Nice tests Dan,
Of course it is difficult to tell without having the full size pictures. However, here is what I see:
All photos seem quite good.
On the photos showing the complete antenna, both with and without TN, the 80 and 107 seem quite equivalent but the 90 looks better - however, it could be because the 80 is darker, hiding some of the definition. The 107 lacks contrast and definition and it is the one like the least - however again, it is is the lighter of the 3, which could be the cause.
Looking at the crops is a different story. The 90 is clearly the best, more definition, better constrast and less CA. The 107 seems to be the worse and the 80 is in the middle.
That's my opinion, for what it is worth.
Regards
Jules
strange how different we perceive things I actually found the 107 best and the 80 third
View attachment 460516
View attachment 460517
View attachment 460518
Left WB as shot, only balanced the exposure and size.
I can get a TS 90/600 for roughly 1K€. This morning I did another comparison and I find the optical quality of the 90 enough better to make me seriously consider it.
View attachment 460616
90/600
View attachment 460617
80/600
The 107 is just too big and heavy to justify 100mm more focal length.
I have repeated this test very carefully several times and it always comes out in favor of the 90. It is not a focus issue, but a doublet vs. triplet issue. There is just enough residual CA in the doublet to negatively effect the resolution and contrast, and since we are constantly having to do heavy crops, that is indeed a big factor. We can never seem to get enough feather detail in those distant LBJs!o
I am fine with 600mm and I am surprised how well the 90 works with my TN. I had noticed some iritating CA when using it with the SW, but I see none using it with the 90. Two kg and €700-800 lighter than the 107.
More speed would be good, but at what cost? I suppose I could get a 1990s Nikkor 600mm/f4, but it would cost me three times as much as a 90 and if the AF motor goes, I would be up a certain proverbial creek with no paddle. There are no spare parts/motors for those things. They simply can't be fixed. Talk about BIG! About the same weight as the 107. There are always going to be limitations, but f6.5 would do, especially as sensors and high ISO performance improve. In fact, when the light is really good, (not often) I even stop down to get more DoF.
Merci, Jules!
Still have to get it cleared with my finance minister.... Might just wait a bit still with the new Olympus coming out in a couple of weeks.
"The new OM-1 could be a winner."
That is what I am afraid of:-C...
If it isn't, or if it is too expensive, I may just go with a D7100 and a 90/600. If it is, the 90/600 just might have to wait a while.