As I said, I am trying to be patient...
I'm in the process of exploring my options within the Nikon system. I love my 200-400 lens, but struggle to travel with it, the 500PF, and my wide angles. I'm thinking of adding the 80-400 to my bag for those times when I don't want to hike with the longer lens.
I am not leaving Nikon, as I just purchased a Z6II and sold my Z6 for a Z7. With 5 bodies (Z7, Z6, Z6II, and 2 x D500) and many lenses, I'm stuck to the brand... I guess I just needed to voice my frustration.
OwlsEyes wrote:
As I said, I am trying to be patient...
I'm in the process of exploring my options within the Nikon system. I love my 200-400 lens, but struggle to travel with it, the 500PF, and my wide angles. I'm thinking of adding the 80-400 to my bag for those times when I don't want to hike with the longer lens.
I am not leaving Nikon, as I just purchased a Z6II and sold my Z6 for a Z7. With 5 bodies (Z7, Z6, Z6II, and 2 x D500) and many lenses, I'm stuck to the brand... I guess I just needed to voice my frustration.
I feel your frustration with waiting but, as they say, good things come to those who wait!. Before you know it two years will have passed and you'll have all the lenses you need for Z mount. I can't believe it was over two years ago I got the Z7 and here we are now with a Z7II. If you are going to get the 70-200 f2.8S at some stage, then think about getting the TC's for it and use that instead of the 80-400, even though I think the 80-400 is an underrated lens. My travel kit will be 14-24 f2.8S, 24-70 f2.8S, 70-200 f2.8S, 500 PF and the TC's and I can still put in my D500 if required.
OwlsEyes wrote:
As I said, I am trying to be patient...
I'm in the process of exploring my options within the Nikon system. I love my 200-400 lens, but struggle to travel with it, the 500PF, and my wide angles. I'm thinking of adding the 80-400 to my bag for those times when I don't want to hike with the longer lens.
I am not leaving Nikon, as I just purchased a Z6II and sold my Z6 for a Z7. With 5 bodies (Z7, Z6, Z6II, and 2 x D500) and many lenses, I'm stuck to the brand... I guess I just needed to voice my frustration.
Latest I heard is that 100-400, 200-600 will be announced during CP+ but I am not 100% sure though.
If you are looking at 80-400, unless you need it for D500 as well, at the moment TCx2s with 70-200/2.8s
is very good. At 400mm, at least on my copy, it is at least as sharp as Sony 100-400GM which I think is the sharpest 100-400
available at the moment and AF remains very fast.
Lance B wrote:
I feel your frustration with waiting but, as they say, good things come to those who wait!. Before you know it two years will have passed and you'll have all the lenses you need for Z mount. I can't believe it was over two years ago I got the Z7 and here we are now with a Z7II. If you are going to get the 70-200 f2.8S at some stage, then think about getting the TC's for it and use that instead of the 80-400, even though I think the 80-400 is an underrated lens. My travel kit will be 14-24 f2.8S, 24-70 f2.8S, 70-200 f2.8S, 500 PF and the TC's and I can still put in my D500 if required....Show more →
Thanks Lance... glad to know that someone is willing to empathize with me
I have not seen enough images with the 70-200 + converters to know if it meets my needs. I'd like to see some wildlife pictures in morning light as well as some that demonstrate the combination's capacity to follow moving subjects. I am certain that the bare 70-200 S is amazing, but there are very few who have really pushed the lens + converter + markII bodies to match the type of photos I tend to find and take.
My 200-400 is stellar during pre-dawn and early morning light. It is for this reason that I continue to own and shoot the lens. I tend to grab my 200-400 before I take the 500PF out of the bag. If the 200-400 exhibited decent performance w/ my 1.4xIII, I'd just replace my VRI w/ a VRII lens keep the converter on it, and call it a day. Unfortunately, other than the 300PF, I've yet to own or shoot a lens where I felt as if the converter was costing more than I was gaining. My big issue with converters relates to how they render the out of focus areas. Even my 300 f/2.8 AFS II suffered from an ugly bokeh whenever I used a converter.
The theory behind teleconverters are great, but in practice, I find them less than wonderful.
suteetat wrote:
Latest I heard is that 100-400, 200-600 will be announced during CP+ but I am not 100% sure though.
