I ordered the 400/4.5 when it was first available, And received it even before my Z9 came. I had buyers remorse because I also have the 500 PF. I had planned to return it, but then I opened up the box, and when I picked it up I was instantly hooked. I cannot believe how lightweight it is-I almost believed that I had a dummy lens :-). Incredibly sharp, great focus speed, and well balanced. Now I have to convince myself to sell the 500 mm.
Thank you for your very positive attitude and for speaking so highly of your mother-in-law, children, and your wife! It means a lot to see positive statements about relationship being shown even in a video that is focused on the technical aspects of a photographic lens. So much of photography is about relationships, relationships between people, and relationships between people in their environment, as well as the wonderful flora and fauna that are related in complex ecological systems. Your work is made even more special by your positive statements about primary relationships in your life!
I pre-ordered the 400 mm f/4.5 S from Shutterbug in Portland, OR. I'm still waiting for my copy. Thank you for the detailed review. Your 14-24 mm, 24-120 mm, 100-400 mm, and 800 mm set-up is excellent. Especially, minimizing the number of step-down rings you need for the 120 mm Kase filter. I went with a slightly different route. Mine is with the 14-24 mm, 24-120 mm, 70-200 mm, and the 400 mm f/4.5 S. I would like a prime lens for wildlife shooting. I just couldn't make myself buy the 800 mm pf and the 400 mm f/2.8 S for just a hobby.
Thanks, great comparison. I ordered the 4.5 for 3 reasons, weight, weight, weight. And I am always at the furthest mm. Will use the 70-200 2.8 with the 2.0 tele for landscapes that I never shoot!😁 And for trips with you…
Randy Bocksnick(Montana)- Hudson this was awesome video and on 6-9-2022 I got my Z 100-400 5.6, the only draw back I have to shoot on my Z6II ,I don't get the Best out of my lense with this camera! I took photos of the Bison in the National Bison Range and they were alright! Thanks for your incredible comparison of the two lenses!
I do mostly sports photography with some wildlife for my own fun. The 70-200 2.8 is bread and butter for me along with my old 400 2.8 G. The 2.0 Z teleconverter on my 70-200 is good enough particularly after a bit of post process sharpening to get that versitile walk around wildlife lens. All that being said, I am saving my pennies for that new 400 2.8.
I think it's perfect for those of you who prefer the 70-200 and TCs. And for what you love that makes perfect sense. For folks like me who do adventure, travel and landscape primarily with wildlife mixed in, the 24-120 and 100-400 with the 1.4 make an insanely light and versatile kit to pack on adventures.
Thanks for a great comparison. I have the 500pf and 100-400 and will also stand pat. The 500pf plus TC is my poor man's 800 for reach. Otherwise for general travel/wild life the 100-400 +/- TC gives a lot of versatility and is certainly more than adequate for an amateur. Post processing software has also been a real game changer in terms of sharpness and noise.
Thanks, great run down of the lens and the other options for us folks. I stayed with the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's more for the flexibility of the DOF I can get creatively and the low light when needed. The 400 4.5 is showing up next week and will take that to Aspen to try out as I have both TC's already. Hopefully that killer kit will pay off for me on that trip. Will be interesting to see when they release the 200-600mm what I'll do, but for now, I'm happy with those 3 options and the workhorse 24-200mm when I'm lazy.
I have shot with the Z 100-400mm for about 6 months now and I have been very happy with it. I have been transitioning to Z glass and the only F mount lens I had left was the excellent AF-S 500mm PF. I have had the Z 800 PF on order since it was first introduced and sold my AF-S 600mm f/4D lens in anticipation of receiving it. In the mean time, a Z 400mm f/4.5 came into my camera shop and I jumped on it. This lens has far exceeded my expectations, it is incredibly light, works extremely well with both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, and although it is only 2/3 of a stop faster aperture wise than the 100-400mm, it does make a noticeable difference in lower light situations, and creates a more pleasing bokeh. I also find it is slightly faster in acquiring focus, especially with the 2x tele attached, but that both are quite good. I find they really have different purposes, and are quite complementary, so for now, I have decided to keep them both of them. If I am out shooting wildlife or sports, I tend to favour the Z 400mm prime, but as a allrounder, I love the versatility of the Z 100-400mm zoom. PS, After shooting the Z 400mm, the AF-S 500mm PF seemed heavy and a bit ungainly, crazy, as I remember first shooting with it and being amazed at how small and light it was, lol!
... I was faced with the same question whether I should purchase the Z 4.5/400mm in addition to the Z 100-400mm to perhaps gain some quality. The image results of the 100-400mm are so good on both 24MP and 45MP that I have said goodbye to the idea in favor of the variability of the zoom and later rather look again for the coming 200-600mm. Besides that, when it needs to be lighter and more compact, I still use the old AF-P 70-300mm, which is good quality. But I would want to swap that for a compact Z 4/70-200mm if it was suitable for telconverters.
now I HAVE to rent one of these. My more generalist style doesn't merit a telephoto prime - but I'm renting one of these to satisfy my curiosity if nothing else! Great review Hudson, It covers all I needed to know, I've got the 2x tele already for use on me z70-200mm f2.8 that I'm really pleased with. update: rental arrived. what a great lens! I have it for 2 weeks, so it'll get a lot of use!
Thanks for this candid discussion. I’m trying to decide between the 400 4.5 and the 100-400. The zoom’s versatility is hard to deny. Will be able to hold them both this weekend at a dealer event.
Hudson - Just received my 400/4.5 and wow, beautiful photos and can't believe how light and easy it is to carry around. Can't wait to use it in Antarctica. Thanks for putting out awesome tutorials this year on YT.
Thanks for choosing this topic, Hudson. I'm just getting settled in with my 100-400 S lens and 1.4 TC. I'm completely enjoying it. You probably know this. I have found the Peak Design small Camera Cube just a perfect case for the 100-400 and a couple of extras such as batteries and lens caps. At $50 it fits the bill for me.
Spot on. Sharp, lightweight, compatible with TCs. But not as versatile as the Z100-400 zoom or as close min focal distance. I ordered my Z400 f4.5 as soon as it was announced. It arrived 27th July. Taken it on safari in Kruger Park and Kimbavati S. Africa instead of my old 150-600 Tamron G2. Paired with my Z6ii, Z7, Z35 & Z85mm f1.8S makes a portable and versatile three-prime setup. Very happy with this lens. May eventually get a 1.4x TC after seeing your results, but the crop-ability from the Z7 at f4.5 is great.
