Nikon 400mm Utimate Lens Comparison 

This is very true.

"justifies the price", really depends on personal needs.

Maybe. The "number" in "f/number" represents the entry pupil diameter of a lens as fraction of the focal length. This is measured with the lens set at focusing distance "infinity". So the f/number is merely a geometric relation between pupil and focal length. This has a couple problems. When you focus closer by and the lens is shifted away from the film/sensor plane, then the de facto focal length gets longer - this effect is sometimes described as "focus breathing". The corollary of this is that with the longer focal length the de facto or apparent number in f/number needs to increase. For f=200mm and an entry pupil of f/2, the pupil has a diameter of 200mm/2=100mm. When that lens becomes a 220mm lens because you focus closer by, then the real number in f/number must be 220mm/2.2=100mm as the entry pupil has not changed. My Nikon Z 105/2.8S macro lens actually displays this effect in the lens's LCD display. I call the aperture effect from focus breathing "aperture breathing" and that may be more annoying to a cinematographer than the actual change of angle of view in focus breathing (we shoot about everything in "Manual" exposure). The aperture breathing of the macro lens is 1 EV or more between infinity and 1:1. As today we have "cine" lenses that compensate the focus breathing, this may actually also compensate the aperture breathing. Some of the Nikon Z "S" class lenses suppress the focus breathing very well. The biggest problem, though, is that the f/number ignores completely how much light the glass of your lens actually allows to pass through that f/number. This is why cinematographic lenses also display the so-called T-stop with the T for "transmission". Just check a few examples in the DxOMark website. Take, say, a 1.2L lens, say 85mm, of one brand and compare to the also 85mm 1.4G of another brand. You may see that both have a T-stop of 1.5 that defines how "fast" these lenses really are. Photographers who justify their 1.2L purchase because these lenses are so fast talk [male bovine excrement]. When you inform them of why that is the case, they may say, but they have such shallow Depth of Field (DoF) and that would be total [male bovine excrement] too. Why? Because DoF depends on the Circle of Confusion (CoC), not just distance, aperture, focal length. Any indication of DoF on a lens is just an extremely coarse approximation that does not define the underlying assumptions. The CoC combines several factors into one parameter that really seriously influences DoF a lot and that your DoF calculator likely ignores too. Film/sensor resolution - higher resolution gives shallower DoF because a smaller CoC. Presence of a "fuzzy filter" [1] over the sensor or not - absence improves contour sharpness and hence reduces CoC and consequently makes DoF shallower. Lens resolution - same. Processing and its process (both valid in digital and film) - better processing may reduce the CoC and make DoF shallower. Distance at which you view your image's rendition - shorter distance reduces CoC and hence makes DoF shallower. Image rendition size - larger makes the CoC relatively smaller and hence DoF shallower. And your rendition's resolution has a similar effect. A 4K monitor versus a 1080p at the same size. A photographic print versus a magazine print. As your excursion to the DxOMark now may have informed you that the 1.2L is much less sharp than the 1.4G, you might deduce that the 1.2L may have the same DoF at 1.2 as the 1.4G at 1.4 and yes, they are equally "fast". So the 1.2L is softer. At this point the 1.2L "pro" will tell you that they really bought it for its softness and that it has such beautiful bokeh. To which a wedding photographer would reply that surely a bride would see that when she looks at her wedding photos to see that she looks like a super model in them. When she does not like her images, do you say, "but look at the background blur"? Like in quantum physics it's all relative with these photons and our mathematics. If you could replace one lens element in your "fast" lens by a similar element but now ND-filtering down by 10EV, then still the f/number on the les is valid. But 10EV slower means 2^10=1,024 times slower. Without knowing the T-stop we cannot say that one lens is "faster" than another. In the professional photography school we learnt to deal with the importance of "focus breathing" relative to exposure and to apply a "bellows extension factor". Through The Lens (TTL) light measurement was available long time ago in SLR cameras. Today a mirrorless camera uses its sensor as light meter (which it actually is). When large format camera manufacturer issued their Sinarsix light meter (adapted from Gossen's Lunasix meter IIRC), then "we" had TTL metering in large format too. "Bellows extension factor" became anachronistic. But the T-stop remains valid and relevant. Especially w.r.t handheld light meters and cameras without TTL metering (where the bellows extension factor would still be needed). [1] What I call "fuzzy filter" was added to the Bayer architecture of digital colour photography as an in-camera hardware help to make image processing easier. It's generally called an anti-aliasing (AA) or low-pass filter. It disperses a bit of the light travelling to photosite [x,y] in the sensor to its immediate neighbours. This helps against jagged edges, a bit of banding, and makes colour guessing a bit easier. The Bayer architecture starts with a colour-blind sensor with its photodiodes (AKA photosites) arranged in a perfectly regular grid of squares. That colour-blind grid of tiny sensors is then masked by a grid of colour filters arranged in 2*2 squares that filter (either clockwise or counter) red, green, blue, green (R,B,G,B). This gives monochrome (mono=single, chrome=colour) data elements in the raw file. That raw file looks like 100% colour noise and 100% luminance noise to our eyes. If you could see it,then your eyes would start tom compete with Niagara Falls. So raw processing software like Adobe Camera Raw (ACR - does the job in both Ps and LrC) needs to make wild-assed guesses about the missing colours: from the R,G,B,G quartet of data elements (this is where you have your 14 bits) we need to get RGB, RGB, RGB, RGB or else no application dares to show the image on your computer display for fear you would throw it out, or through, the window. The Fujifilm Xtrans sensor makes for a fundamentally different architecture that impacts how raw processing best can be done, but bottom line we still have the same problem and we can have a debate how a single T-green with a red and blue filler photosite count in the MP number of these cameras. It still needs raw processing. As DxOMark suggests that the best "sensors" have 27 bits colour space, this is again [male bovine excrement]. It means that they cannot do better than reverse engineering 27 bits RGB from your 14 raw monochrome bits, with their best raw processing algorithm - or a theoretical simplified algorithm as they indicate that these numbers are "before demosaicking" (where mosaicking is the generation of digital artefacts by raw processing like a very recognisable Moiré, or a subtle noise in blurry darker image zones that are clearly in the camera's contrast envelope - the contrast envelope is the usable dynamic). The AA filter was needed when processing power needed to process the lower resolution images of the time would still be big, heavy, expensive, slow. The low resolution may have suppressed digital artefacts initially, but became more and more apparent with increasing resolution. As the fuzzy filter reduces the contour sharpness of our lenses, it also reduces low light sensitivity, reduces colour space, reduces contrast envelope, and increases vignetting. We could argue that higher resolution reduces uncertainty in potential creation of digital artefacts (note here that the sensor is actually analogue and analogue exposure data a reread from the sensor while applying analogue-to-digital (AD) conversion.) What makes a digital camera more than a sensor is (a) the specification of the cut-off wavelengths and cut-off slopes in the Bayer filter grid for each of the primary colours, and (b) the maths underlying the AD conversion.

