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.
Good thing about 400 is that there is no aperture penalty for TC when i compare it to 500 (1/3rd of a stop)
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 !
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.
Good thing about 400 is that there is no aperture penalty for TC when i compare it to 500 (1/3rd of a stop)
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 !
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 !
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 @StevePerry@@@@@@
Reason against:
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 !
Jun 11, 2023 at 03:33 AM
Previous versions of nandadevieast's message #16267684 « Nikon Z 400 f4.5 VR S Image Thread »