Thanks for the review. I have the 100-400 but haven't had a chance to take it out in the field to do landscapes. I too was concerned about the other photographer bashing the lens for long distance landscape work. I guess my true test will be to take it out this autumn for some color tree shots. It is extremely sharp for up close and bird photography. I just haven't tried it for those distance shots that I want to do with Panos etc.
I think this video should alleviate whatever concerns you've heard. ruclips.net/video/n2oa79vtd68/видео.html It's perfect for distant landscapes. An epic jack of all trades. I sold the 70-200 after using it for a few months. :-)
Thank you for making this video. I have a really difficult time choosing between 400 and 100-400. I already have the 200-500. Will I miss the 500mm if I sell that one? My guess is that the 200-600 will be too big for me. I wish your video would be sharp. One cannot really judge the sharpness of your pictures. Did you film it in HD and used a bit too much sharpening? Even the text in Lightroom looks over-processed and smooshy.
@@davidrennolds969 there's not much difference in the needs of aviation vs birding really. I think the 400 4.5 or 100-400 are both fabulous choices for that.
I have indeed the lenses you have mentioned , the 2.8 trinity zoom lenses and also the Nikon Z 400 mm F4.5 and the NIkon Z9 I am very happy with this kit I don't have the converters
Hello Hudson, This is one more of your very timely videos. I ordered my 100mm-400mm in December 2021 so I have been waiting? Now this 400mm f4.5 comes out and I was about or thinking about just getting the 400mm. But hearing what you say and watching your video (taking out the RUclips compression) I will stick with my order for the 100mm-400mm and the 1.4 converter. I think the why you summed up the 400mm f2.8 is just about right and if and when I need that extra quality I will try and hire one for that job. Keep well, keep safe and enjoy family life.
Thanks for the comprehensive review and justification for all your decision making. Helps for future reference. I do not own any of these lenses (100-400, 400mm f/4.5, 400mm f/2.8 TC, 500mm f/5.6 PF, or 800mm f/6.3). That's not to say I will not own one in the future. Waiting on the specs for the 600mm f/4 TC for now. You almost have me talked into the 14-24 or 24-120mm f/4 as my first Z glass.
Hi, I got my answer and follow your kit lens except 14-30 f4 instead of 14-24 f2.8 since I’m not shooting astrophotography and weight/size is first priority for me. Thank you
I think you have convinced me to go with the 100-400, I just don't do low light sports or weddings, and focus on wildlife and nature. Then save up for the 800pf...
very informative video! Is the Kirk foot longer than the stock Nikon foot? I’m hoping for something with a little more “real estate” to hold onto while carrying the lens.
Another great informational video. I have the 100 - 400s, 500PF and the 800PF which round out my Kit very well for my photography. I've been on the fence with purchasing the 400s PF and now I think I'll pass on that lens. Perhaps Nikon will eventually build the 200 - 600s which would be great option.
Great info, thanks! I think for my needs / budget between these two, I'd go with the 100-400 as well. I have all my shorter Z glass, just no longer native Z yet. My current plan is to go with the 70-200 2.8, and the 200-600 when that eventually releases. The 70-300 AF-P and 200-500 have me covered nicely in the meantime.
I have heard some guys complaining about the bouquet of the Nikkor Z 800mm and now that you showed the comparison between the Z 400 f/4.5, the Z 100-400 at 400. and the Z 800 It is indisputable that the bouquet of the Z 800 is superior. Not even mention the sharpness. Anyways, I found your video in anticipation to what expect from my Nikkor Z800mm copy I just purchased from B&H. It will be here in 2 days. I couldn't believe it was in stock! I went over there to check availability just by chance and BUM! I saw that impossible to see "in stock" that was Tuesday, I pulled the trigger immediately! LOL It is "Temporarily out of stock" again today (Wednesday). Anyways, I am very exited about it. Especially now that I saw your video comparing the results with the tree bark photos you took. Thanks for sharing, You have amazing videos and ways to approach reviews, comparisons and experiences. I can't wait to get my Z 800 and start shooting with my Z9 : )
Very useful brainy points you make Hudson! I am still not decided which telezoom will fit best my needs. I assume that I am in the same situation as you are. My main motifs are landscape, forests, trees and plants, and some wildlife - with emphasis on smaller animals such as amphibians, reptiles, butterflies, dragonflies etc. And only occasionally birds and deer. So the Z 100-400 S with TC 1.4 most probably is the best solution to me, ist also has the advantage of a short minimal distance which heightens it's versatiliy. At present my interim solution is the AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 E ED VR + FTZII - which is much better than many would think regarding it's low price. Before purchasing I will test the Z 100-400 as I always do with a new lens. Best regards from Switzerland.
I happen to agree with you on the versatility of the 100-400. And it is so light! I go hiking with the 24-120 on one body and the 100-400 on the other one and I pinch myself when I realize the powerhouse I have at such a light weight. I don’t miss the old heavies, which were great optically but so heavy that I would only shoot them near the car.
I had the 100-400 on order and it was taking forever to show up. When they announced the 400 f4.5 I ordered it right away and it showed up a week later. Very happy with my 70-200 and 400mm. Now the question is do I go for the 800 or save up for 600? That 200-600 will be game changer as well. Hopefully no more than f6.3 on the long end.
the 200-600 won't be an S lens though. I'm sure it will be better than the current 200-500, but I'm NO fan of that lens. The 800 is so hand holdable. I kind of doubt that the 600 is. The 400 2.8 S with a 1.4 TC (alongside the built in) is the dream lens. I don't think there's anything more versatile. :-)
Just an update, I kept my 400 f4.5 with the 1.4 X tele, had the 180-600, loved the versatility besides the weight. I ended up selling the 180-600 for cost and going for the 800PF.@@HudsonHenryPhoto
Hudson, I’m using this lens for the eclipse. But I don’t know how to focus it. I’ve set up 9 bracketed exposures and saved them to U1. Then I went outside and tried taking the pictures. I have no idea if it worked. It didn’t look like it was in focus though the viewfinder. I also don’t know how to see the photos I took. Driving you crazy probably and I’m sorry about that. But I rented the camera and haven’t learned how to use it. Same with the lens. What I’d like is to select the base shutter speed around the bracketed exposures. Save both sets to U1 and U2. Focus the lens at infinity and take two series of bracketed exposures. 1/200th +- 9 stops. 1 sec +- 9 stops. So I’d go to U1 and take the first series. Then to U2 and take the next series. How do I set the central shutter speed and make sure I’m focused? Paul. (I owe you big time if you can help me out here).
Hey there. Use afs single punt AF. Put the point in the edge of the sun. I'm in Mazatlan working with getting a whole workshop group dialed in and ready. I'm really got to have zero time to be checking comments as the hours tick down. 🙃
Love this video. I have 100-400 and it is great. I am keeping the 500PF for use with D500 and birds in flight.....Not sure how to carry all in one bag.
The 2X really slows down AF with the 100-400 except in the brightest sun. I tested it, but sent it back. Image quality was better than I expected, but it's so slow. The 1.4 is the perfect match.
I think the Hoodman eyecup is sold in Europe under the brand JJC because I noticed they had released the same eyecup with exactly the same features just recently! The 112mm Nikon lens hood also works on the Z 50mm F1.2s! 👍🏾🙏🏾🇬🇧🇸🇪🇹🇹
Nah, they're quite different. I have the JJC and use that exact cup for the hack I suggested before. The Hoodman is just a nicer shape. About the same price too. Yep, I neglected to mention that one, but it sure does. Love that lens. I keep waiting on the 85. It's the only reason I didn't buy it after testing it.
While relatively new to Nikon with my Z9 purchase I’m kind of on the fence about the Z 400/4.5. I kind of have two setups I’m using. For events I have the f/2,8 trinity of 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. But like you I want to shoot landscape and wildlife and have the Z 24-120/4 and finally got a Z 100-400 and Z TC-1.4x. Right now I also found a mint 500/5.6E PF ED VR at $700 less than the Z 400/4.5 and also got a TC-1.4E III to use it out to 750mm. So while you don’t need it for your landscape you do see it pairing well with an event/sports kit. So thanks for your presentation and thoughts. Not sure we’re I will end up but do have it on pre-order but was too late to get it in the first batch.
It's a fabulous lens without a doubt. If I shot events more, I could see the need for the 70-200 2.8. As infrequently as I do that stuff now my Leica Q2 and the 105 1.4 or 50 1.8 on my Z6ii is perfect for that sort of thing.
Great ATS (as usual). This kind of reinforces where I am, with keeping the 500 PF (with the 1.4 TC III) along with the 100-400. Oddly what I cannot part with is my old 400mm f/3.5 AIS ED lens that is arguably between 30 and 35 years old. I think I could actually benefit more from this old lens if I were to include it in a workout plan as an expensive dumbell. (And to think you traveled to Africa with one - as did many other professional photographers). The most fun I have from these videos is ideas of new or old things and going out to practice with them in mind.
I'm down (or up) to the 14-30F4S, 24-120F4S, and 100-400S and my Z50 and kit lenses. This was after spending time with an R7 and a few RF and L lenses. Added some extension tubes and I'll add a TC sooner or later. I'd still like a 22f2 non-compact non-S lens for street photography with more of an intentional design for sun-stars and bokeh. Along with some minor firmware updates for the II's and Z50. It took a lot for me to switch away from my 24-70F4S, but the 24-120F4S is THAT good.
It sure is. I'm right there with you on the need for a fast little wide. After a couple of months with my Leica Q2 I can't tell you what a dream that 28 1.7 is keyed to that sensor. It's a special thing I don't think you can replicate in the Nikon, Sony or Canon world... :-( The closest thing yet is the 28 2.8.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto I'm adapting the Sony 15f1.4G to my Z50 with the megadap v2. Not cheap, but it checks off the boxes. The 24f2.8G was nice and compact too, but not worth swapping off a Z S lens. ;)
your desk always throws up a question or two, last time the Leica Q was on there, this time that looks like a Apple Mac Studio?? thought you made the switch to Dell desktop and laptop!!
The Nikon 400mm 4.5 prime Tele Lens are so compact and light that is is a "no-brainer" or those like me that like a small, light and compact kit camera gear !
Been trying to decide between 70-200 and 100-400. Also trading the 24-70 f4 for the 24-120. And after watching this, mind is made up. 100-400 for me. Currently on a Z6, soon to be Z8. With Z6 as a backup camera.
@@vinaymisra7489 the F mount lenses really can't compete anymore with the exception of a few like the 500 PF, 105 1.4 and 70-200 FL-ED. The 500 PF remains the ftz budget long prime of choice.
I am glad that you created this video. Your assessment is spot on. I already own the 24-120mm f/4s and the 100-400s lenses with the two teleconverters, which is my travel kit. Purchasing the 400 4.5s lens is tempting but I will pass for the reasons which you explained. I also do low light theater and dance performance photography and I still use my f-mount 300 2.8 VR with the ftz adapter. I expect the eventual release of the 300 2.8s lens to be spectacular and able to work flawlessly with the 1.4x s and 2.0x s teleconverters, which I own. The 300 2.8s with the 2x teleconverter would make a very capable birding lens. Thanks for sharing your expertise!
I love following you on Utube. I've been researching a new or refurbished Z100-400 lense, and I heard a (rumor?), that if the VR is not turned off prior to removing the lense it could cause some damage to the lense. Is this correct? Thanks, Keep up the great stuff. Don Bergeron, KCMO
I would think if your a sports shooter the 100-400mm might be a bit better as you won't need to switch lenses as often??? 1. 14-24mm, 2. 24-120mm and the 100-400mm. Just an FYI I shoot Xgames, Monster Energy events, Rockstar Open and such. I currently use (2) R3 cameras and (1) Nikon ZF. Consdering going for the trinity mentioned above with a Nikon Z9.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto Oh so you kept the 400mm? That's epic, it looks fantatstic and I might try to rent it. At skateboard events its often hard to back up if you need more ramp, or if the skater just goes much higher.
