Lance B Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
OwlsEyes wrote:
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.
regards,
bruce
...Show more →
Thank you very much for your kind comments, Bruce. Much appreciated!
I couldn't agree more with what you have written about the 400 f4.5, 100-400 and 500 pf. They are all exceptional lenses and the differences these days are minimal at best. If I didn't have the 100-400 I would probably get the 400 f4.5, there is no doubt it is another winner by Nikon. However, the 100-400 is also exceptional and for me a more useful lens.
Love your swan shots. They are very moody and you should have some of your best printed and on the wall.
|