Ross Martin Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
[EDIT: oops, I meant to post this in akul's thread, he has a roughly similar topic so maybe this reply is still useful to leave here…]
I’ve used the Nikon F 70-200/2.8E FL as my main landscape lens for years and it's optically spectacular, not very far behind the slightly better Z mount version. The problem I had was 200mm was often too short for the kind of images I like to compose, so I had to hassle with adding and removing the 1.4x, 1.7x, or 2x converters. Besides the fact that these reduced the optical quality (the 1.4x not much, the 2x a lot), it interrupted my flow of seeing and creating just enough to be bothersome. I tried a copy of the F 80-400mm to solve this but it was optically too much of a compromise compared to the spectacular 70-200E FL.
So when Nikon released the Z 100-400mm I figured it might be my dream solution, and shooting it for extensive landscapes the past 4 months it has proven to be what I desired. I’m sure the Z 70-200 is a bit sharper when not stopped down to typical landscape apertures, and of course you have more light gathering for non-landscape low light shooting, so the f/2.8 zoom is the right tool for many. And the Z 70-200 uses the superior new 1.4x and 2x and folks like Ricci have shown in tests the excellent IQ with those. But for landscape use where I love tight compositions and find up to 400mm useful, I would not want to go back to hassling with converters on and off.
The 100-400mm is definitely worth the wait IMO. I also own the F 70-300E and it is a killer lens on the Z7 and Z9, definitely worth considering as a temporary fill-in or great backup while you wait for the 100-400. Also, from what I read you may actually be able to snag a 100-400 before your trip if you call around to smaller shops on the Nikon Pro dealer pdf list.
Edited on May 17, 2022 at 02:26 PM · View previous versions
|