Excellent shots Bruce and thanks for the info! Mine is being shipped to me Monday with the 24-120, I said wait until you have both instead of shipping one at a time. Can't use them until I get the Z9 but Im NPS and ordered it immediately so Im sure I'll get it soon.
George DeCamp wrote:
Excellent shots Bruce and thanks for the info! Mine is being shipped to me Monday with the 24-120, I said wait until you have both instead of shipping one at a time. Can't use them until I get the Z9 but Im NPS and ordered it immediately so Im sure I'll get it soon.
Thanks George...
I think that you will have the perfect two lens kit. In fact, I could imagine someone (say me ) owning a 24-70 (24-120), 100-400, and 500PF w/ a Z9 and not needing anything but a cheap back up camera. As a guy in my mid to late 50's, I could spend the rest of my life with this gear and be just fine... However, to be clear, I probably said the same thing about the D500/D850
I hope you get the Z9 soon,... really wish I had the $$ to get one of those as well.
Thanks Luke...
I'm done for the day, but I'll give it a go next weekend. I'm pretty picky when it comes images with a converter, and would likely reserve the 100-400 + 1.4x for days when I want to use a minimal kit. The loss of one stop is killer, because I really like to shoot from pre-sunrise (early light) + 2 hours. For example, I was on site at 7:20 (sunrise at 7:45) and was driving home by 9:00. The Z6II can handle ISO6400, but I do not like to push it beyond that.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Thanks Luke...
I'm done for the day, but I'll give it a go next weekend. I'm pretty picky when it comes images with a converter, and would likely reserve the 100-400 + 1.4x for days when I want to use a minimal kit. The loss of one stop is killer, because I really like to shoot from pre-sunrise (early light) + 2 hours. For example, I was on site at 7:20 (sunrise at 7:45) and was driving home by 9:00. The Z6II can handle ISO6400, but I do not like to push it beyond that.
regards,
Bruce
Excellent shots, thanks for sharing them.
I know, it's short time for any serious conclusion, but how does 100-400 wide open at 400mm compares to 500pf wide open, so far?
George
cvrle59 wrote:
Excellent shots, thanks for sharing them.
I know, it's short time for any serious conclusion, but how does 100-400 wide open at 400mm compares to 500pf wide open, so far?
George
Thanks George...
I am not ready to make any declarations about one lens vs another. I can say that I would not hesitate to use either lens in "mission critical" situations. Like Brad, I found it to focus really quickly.
regards,
Bruce
Ryan74 wrote:
Everyone is discussing this lens performance on the Z9, but I'm assuming it should also do just fine on my Z6?
Very few people have shot the lens with the Z9... If you look at the EXIF in my swan pictures, and read my report ("(3) In the field:"), you'll see how it responded to the Z6ii.
gdsf2 wrote:
Cool, I just got shipping conformation from my dealer on my 100-400 and FTZII. Should be here tomorrow or Wednesday. Now just need that Z9!!
Just got my 100-400. I've only checked to see that it's in good shape so far, but for those interested in its minimum focus distance, at 400mm I get about 88mm coverage across the frame. Figuring 90/36, that's about 1:2.5 reproduction.
At 200mm I get about 130mm coverage, or 1:3.6. Still not too shabby.
It's not nearly as rosy a story at 100mm, unfortunately... something like 260mm coverage (1:7-ish, otherwise known as "don't bother").
It's not bug season here, but I'm anxious to see if the 100-400 will be sharp enough at MFD to stand in for my macro while hiking. Even without a 500D or 1.4x it's plenty close for bees and other large bugs.
Time to go check the local lakes... it's pretty sparse around here right now, but maybe I'll get lucky!
CKrueger wrote:
Just got my 100-400. I've only checked to see that it's in good shape so far, but for those interested in its minimum focus distance, at 400mm I get about 88mm coverage across the frame. Figuring 90/36, that's about 1:2.5 reproduction.
At 200mm I get about 130mm coverage, or 1:3.6. Still not too shabby.
It's not nearly as rosy a story at 100mm, unfortunately... something like 260mm coverage (1:7-ish, otherwise known as "don't bother").
It's not bug season here, but I'm anxious to see if the 100-400 will be sharp enough at MFD to stand in for my macro while hiking. Even without a 500D or 1.4x it's plenty close for bees and other large bugs.
Time to go check the local lakes... it's pretty sparse around here right now, but maybe I'll get lucky! ...Show more →
You should peek into my thread, i'm posting 100-400 MFD samples.
) owning a 24-70 (24-120), 100-400, and 500PF w/ a Z9 and not needing anything but a cheap back up camera. As a guy in my mid to late 50's, I could spend the rest of my life with this gear and be just fine... However, to be clear, I probably said the same thing about the D500/D850 