Nikon 400mm f4.5 announced
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:07 pm
NatureScapes.net Nature Photography Resource - Photo Galleries, Discussion Forums, Nature and Wildlife Photography Articles and Tips
https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/
Yes, it's kind of a weird product launch in some ways. I saw all the hands-on reviews, so I assumed it was now official. It's been a few days now, and still no word; I'm guessing they will do the "official" launch and announce the rumoured APC camera simultaneously?Anthony Medici wrote:It hasn't been "officially" announced by Nikon. It simply looks like Nikon released the people with access to the pre-production model to say that they have had access to a pre-production model. So, we have no price yet and some of the specs aren't known yet.
I’d guess that this lens will be far lighter than the 100-400. Although not as much difference as between the 200-500 f 5.6 f mount and the 500 f5.6 pf, I’m sure it will be lighter and handle far better than the 100-400. It wouldn’t interest me at all to change over from the 500 pf to a shorter lens on a MIL. I’d rather just use the FTZ ll adapter with the 500 pf. From what I hear, it works pretty well.Scott Fairbairn wrote:........It's an interesting lens; I'm not sure what it's targeting? DSLR users with the 500PF to entice them over to mirrorless? Otherwise, I'd stick with the 100-400.
SantaFeJoe wrote:I’d guess that this lens will be far lighter than the 100-400. Although not as much difference as between the 200-500 f 5.6 f mount and the 500 f5.6 pf, I’m sure it will be lighter and handle far better than the 100-400. It wouldn’t interest me at all to change over from the 500 pf to a shorter lens on a MIL. I’d rather just use the FTZ ll adapter with the 500 pf. From what I hear, it works pretty well.Scott Fairbairn wrote:........It's an interesting lens; I'm not sure what it's targeting? DSLR users with the 500PF to entice them over to mirrorless? Otherwise, I'd stick with the 100-400.
Joe
Scott, I believe it was you who in a previous post was hoping for a 600mm F5.6 down the line from Nikon. I continue to be in the same boat as you but, at least at this point, it doesn't appear to be a likelihood.Scott Fairbairn wrote:Yes, it's kind of a weird product launch in some ways. I saw all the hands-on reviews, so I assumed it was now official. It's been a few days now, and still no word; I'm guessing they will do the "official" launch and announce the rumoured APC camera simultaneously?Anthony Medici wrote:It hasn't been "officially" announced by Nikon. It simply looks like Nikon released the people with access to the pre-production model to say that they have had access to a pre-production model. So, we have no price yet and some of the specs aren't known yet.
It's an interesting lens; I'm not sure what it's targeting? DSLR users with the 500PF to entice them over to mirrorless? Otherwise, I'd stick with the 100-400.
Me too Scott. My 100-400 took 8 months to arrive and I like the versatility of the zoom so its a keeper...., Next is the longer reach lens to compliment. (I'm still waiting on the 1.4 extender which is due sometime in July).Scott Fairbairn wrote:An interesting lens, and if I didn't own the 100-400, I'd pick it up.
david fletcher wrote:Me too Scott. My 100-400 took 8 months to arrive and I like the versatility of the zoom so its a keeper...., Next is the longer reach lens to compliment. (I'm still waiting on the 1.4 extender which is due sometime in July).Scott Fairbairn wrote:An interesting lens, and if I didn't own the 100-400, I'd pick it up.
Scott Fairbairn wrote:david fletcher wrote:Me too Scott. My 100-400 took 8 months to arrive and I like the versatility of the zoom so its a keeper...., Next is the longer reach lens to compliment. (I'm still waiting on the 1.4 extender which is due sometime in July).Scott Fairbairn wrote:An interesting lens, and if I didn't own the 100-400, I'd pick it up.
The 100-400 works pretty well with the 1.4x.
Personally, I was not impressed with how my 1.4TC worked on the 100-400mm lens. Maybe it is me or my copies of the lens/TC, but thouht the 500mm PF was much better to use then the combo of the zoom and TCdavid fletcher wrote:Scott Fairbairn wrote:david fletcher wrote:Me too Scott. My 100-400 took 8 months to arrive and I like the versatility of the zoom so its a keeper...., Next is the longer reach lens to compliment. (I'm still waiting on the 1.4 extender which is due sometime in July).Scott Fairbairn wrote:An interesting lens, and if I didn't own the 100-400, I'd pick it up.
The 100-400 works pretty well with the 1.4x.
Thanks Scott. Am looking forward to it.
