Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The 70-300CX contra the 80-400 VR II
#1
Hi all,

 

New here, but been a avid Photozone enthusiast a long time!

 

Anyway, I had the 80-400 VR II, and found it excellent in the short end, up to 250mm, maybe.

 

Then my wife got the 70-300CX (which nobody seem to have tested), and, eventually, to our amazement, the 70-300CX proved to be just as good as the far more expensive 80-400 VR II, when both were used on a Nikon V2 camera, a sobering experience.

 

I had had the AF-S 70-300 VR (a very good copy!) to begin with, for my Nikon 1 cameras, but the 70-300CX outshone that with ease, so I sold that, and eventually got a good copy of the Tamron 70-300 VC, which with the light coming from your back could compete with the 70-300CX (don't know what it is called, but a bit like sailing down-wind, but with the sun hitting your back instead, down-sun?!).

 

But even the slightest hint of back-lighting, and it was an almost total loss, while the 70-300CX just shrugged it off. That way the 80-400 was its equal, both using the latest lens coatings, which evidently helps a lot!

 

So now I have sold the famed 80-400 VR II, and gotten myself a 70-300CX of my own. And a 70-200/4.0 for my FX camera!

 

When are you going to test the 70-300CX?!

 

All the best, Hals- und Beinbroch!

 

#2
I understand that you have found the 70-300 "CX" on Nikon 1 to be better than the 80-400mm on Nikon 1. That is why you sold the 80-400mm?

But how was the 80-400mm on your full frame camera compared to the 70-300mm on the Nikon 1?

#3
Quote:I understand that you have found the 70-300 "CX" on Nikon 1 to be better than the 80-400mm on Nikon 1. That is why you sold the 80-400mm?

But how was the 80-400mm on your full frame camera compared to the 70-300mm on the Nikon 1?
About as good, to about 250mm, maybe a bit longer (my sharpest shot ever, of the moon, was taken at 165mm!). Greater DR for the D600, of course, but not quite Ok over 250mm. So I am very happy now with the 70-200/4.0 on the D600, and then the 70-300CX on the V2. 

 

Maybe the result with a D810 had been different, I don't know!
#4
Quote:I understand that you have found the 70-300 "CX" on Nikon 1 to be better than the 80-400mm on Nikon 1. That is why you sold the 80-400mm?

But how was the 80-400mm on your full frame camera compared to the 70-300mm on the Nikon 1?
My best shot with the 80-400 VR II was of the moon, at 165mm, and I used it on my D600 (an upgraded copy, after the oil issue).

 

But up to around 250mm I found it just as good on the FX as on the CX, but after that it started to fall apart! My 80's Nikon 400/5.6 for instance is sharper than the long end of the 80-400! The CX cameras' extreme resolution clearly out-resolved the lens in its long end.
#5
I guess the most useful measure (to me) when comparing massively different sensors and lenses would be image quality per pixel angle of view. CX is 2.7 crop factor isn't it? So you're looking at 810mm equivalent on the long end. Even if you use the 80-400 on DX, you're only up to 600mm equivalent. Then you have to factor in pixel densities depending on the body chosen.

That aside, I had always thought the CX 70-300 to be one of the most interesting things in mirrorless land, but not quite enough to get around to trying it.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)