To me, the F mount 180-400 FL TC and 600 F4E FL with 1.4 TCiii has always been the dream combo with the D5 and D500. Now that I have Z9 and Z8, I am thinking to slowly convert to Z400 4.5 and Z800 6.3 PF, mainly for the weight reduction. but I am on the frence of the larger aperture, and if money is not the issue, then Z400 2.8 TC and Z600 TC or 800 PF would be ideal replacement but i am not in a rush because the FL lens are still outstanding with the FTZ
James
April 8, 2024 5:21 am
We are moving into an age of nit picking on Sharpness, these lenses are all outstanding and level of sharpness even with TC’s are outstanding compared to DSLR days where we had to focus calibrate to get sharp images. One thing I find odd with all reviews is the obsession with focul length. For most people that shoot big mammals or big birds or sport 400 mm is the go to lens. On a recent trip with a top photographic company in Botswana all the guides used 400 mm as their go to lenses with a 70-200 or some other lens as back up or second lens. Then we have many who shoot small animals and small birds and even 800mm is to short and the crop to 1200mm. A fair comparison is between 300-400 of 400-500 so for me the pick is between the 100-400, 400 f4.5 or the 500 pf. Unfortunately the 100-400 is external Zoom and sucks dust like all external Zoom lenses and in African dust not e great solution. The 500 pf is an adaptive lens and my experience is that the focus is not fast especially in late afternoon or early morning light where a lot of the action and beautiful light makes for fantastic images. The 400 f4.5 even with the 1.4 makes for a fantastic lens. I have shot this lens on several trips here in Africa and results are stunning. Easy to handle and on the Z8, even M43 users look envious. The 600 and 800 mm lenses are for those who want to shoot smaller subjects and or tighter shots, the new 180-600 is a very attractive option but after using the 400 f4.5 even the extra 700g of weight and longer size is a compromise. So compared to the 100-400, 400 f4.5, 400f2.8 TC, 400 f2.8 G FL and the 500 pf, 500 f4 FL and even the 180-400 f4 G FL lenses, how do they stack. If we compare the 500 pf as an adaptive lens we also need to look at the other G mounts as some now offer great value as adaptive lenses. From my experience having shot all of them , if weight and adaptive G mount is not an issue, then the 180-400 f4 TC, that now sells used at a lower cost than the 600 f6.3 S, is most likely the best deal. If we only look at Z mount, the 400 f4.5 for price, weight value is the clear winner. My point is this, compare focal length with it’s peers as people but a focul length given their photographic needs or budget limitations. Great review and the test charts are interesting.
Troy Phillips
February 8, 2024 10:56 pm
I really like the oof rendering of this lens . Nikon did a great job at that and the choice of not making this a phase fresnel lens helps with this I believe. Somehow they did some phenomenal engineering and kept this beautiful lens super lightweight too. I myself am going to get the Nikon Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 instead. It will be much more versatile for the work I do . I shoot live music video and photography along with closeup Nature Photography and some wildlife. My plan is for a trio of Nikon Z 14-24 f/2.8 S , Z 24-120 f/4 and then the 100-400. If someday I’m going to get more serious about wildlife photography I’ll get the Nikon Z 800 f/6.3 S . A lot can be done with a 100-400 and an 800 . Both not the best for low light but an 800 f/6.3 is still pretty shallow dof . Thanks Photography Life for all the phenomenal reviews you do. I’ve learned so much over the years.
This is a lens selection that makes a lot of sense. 100-400mm as a bridge between a standard zoom and a long telephoto.
Jeff
February 3, 2024 12:57 pm
Nice review. I have both the 400 2.8E and the 400 4.5S. I took both with me to Yellowstone and ended up leaving the 400 4.5S on my Z8 inside the console of my Sequoia along with the Z9 with whatever 1.8 prime I last used. This setup was great because the 400 was always easy to grab if I was driving and I got some interesting shots that way.
