p.2 #1 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
philwaring wrote:
The shot with the 2x on the 400 looks really good. Based on that one I would have no problem using the 400 with a 2x as my primary way to 800 rather than coveting a 600 with a 1.4x.
I thought this as well. However, I don’t remember the 600E and with 1.4xTC was this soft when I had the combo so I looked at the images again and found that the 600E and 1.4x is severely backfocused.
I understand it’s very very difficult to do this kind of test. Takes a lot of effort to do the shoot and organization afterward to show the result so that’s it’s one to one.
The only way to know is to actually buy the lens and use it.
I think CA is a compromise in the lens design nowaday. I mentioned this elsewhere as well that when I played with a
demo Sony 400/2.8GM when it first became available, before lens correction profile came out in PS, it also showed
very strong CA. Once lens correction profile is available, you don't see CA anymore and I have not seen anyone complained.
I posted an example picture of that long time ago on Sony forum here even.
My dealer mentioned this to me many many times that Z lens relies quite heavily on software correction for things like
CA rather than optical/physical correction in lens design.
I don't know if the CA is part of the compromise for weight reduction or not but like Sony and the new Canon, middle group elements are moved further back so they are smaller and lighter. That may affect CA correction perhaps, I don't really know.
p.2 #4 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
philwaring wrote:
Thanks for doing these!
It looks like the lighting changed a bit between that first 600mm bare shot and the 400 with the internal TC. The 2nd one is a bit darker and there's less reflection on the white part of the eye. I think this probably makes the 400 come off a little worse than it should in that comparison. This difference may have contributed to the AF being less likely to hop onto the eye.
The shot with the 2x on the 400 looks really good. Based on that one I would have no problem using the 400 with a 2x as my primary way to 800 rather than coveting a 600 with a 1.4x.
I almost think that you'd be best off aiming at the belly of your owl and using manual focus with focus highlighted in the viewfinder whilst zoomed in because of the slight curve you're going to get an area in critical sharpness and the texture is similar so you'd prehaps end up with an easier comparison. I actually just had a go with a soft toy comparing 400 and 560 on my 180-400 and then comparing the results at the same size. I expected this to be a win for non-TC but TC definitely had the edge. I think I've probably thought the TC was a little worse than it actually is on this lens because I probably didn't do this kind of comparison before. It's never stopped me using it but I think it might perform even better on a Z9 than it did on my D5 with the TC....Show more →
The test certainly is not definitive and more meticulous person certainly could do a much better job. But I think the test shows that 400/2.8 with TC is not bad at all and unless 600/4s outperform 600/4e FL significantly, I am not sure that I would worry about getting 600/4S in the future. I am still interest in 800PF but it really depends on weight and price. If it weight more than 2.5 kg, it would be less attractive I think but if it is closer to 2 kg I might have to sell my kidney
I wonder how these images were converted. Was it LR or C1 pro?
If it’s LR then no concern. If it’s C1 Pro then what were the lens correction settings?
As far as sharpness goes I know these tests are difficult but would probably redo the 400mm with internal TC, focus seems a little off also. And I would expect that combo to be sharper than 400mm + 2x TC and it isn’t.
p.2 #6 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
bernardl wrote:
I wonder how these images were converted. Was it LR or C1 pro?
If it’s LR then no concern. If it’s C1 Pro then what were the lens correction settings?
As far as sharpness goes I know these tests are difficult but would probably redo the 400mm with internal TC, focus seems a little off also. And I would expect that combo to be sharper than 400mm + 2x TC and it isn’t.
I use PS as I shoot in HE+ now.
I think I need a better subject but not sure what is best. Stuff animal seems like a good idea but to have 2 lenses focus right at the same spot seems rather difficult as well and almost always different depth of the fur will be in focus usually so getting the identical plane of focus on something that is not completely flat is more difficult than I expected.
p.2 #8 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
I had a lot of fun today with pied kingfishers.
AF at 3-5m distance is still problematic but further away it is excellent.
Regardless of teh problem, I came here several times in the past with D850, D6, 500/4e FL and 600/e FL and today is the most productive by far and I got some shots that I never could managed with my DSLR in the past.
This series is with 400/2.8 with no TC. 1/2000, f2.8, iso 125.
All was cropped to around 24-26mp so not quite a dx crop.
Eye focus was a bit off closer to the end of the series in comparison to the beginning.
p.2 #9 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
With Internal TC.
I am impressed. Once focus is acquired, it does not lose the subject easily.
The first series, I tracked the pied kingfisher as it came out of the water and flew to a branch right in front of me and I got 40 odd shots that the bird was all in focus. The eyes may not all be tack sharp but reasonable I think.
All shot at 1/3200, iso 200, f4, 560mm with internal TC. All had some cropping.
p.2 #11 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Excellent images @suteetat
I'm really surprised by how the combo with the internal and external 2x TC came out. The 400 is proving to be very versatile indeed.
p.2 #13 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
suteetat wrote:
I did a quick comparison between 600/4e FL with and without TC14e iii and 400/2.8s with internal TC and external TC combination. Not very scientific but hopefully it will give some idea.
