saaketham wrote:
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).
Opps, never mind. I mentioned the tension ring n another thread but I misread the information. On Nikon website, they said zoom creep is prevented without using tension adjustment, my bad. So you cannot adjust the tension on the zoom ring. It is 200grams lighter than the 80-400 as well.
One gentleman saw me trying it on my z7ii, and asked if he could check it out. He held it briefly and then said "Wow, I want to pre order". The sales guy led him away to pre order. 😅
My personal feeling is that the 100-400 will sell well.
The 24-120 .... not sure but maybe because I am a f/2.8 shooter below 200mm.
z 24-70mm f/2.8 and z 100-400 + 1.4x TC would be a great combo for all sorts of use.
It fills the gap super well for me, I hardly ever use my 70-200 as it's too short for most non people stuff. I think it will be perfect with the 500pf and 600f4 or 800f*, and sits well between those and normal to wide lenses.
I had the foot issue with the 500pf, nearly dropped it day one. I put that garbage foot in the box and ordered the Wimberley foot that only screws on. Not that I use the foot much, most of the time it's rotated out of the way and handheld. I expect to do the same with the 100-400S.
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).
This versatility is exactly why I’ve pre-ordered one. Going to be a terrific close up lens for backyard safaris and a versatile zoom for actual big mammal safaris. Also fills a nice landscape niche for those of us wanting longer than a 70-200. It seems to be optically on par with the stellar z70-200 and if that proves out, I will keep my order. I have very high hopes for this lens, especially paired with a Z9.
My most used landscape lens is the 70-200mm but I run out of magnification and have to stop and add the 1.4x fairly often or switch to the bulky, heavy 200-500mm. I've preordered the 100-400 and hope it is a good replacement, allowing me to keep focusing on creating and composing in the field instead of hassling with converter/lens swapping. I also preordered the 24-120 to make a seamless pair and hope that has solid IQ also.
One of the best living landscape shooters Michael Frye makes good use of a 100-400 (Sony). It's a great range for those who see with telephoto eyes for intimate and/or abstract landscapes.
I am hesitating. I have a 600 f4, lense. 70/200 2.8s. The 100/400 would be a good combo with the 600 for wildlife but not enough reach for birds if I want a light lense. It become a 560 F8 with the 1.4TC. I might wait for the 200/600 but it won't be a S line lense but would be even more versatile.
rick2906 wrote:
I am hesitating. I have a 600 f4, lense. 70/200 2.8s. The 100/400 would be a good combo with the 600 for wildlife but not enough reach for birds if I want a light lense. It become a 560 F8 with the 1.4TC. I might wait for the 200/600 but it won't be a S line lense but would be even more versatile.
Definitely a tough choice there. I think I will still want the 200-600mm for birds/wildlife to replace the 200-500mm.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
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
If you mainly use the zoom at its longest focal length, I understand that this should not be a major issue. However, I want to use the zoom to photograph subjects that approach the camera or are at various distances, and I use the tripod (and gimbal head or fluid head) so I can let go of the rig and it'll stay in position. I might have the camera and lens on a window mount and use it to photograph and video deer or moose activities. It would really annoy me if at different focal lengths the rig can accidentally flop and it some part of the tripod or door mount when I take off my
hands.
In the case of the Z9, the new 100-400 might be too light to balance easily, and a small fluid head would probably work better (e.g. Gitzo two-way fluid head which has an adjustable counterbalance mechanism).
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
I asked you yesterday how you calculated 285mm, but I haven't gotten an answer yet, thanks.
My impression was, if there is no focus breathing, field of view should hold 400mm at MFD.
The only info about focus breathing so far we have from Ricci, it doesn't exist per his findings.
So something is wrong, either your calculation, or my impression.
I think that the 100-400S will be a different class of lens than the 200-600 (non-S).
In terms of build, speed, and innovation, I think the 100-400 is in the F-mount 80-400G slot, while the 200-600Z will be in the 200-500 f/5.6 slot.
While many claim that the 200-500 is as good as the 300PF and 500PF, this is only true in good light with closer subjects. The 300PF/500PF combo bests the 200-500 in low light or where flair is an issue. I think the 100-400S will have significant improvements over the 80-400G, and will be a better lens at overlapping 200-600 focal lengths. I suspect that the 200-600 will have a slower AF motor and more plastic in the build... much like the 200-500. The good news, is that the 200-600 should cost less than $1800, assuming the price structure of F to Z equivalents remain the same.
I think the 200-600 will be the perfect lens for my wife. She has two bodies, and keeps a 24-200 on one of them. Until the 200-600 comes out, she'll use our 70-200S and 300PF w/1.4x. The 200-600 will replace these for everything but hikes where the 300PF wins.
On the other hand, I will work w/ a 24-70S, 100-400S, and 500PF. My 500PF will be my wildlife lens until I see what the pricing & weight of the forthcoming 600mm and 800mm S lenses.
The more recent 100-400 type lenses starting with the Canon 100-400II back in 2015 have become much more versatile lenses because of their high MM values and therefore semi-macro capabilities. They are great for landscapes, great for flowers, insects, frogs etc. They are great for larger wildlife and maybe large birds or even small birds in certain locations. With TCs getting better and better and AF systems being able to easily focus at f/8 and slower you can even make the 100-400 work for general birding.
