Thanks !

@@abfutrell does it have VR?

@@RussandLoz yes. I handheld the Mars Occultation with the Full Wolf Moon no problem recently. You could see details on Mars.

Sorry 😬 we never plan and just chat , that’s the problem!

The 100-400 sadly is a Dust sucker here in Africa

@@Mr09260 does it get into the lens?

@@jpdj2715 interesting what you say about how you’ll noticed the differences. I think those aspects are true from what I’ve seen

@@RussandLoz - I did not really predict differences, yet, but here the PREDICTIONS are: (a) the camera's resolution and sharpness, Your 45MP Nikon has no OLPF and next to a bit more resolution primarily a lot more sharpness - compared to 24MP or 36MP with OLPF. (b) the quality of the raw processing, This is a big deal. Especially in highlights (details), but also in blurry zones (gradation). In detail recovery, e.g. DxO PhotoLab may do better than Nikon's NX Studio. Adobe Camera Raw is a mixed bag of good and less good depending on version and what you look at. (c) subject and lighting conditions, Contrasty light on a sunny winter day under a clear sky can bring out a level of sharpness that you cannot see on a foggy day under a cloudy sky. In the case of birds, when we look at the details in their feathers, the coloured, tinted, gradation patterns can look very sharp and detailed. But if we go a level deeper we can see that the proteins that these patterns consist of actually don't tie together in tack sharp transitions. (d) qualities of how you display them, 96 DPI monitor? 2,880 DPI print? 27"? A2? [1] (e) your eyesight qualities. Sic [1] trick comparison. Your 27" diagonal 4K display must have a size of 598mm * 336mm and the A2 sheet has a size of 594 * 420 mm. Yet, I print at over 1,000 DPI while the display gives me 1:1 depiction for 100% when set to 171 DPI. And the pigment photo printer has a larger colour space (your challenge is to get that on paper properly ;) ). Something like 96 used to be the standard.

@ interesting, what about teleconverters versus cropping in?

@@RussandLoz - I have always avoided teleconverters. Nikon has done a great job in the past two decades with them. Designing both lenses and converters that work well together. Nevertheless, if you shoot Z 8 (45MP in general with Nikon - no OLPF), then you may find that cropping and no converter is as good as or better than with converter. That said, it also depends on how much the converter does. Nikon 1.4 generally gives little loss. I can get more technical in lens design - still speculating though - and will avoid that here. My belief is that the Z lenses will be easier on the tele-converter inn terms of design and getting good results. So I can think out loud in different directions. You have to try it with your camera, your lens, your photography use cases. And if you ever want to compare shots, make sure you verify the same setup at different distances. Because lens designs often get optimised for infinity but do less when focused closer by. That's classical. As to your f/2.8 prime - wow what a lens - note that it is easier to design a less fast lens with little distortions than a fast one. Faster does not automatically mean sharper. Especially fully opened but 2 to 3 stops stopped down aperture should blow your socks off compared to another lens that's f/5.6 when fully open. In closing, let's go back to Henri Cartier-Bresson - art photographer. He would say that "sharpness is a [petit] bourgeois concept." [1] Sharpness is not the deciding quality that gets you images into the National [Portrait] Gallery, or art collections, or sold. [1] petit bourgeois was meant pejorative and referenced people from what HCB would consider middle-middle and lower social classes that had no art education and in his eyes bad taste.

No, it isn't compatible. Only on certain full frame long lenses

Which teleconverter can I use for Nikon Z50? Or is there a teleconverter I can use for 50-250mm lenses? Thank you very much for your information.

@ there isn’t a tc for 50-250. 70-200, 100-400, 400 4.5 180-600 can use the z tc. But isn’t very good really. Our latest video shows that

Thank you for the information you provided on this subject... I watched your video, it was very informative, thank you for your efforts.

