GroovyGeek wrote:
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.
I'm using it for exposure compensation.
I have to admit, it's easy to bump on my 24-70/2.8, and its very sensitive, smooth, and clickless operation means I sometimes struggle with it a bit. I sometimes accidentally spin it, or spin it too far. On my 100-400 it's out of the way enough that I don't accidentally spin it.
I use my 24-70 primarily for candids, and it's pretty useful there... shooting in sometimes-backlit conditions I find the ring is easier to keep EC correct than with my right thumb on the main dial, which is doing double duty on the focus joystick. It's not a game-changer by any means, especially when I'm using flash (because it can't control FEC, darn it!), but I like it.
For the little I've shot with my 100-400 so far, I find it very useful for birds. I set the zoom to 400mm, then move my hand back to the focus and control rings. As I pan around shooting or looking for birds, I continuously adjust the control ring to keep the exposure correct.
In Av I can certainly adjust EC with the main dial, but I find the control wheel easier because it allows me to keep my thumb on AF-ON and nudge the focus joystick. And most of the time, I shoot birds in M mode... wide open aperture, something like 1/1000sec, and auto ISO. Adjusting EC without the wheel in this mode requires me to take my finger off the shutter to press the EC button. The control dial is much easier to use in this case, and it's also nice to have a dial for shutter speed, so I can slow down the shutter (and thus lower ISO) for stationary birds.
It's not like the control dial is essential, but I really like it, and I wish my 500PF had one.
Props to @JadedWriter for pointing out a clever way to solve the "reversed hood blocking the zoom ring" issue on the 100-400...assuming this Mamiya hood isn't too deep (the 100-400's hood is deeply petaled).
Just happened to have a collapsible 77mm filter sitting in my film box
Thank you , I order two. Hopefully it will fit fine on the 70/200 2.8s too
CKrueger wrote:
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.
Just received my copy and tested it on my 'old' Z7 all day. Files SOOC in Capture One 22 were all very sharp from 100 to 380mm wide open. But I was bummed to see that 400mm looked notably softer with less contrast wide open. I spent a good part of the day troubleshooting that outcome. My copy is well-centered.
The zoom produced an amazingly close performance to the Z MC 105mm at same F/L from f/5.6 to f/16, with the macro showing advantage in the corners when more open than 5.6. This result is mind-blowing given how sharp the MC is across the frame.
So, time to address the less than spectacular results at 400mm/5.6 at 3 feet or closer. I used a focus rail to assess potential front- or back-focus bias, but that was not the case. Best plane of focus is where my Z7 thinks it is. So, I started re-examining the close-up wide-open 400mm files in Capture One 22. Normally C1 nails sharpening by default, but those files all benefited significantly from additional sharpening amount (more than double the default) and sometimes also a slight radius increase. General pop also improved with some clarity bump over the default (to about 20). Results are like night and day difference! The information was there all along, waiting to be unmasked, but C1 kind of dumped on it by default. This default let-down is the first time C1 has done that across 4 different camera systems and more than 20 lenses I own or have rented.
Bottom line is I'm extremely pleased by what I can get from this lens across its full range of apertures and focal lengths. The lens's micro-contrast is outstanding, the acutance is terrific, and the falloff to blur is pleasing. Love the color and the overall render is rich and dimensional. It rivals primes across most of its range - at least on par with the stellar 500mm PF and Z 70-200/2.8 I rented for comparison. I like the bokeh better than that of the PF, and the focal length better than that of the 70-200. My needs are met and I will not be buying either one of those. I can't wait to receive a Z9 to add some fast action captures my Z7 struggles to nail.
woodstork wrote:
Just received my copy and testing it on my 'old' Z7. Very sharp at 100, 200, and 300mm wide open except 400mm looks notably softer wide open. When I stop down to f/8, it is very sharp at 400mm. I tested the lens for decentering and it is well-centered. All tests conducted on a tripod, IBIS off, at ISO 64 to 100. Manual focus, AF-C, and AF-S all return similar results. I'm going to test 400mm at f/6.1 or so and see if it gets better than 5.6.
I'm seeing what appears to be very sharp results at 400mm open on samples posted here by Z9 owners. But its hard to tell reagarding 100% - so my question is how is this lens performing at 400mm wide open for you? Is there a noticeable drop in acutance and some loss of contrast there versus stopped down a bit or zoomed in less? It is good there, but not great for my copy.
Conversely, my copy is amazingly close to performance of the Z MC 105mm at same FL from f/5.6 to f/16, with the macro showing advantage in the corners when more open. This result is mind-blowing given how sharp the MC is. So, I don't think I have bad optics in my zoom, but maybe the focus array is off and crosses some noticeable error threshold at full zoom when DOF is shallowest? Or maybe the lens just isn't a stellar performer open at 400mm?...Show more →
Did you happen to see my posts in my "comparing to my sony" thread on the nikon forum? I ended up swapping my lens and got a far sharper copy at 400mm with the second lens. My first lens didn't tighten up till f8 which was unacceptable.
