If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I couldn't take exactly the same photos, because naturally the birds/scene changed when I was changing lenses, but even so, to my eye there's no detail difference between the two lenses.
The difference between good primes and good zooms is almost entirely in the edges, starting at about 20% away from the edge (on the long side since the projected image is a circle). If you're bored, take a similar photo, place the birds at the edge of the frame but in focus. You'll see a significant difference.
I figured that would be brought up
I think the query was whether distance to subject had an impact, and to my eye (at least in the center) it doesn't. Now, edge performance I expect the prime to be better, no matter the distance. I'll try to bring the dove couple back in for another test.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
|
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
|
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
|
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
|
Good on you for diving in and doing these tests yourself. It definitely confirms that you either have a bad copy of the 186 or an outstanding copy of the 200-500
Good on you for diving in and doing these tests yourself. It definitely confirms that you either have a bad copy of the 186 or an outstanding copy of the 200-500
Where did you get the test chart image at, if you don't mind me asking?
I half want to do it, but I've previously researched this heavily and refreshed my memory over the last few days and from all I read it seems like there's an extraordinarily high likelihood that doing so would simply cost me shipping only to have Nikon dlsay it's within spec. I've had a lens with very clear sharpness issues before. The first copy of my 200-500 was very, very bad. At 5.6 everything looked like you'd twisted the focus ring 30 degrees from a good shot, except there wasn't even an in focus plane. That one was terrible. Comparatively, this lens is good enough that most consumers would happily accept it and think it's great, and I can see that from looking at a lot of the photos people proudly post in various places with their new lenses and rave about how sharp they are even as they're clearly not. As noted, I've also put it through FoCal calibrarion and rating several times and it has put its sharpness as high as 70th percentile even as we can clearly see issues (my 200-500 is rated 90-93rd percentile or something, so I do seem to have an especially good copy of it). The wishful side of me would want to send it in hoping for a drastic improvement, but the realistic side is very skeptical that a lens FoCal rates in the mid 60s to 70th percentile would register as sufficiently out of spec that Nikon would do something about it. This is especially true since from what I've read it's hard to get them to make significant adjustments even when something is more clearly off.
In general, the 186 doesn't crop as well as a corresponding prime, though with good light it is possible to make some heavy crops (see example below which is heavily cropped to 5.5 MP followed by export to fit here - 1900 pixels on long side). On my monitor, and to my eyes, it appears the latest images presented are over sharpened.
These results are incomparable.
Care to explain your comments? They used similar testing methodology at similar FL’s for the respective lenses.
I'm curious what you think of that same photo when there has been no sharpening applied beyond the default:
The PL editors mentioned that resolution tests can only be compared if they have similar graphics. Just because of the methodology.
I haven't seen this disclaimer. Perhaps you could convince them to remeasure the lenses together?
It's better and the feathers seem more realistic as I view it on my MBP. If you want to add a little extra selective sharpening to the eye for emphasis, that's fine.
This doesn't tell me anything about the relative sharpness of the lenses. It just demonstrates that neither of them is able to render feather detail at that distance.
Right, I agree, that's a distance I wouldn't ever consider shooting at if I were going for detail. I want my birds in close, MFD to about ~30' max; for environmental captures, then that fine detail doesn't matter, but you at least want the bird clear (which these are). I wouldn't expect even the 600TC to be able to render detail at this distance; if this is how far away you like to shoot, and are looking for detail, you need more reach.
Are talking static birds? Some times it is hard to keep a BIF in the center. That is where a prime shines.
Well, for any subject, in motion or otherwise. The question was if comparing the 180-600 to a prime, is there a noticeable difference in resolving power between the 180-600 vs. a prime as the subject gets smaller in the frame or the distance to subject increases. Up close, both lenses should resolve greater detail, but as distance increases, will the prime hold an advantage? Is this accurate, @SCoombs?
Right on.. we have these 45mp sensors, we should be able to crop and enjoy them, right?! I always hear that 300-400 is good for BIF, and then see people posting frame-filling ducks/birds/owls. I never thought to ask/check the image size or how much they cropped, but it'd be interesting to see the workflow from someone who does more BIF.
34yd-center by M K, on Flickr
34yd-edge by M K, on Flickr
9yd-center by M K, on Flickr
9yd-edge by M K, on Flickr
First, thanks for putting I this effort as I appreciate it a lot.Right on.. we have these 45mp sensors, we should be able to crop and enjoy them, right?! I always hear that 300-400 is good for BIF, and then see people posting frame-filling ducks/birds/owls. I never thought to ask/check the image size or how much they cropped, but it'd be interesting to see the workflow from someone who does more BIF.
Anyways, I did some quick tests just now b/w the 186 and 600PF. Did 3 distances (9, 18, 34 yards as measured with my laser rangefinder), with a shot at center and edge of frame for each, compared at 200%. At 9yds, both lenses are comparable in the center, and as we move to the edge the prime is a bit sharper. We already knew this, no surprise there, but here's some interesting info for you: at the 18 and 34yd distance, the 186 is noticeably softer even in the center, and the edges degrade even worse, becoming very soupy at 34 yards. I'd say that it supports your hypothesis that the zoom is losing resolving power as the distance increases.
In summary, this is some of what the $3200 price difference is getting you. How often will this impact your photos, probably rarely to never, and in a vacuum, you’d be perfectly happy with how the 186 performs. After owning both lenses for quite a few months now, seeing the differences for myself is eye-opening, but it won’t in one bit alter my view of the 186.
I get it, jpeg screen grabs uploaded to a non-Pro Flickr account and then posted here aren't going to show the best detail, but hopefully it shows enough of the difference. If one really wants to compare them, you have to do it with the RAW files at home on your system, so anyone wants these files to see for yourself, PM me and I'd be happy get them over to you.
34 yards at the center (600PF on the left, focus is on the eye in all photos):
34 yards at the edge (600PF on the left):
For fun, here's the comparison shots at 9 yards, again, 600PF on the left:
Center:
Edge:
