I'm a Sony shooter and I have their 100-400 which I love, but I think Nikon has a winner with this one. At this point it should be a given that it's sharp and fast focusing (like Sony's and Canon's), but where I think it'll stand out as better is the very short throw zoom (which I'm also assuming will take fairly light effort). One of the best features of the Sony 200-600 is the short, light zoom throw.
Ltgk20 wrote:
I'm a Sony shooter and I have their 100-400 which I love, but I think Nikon has a winner with this one. At this point it should be a given that it's sharp and fast focusing (like Sony's and Canon's), but where I think it'll stand out as better is the very short throw zoom (which I'm also assuming will take fairly light effort). One of the best features of the Sony 200-600 is the short, light zoom throw.
True, but the lack of zoom lock/clatch, and lens balance when it's extended, are big things as well.
I posted a link above, which shows internal design to show it up.
And, it's black...
P.S. there is no VR selector switch, I'm not sure how it's managed for different situations, like standard or panning, that worries me a bit, but hopefully Nikon knows what they're doing.
Ripolini wrote:
Thanx GG for starting this thread.
+1. Thank you GG.
Ripolini wrote:
My Z6 with 14-30, 24-70/4 and 100-400 could be even more versatile with better quality of the files.
That is also my thinking. My big question at the moment is whether I acquire wide end first or tele end first. Tele - end is twice as much $, but if I choose that route, by the time I place an order ( which may be a month from now ), it probably will take a few more months + for it to be shipped, so I might be able to mitigate the damage by saving a few dollars a day.
I think Ricci summed it up accurately for my needs when he asks if 400mm is enough. I know for me, I also look for more than 500mm a lot of the time -- 600 is my target sweet spot. Hence I am going to hold out for the 200-600 and use the 200-500 F mount I already own in the interim.
When I move at close distances I always carry the camera with a heavy lens mounted by the foot. Buy I agree there is little need for a quick disconnect on an item of this nature. I did see the henjar foot and like they it is a screw in. Will order that
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Perry reported the lens falling when carrying from the foot. This is also what a few others have experienced. As the lens is carried from the foot it can wiggle loose from it and fall accidentally. IMO the purpose of the foot is to support it when the lens is used on a monopod or tripod, and it was not designed to work as a carrying handle.
There are many reports of people dropping various setups from straps mounted on lens feet. It's not a safe way to transport gear. I put the lens in my backpack for transport.
I had a 500 PF take a dive while walking. Fortunately after I cleaned off all the sand the lens and z7 were fine. I chalked it up as another incompetently designed Nikon foot, and that it was silly of me to even try it as stock instead of immediately replacing with a Hejnar. Won’t make that mistake again.
cvrle59 posted this info previously but it deserves a bump for anyone even remotely interested in this 100-400mm that hasn't seen it - the internal balance design and anti-creep mechanism is going to make for superb handling:
SeattleDucks wrote:
cvrle59 posted this info previously but it deserves a bump for anyone even remotely interested in this 100-400mm that hasn't seen it - the internal balance design and anti-creep mechanism is going to make for superb handling:
Thanks for sharing again. Good to see publicity around this feature - it's one of those things that definitely makes a difference for some people, but I've never seen it mentioned in lens press before. I know photographers who purchased the Nikon 200-400 instead of the Sigma 120-300, just because the 200-400 doesn't shift the centre of gravity much when zooming, whereas the Sigma does - so this does matter. Hopefully we continue to see transparency about this kind of thing from Nikon, and other manufacturers.
That's fascinating! The shifting center of gravity in long zooms has prevented their effective use on gimbal heads and fluid heads (without adjusting the balance after zooming) except for those few non-extending zooms. That Nikon would solve this problem by internal rebalancing of elements seems like the best of both worlds: you end up with a compact lens at its short end and yet you should be able to use it on gimbal or fluid head due to the elements moving in opposite directions. Wow!
For me, the foot's presence on the barrel bothers me a lot when hand-holding especially if I need to switch between horizontal and vertical orientations. The Nikon foot works well for me as it can be taken off when required. I put it back on the lens when using a tripod or monopod. I would never trust a foot for carrying a lens. Those who do probably end up dropping the lens and camera at one point or another, irrespective of which foot they use (since the strap - foot connection can also come loose). The Hejnar foot seems appropriate for such use but doesn't necessarily prevent all accidents from happening. E.g. when using a black rapid strap or equivalent, the screw can become loose from the foot and the kit can end up with the same outcome even if the foot is epoxied on the lens barrel.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
That's fascinating! The shifting center of gravity in long zooms has prevented their effective use on gimbal heads and fluid heads (without adjusting the balance after zooming) except for those few non-extending zooms. That Nikon would solve this problem by internal rebalancing of elements seems like the best of both worlds: you end up with a compact lens at its short end and yet you should be able to use it on gimbal or fluid head due to the elements moving in opposite directions. Wow!
Is that even possible to not adjust gimbal ? That would be pretty impressive. I guess, gimbal that can hold big lens like 100-400 should have strong motor, so if the variance is small enough, then it should be somewhat ok. Next will be electronic zoom then you can gimbal shoot while zooming.
akul wrote:
Is that even possible to not adjust gimbal ? That would be pretty impressive. I guess, gimbal that can hold big lens like 100-400 should have strong motor, so if the variance is small enough, then it should be somewhat ok. Next will be electronic zoom then you can gimbal shoot while zooming.
