lot of sense to me. Looks like DXO got the order right then, at least among the exotics. Would you also agree that the 70-200 f/4 & f/2.8 versions are sharper than the 500 & 600...?

That's the part I can't get my head around...

Cheers

Mike
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
3,508
Location
North East, UK
Real Name
Colin Carter
Thanks Michael,

That makes a lot of sense to me. Looks like DXO got the order right then, at least among the exotics. Would you also agree that the 70-200 f/4 & f/2.8 versions are sharper than the 500 & 600...?

That's the part I can't get my head around...

Cheers

Mike
i certainly wouldn't agree with that about the 70-200 being sharper than the 500 and 600, not from my experience anyway.

i dont think the 300 is sharper than the 500 either, but its splitting hairs between any of the big guns.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,126
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
i certainly wouldn't agree with that about the 70-200 being sharper than the 500 and 600, not from my experience anyway.

i dont think the 300 is sharper than the 500 either, but its splitting hairs between any of the big guns.
I do think the 300 is sharper than the 500. It takes all 3 TCs very well, whereas the 500 is challenged with the TC-17 and borderline unusable with the TC-20, from what I've seen.

These are the key question for me:

  • Is the 400 + TC-17 better than the 500 + TC-14?
  • Is the 400 + TC-20 better than the 500 + TC-17?

If the answer to both of these is yes, I may have to put up with the extra weight of the 400 - for that kind of money I want the best optical performance I can get!

Cheers

Mike
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
3,508
Location
North East, UK
Real Name
Colin Carter
I do think the 300 is sharper than the 500. It takes all 3 TCs very well, whereas the 500 is challenged with the TC-17 and borderline unusable with the TC-20, from what I've seen.

These are the key question for me:

  • Is the 400 + TC-17 better than the 500 + TC-14?
  • Is the 400 + TC-20 better than the 500 + TC-17?

If the answer to both of these is yes, I may have to put up with the extra weight of the 400 - for that kind of money I want the best optical performance I can get!

Cheers

Mike
my 500 works great with the 1.7x especially now with my D800 and D4's

i never liked the 2xIII on my 300 and sold it soon after i got it, its the worst TC of the lot (obviously) and ive never seen any really great shot with it. Its ok for magnifying an already close object, but for bringing distant subjects closer its borderline rubbish compared with the other 2 TC's

i dont think the 400 with the 1.7x is better than the 500, or even the 400 and 1.4x being better than the bare 500.

For wildlife, i dont think the 400 makes much sense really, but for field sports its the lens to have.

the 400 is an unwieldy, front heavy beast with an awkward tripod collar (faces the wrong way) and a stupid 2 piece hood because of the collar.

If I needed a 400 F2.8 i would get the Canon version II and a 1dx, its much lighter and better balanced than the Nikon 400 F2.8.
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,442
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
I do think the 300 is sharper than the 500. It takes all 3 TCs very well, whereas the 500 is challenged with the TC-17 and borderline unusable with the TC-20, from what I've seen.

These are the key question for me:

  • Is the 400 + TC-17 better than the 500 + TC-14?
  • Is the 400 + TC-20 better than the 500 + TC-17?

If the answer to both of these is yes, I may have to put up with the extra weight of the 400 - for that kind of money I want the best optical performance I can get!

Cheers

Mike
I shoot the 300,400, and 500 and all 3 TC-s

IMO the new 2x was never intended to be used on anything but 3 lenses, 200/2,300vr and 400vr and then even under very controlled situations, stopped down, on a tripod and close to FF

Is the 400 + TC-17 better than the 500 + TC-14?
I'm not sure I ever used the 400 with the 1.7, not even sure I used it with the 1.4 but based on the 300, which I used to use w/ the 1.4 and 1,7 (and the new 2x) I'd say it's close but I'd give the nod to the 400 + 1.7


Is the 400 + TC-20 better than the 500 + TC-17?
I'd go w/ the 500 + 1.7 before I used the 2x on anything


having said all that I don't think the 400 is a good choice for wildlife. 400 is almost never long enough so you are almost always signing up for a TC and the biggest show stopper is the 400 is so front heavy most shooters could never HH it
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,126
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #18
Thanks Randy - looks like you and Colin both agree that the 500 would be a better upgrade for me than the 400, since I don't shoot sports - mostly birds and other wildlife.

I do wish a site like DXO would publish test results with TCs for all the long lenses! Would be great if the differences were quantifiable.

Cheers

Mike
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,126
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
my 500 works great with the 1.7x especially now with my D800 and D4's

i never liked the 2xIII on my 300 and sold it soon after i got it, its the worst TC of the lot (obviously) and ive never seen any really great shot with it. Its ok for magnifying an already close object, but for bringing distant subjects closer its borderline rubbish compared with the other 2 TC's

i dont think the 400 with the 1.7x is better than the 500, or even the 400 and 1.4x being better than the bare 500.

For wildlife, i dont think the 400 makes much sense really, but for field sports its the lens to have.

the 400 is an unwieldy, front heavy beast with an awkward tripod collar (faces the wrong way) and a stupid 2 piece hood because of the collar.

If I needed a 400 F2.8 i would get the Canon version II and a 1dx, its much lighter and better balanced than the Nikon 400 F2.8.
Thanks Colin - good to know you're happy with the 500 + 1.7, I've heard other opinions...

My TC-20 is ok on my 300, but I need to stop it down to f/8. Not usually a problem here in California, though :biggrin: But yeah, I wouldn't use it on an overcast day... It's my only 600mm option right now, though - and I still prefer it to slapping a TC-14 on the 80-400!

The problem with the 300 is, I'm always using it with the 1.7 or 2.0. Hardly ever with the 1.4, and never naked which is a real shame for such stellar optics! I spend a lot of time apologizing to the 300 for treating it so cruelly :smile:

Cheers

Mike
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
1,643
Location
Central, FL USA
Mike,
any of the superteles are excellent in the IQ department. It really is about individual needs versus pixel peeping. :biggrin:

As far as the 400 goes, I had both the 400 and 600 together for a bit and found the 400 with the 1.4 tc every bit as sharp as the 600 f4.

When it comes to tc's it handles tc's extremely well. I shoot it wide open with tc's and images are tack sharp.

If I only shot wildlife, I would opt for the 500 as it's lighter weight is much easier to handle and IQ is outstanding.

As far as not shooting wildlife with a 400, ....nonsense: :rolleyes: as I have hundreds of files to prove otherwise... :biggrin:
I would rent a 500 for a couple of days and see if it suits your shooting style.

either way, you cannot go wrong with any of Nikon's superteles...

oh..and yes...the 400 is the sharpest......... :Guns: :370:

and the bokeh is to die for....
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom