# Nikon 180-400 vs Canon 200-400



## RGF (Jul 12, 2018)

The new Nikon 180-400 looks great - at least on paper and according to field reports. I just saw one and the design tops Canon in one aspect. The lever to engage / disengage the drop in extender/converter is on the right side of the lens so it can be moved with your right hand which often by the shutter button (in landscape mode).

Other than that improvement in ergonomics design, I have not seen much difference. I am awaiting reports but I suspect that both lens will be excellent.

Any other comments?


----------



## edoorn (Jul 12, 2018)

I've read some reviews that said that the quality with the internal TC wasn't that great, but somewhere (I believe DPreview or TDP perhaps) I downloaded some D850 files of the 180-400 w. TC applied and those looked great.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jul 12, 2018)

Having the lever on the other side is an interesting change, although I don't feel bad that the Canon lever is on the left. Beyond that I don't think it'll be like the 12-24 again, but then I wouldn't pass up a chance to compare it and a D4.

Jim


----------



## AlanF (Jul 12, 2018)

Lenstip reviewed the lens in depth some time ago https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=531

Apparently, the built in TC is real garbage, both in MTF tests and the real world.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Lenstip reviewed the lens in depth some time ago https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=531
> 
> Apparently, the built in TC is real garbage, both in MTF tests and the real world.



Yep, LensTip shelled the TC in their test:

_"If you decide to use the teleconverter, though, the situation is quite different and MTFs - distinctly lower. *Resolution decrease is noticeably sharper than in the case of other contemporary, expensive, high quality telephoto lenses cooperating with a teleconverter.* I admit the performance fell short of our expectations; we thought that such an optically complex teleconverter, designed to cooperate with just one model of lens, would perform much better than traditional, external devices which, after all, are supposed to fit many professional telephoto lenses of a given system.

As a result, even if the performance at 550 mm cannot exactly be called weak, as the results allow you to enjoy fully useful, good images, it is not something we expected from such an expensive lens."_

- A


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jul 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> _
> As a result, even if the performance at 550 mm cannot exactly be called weak, as the results allow you to enjoy fully useful, good images, it is not something we expected from such an expensive lens."_
> 
> - A



So they show up five years later, $1400 more expensive and with underwhelming performance? Huh. All my work stuff is brand N and it's fine but I'm surprised they seem to have come up short on this one.

Jim


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2018)

Jim Saunders said:


> So they show up five years later, $1400 more expensive and with underwhelming performance? Huh. All my work stuff is brand N and it's fine but I'm surprised they seem to have come up short on this one.
> 
> Jim



We don't have a great basis of comparison though. I trust LT at their word on the Nikon in-line TC, but they don't exactly make comparisons easy. 

Few people quantify the hit for teleconverter use in general. TC sometimes tucks it under the resolution data for a longer lens (they published 1.4x use on the 400 DO, for instance) but they haven't tested the Canon 200-400 yet.

The best TC resource I've seen on teleconverters been the TDP IQ tool -- some folks don't even know TC use is baked in there. Just go to a lens that is (Canon) TC compatible and the FL pulldown will include 1.4x and 2.0x values in there.

- A


----------



## edoorn (Jul 13, 2018)

I found some raws to play with at the imaging-resource review and to be honest, the ones with TC applied don't look bad to me at all. In fact, looks great to me  

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/180-400mm-f4e-tc1.4-fl-ed-vr-af-s-nikkor/review/


----------



## RGF (Jul 13, 2018)

interesting that there is such difference of opinions. WOnder if there is variability between lenses?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > So they show up five years later, $1400 more expensive and with underwhelming performance? Huh. All my work stuff is brand N and it's fine but I'm surprised they seem to have come up short on this one.
> ...



There are proper measurements on the effects of TCs posted in various places. From memory, Lenstip have looked at the 1.4xTC on other lenses such as the 70-200mm IS (which will no doubt interest you in particular) as well as the 400mm DO II. SLRgear has a section on TCs. Lensrentals have done it on the 300mm f/2.8 II and compared it with the 400mm DO II (and 400/5.6). https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons/

http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-extender-ef-14x-iii-test/ has some good discussion and measurements. 

In general, a 1.4xTC on a good lens lowers MTFs by about 10% or even less.

Again, I have to disagree with the TDP results. I use and have used 1.4xTCIIIs (2 copies) and 2xTCIII on a variety of telephoto lenses (300/2.8 II, 100-400mm II, 70-200mm II, 400mm DO II, Sigma 150-600mm C (Sigma 1.4xTC) on various bodies with often quite different experiences than TDP suggests. I'll give you an example. I have two excellent copies of the 100-400mm II (and have had a 3rd one). They all begin to approach my 400mm DO II at 400mm but not quite as good. Yet the TDP has the zoom sharper

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
which not only goes against my experience under a variety of conditions but also proper analysis by lensrentals https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/ and also lenstip's measurements (see links below).

Put a 1.4xTCIII on the 400mm DO II, and TDP has it blurry, and far worse than the 100-400mm II https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

In contrast, my 400mm DO II is tack sharp with a 1.4xTC, and much better than my 100-400s with a 1.4xTC. This squares with lenstip's measurements: https://www.lenstip.com/509.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_400_mm_f_4_DO_IS_II_USM_Image_resolution.html 400mm DO II at f/4 MTF = 45 lp/mm, 560mm = 41. The bare 100-400mm II only reaches 40 lp/mm!

So, don't take those TDP pull downs with anything other than a large pinch of salt - an otherwise great site but not good on charts.


----------



## RGF (Jul 14, 2018)

AlanF said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Jim Saunders said:
> ...



How do you think is lens to lens variation and how much to sloppy testing?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 14, 2018)

I would be very surprised if the lens copy variation in a prime of the quality of that of the 400mm DO II would account for the poor performance in the TDP tests - Canon's quality control is generally very good for L lenses and the newer consumer ones. Evidence for sloppy testing comes from the comparison of the 400mm DO II and 100-400mm II both at 560mm on the 7DII https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

Here, the 400mm DO II is much sharper than the 100-400mm II, opposite to that reported by TDP on the 5DSR.

I am surprised by the performance of the Nikkor at 550mm, and we need to see more analyses.


----------

