ChrisMak
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Nikon Z 400 f4.5 VR S Image Thread | |
OwlsEyes wrote:
ChrisMak wrote:
OwlsEyes wrote:
ChrisMak wrote:
OwlsEyes wrote:
The 400 f4.5 is a such a great lens... love it's mix of size and optical clarity. Nikon has a winner here.
The Z400 has great contrast and color, that was obvious from day one of people posting images taken with the lens.
Now that you also have the 800PF, do you see this as an ideal two lens set-up?
My camera store contacted me and said they received info from Nikon that current estimated delivery time for the 800PF here is 4 weeks. I am fairly high now on the list, so it's getting near. I used the D500+500PF for over two years and did not feel I had too much reach, so I would assume the the Z9+800PF will be enough to fill my needs, but that Z400+1.4TC is very tempting as a second lens.
Yours is a good question and one that I have asked myself before and after purchasing the 800PF. Were my pockets deeper, the 400mm f2.8S lens with built in 1.4x would be the "one" telephoto for my shooting preferences. However, the price of the 400mm f2.8S or 600mm f4S are a step beyond my comfort zone. Ideally, I'd prefer a 200-600mm f4.5 (or 5.6) S-series lens, but this is not what Nikon is planning to produce. All of the roadmaps suggest that the 200-600 will be more like the 200-500 F-mount lens than the 200-400mm f4.0 professional optics.
Given the choices in the Z-System, the 400mm f4.5 and 800 f6.3PF seem to be the perfect compromise solution. The 800PF is a marvel in optical engineering. The lens is light, sharp, and relatively easy to shoot. While slower to lock on than the 400 f4.5, the lens plays well with the Z9 and creates photographic opportunities that a shorter focal length can't offer.
While I wouldn't call the 400/800 the "perfect combo," I find that the lenses pair well and are portable enough to carry in one bag.
If you liked the long-eared owl shot posted here, you should check out the pictures I recently posted on the 800PF thread.
regards,
bruce
Yes, I saw your very nice long eared owl images taken with the 800PF. What I like about the lens, is that you have the reach without needing a TC, without having to put up with an extremely large size and without having to carry a hefty weight. It is straight and simple and gets you close, and delivers prime quality.
I believe the consensus is that it is a clear step below the Sony 600GM regarding image quality, rendering flatter images and lacking the ultimate contrast and clarity of the 600/4 lenses, but it is clearly still a high quality prime lens. And the AF is allegedly a step below. For me, choosing between the Nikon 800PF and the Sony 600GM is nearly identical to the choice between the 500PF and a 500/4 lens: do I want the ultimate clarity and IQ, and top level auto focus, but with the price of large size and weight, and a hefty cost, or do I want very good prime IQ a step below the top-level lenses, but have the substantial weight and size advantage and half the price? I have decided to choose the latter option.
At this point I do not think it is fair to characterize the optical performance of 800PF as a notch below any of the current batch of 600mm f4 lenses when a 1.4x is used to extend their focal length to 840mm. I have a friend who sold his 800mm FLE f5.6 for the 800PF and he claims that the performance is essentially the same. To be clear, I have not had, nor used, the 800PF long enough to make any grandiose claims about the optics. I am comfortable saying that it is as sharp as my 500PF (without converters), and does not exhibit the onion ring speculars that I've seen from my 500PF lens.
When comparing the 400 f4.5 to the 800PF, the 400mm lens seems to have a slightly more responsive AF, but I am not expecting lightning AF speed from an 800mm lens.
In my opinion, the one thing lacking with my 800mm PF lens is a photographer with prior experience with an 800mm lens. My longest lens to date has been 500mm. When used on the D500, I was at a 750mm field of view. The 800mm PF is longer and heavier than my prior long kit, and it will take time for me to refine how I will use it. Based on my day with swans, owls, and chickadees, I am confident that this is an excellent optic... I am hoping that the photographer will eventual catch up to its capabilities.
regards,
bruce
You are very right to point out that the 800PF is an 800mm lens and can not really be compared to the 600MM f4 lenses. Since I have not used either (yet) I cannot say much of sense about the optical quality of both, but since I have been going through the process of deciding on a Sony 600GM and a Z0+800PF combo, I have especially followed the very few posts about people having used both, and they seem to be in agreement that the 600GM is the superior lens optically.
But what does that mean at all anyhow? When I get the 800PF soon and I am content with the images it produces, that's all that matters. What I have seen from the 800PF has convinced me that it is a true prime level lens. F4 lenses have this wow factor, but when you put a 1.4TC on to get to 840mm, most of that wow factor abates anyhow, and it becomes simply a very good 840mm lens. I had the Sigma 500mm f4S for a while simultaneously with the 500PF, and I could certainly appreciate the F4 brilliant and clear look, but still preferred the 500PF in the end.
|