I guess we are talking about different types of gimbals. :-) A gimbal head that I'm referring to doesn't have any motor but allows the balancing of a long lens and camera so that it moves with very little force and stays in position when not touched. Typically they are used for fast-moving subjects with big lenses. Traditionally this hasn't worked out well with extending zooms as the balance then shifts and you have to readjust or it will flop and not stay in position. The constant aperture zooms such as 200-400/4 stay in balance once the lens has been correctly mounted. This new lens is the first extending zoom with built-in compensation that minimizes shifts in center of gravity. Nikon don't quite say that it stays exactly constant so it'll be interesting to see if it is close enough. On fluid heads there are often adjustable counterbalances which make it easier to do the balancing but still there is a setting-up phase.
A motorized gimbal (such as DJI Ronin series) is a device intended for video capture which holds the rig in position and controls where it is pointed and stabilizes it via a small computer. I wasn't specifically talking about this type of a device. I'm not sure if long lenses can be used on such devices, typically they are intended for shorter focal lengths (105 mm to wide angle). It would take a pretty big gimbal to hold a 400. One might need something in the price class suitable for a nature documentary production by the BBC...
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I guess we are talking about different types of gimbals. :-) A gimbal head that I'm referring to doesn't have any motor but allows the balancing of a long lens and camera so that it moves with very little force and stays in position when not touched. Typically they are used for fast-moving subjects with big lenses. Traditionally this hasn't worked out well with extending zooms as the balance then shifts and you have to readjust or it will flop and not stay in position. The constant aperture zooms such as 200-400/4 stay in balance once the lens has been correctly mounted. This new lens is the first extending zoom with built-in compensation that minimizes shifts in center of gravity. Nikon don't quite say that it stays exactly constant so it'll be interesting to see if it is close enough. On fluid heads there are often adjustable counterbalances which make it easier to do the balancing but still there is a setting-up phase.
A motorized gimbal (such as DJI Ronin series) is a device intended for video capture which holds the rig in position and controls where it is pointed and stabilizes it via a small computer. I wasn't specifically talking about this type of a device. I'm not sure if long lenses can be used on such devices, typically they are intended for shorter focal lengths (105 mm to wide angle). It would take a pretty big gimbal to hold a 400. One might need something in the price class suitable for a nature documentary production by the BBC......Show more →
OH, that gimbal. Totally forgot that traditional gimbals for shooting long lens. My bad. I don't own one, so I didn't even think about it. However, the principle between the telephoto gimbal and motorized is pretty much the same. You balance it, then whatever the balance you worked on, becomes the setup For video Gimbal, in my case, Moza Air, even adding the plastic hood will wack the balance although, with assisting motor, it is fine, but, better to make the balance as close as possible to not to strain the motor. And, yes, the kind of gimbal that can handle 100-400mm would be rather big. I tried 24-70G on Z6 with Mosa and it becomes too big.
In any case, I can see if the 100-400 stays balanced on a gimbal would be very useful,
In-store samples taken in fluorescent lighting, handheld .. processed using Adobe RAW, Photoshop and Topaz DeNoise AI.
It focused fast on my z7ii, even in this lighting, felt solid yet light. Zoom ring was stiff (but someone mentioned in a diff thread that there should be a way to control the stiffness .. and of course, the stiffness must be to prevent zoom creep).
It's really hard to make any conclusion on those two images, but I like how the first one rendered background.
I wish, there was something at 400/f5.6, but thanks for those two, anyway.
P.S. I'm not sure if there is any zoom stiffness control on it, it could be just how that particular pre-production copy is.
I understood, Nikon designed some kind of counter balance internally to eliminate creeping.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
100-400 is just so versatile and the specs on this new S version are very good, especially the max magnification of nearly 0.4x at 400mm due to crazy close mfd of 0.75m. Also I think it's even lighter than the Sony. Great for landscape, close-ups especially floral portraits, butterflies, dragonflies, wildlife, birding (usually with the 1.4x).
Unfortunately the focal length is quite short at MFD, around 285mm if my math is right.
I think we need to see test results at different focal lengths and distances to see how it actually performs optically, especially for landscapes. I expect it to be excellent in general and a long overdue replacement for the 80-400 G.
EB-1 wrote:
Unfortunately the focal length is quite short at MFD, around 285mm if my math is right.
I think we need to see test results at different focal lengths and distances to see how it actually performs optically, especially for landscapes. I expect it to be excellent in general and a long overdue replacement for the 80-400 G.
EBH
How did you calculate 285mm?
My impression was, if there is no focus breathing at 400mm, as Ricci stated, the focal length should be 400mm theoretically at MFD.
I read somewhere, that Sony 100-400 changes drusticaly at MFD, but I was hoping for Nikon to be different.
Should I say, I'm confused on this subject...
I wanted to take more shots, but with 60 attendees, it was a bit of a struggle to get permission to mount the lens on my own camera and fire off some shots. I can send larger versions (5k) if anyone needs.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
That's fascinating! The shifting center of gravity in long zooms has prevented their effective use on gimbal heads and fluid heads (without adjusting the balance after zooming) except for those few non-extending zooms. That Nikon would solve this problem by internal rebalancing of elements seems like the best of both worlds: you end up with a compact lens at its short end and yet you should be able to use it on gimbal or fluid head due to the elements moving in opposite directions. Wow!
I understand why people say this but in practical usage I never saw it as an issue. The shifting center of gravity in long zooms has prevented their effective use on gimbal heads I use my 150-600 S on a gimbal almost exclusively. 99% of the time it's extended to 600mm. That's why it's on a gimbal. When I do need to zoom out my hand is now on the lens so it's a simple matter to balance the lens by hand at this point. Again, I understand the principle, I just think this is an overrated issue. YMMV