If you are looking at 80-400, unless you need it for D500 as well, at the moment TCx2s with 70-200/2.8s
is very good. At 400mm, at least on my copy, it is at least as sharp as Sony 100-400GM which I think is the sharpest 100-400
available at the moment and AF remains very fast.
suteetat,
Your claim about the 70-200 S + converters in comparison to the Sony 100-400 is surprising. It would be pretty amazing if they are truly equals. I have seen the comparisons that you posted. It is clear that the ultimate sharpness is very good. As I stated in the previous post, I have yet to see enough field work that demonstrates how the lens performs in "the wild." I'd love to see some images made with the combination where the subject needs to be isolated by a soft bokeh. Wildlife photography is fraught with distractions like grasses, branches, and nondescript clutter. Under these conditions, the cost of the great lenses become worth the extra money spent.
I have looked at the many of pictures made with the Sony 200-600, and while I often pine for a Nikon lens to match it, I have also seen where that lens really fails. The f/6.3 maximum aperture really needs to be stopped down to increase the contrast of the lens. The cost of doing this is an increase in depth of field... something that I want when I need it, and do not want when I don't.
As I said, I have chosen to be patient while Nikon reveals its master plan, however it is nice to vent one's grievances from time to time
OwlsEyes wrote:
suteetat,
Your claim about the 70-200 S + converters in comparison to the Sony 100-400 is surprising. It would be pretty amazing if they are truly equals. I have seen the comparisons that you posted. It is clear that the ultimate sharpness is very good. As I stated in the previous post, I have yet to see enough field work that demonstrates how the lens performs in "the wild." I'd love to see some images made with the combination where the subject needs to be isolated by a soft bokeh. Wildlife photography is fraught with distractions like grasses, branches, and nondescript clutter. Under these conditions, the cost of the great lenses become worth the extra money spent.
I have looked at the many of pictures made with the Sony 200-600, and while I often pine for a Nikon lens to match it, I have also seen where that lens really fails. The f/6.3 maximum aperture really needs to be stopped down to increase the contrast of the lens. The cost of doing this is an increase in depth of field... something that I want when I need it, and do not want when I don't.
As I said, I have chosen to be patient while Nikon reveals its master plan, however it is nice to vent one's grievances from time to time
I won’t have a chance to try 70-200+ TC for a while yet. My Botswana trip is pushed back from this May to next June already
While 100-400 GM sharpness is excellent, my experience with it in Kenya in few years ago showed that while it is able to isolate subject well enough, its bokeh is not very forgiving especially when you have busy foliage in the background but still better than 200-500. I was using it side by side with D850+500/4e FL and definitely bokeh quality is nowhere near the supertele prime.
I am in the same boat with you, I still much prefer Nikon’s ergonomics and color. As amazing as A1 looks on initial spec, I doubt I will buy it and rather wait for Nikon’s equavalent especially now that traveling this year is still going be rather limited so there is no hurry. My A7r IV sits in my cabinet most of the time as I still prefer to take my Z7/Z7 ii out in general,
suteetat wrote:
I won’t have a chance to try 70-200+ TC for a while yet. My Botswana trip is pushed back from this May to next June already
While 100-400 GM sharpness is excellent, my experience with it in Kenya in few years ago showed that while it is able to isolate subject well enough, its bokeh is not very forgiving especially when you have busy foliage in the background but still better than 200-500. I was using it side by side with D850+500/4e FL and definitely bokeh quality is nowhere near the supertele prime.
I am in the same boat with you, I still much prefer Nikon’s ergonomics and color. As amazing as A1 looks on initial spec, I doubt I will buy it and rather wait for Nikon’s equavalent especially now that traveling this year is still going be rather limited so there is no hurry. My A7r IV sits in my cabinet most of the time as I still prefer to take my Z7/Z7 ii out in general,
I have little to complain about. I have nice gear with a great set of lenses and cameras. My gear is better than I am, and I probably could use what I have for the rest of my life without losing much. I, personally, am just looking for an alternative to my large and heavy 200-400. I love the lens, but I also love to hike with my gear. Other than this one quibble, I am good with how Nikon has rolled out their Z system.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Thanks Lance... glad to know that someone is willing to empathize with me
I have not seen enough images with the 70-200 + converters to know if it meets my needs. I'd like to see some wildlife pictures in morning light as well as some that demonstrate the combination's capacity to follow moving subjects. I am certain that the bare 70-200 S is amazing, but there are very few who have really pushed the lens + converter + markII bodies to match the type of photos I tend to find and take.
