Further readings for the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.
Nikon’s latest flagship FX-mount, full-frame DSLR — the D5 — is a performance powerhouse, featuring a new 153-point autofocus system and 12 fps burst shooting of up to 200 14-bit RAW files. Designed for the traditional customer base of sports, press and wildlife pros demanding top performance, the D5’s increased 20.8Mp resolution and enhanced low-light capabilities has further broadened the D5’s appeal. As well as boasting enough pixels for advertising, magazine, and even landscape photography, the D5’s image quality improvements at the mid-ISO 1600–12,800 range will interest a range of professionals looking for great results in low light.
Back in 2013, Nikon introduced its first AF super-telephoto with fluorite to reduce the weight while also suppressing color blurring with the 800mm f5.6E FL ED VR. The 400mm f2.8 is the second model in the maker’s super-telephoto lineup to undergo the same treatment. Read on to find out how well this substantially revised lens performs.
Just in time for the Football World Cup Nikon have launched a new super telephoto prime lens for professional sports & news photographers. The AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8E FL VR promises improved optical performance, in a lighter and more ergonomic design, together with a brand new SPORT VR mode.
Also I would be curious to know why your test differs from so many others. Lenscore (see their results at the bottom of this post)for example tested the new version to be a LOT better than the old one and they're also testing with what seems like a pretty sound technique to me? Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR
So this test has really baffled me. I find it really hard to believe that Nikon would 'progress' by making a considerably worse (and more expensive) lens if your measurements are correct! Surely the cost of designing and manufacturing a whole new version of this lens only for it to be worse than the existing one is ludicrous? So what would be your logical explanation to this story?