Archerscreek wrote:
What Nikon has done with this lens has me wondering if they could make a 500 f/4 and keep it around or under 5 pounds. If the 600 f/4 is stratospherically expensive, that 500 would make me dip into my pockets. Although a less expensive 500 f/4.5 sounds good, too.
Oh, and great pics, Lance. I’m sure you’re making a bunch of people think they need a 400 f/4.5 for themselves.
Thank you very much, Doug. Much appreciated!
Looking at the lens make up, I think Nikon could make a very lightweight 500 f4, or as you say a very lightweight 500 f4.5 and almost forego a reason for a Z 500 PF! Interesting thought.
The lens arrived late (6pm), it was super cloudy with some minor showers (not the best light overall). I decided to just put TC1.4 on (because I'm super interested how it works with it + how it renders bokeh on water) & take it for a short session.
I shot the way I usually shoot, some crops, no major processing. Ran those through topaz denoise. Thoughts?
lukemeup wrote:
The lens arrived late (6pm), it was super cloudy with some minor showers (not the best light overall). I decided to just put TC1.4 on (because I'm super interested how it works with it + how it renders bokeh on water) & take it for a short session.
I shot the way I usually shoot, some crops, no major processing. Ran those through topaz denoise. Thoughts?
Would you folks who post images kindly include the EXIF info? Just check the include EXIF check box when you post. Thanks. Would be helpful info to us.
James Farrell wrote:
Would you folks who post images kindly include the EXIF info? Just check the include EXIF check box when you post. Thanks. Would be helpful info to us.
Mine are linked from Flickr. Clicked link below each image - takes you to Flickr, full exif there.
lukemeup wrote:
The lens arrived late (6pm), it was super cloudy with some minor showers (not the best light overall). I decided to just put TC1.4 on (because I'm super interested how it works with it + how it renders bokeh on water) & take it for a short session.
I shot the way I usually shoot, some crops, no major processing. Ran those through topaz denoise. Thoughts?
arbitrage wrote:
Great start Luke. Now get that 800Pf and you are all set!!
That's the plan. I wish I could spring for the 400 2.8 + the future 600 4.... but then I would have to lug it (+ realistically - $$$$). Trio of 70-200 + 400 4.5 + 800 6.3 + TC 1.4) should cover everything pretty well (on not super dark days) & all this glass is easy to handhold. Everything is about tradeoffs.
Another drab morning - nothing super exciting but so far I like how this lens works.
Thanks for posting these two sets Luke... especially w/ the 1.4x.
The lens looks to be pretty amazing w/ a converter. The bokeh looks great.
As with my post to Lance, I am super curious about your perception of 400S + 1.4x vs straight 500PF.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Thanks for posting these two sets Luke... especially w/ the 1.4x.
The lens looks to be pretty amazing w/ a converter. The bokeh looks great.
As with my post to Lance, I am super curious about your perception of 400S + 1.4x vs straight 500PF.
cheers,
bruce
Thanks! Everything I posted so far is with TC1.4. The thing I noticed is also the shift in the balance - it's like 400 has some heavier elements in the back of the lens (or maybe just removing the FTZ helps with the distribution of the weight).
lukemeup wrote:
That's the plan. I wish I could spring for the 400 2.8 + the future 600 4.... but then I would have to lug it (+ realistically - $$$$). Trio of 70-200 + 400 4.5 + 800 6.3 + TC 1.4) should cover everything pretty well (on not super dark days) & all this glass is easy to handhold. Everything is about tradeoffs.
Another drab morning - nothing super exciting but so far I like how this lens works.
A few more from yesterday. An Osprey was looking for food in the ocean but had no luck due to adverse conditions so I got no bird-with-fish-in-talons shots. It never came down low enough for decent shots either.
AF was generally fast and was accurate, picked up the bird well using a custom AF size setting.
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + Z 1.4x TC, 1/2500s f/7.1 at 560.0mm iso900. Cropped a little
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + Z 1.4x TC, 1/2500s f/7.1 at 560.0mm iso900. Cropped a little
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + Z 1.4x TC, 1/2500s f/7.1 at 560.0mm iso1250. Small crop
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + Z 1.4x TC, 1/2500s f/7.1 at 560.0mm iso800. Full shot
100% crop of above photo.
