Nikon 400 2.8E Vs 400 4.5Z

Рет қаралды 5,205

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 56

@MookieMc 4 ай бұрын

Russ: "Forget about your wedding. Do you have some lovely pets that I can photograph?" Nice pictures, and nice banter. Keep it going!

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@MookieMc pets aren’t adventurous enough! Need something wild!

@lozzom 4 ай бұрын

@@RussandLozwe’ve got a wild dog at home 😬🤷‍♂️😂

@musiqueetmontagne 4 ай бұрын

Lovely wildlife shots, they've really come along well... Yes fast glass is always best to me if one can manage the weight etc, I'm an old bugger now. I have DSLRs still but also a Z6ii and a Z8 with some nice Z glass but still use lots of my fast F-mount lenses on both systems. In the end, they are just tools. You can buy some fantastic F-mount lenses now, they're such incredible value it's worth using some on the FTZ. I bet you wouldn't have spent 10 or 15K on Z mount exotics, but you've produced some spectacular images. Cool...It isn't even just about the sharpness, your images with the 2.8 have such wonderful fall-off with the subject sharp that to my eye, the 4.5 is fine but just now were near aesthetically as pleasing. Well done...😊

@Kliffot 4 ай бұрын

Great comparative, very interesting to see how much more IQ & details can be extracted with faster lens and TC

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@Kliffot Thanks. Yes maybe sharpness comparisons don’t always show it well as they aren’t needing low light or faster shutter speeds

@MookieMc 4 ай бұрын

I think the difference between the A/M and M/A switch on the Nikon 400 2.8E lens comes down to sensitivity. The M/A setting makes any little movement with the focus ring shift from automatic to manual. In contrast, the A/M position also allows you to go from auto to manual focusing, but it means you have to move the focus ring more to change the mode. A/M means you are less likely to go to manual mode due to accidental touches or bumps on the focus ring.

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

Thats really handy! Thanks, I rarely need manual focus so thats a hood hint

@LanceMrB 21 күн бұрын

You might want to check the weight you have shown for the Z 400 f4.5 - not 2150gms but is 1245gms. Big difference! I used to own the F mount 400 f2.8E FL VR and used all the TC's with it with superb results. The 400 f2.8E FL VR is simply a stunning lens and works even better on the Z mount, again with all the TC's. However, it was getting a little heavy for me and sold it and now own the Z 600 f4 TC which is about 1 kg lighter when you add the FTZ, 1.4x TCIII to the 400 f2.8E FL VR for equivalence to the Z 600 f4 TC. That's a large weight saving! I found I was almost always using the 400 f2.8 + 1.4x TCIII and thus why I went with the Z 600 f4 TC.

@RussandLoz 21 күн бұрын

@@LanceMrB The 2125 is together with the z8 body. But yeah maybe in time I’ll be able to get the new 400 2.8. But like you I often use it with teleconverters so maybe a 600 f4 would make sense

@GeoffCooper 4 ай бұрын

Once you have a go with these fast supertelephotos it’s very hard to go back! The 1.7x TC is a nice niche bit of kit too. Personally I love my 400mm f/2.8 but it still have my little 400mm f/4.5 for walking about etc

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@GeoffCooper It is indeed! I love shooting at 2.8 when the subject is close enough. Very special look. But most the time I’m at 800mm. Maybe rhe 600 f4 z mount when I retire lol

@simonsenkim2842 4 ай бұрын

As usual very balanced comments from both sides. I envy your 400 f2.8. I have a 300 mom f2.8 and also use the 1.4 TC at times. 300 mm is a bit short I most cases for birds and also other wildlife I find. I do have both the 600 and 800 pf Z mount, and it’s very true that early and late in the day they are not optimal, except from a weight perspective . 😅

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@simonsenkim2842 I wonder how close to 800 mm is to 400 with a two times

@simonsenkim2842 4 ай бұрын

@@RussandLoz interesting question. I don’t have the 400 mm Z f4.5. I chose for the 100-400 due to the much closer focusing distance of the latter, so I cannot test it myself. Both the 600 and 800 mm gives excellent image quality - when the light is there.

