Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
p.12 #1Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS, 1/200s f/5.3 at 310.0mm iso100
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255172/original.jpg
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/400s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso220. Cropped about 25%
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255173/original.jpg
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/400s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso220. Cropped about 20%
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255174/original.jpg
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/160s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso80. Cropped about 35%
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255175/original.jpg
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/800s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso320. Cropped about 15%
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255176/original.jpg
An unremarkable image of an unremarkable bird. However, I was looking the other way when I saw this bird out the corner of my eye and just swung around, pointed the camera and pressed the AF-ON button and fired away. This is the first shot of a 12 shot sequence and all are perfectly in focus, most are within the frame except the last 2 where I failed to react quick enough with the zoom ring. I doubt I could have got this that quickly with the D500 or D850.
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/3200s f/9.0 at 310.0mm iso2000. Cropped about 25%. No noise reduction applied. It was underexposed and I had to lift it up 1/2 a stop plus boost shadows.
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255177/original.jpg
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/400s f/9.0 at 330.0mm iso320
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255178/original.jpg
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/400s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso320. Cropped about 25%
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255179/original.jpg
Splish, splash, I was having a bath.
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/640s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso360. Cropped about 20%
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255182/original.jpgI 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.
Amazing samples Lance!
cheers,
bruceThank 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.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?
As I suspected regarding the 200-400. A friend (4mpx here at FM) has the 200-400 and obtained excellent results long and short distance. You make a good point about atmospheric distortion also. I had noticed this with my Z7II + 500 pf from time to time.
Lance B wrote
OwlsEyes wrote
Lance B wrote
First time in a while I could get out and try the Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS. All are shot with the 1.4x TC except the first image.Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS, 1/200s f/5.3 at 310.0mm iso100
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255172/original.jpg
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/400s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso220. Cropped about 25%
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255173/original.jpg
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/400s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso220. Cropped about 20%
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255174/original.jpg
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/160s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso80. Cropped about 35%
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255175/original.jpg
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/800s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso320. Cropped about 15%
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255176/original.jpg
An unremarkable image of an unremarkable bird. However, I was looking the other way when I saw this bird out the corner of my eye and just swung around, pointed the camera and pressed the AF-ON button and fired away. This is the first shot of a 12 shot sequence and all are perfectly in focus, most are within the frame except the last 2 where I failed to react quick enough with the zoom ring. I doubt I could have got this that quickly with the D500 or D850.
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/3200s f/9.0 at 310.0mm iso2000. Cropped about 25%. No noise reduction applied. It was underexposed and I had to lift it up 1/2 a stop plus boost shadows.
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255177/original.jpg
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/400s f/9.0 at 330.0mm iso320
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255178/original.jpg
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/400s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso320. Cropped about 25%
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255179/original.jpg
Splish, splash, I was having a bath.
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS + Z 1.4x TC, 1/640s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso360. Cropped about 20%
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/172255182/original.jpg
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.
Amazing samples Lance!
cheers,
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.
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?
As I suspected regarding the 200-400. A friend (4mpx here at FM) has the 200-400 and obtained excellent results long and short distance. You make a good point about atmospheric distortion also. I had noticed this with my Z7II + 500 pf from time to time.
Jan 07, 2022 at 08:05 PM
p.12 #2Nikon 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?
These are exquisite! They set the bar high indeed. Detail, colours and composition are very inspiring.
Patrick
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?
These are exquisite! They set the bar high indeed. Detail, colours and composition are very inspiring.
Patrick
Jan 07, 2022 at 08:45 PM
duncang
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.12 #3Nikon 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?
I was told the same by some 'pro' and yet you couldn't capture images like these with a prime lens. Getting close to the subject is half the fun. Would love to see how the Z9/100-400 combo works in this same scenario.
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?
I was told the same by some 'pro' and yet you couldn't capture images like these with a prime lens. Getting close to the subject is half the fun. Would love to see how the Z9/100-400 combo works in this same scenario.
Jan 07, 2022 at 09:36 PM
p.12 #4Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
duncang wrote:
I was told the same by some 'pro' and yet you couldn't capture images like these with a prime lens. Getting close to the subject is half the fun. Would love to see how the Z9/100-400 combo works in this same scenario.
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02658_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02758_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02760_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03790_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03791_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03792_DxO.jpg
These are amazing BIF shots, Duncan.
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?https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02658_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02758_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02760_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03790_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03791_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03792_DxO.jpg
These are amazing BIF shots, Duncan.
Jan 08, 2022 at 12:01 AM
p.12 #5Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Incredible! These little guys are incredibly hard to catch. The shots over water are particularly impressive. Kudos, Duncan!
Jan 08, 2022 at 12:20 AM
p.12 #7Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
duncang wrote:
I was told the same by some 'pro' and yet you couldn't capture images like these with a prime lens. Getting close to the subject is half the fun. Would love to see how the Z9/100-400 combo works in this same scenario.
