ilkka_nissila

The FL E is normally excellent; maybe you got a damaged copy.

There is no reason why a DSLR in live view can't act exactly like a mirrorless camera, e.g. the D780 to my understanding gives a very similar experience.

With the D850, if you're in LV with EFCS then you only hear the shutter closing and opening again once. However, the D7200 doesn't have EFCS (the D7500 does). How Nikon implemented LV shooting in many of their early DSLRs was quite ... peculiar. But I can see that if the shot is to be made with the full mechanical shutter in LV then the LV has to be stopped and mechanical shutter closed before opening again. And implementation of EFCS probably requires functionality implemented in the sensor hardware.

That 1 mm difference (which is wrong) I derived by checking working distances from two websites and subtracting them, leading to an erroneous result (because of the source data). I checked it now experimentally and at both 1:1 and 1:3, the F-mount 105 VR retains about 2 cm greater working distance over the 105 MC. Sorry for the error, sometimes it's best to just do one's own experiments rather than trust numbers people publish on various websites... 😉 You're also correct on the importance of the focus distance for the reasons you mention. There are options such as the use of a lateral arm that allows the placement of the camera closer to the subject, e.g., when the subject is in water and one doesn't wish to place a tripod foot in the water (for either because of the impact of the dirt and water on the tripod locks or simply because one doesn't want to disturb the water and spook the animals or affect the content of other images by e.g. spoiling the fresh snow). However, lateral arms tend to weigh something and they can be a hassle to bring into the woods. There are also some tripods specifically made for close-up photography. While I have a Gitzo lateral arm which fits my 3- and 4-series tripods, I rarely carry it into the field because of the extra weight. I also have a Manfrotto Super Clamp which can be attached to a tripod leg and can give some low angle positions while the tripod legs are safely on the bank side of the river. There are also visual differences between focal lengths, as the longer focal lengths lead to more magnified backgrounds relative to the main subject framed in a particular way, and so it's easier to get clean simplified backgrounds using a long macro. However, sometimes simple can be too simple, and a wider angle of view shows more of the environment.

Okay, so I performed working-distance measurements with the MC 105/2.8, AF Micro 200/4D, and Z 100-400 at 400mm setting. Each setup was positioned on a tripod in turn, and the position relative to my flat target was moved to achieve 1:3 magnification (so that they all are capable of achieving this, and also it's within the range of common magnifications that I need in practical close-up photography). Roland was quite right in that the longer lenses did have longer working distances though the 100-400 clearly is not as far ahead of the 200 micro as might have hoped from just looking at its nominal focal length. The working distances were measured from the front of the lens without hood, and I estimate my accuracy to be of the order of 1 cm (but do leave room for human error, as I did these only once). 😉 105 MC working distance at 1:3 is 31 cm. 200 (AF) Micro working distance at 1:3 is 67 cm. Z 100-400 at zoom setting of 400 mm working distance at 1:3 is 89 cm. So the zoom does give a bit more space to the subject and allow photography from a longer distance in this magnification range, and it may have some benefits (zooming, for sure, and VR in the lens). However, I think for many situations of this kind (i.e. close-up photography at sizeable working distance) the 200 Micro is superior because it's easier to handle than the 100-400 and it allows higher magnifications up to 1:1 for situations that require them. When I use it with a mirrorless camera, I typically use focus peaking although other focus aids are also available. On (mid and high end) DSLRs, it has autofocus. The 200 Micro also autofocuses better at close distances than the 100-400 which can lose the plot completely in close range (but that's probably more to do with the nature of mirrorless camera AF than the lens). Of course, the 200 Micro AF produces some sound as well, and there is no direct manual override (one needs to turn a switch). Optically the 105 MC is superior to the other two lenses in terms of bokeh but also CA (over the 200 Micro, by a mile) and sharpness (over the zoom, though all three are sharp at f/11). The 105 MC can be used safely at wider apertures whereas with the 200 I always stop down to f/8-11 to minimize CA. For frogs, f/11 seems appropriate, anyway.