On the track back from the beach, an Australasian Pipit landed and was scurrying around so, I quickly dropped to me knees and managed a few shots as he went about his business. The first shot I forgot I had the shutter speed up and so was at ISO9000! Considering it's scurrying around, lowish light and having the TC on, the AF locked on quite well.
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + Z 1.4x TC, 1/1600s f/7.1 at 560.0mm iso9000
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + Z 1.4x TC, 1/500s f/7.1 at 560.0mm iso2500
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + Z 1.4x TC, 1/500s f/7.1 at 560.0mm iso2500
I was standing on a jetty taking photos of a Pelican on the water with the Z9 + 400 f4.5 + 1.4x TC, and then he decided to take off. These are not cropped and I was lucky to even fit him in the frame. In fact when his wings were horizontal, they were outside the frame and hence I have not shown them here.
Which one of the Pelican shots opf him coming out of the water do you think works best?
Great pictures Lance & Luke, thanks for posting.
I have a couple of questions.
How does the 400/4.5 compare to 100-400 with and without TC?
I guess the naked prime is sharper than the zoom, probably even with the TC.
Moreover, I would like to know how the rendition is at long distances. Thanx.
Ripolini wrote:
Great pictures Lance & Luke, thanks for posting.
I have a couple of questions.
How does the 400/4.5 compare to 100-400 with and without TC?
I guess the naked prime is sharper than the zoom, probably even with the TC.
Moreover, I would like to know how the rendition is at long distances. Thanx.
Thank you very much, Riccardo. Much appreciated!
The 400 f4.5 is sharper in good light when ISOs are low. Once the ISO's go up, the difference is minimal. Whatever the case, the differences in these modern Nikon Z lenses is minimal. The 400 f4.5 has slightly better bokeh but probably due to the ability to have a shallower DOF. The difference bare is about the same difference with the TC, maybe the 400 f4.5 is a tad less affected by the TC than the 100-400 but that is probably more at distance than close up. As excellent as this lens is, I am staying with my 100-400 and 500 PF combo at this stage as I don't think the difference in sharpness is big enough to warrant selling the zoom in favour of the prime.
It's hard to judge on Lance's images, his work is always outstanding, whatever lens he uses, but to my eyes,
this lens is sharper, little more contrasty, and colour saturation is more pronounced than 100-400mm, I would say.
Definitely, great addition to already fantastic z-tele world.
Thanks Lance and Lukemeup for amazing work!
Lance B wrote:
Thank you very much, Riccardo. Much appreciated!
.... As excellent as this lens is, I am staying with my 100-400 and 500 PF combo at this stage as I don't think the difference in sharpness is big enough to warrant selling the zoom in favour of the prime.
Lance,
All of these photos are lovely with amazing clarity. Your choice in subjects, locations, backgrounds, and light are useful in making an informed decision.
To me, the most important point you make is at the end. If one already has the focal lengths covered with current Nikon glass, does it make sense to "sell the farm" to buy into the new "crop." I think if I were to be starting fresh in the Z-system, and did not already own the 100-400S / 500PF combo, an argument could be made for a system that consists of a 24-70, 70-200, 400 f4.5, 800PF.
An alternative and equally useful system (my direction) could be: 24-70 (or 120mm), 100-400, 500PF, and 800PF (the latter will occur when Nikon re-opens orders).
After looking at your pictures on the weekend, I decided to finally process some winter swans that I shot with the 100-400 / Z6II. These were orphan files, as I photograph swans about once a week in the winter. Anyway, I feel like those shots (posted in 100-400 thread) were as "clean" as I've seen from the 400 f4.5 and I benefited from the zoom. What's more, they were taken in overcast light at high ISO's. So while it is clear that the 400 f4.5 has the best optical quality, the difference is so small that one needs to consider if the ability to zoom is more or less important than an 4.5 maximum aperture.
Lance B wrote:
I am staying with my 100-400 and 500 PF combo at this stage as I don't think the difference in sharpness is big enough to warrant selling the zoom in favour of the prime.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I feel like those shots (posted in 100-400 thread) were as "clean" as I've seen from the 400 f4.5 and I benefited from the zoom. What's more, they were taken in overcast light at high ISO's. So while it is clear that the 400 f4.5 has the best optical quality, the difference is so small that one needs to consider if the ability to zoom is more or less important than an 4.5 maximum aperture.
To conclude: this 400/4.5 is as beautiful as useless lens
Apparently I'm 'near the top of the list'. uh huh. 
