Correct - it is not PFMaybe you mistyped, but I don't think the 400 f4.5 is a PF lens.
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).
Correct - it is not PFMaybe you mistyped, but I don't think the 400 f4.5 is a PF lens.
All Nikons' 400mm lenses have been really sharp.Good midnight everyone…
Sunday Funday, weather was nice, no wind, cloudy and a giant softboxed sun. Perfect for the 400/4.5 outdoor portrait session testing. Me and my wife took chances experimenting. We immediately got stunned from the quick and snappy auto focus. Z9 was set to AF-C (with focus priority) and Auto-Area people.
This lens is EXTREMELY sharp. Actually, its too sharp! The Bokeh is a dream!! Oh my is that nice! Just put whatever you want behind the subject and the bokeh is gorgeous. The Hudson River, a long trail, empty landscape.
Another great thing about this lens is the VR. We were shooting with it like we would shoot the 70-200 literally. Wide open f/4.5 ISO 64 while the shutter speed was the same as we use it in studio, 1/160 for tack ultra sharp results. I can’t say the same for the 500pf which needed a shutter of 1/500 to get tack sharp images.
We reviewed the images later in our editing room, we were disappointed of the sharpness… too sharp… even more so from the 105 MC. We had to dial down the contrast, dial back the sharpness to get the skin looking pleasing, then it looked too unnatural, we had a hard time dialing it in. It captures the skin with microscopic detail. Not literally microscopic, but you get the point.
Which brought me to question the purpose Nikon had when designing this lens. Certainly not for human faces. Sports? That also includes human faces. Wild life? Birds? What was the purpose of this lens? To use it with a TC to soften it?
I brought along the 1.4 TC just didn’t get to test portraits with it. Besides 560mm is too much backing up to frame a human subject.
We were looking forward using this lens for outdoor portraiture, because customers liked the bokeh of the 500pf. but this is way sharper. its too sharp. Too much tiny skin details, like macro shooting a face… the 500pf didn’t resolve that much details.
I’m not returning it… I need it for water fowl, birds, etc. which I didn’t get a chance to try yet. But I would like to know what was Nikons intention when designing it.
Thank you
Good midnight everyone…
Sunday Funday, weather was nice, no wind, cloudy and a giant softboxed sun. Perfect for the 400/4.5 outdoor portrait session testing. Me and my wife took chances experimenting. We immediately got stunned from the quick and snappy auto focus. Z9 was set to AF-C (with focus priority) and Auto-Area people.
This lens is EXTREMELY sharp. Actually, its too sharp! The Bokeh is a dream!! Oh my is that nice! Just put whatever you want behind the subject and the bokeh is gorgeous. The Hudson River, a long trail, empty landscape.
Another great thing about this lens is the VR. We were shooting with it like we would shoot the 70-200 literally. Wide open f/4.5 ISO 64 while the shutter speed was the same as we use it in studio, 1/160 for tack ultra sharp results. I can’t say the same for the 500pf which needed a shutter of 1/500 to get tack sharp images.
We reviewed the images later in our editing room, we were disappointed of the sharpness… too sharp… even more so from the 105 MC. We had to dial down the contrast, dial back the sharpness to get the skin looking pleasing, then it looked too unnatural, we had a hard time dialing it in. It captures the skin with microscopic detail. Not literally microscopic, but you get the point.
Which brought me to question the purpose Nikon had when designing this lens. Certainly not for human faces. Sports? That also includes human faces. Wild life? Birds? What was the purpose of this lens? To use it with a TC to soften it?
I brought along the 1.4 TC just didn’t get to test portraits with it. Besides 560mm is too much backing up to frame a human subject.
We were looking forward using this lens for outdoor portraiture, because customers liked the bokeh of the 500pf. but this is way sharper. its too sharp. Too much tiny skin details, like macro shooting a face… the 500pf didn’t resolve that much details.
I’m not returning it… I need it for water fowl, birds, etc. which I didn’t get a chance to try yet. But I would like to know what was Nikons intention when designing it.
Thank you
AHaaa, for Video Bazinga LOL.All Nikons' 400mm lenses have been really sharp.
My 400mm f2.8 is even sharper.
400mm is good for wildlife but 400mm is mainly a sports lens, although f4.5 if a little slow.
I'm happy to grab the 400 f4.5 first because its light and hand holdable - even for video...
I have the 300mm f4 and 2.8 AFS lenses too but for me they lack reach.AHaaa, for Video Bazinga LOL.
I find long lenses doing video is OPPs a tough gig unless the subject is a long long way away........
Short and stout works best for me, the little i do anyway.