I haven't yet found the time to test the working distances of the 105 MC, 200 Micro and 100-400 mm but I read the 105 MC working distance is 1 mm longer than the F-mount 105 VR's (at 1:1). However, 1:1 doesn't really interest me that much as there is such little depth of field that it can be impractical to use without focus stacking (and that's only going to work for subjects that are still). For many situations being able to shoot from around 1:1.5 to 1:3 is useful, and at f/11 there can be adequate depth of field that covers enough of the subject to be useful without stacking. I'm interested in checking how the working distances compare between these lenses at the maximum magnification of the 100-400 (1:2.63), and will be testing it soon. I did my first practical close-up shoot with the 100-400 on frogs but alas, the conditions were wet & muddy and my camera malfunctioned. I found that at the location it was difficult to get the 100-400 low enough for optimal shooting angle, and a shorter and smaller lens could have worked out better, allowing me to get closer to the water surface and also to the subjects. However, there was a lot of mud and movement of the camera had to be done using a complicated process working with my rain cover, a small pillow, and a camping mattress. 😉 Although the zoom on the 100-400 is not as stiff or slow as the 200-500's, it still requires a bit of force and so it couldn't be done rapidly under the conditions. I will revisit the location soon and look for other places where I might have easier access to the surface of the water. The image quality of the 100-400 at close range was good, I couldn't really tell any noticeable difference in sharpness to what I'm used to seeing from macro lenses in this practical application; I mean a side-by-side comparison might reveal something but it was not like the 100-400 was soft in any sense of the word. However, being a fairly big lens it is more clumsy to operate for close-ups on the ground than a 105 or 200 mm Micro. When working at long focal length close-ups, one can often miss something in the foreground that leads to a blurry distraction in the images (when the lens is stopped down). The Z cameras show the viewfinder image at f/5.6 when the shooting aperture is f/11, and so the depth of field is not shown correctly by default (not sure if there is a preview available, need to assign that to a Fn button for these situations). Focusing on the 100-400 at close range is fairly slow and can take some time to get to the right subject. Under less wet conditions I could have more easily operated the manual focus on the lens but of course since I wasn't using a tripod but a pillow, use of the rings was compromised by the fact that the lens was lying on the pillow. However, I don't have any tripod + head combination that could get me as low on the ground as this. Anyway, I'm not terribly keen how the handling of long macros is in the field, there are fewer camera angles that one can work a given subject from, and a bigger lens makes for less convenient management of the position also near the ground. However, one fits the lens to the situation and I'm sure I'll be using the 100-400 from time to time for this purpose. I suppose it might also be worth testing the 1.4 X with it for these close-ups, but I'm not a big fan of TCs and there isn't much light to work with in this location (sunlight may be available during the day but if one wants a low sun angle then it might not be).

Z8, 100-400 at f/11, 400mm, f/100s, ISO 4000.

While it's true that pre-flashes can cause eye blinks, I've found this to be mainly the case with the cheapest cameras (i.e. Nikon D3x00 series etc.) and more advanced models time the preflashes so that the eye blink is not likely to happen during the actual taking of the picture. However, there are some people who are particularly sensitive to the flash and may still blink, in which case the use of manual flash could work. Radio triggering of remotes instead of using optical triggering can also help minimize or avoid the issue. Profoto has a nice system where you can take a test shot on TTL and once the settings (flash exposure compensation and main exposure) are correct, then you can switch the flash(es) to manual and then the starting flash energy in manual mode picks up the last settings that were determined using TTL, and so further shots will have the same exposure and flash energy and no preflashes are needed. Of course, if the subject moves or the situation otherwise changes dramatically manual mode doesn't exactly help, but it's often workable. And you do get higher confidence of eyes open using it.

More deer photos from the past week. Z8, Z 100-400 S.

Right, for sure that is a big gap. Sony now has a 300/2.8 that weights 1.47kg which is about one half of the Nikon lens's weight. 😉 So yes, the optical and mechanical technologies have clearly evolved in 20 years in the sense that lower weight is possible. The mirrorless part may also play some role allowing the lens elements to be more on the rear end. On the other hand the Nikon 300/4 PF is one half of the 300/2.8 Sony's weight.

Hmm. I had assumed the 105 MC has greater focal length at close focus because it felt that way in use (i.e. narrower than I had expected for a given situation), but I wasn't working at 1:1. I'll compare it to the 200 mm side by side when I have the chance. Nikon hasn't shown much interest in updating the 200 Micro whose latest version is 30 years old. There was never an AF-S version and there hasn't been rumors about a 200mm MC let alone 300mm. I think the issue is that for many small subjects you want to be able to photograph the subject from different vantage points, and with long macros, shooting from above is typically not possible. Also the autofocus speed would likely be relatively slow compared to non-macro 300 mm lenses and even with the 105 MC there can be a lot of work to get it to find the subject in the close-up range (mirrorless doesn't do any favors here where it comes to close-up AF). With the 100-400 also I find it requires a lot of manual help to find the subject when in close range. Then there may be optical concerns, in macro lenses the best specialist lenses (macro only, not infinity to macro) usually have relatively short focal lengths.

