dang wrote:Hi Chris,
Yes, I understand you're not shooting macro with it, I wasn't clear. It's closest focus is around 8 ft. I guess? Effective f/stop could still comes into play at it's closer distances, along with magnification amounts when comparing lenses. If you test against another lens under controlled conditions, I assume you mean inside. That's why I mentioned effective numbers.
This is what I had in mind. So far I have no empirical info, just hat perception that htis lens is blowing out highlights, and whites, in direct light. I've been shooting it bracketed and seem to be choosing images from the "under exposed" end of the range.
Higher contrast shouldn't change aperture by so much, but should give more punch to your unprocessed files. Of course, you could adjust contrast "in camera" and see what happens. Also, try shooting a white wall under sun light and see if there's color halo... this could indicate a lose/misaligned element.
take a look at this image,
It's early am light from behind the camera left. It's already -1 1/3. Seems blown out to me. I did no post on this beyond a scale and unsharp mask. Real life was no where near this bright. I do wish I had had an 82mm CP filter handy for this shoot.
You could test both against a "hand held" meter, my results are usually within 1/3 stop between similar focal lengths.
This is where I'm headed with this. If my hand held and the in camera agree, but he image is blown out I think I'll have an idea that the lens needs work. Or I just make sure I dial in the proper EC each time I use it.... For now. Unfortunately I don't have another lens of this caliber to test against. My longest pro caliber zoom is 200mm. The 70-300 prosumer I have is no match for this one in terms of optics, although they are both Nikon.
Lastly, which lens are you comparing, and what type metering are you using? Don't forget angle of view between the two. If angle of view is wider on one, depending on scene, it can cause drastic changes.
I can only objectively compare images to the afore mentioned 80-200 AF-D, and it seems much brighter. Both have similar angles of view.
I understand you're using Nikon, but I generally find Canon "L" lenses seem faster to me, so this intrigues me. The best I've come up with... quality elements reduce stray light bouncing around, making better use of whats collected. Perhaps this comes into play with your new lens?
Could well be. It's the same generation optics as the 80-200 so I think the elements and coatings are similar. Hmm the 300
may not have ED glass in it, perhaps this makes a difference....