Thanks for that feedback Ricardo. Guessed you might have had a bad copy from your earlier post. (You wouldn't be the first). Can't comment on the 1.4 till i have it, but at least I am satisfied on the 100-400. Just need that 800 to compliment as I always seem to find whether at 500 or 600, that extra reach is needed for the wee birds. (not bad for the waterfowl also.. ).ricardo00 wrote:Personally, I was not impressed with how my 1.4TC worked on the 100-400mm lens. Maybe it is me or my copies of the lens/TC, but thouht the 500mm PF was much better to use then the combo of the zoom and TCdavid fletcher wrote:Scott Fairbairn wrote:david fletcher wrote:Me too Scott. My 100-400 took 8 months to arrive and I like the versatility of the zoom so its a keeper...., Next is the longer reach lens to compliment. (I'm still waiting on the 1.4 extender which is due sometime in July).Scott Fairbairn wrote:An interesting lens, and if I didn't own the 100-400, I'd pick it up.
The 100-400 works pretty well with the 1.4x.
Thanks Scott. Am looking forward to it.
Hope you get your Z9 soon! It has been fun playing with. Not sure which earlier post you are referring to since this is the first time I have used either my Z 1.4TC (received in Dec.) or a 100-400mm (a rental copy, my prior one that I bought I returned in Dec since I did not have a camera to use it on and the 30 day return window was almost up). After all the great reviews on the 100-400mm, regretted returning mine so rented it to try it out again. Still don't think I want it for my every day needs, just too short. Will have to wait for the 800mm I ordered (or try the 400mm f/4.5 with the TC?).david fletcher wrote:Thanks for that feedback Ricardo. Guessed you might have had a bad copy from your earlier post. (You wouldn't be the first). Can't comment on the 1.4 till i have it, but at least I am satisfied on the 100-400. Just need that 800 to compliment as I always seem to find whether at 500 or 600, that extra reach is needed for the wee birds. (not bad for the waterfowl also.. ).ricardo00 wrote:Personally, I was not impressed with how my 1.4TC worked on the 100-400mm lens. Maybe it is me or my copies of the lens/TC, but thouht the 500mm PF was much better to use then the combo of the zoom and TCdavid fletcher wrote:Scott Fairbairn wrote:david fletcher wrote:Me too Scott. My 100-400 took 8 months to arrive and I like the versatility of the zoom so its a keeper...., Next is the longer reach lens to compliment. (I'm still waiting on the 1.4 extender which is due sometime in July).Scott Fairbairn wrote:An interesting lens, and if I didn't own the 100-400, I'd pick it up.
The 100-400 works pretty well with the 1.4x.
Thanks Scott. Am looking forward to it.
My target being the 100-400, 1.4 and 800 combo. Whilst the 200-600 appeals, quality is not known; nor a supply date, and for the wee birds, the 1.4 will probably go on it.
Just supply an issue. DOH! (ordered the Z9 on November 3rd last year.... must be due soon?)
It's a bit of an apple/oranges comparison comparing a bare prime lens to a zoom with a TC. I don't photograph resolution charts to objectively evaluate sharpness. I look at the images at 100% and if they are something that I can submit for publication, then it works for me. I've done some comparisons between the 500PF and the 100-400 in terms of focus and keeper rate, and while the 500 does adapt well, the 100-400 has given me a more consistent keeper rate.ricardo00 wrote:Personally, I was not impressed with how my 1.4TC worked on the 100-400mm lens. Maybe it is me or my copies of the lens/TC, but thouht the 500mm PF was much better to use then the combo of the zoom and TCdavid fletcher wrote:Scott Fairbairn wrote:david fletcher wrote:Me too Scott. My 100-400 took 8 months to arrive and I like the versatility of the zoom so its a keeper...., Next is the longer reach lens to compliment. (I'm still waiting on the 1.4 extender which is due sometime in July).Scott Fairbairn wrote:An interesting lens, and if I didn't own the 100-400, I'd pick it up.
The 100-400 works pretty well with the 1.4x.
Thanks Scott. Am looking forward to it.
