This video took a pleasurable yet considerable time to put together. Please like and comment to keep us going. A very small channel making a difference. Thank you 😊
Www.instagram.com/Russell4light
linktr.ee/lozzom
This video took a pleasurable yet considerable time to put together. Please like and comment to keep us going. A very small channel making a difference. Thank you 😊
Www.instagram.com/Russell4light
linktr.ee/lozzom
I got 400mm. I had 200-500mm, but if you asked me which lens to keep, 400mm no question. I have never questioned 200-500 picture quality, but focus speed and accuracy, 400 wipes it off the planet. Enjoy your lens
Yes I agree. The handling is a dream on the 400. Cent wait to try the new z8 firmware on it
For African Wild Life the 400F4.5 S is AWESOME but I use the far more versatile 180-600 .. The 200-500 is a dog compared to both the Z lenses mentioned here >> Trombone Zooming etc In Africa I am Vehicle Based 98% of the time so weight a non issue with the 180-600 > great video very interesting
Thanks, Sure the 180-600 has much better features than the 200-500 no doubt and wins on versatility. I’ll Have to rent one to fully compare
You guys are wonderful
This is an awesome lens. I have coupled it with the TD-1.4x that it gives 560mm f/6.3 and it is about 100g lighter than the 600 f//6.3. I also carry my 100-400 for other shots.
I’d love to know how the 1.4 compares to simply cropping in quality?
@@russandloz Never did that comparison. But I like having full magapixel image prior to cropping. Also I can go DX mode on camera, but for that I would do it in post as that will eat into the pixels.
Have the 400 4.5 plus the 1.4 converter love it used to have the 200-500 it was heavy compared to the 400
Exactly, yeah, I really didn't think how a lighter lens is so much better. Is there much difference when cropping to using the tc?
This actually speaks volumes about the 200-500, because that 400 4.5 is razor sharp. I'm looking forward to the 180-600 this spring. I also think you can get a lot more out of the 400 4.5 - the results I've seen definitely rival the 200-500, 500 PF, etc. But we're mostly splitting hairs at this point, with these amazing modern tools.
I was very surprised the 200-500 pretty much matched image quality in good light. But twice the weight lol
Cool - it'll interesting to see your results with the 2x TC on the 400mm f/4.5... I have used the 2x on mine a bit, but I don't do it very often as the impact on image quality and AF speed is really significant, much more so than with the 1.4x which plays really nicely with the small 400mm..
Thanks Geoff, I watched your reviews many times helping me decide. I love using the 400 4.5. But I sure would like a 2.8 version. But maybe not the weight
Thank you for sharing this video.
Pleasure. Did you find it helpful?
I rented it but despite how good it is, I preferred the ability of a zoom for composure, plus, I rented the z100-400. ended up with the z180-600 as I found 400 really not long enough1
Yeah it is harder to find composition with a prime but I’m getting used to it
Nikon 100-400mm all the way! Get the zoom flexibility, very close min focal distance, still quick autofocus, still close to the 70-200 f2.8 size and wide open isn't that different. I find the versatility of the 100-400mm to be the real benefit. It can be used for distant landscapes, portraits (surprisingly amazing for this), large wildlife or closer birds, sports and as a near-macro lens. The 500pf is really beautiful still......I understand most 400mm f4.5 users have a TC 1.4 on it for the most part.....which then gets you very close to the cheaper 500 pf.
It does look like a decent range though I’ve never needed it for wildlife. I have the 70-200 for that. It’s also slower and heavier than the 400.
@@russandloz The 100-400 is a fantastic as a travel lens when you don't want to take a bunch of lenses or large wildlife lenses. 14-24 (or 14-30), 24-70 (or 24-120), 100-400 and you're pretty much set for most trips where wildlife is on the list but not the primary focus. The difference between the 100-400 and the 400 4.5 isn't big enough to lose the versatility for mixed use and the difference in weight is not that much if one is used to a 70-200 or 500pf. My biggest complaint about the 100-400 is the price. It's stellar otherwise. Loved this video by the way.......people love the 400mm 4.5, so you're brave to call it out as not being enough of a jump over the 500pf but I think you're correct with the balance of things.
Thanks@@richardwanbon3087 The review is how we found it. I thought it would be a very different lens but I am happy with it. Mostly with the very enjoyable weight difference.
You can count on Russ for the occasional surprise reveal at the end and can count on Loz for the surprised reaction. Nice review, and those were some great images. Russ.. who is it better to deal with: A creature in the wild or a drunk member of the wedding party? LOL
Funny thing is I went to the camera after filming and it wasn't recording. Thankfully it just went over the 30min limit as I was walking to the camera. 😬 The creature and the drunks are equally challenging lol
I have to say I love my 600mm 6.3. I have a decent gap currently with 70-200mm Z and the Plena being my other “long lens”. Perfect weight and if anything I wish it was longer. I don’t know if I would want to take the 800mm all the time.
The 600 would be great focal length. Also a light lens. Maybe I’ll have to wait for a good deal
Really like my 400, easy to carry around
Yes it’s a joy to use. Major selling point. Have you tried teleconverters?
@@russandloz have the 1.4 that I’ve tried on it and works fine but you have to be extremely picky as to whether or not just to crop in without it
@@lolingsaraee I’m thinking that with my 2x. But then using dx mode gives a better field of view too.
I was on the fence between this and getting the 500 5.6 PF to use on FTZ last fall. I ended up going with the 500 for a couple of reasons. The first being cost, the addition of the 600 PF meant that tons of 500pf owners were flooding the used market looking to upgrade which meant the 500's used price fell to about 50% of MSRP. For me, this meant it was about 60% of the price of the 400 4.5. (I save over $2000cad by going with the 500) The other reason being reach, I felt that 1/3 of a stop of light loss was well worth the gain of 20% more focal length. Both are incredible lenses though and are equals in terms of image quality. I'd also add that I was able to get a great deal on a 300 F/4 PF and am in love with that lens. It boggles my mind that you can have a 300 f/4 in such a small package. I think its my new favourite lens. Not really long enough for most wildlife work but its an amazing second body lens and I also find it is a wonderful choice when I'm going out for a hike with friends and just want a light and fast tele. It also has really good close focusing so it can operate as a pseudo macro lens in the field. (max repro of 0.24 as opposed to about 0.18 for most of the other big teles out there, not a true macro, but more versatile that I expected if Ihappen to encounter a cool looking spider or flower in the field) Also, it performs surprisingly well with the 1.4 TC putting it at 440 5.6. With the TC on it is smaller than either the 500pf or the 400 4.5 making it an ultra portable dream at the cost of marginal image quality. I also upgraded from the 200-500 and am really happy I did, Sometimes I miss the "cool" feeling of such a huge lens but I don't miss its unreliable slow autofocus for even a second.
Yes I do wonder if I waited a bit longer I might have got the 500pf. But I am hopeful that the 400 works well with teleconverters making it a multi lens. Soon find out
I borrowed this lens from NPS and it’s soooo good. So sharp, and f4.5 is fine. Pairing it with my 2X TC makes this a great sideline sports lens.
Have you compared cropping in to using the 2x tc? Or using dx mode for a better field of view?
Appreciate your honest comments. I agonized between the 400 f4.5 and the Z100-400. In the end i went with the new zoom because of its much closer MFD. But i still harbor a soft spot for the 400 prime. ☺️
Thanks. If I needed a shorter range I’d consider that
Great video
Thank you for the very nice review. I am wondering how does it compare with the 70-200 f2.8 with the 2x teleconverter.
We'll try that next with our 2xtc review! Will be interesting
Great video, out of interest how have you found this lens with the 2x tc? How greatly is the image quality and AF affected? I’m considering upgrading from the sigma 150-600mm contemporary to either a 180-600 or 400 f4.5. I live in Ireland and suffer a lot of overcast days during winter which sways me toward the 400 however, reach is always an issue with wildlife which pushes me to the 180-600.
Really the cameras and software deal with iso noise very well now. Getting the right focal length is key if weight isn’t an issue. 2xtc video coming soon!
