p.11 #7 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
MikeInPa wrote:
I read somewhere that some genius was proclaiming that the 100-400 is too short to take bird pictures. I have to disagree, what do you think?
VERY nice Mike. That Eastern BB just pops out of the screen!
p.11 #8 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Really nice! 👌 The colors are beautiful 😍
MikeInPa wrote:
I read somewhere that some genius was proclaiming that the 100-400 is too short to take bird pictures. I have to disagree, what do you think?
p.11 #11 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Can’t wait to see your results! Good luck and have fun!
I’ll be happy when we have more hours of sunlight here. I have zero hours of daylight to shoot on the weekdays during the winter. It’s good I don’t have a Z9 or I’d go insane!
p.11 #12 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
A shot from my first outing with 100-400. I am finding it to be super sharp. My dilemma is how much use it will get since I also have the amazing 500PF which is f5.6 at 500, and I mostly shoot birds.
White Pelican, Nikon Z 100-400 on Z7ii, 400mm, f/5.6, 1/4000s at ISO1400
p.11 #13 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
I love everything about these but the increased depth of field. Of course, this is the problem with shooting @ f/8 (or even f/5.6).
The lens is so very sharp and has amazing clarity in spite of the 1.4x. This suggests that Nikon was very thoughtful of the lens design when it comes to base performance and performance with converters.
Sadly, we still can't get around the nature of optics and how increased depth of field renders a background of branches and leaves.
I've been shooting without my former 200-400 f/4 for about a year now. The 500PF gives me more focal length at a lighter weight. In addition, my 100-400 now offers me the flexibility of my former zoom in a Z-native package... however, I still miss what the 200-400mm lens could do at 400mm f/4 to 4.5. Sure, it was not as blistering sharp as my other lenses,... but wow could it render a background to something soft and mushy.
Fortunately for you, you have a 400mm f/2.8E in your wheelhouse for those days when quality bokeh really matters.
I agree that the extra DOF does take a bit away from images like these but as we know, it is the nature of the beast when your widest aperture is f5.6. This was more of a test of the 100-400 to see how it fared with the 1.4x TC, but also testing the Z9 eye AF etc. The first time I have been to a pond like this where there are plenty of subjects. I will get out with the 400 f2.8 one day and see how that works!
As a matter of interest, was the 200-400 better on the Z mount? I had a sneaky suspicion that the softness at distance that some talked about was a AF fine tune thing more than the lens was actually soft at distance. The Z cameras should have eliminated any of this, hopefully.
p.11 #15 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
MikeInPa wrote:
I read somewhere that some genius was proclaiming that the 100-400 is too short to take bird pictures. I have to disagree, what do you think?
p.11 #17 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Lance B wrote:
Thank you very much, Bruce!
I agree that the extra DOF does take a bit away from images like these but as we know, it is the nature of the beast when your widest aperture is f5.6. This was more of a test of the 100-400 to see how it fared with the 1.4x TC, but also testing the Z9 eye AF etc. The first time I have been to a pond like this where there are plenty of subjects. I will get out with the 400 f2.8 one day and see how that works!
As a matter of interest, was the 200-400 better on the Z mount? I had a sneaky suspicion that the softness at distance that some talked about was a AF fine tune thing more than the lens was actually soft at distance. The Z cameras should have eliminated any of this, hopefully. ...Show more →
You are welcome Lance.
I found that the 200-400 was a great lens on my Z6II . The lens focused accurately through its range and did better at longer distances. I, however, found it to be more subject to the negative impact of atmospheric distortion than other long lenses I wonder how it would perform w the Z9’s af “engine.” Hmmm?
p.11 #19 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
I’m on the south end of Cedar Creek lake, most of the eagle activity I’ve seen is around Crandall and south. We have an eagle or 2 that roam our lake, and quite a few more in the surrounds.
The eagle and pelicans I posted were about a block from each other.
EyeSpyEagle wrote:
Lol!
What part of TX are you in? These Pelicans have been spending winters in the DFW area for many years.
I was curious about this when I saw your Pelican & BE shots. We have both in the same basic area here.
This is a horrible shot, but it was taken less than a mile from the Pelicans.
This was more of a test of the 100-400 to see how it fared with the 1.4x TC, but also testing the Z9 eye AF etc. The first time I have been to a pond like this where there are plenty of subjects. I will get out with the 400 f2.8 one day and see how that works! 