I would say that the 400 4.5S is very sharp. More than I expected actually. I could tell after using it for less than an hour. I didn’t pick up the teleconverters as I forgot to add it to my annual order, the next one being in April. I will add it then.
I also have the 400 5.6AIS which I enjoyed using because it too was surprisingly sharp considering its era. While lighter than my 400 4.5S, it is now as the back of my gear closet along with my 800mm 8.0AIS.
Part of my really wants the 400 2.8TC, but after I subtract what I can get the 400 2.8E for, that is one expensive teleconverter. Well, I also get rid of the FTZ.
I think that the 400 4.5S will pair really nicely with an 800 6.3S, so I think that will be on my next order.
The combination of the 400/4.5 and the 800/6.3 is very appealing. Both lenses are so light and relatively compact that they can be packed into a larger photo backpack. That way, you won’t be faced with the Sophie’s choice of which one to leave at home before a photo trip.
Russ
February 2, 2024 3:28 am
Interesting lab results, I recently have the 400 4.5 and found sharpness very much dependant on light conditions. Which might seem obvious but a bright day makes a world of difference in IQ. For birding I always have to crop in which means I need a longer lens but the 600 is twice the price! My experience with teleconverters was a hopeful disappointment
Teleconverters are somewhat odd. They are better than cropping, but always worse than the bare lens. They reduce the aperture and in practice, they are never like a lens with the extended focal length. I always prefer a bare lens to a teleconverted lens, though some lenses are especially good with them.
It’s like you write, if the light is good, almost any modern lens today is fine. When the sun approaches the horizon, or even disappears behind it, then the qualities of expensive exotics become apparent. As for the teleconverter, it’s as Jason writes. It’s always a compromise. But in the case of the 400/4.5 and TC1.4x combination, it is acceptable.
Berlandina
February 1, 2024 2:08 am
Thanks for the very thorough review. Though its not making my life any easier. I would really love to have that lens, if Nikon only had a decent APS-C camera to go with it. That is my personal dilemma, Nikon has the lens I want, but not (yet) the camera. Well, might come in the future, or I will have to go for the Z7II or Z8.
I would also like to see Nikon come up with a successor to the D500. 30MP resolution or slightly higher would be great. It would clearly be the best “teleconverter” for Nikon. If the resolution of such a hypothetical camera is somewhere around 20MP, then it is basically the same as a Z8/9 cropped to APS-C. We’ll see what time brings. So far, I don’t have any news that we’ll be getting a “Z500” anytime soon.
This is a very logical argument and agree. Nikon as a big player in the nature and wildlife market has a big gap for a D500 replacement with as you said +/- 30mp. Fujifilm has the opportunity to dominate this space with their XH2s and a proper 300 f4 of 400 f5.6 prime or at least a 100-400 f5.6 with internal zoom. But sadly their focus system is unreliable and the lenses not good enough. I shot Fujifilm XT4 and XH2s with the Nikon 500 f5.6 pf with a finger adaptor and had great success with low moving or stationary subjects. But the focus system was a big let down. That made me change back to Nikon. My only regret is I sold the 500 f5.6 and bought the 400 f4.5. For me the 500 pf is in a sweet spot and regret paying the extra money for the 400 f4.5. It is a great lens and with the 1.4 good enough but at a big price difference. The TC1.4 S is also very expensive.
Zhang
February 1, 2024 12:13 am
Hi Spencer I read with interest your article and I have several questions: 1st: Do the two combos have MTF numbers indicate that the sharpness is identical if we print them on the paper with same size or look them in the same screen? For example, First Combo: Lens A on Nikon Z7. Second Combo: Lens B (Better lens) on Nikon Z6. If the two combinations have roughly same MTF numbers. Does this mean if we downsample the Z7 photo to the size exactly match the Z6, they have the same sharpness? If we upsample the Z6 photo to the size match the Z7, then can we draw the same conclusion?
2nd: Is that true that certain lens on the higher Pixel sensor ( e.g. Z7) , more or less, have the higher MTF number than it on the lower Pixel sensor ( e.g. Z6) ? If this true, does it mean that the sharpness of downsampling the Z7 photo of certain lens are usually better the Z6 photo of the same lens. Does downsample benefit only occur on sharpness? What about other optical performance? Are there any costs (e.g. Dynamic Range, Color Sensitivity) when we downsample the photo?
Regarding point 2: All lenses have higher MTF numbers on the Z7 than on the Z6. This is because of how the point spread functions of the lens and sensor interact. That does mean you should get more detail, yes.
The answer to your first question is yes, with no major caveats. If a worse lens is used on a higher-resolution sensor, compared to a better lens on a lower-resolution sensor, it is quite possible that the total level of detail resolved by both systems will be approximately the same. At that point, either upsampling from the 24 MP camera or downsampling from the 45 MP camera will get you very similar-looking images. Likewise, printing both photos at the same size will not show an advantage for one or the other.
To your second question, yes, the same lens will almost universally give higher MTF results on a higher-resolution sensor. Even if it’s a mediocre lens.
I’ll put it this way – our MTF charts aren’t just “scores.” They specifically describe the number of line widths in our test chart per the width of the camera sensor that the lens + camera is resolving. (This number varies by the portion of the frame, but the idea is that you can extrapolate it to the full width of the image.) Having a higher-resolution sensor makes it likely that you will capture more of these line widths even with the same lens.
Downsampling from the Z7, even with the same lens, will generally give you a bit higher sharpness than using the Z6 with that lens. Downsampling only improves colors, noise, or dynamic range in the sense that you’re displaying the image smaller, so you may not see errors (like noise or discolored areas) as obviously. But it doesn’t actually improve the quality of the file.
I strongly recommend against downsampling any time that you want to maximize the image quality of your photo as it is displayed. It is literally throwing away resolution. I’ve heard that some photographers downsample before printing, and this is a complete mistake – simply printing smaller carries the same “benefits” as downsampling. There is no upside to doing it digitally beforehand, and there is the downside of losing resolution.
What I find interesting is that you have not done what a very interesting article could be. Find a nice Fuji lens that is comparable to a compact prime and look at it through the “Lens” (pardon my pun) of total resolution. While the Fuji will give you higher individual line numbers, which is what the manufacturer’s MTF charts describe, once you account for the actual lines that fit on the sensor, the Nikon compact prime will come out roughly the same and perhaps even a bit better. And I suspect that the Fuji lens will be three or four times the price.
And then compare the weight and size of the ZF with a compact prime against the weight and size of the Fuji combination achieving the same results. And while you are at it, compare the price.
And if you get the results that I suspect you will, that will be the simplest explanation on why Fuji’s is a niche and Canon, Nikon and Sony are not paying serious attention to cropped sensor cameras and lenses.
It is also why Fuji should be very worried about Nikon’s ZF. If Nikon gets truly serious with this strategy, I think that the niche that Fuji will be limited to will be cameras no bigger than the Z50 and likely smaller along with very small and slowish lenses, because size and weight will be all they have to compete on.
Hi Jeff, I hope I’m not giving too much away when I say that the Fuji article is already written and waiting to be published. Unfortunately, Fuji does not currently have a lens that is directly comparable to the 400/4.5, but that will change this year. Personally, I was very pleasantly surprised by the 40MP sensor on the Fuji. Even with a lens that has a maximum aperture of f/8 at the long end (no, it’s not really a forest lens). If Nikon comes out with a really high resolution APS-C camera, I’ll be one of the first to buy one.
arghajit
February 1, 2024 12:12 am
Thanks for the wonderful review. This lens would be my first buy when I completely switch to Z-system. 😃
If I post a comment then edit it, the page I’m viewing shows me my edited version. However, if I view the same PL page on another device, it shows only my original comment.
My edited comment is displayed only after someone else posts a comment. This behaviour isn’t a recent issue.