@ remember to subscribe! 😊

Yes, we have found similar, much better on primes

Definitely ! I sold my TC1.4x quite quickly

@ i’m going to keep mine for when I get the 600mm f4 z ☺️mount

@ Russ, Agree it could be helpful. I sometimes think i should have gone with the 400 f4.5, them N i probably could have used the 1.5x TC with no worries. Boy this churn through gear gets expensive! It seems like a 600 f4 is where we all end up if we keep diving deeper into this birding pursuit and have the financial means to do it. We only walk this planet once.

Wow, I can't believe it was Grays best seller?

That's what Kon said in the latest video from Grays this week. Similarly it is also one of Nikon's best selling lenses in Japan.

Latest Grays video Livestream one hour and 11 minutes into the video.

Thanks, i miss the snow already!

We felt that comparing the tc with the lens itself shows what most need to know. If it's not much good compared to using without then it covers most scenarios.

My (russ's) green jacket? Reggata, and it's great, wind and water proof, saving me!

@@RussandLoz Thanks Russ! You've probably just sold more Regatta jackets than 180-600mm lenses. And, love the down-to-earth videos you two produce so, thank you for that as well.

@@starbase218 we’ve made a video awhile ago but it’s not compared to the 180 to 200. It’s a bit sharper and better rendition at 400mm.

I have the 400 f4.5 uncompromised image quality. I have a function button that switches to dx mode which is still awesome image file. So with one flick I am at 600mm f4.5 with prime s glass that is so light it is ridiculous. I will add the z1.4tc occasionally and being on a prime the IQ is still good giving 580mm ff or 840mm dx mode. Its awesome. The only drawback is being a prime sometimes when you can’t change your distance like in a hide you might have a subject to close or too far but I have 400mm or 600mm in an instant. But good images are awesome instead of a bit soft. 180-600 is fab but with high ISO can’t compete with the prime. With lots of light it is great but often not the case with wildlife.

@ i used my 400 4.5 like that too but needed 600 to 800mm really. Maybe the 600pf is the way to go for light weight of budget allows

I have the 800, 400 4.5 and the 180-600 and they all have a purpose in my kit. The 400 4.5 and 1.4 tele I see no difference in image quality and you're still 2/3 the weight of the 180-600. If I need pack a light load you can't go wrong with the 400 4.5 plus you get more light. As shown here with an S line lens you basically get the same image quality at 400 cropped @ 600 vs 180-600.

@ I used to have the 400 4.5 and crop in, but even at 600 I need to crop too. So it was never enough event though the quality sometimes stayed.

Yes absolutely, I really don't understand how other reviewers get to such conclusions

100% ! 👍

Absolutely, content is king!

@@Karanja59 Thanks so much!

Thank you !!

@@GarryM66 Yeah it’s good to have versatility sometimes as much as I like primes. I bet the 500pf is great

@@MookieMc lol. Thanks, they are both great lenses and I think I said I’m happy with my purchase for my use case. As was Loz with his. Do you think it needed something more definite? 😊

@@RussandLoz No... The video was fine. Sometimes there is no clear verdict. The final verdict was a 1-1 tie. Both lenses are superb. The best one is probably the one you have in your bag when you need it.

I do find the ftz increasingly difficult for handling, the gap grip and weight displacement. One day i'll get a 28mm 1.4 and 400 2.8 z mount

@@RussandLoz This VR AF-P 70-300 4.5-5.6 on the ftz adapter balances really great with the Zf. Highly recommend it. But generally I do agree and I prefer getting Z mount lenses (the only exception is this 70-300 as I believe it is a great bargain).

@@loihpatli I haven’t used that lens before, but even losing the Ftz would be a big advantage?

@RussandLoz the point is that it's not the sharpest on 600mm end (and i shoot at 600 most of the time), and it delievers not ideal, but mostly pretty good results and the new 180-600 costs twice it's price. But i can see it's really sharp and i'm not a fan of FTZ'ing too, you're right. It's always hard to decide when you're on a tight budget but want to improve your wildlife game. Hope my decision thoughts doesn't bother you much and thanks for your answers once again!