600G already exists in the 600/4TC, and I'm not sure if a 500 is going to happen anytime soon considering the 400/2.8TC exists

@@Mark13376 I was referring to budget friendly versions not the $14-$16000. A lens like the z400 5.6, but in 500 or 600mm versions. I have a 500 f4 G that weighs in at 10lbs and having a prime version in the Z line up like the 400 6.6 would appeal to more general Wildlife photographer. I had read on Rumors that drawings had been submitted,so I hope this is true for general photographers vs the pros that are using 400 TC or 600 TC. Yes these two versions are great lens, but out of reach for most.

I'm thinking of buying one for mostly landscape and occasional birds/animals. I've also heard it can focus quite close as well.

Thanks!

Sincere gratitude!

awsome enjoy!

Have you had any luck with the 2x on it? Nikon and others claim there is little to no image or AF capability loss with the 2x, but i don't like it on the 100-400 or the 70-200. I only keep it for shooting the moon. No complaints with the 1.4

@@uhoh7541 I don’t own the 2x so I can’t speak to how good or bad it is.

@@dah7772 Thanks for reply none the less!

Glad it was helpful!

Awesome! Thank you!

Those grandkids will be playing sports and running around the 100-400 is really flexible to shoot. 400 can be a little long at times for some sports

glad it was helpful!

Exactly what happened to me! Makes the 70-200 w/telecom better look way better than it is.

Nice to have options, honestly I dont think you can go wrong!

That will be a neat lens

Glad it was helpful!

awesome thanks!

Good observations, when i tested focus speed, I had good available light and all 3 lenses seemed zippy. All 3 much faster than the 200-500 F mount.

Welcome !

Glad you enjoyed it!

8 feet is almost always enough min but when the 600 has 13 foot minimum range, thats not close enough!

exactly my situation. I would have easily opted for the 100-400mm,but the bokeh of the 400 / 4,5 is so much more pleasing (at least for me)

Glad it was helpful!

without a TC it is VERY sharp With a 1.4tc, its still very sharp. The 2x is a little softer, still usable but not as sharp as the others at 400mm

I have a client using that and getting good results. Maybe pick up a 1.4 converter which gets you to 560 f6.3 for when there is more available light (still super sharp)

@@WildlifeInspired thats the plan!!

Ill see what I can do

Glad it was helpful!

THanks!

im kicking myself a littel for not showing bokeh in this. I will do something in the future.

@@WildlifeInspired Scott, you do a great job. When I comment, it's just an FYI. That said, I would be very interested to share current (after over a year) settings of the main AF area modes/important button assignments with you as I think that would be interesting. I've changed mine several times over the year - especially with the newer firmware updates. I now have a much better feel for how/when/where to change things. Keep posting your experiences. Hope to talk to you soon.

Interesting comments. 12 months ago I was using the Z 70-200 with a 2xTC and the 200-500 with the F-mount 1.4xTC. When I look back on the images I got from both these combinations I am very pleased with them, however, I do recall the 200-500 was a little slow to focus and I was keen to move away from the FTZ. My Z 100-400 finally arrived in July 2022 (I ordered it on the day it was announced along with the Z9). In May, with no sign of the 100-400 arriving any time soon, I also bought a 500PF and was very impressed by its performance. However, that was a temporary purchase as I also had the Z 800 PF on order. Today I have the 100-400 and the 800 and sold back the 200-500 and the 500PF. If I am really honest, I now wish I had hung onto the 500 rather than getting the 800. Obviously there are times when the 800 reach is essential but the quality of the images I got from the 500PF, even with the 1.4 TC, was better - in my opinion, and weighed substantially less and was, therefore, easier to travel with.

@@SwanSycorax Thanks for the comments and perspective. I would not sell the 500 pf until I had another lens given your experience. Rather than the Z400 f/4.5 prime, maybe the Z 100-400mm F/5.6 would be a better option and keep the 500 pf.

good point about testing at equivalent aperatures, but soooo many variables. Appreciate the insight!

Great lens and super light. Was definitely impressed with sharpness!

@@WildlifeInspired I love the lightness. I can bird all day with it.

no review on the 180-600 as there are so many on already out there.

Glad it was helpful!