Perhaps associated with the same root cause is the bugger’s muddle the web server makes with page 2 and beyond from the home page (page 1). It seems to be a caching issue that started two or more years ago. As new articles are added to the top of the home page, the older ones move down as expected, but the article that drops off the bottom often disappears, instead of being placed at the top of page 2. Likewise with page 2 to page 3, etc. etc.
Not a criticism, I just think it’s a shame that, at any particular moment in time, there are articles that cannot be viewed by a visitor to this site who’s using the page buttons.
It is a caching issue. We’ve been trying to work out a solution, so far to no avail. But I’ll bring it up next time I talk to Nasim.
Guy Dagar
January 31, 2024 3:05 pm
The Z 400mm f/4.5 is a fantastic lens. I shoot a lot with the TC-1.4x and I am as pleased with it as I once was with the 500mm PF, but I have also achieved what I consider extraordinary results with the TC-2.0x as well. I have to say that the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 with the TC-2.0x is also quite extraordinary. I appreciate all the sharpness tests provided here in this excellent review, but it’s hard to equivocate in the field where I am seldom disappointed with either lens/TC combo.
I do regret getting rid of my 300mm PF, what a great lens! But I finally decided to plunge entirely into the Z system and get rid of all my F-mount lenses.
Teleconverters are a tricky case, because while they always measure worse in the lab, the reality is that they allow you to put more pixels on distant subjects and capture some details, like feather details, that you wouldn’t have seen any other way. So, they are what I might call “field sharp” without being “lab sharp.” I definitely prefer using a TC compared to cropping.
I’m in the same boat as Spencer and you, Guy. If the situation calls for it, I always prefer the teleconverter over cropping in post. If the light conditions allow, of course. My experience in practice is that the TC2x is quite usable, but more so for close subjects. Sounds like nonsense, I know. After all, that’s why we use a teleconverter, because something is too far away. In other words, when I use the TC2x, then it’s for what I would call a long distance macro.
To me, the F mount 180-400 FL TC and 600 F4E FL with 1.4 TCiii has always been the dream combo with the D5 and D500. Now that I have Z9 and Z8, I am thinking to slowly convert to Z400 4.5 and Z800 6.3 PF, mainly for the weight reduction. but I am on the frence of the larger aperture, and if money is not the issue, then Z400 2.8 TC and Z600 TC or 800 PF would be ideal replacement but i am not in a rush because the FL lens are still outstanding with the FTZ
We are moving into an age of nit picking on Sharpness, these lenses are all outstanding and level of sharpness even with TC’s are outstanding compared to DSLR days where we had to focus calibrate to get sharp images. One thing I find odd with all reviews is the obsession with focul length. For most people that shoot big mammals or big birds or sport 400 mm is the go to lens. On a recent trip with a top photographic company in Botswana all the guides used 400 mm as their go to lenses with a 70-200 or some other lens as back up or second lens. Then we have many who shoot small animals and small birds and even 800mm is to short and the crop to 1200mm. A fair comparison is between 300-400 of 400-500 so for me the pick is between the 100-400, 400 f4.5 or the 500 pf. Unfortunately the 100-400 is external Zoom and sucks dust like all external Zoom lenses and in African dust not e great solution. The 500 pf is an adaptive lens and my experience is that the focus is not fast especially in late afternoon or early morning light where a lot of the action and beautiful light makes for fantastic images. The 400 f4.5 even with the 1.4 makes for a fantastic lens. I have shot this lens on several trips here in Africa and results are stunning. Easy to handle and on the Z8, even M43 users look envious. The 600 and 800 mm lenses are for those who want to shoot smaller subjects and or tighter shots, the new 180-600 is a very attractive option but after using the 400 f4.5 even the extra 700g of weight and longer size is a compromise. So compared to the 100-400, 400 f4.5, 400f2.8 TC, 400 f2.8 G FL and the 500 pf, 500 f4 FL and even the 180-400 f4 G FL lenses, how do they stack. If we compare the 500 pf as an adaptive lens we also need to look at the other G mounts as some now offer great value as adaptive lenses. From my experience having shot all of them , if weight and adaptive G mount is not an issue, then the 180-400 f4 TC, that now sells used at a lower cost than the 600 f6.3 S, is most likely the best deal. If we only look at Z mount, the 400 f4.5 for price, weight value is the clear winner. My point is this, compare focal length with it’s peers as people but a focul length given their photographic needs or budget limitations. Great review and the test charts are interesting.