Awesome job!!
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?Awesome job!!
Jan 08, 2022 at 06:47 AM
p.12 #8Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Guys, guys, guys and girls. These images are just AMAZING. It’s 16F (-8.8C) here in Pennsylvania and while I would love to be photographing Pelicans, Parrots, Swallows and Egrets I’m just going to have to drool over your fantastic images. Keep them coming.
I’m going out in my Arctic gear to try and photograph some Snow Buntings.
Hope it’s as good as last year.
Field Birds
I’m going out in my Arctic gear to try and photograph some Snow Buntings.
Hope it’s as good as last year.
Field Birds
Jan 08, 2022 at 06:58 AM
p.12 #9Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Since the TCs for Z lens seem to be far better than the older AF-S TCs, is a 2.0 S used with a 70-200 f2.8 S a reasonable substitute for the 100-400? Not looking to save money, but rather keep the bag lighter.
Jan 08, 2022 at 07:09 AM
p.12 #10Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
These look like the same type of shots people in the Sony circles of this site and social media claim the Z9 can't do. Excellent shots.
duncang wrote:
I was told the same by some 'pro' and yet you couldn't capture images like these with a prime lens. Getting close to the subject is half the fun. Would love to see how the Z9/100-400 combo works in this same scenario.
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02658_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02758_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02760_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03790_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03791_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03792_DxO.jpg
duncang wrote:
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?https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02658_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02758_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02760_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03790_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03791_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03792_DxO.jpg
Jan 08, 2022 at 07:11 AM
|
p.12 #11Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
JadedWriter wrote:
These look like the same type of shots people in the Sony circles of this site and social media claim the Z9 can't do. Excellent shots.
duncang wrote
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?https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02658_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02758_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02760_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03790_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03791_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03792_DxO.jpg
Those were shot with A1.
Edited on Jan 08, 2022 at 08:43 AM · View previous versions
Jan 08, 2022 at 08:25 AM
p.12 #12Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Just returned after freezing my whatsit's off in the frigid conditions and took a few shots.
Horned Lark
Horned Lark
Jan 08, 2022 at 08:43 AM
p.12 #13Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
You’re good at spotting Sony shots! 
Why someone would post A1 photos in a Nikon photo thread is beyond me.
Remember; there is a dedicated discussion thread for this lens!!
Take discussions here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1725660
JadedWriter wrote:
These look like the same type of shots people in the Sony circles of this site and social media claim the Z9 can't do. Excellent shots.
I was told the same by some 'pro' and yet you couldn't capture images like these with a prime lens. Getting close to the subject is half the fun. Would love to see how the Z9/100-400 combo works in this same scenario.
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02658_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02758_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02760_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03790_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03791_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03792_DxO.jpg
Why someone would post A1 photos in a Nikon photo thread is beyond me.
Remember; there is a dedicated discussion thread for this lens!!
Take discussions here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1725660
JadedWriter wrote:
These look like the same type of shots people in the Sony circles of this site and social media claim the Z9 can't do. Excellent shots.
duncang wrote
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?https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02658_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02758_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02760_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03790_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03791_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03792_DxO.jpg
Jan 08, 2022 at 08:49 AM
p.12 #14Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
JadedWriter wrote:
These look like the same type of shots people in the Sony circles of this site and social media claim the Z9 can't do. Excellent shots.
First, those are shot on Sony, not the Z9. They demonstrate why the Sony guys have been so enthusiastic the last few years that Sony cameras with stacked sensors have been available. Fast, silent, shutterless shooting.
None of the non stacked sensor Nikon or Sony mirrorless cameras could consistently produce these results with these subjects and conditions.
Now that Nikon does have a high performance stacked sensor mirrorless camera in it's lineup I expect we will see similar images coming from the Z9. I have not seen postings by Sony users or anyone for that matter saying that the Z9 can't shoot at this level.
The point of the post is that the 100-400mm focal length is capable of these kinds of images.
Edited on Jan 08, 2022 at 09:16 AM · View previous versions
Jan 08, 2022 at 09:03 AM
p.12 #15Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
RoamingScott wrote
Why someone would post A1 photos in a Nikon photo thread is beyond me.
He was responding to questions about the limits of a Lens with a 100-400mm focal length. He shot those images with a lens of the same focal length. He referenced that, not the camera or brand which he properly avoided doing. The many supportive post regarding the images confirms that relevance. The only controversy started when someone wanted to turn the contribution into a brand thing. That backfired in a hilarious way.
The posting of the images was relevant and positive to the discussion. It was the brand post that was the problem.
Jan 08, 2022 at 09:14 AM
p.12 #16Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Removing this as it is so far gone from the Thread topic....click for previous version if you really want to read it...
