p.10 #1 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
George DeCamp wrote:
It sure is!! Doesn't really slow down the AF either at least that I can see so far. Will know more next week when I hit my regular spots! So far very happy!! A bit heavy compared to the 500pf but just need to get used to it. ♥️
I’m really curious about the AF with 2xTC.
Do I really need the 800pf if I’m getting this lens. Damn. Too much to think.
p.10 #5 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
this is me wrote:
I’m really curious about the AF with 2xTC.
Do I really need the 800pf if I’m getting this lens. Damn. Too much to think.
I plan to get 800PF. Luckily 800PF ticked all the right box. If it is 2.4 kg but $10,000 or $6500 and 3 kg, I would not even think about it. But now the price is right and weight reduction for hanholding is significant enough.
Now I can do moonshot at 1600mm
p.10 #7 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
George DeCamp wrote:
Took this one this morning in the back yard..
Congrats on getting the lens! Very excited to see a bit more stuff from it. I'm definitely opening up to using this in just about any configuration with TCs, though I'm not really sold on 1120mm (and losing a stop of light) being better than a crop from 800mm.
I'm going to take mine out tomorrow with the 1.4x on it to use as a 560/784 and see how I get on. I want to get really comfortable with it before the interesting trips start next month.
p.10 #8 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
philwaring wrote:
Congrats on getting the lens! Very excited to see a bit more stuff from it. I'm definitely opening up to using this in just about any configuration with TCs, though I'm not really sold on 1120mm (and losing a stop of light) being better than a crop from 800mm.
I'm going to take mine out tomorrow with the 1.4x on it to use as a 560/784 and see how I get on. I want to get really comfortable with it before the interesting trips start next month.
Thank you!! I think it's a bit much at 1120 myself but have not tried it in really good light yet. The 784mm images are pretty darn good so far and the 800 is really good also. So far I'm good up to 800mm with converters but I've only had it for 24hrs right now and have only been able to shoot in the back yard, Monday I'll get out!!
p.10 #9 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
A 1.4x tc is probably more likely a 1.414x tc, being square root of 2. This gives you the correct multiplier for the aperture also. So, your actual focal length for the two 1.4x tcs engaged is probably actually 400 x 1.414 x 1.414 making it basically 800mm.
I know it's being pedantic but it does make it easier to think of 800mm rather than 784mm. 😁
It would be an interesting experiment to try a test subject using the 2x tc and compare it to the two 1.4x tcs and seeing if there is a difference.
p.10 #12 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Lance B wrote:
A 1.4x tc is probably more likely a 1.414x tc, being square root of 2. This gives you the correct multiplier for the aperture also. So, your actual focal length for the two 1.4x tcs engaged is probably actually 400 x 1.414 x 1.414 making it basically 800mm.
I know it's being pedantic but it does make it easier to think of 800mm rather than 784mm. 😁
It would be an interesting experiment to try a test subject using the 2x tc and compare it to the two 1.4x tcs and seeing if there is a difference.
OK Ill get to that! The exif says 784, not sure why but it is what it is!
p.10 #13 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
George DeCamp wrote:
OK Ill get to that! The exif says 784, not sure why but it is what it is!
It is an interesting discussion. I think Nikon must be trying to not confusing the issue, like I am, by sticking to the stringent 1.4x multiplier and thus making it simple for calculations etc. However, when you think about it, 1.414 is probably correct in the strictest terms as it is the same as the rule used for aperture sizes and the root 2 rule that applies. Aperture changes as you add the TC and that aperture value in strct terms is 1.414x and when you get to 2x it is 1.414 x 1.414 = 2 etc. As I said, I would love to see a test done using the 2 x 1.4x TCs and compare it to the 2x TC. Having said that, there are probably differences here also as the focal length of a lens is at infinity, not at closer focus dictances where tests are carried out. There may be design differences in the TC's that mean they are not 1.4x TC is not exaclty 1.4x at closer distance and the same may be for the 2x TC.