I really like the oof rendering of this lens . Nikon did a great job at that and the choice of not making this a phase fresnel lens helps with this I believe. Somehow they did some phenomenal engineering and kept this beautiful lens super lightweight too.
I myself am going to get the Nikon Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 instead. It will be much more versatile for the work I do . I shoot live music video and photography along with closeup Nature Photography and some wildlife. My plan is for a trio of Nikon Z 14-24 f/2.8 S , Z 24-120 f/4 and then the 100-400. If someday I’m going to get more serious about wildlife photography I’ll get the Nikon Z 800 f/6.3 S . A lot can be done with a 100-400 and an 800 . Both not the best for low light but an 800 f/6.3 is still pretty shallow dof .
Thanks Photography Life for all the phenomenal reviews you do. I’ve learned so much over the years.
This is a lens selection that makes a lot of sense. 100-400mm as a bridge between a standard zoom and a long telephoto.
Nice review. I have both the 400 2.8E and the 400 4.5S. I took both with me to Yellowstone and ended up leaving the 400 4.5S on my Z8 inside the console of my Sequoia along with the Z9 with whatever 1.8 prime I last used. This setup was great because the 400 was always easy to grab if I was driving and I got some interesting shots that way.
I would say that the 400 4.5S is very sharp. More than I expected actually. I could tell after using it for less than an hour. I didn’t pick up the teleconverters as I forgot to add it to my annual order, the next one being in April. I will add it then.
I also have the 400 5.6AIS which I enjoyed using because it too was surprisingly sharp considering its era. While lighter than my 400 4.5S, it is now as the back of my gear closet along with my 800mm 8.0AIS.
Part of my really wants the 400 2.8TC, but after I subtract what I can get the 400 2.8E for, that is one expensive teleconverter. Well, I also get rid of the FTZ.
I think that the 400 4.5S will pair really nicely with an 800 6.3S, so I think that will be on my next order.
The combination of the 400/4.5 and the 800/6.3 is very appealing. Both lenses are so light and relatively compact that they can be packed into a larger photo backpack. That way, you won’t be faced with the Sophie’s choice of which one to leave at home before a photo trip.
Interesting lab results, I recently have the 400 4.5 and found sharpness very much dependant on light conditions. Which might seem obvious but a bright day makes a world of difference in IQ. For birding I always have to crop in which means I need a longer lens but the 600 is twice the price! My experience with teleconverters was a hopeful disappointment
Teleconverters are somewhat odd. They are better than cropping, but always worse than the bare lens. They reduce the aperture and in practice, they are never like a lens with the extended focal length. I always prefer a bare lens to a teleconverted lens, though some lenses are especially good with them.
It’s like you write, if the light is good, almost any modern lens today is fine. When the sun approaches the horizon, or even disappears behind it, then the qualities of expensive exotics become apparent. As for the teleconverter, it’s as Jason writes. It’s always a compromise. But in the case of the 400/4.5 and TC1.4x combination, it is acceptable.
Thanks for the very thorough review. Though its not making my life any easier.
I would really love to have that lens, if Nikon only had a decent APS-C camera to go with it. That is my personal dilemma, Nikon has the lens I want, but not (yet) the camera. Well, might come in the future, or I will have to go for the Z7II or Z8.