RoamingScott wrote:
Did you happen to see my posts in my "comparing to my sony" thread on the nikon forum? I ended up swapping my lens and got a far sharper copy at 400mm with the second lens. My first lens didn't tighten up till f8 which was unacceptable.
I did see your posts... and I'm afraid I may have the same issue (different serial number - I checked). But it also may be something different or me being too particular. Were you getting softer results wide open at smaller F/L or just 400mm? Because I'm getting great results wide open at 300mm for example.
Honestly didn’t check at shorter distances as mine is almost always used at 400.
woodstork wrote:
I did see your posts... and I'm afraid I may have the same issue (different serial number - I checked). But it also may be something different or me being too particular. Were you getting softer results wide open at smaller F/L or just 400mm? Because I'm getting great results wide open at 300mm for example.
Thanks Roaming... I just edited my post with some additional results. The only scenario I'm getting less than stellar capture is close up (~3 feet), 400mm, wide open. If I just stop down to f/6.3 things tighten acceptably at that distance, or if I zoom out to 380mm close-up wide-open results get tight. For more normal wildlife distances (e.g. 20 feet), 400mm wide open is looking great.
My next test is to use a focusing rail close up and see if its just that the Z7 sucks at close focusing the new zoom, and it is just good enough that its only noticeable at f/5.6 at 400mm. FW 3.4 mentioned updating Z7 compatibility for the Z 24-120mm but no mention of this one.
p.s. Turns out it was mostly the Capture One default sharpening was too low. Once I added a more optimal amount of sharpening and a bit more radius, the wide-open close-up 400mm files popped like the rest of the range at default.I'm a happy camper with my copy now.
Keep in mind there is almost NO scenario where MFD at 400mm and wide open will give you adequate DOF for anything. I usually open to at LEAST f8 at MFD just for acceptable DOF.
I was getting soft results at range which was far more concerning.
woodstork wrote:
Thanks Roaming... I just edited my post with some additional results. The only scenario I'm getting less than stellar capture is close up (~3 feet), 400mm, wide open. If I just stop down to f/6.3 things tighten acceptably at that distance, or if I zoom out to 380mm close-up wide-open results get tight. For more normal wildlife distances (e.g. 20 feet), 400mm wide open is looking great.
My next test is to use a focusing rail close up and see if its just that the Z7 sucks at close focusing the new zoom, and it is just good enough that its only noticeable at f/5.6 at 400mm. FW 3.4 mentioned updating Z7 compatibility for the Z 24-120mm but no mention of this one....Show more →
Hey Scott, I have the same Ego charger, so I can give you some apples-to-apples! Unfortunately it was already getting dark at 4:15pm here, but I was able to shoot outside with a tripod at ISO100 on my Z6.
Here's my results!
First shot is my 105 MC at f/5.6 a couple feet from the target. I'd call that an "ideal case"!
Second shot is my 100-400 at 100mm f/5.6 at the same distance.
First shot is my 100-400 at 400mm f/5.6 perhaps six feet from the target.
Second shot is my 500PF at f/5.6 at the same distance. As close to an "ideal case" as I can muster with my equipment. Note I did NOT correct for distance, cause I was running out of light!
Lance B wrote:
Did you not see that the RoamingScott replaced the 100-400 with another copy and it is way sharper?
No sorry I didn't I was looking at CKruegers images - I had the 500pf and the 200-500 and the latter was a bit soft around the edges but that image taken with the 100-400 seems soft right across the frame. A bit disappointing if there is that much variability in the quality given it is an expensive lens. How hard can it be to test the lens before you ship it ?
duncang wrote:
No sorry I didn't I was looking at CKruegers images - I had the 500pf and the 200-500 and the latter was a bit soft around the edges but that image taken with the 100-400 seems soft right across the frame. A bit disappointing if there is that much variability in the quality given it is an expensive lens. How hard can it be to test the lens before you ship it ?
I went back and shot some more tests with my 100-400 after that test. I think in my haste to beat the light last time I had a slight misfocus on my 100-400. During my second test I noticed I had some obvious winners and losers out of roughly ten frames from each lens, which is more variation between shots than I am used to with mirrorless.
In any case, with my ideal frames from the second test between the 500PF and 100-400 (plus 1.4x this time), the results were very close. The 500PF is still a tiny bit sharper, but I had to get past 100% to really see the differences, which is past the point I care about.
CKrueger wrote:
I went back and shot some more tests with my 100-400 after that test. I think in my haste to beat the light last time I had a slight misfocus on my 100-400. During my second test I noticed I had some obvious winners and losers out of roughly ten frames from each lens, which is more variation between shots than I am used to with mirrorless.
In any case, with my ideal frames from the second test between the 500PF and 100-400 (plus 1.4x this time), the results were very close. The 500PF is still a tiny bit sharper, but I had to get past 100% to really see the differences, which is past the point I care about. ...Show more →
I'm pretty interested in trying out the 1.4 TC with the 100-400 on the Z7ii. Any idea how that performs in practice?
