Nikon NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Lens

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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).

[Michael Erlewine]

[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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

[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.

[Michael Erlewine]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[Michael Erlewine]

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.

[MEPER]

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.

[MEPER]

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.

[Wally]

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.

[MEPER]

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.

[MILLIREHM]

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)

[MILLIREHM]

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.

[Michael Erlewine]

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.

[Wally]

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