I would also like to see Nikon come up with a successor to the D500. 30MP resolution or slightly higher would be great. It would clearly be the best “teleconverter” for Nikon. If the resolution of such a hypothetical camera is somewhere around 20MP, then it is basically the same as a Z8/9 cropped to APS-C. We’ll see what time brings. So far, I don’t have any news that we’ll be getting a “Z500” anytime soon.
This is a very logical argument and agree. Nikon as a big player in the nature and wildlife market has a big gap for a D500 replacement with as you said +/- 30mp. Fujifilm has the opportunity to dominate this space with their XH2s and a proper 300 f4 of 400 f5.6 prime or at least a 100-400 f5.6 with internal zoom. But sadly their focus system is unreliable and the lenses not good enough. I shot Fujifilm XT4 and XH2s with the Nikon 500 f5.6 pf with a finger adaptor and had great success with low moving or stationary subjects. But the focus system was a big let down. That made me change back to Nikon. My only regret is I sold the 500 f5.6 and bought the 400 f4.5. For me the 500 pf is in a sweet spot and regret paying the extra money for the 400 f4.5. It is a great lens and with the 1.4 good enough but at a big price difference. The TC1.4 S is also very expensive.
Hi Spencer
I read with interest your article and I have several questions:
1st: Do the two combos have MTF numbers indicate that the sharpness is identical if we print them on the paper with same size or look them in the same screen?
For example, First Combo: Lens A on Nikon Z7. Second Combo: Lens B (Better lens) on Nikon Z6. If the two combinations have roughly same MTF numbers. Does this mean if we downsample the Z7 photo to the size exactly match the Z6, they have the same sharpness?
If we upsample the Z6 photo to the size match the Z7, then can we draw the same conclusion?
2nd: Is that true that certain lens on the higher Pixel sensor ( e.g. Z7) , more or less, have the higher MTF number than it on the lower Pixel sensor ( e.g. Z6) ? If this true, does it mean that the sharpness of downsampling the Z7 photo of certain lens are usually better the Z6 photo of the same lens. Does downsample benefit only occur on sharpness? What about other optical performance? Are there any costs (e.g. Dynamic Range, Color Sensitivity) when we downsample the photo?
Regarding point 2: All lenses have higher MTF numbers on the Z7 than on the Z6. This is because of how the point spread functions of the lens and sensor interact. That does mean you should get more detail, yes.
Hi Zhang, good questions!
The answer to your first question is yes, with no major caveats. If a worse lens is used on a higher-resolution sensor, compared to a better lens on a lower-resolution sensor, it is quite possible that the total level of detail resolved by both systems will be approximately the same. At that point, either upsampling from the 24 MP camera or downsampling from the 45 MP camera will get you very similar-looking images. Likewise, printing both photos at the same size will not show an advantage for one or the other.
To your second question, yes, the same lens will almost universally give higher MTF results on a higher-resolution sensor. Even if it’s a mediocre lens.
I’ll put it this way – our MTF charts aren’t just “scores.” They specifically describe the number of line widths in our test chart per the width of the camera sensor that the lens + camera is resolving. (This number varies by the portion of the frame, but the idea is that you can extrapolate it to the full width of the image.) Having a higher-resolution sensor makes it likely that you will capture more of these line widths even with the same lens.
Downsampling from the Z7, even with the same lens, will generally give you a bit higher sharpness than using the Z6 with that lens. Downsampling only improves colors, noise, or dynamic range in the sense that you’re displaying the image smaller, so you may not see errors (like noise or discolored areas) as obviously. But it doesn’t actually improve the quality of the file.
I strongly recommend against downsampling any time that you want to maximize the image quality of your photo as it is displayed. It is literally throwing away resolution. I’ve heard that some photographers downsample before printing, and this is a complete mistake – simply printing smaller carries the same “benefits” as downsampling. There is no upside to doing it digitally beforehand, and there is the downside of losing resolution.
