Thoughts on Nikon 400mm Lenses for Wildlife Photography
2024 ж. 13 Мам.
10 853 Рет қаралды
Nikon currently has 3 options for Z-mount lenses that give you a 400mm focal length. The Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, Nikon 400mm f/4.5, and the top of the line Nikon 400mm f/2.8 TC. I share my thoughts on the advantages and disadvantages of each of the lenses in my experience shooting them for bird and wildlife photography. I also share photos taken at the different minimum apertures for each lens so you can see real-world differences of the look they capture in photos and depth-of-field.
Great, informative video Ray, I’d have a heart attack putting them down in the sand tho 😅
Haha it’s just the lens hood. I do it all the time with no issues.
@@RayHennessy aw, I know what you mean. I've got the 300f2.8vr2 but I still treat it with kid gloves. Great concise advice as always 😊
Thanks. I was in the market for a long telephoto lens earlier this year having sold my 500mm F4 F lens. And I was fed up waiting for the 200-600. The 400mm 2.8 was out of the ballpark for me in terms of cost, weight and portability. Initially I was inclined towards the 100-400mm for its versatility but in a side-by-side test I immediately chose the 400mm F4.5 not just because it focused far more quickly but more because as soon as I used the zoom in the 100-400mm it wobbled in the hand too much and took too long to focus. FWIW.
Great video and thanks for this. I have both Z 400 f/4.5 and Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. I couldn't afford the Z 600 f/6.3 so I have mounted a 1.4x TC on the 400 f/4.5 and it became a 560mm f/6.3 and weight is good too. So with both of these I can handled quite a few challenges.
Sounds like a great setup! That 400mm f/4.5 is so light it makes a lot of things so easy to shoot!
After shooting 2.8, I don't think I can go back. I'd recommend people who want to do wildlife with 2.8, to get a used 300mm VR1 (not 2) + 1.4x TC and use the FTZii. It's incredible value, and is less than the 400 4.5, and sure as hell a lot less than the 400 2.8 :) Sure, you'll be at f/4 at 420, but you'll also have 300 2.8.
Thanks so much for sharing another wonderful video like always 👍🤗
Sure thing!
Good analysis Ray. The 400 2.8 with the TC major advantage is your DoF besides more light (faster) . 400 @ 2.8 and 560 @ f4 shallower death of fields at whatever distances makes life easier trying to isolate for bokeh, etc. BUT $$$$$ lol. Have fun with Jamin while you're up here in AK.
Great information
Thanks, Ray. I got the 400 4.5 and am very happy. However, I miss the zoom after seeing what you have been doing lately with zoomed out shots. Very impressive.
Awesome, glad you are enjoying it, it’s an awesome lens!
These are so helpful ! Just waiting for the affordable 200-600 for budget and reach. Right now using my 200-500 on my Z8
Can’t wait to see comparison video on tele vs just zooming in.
I believe the f2.8 is better at f2.8 but same glass and coatings I would expect at f4.5 they are the same enough to be indistinguishable. F2.8 at 400mm is creamy gorgeous and that is where the money is.
Great video and very helpful, although I did feel like I was at an eye doctor's office -- which looks better, A or B? 😉
Someone I ran into with the Z9 & 600 f4 tc lens said the same about the difference between 500- 600mm. Not as much of a difference in the distance thing as one might think.
I had no idea that those lens hoods were sand proof lol watching this gave me anxiety ha ha
Haha, you aren't alone. I do that all the time with lenses, it keeps the glass off the sand and works great! Although for how expensive that lens hood is it's built pretty bad, I've already had it coming apart in one spot, I wish Nikon could build these things to last.
Great video, i did have a bit of a heart attack seeing the lenses lined up face down with the sand - I'd freak out thinking about the sand falling in to the lens glass as you picked them up lol
The glass is not making contact with the sand due to the lens hoods.