My 200-400 is stellar during pre-dawn and early morning light. It is for this reason that I continue to own and shoot the lens. I tend to grab my 200-400 before I take the 500PF out of the bag. If the 200-400 exhibited decent performance w/ my 1.4xIII, I'd just replace my VRI w/ a VRII lens keep the converter on it, and call it a day. Unfortunately, other than the 300PF, I've yet to own or shoot a lens where I felt as if the converter was costing more than I was gaining. My big issue with converters relates to how they render the out of focus areas. Even my 300 f/2.8 AFS II suffered from an ugly bokeh whenever I used a converter.
The theory behind teleconverters are great, but in practice, I find them less than wonderful.
I know where you're coming from. The 200-400 is an excellent pro grade lens with excellent IQ and AF speed as a pro lens should. You would no doubtedly not achieve the same results with the 70-200 f2.8S + 2x TC in both IQ and AF response. My suggestions were more a stop gap until Nikon releases what you require in the next year or so. Especially if you're going to get the 70-200 f2.8S anyway. It would at least be a lighter and smaller travel option until something better comes along.
I haven't tried the 70-200 f2.8S + 2x TC enough to categorically make a 100% judgement on AF and in-all-cases IQ call other than to say it is better than my 70-200 f2.8E FL + 2x TC. Unlike others, I actually thought the 70-200 f2.8E FL was very good with the 2x TC, just that the Z lens + 2x TC is much better. Interestingly I also think it AFs a little quicker than my 500 PF in lower light. However, I would need to do more testing in real world conditions to make a proper call. As we know, accurate and fast AF is a very big lens requirement for pro spec gear. It's one thing to be sharp but it ain't worth a damn if you can't get the shot and lens as well as camera ability is at play here.
The biggest issue with all this stuff is that my use and expectations will/may be vastly different to yours. I just hope my thoughts are of some use and help you make a correct decision.
Great shots and discussion as always, Lance!
On another topic, I am a little concerned that you are spending too much time at the viewfinder and computer, and that it is having the effect of making your eyes grow larger than seems healthy! See avatar image). Perhaps this is an advantage for vision in poor light. Just so you know I am keeping "an eye" on you...
Iain
IainD wrote:
Great shots and discussion as always, Lance!
On another topic, I am a little concerned that you are spending too much time at the viewfinder and computer, and that it is having the effect of making your eyes grow larger than seems healthy! See avatar image). Perhaps this is an advantage for vision in poor light. Just so you know I am keeping "an eye" on you...
Iain
Thank you, Iain. I was entertaining my 4 year old Grandson with these eyes stuck on and he took my photo with his mother's phone. How could I resist not to use it as my avatar.
Lance B wrote:
Thank you, Iain. I was entertaining my 4 year old Grandson with these eyes stuck on and he took my photo with his mother's phone. How could I resist not to use it as my avatar.
It would be good to see you post here more often.
I lurk but rarely post. I will work on it!
The eyes have it!
I'm not sure if it was an impulsive decision or a pragmatic one, but my local shop finally had stock of the 70-200S + 2x converter, and I went all in. The combination is quite expensive $2500 + $600, but they have the potential to make life a bit easier on my body.
Having owned the gear since Friday (2 days), I wanted to give it a work out. Unfortunately, the quality of light is quite horrid with deeply overcast skies. As such, much of my shooting was restricted to ISO 3200 to 6400. All images shared were shot between 7:30 and 8:45 am as the birds were making their way to my side of the river. I was shooting with a Z6II handheld from a sitting or prone position.
The camera struggled a bit when shooting the swans against the gray sky. The lens would search into the nothingness before locking on to the swans. I realized that I needed to pre-focus a bit in order to prevent this negative behavior. The phenomenon did not occur with geese or when the swans were on the water. I am hoping to try again next week... I am fairly confident that a bit of contrast will prevent this from occurring. At this point, I am pleased with the output, as there is not chromatic aberration w/ the converter...
As for my decision... well other than swans, I don't chase flying birds, so I think that this might be a viable solution for now.
Well, you got a good deal on the price, it would seem.
Only looking at the results on my phone but they certainly look sharp and without aberrations, especially for high ISO. I can imagine the AF would struggle with the low contrast scenes.
It would be interesting to see how the combo compares with the 200-400, which would be a very tough competitor as far as overall IQ.
