NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on May 18, 2022, 02:48:11
-
After five months, today I received my copy of the Nikon NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Lens. I tried a bunch of quick tests, which I then forgot most of which order the shots were, yet I was very clear about this one shown in this post.
Here is a shot of some Trillium flowers in our yard, a uncropped shot and a cropped shot. This was about 40 feet away, quite a distance. You can see how far away they are. And then, here is a cropped photo of the same shot. Look at the detail that is available at this distance. This says more to me than the bunch of test shots I did in the studio. It looks to be a great lens and also very useful, being able to get that kind of quality from such a distance. Sorry to be so unprofessional, but I never chose to be a professional photographer, did I.
-
These triliums are great not found here
-
These triliums are great not found here
They are protected here in Michigan. These are in our yard and were here some 41 years ago when we bought the place. In the woods there can be huge batches of them. We live within about a mile of he Manistee National Forest, some 900,000 acres of wilderness.
Here is a better photo of Trilliums taken with the Nikon NOCT 0.95 Z Lens.
-
They are protected here in Michigan. These are in our yard and were here some 41 years ago when we bought the place. In the woods there can be huge batches of them. We live within about a mile of he Manistee National Forest, some 900,000 acres of wilderness.
The range for trillium extends deep into Ontario, and I think it is under provincial protection. My experience with trillium is slow germination and then several years to flower...certainly beautiful when they come forth. A stand of nodding trillium was present in the front yard of some property held a few years ago. Also, Michael, I wanted to mention that I'm quite familiar with the Manistee National Forest including the Luther and Tustin areas as well as the Pine and Big- and Little-Manistee Rivers and surrounds.
-
Got my 100-400 yesterday, but I have to wait until next weekend to go to the mountains to try it with animals and nature. So far, from the first shots from my balcony, I am impressed.
I have also got the 2X converter, and while it loses some sharpness it still remains very decent in quality (although focus at 800 mm tends to hunt a bit).
-
I am very interested in this zoom for my ongoing transition to mirrorless equipment. Main goal is to complement my hybrid DSLR / mirrorless lens focal range.
The Z 24-120 S is excellent but due to an ongoing loss of my dexterity the zoom ring feels very stiff and I can't change / zoom quickly. How is the zoom ring on this tele zoom? Does it rotate smoothly? I appreciate any first hand comparison since I may opt for the Z 400/4.5 S instead. Thanks.
-
The zoom ring is not particularly stiff, but neither it is particularly smooth to operate. I guess that a looser zoom ring might have caused lens creep, so they opted for a medium stiffness. I don't have the 24-120 to compare, though. It's more or less comparable to the 14-30 and 24-70/4, maybe a tiny bit stiffer than than.
Anyway, I have played a lot with this lens in the past 3 months on my Z6, and optically I can offer the following considerations:
NAKED LENS (no converters)
- The lens is balanced and handholdable, ergonomic and a great compromise in weight.
- Quality at long distances is very good at all focal lengths and apertures. It's already excellent in the center from wide open, and slightly benefits from stopping down only in the corners.
To make a comparison, at 100mm it's better at full aperture than the Z 105 MC at 2.8: unfair comparison, maybe, but considering that the macro lens is one of the sharpest 105mm lenses ever... The Z 105MC still has a slight edge if stopped down, though (as is to be expected).
- Image quality only degrades a bit at very short focusing distances and towards 400mm, but still very reasonable in the light of the very short minimum focusing distance: and this is an advantage compared to the fixed 400/4.5, because it allows for nice "almost macro" closeups.
- Focusing is quite fast, although it may hunt a bit at the long end in low light before grabbing focus: this is also due to the Z6, and everything points to better (and almost impeccable) behaviour on the Z9.
WITH 2X TC
- Losing two stops and becoming f/11, clearly the focusing speed suffers even in normal light conditions (again, it should be better on the Z9)
- Quality when using the TC at lower focal lenghts is very good. There is absolutely no difference in sharpness between shooting with the bare lens at 400mm and the lens @200+2X TC, which is telling on how good the TC is
- Quality definitely takes a hit in the 300-400mm range (600-800mm equivalent), and especially at short distances. It actually very much depends from situation to situation. But still, it's better than cropping, especially at long distances: the difference between 800mm with the TC and a 2X crop sees a reasonable advantage for the TC
- While the bare lens is very good at full aperture, stopping down half/one stop is rather recommended with the TC to improve sharpness and reduce slight instances of bloom
- As I said before, "it depends from situation to situation": ideal light will yield good results. But anything less than ideal will amplify the TC limits. Low light? Flat results. Contrasty light? Some loss of contrast due to blooming. Terrain heat/haze/humidity? Even worse. This last warning goes for ANY long telephoto, of course, but I feel that together with the loss of quality induced by the TC it's amplified. Some close shots I have done to small animals @800mm in hot days and harsh light were not exactly flattering, and actually quite soft. A partial remedy? Stop down to f/14-16, and then go heavier with the sharpening in PP.
