p.8 #1 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
AcuteShadows wrote:
This is really informative!
For some time, my thinking was that with today's pixel pitch, often cropping is more efficient than using a teleconverter (unless you are intentionally using a lower pixel pitch camera for better dynamic range). But with the Z series teleconverters, that has to be checked again.
In my view, a difficult issue is that you have a gradual fall-off of contrast as you increase spatial frequency. While oversharpening may distort details, fine-tuned sharpening (i.e. adjusted to the MTF of the lens), targeting different spatial frequencies with different intensity, can improve the actual image not only visually, but objectively, i.e. compared to the information contained in the object.
Thus, the most important question with regard to sharpness comparison would be: Are you getting more information from the object *in relation* to potential artefacts that may make further improvement by sharpening difficult or impossible?...Show more →
Certainly. I have not try to sharpen any of the picture yet to see what I can get away with.
In my experience with 600/4e FL with TC20e iii, in general I don't like the result very much for birds but for moon shot (where iso and shutterspeed effect is neutralized, I could sharpen it quite a bit and in general, the result is better than cropping with no TC at all in the end.
---------------------------------------------
this is me wrote:
Appreciate doing all the samples from requests.
I think if and when I get this lens, I’ll be putting on the 1.4x TC So that I can go 560mm F4 Or 784mm f5.6 with a flip of a switch. And compare with 2xTC at 800mm.
I never had good luck with stacking TC but hopefully the internal TC design can handle an external 1.4x. That would offer me the most versatility. Would be interesting to see the bare lens with external 1.4x vs internal 1.4x.
If you look at the owlet picture from the first 2 pages of this thread, I personally think that TCx2 is slightly better than internal TC+ TCx1.4 but not by much. Of course having 560mm and 768mm is more flexible than just 800mm so it is nice to have the option.
---------------------------------------------
bernardl wrote:
Thank you very much for the test results.
It shows clearly that the lens is extremely sharp at long distances also.
Cheers,
Bernard
So far I am very impressed with this lens.
---------------------------------------------
NaturRosi wrote:
Thank you so much! That looks really good!
p.8 #2 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
suteetat wrote:
Certainly. I have not try to sharpen any of the picture yet to see what I can get away with.
In my experience with 600/4e FL with TC20e iii, in general I don't like the result very much for birds but for moon shot (where iso and shutterspeed effect is neutralized, I could sharpen it quite a bit and in general, the result is better than cropping with no TC at all in the end.
Indeed, with higher ISO, sharpening becomes increasingly difficult and ineffective.
That also means that comparisons between two lenses (or lens/TC combinations) are affected by the ISO level.
My preferred way to compare images of different resolution is to scale the lower resolution picture to fit the pixel count of the higher resolution picture, and then try to sharpen it in a way that comes close (or even outperforms) the higher resolution picture.
Sometimes there is a remaining tradeoff between ISO noise and contrast, and the winner may depend on the specific subject or conditions. In other cases, you have basically unlimited potential exposure time, so you would have to compare images taken at base ISO level in order to determine which lens is better suited for the task.
p.8 #3 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
I took the picture shot at 1120mm and put it through Nik Collection Sharpening Pro 3 then made 100% cropped picture again. Actually the result is quite impressive.
I think if ISO is under control and ho heat haze to disrupt, this is pretty good.
p.8 #4 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
suteetat wrote:
I took the picture shot at 1120mm and put it through Nik Collection Sharpening Pro 3 then made 100% cropped picture again. Actually the result is quite impressive.
p.8 #5 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Here is 800mm enlarged from 8256pixel to 11555 pixel width then applied Nik Collection sharpening pro 3 then cropped 100% compared to 1120mm, sharpening with the same program and cropped.
Left is 1120mm, right is 800mm.
To my eyes, 1120mm image retained better contrast and better detail I think.
However, if I use a better enlargement algorhythm rather than just resizing it,
the result may be better for 800mm though.
