Now on to some testing!
First the inevitable tree-shot
, this time a fir. Using a tripod to eliminate any shake. To make things quite clear, I just show you the 350mm/f11
shot in toto and then some centre-crops
at 100%. I didn't bother to mark where exactly the crops were from, because it doesn't matter: most crops at different focal-length and (naturally) at wider apertures or from the borders were not much better than the ones I present here
The following crops are at 350mm
/f11 and 500mm
/f11, the latter being clearly the softest.
Looking at these crops I'd say: I could have done better with my 18-200mm by magnifying the respective area with software. But I didn't do the comparison.
But I did some shots of the famous Siemens-star and another one that is comparable across all the tested tele-lenses.
I'll present here a 410/f8-shot at close distance (magnification almost 1:10) plus 100% crop. This shows a 12mm grey disk in the middle, at least on my monitor. These grey disks are comparable across my lens-tests and the diameter is directly proportional to the resolution of the lens.
B.t.w.: Maximum magnification of this lens was measured 1:5.0 @ 2.5m.
And a 400/f8-shot from far away plus 100% crop (near centre).
Would I buy this lens? Never! That's simply too unsharp for my liking. I'll stay with my Tamron 500mm mirror-lens, until Nikon comes up with a renovated version of the VR 80-400mm. But still, there is one shot that I like with this lens (and where you can evaluate ghosting and flare):
I was quite disasappointed and stopped testing pretty fast
And I thought that building a good-IQ 2.5x tele-zoom was easy...