Like you with your 400 F2.8, i just love my 300 2.8 VRII it just is stunning and natural, i use it 99% of the time at F2.8 max F4 or nothing.
I do believe the 400 F4.5 is a Z version update of the 300 F4 PF just with extra legs.
Its hard to give up F2.8 easily.
My 300 F2.8 kills the excellent 300 PF in every way, i don't see the 400 F4.5 killing or matching my 300 F2.8 VR II optically.
Only an opinion
Thanks for that its good feed back.I have the 300mm f4 and 2.8 AFS lenses too but for me they lack reach.
Agreed the 400 f4.5 images have a similar look to the 300mm f4.
I love fast glass too but some of my big lenses are a bit too big and I find the 400mm f4.5 small/light enough to add to my bag...
AHaaa, for Video Bazinga LOL.
I find long lenses doing video is OPPs a tough gig unless the subject is a long long way away........
Short and stout works best for me, the little i do anyway.
Like you with your 400 F2.8, i just love my 300 2.8 VRII it just is stunning and natural, i use it 99% of the time at F2.8 max F4 or nothing.
I do believe the 400 F4.5 is a Z version update of the 300 F4 PF just with extra legs.
Its hard to give up F2.8 easily.
My 300 F2.8 kills the excellent 300 PF in every way, i don't see the 400 F4.5 killing or matching my 300 F2.8 VR II optically.
Only an opinion
Thank you very much for that clarity i really appreciate itThe 400 is NOT made for video with its very significant breathing. That's a sure way to tell, btw, how the breathing is controlled. The 100-400 on the other hand has excellent/minimal breathing.
The only video lenses on the market with super-telephoto capabilities are box-type broadcast lenses with 20x zooming (think football games) from companies like Fuji.
WOW mate, so shes the one LOLZ400 f/4.5 on a Z50 for birds. My wife thinks Nikon made this just for her and her small frame and arthritic hands.
i for one am glad she commissioned it, and was gracious enough to let us have it as wellZ400 f/4.5 on a Z50 for birds. My wife thinks Nikon made this just for her and her small frame and arthritic hands.
She says your welcomei for one am glad she commissioned it, and was gracious enough to let us have it as well
I have a 400 f2.8 and the 400 f4.5 - I much prefer taking out the f4.5Since its f/4.5 it allows for faster shutter speeds and lower ISO. Now I want even more the 400/2.8 TC…. But, on the flip side, I can’t stand steady with the heavier 400/2.8 waiting for a bird to take off, like I’m doing with the 400/4.5.
View attachment 59159
The new Z 400/2.8?I have a 400 f2.8 and the 400 f4.5 - I much prefer taking out the f4.5
Ironically I just watched @Steve 's video discussing filling more of the frame with your subject. So in this case your Z800pf f/6.3 would have filled much more of the frame but that may not have been the image you wanted.Since its f/4.5 it allows for faster shutter speeds and lower ISO. Now I want even more the 400/2.8 TC…. But, on the flip side, I can’t stand steady with the heavier 400/2.8 waiting for a bird to take off, like I’m doing with the 400/4.5.
View attachment 59159
Good information.Ironically I just watched @Steve 's video discussing filling more of the frame with your subject. So in this case your Z800pf f/6.3 would have filled much more of the frame but that may not have been the image you wanted.
The differnce is esentially 1 stop from f/4.5 to f/6.3 so rounding up and ignoring the -ev ISO 200 compared to ISO 400 with no practical impact on the image. With this lens why not go to 1/3200. You had lot's of light in fact it looks like you were dealing with some tough bright light conditions that you did well with by lowering your EV. @Steve covers these trade offs well in his book Secrets to Stunning Bird-in-flight photography and others.
Personally I prefer to fill more of the frame and not fret the ISO. We come from different photographic backgrounds I am and have been primarily an outdoor all conditions bird photographer and spend little time photographing people indoors, something that you excell at.
I do not worry much about ISO I just set the depth of field I want with my aperture and the shutter speed I want for the subject and how I want to portray it and the ISO has to be what the ISO has to be. My ISO tolerance is much higher than many. I do not even begin noticing it below about ISO 2,200 depending on things like shadows ... so with an image in uniform heavy shadow or low light ISO 7200 has given me great results with no noise reduction but an image with heavy shadows under the wings is another ball game.
It is great to have so many different shooting options with the Z9 that allows for a range of personal preferences.
Even 1 pound can make a difference.The new Z 400/2.8?
What’s the reason you’re not using it?
I have the 800pf, and It’s not do bad, especially with a short Zamlin hood. the 400/2.8 is only 1 pound heavier.