Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fujinon 16mm f/1.4 and 100-400mm
#11
Quote:The Fuji 100-400mm is longer than the Canon 100-400mm/Sony 70-400mm/Nikkor 80-400mm and just slightly less heavy.

In terms of "brickness" we really have to compare the physical focal length & speed, not the equivalent one.

The Leica 100-400mm is almost tiny in this comparison just to mention. Makes me wonder whether the Fuji is actually a full format lens ...

 

And I was talking about the size of the foot of the tripod mount, not about the ring or something.
Wouldn't the shorter flange length of the fuji body result in a longer lens (for the same optical design)?

 

It is a little disappointing they couldn't have kept the size and weight down. Pushes me towards the Leica.
#12
Quote:In terms of "brickness" we really have to compare the physical focal length & speed, not the equivalent one.
Aaaah, suddenly we do and the holy equivalence is less important? Wink I still don't get what's the problem, it's 200 gram lighter than the Nikon?
Quote:And I was talking about the size of the foot of the tripod mount, not about the ring or something.
Yes, I was also surprised about that short foot, but with an Arca plate it does quite week and is less flimsy than the Nikon stuff. What annoys me with this lens is the OIS (or aperture?) motor which is just constantly running. And what annoys me as well is that I need 10 minutes to post something on an iPad. On iOS PZ still sucks.
#13
A "proper" 100-400mm APS-C format lens should be smaller because of smaller diameter elements.

As mentioned the physical dimensions feel more like a full format lens. Again - the Leica 100-400mm is smaller thus they have tried at least. Technically "a brick" is certainly not a bad indicator in terms of optical quality - bigger tends to be better.
#14
Quote:In that review, the "next" link is broken: it goes back to the home page.

Instead it should be "http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/358-micro-nikkor-af-70-180mm-f45-56-d-ed-photozone-review--lab-test-report?start=1"
 

Hmmh, this link seems to be invalid.


This is the "official" one:

http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikk...est-report

#15
Quote:Do you have the teleconverters too? I made a few shots with the [email protected] with the 2.0x TC, the results were not really pleasing but that might be due to the fact I had no tripod at that time.
 

No, never ever. ;-)

 

800mm APS-C ? I would have to set up the chart on the other side of the Sydney harbour bridge ...
#16
Quote:Hmmh, this link seems to be invalid.


This is the "official" one:
http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikk...est-report
 

The first page was fine, it was the second one that was broken. The link I provided works for me btw.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#17
Valid samples it seems ...

#18
Quote:No, never ever. ;-)
So no APS-C test of the Canon 100-400? Smile

#19
Quote:No, never ever. ;-)

 

800mm APS-C ? I would have to set up the chart on the other side of the Sydney harbour bridge ...
 

Tried that once. Either IS couldn't really hold it still at 1/1000 or image quality was robbed by the high ISO that I had to use or the 400mm+2.0x teleconverter is straight up a bad idea as far as IQ goes.

 

It is fun though.
#20
On the MTF charts, a 2x goes down by roughly 1-1.5 marks (lanes), a 1.4x takes 0.5-0.75 off.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)