p.49 #1 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
George DeCamp wrote:
We really do!! The park I go to is Huntington Beach State Park in South Carolina, its around #41 on ebird in number of different species seen there. It's a great place but this year a little slow but it's recently picked up again!
I need to make it up there sometime. Looks like a great place for birding/wildlife.
p.49 #9 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Sold my 400mm F/2.8E FL, bought the S and it finally got here last week. Not until today I have the chance to test it, initial impression is how light the lens is. The TC is super handy. Here's a couple of shots I took with it today.
p.49 #10 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Wondering about which TCs I should bring in the field with me. Do you notice big drop in IQ when using the stacked internal & external 1.4 TC compared to just the 2x TC? I love the idea of double 1.4s for practical purposes, but want have heard mixed.
p.49 #11 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
swedishtomahaw wrote:
Wondering about which TCs I should bring in the field with me. Do you notice big drop in IQ when using the stacked internal & external 1.4 TC compared to just the 2x TC? I love the idea of double 1.4s for practical purposes, but want have heard mixed.
This topic comes up quite a bit, and you definitely should look through the thread for various points of view. I've contributed input in the past, but am happy to offer my own observations...
The 400mm f2.8TC operates at its best when shot w/ or without the internal TC. In fact, if I don't have time to mess with an external TC, I'm actually comfortable using the internal TC w/ DX crop to get out to about 800mm.
With that stated, if I know that I am going to be shooting small birds, I will attach the external TC14 to the lens and shoot at 560mm, and click in the internal TC if I need longer. If I need even more focal length, I will use DX crop.
Others have stated that the 400mm f2.8TC takes a 2x well, this may be true, but I find a 2x to be limiting due to loss of light. None of the TC options are my favorite if I am trying to make something distant appear close... this strategy only magnifies haze.
Statistically, the 2X performs better than stacking 1.4x converters. While this has been shown to be true with sharpness charts, using DXO pure RAW on 1.4x stacked images seems to equalize everything.
Personally, I prefer the 1.4x converter because I begin at f4 and choose to go to f5.6.
Finally, I had the 800mm PF lens... while the 800PF may be a hair sharper than stacking 1.4x converters, the difference was so negligible that I decided to sell the 800PF. Furthermore, the 400mm f2.8TC + 1.4x focuses closer than the 800PF, thus allowing more pixels per feather. If you think you need to shoot at 800mm more than 560mm, I suggest you consider the 600mm f4 TC... I had a choice between the two, but I prefer a wider field of view.
p.49 #12 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
swedishtomahaw wrote:
Wondering about which TCs I should bring in the field with me. Do you notice big drop in IQ when using the stacked internal & external 1.4 TC compared to just the 2x TC? I love the idea of double 1.4s for practical purposes, but want have heard mixed.
This video released today by Steve Perry answers your question, including autofocus performance;
p.49 #13 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
swedishtomahaw wrote:
Wondering about which TCs I should bring in the field with me. Do you notice big drop in IQ when using the stacked internal & external 1.4 TC compared to just the 2x TC? I love the idea of double 1.4s for practical purposes, but want have heard mixed.
I use both, but the 1.4x external TC and internal give me more success in flying birds than the 2.0x. So most of the time 1.4x external TC is attached to my lens and I can choose 560mm f/4 or 784mm f/5.6. I think the IQ by using both 1.4x extensions (internal and external) is very good.
Why didn't I buy Z 600mm f/4 TC?
I also photograph insects, so minimum focus distance with Z 400 TC (2.5m) is then better than Z 600 f/4 TC (4.3m).
I often walk long distances with the camera attached to the lens with an external TC, and this must fit into a camera backpack that is comfortable to carry. This combination fits to my Kiboko, ThinkTank Glass Limo and Shimoda backpacks than Z600 f/4 attached to camera.
I live in the in Finland, and here in autumn and winter the light is often low, so f/2.8 gives, if necessary, one more aperture for action images.
p.49 #14 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
OwlsEyes wrote:
Statistically, the 2X performs better than stacking 1.4x converters. While this has been shown to be true with sharpness charts, using DXO pure RAW on 1.4x stacked images seems to equalize everything.
Bruce, this is exactly what I was looking for thank you! I've read all 40 page of the thread, and there was early data of 2x vs stacked 1.4x, but I was curious on more recent, real world application. Yes, the 2x may be sharper but the versatility of 560/784 is more useful even if it may be a little more post processing.
pietipe wrote:
I use both, but the 1.4x external TC and internal give me more success in flying birds than the 2.0x. So most of the time 1.4x external TC is attached to my lens and I can choose 560mm f/4 or 784mm f/5.6. I think the IQ by using both 1.4x extensions (internal and external) is very good.
Why didn't I buy Z 600mm f/4 TC?
I also photograph insects, so minimum focus distance with Z 400 TC (2.5m) is then better than Z 600 f/4 TC (4.3m).
This is what I was thinking as well. If I only shot small birds I would have opted for the 600 tc, but I shoot all wildlife. I like the freedom of the 400 tc, even if I have to give up a little IQ compared to the 600 tc.
Darren555 wrote:
This video released today by Steve Perry answers your question, including autofocus performance;
p.49 #18 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Different days, but similar subjects.
It's hard to not photograph captivating subjects through multiple days, as one never knows when the good shooting will end.