What I find interesting is that you have not done what a very interesting article could be. Find a nice Fuji lens that is comparable to a compact prime and look at it through the “Lens” (pardon my pun) of total resolution. While the Fuji will give you higher individual line numbers, which is what the manufacturer’s MTF charts describe, once you account for the actual lines that fit on the sensor, the Nikon compact prime will come out roughly the same and perhaps even a bit better. And I suspect that the Fuji lens will be three or four times the price.
And then compare the weight and size of the ZF with a compact prime against the weight and size of the Fuji combination achieving the same results. And while you are at it, compare the price.
And if you get the results that I suspect you will, that will be the simplest explanation on why Fuji’s is a niche and Canon, Nikon and Sony are not paying serious attention to cropped sensor cameras and lenses.
It is also why Fuji should be very worried about Nikon’s ZF. If Nikon gets truly serious with this strategy, I think that the niche that Fuji will be limited to will be cameras no bigger than the Z50 and likely smaller along with very small and slowish lenses, because size and weight will be all they have to compete on.
Hi Jeff, I hope I’m not giving too much away when I say that the Fuji article is already written and waiting to be published. Unfortunately, Fuji does not currently have a lens that is directly comparable to the 400/4.5, but that will change this year. Personally, I was very pleasantly surprised by the 40MP sensor on the Fuji. Even with a lens that has a maximum aperture of f/8 at the long end (no, it’s not really a forest lens). If Nikon comes out with a really high resolution APS-C camera, I’ll be one of the first to buy one.
Thanks for the wonderful review. This lens would be my first buy when I completely switch to Z-system. 😃
If you’re comfortable with the focal length, it’s a great lens that’s also incredibly light. You’ll love it.
Currently I use 300mm pf and 500mm pf with d500. So I think this would be a nice addition with Z-system.
Cannot post comments
Um
Sometimes new comments do not appear until I refresh the page. Maybe that was the source of the confusion (?).
That makes sense, I think you’re right.
If I post a comment then edit it, the page I’m viewing shows me my edited version. However, if I view the same PL page on another device, it shows only my original comment.
My edited comment is displayed only after someone else posts a comment. This behaviour isn’t a recent issue.
Perhaps associated with the same root cause is the bugger’s muddle the web server makes with page 2 and beyond from the home page (page 1). It seems to be a caching issue that started two or more years ago. As new articles are added to the top of the home page, the older ones move down as expected, but the article that drops off the bottom often disappears, instead of being placed at the top of page 2. Likewise with page 2 to page 3, etc. etc.
Not a criticism, I just think it’s a shame that, at any particular moment in time, there are articles that cannot be viewed by a visitor to this site who’s using the page buttons.
It is a caching issue. We’ve been trying to work out a solution, so far to no avail. But I’ll bring it up next time I talk to Nasim.
The Z 400mm f/4.5 is a fantastic lens. I shoot a lot with the TC-1.4x and I am as pleased with it as I once was with the 500mm PF, but I have also achieved what I consider extraordinary results with the TC-2.0x as well. I have to say that the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 with the TC-2.0x is also quite extraordinary. I appreciate all the sharpness tests provided here in this excellent review, but it’s hard to equivocate in the field where I am seldom disappointed with either lens/TC combo.
I do regret getting rid of my 300mm PF, what a great lens! But I finally decided to plunge entirely into the Z system and get rid of all my F-mount lenses.
Teleconverters are a tricky case, because while they always measure worse in the lab, the reality is that they allow you to put more pixels on distant subjects and capture some details, like feather details, that you wouldn’t have seen any other way. So, they are what I might call “field sharp” without being “lab sharp.” I definitely prefer using a TC compared to cropping.
I’m in the same boat as Spencer and you, Guy. If the situation calls for it, I always prefer the teleconverter over cropping in post. If the light conditions allow, of course. My experience in practice is that the TC2x is quite usable, but more so for close subjects. Sounds like nonsense, I know. After all, that’s why we use a teleconverter, because something is too far away. In other words, when I use the TC2x, then it’s for what I would call a long distance macro.