Looking forward to your more long term thoughts. Using the 2x TC is a compromise, but you at least now have the incredible 70-200 f2.8S and can always add the 100-400 later.
Hello Lance,
In terms of overall output, the 2x is surprisingly good. If one considers that the light was terribly flat, and my subjects were white on a white background, it did a nice job.
With respect to the 200-400... well, that lens is crazy sharp when you are in tight with the animal. It is sharp when at a distance, and the extra stop makes a difference on a day like yesterday (Sunday).
I shot some images with my 500PF and D500, and they were all horrible. Because I won't push that camera past ISO 3200, I couldn't get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the birds.
I'm still trying to figure out how to proceed w/ my gear... Just like optimizing optical quality, portability has its costs too.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Hello Lance,
In terms of overall output, the 2x is surprisingly good. If one considers that the light was terribly flat, and my subjects were white on a white background, it did a nice job.
With respect to the 200-400... well, that lens is crazy sharp when you are in tight with the animal. It is sharp when at a distance, and the extra stop makes a difference on a day like yesterday (Sunday).
I shot some images with my 500PF and D500, and they were all horrible. Because I won't push that camera past ISO 3200, I couldn't get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the birds.
I'm still trying to figure out how to proceed w/ my gear... Just like optimizing optical quality, portability has its costs too.
I know where you're coming from. I think maybe you, like me, will just have to mark time until Nikon gets the lenses out ther that we want like the 100-400 which I believe will be optically excellent, but then it will be a max f5.6 for sure - lets hope f4 at the short end. I will buy that lens and it will be in my bag for travel but probably for most duties in that range even on the home front. I really like my 80-400 but I am also torn between having a fast lens available in the 70-200 range that it just so good ie, the 70-200 f2.8S and then add TC's to get the longer focal lengths.
Overhere the 70-200/2.8S is the same price as the Sony 100-400 (€2699,00). The weight is more or less the same too. I'm very curious to see if the 70-200 + 2.0x TC will be about the same quality (and price) as Nikon's new 100-400. If it is it will be hard to resist the 70-200.
Lance B wrote:
I know where you're coming from. I think maybe you, like me, will just have to mark time until Nikon gets the lenses out ther that we want like the 100-400 which I believe will be optically excellent, but then it will be a max f5.6 for sure - lets hope f4 at the short end. I will buy that lens and it will be in my bag for travel but probably for most duties in that range even on the home front. I really like my 80-400 but I am also torn between having a fast lens available in the 70-200 range that it just so good ie, the 70-200 f2.8S and then add TC's to get the longer focal lengths. ...Show more →
You nailed the dilemma for us both. The fast aperture of the 70-200 and its incredible optical characteristics make the lens great for its niche... landscapes, close wildlife, and portraits (if that's your thing). The 500PF is the perfect parter, but I would have much preferred a 400mm f/4 PF with the capacity to add a 1.4x converter. Were Nikon to have a lens like this, I would sell my 200-400mm lens. The extra stop of light at 400mm is a difference maker for those who shoot in morning and / or overcast conditions. There were rumors of a 100-300mm f/4 early in the development of the Z line-up, were this the lens they produced, I'd have spent all sorts of money for it. Like a 70-200 + 400PF combo, a 100-300 (w/ 1.4 option) + 500PF would be just as useful as the former lens set.
I really liked the range of the 80-400VR, but I just couldn't get past the AF-chatter and sometimes crazed bokeh. It appeared that the bokeh actually responded negatively to high iso's (weird?), and this became a real issue for me during the winter. In the end, I fell back to my 200-400 for its predictable performance.
If the 100-400 is a "killer lens," I'll probably sell the 70-200 as I have a 70-200E (no slouch). On the other hand, if Nikon's 200-600 matches Sony's lens for both performance and design (internal zoom), I'll keep the 70-200S and sell my 200-400mm lenses. For now, I'm in a holding pattern until Nikon reveals the mystery behind their forthcoming lenses.
Before you know it two years will have passed and you'll have all the lenses you need for Z mount. I can't believe it was over two years ago I got the Z7 and here we are now with a Z7II. If you are going to get the 70-200 f2.8S at some stage, then think about getting the TC's for it and use that instead of the 80-400, even though I think the 80-400 is an underrated lens. My travel kit will be 14-24 f2.8S, 24-70 f2.8S, 70-200 f2.8S, 500 PF and the TC's and I can still put in my D500 if required.
