Nikon's New 300mm f/4 Looks Impressive

[J-see]

And I told you then that Nikon MTF charts based on performance at 10 and 30 LP/mm mean very little for a lens that is supposed to perform at around 45 LP/mm.
I hope you guys are right, I'm still waiting for mine.

A lens that is worse at 10 and 30 can never be better at 45.

 

[Bengt Nyman]

Wrong! A higher 30 LP/MM contrast starting point at the center of the lens, with much steeper drop toward the outside suggests that 45 LP/mm performance might drop like a rock. Without good data your opinion is just a guess.

 

[J-see]

Since rough detail is composed out of fine detail any lens that is better at fine detail should do at least equally well at rough detail.

45LP/mm fits 1.5 times in 30LP/MM.

 

[Bengt Nyman]

Rough detail is NOT composed of fine detail.
45 LP/mm involves finer detail than 30 LP/mm. There is no guarantee that something performing OK with rough details like 30 LP/mm can even resolve 45 LP/mm.

Here are some more info on the history of diffractive optics:

Diffraction elements were featured for the first time by the Canon company; a prototype of such a lens was shown at the Photokina in 2000. Soon it was followed by the market launches. In December 2001 the Canon EF 400 mm f/4 DO IS USM was presented and three years later the Canon EF 70–300 mm f/4.5–5.6 DO IS USM joined that first lens.The technology called by Canon DO (Diffractive Optics) still suffered from several childhood illnesses. Unwanted bending of light on diffraction elements made the images less sharp than those produced by classic lenses. Additionally the performance against bright light left a lot to be desired: the diffraction gratings construction combined with ordinary elements didn’t fare well in that area. Still an undisputable asset of DO lenses was their low weight and small physical dimensions. Their disadvantages mentioned earlier and a steep price, connected to employing a new, complex technology, didn’t make them very popular on the market.
As a result we had to wait as long as 10 years for the next launches in this segment. Only in September 2014 Canon finally showed the EF 400 mm f/4 DO IS II USM model. What’s interesting, six months later Nikon launched the Nikkor AF-S 300 mm f/4E PF ED VR which, at first glance, seems to be another product connected to the implementation of similar technology.

P.S. The new Nikon 500 and 600 mm lenses are smaller and lighter than the old ones, but they DO NOT use diffractive optics, also called Phaze Fresnel or PF.

 

[J-see]

So what you're saying is that there are lenses that can resolve the fine detail of the moon but can't resolve the moon itself?

You are right that a lens that can resolve 30lp/mm does not necessarily resolve 45lp/mm but a lens that resolves 45lp/mm better is guaranteed to resolve 30lp/mm at least equally well if not better.

 

[Bengt Nyman]

You are twisting like a wind sock. Why don't we just wait for some reliable test data on the new 300 mm f/4.

 

[J-see]

You are twisting like a wind sock. Why don't we just wait for some reliable test data on the new 300 mm f/4.

Me thinks I'm constantly saying the same thing but it's all well. Let's wait on data and see if miracles happen.

 

[J-see]

Anyways; this is the detail the lens can resolve on a D810.

Full shot:




Crop (1500*1000):



100% crop:

 

[Bengt Nyman]

Nice work! Without access to the original file it's hard to judge lens performance.

 

[J-see]

Nice work! Without access to the original file it's hard to judge lens performance.

That's true; processing does affect quality. If you like I can upload the NEF but keep in mind I shoot native ISO only which makes the NEF look different in regards to exposure.

Here's the NEF if you want to see the RAW material.:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y337gytxwa1tw9b/_DSC6721.NEF?dl=0

I shoot flat with everything zeroed.

 

[Bengt Nyman]

The 100% crop looks good!

 

[J-see]

The 100% crop looks good!

Thanks but that's partly because I use the RL deconvolution algorithm in RawTherapee. It's somewhat like a deblur which can recover a bit more fine detail.

 

[Bengt Nyman]

Thanks. I'll be back.

 

[J-see]

If you like more feel free to ask. The butterfly is one of my earliest shots with the lens. I'm pretty sure I got sharper/better.

 

[Bengt Nyman]

I will make some comparable shots with my old 300mm F4 without the TC14 to try to produce an apples to apples comparison.
Thanks for your efforts.

 

[J-see]

I will make some comparable shots with my old 300mm F4 without the TC14 to try to produce an apples to apples comparison.
Thanks for your efforts.

Maybe I should do that too, use liveview and a tripod to obtain critical focus on something at a specific distance. That would be more reliable than handheld bird or bug shots.

 

[Bengt Nyman]

Agreed.

 

[J-see]

Agreed.

Let's take something that has an identical size for the both of us, like millimeters on a measuring device, and shoot that at specified distances until it can no longer distinguish the detail. We only need to shoot f/4-5.6 and 8 since the rest isn't very relevant.

When we do that using live-view and a tripod, it should reveal what the differences are. At least in terms of sharpness.

 

[Bengt Nyman]

Do you have the old and the new Nikon 300mm F4 or just the new?

 

[captain birdseye]

personally, if i do eventually upgrade from my 300f4 af-s/tc14ii combo i would rather bite the bullet and face up to the fact that i would be far better off by saving up for a long time and going for the 300f2.8 vr2 and tc17ii to get a significant gain in performance.
yes, it will be bigger and heavier plus a shed load more cash but it will give me me the result i want.