Think I’ll go with the 4.5
Thanks you helped me go to sleep!
Can I assume that the differences between the 100-400 mm at f/5.6 and 400 mm f/4.5 would extend logically to the 500mm PF f/5.6? I too like to take pictures of the smaller birds in Central and South America and think the 500 mm gives me just a bit more with the subject on the sensor even with the loss of 1 stop of light. Still saving for the 400mm f/2.8. Looking forward to your next video.
I think kinda similar but you do get the extra reach of 500mm
The first thing to say here is that the Z 100-400 is nowhere near the same ballpark as the other two lenses. The Z 100-400 can do macro-ish work, landscapes, portrait's, captive animals, well lit wildlife, and well lit sports action. It is excellent sharp from 100-300, and good sharp from 300-400. Works great with the 1.4x TC, which makes it for all intents and purposes a Sigma/Tamron 150-600 replacement...except better. Usable with the 2.0x TC. The reproduction ratio with no TC is 0.38x and MFD 2.5 - 3.2 feet. IMHO, that is the secret sauce of this lens. In the context of this video, if you are chasing small birds in trees/brush, butterflies, bees, insects, etc., the Z 100-400 blows away the other two lenses. The Z 400 f2.8 and Z 400 f4.5 are together in a separate ballpark. The Z 400 f2.8 is obviously faster, sharper, and has the built in 1.4x TC. The Z 400 f4.5 is small, light, and far cheaper. Both have a rather poor reproduction ratio and too far MFD. Neither of these lenses are good for chasing small stuff and getting those kinds of perspectives. You don't expect that with lenses like the Z 600 f4 and Z 800 f6.3, so it is a non factor for them. But for 400mm lenses, IMO, you do. The Z 400 f2.8 makes up for it by being an f2.8 and having that built in 1.4x TC. The Z 400 f4.5 has nothing to make up for it, because while it is cheaper than the Z 400 f2.8 it is more expensive than the Z 100-400 while having a lot less overall usability/capability.
Thanks for your thoughts and feedback. As you have shared everyone has their own preferences as to what works best for how they shoot. For example, I've shot warblers and other small songbirds using the 400mm f/2.8 as well as other big primes for well over a decade now and done quite well with it so having that close focus distance has almost never been an issue for me. And while I agree the 400mm f/2.8 is ahead of all the other lenses with sharpness in the final image that is shared online the difference can't be seen in my experience so that gain isn't much of an advantage to that lens to me.
Interesting, and I would say LR would be able to negate any difference between the backgrounds the apertures presented here create, with some thoughtful editing..
I think you can do some but I always have personally found artificial blur a tough thing to make convincing. But sure it can be done and sometimes great.
Sand sand sand. Oh boy
I would expect you to share close-up bird photos to show the sharpness difference among them.
I think it's pretty hard to see true sharpness on a video but I'll keep that in mind for future videos.
On the sand ?
Yeah, I set my lens on its hood like that quite often and when shooting shorebirds on the beach the whole camera and lens gets very sandy. The gear can take it and it's unavoidable when shooting low perspectives on the beach in my experience. It comes right off and causes no issues. I've shot this way for 10+ years.
For bird photography, 400mm isn't enough. It Is that simple. Save your money and invest into a 600mm f/4. The best what money can buy.
That seems like very narrow-minded thinking. Some of my favorite bird photos I've taken in the last year were at 100mm. It's entirely dependent upon your goals and what subjects you are working with. Sure there are times when 600mm is ideal but for my style of shooting it's way too much focal length a lot of the time and I would personally never want that lens but I'm sure it's a great fit for you. To think that everyone should shoot at 600mm f/4 (or could afford one) doesn't account for personal preference.
Flip the converter and you have your 600 f4 (well 560 f4 but it’s close enough). This 400 is 2 lenses in one, it’s a game changer like the new 600 f4 with the tc. And you can add the new external tc’s without any noticeable drop in quality.