- Bokeh is very much affected by the TC, becoming nervous and generally distracting
In general, TLDR: very good lens, but if you plan to use it with the 2X TC don't believe the hype. There are some internet reviews which say "I didn't see any image quality or performance hit with the 2x TC, it's a miracle!". No, sorry, the difference can be seen. Usable, but still not perfect.
-
Thanks Lucasbeer.
Care to share a few examples to illustrate these points?
I'm interested in how well it can deal with Birds in Flight at the 400mm end.
-
Birds are not my stuff, but here are some recent shots of mine with the 2X:
(https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204000]https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204000)
(https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204001]https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204001)
(https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204002]https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204002)
(https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204003]https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204003)
(https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204004]https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204004)
(https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204005]https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204005)
(https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204006]https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204006)
(https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204007]https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204007)
(https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204008]https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/index.php?s=7dcf341088c93eacfdda66f64e7d56ae&act=attach&type=post&id=204008)
-
Lucabeer, those goats are stunning. A somewhat low-resolving sensor limits you and your lens. In this case, you will be much better with the Z7-Z9 sensor, but, you know, just wishing... Well done, actually! LZ
-
But that opens another consideration...
The 2X TC makes sense on the Z6 because it's better than cropping. At long distances, achieving 800mm with the 2X is appreciably better than cropping (in terms of pure sharpness). But at very short distances (below 5-6 meters), I would say that it's a close call: sometimes the TC is better, sometimes it's equivalent to cropping, sometimes (maybe due to user error) even slightly worse.
As a consequence, with a higher resolution body like the Z7/Z9 that would benefit the resolution of the naked lens much more, it might be a different story. With 45 Mpx, cropping the bare lens might offer identical (or even better) results than using the 2X TC. I think that with a high resolution body, the 2X TC would somehow "eat up" too much of the lens resolution. Thom Hogan says more or less the same thing (and he uses a Z9): 800mm with the 2X TC is usable but not recommended.
Of course all these considerations of mine apply at full aperture: if you stop down, even just 1 stop (making it a f/16 lens at 800mm though...), the quality with the TC improves immensely. And careful sharpening (radius from 1 to 2) does miracles too.
-
Just a long distance shot (50 meters) that I took a few minutes ago on purpose to show what you should expect (please download it and open it with an external viewer at 100%, to avoid the resizing performed by your browser)...
On the left we have a 200% crop of the bare lens @400mm f/5.6. On the right, we have a 100% crop of the lens+2XTC f/11 (800 mm equivalent).
On the Z6, the result with the TC is slightly better and probably justifies its use. Not oustanding sharpness, but it's OK and slightly/moderately better than cropping. Up to you if the slight quality advantage of the TC justifies its price and the loss of two stops.
Anyway, stopping down at f/16 yields an even sharper result for the TC. And careful post production sharpening helps a little bit too (here I have applied no USM apart from the standard camera sharpening).
-
Here is the comparison with the 2x TC at f/16, a marked improvement.
-
Z6, monopod, gimbal, TC-1.4, 18mm of Meike ring
ISO 400, 1/160, f10, 560mm
Libellula fulva, female
-
How do users of the Z 100-400 find it for close-up subjects in general, in comparison to other options such as 300/4 Nikkor (either AF-S or AF-S VR PF)? I am looking forward to photographing some frogs next month and since I replaced my 300/4 with the f/2.8 I am thinking about the possibilities of a new lens for slightly longer distance close-ups. I would also be using it for photographing other subjects such as outdoor concerts and photographing deer and moose.
For the frogs the zooming would be very convenient as they can be in different parts of the pond and moving in the mud can be tricky.
What about flare? I am drawn to the idea of having some highlight blobs in the background. ;)
-
I just went through Rebecca Danese's comparison of the 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 Z lenses in the latest issue of the Nikon Owner magazine. I couldn't really tell from the small comparison images presented at 400mm (with the shorter zoom using the 2X TC to get to 400mm) but the author said the 100-400 is sharper at 400mm than the 70-200+2X which is as one would expect and she said she prefers the 1.4X. I'm wondering if the Z 70-200/2.8 combined with Z TC 1.4X would work for my intended frog application or if I would be better off with the 100-400. I have a 200mm Micro-Nikkor which I have used previously in this context, but somehow the out of focus areas sometimes have elements that sometimes rub me the wrong way (being used to newer lenses where there has perhaps been more emphasis on bokeh). I also have a 105 MC which is fabulous but it's uncertain if it is long enough in this context (some of the time it may be but my recollection is that the 200mm gave a distinct advantage).
