p.16 #1 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
saaketham wrote:
I think you're silly .. but I am too much of a peace-loving FM-er to state it
Kidding .. yes, it's a 4x zoom and a compromise lens and should not be compared to f/4 super-tele primes and such.
But then I never complained about this lens, did I?
Something sets those images apart - lighting, background, focus on point, sharpness .. I find Ronny's macro shots delightful
Every lens is a compromise lens.
Jan 10, 2022 at 05:51 PM
duncang Offline • • • [X]
p.16 #2 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Like many other people here I follow these threads regularly although don't often comment. I'm always interested to see what others are doing and how new equipment is performing in order to assist in making buying decisions. The above attacks are why I rarely comment The tailspin to childishness is sadly predictable. Anyone who thinks that eagle pic is "tack sharp" is either drunk, high, clueless, or has no idea what they are talking about. Buying new equipment is the first part of the equation. Too many people think it ends there. The personal attacks by the overly sensitive OP are uncalled for and juvenile. If you can't handle any form of criticism perhaps you shouldn't be posting your amateurish photos on a photography forum where they can be viewed by people who know what to look for in a decent image. You can either take something from that criticism or you can remain delusional and keep blaming your equipment. Here's a big crop taken by a "know nothing", "armchair quarterback", "hardhead" with a lowly third party superzoom for comparison sake. I would have liked to have posted a static shot in poor light on a terrible perch for a true comparison, but I deleted all those. And judging by your posting, face reality sir, you do need some lessons from somebody. Have a great day ...Show more →
What is the point of posting that eagle image, it is a hopeless image, partially extended wings, underside of wings in deep shadow, tail partially in shadow overall poor lighting, half the body and head is in shadow, distracting busy background.
'a "know nothing", "armchair quarterback", "hardhead" ' - your words not mine but I concur - how that does raise the question as to why you seem to think you are qualified to make comments like this below
"Anyone who thinks that eagle pic is "tack sharp" is either drunk, high, clueless, or has no idea what they are talking about."
or where you imply you are a person who "knows what to look for in a decent image", you the offer up some criticism and you proceeded to post a poor image that does not appear to illustrate anything at all except that a cropped D500 jpeg image is terrible.
p.16 #4 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
I like the transitions to out-of-focus areas of this lens. Focus is on the subject's eyelashes to viewer's left. They are, by my most humble definition of the term, absolutely MF/n tack sharp. On images from they same series where I focused on the eyelid I swear I can see skin cells and mitochondria. But that's all beside the point... it is the transition to the blurry stuff I like. This lens renders well. Shot wide open at 400mm on a Z7.
Not sure if I did this right, but the crop is my attempt to show image at 100%.
p.16 #6 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
woodstork wrote:
I like the transitions to out-of-focus areas of this lens.
I feel the same. One of the things I never liked about my Canon 100-400 was its nervous background rendering. A sharp subject isn’t worth much if the rest of the image is distracting and gross.
The Nikon 100-400 does a great job even with busy backgrounds. I certainly can’t pick them out by thumbnails, like I was able to do between my Canon 100-400 and 300/2.8.
MikeInPa wrote:
Absolutely pathetic attempt at a White-breasted Nuthatch.
p.16 #7 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
woodstork wrote:
I like the transitions to out-of-focus areas of this lens. Focus is on the subject's eyelashes to viewer's left. They are, by my most humble definition of the term, absolutely MF/n tack sharp. On images from they same series where I focused on the eyelid I swear I can see skin cells and mitochondria. But that's all beside the point... it is the transition to the blurry stuff I like. This lens renders well. Shot wide open at 400mm on a Z7.
Not sure if I did this right, but the crop is my attempt to show image at 100%.
