July 2023

[Birna Rørslett]

Calystegia x spectabilis. Now recognised as an aggressive invasive species showing very rapid expansion around built-up areas. The hoverfly just enjoyed its dinner


I'm very pleased with the 400/4.5 Z, by the way. It is a featherweight as far as long lenses go and very sharp.

[Birna Rørslett]

Out of sheer nostalgia, i replaced the old IR-modified D40X with another similarly modified body, as the first was returned in non-working order from a "friend".

The D40x works well with the AFS 18-140/3.5-5.6 ED G Nikkor and the AF is spot on. Those-- by today's standards -- meagre 10MPix pack a lot of detail so the combination is fun to use.

[MFloyd]

Out of sheer nostalgia, i replaced the old IR-modified D40X with another similarly modified body, as the first was returned in non-working order from a "friend".

The D40x works well with the AFS 18-140/3.5-5.6 ED G Nikkor and the AF is spot on. Those-- by today's standards -- meagre 10MPix pack a lot of detail so the combination is fun to use.

Birna seems to have a soft spot for electrical power lines . Well done !

[Fons Baerken]

July 23

Rosa

Z7, 35 f/1.4ai

the nikkor 35mm f/1.4 ai still a magic lens, here wide open handheld shot

[ColinM]

Calystegia x spectabilis.
 The hoverfly just enjoyed its dinner

I'm very pleased with the 400/4.5 Z, by the way. It is a featherweight as far as long lenses go and very sharp.

I loved the closeup Birna.
Beauty, colour, clarity and biological interest

Maybe the 400/4.5 Z would be the ticket if I migrate to the "Z" side from my 300mm PF.....

I've already loved nearly all the 105mm Z macro images ice seen.
But the 400 would help me more with working distance (my preferred subjects all move in split second)

[Birna Rørslett]

I wonder whether the 180-600 Z might be even more tempting. Price is nearly half of my 400/4.5Z and of course, even "cheaper" if you need up towards 600mm as the rather expensive TC-14Z is superfluous.  Its max.aperture range f/5.6-6.3 is approximately what the 400/4.5+TC-14Z delivers. I have no real need for the 180-600 however it is tempting to run some test shots with it later this autumn. Perhaps it works well for IR?

If a slightly closer approach is required, the 400 by the way can tolerate additional extension quite well (infinity focus is lost of course).

[Akira]

No crying over spilt spirit.

[Ian Watson]

Are you talking about the AF-S  G version?

No, the F/4 Z-mount one.

[Ian Watson]

No crying over spilt spirit.

Well spotted, Akira!

[Akira]

Well spotted, Akira!

Thank you, Ian.  That happened right in front of me! 

[aerobat]

I wonder whether the 180-600 Z might be even more tempting. Price is nearly half of my 400/4.5Z and of course, even "cheaper" if you need up towards 600mm as the rather expensive TC-14Z is superfluous.  Its max.aperture range f/5.6-6.3 is approximately what the 400/4.5+TC-14Z delivers. I have no real need for the 180-600 however it is tempting to run some test shots with it later this autumn. Perhaps it works well for IR?

If a slightly closer approach is required, the 400 by the way can tolerate additional extension quite well (infinity focus is lost of course).

Birna, what do you think about the Z 100-400mm ?

[ColinM]

I wonder whether the 180-600 Z might be even more tempting.

More food for thought, thank you Birna.
A smaller, lighter setup might let me use it more when out on walks though.
I've not used any zoom teles for years and have come to accept framing may be non-optimal from time to time.

[Tom Hook]

Monarch in clover.

[Fons Baerken]

Young male Nio

Z7,  50mm f/1.8S

[John Geerts]

Beautiful Fons.

My grandson is growing steadily
Z9 58G