Thank you for your comparison and your hard work. I was strongly hesitating between the 400mm and 100-400mm. I order the 400 mm 4.5 S because of its sharpness and How well it can handle the 2x teleconverter as well as VR system compared to my old 500mm pf. I also have 70-200 mm that I really love and covering the gap with teleconverter. In the case of 400s being too tight for my landscape photography I still can’t create panoramic shots and get even more details. But in any case you can go wrong with any of these lenses
Great video comparing all the different lens options, I’m going with the 100-400mmm and 500pf myself. Speaking of the lens foot, I’ve noticed the 3rd party replacement feet block the vertical grip on the Z 9 cause they stick back farther than the Nikon foot, if you look at the back of the Nikon foot its tapered a lot allowing you to get your hand around the vertical grip, I messaged Kirk about the issue and they are looking into it. The problem is the lens collar on the Z lenses are a lot closer to the camera body. I also run into problems using the 3rd party feet on a side mount gimbal, I can’t get my hand around the grip cause the clearance between the back of the foot and grip is really close. Anybody else have this issue? The problem goes away when I put the 1.4 TC on the 100-400mm cause it moves the lens away from the body.
It's true that the Kirk foot touches my knuckles if were to spin it in that way, but... I always rotate counter-clockwise with the main grip to get to the vertical grip from standard and grab the main grip to turn back to clockwise. That feels less awkward to me then rotating when holding the vertical grip from below. When shooting handheld, I lock the foot up above the lens when in the standard grip to keep it out of the way. That's how everyone I know tends to work. I've never heard the complaint before or thought about it. I certainly don't care much for the Nikon foot.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto yeah I don’t shoot that many verticals and I usually rotate it out of the way handholding but that’s not possible to do on a side mount gimbal and I agree the Kirk foot is a lot better made.and has the QD connector. Not sure why the camera manufactures don’t make their lens feet arca Swiss compatible
Do I dare sell my 500 PF and settle on this 400 f/4.5 Z lens? Or maybe the 100-400 Z? The 500 PF really takes some great images on my Z-9, but sometimes auto tracking misses the boat when following flying birds…specifically pelicans here on the coast.
That happens a bit with all the systems I shoot when there is reflective water or really complicated brush behind a bird that isn't frame filling. The 500PF really doesn't give up much with tracking. The key to that for me is wide area on the shutter with 3D on the backbutton and my FN 3 button programmed for function settings hold to swap the shutter button area to single point AF-C. Shutter says look for it in the box, If it finds it, holding the back button converts the tracked subject to a 3D subject that can travel anywhere in the frame. If wide area doesn't catch the subject, hitting FN3 (easily hit form either orientation) lets me position the single point on the subject to catch it with the shutter and then still convert it to 3D by holding the back button. The 400 is smaller and lighter and just as sharp. It handles a 2.0 better. Is it sharper? Maybe a little. The 100-400 gives up some image quality especially wide open at the edge for versatility. I would have kept my 500 if I didn't have the 800 PF. My kit would have been 14-24, 24-120, 100-400 1.4TC Z, 500PF 1.4 TCiii. I just traded the 500 and 1.4TC for the 800.
I don't think I'll ditch the F-mount 70-200 FL ED quite yet (indoor sports, as you say) unless I finally replace it with a Z-mount, but right now with only a Z6? 24-120 and 100-400 are my jam for soccer. When I haven't dropped the 24-120, that is... Have a 16-35 f/4 and FTZ when I need wide, but its days might be numbered with a Z-mount 14-24 or 14-30. I find primes a weird fringe case for what I like to photograph. I prefer the versatility of the 70-200 or 100-400. Primes need practice (at least for me) and justifying a 300/400/500 just so I can practice isn't going to win points with the wife...
In the three months I had both, there was literally never a moment I reached for the 70-200. It's a great lens. No doubt, but with today's sensor performance in low light coupled with software like DXO's Pureraw. I just don't need 2.8 nearly as much as I need the versatility of the 100-400 focal length. The 100-400 is razor sharp, fast focusing and a joy to use. It wins the spot in my bag. I don't need both. If I shot indoor sports or night games on the sideline then I might feel the need for the 70-200's faster aperture. If I shot tons of portraits and didn't have the 105 1.4 on the FTZ, likewise. Instead, I do have that epic portrait lens and I shoot landscapes, travel, adventure and wildlife. 200-400 is more important to me than 2.8. Simple as that.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto wonderful. Thanks for taking the time to explain your decision. I'm leaning towards the 100-400. Also, I have tried the Megadap with the Sony G 200-600 and it's not bad, but it has plenty of misses so although useable, I wonder if the 100-400 will replace it. Then there's the issue of the 200-600 that might come out any day. It's not an S lens however, so yeah. Difficult decisions. :)
Struggling with what to buy as I shoot primarily sports and love the primes. But for the cost I could have a 100-400 and a 1.4 for the extra reach. Hmmmm
You say you love the versatility of the 100-400 which is why you won't keep the 400/4.5 ... If YOU still had the 70-200/2.8 would you sell the 100-400 and keep the 400/4.5?
Nope. I found the 100-400 sharper than the 70-200 with the 2.0 and I don't want to constantly be adding and subtracting TCs. I carry a lot on my back. The 100-400 does it all for me and reaches to 560 in a pinch. I sold both the 70-200 and the 500pf when I got the 100-400. It's so good and fits in the bag where where the 70-200 fit. :) the 70-200, teleconverters and 400 prime are more of a car kit. The 100-400 is easy to carry on my back alongside the 14-24, 24-120 and a 1.4TC. Heck I still have room for my 105 macro or Q2 alongside that 14-560mm kit. :)
I ordered the 400/4.5 when it was first available, And received it even before my Z9 came. I had buyers remorse because I also have the 500 PF. I had planned to return it, but then I opened up the box, and when I picked it up I was instantly hooked. I cannot believe how lightweight it is-I almost believed that I had a dummy lens :-). Incredibly sharp, great focus speed, and well balanced. Now I have to convince myself to sell the 500 mm.
For reach, does the 500 still win for image rendition and sharpness? cropping in or using a tc?
Thank you for your very positive attitude and for speaking so highly of your mother-in-law, children, and your wife! It means a lot to see positive statements about relationship being shown even in a video that is focused on the technical aspects of a photographic lens. So much of photography is about relationships, relationships between people, and relationships between people in their environment, as well as the wonderful flora and fauna that are related in complex ecological systems. Your work is made even more special by your positive statements about primary relationships in your life!
I pre-ordered the 400 mm f/4.5 S from Shutterbug in Portland, OR. I'm still waiting for my copy. Thank you for the detailed review. Your 14-24 mm, 24-120 mm, 100-400 mm, and 800 mm set-up is excellent. Especially, minimizing the number of step-down rings you need for the 120 mm Kase filter. I went with a slightly different route. Mine is with the 14-24 mm, 24-120 mm, 70-200 mm, and the 400 mm f/4.5 S. I would like a prime lens for wildlife shooting. I just couldn't make myself buy the 800 mm pf and the 400 mm f/2.8 S for just a hobby.
