Luftwalk wrote:
Love the hawk in previous post. You're really doing well with the lens
Cheers! This was a totally random encounter while walking the dog at Hayward Lake near Mission, BC. I often take either 70-200 + 400 + TC1.4 in a backpack or just 400 + TC1.4 slung over the shoulder and sometimes I get to see something interesting. I'll see how to add 800 to the mix once it finally arrives. One day.
tpe11etier1 wrote:
Great stuff... I'm not sure how anyone can say the 100-400 is close at 400. I have the 100-400 and imho, the 400/4.5 is sooooooo much better.
I'd say it's better at 400 and at 560 with a TC1.4. Definitely not better at 100-399mm .
If I was living in the sunny state of California or Florida (or was more into shooting butterflies) I'd probably have the 100-400, but here in BC 70-200 2.8 & 400 clearly win in my books. Especially considering how well they behave with TC1.4 (I wasn't a fan of TCs in the F-mount but Z-mount TC1.4 totally changed my opinion - there's basically no IQ or AF speed loss when using it).
Sunset walk. Sometimes it feels like nothing interesting is going to happen & then it just clicks together. Very happy to capture the kingfisher & with the color palette overall.
"Here's the thing: for most people, the correct telephoto high-quality options to buy are the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S, the 400mm f/4.5 VR S, and a 1.4x teleconverter. That nets you a quality 70-200mm f/2.8, 105-280mm f/4, 400mm f/4.5, and 560mm f/6.3. Do you really need more?"
It is Spring here in NZ and a flock of tara (white fronted terns) have returned to cliffs on the Auckland's west coast. Being fast and erratic fliers they are a lot of fun to shoot. The light and backgrounds in this particular location are stunning and this makes the little 400mm ideal for these type of shots of this species. I also wish I had an 800mm for some closer shots!
These are processed in LR and there is something weird going on with how it is handling noise. I will probably re-process some of these in NX Studio if time permits.
EDIT: I should add that the more I use the Z9, the more impressed I am with the AF. As long as I do my part, it nails these fast moving subjects, even over strongly backlit water.
lukemeup wrote:
I'd say it's better at 400 and at 560 with a TC1.4. Definitely not better at 100-399mm .
If I was living in the sunny state of California or Florida (or was more into shooting butterflies) I'd probably have the 100-400, but here in BC 70-200 2.8 & 400 clearly win in my books. Especially considering how well they behave with TC1.4 (I wasn't a fan of TCs in the F-mount but Z-mount TC1.4 totally changed my opinion - there's basically no IQ or AF speed loss when using it).
So long as we selectively quoting Thom...
"If you already have the 500mm, I'd probably say just hold onto it and get the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S for some flexibility and close focus work. Unless, of course, you are always leaning on a teleconverter, in which case the 400mm f/4.5 VR S is the slightly better choice over the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S."
This point applies to a bunch of us who have already sunk $3600 into a 500PF. As stated in his review, if you already have the 500PF its center sharpness is slightly better than the 400mm lens with 1.4x. My point is not to dissuade others from buying another Nikon lens (they can use our support... ), however if you plan to glue a converter to the 400 f4.5 and optical acuity is your benchmark, then you might want to stay put.
On the other hand, Thom also says the following: "In terms of focus speed, the 400mm f/4.5 VR S is one of the fastest focusing telephotos Nikon has that work on the Z system. It's tough to measure, but I believe the f/4.5 to be slightly faster than the f/2.8 version of the lens, despite not having the fancier and more expensive voice coil motor of the latter. The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S may be the fastest of the 400mm options in terms of focus acquisition on a Z6 II or Z7 II, but it's not by much, and on the Z9 this seems to reverse; many won't even notice these small differences in focus speed."
This latter point is very surprising... for bird in flight photographers, this might be the best option for tracking flitty little birds
Alistair1 wrote:
It is Spring here in NZ and a flock of tara (white fronted terns) have returned to cliffs on the Auckland's west coast. Being fast and erratic fliers they are a lot of fun to shoot. The light and backgrounds in this particular location are stunning and this makes the little 400mm ideal for these type of shots of this species. I also wish I had an 800mm for some closer shots!
These are processed in LR and there is something weird going on with how it is handling noise. I will probably re-process some of these in NX Studio if time permits.
EDIT: I should add that the more I use the Z9, the more impressed I am with the AF. As long as I do my part, it nails these fast moving subjects, even over strongly backlit water.
OwlsEyes wrote:
So long as we selectively quoting Thom...
I'm not quoting Thom here - it's from my personal experience . It's all user specific - I already had 70-200 and TC1.4, so 100-400 made no sense to me. 500PF got sold at little to no loss and for my use 400 just made sense.
If I had 100-400 instead - the story would likely be different (but I prefer 70-200 2.8 for the dimly lit forests here).
Since 500PF was my last f-mount lens & I don't own any f-mount bodies - I went with the native lens. It is way better balanced (you'd need to handle it to see the difference), lets me ditch FTZ & doesn't run VR non-stop. IQ with TC is similar to 500 PF but that additional 60mm in range actually translates in plenty more pixels on the target.
Again - all personal choices. We're truly blessed with having so many tele choices in both mounts.
lukemeup wrote:
I'm not quoting Thom here - it's from my personal experience . It's all user specific - I already had 70-200 and TC1.4, so 100-400 made no sense to me. 500PF got sold at little to no loss and for my use 400 just made sense.