Daaaammmnnn! That is plenty sharp enough *for me* to use as a tele macro, which is my favorite way to do closeups. Thanks for posting.
p.16 #9 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
In regards to the image thread, whether sharp or blurry, or beautiful, or ugly, as long as images are shot with the lens, that image has the right to belong to the tread. Aside from that, what image speaks to one differs from the other. In my view, tack sharp or blurry, usually is not the major factor whether I like the image or not.
p.16 #10 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
What is going on here? Nikon comes out with a World Class Camera in the Z9. In support of that they are also releasing some very fine longer zoom lenses. How does discussing and exploring these new pieces of gear lead to such conflicted name calling threads? These things should be celebrated.
I can almost at times understand the sensitivity when a user of another system posts an opinion. That is often just ingrained reaction after some difficult years on line for Nikon in some respects. But in this thread that is not what is happening. The Nikon community is eating its own here.
Surely we can do better than this. No piece of gear is perfect. It is expected and appropriate for people to have polite differences of opinion on such things. I have seen nothing in either the Z9, or latest lens releases that deserve this kind of vitriol. Ideally, one should accept criticism, and accolades with similar grace, and not resort to such personal attacks.
p.16 #11 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
My pleasure. This lens opens so many possibilities for that type of shooting. Although subjective, I have to say it can render a medium format look as it relates to isolation, transition, contrast and color. All excellent.
My first day with it I thought it was soft wide open, but I realized on day 2 I just needed to raise my shot discipline because the DOF is so thin with f/5.6 at close range. Day 2 made me feel really good about this lens.
As an aside, the latest Z7 firmware eye and face detect worked pretty well - some bias toward eyelash versus pupil but notable improvement over previous. Nikon engineers are saying they carefully integrated this lens’s performance with the Z9. I can’t wait to try that combo.
Ross Martin wrote:
Daaaammmnnn! That is plenty sharp enough *for me* to use as a tele macro, which is my favorite way to do closeups. Thanks for posting.
p.16 #12 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
I think this lens is going to be one of the most popular z lenses, and for good reason. It is quite capable of producing excellent images, as several images here have shown. I haven't checked all, but several images posted by Lance and Manish's Pelican images are good examples of what this lens can achieve. I am sure there are many others who posted good samples, but those are the 2 I remember admiring.
p.16 #15 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Also, I have updated the OP with the rules of the thread (standard fare for an image thread but apparently it must be spelled out). I will not engage further with off topic posts, but will instead simply report them and I encourage everyone to do the same. I am not reporting any old posts in this thread. Let's tighten it up and get back to enjoying photography.
Happy shooting and looking forward to seeing more images!
p.16 #19 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Alright, I've used up all my popcorn watching this, and so decided to add a few "test" shots of my own. No birds or landscapes. Just some late-night testing sitting around after everyone else had gone to sleep last night. Both shots are handheld. The ISO is cranked up to 6400 on my Z7ii, and the 100% crop is of the focus point. First set is at 400mm, and the troll is across the dining room and living room from me. No post-processing (except for WB adjustment), noise reduction or sharpening used. The first shot is downsized for the web and the second is the 100% crop at full size.
This second set is at 100mm. This time the troll is hanging over the dining room table and is about 6 feet away. No post-processing (except for WB adjustment), noise reduction or sharpening, and the first shot is downsized for the web while the second is the 100% crop at full size.
My takeway ... when shooting trolls this lens is plenty sharp enough for me.
Ok, a bit more. The whole system - body, lens and VR - work beautifully well together. The detail in the fabric, for being a handheld shot, is wonderful. The focus is spot on, even when that spot is a fraction of an inch. Does this mean anything in the real world? Nothing more than if I don't get a sharp image it's due to me and not the lens.
p.16 #20 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Everybody in this thread probably has more common sense than I do. I shot out there yesterday. MikeInPa wrote:
What? Hell no, I aint going out in this cold weather. It's colder than a witches tit out there. It's past noon and only 21f.
The tailspin to childishness is sadly predictable. Anyone who thinks that eagle pic is "tack sharp" is either drunk, high, clueless, or has no idea what they are talking about. Buying new equipment is the first part of the equation. Too many people think it ends there. The personal attacks by the overly sensitive