ricardo00 wrote:Hope you get your Z9 soon! It has been fun playing with. Not sure which earlier post you are referring to since this is the first time I have used either my Z 1.4TC (received in Dec.) or a 100-400mm (a rental copy, my prior one that I bought I returned in Dec since I did not have a camera to use it on and the 30 day return window was almost up). After all the great reviews on the 100-400mm, regretted returning mine so rented it to try it out again. Still don't think I want it for my every day needs, just too short. Will have to wait for the 800mm I ordered (or try the 400mm f/4.5 with the TC?).david fletcher wrote:Thanks for that feedback Ricardo. Guessed you might have had a bad copy from your earlier post. (You wouldn't be the first). Can't comment on the 1.4 till i have it, but at least I am satisfied on the 100-400. Just need that 800 to compliment as I always seem to find whether at 500 or 600, that extra reach is needed for the wee birds. (not bad for the waterfowl also.. ).ricardo00 wrote:Personally, I was not impressed with how my 1.4TC worked on the 100-400mm lens. Maybe it is me or my copies of the lens/TC, but thouht the 500mm PF was much better to use then the combo of the zoom and TCdavid fletcher wrote:Scott Fairbairn wrote:david fletcher wrote:Me too Scott. My 100-400 took 8 months to arrive and I like the versatility of the zoom so its a keeper...., Next is the longer reach lens to compliment. (I'm still waiting on the 1.4 extender which is due sometime in July).Scott Fairbairn wrote:An interesting lens, and if I didn't own the 100-400, I'd pick it up.
The 100-400 works pretty well with the 1.4x.
Thanks Scott. Am looking forward to it.
My target being the 100-400, 1.4 and 800 combo. Whilst the 200-600 appeals, quality is not known; nor a supply date, and for the wee birds, the 1.4 will probably go on it.
Just supply an issue. DOH! (ordered the Z9 on November 3rd last year.... must be due soon?)
david fletcher wrote:Thanks for that feedback Ricardo. Guessed you might have had a bad copy from your earlier post. (You wouldn't be the first). Can't comment on the 1.4 till i have it, but at least I am satisfied on the 100-400. Just need that 800 to compliment as I always seem to find whether at 500 or 600, that extra reach is needed for the wee birds. (not bad for the waterfowl also.. ).ricardo00 wrote:Personally, I was not impressed with how my 1.4TC worked on the 100-400mm lens. Maybe it is me or my copies of the lens/TC, but thouht the 500mm PF was much better to use then the combo of the zoom and TCdavid fletcher wrote:Scott Fairbairn wrote:david fletcher wrote:Me too Scott. My 100-400 took 8 months to arrive and I like the versatility of the zoom so its a keeper...., Next is the longer reach lens to compliment. (I'm still waiting on the 1.4 extender which is due sometime in July).Scott Fairbairn wrote:An interesting lens, and if I didn't own the 100-400, I'd pick it up.
The 100-400 works pretty well with the 1.4x.
Thanks Scott. Am looking forward to it.
My target being the 100-400, 1.4 and 800 combo. Whilst the 200-600 appeals, quality is not known; nor a supply date, and for the wee birds, the 1.4 will probably go on it.
Just supply an issue. DOH! (ordered the Z9 on November 3rd last year.... must be due soon?)
Hope you get your Z9 soon! It has been fun playing with. Not sure which earlier post you are referring to since this is the first time I have used either my Z 1.4TC (received in Dec.) or a 100-400mm (a rental copy, my prior one that I bought I returned in Dec since I did not have a camera to use it on and the 30 day return window was almost up). After all the great reviews on the 100-400mm, regretted returning mine so rented it to try it out again. Still don't think I want it for my every day needs, just too short. Will have to wait for the 800mm I ordered (or try the 400mm f/4.5 with the TC?).Personally, I was not impressed with how my 1.4TC worked on the 100-400mm lens. Maybe it is me or my copies of the lens/TC, but thouht the 500mm PF was much better to use then the combo of the zoom and TC
With you on that Scott. There seems as you have noticed, quite some use for macro too, particularly dragonflies etc, so I'm holding off on the MC 105 till I've explored all the opportunities. MTF charts mean zip...dibbly...s..it to me. Always about what I see and keepers...Scott Fairbairn wrote:It's a bit of an apple/oranges comparison comparing a bare prime lens to a zoom with a TC. I don't photograph resolution charts to objectively evaluate sharpness. I look at the images at 100% and if they are something that I can submit for publication, then it works for me. I've done some comparisons between the 500PF and the 100-400 in terms of focus and keeper rate, and while the 500 does adapt well, the 100-400 has given me a more consistent keeper rate.ricardo00 wrote:Personally, I was not impressed with how my 1.4TC worked on the 100-400mm lens. Maybe it is me or my copies of the lens/TC, but thouht the 500mm PF was much better to use then the combo of the zoom and TCdavid fletcher wrote:Scott Fairbairn wrote:david fletcher wrote:Me too Scott. My 100-400 took 8 months to arrive and I like the versatility of the zoom so its a keeper...., Next is the longer reach lens to compliment. (I'm still waiting on the 1.4 extender which is due sometime in July).Scott Fairbairn wrote:An interesting lens, and if I didn't own the 100-400, I'd pick it up.
The 100-400 works pretty well with the 1.4x.
Thanks Scott. Am looking forward to it.