If I had 100-400 instead - the story would likely be different (but I prefer 70-200 2.8 for the dimly lit forests here).
Since 500PF was my last f-mount lens & I don't own any f-mount bodies - I went with the native lens. It is way better balanced (you'd need to handle it to see the difference), lets me ditch FTZ & doesn't run VR non-stop. IQ with TC is similar to 500 PF but that additional 60mm in range actually translates in plenty more pixels on the target.
Again - all personal choices. We're truly blessed with having so many tele choices in both mounts.
Interesting... In my case, I had the 70-200 with both converters and bought the 100-400 due to reviews that claim "for all practical purposes it's as good at 400 as the prime." I do NOT agree with that statement based on what I've experienced, however it is better than the 70-200 with the 2x by a notable amount and is in fact very, very good wide open at 400 -- just not "outstanding."
The surprise for me was in the 100 to 300 range, where I have found it outstanding, essentially as good as the 70-200 with the 1.4x -- and that combo remains essentially as good as the lens without converter.
So do I want an f4 100-300 that's a little larger and slightly heavier than an f4.5-5.6 100-400 is where I'm at now... And frankly thinking about selling off the 70-200 as the 100-400 seems to be the lens I grab instead almost every time. In fact, the 70-200 would be gone already if I didn't want to have 135-200/2.8 available on occasion. Upside is I don't need the money and the 70-200 is outstanding, so I'm not in a rush.
gear-nut wrote:
Interesting... In my case, I had the 70-200 with both converters and bought the 100-400 due to reviews that claim "for all practical purposes it's as good at 400 as the prime." I do NOT agree with that statement based on what I've experienced, however it is better than the 70-200 with the 2x by a notable amount and is in fact very, very good wide open at 400 -- just not "outstanding."
The surprise for me was in the 100 to 300 range, where I have found it outstanding, essentially as good as the 70-200 with the 1.4x -- and that combo remains essentially as good as the lens without converter.
So do I want an f4 100-300 that's a little larger and slightly heavier than an f4.5-5.6 100-400 is where I'm at now... And frankly thinking about selling off the 70-200 as the 100-400 seems to be the lens I grab instead almost every time. In fact, the 70-200 would be gone already if I didn't want to have 135-200/2.8 available on occasion. Upside is I don't need the money and the 70-200 is outstanding, so I'm not in a rush. ...Show more →
Personal choices. I never bothered with TC2.0 as I felt it would compromise the images too much. TC1.4 is great though.
Of course it makes sense for 100-400 to be noticeably better than 70-200 with TC2.0 & it also makes sense that 400 prime is better than 100-400.
You're also in sunny CA which I bet gets way more sunlight than coastal BC.
Choices / decisions / tradeoffs. If the budget was limitless I'd have way more lenses.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Those backlit tern shots are flipping amazing... I love the creative composition and strong contrast light!
Wow!!
Thanks very much for your generous feedback. I am a little nervous about going too far "off piste" with such work so your comments are much appreciated 🙂.
Alistair1 wrote:
Thanks very much for your generous feedback. I am a little nervous about going too far "off piste" with such work so your comments are much appreciated 🙂.
It's refreshing to see images that show something more than a perfect portrait. Rookeries/colonies offer the rare opportunity to make images that suggest something more than sharp feathers and beaks. Sure, the latter are important, but when a photographer has the opportunity to focus on the form and details of a our natural subjects, we offer the viewer something more to think about.
All reviews discover that:
- the 2.8 is better at same aperture
- the 4.5 is lighter and shorter
- the 2.8 is more expensive
- with TCs the 2.8 remains faster and better.
Difficult to predict now who'll win the Nobel price for such advancements in Physics
Ripolini wrote:
All reviews discover that:
- the 2.8 is better at same aperture
- the 4.5 is lighter and shorter
- the 2.8 is more expensive
- with TCs the 2.8 remains faster and better.
Difficult to predict now who'll win the Nobel price for such advancements in Physics
But how much better, how much more? We need to be more exact.
I've seen at least two reviews that claim that the sharpness is almost the same at the same aperture, and AF speed practically the same.
Following is also fact:
- With the price of 400/2.8 TC one can get ca. four 400/4.5S lenses
- One 400/2.8S TC weights more than Z9, 400/4.5S and TC1.4X combined.
- Z9 + 400/4.5S can fit sideways on my Protactic BP 450 II backbag
If you need 2.8 get the 400/2.8.
If you think that 4.5 aperture is enough, get the 400/4.5. Is the 400/4.5 a good lens? Yes. Is that necessary to know how much better the 2.8 is? No.
Is that important to discover that a prime lens is better than a zoom (100-400 Z) at same FL & aperture? No. Do we need to discover hot water? No. Thanx.
Finally, if you need a zoom, get the 100-400, or 120-300/2.8 or 180-400/4, depending on what you have to do with that zoom, if you know.
Comparing apples to oranges is a nonsense.
P.S.: I own the 300/4 PF. Am I interested in knowing how much better the 300/2.8 is? Absolutely not. Why did I buy the PF? because it's lightweight and compact and I don't need 2.8. Did I plan to use often TCs with a 300 mm lens? No. If I did, I would have bought the 2.8.
. 
