RoamingScott
Online
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Steve Perry's video, comparing the A1 to the Z9 | |
IMO there are plenty of times where even 400mm isn't adequate for wildlife, so buying the 400 would by default mean having the 1.4 or 2x on it most of the times (when in the actual wild). For Marcus in Central Park, 400 would probably be fine quite often.
I've loved the images I've seen from the 400 so far, and know of a few people that traded off their 100-400 for it for the same usage. My 100-400 is pegged at 560 for any wildlife shooting, but that overall range really comes in handy when hiking for landscapes where I use the 100-300 range much more.
I find the images the 100-400 produces close enough to the 400 however that if you have ANY use for the extra range, the 100-400 is a nobrainer at less cost. Given that the usual tradeoff with a zoom vs a prime is the transition zone smoothness, the 100-400 having such fantastic transitions negates that usually obvious negative bullet point.
This is a nice example of how well the 400 handles the transitions in a scenario would a zoom would normally struggle, although the Z 100-400 would handle this well too https://www.flickr.com/photos/himma66/52684707428/in/pool-14855955@N22/
|