Edited on Jan 08, 2022 at 10:07 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Jan 08, 2022 at 10:07 AM · View previous versions
Jan 08, 2022 at 09:15 AM
p.12 #17Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
1bwana1 wrote:
He was responding to questions about the limits of a Lens with a 100-400mm focal length. He shot those images with a lens of the same focal length. He referenced that, not the camera or brand which he properly avoided doing. The many supportive post regarding the images confirms that relevance. The only controversy started when someone wanted to turn the contribution into a brand thing. That backfired in a hilarious way.
The posting of the images was relevant and positive to the discussion. It was the brand post that was the problem.
If you're pointing to my post, I just wanted to make sure that people don't live in illusion, the images were taken by Z9/100-400s.
My impression was, that was actually happening after that post, I was a bit confused as well, how it was worded, but I downloaded image to make sure what was going on.
RoamingScott wrote
Why someone would post A1 photos in a Nikon photo thread is beyond me.The posting of the images was relevant and positive to the discussion. It was the brand post that was the problem.
If you're pointing to my post, I just wanted to make sure that people don't live in illusion, the images were taken by Z9/100-400s.
My impression was, that was actually happening after that post, I was a bit confused as well, how it was worded, but I downloaded image to make sure what was going on.
Jan 08, 2022 at 09:20 AM
p.12 #18Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Stating that in his comment would've really staved off some confusion on my part.
cvrle59 wrote:
I was told the same by some 'pro' and yet you couldn't capture images like these with a prime lens. Getting close to the subject is half the fun. Would love to see how the Z9/100-400 combo works in this same scenario.
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02658_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02758_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02760_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03790_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03791_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03792_DxO.jpgThose were shot with A1.
cvrle59 wrote:
JadedWriter wrote
These look like the same type of shots people in the Sony circles of this site and social media claim the Z9 can't do. Excellent shots.duncang wrote
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?https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02658_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02758_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG02760_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03790_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03791_DxO.jpg
https://duncangroenewald.com/img/wildlife/birds/welcome-swallow/DAG03792_DxO.jpg
Jan 08, 2022 at 09:26 AM
p.12 #19Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Oh please I poke my head in the A1 vs Z9 thread in the Sony board from time to time. I'm not the only one turning anything into a brand thing.
1bwana1 wrote:
He was responding to questions about the limits of a Lens with a 100-400mm focal length. He shot those images with a lens of the same focal length. He referenced that, not the camera or brand which he properly avoided doing. The many supportive post regarding the images confirms that relevance. The only controversy started when someone wanted to turn the contribution into a brand thing. That backfired in a hilarious way.
The posting of the images was relevant and positive to the discussion. It was the brand post that was the problem.
1bwana1 wrote:
RoamingScott wrote
Why someone would post A1 photos in a Nikon photo thread is beyond me.The posting of the images was relevant and positive to the discussion. It was the brand post that was the problem.
Jan 08, 2022 at 09:28 AM
p.12 #20Nikon 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?
Obviously you didn't for these, excellent work!
OTOH, a lot of users are posting images here with the 1.4x at 540 -- and on the upside it seems to work well.
I have not shot serious birds since film days, so take what I say with that in mind. We'd have a 300/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 hanging on a body off a shoulder and then either the 600/4 or 800/5.6 on a stout tripod with a gimbal head -- there was no IBIS or VR in those days and we'd be lucky to get 1 or 2 keepers per 36 exposure roll on the gimbaled camera. Even so back then, getting physically close was always superior to getting optically close, and I suspect that still holds.
I still think a 600 is probably the sweet spot for serious birding on raptors, and the 800 for smaller birds. However, being able to zoom out for flocks or pairs is beneficial. As such, the 200-600 intrigues me as a viable possibility, especially so if it performs well with the 1.4X. However it appears it will not be an S line lens, or is there some hope it will be? The 100-400 is and it's quickly becoming a proven performer. So unless the 200-600 is at least equal to the 100-400+1.4X, this lens may be the winner in this category.
Interesting times for sure.
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?
Obviously you didn't for these, excellent work!
OTOH, a lot of users are posting images here with the 1.4x at 540 -- and on the upside it seems to work well.
I have not shot serious birds since film days, so take what I say with that in mind. We'd have a 300/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 hanging on a body off a shoulder and then either the 600/4 or 800/5.6 on a stout tripod with a gimbal head -- there was no IBIS or VR in those days and we'd be lucky to get 1 or 2 keepers per 36 exposure roll on the gimbaled camera. Even so back then, getting physically close was always superior to getting optically close, and I suspect that still holds.
I still think a 600 is probably the sweet spot for serious birding on raptors, and the 800 for smaller birds. However, being able to zoom out for flocks or pairs is beneficial. As such, the 200-600 intrigues me as a viable possibility, especially so if it performs well with the 1.4X. However it appears it will not be an S line lens, or is there some hope it will be? The 100-400 is and it's quickly becoming a proven performer. So unless the 200-600 is at least equal to the 100-400+1.4X, this lens may be the winner in this category.
Interesting times for sure.
Jan 08, 2022 at 09:41 AM