OwlsEyes
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
nandadevieast wrote:
People compare 400 with 500 but it’s interesting to compare it with 300 PF also.
Surprisingly, same arguments go when we compare 300 PF with 400 4.5: 100mm difference, 400 being faster by 1/3rd stop, 300 very good with TC 1.4, 300 PF being lighter and smaller etc etc
So I am contemplating buying this lens against my 500 PF.
My reason: 500 with a TC is too dark and doesn’t cut it for me. 400 with a TC is workable and longer than 500 bare.
Last evening i watched few videos and read up. Don’t think i should be selling 500 for this amazing lens before someone compares 400+1.4 performance with bare 500 here at Fred Miranda or someone like Steve Perry.
Ultimately, comparing a bare lens with a TC 1.4 on lens has never worked out favourably in the past…often when the lens is new the hyperbole also goes with it. I couldn’t find credible information on this, whether 400+1.4 is equal or worse than 500 bare so i will wait.
Other than TC the crop factor is important as it still gives me a 20mp file at 750mm vs 600mm. That resolution is good and people anyway crop bird pictures to lesser resolutions for monitor displays where 4mp also looks as good.
We can look at things like this:
400@45mp/600@20mp/840@20mp (bare/crop/TC)
And 500@45mp/750@20mp (bare/crop)
Or,
400@45mp/560@45mp/840@20mp (bare/TC/Crop)
And 500@45mp/750@20mp (bare/crop)
400mm makes a case for itself only with 1.4 TC always on. Even with crop mode it reaches (only) 600mm against 750mm of 500 PF.
Good thing about 400 is that there is no aperture penalty for TC when i compare it to 500 (1/3rd of a stop)
Another good thing is that 400mm is a more general FL for rest of the things compared to 500 which is only for birding largely
Bottomline:
If someone compares 400+1.4 favourably with bare 500, i will think about replacing my 500…even if 560mm downsampled to 500mm is equal/better than 500 PF bare, it will do.
As an aside, the 400/4.5 will make a great pair with 600 6.3 PF ! Because they already have 300 and 500 in F mount, isn’t a 600 6.3 is what they will do next? If only wishes were horses !
...Show more →
I actually think there are a lot of comparisons like the one you are seeking out there. A search for 400mm f4.5 v 500mm PF will yield plenty of results. I also have seen many FMers (like myself) compare these lenses, as I had them both at the same time for a while.
Things of note:
1. The 400mm f4.5 is faster @ f4.5 by 2/3 stop stop than the bare 500PF or 300PF w/1.4x.
2. The 400mm f4.5 does not require an FTZ whereas the 500PF requires this and the 300PF has to points of weakness (FTZ and 1.4x) to get to 420mm.
3. The 400mm f4.5 was designed bottom up for the Z system and thus has a quieter motor, quieter VR, and faster AF fhrough its range than the F-mount lenses.
4. The 400mm f4.5 does not have a PF element and thus never has "onion ring" bokeh which can be present in PF lenses when shooting in backlit conditions.
5. The 500PF is marginally sharper (200% pixel peeping) than the 400mm f4.5 with 1.4x, and is 1/3 stop faster than the 400PF w/1.4x converter.
6. The 400mm f4.5 w/ 1.4x focuses as fast as the 500PF in spite of the converter.
7. With a converter, the 400mm f4.5 becomes 560mm FX and 840mm DX crop...the 500PF is 500mm FX and 750mm DX.
8. Finally, with sufficient light and fast shutter speed, the 400mm 4.5 w/ Z-2X becomes a 800mm FX lens and 1200mm DX lens that has much better than expected performance.
If this is relevant... my telephoto "kit" now includes the 100-400S, 400mm f4.5, and 800mm PF. My least used lens in the last 4 months has been the 400mm f4.5 because the 100-400S is good enough when I need the focal length. I am holding on to the 400mm f4.5 for now, as it is a great travel option when weight may restrict me.
bruce
Edited on Jun 11, 2023 at 08:14 AM · View previous versions
|