ฺBut we are splitting hair, it seems if you are at iso 64, lots can be done
p.8 #7 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Kinda hard to believe it’s not an ads for Nikon. He rated the 400S with TC better than any of the previous superteles F mount including a naked 600E and 800E.
p.8 #9 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Finally got a sequence of a kingfisher diving into water and getting out. with TCx2 @800mm
AF lost the bird a bit as it was splashing in water but picked it up again quickly when there was no splash in front of the bird.
I used auto area AF with eye detection on.
p.8 #10 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
this is me wrote:
Kinda hard to believe it’s not an ads for Nikon. He rated the 400S with TC better than any of the previous superteles F mount including a naked 600E and 800E.
I am not so sure he is making that up either, I have been saying that awhile with Canon's RF 400mm F2.8 and the TC's performance. I am impressed with the quality and AF speed with extenders on the Canon lens. Today's tech with TC's is impressive years years ago. I never used the Nikon glass so maybe he is off base saying that but if it is like the Canon glass then it is highly possible. This lens is the first lens that could get me to change systems, a really nice design.
p.8 #11 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
I downloaded MG sample files and looked at the RAWs. Here's my finding. He can sue me if he's not okay with my repost of his images but he did get my email info.
-400f2.8S is definitely sharper and resolves more details than the 400f2.8E bare and especially with 2xTC. There's no argument about it.
-Internal 1.4x vs. external 1.4x is a wash. This is what I was hoping for because I want to attach the 1.4x on to have 560mm and a switchable 784mm. However, there is something real freaky about the 2xTCz which is showing incredibly sharp(er) image than the stacked TC.
-His shooting so far with the 400S is on static subjects. The samples are with a model and some perched birds so there's no tell how the AF is. AF is very hard to quantify unless you do your own shooting with your own subject matter anyways.
Bare 400S(Left) vs. 400E(Right).
Even with her head tilting, the sharper and more details on the 400S is apparent.
400S with 2xTC(Left) vs. 400E with 2xTC(Right).
The 400S with the 2xTC is astonishing. This is bare lens like quality
Internal 1.4x(Left) vs. external 1.4x(Right).
A little hard to quantify with her head tilting and not the other but I prefer the external 1.4x
400S with stacked int. 1.4x and ext. 1.4x(Left) vs. external 2.0x(Right)
If the AF is fast enough with the 2.0xTC, I will use this combo to do my small bird shooting. Sharper and more mm is a no brainer.
p.8 #12 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
this is me wrote:
I downloaded MG sample files and looked at the RAWs. Here's my finding. He can sue me if he's not okay with my repost of his images but he did get my email info.
-400f2.8S is definitely sharper and resolves more details than the 400f2.8E bare and especially with 2xTC. There's no argument about it.
-Internal 1.4x vs. external 1.4x is a wash. This is what I was hoping for because I want to attach the 1.4x on to have 560mm and a switchable 784mm. However, there is something real freaky about the 2xTCz which is showing incredibly sharp(er) image than the stacked TC.
-His shooting so far with the 400S is on static subjects. The samples are with a model and some perched birds so there's no tell how the AF is. AF is very hard to quantify unless you do your own shooting with your own subject matter anyways.
400S with stacked int. 1.4x and ext. 1.4x(Right) vs. external 2.0x(Left)
If the AF is fast enough with the 2.0xTC, I will use this combo to do my small bird shooting. Sharper and more mm is a no brainer. https://pbase.com/nicksreef/image/172431610/original.jpg
For my eyes, moving from top to bottom rows, I would say the left image was the sharpest of the two on the top row, the left image was the sharpest again on the second row, the right image was the sharpest on the third row, and the right image was the sharpest on the bottom row.
According to the info boxes within the images, it appears some of the written 400S 400E left/right lens assignments were mixed up, but I could sort it out. Assuming the info boxes are correct, I agree, the 400 S is a clear winner. Wow! That just shows that theoretical MTF charts only go so far because didn’t the 400E MTF chart look a bit better than that of the S lens? I thought I had seen that mentioned in a review.
p.8 #13 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Archerscreek wrote:
For my eyes, moving from top to bottom rows, I would say the left image was the sharpest of the two on the top row, the left image was the sharpest again on the second row, the right image was the sharpest on the third row, and the right image was the sharpest on the bottom row.