From the images I have seen of the 100-400mm, I think the 400/4.5 has the edge in bokeh at longer distances (such as when photographing deer), but doesn't focus as close as the zoom does (0.16x vs. 0.36x maximum magnification for the 400/4.5 and 100-400, respectively).
-
[quote author my intended frog application 0.36x maximum magnification for the 400/4.5 and 100-400, respectively).
[/quote]
What type of frogs are you looking to photograph? Where I live here in northern Michigan, the first to sing are the chorus frogs and wood frogs, followed by the spring peepers, and then gradually the green frogs and others come in, and then the trilling of the toads.
-
[quote author my intended frog application 0.36x maximum magnification for the 400/4.5 and 100-400, respectively).
What type of frogs are you looking to photograph? Where I live here in northern Michigan, the first to sing are the chorus frogs and wood frogs, followed by the spring peepers, and then gradually the green frogs and others come in, and then the trilling of the toads.
These
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/51139092599/in/album-72157608284582293/
I believe they're European toads.
-
These
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/51139092599/in/album-72157608284582293/
I believe they're European toads.
No, those are frogs, but without clear color I can't see which ones. They look like Rana Clamatans (Green Frog), yet I can't see them well enough.
-
No, those are frogs, but without clear color I can't see which ones. They look like Rana Clamatans (Green Frog), yet I can't see them well enough.
Maybe rana temporaria?
I am new to frogs. :) I can ask locals at the next opportunity.
-
Maybe rana temporaria?
I am new to frogs. :) I can ask locals at the next opportunity.
I don't European names. If you have a photo of the frog where I can see the whole body, I would know.
-
I wonder if the 100-400 performes better at 400mm (at 5.6) than the 400/4.5 SR lens?
The 100-400 has more exotic glass and is not "compromised" by the SR lens element?
Price is about equal. 100-400 a bit cheaper.
-
I can see that the SR lens element is not a Fresnel but another exotic glass element.
The 400/4.5 is so short so I thought it was compromised by a Fresnel element.....but it is not.
-
from Tom Hogan:
Quote>
Compared to the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S at 400mm f/5.6, the 400mm f/4.5 VR S is somewhat better wide open, pretty much across the board, and clearly better at the same f/5.6 aperture.
Finally, the 400mm f/4.5 VR S is a little better with a 1.4x teleconverter than the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S, but both are quite good. In the F-mount world I was not a fan (or user) of teleconverters. In the Z-mount world, I'm coming around to liking (and using) them, at least the 1.4x version.
Unquote>
Note that the zoom is 60g heavier but has a much better close focus.
-
Ok, yes it can also be seen at the MTF curves that the 400/4.5 is a bit better.
I think the 400/4.5 is more for me than the 100-400 but a big shame about the close focus.
There is also the question if you should get a 500/5.6 PF instead if you can find a good 2. hand offer.
-
Maybe rana temporaria?
I am new to frogs. :) I can ask locals at the next opportunity.
its one of the three euorpean brown frog species, Rana temporaria or Rana arvalis (the third Rana dalmatina ist not present in Finland)
-
I can see that the SR lens element is not a Fresnel but another exotic glass element.
The 400/4.5 is so short so I thought it was compromised by a Fresnel element.....but it is not.
The SR lens elements are a new feature of Nikon to better correct chromatic aberration for blue light IIRC.
and no the 400/4,5 hast no Phase -Fresnel Element (despite expectations due to symmetry 400 and 600 TC with FL, and 800/6,3 and 400/4,5 with PF).
I would not mind if it contained a PF element and was even more compact. (I dont consider the 800/6,3 to be "compromised" by its PF design btw)
Have made good experiences with the 80-400 AF-S F-mount for pthotographing frogs so will probably go forthe 100-400 (havent got one yet), the 400/4,5 does not tempt me.
-
its one of the three euorpean brown frog species, Rana temporaria or Rana arvalis (the third Rana dalmatina ist not present in Finland)
Rana temporaria (actually all three you mentioned we call the Wood Frog (very early) Rana Sylvatica, with a mask. They appear here is small, dark, spring ponds and streams....quite early, making a croaking sound. Thanks.
Here is a shot I took of our "Wood Frog." Just screen dumped from a book I wrote.
-
There is also the question if you should get a 500/5.6 PF instead if you can find a good 2. hand offer.
another quote from Tom Hogan:
Compared to the F-mount 500mm f/5.6E PF, the 400mm f/4.5 VR S with a 1.4x teleconverter (560mm, so not perfectly comparable) seems to do slightly worse in the center, slightly better in the corners. For most telephoto work, sharper centers is what you want, so don't throw that 500mm PF away just yet ;~).