Thanks, great comparison. I ordered the 4.5 for 3 reasons, weight, weight, weight. And I am always at the furthest mm. Will use the 70-200 2.8 with the 2.0 tele for landscapes that I never shoot!😁 And for trips with you…
Randy Bocksnick(Montana)- Hudson this was awesome video and on 6-9-2022 I got my Z 100-400 5.6, the only draw back I have to shoot on my Z6II ,I don't get the Best out of my lense with this camera! I took photos of the Bison in the National Bison Range and they were alright! Thanks for your incredible comparison of the two lenses!
I do mostly sports photography with some wildlife for my own fun. The 70-200 2.8 is bread and butter for me along with my old 400 2.8 G. The 2.0 Z teleconverter on my 70-200 is good enough particularly after a bit of post process sharpening to get that versitile walk around wildlife lens. All that being said, I am saving my pennies for that new 400 2.8.
I think it's perfect for those of you who prefer the 70-200 and TCs. And for what you love that makes perfect sense. For folks like me who do adventure, travel and landscape primarily with wildlife mixed in, the 24-120 and 100-400 with the 1.4 make an insanely light and versatile kit to pack on adventures.
Thanks for a great comparison. I have the 500pf and 100-400 and will also stand pat. The 500pf plus TC is my poor man's 800 for reach. Otherwise for general travel/wild life the 100-400 +/- TC gives a lot of versatility and is certainly more than adequate for an amateur. Post processing software has also been a real game changer in terms of sharpness and noise.
Dead on Peter!
Thanks, great run down of the lens and the other options for us folks. I stayed with the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's more for the flexibility of the DOF I can get creatively and the low light when needed. The 400 4.5 is showing up next week and will take that to Aspen to try out as I have both TC's already. Hopefully that killer kit will pay off for me on that trip. Will be interesting to see when they release the 200-600mm what I'll do, but for now, I'm happy with those 3 options and the workhorse 24-200mm when I'm lazy.
I have shot with the Z 100-400mm for about 6 months now and I have been very happy with it. I have been transitioning to Z glass and the only F mount lens I had left was the excellent AF-S 500mm PF. I have had the Z 800 PF on order since it was first introduced and sold my AF-S 600mm f/4D lens in anticipation of receiving it. In the mean time, a Z 400mm f/4.5 came into my camera shop and I jumped on it. This lens has far exceeded my expectations, it is incredibly light, works extremely well with both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, and although it is only 2/3 of a stop faster aperture wise than the 100-400mm, it does make a noticeable difference in lower light situations, and creates a more pleasing bokeh. I also find it is slightly faster in acquiring focus, especially with the 2x tele attached, but that both are quite good. I find they really have different purposes, and are quite complementary, so for now, I have decided to keep them both of them. If I am out shooting wildlife or sports, I tend to favour the Z 400mm prime, but as a allrounder, I love the versatility of the Z 100-400mm zoom. PS, After shooting the Z 400mm, the AF-S 500mm PF seemed heavy and a bit ungainly, crazy, as I remember first shooting with it and being amazed at how small and light it was, lol!
... I was faced with the same question whether I should purchase the Z 4.5/400mm in addition to the Z 100-400mm to perhaps gain some quality. The image results of the 100-400mm are so good on both 24MP and 45MP that I have said goodbye to the idea in favor of the variability of the zoom and later rather look again for the coming 200-600mm.
Besides that, when it needs to be lighter and more compact, I still use the old AF-P 70-300mm, which is good quality. But I would want to swap that for a compact Z 4/70-200mm if it was suitable for telconverters.
now I HAVE to rent one of these. My more generalist style doesn't merit a telephoto prime - but I'm renting one of these to satisfy my curiosity if nothing else! Great review Hudson, It covers all I needed to know, I've got the 2x tele already for use on me z70-200mm f2.8 that I'm really pleased with. update: rental arrived. what a great lens! I have it for 2 weeks, so it'll get a lot of use!
Outstanding descriptions of how versatile the 100-400 is in your kit! Thx
Thanks for this candid discussion. I’m trying to decide between the 400 4.5 and the 100-400. The zoom’s versatility is hard to deny. Will be able to hold them both this weekend at a dealer event.
Hudson - Just received my 400/4.5 and wow, beautiful photos and can't believe how light and easy it is to carry around. Can't wait to use it in Antarctica. Thanks for putting out awesome tutorials this year on YT.
Thanks for choosing this topic, Hudson. I'm just getting settled in with my 100-400 S lens and 1.4 TC. I'm completely enjoying it. You probably know this. I have found the Peak Design small Camera Cube just a perfect case for the 100-400 and a couple of extras such as batteries and lens caps. At $50 it fits the bill for me.
Thx so much for an absolutely fabulous review & real world take on the application of the 100-400 vs 400 f4.5
Spot on. Sharp, lightweight, compatible with TCs. But not as versatile as the Z100-400 zoom or as close min focal distance. I ordered my Z400 f4.5 as soon as it was announced. It arrived 27th July. Taken it on safari in Kruger Park and Kimbavati S. Africa instead of my old 150-600 Tamron G2. Paired with my Z6ii, Z7, Z35 & Z85mm f1.8S makes a portable and versatile three-prime setup. Very happy with this lens. May eventually get a 1.4x TC after seeing your results, but the crop-ability from the Z7 at f4.5 is great.
Thanks for the review. I have the 100-400 but haven't had a chance to take it out in the field to do landscapes. I too was concerned about the other photographer bashing the lens for long distance landscape work. I guess my true test will be to take it out this autumn for some color tree shots. It is extremely sharp for up close and bird photography. I just haven't tried it for those distance shots that I want to do with Panos etc.
I think this video should alleviate whatever concerns you've heard. ruclips.net/video/n2oa79vtd68/видео.html It's perfect for distant landscapes. An epic jack of all trades. I sold the 70-200 after using it for a few months. :-)
I understand you are busy. I appreciate your help. I’ll figure it out. Have fun.
Paul
Thank you for making this video. I have a really difficult time choosing between 400 and 100-400. I already have the 200-500. Will I miss the 500mm if I sell that one? My guess is that the 200-600 will be too big for me.