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@simonsenkim2842 I chose the 400 4.5 hoping for better performance with the z tc’s. But it’s just not good enough really with those slow f stops

@anthonyhurren5613 4 ай бұрын

Interesting comparisons indeed guys, another fun video 👍 one thing to note though is if your shooting a lot of smaller birds and filling the frame more I would not shoot at f2.8 it’s too shallow depth of field and too much of the bird detail is out of focus, for example I have the amazing Fuji 200mm f2 with the 1.4x TC (420mm 2.8 FF EQ) when photographing kingfishers from a hide but I still try to stop down to F8 if there is enough light when the bird is big in the frame to keep as much front to back detail of the bird as possible, you can still get a lovely smooth background as long as there is distance behind the subject. In fact distance behind the subject and how close you are to the subject has is a bigger factor on the background separation than the aperture. The 400 2.8 defo comes into its own though for those special dawn & dusk moments especially with owls etc👍 just wish they weren’t so heavy 😂😂 keep it up guys 🙏 Kind regards Anthony

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@anthonyhurren5613 Thanks. Yes one day I’ll get the z version and be very happy. Though maybe the 600 f4 will be better for my needs

@sdvszdxv1830 3 ай бұрын

*420 f5.6 full frame equivalent.

@nikon_z9_images 4 ай бұрын

Have you considered a Zemlin hood to protect the front glass on your 400/2.8? Cheaper, lighter and a bayonet fitting.

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@nikon_z9_images I’ll look into it! Thanks

@Just_Me-p9w 4 ай бұрын

I started wildlife with the 400 4.5 and eventually ended up with the 500 F4 FL , 800pf, and 180-600 . Sold the two Z mount lenses and kept the 500 F4 and a couple TCs. It's bigger and heavier than the other two but it focuses faster and has better image quality. The old glass is a bargain , only cost me 3k Us.

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@Just_Me-p9w I would have thought the 800mm lens would be better if you needed reach?

@Just_Me-p9w 4 ай бұрын

@@RussandLoz with the 1.4 I'm at 700 5.6 , I'll take the 1/3 stop difference for ISO over the extra 100mm of reach . Even with the 1.4 TC the 500 F4 is razor sharp, and more contrasty than the 800pf.

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@Just_Me-p9w I do wonder with longer focal lengths how much is heat haze or atmospheric glaze getting in the way rather than the lens

@Just_Me-p9w 4 ай бұрын

@@RussandLoz I'm in Texas the heat haze is a real issue with the 800 , only way to avoid it is to shoot at dawn , and then 6.3 ain't gonna cut it.

@Jessehermansonphoto 2 ай бұрын

This is literally what I’m doing. Just sold my 4.5 and looking at the 500 f4. I looked at this video because for just 1000 more usd I can get the 400 2.8. But I really do want just a bit more FL. The 400 4.5 had a tc on it most of the time or I shot it in crop mode

@kynio3433 4 ай бұрын

I can see some magenta in those photos right of the bat. There is a nice tip for setting white balance and tint. I found it really helpful. Video is called "Finding & Fixing Tint and Temp Casts" on That Tog Spot channel.

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@kynio3433 Magenta in the highlights?

@kynio3433 4 ай бұрын

@@RussandLoz No, just in general on the subject. It's a tiny bit, but when I discovered the tip from the film I see magenta tint everywhere :)

@fscg2732 16 күн бұрын

Where did you find the used z 400 2.8 lens for 2800???

@RussandLoz 16 күн бұрын

@@fscg2732 there are lots on camera store used deals in the uk

@fscg2732 16 күн бұрын

@RussandLoz Thank You! I should have thought of looking at the UK dealers other here.

@dunnymonster 4 ай бұрын

I've been debating to myself over adding a fast tele prime. I have the old f mount 300mm f4 but I'd love a tad more reach and wider aperture. The 400mm f2.8 would be perfect for me, weight not withstanding. Its got the flexibility of being a 600mm with the 1.4X tele and 800mm f5.6 with the 2X tele. Its something of a Goldilocks focal/f stop for those who need a versatile prime telephoto lens. Of course money no object I'd love the Z mount 400 f2.8 but clearly so long as you can accept the weight of the f mount version you can get a veritable bargain lens 🙂

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@dunnymonster it is a good multi tool. But most the time I’m at 800mm. But I love using it at 400 2.8 when I can

@blueandwhiteeighttwo 4 ай бұрын

Is the low light such an issue with modern denoise software? Because the weight of the 2.8 is a burden

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@blueandwhiteeighttwo I find it a big advantage even with modern software. Bringing up shadows etc to extract quality

@Mr09260 4 ай бұрын

Good Point >> I shoot Wild Life in Africa and F6.3 before Sunrise is perfect on my Z 180-600 on the Z8 >> ISO 25600 is a breeze

@blueandwhiteeighttwo 4 ай бұрын

@@RussandLoz fair point but for my use case it’s way too heavy 😉 i am Looking for an used z 600 6.3 at a reasonable price but that’s like finding a needle in a haystack ☹️

@g00nther 4 ай бұрын

Great shots. The 2.8 is better in terms of subject separation easily. If wildlife is your passion, or profession, the choice is clear.

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@g00nther just wish it was lighter. The z version will be my retirement gift to myself

@jpdj2715 4 ай бұрын

Very nice images, conversation, comparisons. And two things: (1) pixelation, (2) noise. (1) Pixelation is reserved for picture elements being shown as squares. That is absolutely not the same as the grain you show in the images when "pixel peeping". (2) The grain you show has a very different origin than grain in film photography. Fluencers and others have been attributing that grain to "not enough photons" or the sensor or the camera. While some of these folk may have some understanding of quantum physics, we need to go back to the actual origin of noise turning to grain: the Bayer [1] paradigm. Oh, in peer-reviewed science, when you are accused of "attribution" then this means there are serious doubts regarding the validity of your work. Your raw files are 100% noise and consist of monochrome data-elements only. No pixels. No proper RGB. BTW not negative, but positive. These raw monochrome values must be converted into RGB by your raw processing software and if you end up with grain to large extent depends on how good the raw-processing's AI is. Since years, Topaz have their DeNoise AI. DxO followed with their DeepPRIME algorithm that is part of PhotoLab, or stand-alone in PureRAW. Adobe, Johnny-come-lately, added their AI Denoise option into a less trafficked niche of Camera Raw (ACR is the Develop Tab in Lightroom Classic). As Bayer noise comes with the paradigm, camera manufacturers place an optical filter in digital cameras as hardware help for the wild-assed colour guessing needed to give us RGB images. This OLPF (AKA AA-filter) helps indeed and not just with colour guessing but also with the reduction of pixelation (as in jagged lines or edges). This is the 2nd filter layer, the 1st being the Bayer filter grid. Both filter grids perfectly are aligned with the grid of photosites (the actual sensors) in the sensor. The downside of the OLPF is that it takes things away: sharpness, light, contrast, colour space. Nikon hence decided to eliminate the OLPF in the D800E version of the D800 with an OLPF - full frame cameras under that 36MP have an OLPF, full frame cameras above the 36MP don't. Oh, as Nikon's 20MP APS-C cameras have above 38MP full frame photosite density, these have no OLPF - and this explains their sharpness The noise you see as grain will look a lot different when properly deBayerised. As in: when the hardware help is taken out of the model, then the software must do a better job. As you visibly use LrC, note that your Z 8 "Adobe Standard" profile does not instruct ACR to do a better job at noise processing. The bad deBayerisation of images taken without OLPF is primarily visible in - darker images sections - blurry image sections - low contrast image sections where classical deBayerisation does not work properly and classical demosaicking added later to deBayerisation does not work either. (Demosaicking must remove digital artefacts created by classical deBayerisation.) I call this noise "Bayer noise". [1] the name of USAnian Mr. Bayer is pure German, and while born in the USA, he pronounced his name the German way (as "buyer"). The name means like "guy from Bavaria".

@ath3263 4 ай бұрын

400mm f2.8 lens over the z mount f4.5 background is more pleasing on the eye

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@ath3263 A lot can be done in post through? But it sure is straight out of camera

@russellvk 4 ай бұрын

I've always wanted this lens! I love my 300 2.8G. Great video as always.

@RussandLoz 4 ай бұрын

@@russellvk is that lighter? Any good with teleconverters?

@russellvk 4 ай бұрын

@@RussandLoz Quite a bit lighter than the 400 2.8 but still a beast. I can get away with about 2 hours of hand-holding and not much more. I'm still waiting to try my 2x on it but the 1.4 and 1.7 are great, especially stopped down a little.