This is the basic set up. On Video fluid head as I don't have any ball head that is stable enough for big tele lens. Single point focus on the owl's right eye. I tried to position the right eye as close to the center as possible. 5s delayed iso 64, shutterspeed around 1/13-1/20 mostly. All shot wide opened.
I would give an edge to 600/4e FL. Surprisingly, 400/2.8 with internal TC really struggle to focus on the eye and focused on the darker surface behind the eye instead. I had to try many times to get the eye in focus whereas 600/4e FL did not have problem at all. Even the best shot I think still slightly backfocus a tad. I had animal eye focus on in wide aread initially but the camera was not fooled into thinking this is an animal
But on the other hand, I think the difference is small enough that it would not make much of a difference to me, I think and with the added flexibility of 400/2.8s. This is pretty good trade off (of course, it has to be a good trade off after I spent my money ).
Interesting tidbits, my dealer told me that at CP+, may be on 2nd and 3rd day. There will be quite a few announcements of new camerae (Z30 most likely), possibly 800PF and more firmware for Z9.
The latest firmware allows Z9 to work with 400.2.8s but it is not 100% yet. My dealer told me supposedly AF on 400/2.8s is only 70-80% of what it could be but hopefully firmware later on this month will take care of that. If this is true, that would explain why yesterday I had quite a bit of problem at near minimum focusing distance and single point focus today. However, yesterday the spotted owlet, there was no issue with wide area large focus and single point focus on Asian barred owlet at all. Very strange. However, this is just from my local dealer and I have no way to confirm that. I guess we will have to wait for CP+.
I think 600/4e FL and 400/2.8+ TCx2 are pretty close. This time 600/4 + TC slightly backfocused in comparison. to 400/2.8 with TCx2. With 2 TC 1.4, still backfocused even more bu I think the dark surface still showed that it is not quite as sharp as the other two.
I did not compare 600/4 + TCx2 vs 400/2.8s with TC1.4 and TCx2 . Personally, I never had good result with TC20e iii and generally avoid it as much as possible but I was pleasantly surprise by the two TC combination yesterday enough that I think I would rather use 400/2.8s with 2 TC rather than 600/4 with TC20e iii personally.
Great to see a real life comparison! I think the focus plane is a little bit different from one photo to the other. At that distance, only a small part of the white area of the eye is actually in focus, and the focus planes may differ by just one or two millimeters.
p.2 #14 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
With internal TC and TCx2, aproximately dx cropped, 1/3200, iso 1250, f8 I ran the picture through Topaz denoise.
AF is still quite reasonable with 2 TC. I was able to track kingfisher hovering but it was even at longer distance and detail just got lost but still I am quite impresssed with AF.
p.2 #15 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
suteetat wrote:
My dealer mentioned this to me many many times that Z lens relies quite heavily on software correction for things like
CA rather than optical/physical correction in lens design.
This is something I've wondered since the Z line was released. It's just my impression but ever since I saw posts like this I've felt that the image quality from the Z system was enhanced in camera. Don't get me wrong, I've had a very minimal list of negatives, but I'm not alone in feeling the images have a clinical or almost too good of a look to them.
p.2 #17 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Suteetat, have you used the 400 f2.8E FL VR version? If so, can you comment on the weight of the lens hood of both? I would imagine the new 400 f2.8S TC lens hood is much lighter than the old 400 f2.8E FL VR, which was quite heavy and robust. The new hood needing to be lighter as the overall lens is much lighter.
p.2 #18 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
mach250 wrote:
This is something I've wondered since the Z line was released. It's just my impression but ever since I saw posts like this I've felt that the image quality from the Z system was enhanced in camera. Don't get me wrong, I've had a very minimal list of negatives, but I'm not alone in feeling the images have a clinical or almost too good of a look to them.
I'm on board with this too. I just see overcorrected almost soul-less images. Long live F mount and the FTZ!!
p.2 #19 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Kasper6188 wrote:
I'm on board with this too. I just see overcorrected almost soul-less images. Long live F mount and the FTZ!!
This issue is due to Nikon using in-camera image processing technology to make lenses lighter and smaller. The 14-30mm f/4 makes the most aggressive use of that technology.
It is, however, not a Z mount vs. F mount issue. The 50mm f/1.2, for example, has almost no distortion (on a par, if not better, than the 105mm MC).
p.2 #20 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Lance B wrote:
Suteetat, have you used the 400 f2.8E FL VR version? If so, can you comment on the weight of the lens hood of both? I would imagine the new 400 f2.8S TC lens hood is much lighter than the old 400 f2.8E FL VR, which was quite heavy and robust. The new hood needing to be lighter as the overall lens is much lighter.
I don't have 400/2.8e FL. I had 500/4e FL and currently has 600/4e FL.
The hood on 400/2.8s is probably somewhere around 100g++ lighter and the material is thinner than 600/4 hood.
I love the balance of 400/2.8s though. It is roughly the same weight as 200/2 VR ii and 500/4e FL but I find that it is
easier to handhold 400/2.8s than either lens and is much much easier to handhold than 600/4e FL despite only 800+ g
difference.