According to the info boxes within the images, it appears some of the written 400S 400E left/right lens assignments were mixed up, but I could sort it out. Assuming the info boxes are correct, I agree, the 400 S is a clear winner. Wow! That just shows that theoretical MTF charts only go so far because didn’t the 400E MTF chart look a bit better than that of the S lens? I thought I had seen that mentioned in a review....Show more →
Wooops. I don't know my left from my right. Fixed it.
p.8 #15 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Alistair1 wrote:
If the AF is not diminished by TC's, the 400S starts to look like a bargain. 2 or 3 lenses in one.
After seeing how good the both converters are with the 100-400S I kinda figured this new 400 would be killer! I'm sure they will slow it down a bit but with the ability to have 400 and up to an 800/5.6 that will all be very very good I ordered it. Looking forward to this new lens and a tweak in the Z9 firmware soon! Good times!
p.8 #16 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
On Z9 400/2.8s + TCx2 AF is still perfectly fine for bif. These are all shots with TCx2 and some cropping.
This one, I was too slow and got to the kingfisher after he came out of the water already but was able to track to follow him for several seconds until he flew to the other side of the river.
And tracking remains very sticky.
No idea if AF slowed down much in comparison to bared 400/2.8S since I don't have
much chance to shoot bif without TC yet but I really have no complained wiht TCx2 at all.
p.8 #18 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
jbledsoe wrote:
Suteetat,
Those look sharp, what shutter speed are you using with your 2x tc and is vr off or on?
ss 1/2000, f5.6, ISO was around 200-400 for most shots. I set VR to sport mode on gimbal head.
I was on M mode with SS 1/2000 wiht auto ISO most of the session.
p.8 #19 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Good info thanks. I was using my 500pf with tc20iii M 3200 f/11 auto iso vr off the other day testing on ducks, it was super sticky but they came out of camera slightly soft most were iso 4k-12k. I was shooting off hand and not really used to bif so likely poor form. Meaning my feeling was it was me and not the hardware. I thought I'd go back with the gimbal and give it another go. I'll try with vr on and slower speed as well so I can get the iso down and also using my 500 f/4G. Weather hasn't exactly been cooperative since and well there's work in the way too but maybe this weekend 🤔
After seeing your results the 400 with tc's is starting to look better than waiting on a 600 that's not announced yet.
suteetat wrote:
ss 1/2000, f5.6, ISO was around 200-400 for most shots. I set VR to sport mode on gimbal head.
I was on M mode with SS 1/2000 wiht auto ISO most of the session.
p.8 #20 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
jbledsoe wrote:
Good info thanks. I was using my 500pf with tc20iii M 3200 f/11 auto iso vr off the other day testing on ducks, it was super sticky but they came out of camera slightly soft most were iso 4k-12k. I was shooting off hand and not really used to bif so likely poor form. Meaning my feeling was it was me and not the hardware. I thought I'd go back with the gimbal and give it another go. I'll try with vr on and slower speed as well so I can get the iso down and also using my 500 f/4G. Weather hasn't exactly been cooperative since and well there's work in the way too but maybe this weekend 🤔
After seeing your results the 400 with tc's is starting to look better than waiting on a 600 that's not announced yet.
The biggest problem with 500PF for me is that TC20e iii is not very good and you lose a lot of acuity very quickly.
No so Z mount TCx2. I think they are in different league (at least in comparison to the two TC20e iii that I own anyway).
In my mind, 400/2.8S and 600/4S, the reason to pick one over another will be what is more important to you, 400/2.8 focal lenght or 1200/f8 focal lenght. I have no doubt 600/4s with TCx2 will perform better than 400/2.8S wiht internal TC and external TCx2. I also assume that 600/4s will have internal TC so may be 1680/F11 is a bonus but beside moonshot, I am not sure what I would need it for. But certainly using 400/2.8S mainly at 560mm-800mm does not disappoint at all.