Personally I would/will go with the Z lens. Why? lower weight 200+ grams (w TC-1.4 vs. FTZ), better VR, modern optics
-
I finally got the 100-400 a couple of weeks ago.
I very much like the mechanical construction, the zoom requires some force to apply but not as much as the 200-500, so the 100-400 is faster to use but still more work than, e.g., 70-200 to zoom from end to end.
The tripod mount feels sturdy and rotates smoothly. I can mount a plate with two screws and there is no risk of slipping or unintended rotation.
The zooming, as Nikon advertised, doesn't cause much of a center of gravity shift so on my small Gitzo fluid head, no rebalancing is needed after zooming. This is great and one of the reasons I felt I could get this lens.
It doesn't have the kind of "almost sharp" appearance of the 80-400 at slow speeds (well, at the time I didn't have access to electronic shutter, so that can play a role), and even the maximum aperture can be used safely.
Bokeh is ok but it's not as nice as a non-PF prime. There is some swirl in the outer areas of the frame. I think it's "intermediate" in the quality of out-of-focus rendering overall.
So far my main source of disappointment is focus at near distances. The lens focuses really close, but autofocus for near subjects with the Z8 has been ... well, poor. Manual focus is frequently needed. I have shot with the lens in bright daylight (though this is relative, we are talking about November in Finland here ;-)) as well as in the pine forest floor in low light, and a lot of the time my ISO is above 12800, alas. However, this situation will improve it's just the worst time of the year for light levels before the snow falls and changes the landscape.
I post one example that I took yesterday. Z8, 100-400mm at 400mm f/5.6, 1/500s, ISO 11400. A slight crop has been made, maybe 1.2x. I think it's funny to think that it's the sun which creates those variations in light and this is around 2 pm in the afternoon, but still, ISO 11400!!! Welcome to Finland ... The picture was processed in NX Studio with noise reduction set to Normal. I think Nikon should rethink their high ISO noise reduction algorithm for the highest ISOs it's not the best. But at this size it's not too bad. My license for DXO unfortunately doesn't cover the Z8 so I have to think about upgrading.
Anyway, I'm wondering if there are any tips for how to deal with the autofocus when photographing small birds. I have tried 9-point dynamic area and small, large and custom wide area with animal detection and it isn't too reliable for blackbirds in these conditions. The found subject bounces around a lot. If it loses focus it can lose it so badly it stops trying. Is this the bright new mirrorless future?
-
Anyway, I do like the lens a lot, it's very nice. I just bought it with a bad timing with regards to light levels to use an f/5.6 long lens in these conditions is a bit ... well, daunting. The backbird shot was taken on a sunny day, while we can have only a dozen or so sunlit hours for the whole month of November in some years! :-)
-
Frog season starting, alas, today it was rainy and although I had a mattress and pillow under the lens, and a rain cover over the rig, the Z8 malfunctioned. I got my shots but the camera won't turn off. I guess it's off to service tomorrow. I didn't expose it to heavy rain, there was a bit of light rain but mostly I handled it with the rain cover.
Anyway, it seems the lens is quite capable of this type of situations. Made it black and white to please my desire for high contrast.
Z8, 100-400mm at 400mm, f/11, 1/100s, ISO 4000; slightly cropped (maybe 25% of the area left out to get a more level surface of the water).
-
I managed to dry the camera with silica gel in a closed box for a few hours and the on/off switch now works normally.
-
I managed to dry the camera with silica gel in a closed box for a few hours and the on/off switch now works normally.
Sorry for your mishap, Ilkka, but relieved to know the camera seems to have survived!
-
Sorry for your mishap, Ilkka, but relieved to know the camera seems to have survived!
Yeah, I am relieved too, to not have to see how it would have to be fixed. I had some glitches with the D700 in similar (high humidity, lake surface) situations when taking close-ups of icicles and what happened with that was that the camera would simply turn itself off on its own when trying to use it, until spending enough time in dry conditions after which it worked normally. The Z8's refusal to turn off is kind of the opposite reaction so I was really wondering how it could happen. ;-) But hopefully it'll function normally in the future. I do have to say that if it was just the rain then it speaks poorly of the camera's weather sealing and field usability, but if it's also the humidity from the pond and the possible condensation under the rain cover then I guess I may have been running it outside of the specifications (85% RH or less, with no condensation). I have read some others having had malfunctions of other cameras under rain covers and so in some cases while it may protect the camera from the direct rain it can create a highly humid environment inside which may then affect the camera's operation. I'm actually a bit curious about it and may take a temperature and RH logger to the location and test it under the rain cover to get an idea of whether I exceeded Nikon's specs.
-
I have had a similar problem with a Z9 (but no dampness involved) which was solved by removing and replacing the battery.
-
It is a great photograph, Ilkka, and I am glad that your Z8 is OK.