Both handheld at 1/500, significant improvement over the first copy, way less blooming around the white letters even in harsh direct light. Bird is a little noisy because she wouldn't leave the shadows, eye sharpness still looks very nice to me at 100%.
Now to take Jerry's advice of leaving testing mode and getting out and shooting.
I’m amazed at the price of this lens, for $300 more you can buy the 70-200 & 2x teleconverter & have essentially the same range & the 2.8 when you don’t need to go past 200mm. I like the 100-400 range but I’d rather do it that way & not buy another lens. It would be interesting to see some image comparisons from the 100-400 vs the 70-200 & 2x TC.
kilowhiskey wrote:
I’m amazed at the price of this lens, for $300 more you can buy the 70-200 & 2x teleconverter & have essentially the same range & the 2.8 when you don’t need to go past 200mm. I like the 100-400 range but I’d rather do it that way & not buy another lens. It would be interesting to see some image comparisons from the 100-400 vs the 70-200 & 2x TC.
He's talking about Sony lenses but the concept is still the same
The problem with teleconverters is that there is no free lunch, and by that, I don’t mean the cost of the converters. Every teleconverter impacts a number of aspects of the lens: sharpness, autofocus and depth of field. For each of these, there are acceptable levels of performance degradation and I personally put them in the following grades (which may differ from person to person):
2x teleconverter – heavy degradation in autofocus and sharpness. Not acceptable by my standards and I would honestly rather crop than use this
kilowhiskey wrote:
I’m amazed at the price of this lens, for $300 more you can buy the 70-200 & 2x teleconverter & have essentially the same range & the 2.8 when you don’t need to go past 200mm. I like the 100-400 range but I’d rather do it that way & not buy another lens. It would be interesting to see some image comparisons from the 100-400 vs the 70-200 & 2x TC.
I don't have image comparisons but Nikon's own MTF simulations show for the Z 70-200/2.8 + 2X
Personally, I don't think 70-200/2.8 + TC is a good replacement for 100-400 in many circumstances.
I would go for 70-200/2.8 + TC if I do mostly portrait, landscape and in-door sport and occasional wildlife.
I would go for 100-400 if I do a more wildlife, more sport in larger arena like football, baseball, some landscape
Now, I do a bit of everything except sport so I ended with both
When I was in Africa and Antarctica, using 70-200 instead of 100-400 would be a mess. Z9 helps a bit with having sensor cover but there are time and setup where you don't want to take TC on and off regularly. Doing that in zodiac in Antarctica is never a good idea and 100-400 is much more versatile with no compromise in IQ except that you don't get the faster aperture at below 200mm range.
If I go on a trip that I know I will need 300-400mm more often, I would take 100-400 but if I know 100-200mm is the more essential and more often use focal length ( eg traveling in urban area, no wild life), I would take 70-200 with TC just in case.
My own copy of 100-400 is a bit sharper than 70-200+ TCx2 at 400mm
I currently have them both... and for what I shoot, I don't think I will be keeping both.
I purchased the 70-200S + 1.4x because I wanted a lens to bridge the gap from 70mm to 500mm after selling my 200-400mm lens. The 100-400 was still a year out (I sold my former lens too soon), so I just bit the bullet and went for it. I have absolutely no regrets, as I took many images with the 70-200S + 1.4x that I would not otherwise have. The combination is amazing and fast to focus. In contrast, I did not like the AF performance of the lens + 2x converter.
Now that I have the 100-400, I feel like its performance at the long end is a significant step up. As such, it is the lens I "need" for my type of photography. While others may value the f/2.8 maximum aperture of the bare lens, I value the AF performance at 400mm f/5.6 more.
regards,
Bruce
Thanks for the input so far regarding the 100-400 vs 70-200 + 2x TC. I still don’t think I’ll buy one, but good to hear so many are pleased with it. The next lens I’m anxious to see is the 200-600.
I went looking for birds on our rapidly-freezing lakes this morning. I caught (literally) the tail end of a couple eagles, saw numerous swans and geese, and a few ducks. The lens hunted a bit, but that is to be expected of white swans against a gray sky on choppy white water. I have three thoughts after this morning, and a question for you all:
1) With the hood reversed, the lens’ zoom ring is mostly blocked. Get your lens into shooting position before you get to your site, or you’re going to have some 100mm shots of eagle butts, like me this morning.
2) The control ring is a revelation for bird photography! With my focal length set to 400mm, my hand moves back to the focus and control rings. Adjusting EC between BIF and swimming/standing/perched birds is a simple matter of nudging the ring as I pan. Between the control ring and EVF, I’ve never had such an easy time keeping exposures perfect.
You might say “why not just use the rear dial for EC?”. I tend to shoot wildlife in M so I can keep a proper shutter speed, and let auto ISO float for my exposure… which means I have to push the EC button by the shutter. The control ring is considerably faster, and jostles the viewfinder less than EC button finger gymnastics.
It makes me look a little sideways at my 500PF, and makes me more anxious for the 800/6.3!
3) Sadly, while wearing gloves, the control ring is awful. Even with thin gloves its tiny knurled and thing ring are impossible to feel. I have to take my eye off the viewfinder to find the ring, and then not move my hand, lest I lose it again.
Which leads me to my question: Has anyone here ever put a rubber ring around a focus/zoom ring on a lens to make it more prominent or easy to grip? I’m thinking one of those those anti-creep bands might help make my control ring easier to find by feel when wearing gloves. The “Lens Band” ones look too wide, but surely there’s something in the world of photography or videography that can make this tiny ring more prominent?
