suteetat
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element? | |
ilkka_nissila wrote:
suteetat wrote:
Hard to see any 300mm ever become the best wildlife lens of all time unless you only shoot elephants and hippos.
I think when discussing a 300/2.8 for wildlife, people often expect to use it with TCs, and in this particular lens's case many users seem to be happy with the performance. The light weight and compact size makes it easier to use it more varied conditions, for example, walking about in the forest or on hills, either the Sony 300/2.8 or the Nikon 400/4.5 are easy to work with. The 400/4.5 Nikkor is considerably lighter than the Sony 300/2.8 with 1.4 X TC on, though, but one could then argue that some of Sony's camera bodies are lighter and that would compensate for the difference to some extent. However, the position of the weight along the optical axis is also important and for me at least having as much of the weight close to my body as possible makes hand-held use easier. The 300/2.8 Nikkor is quite a challenge to hand-hold though I do do that when e.g. photographing figure skating, but walking inside a forest with hills, snow, and/or bushes I would not consider comfortable with that lens or any 400/2.8. The 400/4.5, 300/4 PF by contrast are very nice to use in such an environment. Are they too short? No, for large mammals they're not since the trees limit visibility over long distances anyway. Also, if you're in a hide, a wide variety of focal lengths can be used successfully.
Here there has been a shift from photographs showing the animals in their environment and some activity to showing a close-up of a single animal due to instagram and similar presentation platforms where it's not possible to really show landscapes in good detail, with animals. Instant attention and impact is there the game, I suppose. However, if you shoot for gallery or wall display then showing landscapes with animals or animals in their environment, then shorter focal lengths are suitable for that. Ultimately how an animal looks is not very interesting as we've seen so many examples of that. But if you can show some activity or animals in the grander scene of nature, that's much more interesting IMO. If you look at the statistics of the 100 best (selected by judges) images of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, it is typical that the average focal length is not that long (less than 300 mm).
Could Nikon make 400/4.5 sharper and higher quality, I would think they could. It is not always technology that limits what Nikon can do but also marketing, price point and position in the market. Nikon has so many options for 400mm, from 400/2.8s TC down to 28-400. When they think of light weight 400 prime, I don't think the best lens is the only criteria but the best lens they can make at a certain price point that would fit in with their lineup.
If given unlimited budget and no marketing consideration, would they be able to make a higher quailty 400/4.5 lens, I would think that they could. If they think the market would support 400/4.5 at the same price point as 300/2.8 and it won't eat up their 400/2.8s TC sale, they probably would have make one.
I agree that there is the pricing and position in the lineup to consider; at this price it's better (sharper and has arguably nicer bokeh) than the 100-400 mm at 400 mm, focuses faster, has a larger maximum aperture, and is lighter as well, but the difference is not that big. The 400/2.8 TC of course is a completely different class of a lens with extremely high price but such lenses are not that comfortable to walk around in a position ready to shoot, which in practice limit the buyer base and use cases. Of course, the f/4.5 aperture of the 400/4.5 also limits the uses of that lens. There is something for everyone in the Z telephoto lineup, at least for wildlife and birds. For indoor sports, concerts etc. 200/2 and 300/2.8 would be useful and are still missing. I would expect a 300/2.8 or 120-300/2.8 within a few years, personally I would hope it is a prime priced similarly to other 300/2.8 lenses as I really don't need yet another telezoom, least of all a 10k€+ lens. People who are like US secretary Bessent recently suggested, owning 5-12 houses, might not care about the price, but there are not that many of those people around. And in the future the excess concentration of wealth in the hands of a few might lead to another world war as it has in the past, after which there are no guarantees that anyone can afford anything. IMO lenses like the 400/4.5 are very important because of the wide range of uses and relatively affordable price, and it's really great that Nikon covers this upper intermediate-level market.
Needing to use TC most of the time is a deal breaker for me for best wildlife lens ever. While TC nowadays is better and when people say, there is no visible degradation, just look Imatest published on Photographylife for example (dont see one for 309/2.8 yet but you can see one for 400/2,8s tc and 600/4s tc, i dont think sony tc is going to be much better than that) After saying that, yes,
You can still get excellent images with it. My strategy, I have both 600/4s TC and 600PF. Now I have arguably best in class wildlife lenses. I can go light and portable with excellent images quality or I can go with ultimate IQ depending on situation. No need to mention cost, since original poster was comparing 400/4.5 to a much more expensive 300/2.8gm.
300/2.8gm is certainly a great lens but at least for me, the focal length is in a no man’s land. My experience with Nikon 300pf is that it just sat in my cabinet because I dont have many occasion where that focal length is ideal for me. There are many other Sony lenses that I would want to adapt before ever thinking about 300/2.8gm considering what I have and what I can use it for.
|