@@SwanSycorax Yes we agree, for reach it’s an obvious choice! I didn’t know Parks did loaners?

@@RussandLoz They don't. I was allowed to take it into their car park along with my 100-400 and take a series of back to back shots. Fortunately there were a number of birds around to use as subjects as well as road traffic signs which were useful to compare sharpness. I should add, a) I still love the 100-400. Without the TC it is a really great lens. Secondly, as I am now closer to 76 than 75, I am beginning to feel the weight of the 180-600 and seriously thinking of chopping it in for a 600PF to go alongside the 100-400, thus giving maximum sharpness at 600mm whilst retaining the flexibility of zoom capabilities. Just a thought!

@ yeah the 600pf is a great option but costs a lot more. Versatility is often so handy but sure most my shots are at 600.

My story is similar except in my experience, either I was ok with 100-400 or I needed more. And when I needed more, it was significantly more. So my pairing is the 800pf for animals (mostly BIF) and the 100-400 for landscape/general. For anyone who is going to say, "Just get closer," where I live the ability to get closer to the wildlife is very limited if you are not prepared to disregard the rules (that are there to protect the wildlife I am trying to photograph). The 600pf would be a nice alternative when travelling, but since travelling is the exception and not the rule, the 800 made more sense since I need reach more often than I need light weight/compact size.

@@t.k.1448 Thanks for that. Actually, I didn't admit to the fact thaty I also have the 800PF for very similar reasons!!! As I said in my first comment, on many occasions the 400 just doesn't offer sufficient scope as the subjects at the nature reserves I visit are frequently too far from the hides. Ok if you are just a watcher, but not so good if you are a photographer. At present I usually go out with a Nikon Z9 with the 800 and the Z8 with the 180-600 but, at my age I am feeling the weight!!!! I am therefore trying to justify in my mind as to whether the 600 PF might be sufficient but I really can't justify all four lenses. Something would have to give. I am also going on an African two week safari holiday in a few months and weight limits on the internal flights are very restrictive. Certainly the 800 is a total no, no as i can only take my kit in a single carry on bag. I can get the 180-600 in (just) plus a 24-70 and the two bodies but with the 600 PF and the 100-400 there would be more flexibility. Decisions, decisions, decisions!

I returned the Tamron as I found the stabilisation to be very rocky on a Nikon body. The Nikon is rock steady. That’s the only problem I had with the Tamron. I don’t use tripods.

Yes, I agree the stabilisation for video is not great handheld, needs post processing. I've had no issues with stills.

@@lumberjack3008 Do PayPal offer a similar service? Thanks though 😊

@@lumberjack3008 Have you tried it? It seems fine with birds

Yeah I do miss my 400 4.5 for size, but wasn't suiting my needs.

Yes it's a great setup! Such a pleasure to use, just need raw precapture

Yeah the 600pf looks nice and light, but very expensive comparatively

We didn't mention Minimum shooting distance which the 100-400 is much shorter, but overall we are happy with our findings

Thank you! Will do!

@@Ben_Stewart I made a video about it as it was rare for sure!

No lens fits all unfortunately, thats why I have so many! lol

@@labalia30 yes there is an art to wildlife photography, slow shutter for perching and faster depending on the speed of the bird. See my wildlife videos too! 😊

The cat is staying in the warm!

@@NikCan66 a fair?

@RussandLoz a fair summary of the lenses capabilites

@@RussandLoz Depends on where NikCan66 lives. Could be a far summary

maybe one day they'll be a 400-800 which won't be too heavy!

@@ilduro2 thanks, what camera do you have?

@@devsuvara Well the tests I did for this video show not too much difference. But it depends on shooting conditions as this can change things. Do you also use a teleconverter with it?

@ no I didn’t use the TC. But am going to buy one for this lens. With a TC it would be probably the same as the 180-600 or 200-500 in terms of sharpness.

@@devsuvara I didn't like the loss of rendition using it compared to cropping in, we also have a video on this on our view 🙂