CKrueger wrote:
I went looking for birds on our rapidly-freezing lakes this morning. I caught (literally) the tail end of a couple eagles, saw numerous swans and geese, and a few ducks. The lens hunted a bit, but that is to be expected of white swans against a gray sky on choppy white water. I have three thoughts after this morning, and a question for you all:
1) With the hood reversed, the lens’ zoom ring is mostly blocked. Get your lens into shooting position before you get to your site, or you’re going to have some 100mm shots of eagle butts, like me this morning.
2) The control ring is a revelation for bird photography! With my focal length set to 400mm, my hand moves back to the focus and control rings. Adjusting EC between BIF and swimming/standing/perched birds is a simple matter of nudging the ring as I pan. Between the control ring and EVF, I’ve never had such an easy time keeping exposures perfect.
You might say “why not just use the rear dial for EC?”. I tend to shoot wildlife in M so I can keep a proper shutter speed, and let auto ISO float for my exposure… which means I have to push the EC button by the shutter. The control ring is considerably faster, and jostles the viewfinder less than EC button finger gymnastics.
It makes me look a little sideways at my 500PF, and makes me more anxious for the 800/6.3!
3) Sadly, while wearing gloves, the control ring is awful. Even with thin gloves its tiny knurled and thing ring are impossible to feel. I have to take my eye off the viewfinder to find the ring, and then not move my hand, lest I lose it again.
Which leads me to my question: Has anyone here ever put a rubber ring around a focus/zoom ring on a lens to make it more prominent or easy to grip? I’m thinking one of those those anti-creep bands might help make my control ring easier to find by feel when wearing gloves. The “Lens Band” ones look too wide, but surely there’s something in the world of photography or videography that can make this tiny ring more prominent?
RE #3: Maybe try a heavier, thick rubber band over the lens control ring so that you might be able to feel easier with gloves on. I know this may sound overly simplistic, but might work “in a pinch”. Just a thought.
Thanks, I suppose that could work, I’ll just have to find a very tight one, so it doesn’t slip all over the place.
I’m surprised I couldn’t find some kind of grippy rubber ring for video lenses. I know they use all kinds of stuff to make focus pulls easier.
James Farrell wrote:
RE #3: Maybe try a heavier, thick rubber band over the lens control ring so that you might be able to feel easier with gloves on. I know this may sound overly simplistic, but might work “in a pinch”. Just a thought.
One thought would be a tie wrap (available in different colors), but that could end up indenting the control ring if pulled too tight and possibly affect the control ring operation. You could strategically place the tab to help with location / control.
I've used Vortex Optics Riflescope Switchview Throw Levers for ease / access to multipliers on scope optics, but they would be overkill and not available in the circumference needed for a lens.
Hey, that Rhino gear looks like it would do the job nicely! I only need it when shooting with gloves, and it looks like it would be easy to put on and take off again.
Just wondering for those who shot with the 80-400G ED VR lens if you have any comparisons? My 100-400 arrived, and the 80-400 will be being sold next week. Will use the 100-400 for larger birds, or some landscapes too. Didn't use the 80-400 a ton, but it was a nice lens overall on my D850.
padrepaul wrote:
Just wondering for those who shot with the 80-400G ED VR lens if you have any comparisons? My 100-400 arrived, and the 80-400 will be being sold next week. Will use the 100-400 for larger birds, or some landscapes too. Didn't use the 80-400 a ton, but it was a nice lens overall on my D850.
I agree. The 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR was a very good lens, quite underrated, IMO. However, the 100-400 is simply a much better lens, the Z mount seemingly making a big difference to all Z mount lenses.
westsdad wrote:
One thought would be a tie wrap (available in different colors), but that could end up indenting the control ring if pulled too tight and possibly affect the control ring operation. You could strategically place the tab to help with location / control.
I've used Vortex Optics Riflescope Switchview Throw Levers for ease / access to multipliers on scope optics, but they would be overkill and not available in the circumference needed for a lens.
To follow up, I bought this, and put it on my 100-400, as so:
https://i.imgur.com/pjnrXqQ.jpg
I haven't taken it out shooting yet, but playing around in the house with some too-thick gloves on, it's very easy to turn the control ring. I'm definitely going to try this out this winter, it should make it a lot easier to use the ring with gloves.
To follow up, I bought this, and put it on my 100-400, as so:
https://i.imgur.com/pjnrXqQ.jpg
I haven't taken it out shooting yet, but playing around in the house with some too-thick gloves on, it's very easy to turn the control ring. I'm definitely going to try this out this winter, it should make it a lot easier to use the ring with gloves.
Venky wrote:
How did you know which size to get. Thanks.
I wrapped a string around my 100-400's control ring, and then measured the circumference. I turned that into diameter, which came out to something like 89mm. The ring I chose was the 88-90mm model.
The ring stretches a decent amount, so I can shimmy it past the zoom and focus rings.
CKrueger wrote:
I wrapped a string around my 100-400's control ring, and then measured the circumference. I turned that into diameter, which came out to something like 89mm. The ring I chose was the 88-90mm model.
The ring stretches a decent amount, so I can shimmy it past the zoom and focus rings.
What do people typically use the control ring for? I have it disabled on my body because the 14-24 and 100-400 have it, but the 24-70/4, 14-30/4, and 70-300F don't. In order to keep myself from getting confused I just turned it off and do all aperture, shutter speed, and focusing exclusively through the buttons on the body.
