Canon 100-400 vs Nikon???

ZerodogZerodog Registered Users Posts: 1,480 Major grins
edited July 6, 2011 in Cameras
So last weekend one of the guys that helped me shoot the WidowMaker hillclimb used a Canon 100-400. The shots he got out of that thing were pretty damn good for a zoom of that range. I always thought those superzooms were poop. This was not the case. The bokeh was a bit weird. Sometimes it looked like a cat scratched the background away. But the subject was nice and sharp and the lens seemed to track very well from the sequences that I look at.

So what does Nikon have that is in the same class as this Canon thing? Or is it Sigma with the 50-500 or 150-500? I think I need to start thinking about one of these babies as my next lens purchase. All I hear is bad stuff about these, but then I see this Canon............:scratch

Comments

  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited July 1, 2011
    200-400 :):

    No really, I think Nikon's counterpart is the 80-400? The Canon 100-400, while not having as good IQ as say a 70-200, does the job nicely as you know. It's an L. That's how you can know if a lens is good... see if it has the red L ring :). Nikon has D's and G's, but nothing to compare to L's... rolleyes1.gif

    The Bigma 50-500 is a good lens from what I've heard. Here's a thread with a link to some pics:

    http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=200737
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited July 1, 2011
    I believe that the Nikkor AF-D VR 80-400mm, f4.5-5.6 ED would likely satisfy your needs. It has similar range and similar image quality to the aforementioned Canon EF 100-400mmL.

    Reviews:

    http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/253-nikkor-af-80-400mm-f45-56-ed-vr-d-review--lab-test-report

    http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/552-nikkorafd80400vrff

    The lens could do with some updates, namely a faster AF-S version and the latest VR technology from Nikon, as well as improved optics to handle the best Nikon bodies. Still, this is a very competent and very popular professional Nikon zoom lens.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • HarrybHarryb Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 22,708 Major grins
    edited July 1, 2011
    If you are looking at the 80-400 you might want to hold off a tad as the rumors are saying that Nikon will announce an upgrade on that lens before the end of this year.
    Harry
    http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
    How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited July 1, 2011
    Personally, the Nikon 80-400mm is a joke. At least compared to Canon's 100-400mm.
    Nikon's 80-400mm is one of those lenses, that desperately needs to be refreshed or retired soon.

    It has slow AF. poor sharpness, low contrast, questionable build quality and over priced.
  • HarrybHarryb Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 22,708 Major grins
    edited July 1, 2011
    insanefred wrote: »
    Personally, the Nikon 80-400mm is a joke. At least compared to Canon's 100-400mm.
    Nikon's 80-400mm is one of those lenses, that desperately needs to be refreshed or retired soon.

    It has slow AF. poor sharpness, low contrast, questionable build quality and over priced.

    It not that bad. Its an amazingly flexible lens that produces good results if stepped down.

    905727987_Sz8Jn-XL-1.jpg
    Harry
    http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
    How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
  • ZerodogZerodog Registered Users Posts: 1,480 Major grins
    edited July 2, 2011
    Harryb wrote: »
    If you are looking at the 80-400 you might want to hold off a tad as the rumors are saying that Nikon will announce an upgrade on that lens before the end of this year.


    Nikon rep in town at event next week. I will ask if this is a possibility. They are usually very tight lipped.
  • ZerodogZerodog Registered Users Posts: 1,480 Major grins
    edited July 2, 2011
    insanefred wrote: »
    Personally, the Nikon 80-400mm is a joke. At least compared to Canon's 100-400mm.
    Nikon's 80-400mm is one of those lenses, that desperately needs to be refreshed or retired soon.

    It has slow AF. poor sharpness, low contrast, questionable build quality and over priced.

    This is what I have heard. Slow doesn't cut it for AF for action stuff. Might just need to try one, or keep the fingers crossed for an update.
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited July 2, 2011
    Zerodog wrote: »
    This is what I have heard. Slow doesn't cut it for AF for action stuff. Might just need to try one, or keep the fingers crossed for an update.


    I bet you'll have better luck with a 70-200 and a 2x tele.
  • ZerodogZerodog Registered Users Posts: 1,480 Major grins
    edited July 2, 2011
    I think the 2x tele sucked on the 70-200. But it was the version II that I tried not the III.
  • Bryce WilsonBryce Wilson Registered Users Posts: 1,586 Major grins
    edited July 3, 2011
    Dog, I've had the 80-400 for about eight years. I have a love/hate relationship with it.

    First, DO NOT purchase this lens if your primary reason is shooting sports or fast action. This is NOT a sports lens by any means. The AF is very slow. It is very difficult to track action with it. That being said, I have used it to shoot sports and have gotten nice results. If you're looking to track individual players and get tight shots with it, forget about it. Plus, for indoor sports, it's just not fast enough to freeze action even with the low light capabilities of a full frame camera. If you want to capture scenes at an outdoor sporting event, it works quite well.

    This was taken, with that lens on a D100 set to JPG Fine, from the photo deck at the University of Michigan football stadium. I was at about the 50 yard line on the other side of the field. It's not going to make the cover of Sports Illustrated, but it served my purposes quite well.

    5768734881_9c6ec7dfaf_b.jpg

    It is GREAT to use as a walk around lens because of the ability to capture candid shots without being noticed. It also works quite well on wildlife. I appreciate it much more now that I've switched over to FX. The lens seems a bit more responsive on the d700 than it did on the d100. This coupled with the fact that the reach (view really) of 200mm is quite different on the FX frame than it is on the DX frame, and pushing the limit of any zoom seldom gives the best performance, I find myself using this lens more now.

    These were taken from a smallish boat in 1 to 2 foot waves with the D700.

    At 80mm
    5592665704_c6582fcaa4_b.jpg

    At 180mm
    5592094631_e0ceefa643_b.jpg

    At 400mm
    5592660170_a1dc900a88_b.jpg

    As you can see, if you've ever tried 400mm from a boat, the VR worked pretty well. One thing I've learned the hard way with this lens though, is that if you ever use it on a tripod, make sure to turn the VR off or you'll have some really horrid looking images.

    That's my two cents on the lens. If you have any specific questions about it, I'd be happy to try and answer them.
  • Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited July 6, 2011
    Zerodog wrote: »
    So last weekend one of the guys that helped me shoot the WidowMaker hillclimb used a Canon 100-400. The shots he got out of that thing were pretty damn good for a zoom of that range. I always thought those superzooms were poop. This was not the case. The bokeh was a bit weird. Sometimes it looked like a cat scratched the background away. But the subject was nice and sharp and the lens seemed to track very well from the sequences that I look at.

    I got to borrow a Canon 100-400 for a couple of hours - nice !

    Canon 100- 400 on a Rebel XSi (450D)

    4897543902_181cafcc51_b.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.