I wish your video would be sharp. One cannot really judge the sharpness of your pictures. Did you film it in HD and used a bit too much sharpening? Even the text in Lightroom looks over-processed and smooshy.
Good informative video. Any thoughts on any of lens you had in the video for aviation photography?
@@davidrennolds969 there's not much difference in the needs of aviation vs birding really. I think the 400 4.5 or 100-400 are both fabulous choices for that.
I have indeed the lenses you have mentioned , the 2.8 trinity zoom lenses and also the Nikon Z 400 mm F4.5 and the NIkon Z9 I am very happy with this kit I don't have the converters
Hello Hudson, This is one more of your very timely videos. I ordered my 100mm-400mm in December 2021 so I have been waiting? Now this 400mm f4.5 comes out and I was about or thinking about just getting the 400mm. But hearing what you say and watching your video (taking out the RUclips compression) I will stick with my order for the 100mm-400mm and the 1.4 converter. I think the why you summed up the 400mm f2.8 is just about right and if and when I need that extra quality I will try and hire one for that job. Keep well, keep safe and enjoy family life.
Thanks for the comprehensive review and justification for all your decision making. Helps for future reference. I do not own any of these lenses (100-400, 400mm f/4.5, 400mm f/2.8 TC, 500mm f/5.6 PF, or 800mm f/6.3). That's not to say I will not own one in the future. Waiting on the specs for the 600mm f/4 TC for now. You almost have me talked into the 14-24 or 24-120mm f/4 as my first Z glass.
They're amazing
Hi, I got my answer and follow your kit lens except 14-30 f4 instead of 14-24 f2.8 since I’m not shooting astrophotography and weight/size is first priority for me. Thank you
I think you have convinced me to go with the 100-400, I just don't do low light sports or weddings, and focus on wildlife and nature. Then save up for the 800pf...
very informative video! Is the Kirk foot longer than the stock Nikon foot? I’m hoping for something with a little more “real estate” to hold onto while carrying the lens.
yep.
Another great informational video. I have the 100 - 400s, 500PF and the 800PF which round out my Kit very well for my photography. I've been on the fence with purchasing the 400s PF and now I think I'll pass on that lens. Perhaps Nikon will eventually build the 200 - 600s which would be great option.
Great info, thanks! I think for my needs / budget between these two, I'd go with the 100-400 as well. I have all my shorter Z glass, just no longer native Z yet. My current plan is to go with the 70-200 2.8, and the 200-600 when that eventually releases. The 70-300 AF-P and 200-500 have me covered nicely in the meantime.
I have heard some guys complaining about the bouquet of the Nikkor Z 800mm and now that you showed the comparison between the Z 400 f/4.5, the Z 100-400 at 400. and the Z 800 It is indisputable that the bouquet of the Z 800 is superior. Not even mention the sharpness. Anyways, I found your video in anticipation to what expect from my Nikkor Z800mm copy I just purchased from B&H. It will be here in 2 days. I couldn't believe it was in stock! I went over there to check availability just by chance and BUM! I saw that impossible to see "in stock" that was Tuesday, I pulled the trigger immediately! LOL It is "Temporarily out of stock" again today (Wednesday). Anyways, I am very exited about it. Especially now that I saw your video comparing the results with the tree bark photos you took. Thanks for sharing, You have amazing videos and ways to approach reviews, comparisons and experiences. I can't wait to get my Z 800 and start shooting with my Z9 : )
You'll love it! I think it's Bokeh is fabulous. If you used my link, I thank you very much. :-)
Very useful brainy points you make Hudson! I am still not decided which telezoom will fit best my needs. I assume that I am in the same situation as you are. My main motifs are landscape, forests, trees and plants, and some wildlife - with emphasis on smaller animals such as amphibians, reptiles, butterflies, dragonflies etc. And only occasionally birds and deer. So the Z 100-400 S with TC 1.4 most probably is the best solution to me, ist also has the advantage of a short minimal distance which heightens it's versatiliy.
At present my interim solution is the AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 E ED VR + FTZII - which is much better than many would think regarding it's low price.
Before purchasing I will test the Z 100-400 as I always do with a new lens.
Best regards from Switzerland.
I happen to agree with you on the versatility of the 100-400. And it is so light! I go hiking with the 24-120 on one body and the 100-400 on the other one and I pinch myself when I realize the powerhouse I have at such a light weight. I don’t miss the old heavies, which were great optically but so heavy that I would only shoot them near the car.
I had the 100-400 on order and it was taking forever to show up. When they announced the 400 f4.5 I ordered it right away and it showed up a week later. Very happy with my 70-200 and 400mm. Now the question is do I go for the 800 or save up for 600? That 200-600 will be game changer as well. Hopefully no more than f6.3 on the long end.
the 200-600 won't be an S lens though. I'm sure it will be better than the current 200-500, but I'm NO fan of that lens. The 800 is so hand holdable. I kind of doubt that the 600 is. The 400 2.8 S with a 1.4 TC (alongside the built in) is the dream lens. I don't think there's anything more versatile. :-)
Just an update, I kept my 400 f4.5 with the 1.4 X tele, had the 180-600, loved the versatility besides the weight. I ended up selling the 180-600 for cost and going for the 800PF.@@HudsonHenryPhoto
Hudson, I’m using this lens for the eclipse. But I don’t know how to focus it. I’ve set up 9 bracketed exposures and saved them to U1. Then I went outside and tried taking the pictures. I have no idea if it worked. It didn’t look like it was in focus though the viewfinder. I also don’t know how to see the photos I took.
Driving you crazy probably and I’m sorry about that. But I rented the camera and haven’t learned how to use it. Same with the lens.
What I’d like is to select the base shutter speed around the bracketed exposures. Save both sets to U1 and U2. Focus the lens at infinity and take two series of bracketed exposures.
1/200th +- 9 stops.
1 sec +- 9 stops.
So I’d go to U1 and take the first series. Then to U2 and take the next series.
How do I set the central shutter speed and make sure I’m focused?
Paul.
(I owe you big time if you can help me out here).
Hey there. Use afs single punt AF. Put the point in the edge of the sun. I'm in Mazatlan working with getting a whole workshop group dialed in and ready. I'm really got to have zero time to be checking comments as the hours tick down. 🙃
Love this video. I have 100-400 and it is great. I am keeping the 500PF for use with D500 and birds in flight.....Not sure how to carry all in one bag.
I agree, I love my 100-400s. ... considering the 2X teleconverter.
The 2X really slows down AF with the 100-400 except in the brightest sun. I tested it, but sent it back. Image quality was better than I expected, but it's so slow. The 1.4 is the perfect match.
I think the Hoodman eyecup is sold in Europe under the brand JJC because I noticed they had released the same eyecup with exactly the same features just recently! The 112mm Nikon lens hood also works on the Z 50mm F1.2s! 👍🏾🙏🏾🇬🇧🇸🇪🇹🇹
Nah, they're quite different. I have the JJC and use that exact cup for the hack I suggested before. The Hoodman is just a nicer shape. About the same price too. Yep, I neglected to mention that one, but it sure does. Love that lens. I keep waiting on the 85. It's the only reason I didn't buy it after testing it.
Really love that falls photo with the birds!
While relatively new to Nikon with my Z9 purchase I’m kind of on the fence about the Z 400/4.5. I kind of have two setups I’m using. For events I have the f/2,8 trinity of 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. But like you I want to shoot landscape and wildlife and have the Z 24-120/4 and finally got a Z 100-400 and Z TC-1.4x. Right now I also found a mint 500/5.6E PF ED VR at $700 less than the Z 400/4.5 and also got a TC-1.4E III to use it out to 750mm. So while you don’t need it for your landscape you do see it pairing well with an event/sports kit. So thanks for your presentation and thoughts. Not sure we’re I will end up but do have it on pre-order but was too late to get it in the first batch.
It's a fabulous lens without a doubt. If I shot events more, I could see the need for the 70-200 2.8. As infrequently as I do that stuff now my Leica Q2 and the 105 1.4 or 50 1.8 on my Z6ii is perfect for that sort of thing.
This was a great video, answered my questions about this lens, Thanks.
Great ATS (as usual). This kind of reinforces where I am, with keeping the 500 PF (with the 1.4 TC III) along with the 100-400. Oddly what I cannot part with is my old 400mm f/3.5 AIS ED lens that is arguably between 30 and 35 years old. I think I could actually benefit more from this old lens if I were to include it in a workout plan as an expensive dumbell. (And to think you traveled to Africa with one - as did many other professional photographers). The most fun I have from these videos is ideas of new or old things and going out to practice with them in mind.
I loved that lens. So sharp and so light for the time it came from. :-)
I'm down (or up) to the 14-30F4S, 24-120F4S, and 100-400S and my Z50 and kit lenses. This was after spending time with an R7 and a few RF and L lenses. Added some extension tubes and I'll add a TC sooner or later. I'd still like a 22f2 non-compact non-S lens for street photography with more of an intentional design for sun-stars and bokeh. Along with some minor firmware updates for the II's and Z50. It took a lot for me to switch away from my 24-70F4S, but the 24-120F4S is THAT good.
It sure is. I'm right there with you on the need for a fast little wide. After a couple of months with my Leica Q2 I can't tell you what a dream that 28 1.7 is keyed to that sensor. It's a special thing I don't think you can replicate in the Nikon, Sony or Canon world... :-( The closest thing yet is the 28 2.8.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto I'm adapting the Sony 15f1.4G to my Z50 with the megadap v2. Not cheap, but it checks off the boxes. The 24f2.8G was nice and compact too, but not worth swapping off a Z S lens. ;)
your desk always throws up a question or two, last time the Leica Q was on there, this time that looks like a Apple Mac Studio?? thought you made the switch to Dell desktop and laptop!!
The Nikon 400mm 4.5 prime Tele Lens are so compact and light that is is a "no-brainer" or those like me that like a small, light and compact kit camera gear !
Been trying to decide between 70-200 and 100-400. Also trading the 24-70 f4 for the 24-120. And after watching this, mind is made up. 100-400 for me. Currently on a Z6, soon to be Z8. With Z6 as a backup camera.
Hi,
Nice Video.
How about 300 F2.8 VR2 with FTZ adaptor? Does it work nice? I am trying to save some bucks :)
@@vinaymisra7489 the F mount lenses really can't compete anymore with the exception of a few like the 500 PF, 105 1.4 and 70-200 FL-ED. The 500 PF remains the ftz budget long prime of choice.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto thank you. Yes these are cherry lenses from Nikon. Would help my decision. Thank you very much
I am glad that you created this video. Your assessment is spot on. I already own the 24-120mm f/4s and the 100-400s lenses with the two teleconverters, which is my travel kit. Purchasing the 400 4.5s lens is tempting but I will pass for the reasons which you explained. I also do low light theater and dance performance photography and I still use my f-mount 300 2.8 VR with the ftz adapter. I expect the eventual release of the 300 2.8s lens to be spectacular and able to work flawlessly with the 1.4x s and 2.0x s teleconverters, which I own. The 300 2.8s with the 2x teleconverter would make a very capable birding lens. Thanks for sharing your expertise!
If you decide to sell that copy I'd love to buy it :). I am desperate it for an upcoming trip and my copy hasn't come yet.
I love following you on Utube. I've been researching a new or refurbished Z100-400 lense, and I heard a (rumor?), that if the VR is not turned off prior to removing the lense it could cause some damage to the lense. Is this correct?
Thanks, Keep up the great stuff.
Don Bergeron, KCMO
Thanks Don. No I've never turned it off or damaged my lens. :)
I would think if your a sports shooter the 100-400mm might be a bit better as you won't need to switch lenses as often??? 1. 14-24mm, 2. 24-120mm and the 100-400mm. Just an FYI I shoot Xgames, Monster Energy events, Rockstar Open and such. I currently use (2) R3 cameras and (1) Nikon ZF. Consdering going for the trinity mentioned above with a Nikon Z9.
@@ericguizzetti that's my current trinity on my Z9, but with the 400TC for special occasions too. ;) This video is over 2 years old now.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto Oh so you kept the 400mm? That's epic, it looks fantatstic and I might try to rent it. At skateboard events its often hard to back up if you need more ramp, or if the skater just goes much higher.
@ericguizzetti oh yeah. I'll bet the 100-400 is perfect for that! I love that lens. The 24-120 is epic too.
Thank you for your comparison and your hard work.
I was strongly hesitating between the 400mm and 100-400mm.
I order the 400 mm 4.5 S because of its sharpness and How well it can handle the 2x teleconverter as well as VR system compared to my old 500mm pf. I also have 70-200 mm that I really love and covering the gap with teleconverter.
In the case of 400s being too tight for my landscape photography I still can’t create panoramic shots and get even more details.
But in any case you can go wrong with any of these lenses
Great video comparing all the different lens options, I’m going with the 100-400mmm and 500pf myself. Speaking of the lens foot, I’ve noticed the 3rd party replacement feet block the vertical grip on the Z 9 cause they stick back farther than the Nikon foot, if you look at the back of the Nikon foot its tapered a lot allowing you to get your hand around the vertical grip, I messaged Kirk about the issue and they are looking into it. The problem is the lens collar on the Z lenses are a lot closer to the camera body. I also run into problems using the 3rd party feet on a side mount gimbal, I can’t get my hand around the grip cause the clearance between the back of the foot and grip is really close. Anybody else have this issue? The problem goes away when I put the 1.4 TC on the 100-400mm cause it moves the lens away from the body.
It's true that the Kirk foot touches my knuckles if were to spin it in that way, but... I always rotate counter-clockwise with the main grip to get to the vertical grip from standard and grab the main grip to turn back to clockwise. That feels less awkward to me then rotating when holding the vertical grip from below. When shooting handheld, I lock the foot up above the lens when in the standard grip to keep it out of the way. That's how everyone I know tends to work. I've never heard the complaint before or thought about it. I certainly don't care much for the Nikon foot.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto yeah I don’t shoot that many verticals and I usually rotate it out of the way handholding but that’s not possible to do on a side mount gimbal and I agree the Kirk foot is a lot better made.and has the QD connector. Not sure why the camera manufactures don’t make their lens feet arca Swiss compatible
Yes, it does have a weight balance offset. ...My reason for considering a TC.
Great video!! Always enjoy the thoughts on the kit.
Do I dare sell my 500 PF and settle on this 400 f/4.5 Z lens? Or maybe the 100-400 Z?
The 500 PF really takes some great images on my Z-9, but sometimes auto tracking misses the boat when following flying birds…specifically pelicans here on the coast.
That happens a bit with all the systems I shoot when there is reflective water or really complicated brush behind a bird that isn't frame filling. The 500PF really doesn't give up much with tracking. The key to that for me is wide area on the shutter with 3D on the backbutton and my FN 3 button programmed for function settings hold to swap the shutter button area to single point AF-C. Shutter says look for it in the box, If it finds it, holding the back button converts the tracked subject to a 3D subject that can travel anywhere in the frame. If wide area doesn't catch the subject, hitting FN3 (easily hit form either orientation) lets me position the single point on the subject to catch it with the shutter and then still convert it to 3D by holding the back button.
The 400 is smaller and lighter and just as sharp. It handles a 2.0 better. Is it sharper? Maybe a little. The 100-400 gives up some image quality especially wide open at the edge for versatility. I would have kept my 500 if I didn't have the 800 PF. My kit would have been 14-24, 24-120, 100-400 1.4TC Z, 500PF 1.4 TCiii. I just traded the 500 and 1.4TC for the 800.
By the way - nice t-shirt. And a cool lens.
Please advise the manufacturer of the L-bracket for your Z9.
As always, everything I use and recommend is linked here. www.hudsonhenry.com/atslinks Thanks for using those links.
I don't think I'll ditch the F-mount 70-200 FL ED quite yet (indoor sports, as you say) unless I finally replace it with a Z-mount, but right now with only a Z6? 24-120 and 100-400 are my jam for soccer. When I haven't dropped the 24-120, that is... Have a 16-35 f/4 and FTZ when I need wide, but its days might be numbered with a Z-mount 14-24 or 14-30.
I find primes a weird fringe case for what I like to photograph. I prefer the versatility of the 70-200 or 100-400. Primes need practice (at least for me) and justifying a 300/400/500 just so I can practice isn't going to win points with the wife...
What do you think 70-200 f2.8 + 100-400 f4-5.6? Why did you sell the 70-200 2.8, sounds like you could get some great low-light shots?
In the three months I had both, there was literally never a moment I reached for the 70-200. It's a great lens. No doubt, but with today's sensor performance in low light coupled with software like DXO's Pureraw. I just don't need 2.8 nearly as much as I need the versatility of the 100-400 focal length. The 100-400 is razor sharp, fast focusing and a joy to use. It wins the spot in my bag. I don't need both. If I shot indoor sports or night games on the sideline then I might feel the need for the 70-200's faster aperture. If I shot tons of portraits and didn't have the 105 1.4 on the FTZ, likewise. Instead, I do have that epic portrait lens and I shoot landscapes, travel, adventure and wildlife. 200-400 is more important to me than 2.8. Simple as that.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto wonderful. Thanks for taking the time to explain your decision. I'm leaning towards the 100-400. Also, I have tried the Megadap with the Sony G 200-600 and it's not bad, but it has plenty of misses so although useable, I wonder if the 100-400 will replace it. Then there's the issue of the 200-600 that might come out any day. It's not an S lens however, so yeah. Difficult decisions. :)
Great video and fantastic images.
Struggling with what to buy as I shoot primarily sports and love the primes. But for the cost I could have a 100-400 and a 1.4 for the extra reach. Hmmmm
Everyone I know with this lens (including myself) have zero regrets. Zero.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto is that the 100-400 or 400 4.5?
I was speaking of the 100-400. :) I adore it.
You say you love the versatility of the 100-400 which is why you won't keep the 400/4.5 ... If YOU still had the 70-200/2.8 would you sell the 100-400 and keep the 400/4.5?
Nope. I found the 100-400 sharper than the 70-200 with the 2.0 and I don't want to constantly be adding and subtracting TCs. I carry a lot on my back. The 100-400 does it all for me and reaches to 560 in a pinch. I sold both the 70-200 and the 500pf when I got the 100-400. It's so good and fits in the bag where where the 70-200 fit. :) the 70-200, teleconverters and 400 prime are more of a car kit. The 100-400 is easy to carry on my back alongside the 14-24, 24-120 and a 1.4TC. Heck I still have room for my 105 macro or Q2 alongside that 14-560mm kit. :)
Awesome video Thanks
Great review. You remind me of Robert Plant.
I was just listening to Led Zeppelin II with my kids this morning. Lol.
Beer. I got it. 😬🤗🥰
If you were a lady , the thought about those lenses would be difference. I have to get a photo when I want to shoot!
It’s a shame that manipulation of the camera itself always requires post production.
Mount on d5