closer to 20mp in Dx mode840mm at f/4 sounds good in DX= 24mp
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
closer to 20mp in Dx mode840mm at f/4 sounds good in DX= 24mp
Focus, and 2 other control rings. Jared mentioned the "piano key" one closest to the front element could possibly be used to jump from FX to DX (ideal!). But I suspect both rings will have the same list of custom functions available.Must have been too early for me. It looks like 3 rings?
1.4M followers on youtube is a great & efficient multiplier for Nikon -- just a pity they didn't give it to some others (yet) I like/rely more on....Don't understand why Nikon would let him have the lens!! He bashes Nikon and is loud and IMO obnoxious. Perhaps that gets attention which is what Nikon wants.
Don't understand why Nikon would let him have the lens!! He bashes Nikon and is loud and IMO obnoxious. Perhaps that gets attention which is what Nikon wants.
I don't think you're starting a war at all. There are trade offs with either. In a Prime, the engineers can optimize everything for a single focal length thus having "potentially" better image quality and optical perfection. However the tradeoff is you're stuck at one focal length and not every photo opportunity can the "zoom with your feet" advice be applied. There are times when it is impossible, either via trail restrictions, dangerous conditions, skittish animals, whatever, it is sometimes impossible to move closer or farther away and still get the shot. With the zoom you get the flexibility to zoom in and out but there are compromises made. Today's lenses are less than days gone by but sill some compromises.At the risk of starting a war, I really can’t see why people want long primes. I’d imagine a zoom offers greater creative opportunities. Gone are the IQ issues to a large degree.
id never be able to buy a $12,000 lens in any event, so the issue is moot.
live never owned a long prime. Longest I has was the Nikon F 200-500 on my D7500, a DX, making that lens equivalent of 300-750. I’m now waiting Nikon’s Z 200-600
Can mount external TCs as well..that's what Jared mentioned in his YouTube video comment.
what does that say about our fellow photographers? Pretty sad storyIt's an ad. Like Reality TV. No serious photographer cares what he says, maybe, but Nikon is counting on the flagship body to spill into the other Zs and he is as sure a way to get to the audience.
1.4M (million?) followers. Hard to believe1.4M followers on youtube is a great & efficient multiplier for Nikon -- just a pity they didn't give it to some others (yet) I like/rely more on....
Hmmm he said that? I'll bet it was a guess rather than a fact but who know for sure. I asked NPS and they can't comment on that yet but he said he will message me when he is allowed!
Don't understand why Nikon would let him have the lens!! He bashes Nikon and is loud and IMO obnoxious. Perhaps that gets attention which is what Nikon wants.
There are situations where you need fast f4 or even a 2.8 lens. Early mornings comes to mind and places that don't get much light till later in the day due to tree canopy, being in shade etc.At the risk of starting a war, I really can’t see why people want long primes. I’d imagine a zoom offers greater creative opportunities. Gone are the IQ issues to a large degree.
id never be able to buy a $12,000 lens in any event, so the issue is moot.
live never owned a long prime. Longest I has was the Nikon F 200-500 on my D7500, a DX, making that lens equivalent of 300-750. I’m now waiting Nikon’s Z 200-600
If the external TCs fit the lens may keep me shooting Z. I think for sports photographers external TCs won't be important. For bird/wildlife shooters it may be a deal breaker. It would be a deal breaker for myself as I want the option to get to ~800 (784) by using an external 1.4TC. I then could go out depending on the light and subjects with either a quick switching 400/560 or a quick switching 560/784.
If it doesn't take TCs then the best option is an 800PF over one shoulder and the 400/560 over the other
There is very little room for the TC protrusion at the end of the 400/2.8 lens before the drop-in filter. There may still be enough but it is going to be tight. We shall see who is correct...B&H or Fro.
So is your guess that the external 1.4X + internal 1.4X + 400 will be a better choice than external 2.0X + 400 (no internal)? I've been doing some mental gymnastics and trying to convince myself one way or another - will the extra lens/air interfaces of the 1.4+1.4 be worse than a single interface of the 2.0. So far I can't convince myself either way. (Of course all of this is all predicated on the answer to your last statement.)
- Rob
I'm not sure. When I owned the Canon 200-400 EXT I preferred the dual 1.4s over the 2x. IQ was about the same...maybe even slightly better with the dual 1.4s but the flexibility won over any small IQ differences one way or the other. The funny thing was that with my Canon, using the external 1.4 without internal was slightly better than the internal 1.4 without external...go figure...I'm sure there is some copy variation involved. Things will be different with Nikon and being an f/2.8 lens will help with all TC combos. Also newest Z TCs are likely better than older Nikon TCs and my Canon Mk III TCs.
Any ideas on what the ring with ridges like piano keys - Jarod referred to it as the piano ring - does?
B&H says lens does not accommodate an external TC.
Technically the 400 f2.8tc already has a ring to do that. Im not sure having 2 rings that do the same thing makes much sense especially when they are so far apart and look so different.. The fact that fro wasnt really allowed to turn it or talk about it leads me to believe its something else. In my mind a ring like that should engage and disengage the Tc but Im not sure they would double up on that control either. it could be used to toggle between subjects the camera has identified. Possibly toggle through af modes. It almost makes to think "digital zoom" or something.My guess is that this is just like the similar ring on the Canon and Sony super telephoto lenses. On those lenses this ring was traditionally used to quickly recall a preset focus distance (one of the options Nikon uses on the L-Fn button(s)). Now on MILCs you can do a few more things with that ring. Like on Sony you can set it to flick between FF/APS-C and I think a few other things. I can't recall what Canon allows now on the R series. I don't think Nikon has had that ring before (As they used the L-Fn button instead). So I think that will be what it is for freeing up an L-Fn button for something else. These rings typically work where they just turn a small amount in either direction and then automatically snap back to default. It is very effective but honesty I rarely made use of them on my (600II, 300II, 400DOII, 200-400 and 600GM).
I'm with you…I only got the 500PF because it was small and light and actually usable without a tripod…and I ordered the 100-400…which as reported by Brad Hill and others has excellent IQ even with the Z TCs which I have both of. I could actually easily afford to spend 12K for a long prime if I wanted to…but all things considered…my skills, the size and weight as well as the larger tripod to hold it, the no hand holdability issue, and whether it would materially get me enough better shots to be worth 12K…the answer is just no.At the risk of starting a war, I really can’t see why people want long primes. I’d imagine a zoom offers greater creative opportunities. Gone are the IQ issues to a large degree.
id never be able to buy a $12,000 lens in any event, so the issue is moot.
live never owned a long prime. Longest I has was the Nikon F 200-500 on my D7500, a DX, making that lens equivalent of 300-750. I’m now waiting Nikon’s Z 200-600