Why do 80-400 shots look like they need USM?

[bpdougd]

My point is people sharpen their pictures differently, therefore you can't compare them. There are too many different sharpening techniques and when the differences between lenses are small, all you're comparing is the quality of the sharpening!

Remember, I'm talking about comparing the raw resolution of the lens itself, not the final overall picture (while of course it counts, when you're talking about how sharp a lens is rather than the overall IQ, it's the unsharpened raw picture that's important).

I'm not sure I understand your point. A RAW file is gibberish until it has been "post processed". The whole point of shooting RAW is to let the big computer on your desk do that processing instead of the little computer in your camera.

The minimum processing that must be done to get a visible image is demosaicing and colorimetric interpretation. All RAW processors do this and usually apply some preset values for white balance, gamma, contrast, and, yes, sharpening. The demosaiced image needs some sharpening to avoid appearing "fuzzy".

So the real issue is not, IMHO, the issue of sharpening or not sharpening, but rather holding that variable (sharpening) constant across the lenses in question. This would mean using the same camera for the same scene and running the RAW images through identical post processing.

Even this, however, has some potential methodological flaws. It is very likely that different lenses will respond differently to post processing settings.

One of the great things about forums like this is that people share not just their images but the steps they took in creating those images. We are then free to evaluate and, if we find value in what we learn, apply some of those techniques to our own work. In the end, I find discussions about "ultimate" or "best" anything unhelpful. Tell me what you think, show me what you did and how you did it and I'll show you mine and we will both hopefully become better photographers.

My $0.03 worth (inflation, sorry :biggrin

 

[Jewson]

I agree with chinesestunna, you need both the EXIF and 100% crops of the focal point for each picture without any processing or sharpening otherwise any comparison is invalid.

Hi all, Hope these are of some use..Here are the originals and edits for both pics...I must admit that I have found that pics are sharper straight from the D50 but after a little P+P the D200 takes over (just my opinion). I have only been into photograohy for about 18 months so any advice + your opinions would be appreciated...
D50+80-400vr. This is the original and the pic I posted...
1/1000sec, f5.3, 270mm, JPEG Fine, 3008x2000

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

D200+80-400vr..
1/250sec, f5.6, 400mm, iso 100, WB sunny, JPEG Fine, 3872x2592

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

D200+80-400vr What I have done is crop, using threshold set black/white points adjust mid greys apply a touch of USM (using PSE4)
1/250sec, f5.6, 400mm, iso100 WB sunny, JPEG Fine, 1609x1825

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[weiran]

Firstly, apologies for not making the distinction between what I mean by raw images (without post processing) and the RAW photo format.

I stand by my point about sharpening. It's fine when you want to just showcase the sharpening of a lens with a processed and sharpened photo, I often do. My point is that when you're comparing lenses, you should try to control the variables of the test as much as possible. I know there are uncontrollable variables like the D70 AA filter producing much sharper images than the D200s, but things like sharpening and other filters should be kept to a minimum.

Whenever I do a lens comparison this is the methodology I follow, and it seems to work as I've got a pretty sharp set of lenses!

 

[weiran]

BTW, this thread is making me seriously consider a 80-400VR or the Sigma equivilent! It's about time I replaced my ageing Sigma 400mm prime.

 

[chinesestunna]

I think there's some samples of 80-400 VR that's very sharp - my buddy has one and we got some great shots from it in Jamaica with birds.

LOL, he just posted right after me (Technick)

 

[technick]

I owned a 80-400VR for a little over a year and loved every minute of it. The only complaints I have are small and really not even complaints, just small annoyances.

The AF on the lens is noisy, so if your trying to sneak up on a bob cat or tiger, the AF is going to give you away.

Sometimes the lens did hunt in low light.

Besides the above, its a great lens and I miss mine.

 

[Doug]

Is he committing suicide on the tracks? you guys are making me want to try the 80-400 again. Some nice work here.

 

[Jewson]

The AF on the lens is noisy, so if your trying to sneak up on a bob cat or tiger, the AF is going to give you away.

Sometimes the lens did hunt in low light.

Besides the above, its a great lens and I miss mine.[/QUOTE]


Hi Technik, could'nt agree with you more. You do need good light to get the best out of this, when the light's not so good I use my f2.8 70-200. But I would say I use the 80-400vr about 95% of the time.

 

[JeffKohn]

Has anybody compared the Nikon/Sigma 80-400's to the Sigma 50-500 for sharpness on the long end? I'm more interested in sharpness and contrast at the middle apertures, since I would be interested in using it for telephoto landscapes when carrying the 70-200vr + 200-400vr is not an option (ie long hikes).

 

[blw777]

They (80-400VR, Bigma) are generally said to be similar in sharpness.

 

[bpdougd]

As of a couple of weeks ago, I now own both a Nikon 80-400 and a Sigma 120-300. My plan is to use the 80-400 handheld as a sort of "stalking" lens and then use the 120-300 with and without a TC from a tripod from a stand after I've located my "target's" hangouts. I have not yet had a chance to test this scheme (that pesky day job that pays for all these toys gets in the way). However, we have a week-long trip to our cabin planned over the week of the 4th and, my skill and the wildlife gods willing, I'll have some useful comparison shots when we return.

 

[chinesestunna]

As of a couple of weeks ago, I now own both a Nikon 80-400 and a Sigma 120-300. My plan is to use the 80-400 handheld as a sort of "stalking" lens and then use the 120-300 with and without a TC from a tripod from a stand after I've located my "target's" hangouts. I have not yet had a chance to test this scheme (that pesky day job that pays for all these toys gets in the way). However, we have a week-long trip to our cabin planned over the week of the 4th and, my skill and the wildlife gods willing, I'll have some useful comparison shots when we return.

Eagerly awaiting!