I've always had a 100-400 type lens in my bag. Starting with the Canon 100-400 (which was my first long lens but didn't have the MM benefit), then the 100-400II followed by the Sony 100-400GM. I made that Sony 100-400GM work for birds with the TCs on the 20MP A9 as best as I could as I had no other lens options at the time. I sold off the Sony when I bought the Canon R5 and 100-500 which also has the same type of benefits like MM. After selling off the Canon kit I immediately bought another Sony 100-400GM as I like having a smaller lens and one that I can do the semi-macro stuff.
If I was going to make a full switch back to Nikon I'd most likely be buying a Z 100-400S for the same reasons I've kept similar lenses in my kits despite having better lenses for birds (like 200-600, 500PF, 200-500 and the bigger primes).
One of the things I like about the 100-400 is it’s close focusing ability, about 3.5ft at 400mm. Then add a converter and you really have an awesome lens for dragonflies and butterflies etc. I’ve ordered it for myself. Also ordered the 24-120 so it’s a nice all around package to add to my 500pf and I have the 600vr also, the older one but it should work fine.
cvrle59 wrote:
I asked you yesterday how you calculated 285mm, but I haven't gotten an answer yet, thanks.
My impression was, if there is no focus breathing, field of view should hold 400mm at MFD.
The only info about focus breathing so far we have from Ricci, it doesn't exist per his findings.
So something is wrong, either your calculation, or my impression.
For distant subjects, the FL can be calculated approximately by knowing the magnification (M) and the focusing distance (D): M = FL/D and FL = M x D.
For the 100-400 Z we have M = 0.38 & D = 980 mm (0.98 m) at the long end; therefore, FL = 0.38x980 = 372 mm.
However, at 0.38 X magnification, we cannot consider valid the previous calculation (a subject at 980 mm is not so distant, considering the nominal focal length of 400 mm!!!), and therefore we should expect a different (typically shorter) effective FL value at D.
Actually, at close distances, the following relationship holds:
D - InD = FL x (1/M + M + 2),
where D is the focusing distance, M the magnification and InD the internodal distance (distance between nodal points in the lens at set magnification, M, and focus distance, D). If we assume (but it's not correct!) that InD = 0, then we get FL = D/(1/M + M + 2)*. In our case we'd get FL = 980/(1/0.38 + 0.38 + 2) = 195 mm.
To have a reasonable guess of the exact FL at 0.38X and 98 cm, we must know InD. Alternatively, we must know the optical design of the lens and run a suitable software to perform calculations (see http://pierretoscani.com/breathing.html ).
*: InD = 0 only for thin lenses, not for objects made of many thick glass elements.
Ripolini wrote:
For distant subjects, the FL can be calculated approximately by knowing the magnification (M) and the focusing distance (D): M = FL/D and FL = M x D.
For the 100-400 Z we have M = 0.38 & D = 980 mm (0.98 m) at the long end; therefore, FL = 0.38x980 = 372 mm.
However, at 0.38 X magnification, we cannot consider valid the previous calculation (a subject at 980 mm is not so distant, considering the nominal focal length of 400 mm!!!), and therefore we should expect a different (typically shorter) effective FL value at D.
Actually, at close distances, the following relationship holds:
D - InD = FL x (1/M + M + 2),
where D is the focusing distance, M the magnification and InD the internodal distance (distance between nodal points in the lens at set magnification, M, and focus distance, D). If we assume (but it's not correct!) that InD = 0, then we get FL = D/(1/M + M + 2)*. In our case we'd get FL = 980/(1/0.38 + 0.38 + 2) = 195 mm.
To have a reasonable guess of the exact FL at 0.38X and 98 cm, we must know InD. Alternatively, we must know the optical design of the lens and run a suitable software to perform calculations (see http://pierretoscani.com/breathing.html ).
*: InD = 0 only for thin lenses, not for objects made of many thick glass elements. ...Show more →
Thanks for the explanation!
The only information about focus breathing we have so far is from Ricci, how accurate, I hope he knew what he was doing.
Nikon probably managed to minimize it, compared to Sony 100-400, with some noticable breathing.
This interview of Nikon engineering provides some good tidbits regarding the design philosophy of the the z-9 and z 100-400. Seems like they were carefully designed for great synergy. The design team emphasized lens haptics and mitigation of chromatic aberration across the range of focal lengths.
If everything goes as planned (I wish) with the Z9 and the 100-400S, if the lens is as good as I'm expecting it may well be, I'll add the 2.0x teleconverter to get me that 800mm reach for those times when it really matters. We shall see.
dcisive wrote:
If everything goes as planned (I wish) with the Z9 and the 100-400S, if the lens is as good as I'm expecting it may well be, I'll add the 2.0x teleconverter to get me that 800mm reach for those times when it really matters. We shall see.
I would put the 1.4 on it. I would not plan to use the 2x. But, I never would use the 2x on any lens. Maybe others will try it and show me I am wrong. That would be a welcome surprise.
gdsf2 wrote:
I would put the 1.4 on it. I would not plan to use the 2x. But, I never would use the 2x on any lens. Maybe others will try it and show me I am wrong. That would be a welcome surprise.
Since I got my first Z body last July (Nikon Z fc), the use of teleconverters is very different from my DSLR. The Z fc can focus with great speed and accuracy with lens+TC combo as slow as f/14.
An example, Nikon Z fc, AF-S 200-400mm f/4G VR1+TC-20EIII, @800mm, handheld:
