Nikon 400mm 4.5 as a replacement for 500mm PF
- Thread starter Michael Dreese
- Start date
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).
Roy
Well-known member
Canon did make a limited try of it but never managed to make it work very well.
PF is a great technology but the Bokeh suffers a little more than I would like ...
macwalter
Active member
Comparing current equipment with older equipment can be challenging.
Most new design Z lenses are sharper particularly toward the corners than equivalent older F mount lenses .
The result is that a "bit soft" comment with a Z lens can still be distinctly better than an equivalent F mount lens.
Most recognise that digital generally out resolves 35mm slide film. For me digital went into the lead with the 12 MP D3.
I expect almost everybody on this forum mainly uses a more than 12 MP body.
More MP increases image resolution at every available aperture with every lens - even though diffraction can bring in a resolution increase ceiling around f8 and holds back the size of the increase with 45 MP at f11 and f16.
The 100-400 being described as a "bit soft" at 400 mm is only IMO only part true - because I find it significantly better than the last 80-400 VR.
I agree the 100-400 with the Z 1.4x is by many standards quite sharp - even though I do not doubt (because I cannot afford) the 400 f2.8 S with built in TC is even better.
None of this means that old equipment could not be used to produce by many standards fantastic results.
Now in the right place at the right time in the hands of a good photographer recent equipment can help more easily produce even better results.
This is probably why there is demand for a 600mm f5.6 Z PF lens.
macwalter
Active member
First off let me thank you for your response as I was wondering about diffraction as sometimes I need more than f11 for closer subjects that don’t allow more time consuming methods. Having spent 5 years with the d850 and somewhat less with the 500pf. I was always satisfied with the image quality. I have noticed that the 100-400z is sharp at the corners and I assume this is partially due the the larger flange allowing better lens design. Also I was not expecting both the f and z TCs so work as well as they do. Also the two stage motor makes it quite fast in moderate to good light. I have no doubt the 400 f2.8 will be sharper but this lens is beyond my means both in size and cost. I also have the 80-400 and when new on a d7100 it was pretty good. But it chatters and does not do well on the d850 or the z8. I think the AF motor is too sensitive and doesn’t do well at any distance. You are correct in that gear goes only as far as the user allows. True in any field but the incredible speed and AF on the z8 makes action so much easier.
Roy
Well-known member
I never liked my 80-400 even when it was new - overpriced and mediocre performer.
All the Z lenses are sharper and are the best reason to go mirrorless.
diffraction will always be a problem at f11 and beyond and it will always be more noticeable on higher megapixel cameras ...
macwalter
Active member
I agree which was why I never had zooms until now.I never liked my 80-400 even when it was new - overpriced and mediocre performer.
All the Z lenses are sharper and are the best reason to go mirrorless.
diffraction will always be a problem at f11 and beyond and it will always be more noticeable on higher megapixel cameras ...
Roy
Well-known member
Early Zooms were pretty crappy.
Zooms these days are nearly as good as primes but more versatile and a little slower ...
Is your concern based on quicksand?
My advice is use f11, f16 and f22 if you need it for depth of field reason - and get more resolution in your images with these apertures than with a lower MP camera.
You would I presume use f4.5 and f5.6 on the 400 f4.5 - even though you get less image resolution than at f8 and probably f11 - due to numerous lens aberrations other than diffraction.
45 MP results in usefully more image resolution at f16, f22 than 24 MP - and even some extra resolution at f32.
The 400 f4.5 and 500 f5.6 have f32!
If Nikon eventually bring out a 62 MP body there will be more image resolution at f16 and f22 than with the same lens on a 45 MP body.
It is widely recognised there is generally less image resolution at f1.2, f1.8, f2.8, f4 and often f5.6 on lenses that have these apertures.
This does not prevent most photographers taking images when appropriate for the subject at any of these apertures.
Some sometimes prefer f1.2 to f8 - part because of the f1.2 relatively soft corners - and the sometimes "pleasing lack of definition".
Trying to put smaller apertures into some sort of perspective relative to resolution losses at apertures of f5.6 and wider, the resolution maximum is likely to be around f11 with 24 MP.
There is likely to be a slight loss of image resolution at f16 relative to 11, and a larger loss at f22.
There is still distinctly more image resolution at either aperture than in the days when 12 MP "was all that photographers would ever need".
With 45 MP bodies the resolution ceiling is usually around f8 - generally with very little resolution loss at f11 and still with distinctly more image resolution at f16 and f22 than using 24 MP.
I often use lenses of 400mm and longer for landscape detail shooting across fairly narrow valleys. My biggest challenge is heat haze.
Heat haze can reduce image resolution distinctly more than f16 or f22 :(
Sure, if you want to view a 5 foot wide image from 15 inches, an f8 stacked image will beat f16 and f22.
For me focus stacking is not practical for most images.
I shoot anywhere between f1.2 and f22 when focus stacking is not practicable.
While f16 and f22 is not synonymous with the fast shutter speeds often needed for active wildlife (if it is not sharp aperture becomes irrelevant) for static subjects my advice particularly where there is good subject separation from the background is do not be afraid of using f16 or f22.
Roy
Well-known member
On a 45mp camera any aperture at or above f11 creates a softer image due to diffusion.
Some lenses are very soft wide open but most of the Z lenses are very good even wide open to the corners...
MTF 50 etc show usefully higher resolution at f16 and f22 with 45 MP cameras than with 24 MP cameras.
Some regard a 50% contrast threshold as a reasonable measure of "image diffusion".
I agree the Z lenses generally have much better corner quality near wide open than F mount lenses.Some lenses are very soft wide open but most of the Z lenses are very good even wide open to the corners...
Rarely mentioned is that the Z lenses that have more than 1 AF motor can achieve their highest resolution at a wider range of focus distances.
In additional much more electronic transfer of information between lens and body than with F mount enables electronic lens aberration correction, particularly of distortion, giving lens designers more freedom to optically resolve other lens issues.
macwalter
Active member
That feels about right to me. Having not had access to the new z primes I can only compare to my 500pf. I find the z100-400is at least as fast overall if not in fact faster even with the 1.4TC it is still pretty quick good enough for BIF except Maybe swallows. I would imagine the 400 f4.5 would be a bit faster and sharper but I love the close focus options. I go to Brazil tomorrow and will get to really give things a workout.Early Zooms were pretty crappy.
Zooms these days are nearly as good as primes but more versatile and a little slower ...
Roy
Well-known member
The 400mm f4.5 does focus faster but the 100-400 focuses closer (at about 1 metre vs the 400 at 2 metres)
I'm still not a TC fan especially on zoom lenses ...
macwalter
Active member
I wasn’t either but I have found on the z bodies they work better and since I cannot afford a big f4 prime they may be my best option for when I need more reach. On my d850 I rarely used a TC. Time will tell. I can say that the 100-400 focuses quite fast especially if you use the focus limiter. I do lots of BIF and have found it to do just fine. The 1.4 tc works fairly well also. You do lose some speed but the eye AF actually can work better with the larger subjects.The 400mm f4.5 does focus faster but the 100-400 focuses closer (at about 1 metre vs the 400 at 2 metres)
I'm still not a TC fan especially on zoom lenses ...
Roy
Well-known member
I have the 400 and 600 f4 lenses but unlike the 400 f4.5 they are very big and heavy.
The 400 f4.5 has become my favourite lens for birds & wildlife, its just so practical ...
macwalter
Active member
That makes sense to me. The 500pf has been my lens the go to lens with th d850. No TC except on rare occasions. I haven’t had a reli zoom for small stuff in years and 100-400 gives me that as well as African critters. As i said before the 1.4tc works surprisingly well. I agonized over this lens vs the 400 4.5. I’m not big on tripods as I usually go with birding groups that make such heavy stuff awkward. Also I go solo and walk miles with just a loop in my belt to carry the camera by the tripod foot to take the weight off my shoulders and ease stress on the camera body. Works great. I have no doubt the 400 f 4.5 is superb.I have the 400 and 600 f4 lenses but unlike the 400 f4.5 they are very big and heavy.
The 400 f4.5 has become my favourite lens for birds & wildlife, its just so practical ...
macwalter
Active member
I have the same issue. I love the 500pf and used it exclusively on the d850. I find it still does well on the z8 but my sense is the z lens are better overall. My main issue is the 500pf gives me a pretty good 700mm with the tc on the z8 and I wonder how well the 4.5 works with a 2xTC.
The 400 Z is better bare than my 500PF was…and it’s equivalent and 10% longer with the TC on…and it has all the other Z lens goodies. Wider throat, smaller flange distance, and better optical design software are the reason that Z lenses are pretty much universally better than their older counterparts.
macwalter
Active member
But how is it with the 2x tc? I have the 100-400 z and it works surprisingly well with the 1.4tc. I’m sure it is not as good as the 400mm 4.5 but better than I expected. I also have no doubt it is better in terms of AF. But 800mm at f9? Not a common need but there are times. I’m going through my Brazil photos to see how well things went. All handheld and often in tough situations. A birding,not a photography trip.
ricardo00
Well-known member
I have used the 2x tc with the 400mm when I didn't want to carry the 800mm lens. But often when shooting with the 400mm plus 1.4TC don't have the time to stop and switch TC.
Some pics with the 2x tc are in a flickr album if interested:
It really depends on how often you really need more than 600mm. And whether you shoot hand held or tripod.
I can only handhold the 400 f4.5 or 100-400. Either one is superb with the 1.4 tele. Both are very good with the 2X. I've used the 400 f4.5 + 1.4 tele in DX mode and been extremely satisfied with IQ! So if I expect most of the shooting will be between 100-600mm and hand held, those are my go to lenses.
HOWEVER, for Costa Rica, Africa, etc. where I know I can use my 600mm TC on bean bag or tripod.....it is my go to lens hands down. On a second body I put the 100-400mm.
Simply put, just define your needs - then chose the lens.
I can only handhold the 400 f4.5 or 100-400. Either one is superb with the 1.4 tele. Both are very good with the 2X. I've used the 400 f4.5 + 1.4 tele in DX mode and been extremely satisfied with IQ! So if I expect most of the shooting will be between 100-600mm and hand held, those are my go to lenses.
HOWEVER, for Costa Rica, Africa, etc. where I know I can use my 600mm TC on bean bag or tripod.....it is my go to lens hands down. On a second body I put the 100-400mm.
Simply put, just define your needs - then chose the lens.
Roy
Well-known member
I'm Not A TC fan but the 400 f4.5 is acceptably sharp with either the 1.4x or 2x teleconverters.
I wasn't as happy with the TCs on the 100-400 ...
I’ve got both TCs as well…and both 5he 100-400 and 400/4.5 are plenty fine with either although to be honest the 1.4 is slightly better but either is plenty acceptable for me. AF speed hasn’t been a real issue for me with either TC…but obviously in lower light the 2 stop loss is going to affect AF more than bare or the 1 stop loss…but then you’re back to the is the difference enough to overcome the inherent physics and software advantages that the Z lenses have vs the extra goodies on the Z lenses vs budget/etc...I never had eny of the F TCs so only compared the 500 with the TC and 100-400 and as I’ve said before there were subtle different but not necessarily better or worse differences between thepose two combos but at screen output resolution there isn’t any because of down sampling…and the 400/4.5 is slightly better at 1:1 with either TC than the 10p-400 with the same TC (at 1:1) but at screen res output you’ll never notice the difference. I left both the 400 and the zoom…but will reevaluate after my 180-600 gets here and the shorter zoom might get sold for lack of actual use. The 400 will stay because sometimes the weight is worth the loss of flexibility…and I foresee that my primary wildlife/hiking kit will probably be the 24-120 and whichever of the long ones seems the right choice for today based on expected sightings and length of the hike.
Butlerkid is right…figure out the needs first and then the effort/distance/heat/laziness quotient for today and pick the right kit combo…which in many cases may leave the spare body behind and just a single prime or zoom.
P
philippe
Guest
Deleted
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a 600 would…like you…be a better middle of the spread fit…but I’ve read in the past that the real reason for the low supply of the 500PF is the time and expense of grinding the PF element and that they have only one machine to do that…so it might be a capacity hing amd I’m guessing a 600PF would be cheaper than an 800 one…but probably not a lot and at a price of 5K or 6K would it sell enough to make it worthwhile given that the performance of Z lenses with TCs is a lot better than Fs were and that few people would notice the difference t normal output sizes or on the screen…it would mainly show up in really bit prints and that’s a relatively smaller subset of users I would think. Dunno…guess we might eventually see one but IIRC there’s nothing like that on the roadmap for whatever that’s worth. It could be that the 800 was an experiment for them and given the better overall performance of Zs vs Fs they’ve found that the expense isn’t worth the money overall.