@@russandloz very fair point, thanks for your reply. Looking forward to the video!
Very nice conversation, as always. I prefer the flexibility of zooms and I think the 100-400mm is a fine compromise between weight-length and reach. And now, thanks to you, I'm more convinced that I would not be much better with the photos taken with the prime 400mm. Thank you.
Thanks Luis, if I needed a range below 400 the 100-400 looks good. Though the 400 prime is a lot lighter?
@@russandloz Yes, 200g more or less. I think the main problem of the 100-400m in relation with the 400mm prime is the combination with a teleconverter. I don't have one but probably on of these days I will buy a 1,4x but mostly for GAS reasons! Thank you.
Nice to see a bit of positivity creeping back into the vids - been a bit downbeat lately
Yes me too. It has been a frustrating time and goes on. But we love reviewing the best of what they offer
I trade in my 200--500 for the 180-600 but weight and size is still an issue for me
That was my concern. It’s lighter but not enough for my walking around use case. Maybe they’ll bring out a budget light weight prime at some point
@@russandloz Imo the biggest benefit is less the slightly lower weight but the fact that the 180-600 is way better balanced and is internally focusing. I found with my 200-500 half the battle was dealing with its awful balance more than its weight.
Yes that's true, fully extended it was a nightmare which the new lens corrected. But at the cost of permanent long length. tricky for bagging? @@ryancooper3629
Só... You made two videos very worried about problems and you purchased one 400 4.5 ?????
Yes! I’m hoping my issues are the exception and won’t happen again. As I’m already heavily invested in Nikon. I got this lens just before my z8 broke
@@russandloz there isn't anything similar on internet. I think you only had bad luck. About the lenses... Someone suggest you on turning off the memory of local af point, the ibis and VR. Did you tried? I hope things are going to be better, and someone will sort this out or will be a shame.
You will see the difference in 400 4.5 & 200-500 5.6 in hot weather (35-50*c), dust and add a distance factor to it, there will be a lot more difference. In favourable weather in terms of sharpness, you will also not notice a lot of difference between 200-500/180-600 and 400 f2.8, atleast not 10000$ difference.
I'm never in that heat in the uk, but sure the 400 has a better ability with worse conditions.
@@russandlozAnd thanks for the background comparison between the 400mm f4.5 with the Z400mm & 400mm f6.3 with the 200-500mm. Very few if any have done this. 👍🏽
@@stripes_in_raw Thanks yeah we try to show something the others don’t. From others I was expecting the 400 to be noticeable different in all areas
@@russandlozSteve Perry mentioned it in his 180-600mm video. At 400mm the prime is a bit sharper, faster and better blur. But when cropped or with 1.4Tc the zoom is a tad sharper. I personally found it sharper than 200-500mm without any editing, which could be due to high ISO ranging between 1600-12800.
"The background can be blurred out" [4:15] is one of the saddest statements in photography today... I mean computational imaging... 😞
Sure it 's not as good or as satisfying but it is a tool to be used?
@@russandloz For iPhones, sure. Or Sony cameras, perhaps. But a real camera like a Nikon? Optics win, for me.
The only time I would blur the background if it was noisy or really distracting. I get your point though @@UnconventionalReasoning
I’m sorry, but your notoriously negative lens pal was right all along. You overpaid for air, basically. The 180-600 fries both lenses and is so cheap, you made a big mistake, I’m afraid.
I prefer the lighter setup so it wasn’t a mistake for me. But how does the 180-600 fry the 400?
@@russandloz It's sharper, more flexible and cheaper.
@@n1ngnuo For me, the 400 is much lighter and smaller. Making it a lot bette to take out and shoot with. So I’m happy. But can see your point of view
@@n1ngnuo The 180-600 is amazing, but it is not sharper than the 400 4.5. The 400 is also much lighter and faster at 4.5 as Russ mentions. Different use cases for everyone.
I wouldn't swap my 600pf for a 180-600 . It costs more, but much nicer use when walking around for a few hours. I sold my 400 4.5 because it was not long enough.