Whatever the case, it really doesn't matter as it is the end result that matters and whether the subject is the size you want. I guess I just brought this up as it got me thinking when you stated 784mm and I thought wow, that is a *very* specific focal length, not 780mm, or 790mm or even 800mm, but exacltly 784mm? Reallly? That is what got me thinking and thus threw up this thought bubble and have probably just made matters worse, .
p.10 #15 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
It would be pretty difficult to put the 1.4x1.4 and 2xTC and look at the image to see the focal length.
1) The 2xTC is longer than the 1.4X TC.
2) where the reference point, the tip of the lens or the sensor?
3) Good luck with moving the tripod back to align the reference point if it’s the tip of the lens.
4) Any error in the above would easily muddy the 16mm FOV at 800mm. 16mm is negligible at this kind of FL.
p.10 #16 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
this is me wrote:
It would be pretty difficult to put the 1.4x1.4 and 2xTC and look at the image to see the focal length.
1) The 2xTC is longer than the 1.4X TC.
2) where the reference point, the tip of the lens or the sensor?
3) Good luck with moving the tripod back to align the reference point if it’s the tip of the lens.
4) Any error in the above would easily muddy the 16mm FOV at 800mm. 16mm is negligible at this kind of FL.
Can we make peace and call it an 800mm f5.6.
If you are refering to my suggestion, I was wanting to compare the focal length of the 400 + 1.4x TC (internal) + 1.4x TC to the 400 with just the 2x TC. Compare the images of the same test target and see if the resultant images are the same size. Maybe using a graph paper so as you can see whether one is slightly longer or shorter focal length. Both should be the same focal length of 800mm.
p.10 #17 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
I had a lot of fun with 400/2.8S with TCx2 today with Blue-Tailed bee eater. It is the beginning of nesting season here. Quite a bit of cropping required.
p.10 #19 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
this is me wrote:
It would be pretty difficult to put the 1.4x1.4 and 2xTC and look at the image to see the focal length.
1) The 2xTC is longer than the 1.4X TC.
2) where the reference point, the tip of the lens or the sensor?
3) Good luck with moving the tripod back to align the reference point if it’s the tip of the lens.
4) Any error in the above would easily muddy the 16mm FOV at 800mm. 16mm is negligible at this kind of FL.
Can we make peace and call it an 800mm f5.6.
I agree that 16mm is so meaningless at those focal lengths that it doesn't really matter. If I was going to test I'd just keep the camera (and therefore sensor plane) at the same place and just swap the TCs.
Canon 200-400, Nikon 180-400 and now Nikon 400S TC all report 784mm when used with two 1.4TCs. Whether the TC is really square root of 2 or not.
I would guess that you could cough and move enough to make up the 16mm
p.10 #20 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
What's the procedure for reporting bugs to Nikon?
I found a really niche one using the 400Z, Recall Shooting Functions set to just disable subject detection and the menu option B7 (Keep exposure when f/stop changes) set to use ISO.
Suteetat/George: Could either of you try doing this?
1. Set a custom function button (I'm using the lens function buttons) to recall shooting function where the only selected thing is to disable subject tracking.
2. Ensure B7 is turned on and to compensate with ISO
3. Have the lens in manual (and not auto-ISO) at f2.8. Lets say ISO 500 and 1/100s.
4. Engage the TC - the lens should now read f4, 1/100s, ISO1000 (ISO has doubled due to B7)
5. Press the custom button for RSF (settings shouldn't change)
6. Change the shutter speed up or down a notch (doesn't matter as long as it changes)
7. Press the custom button for RSF again - At this point I will then see the camera switch to ISO2000 whilst I'm pressing the RSF button.
If I then flick back to no TC then this will still happen. If I tweak the shutter speed again back at f2.8 then it stops happening.
I think I might tweak my setup so that it removes subject detection but also engages auto-ISO. It's not going to be something I use too much anyway. I'd still like to see Nikon fix it sometime though in a firmware update.
In other news I used the lens with the 1.4x all day on Saturday and was flicking between 560/784 and it worked really well. I still want more experience but I'm leaning towards making this my default combo where I might want 800mm. I'd only ever really thought about using this as a 400/560 on safari (keeping a TC in the pocket) but I can totally see myself spending a morning in one configuration and then switching to the other for an afternoon drive just to get a wider variety of images.