The zooms do it by sacrificing focal length and with a slow AF rack. Most people who invest in long primes want to keep as much of the focal length as possible upon close focus and the fastest AF.

That's not very likely to happen, the range of extensions required to go from infinity to 1:1 would be enormous and it would likely not be a practical lens unless it lost most of its focal length along the way. I recall that the 200 AF Micro is about 135mm or thereabouts at 1:1, which would make it only slightly tighter than the 105 MC ... I should do a side by side to check. The 300/4 is nice at its minimum focus (m = 1:4).

That's the thing - Nikon put in a lot of effort in designing the 24-70/2.8 (I recall that when they were making the E VR version they said they tested a hundred different designs ...) and in my opinion the 24-70/2.8 Z is just outstanding, and I never could find the same kind of satisfaction from other lenses in this range (i.e. not 24-70/2.8's), in terms of how clear and consistent the images are. I might get a spare copy just in case. 😉 For me 70mm is a good splitting point as it is close to my most used focal length and so having either the 24-70 or 70-200 in my hands I can get those shots and not have to switch all the time. For many kinds of events (PhD dissertations, wedding ceremonies etc.) I find this pair the optimum for my needs. I rarely have a need for a wider than 24 mm focal length when photographing people and with modern cameras the 200mm can be cropped a bit to manage those situations where I need a little bit tighter still (though a 300mm would be better, in many cases I can get by with these two). I would not be able to work with a 16-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 pair as I don't like the extreme focal length of 16 mm and yet I often work in the 35-70 mm range. Sony has a 20-70mm and from what I recall from reviews of it, the 20 mm end has some compromises. So probably 24-70mm is as wide a range as can be made with very high quality and consistency (I know it is subjective and many like 24-105 and 24-120 mm lenses, but I just can't bring myself to liking these extended ranges). What I think is nice about the (Nikon) 28-75/2.8 is that it's very light weight for a lens of this range and the images I've seen from it are aesthetically pleasing, even if it isn't quite as sharp as the Nikon 24-70/2.8. On the telephoto end I have the 70-200/2.8 and 100-400, and to me the 70-200 is superior optically, the images are just more brilliant (lacking a more precise term). I also think Nikon succeeded with the out-of-focus rendering of the Z 70-200 really nicely as some F-mount versions tend to produce double lines in out-of-focus areas which I do not like and don't quite have the same level of refinement as the Z S-line version. However, I dislike the ring positions on both the 70-200 and 100-400 and I frequently accidentally nudge the manual focus ring. With the F-mount version of the 70-200 (FL) I didn't really do that even though it has the same (annoying) order of the rings. The Z version has very little static friction when rotating the manual focus ring and this is partly why it happens. However, when making fine adjustments to focus, the Z version's design is easier to use so I'm not exactly saying the F version is better, only that I have this issue that I'm accidentally moving to manual focus often with these two Z lenses. To solve the issue I sometimes swap the control and focus ring positions. But then I have other lenses where I don't want them swapped, so it would be nice if the body could remember the customized control settings for each lens separately. Anyway, it's great to see the Tamron 28-75 G II optics available for Nikon so that Nikon Z users have more options.

I understand, but availability was scarce in winter 2021-2022 and I could only find one store which had a copy in stock. I believe both the pandemic and Z9 availability made the 24-70/2.8 scarce. It's my most used lens on the Z system and one I use it for walkaround, landscape, architecture, portraits, street and events, i.e. just about everything. I find it so good that I don't even think I needed to have the f/1.8's in this range, which is saying something coming from a prime lens nut such as myself. 😉

I personally find the Nikon Z 24-70/2.8 S to be my favourite lens. When I bought it, it was hard to find (with waiting times of several months) but I could find it in one store. I guess Nikon wanted the 28-75 to be quickly available in large numbers (which it was, some stores had like 30 in stock) and perhaps it wasn't possible to achieve that with the G2 optics? It could be that Nikon was looking for assistance in manufacturing something to be an alternative to the 24-70 while they had scaled their own lens production down and not able to increase it in the short term for the 24-70 itself (which was in high demand probably because of the Z9 which increased interest in Nikon). Tamron may have had G1 optics in stock while they were just building up G2 production and not able to supply Nikon with a large number of G2 optics while also serving Sony customers. Anyway, I'm just guessing here.

Apparently, eye AF is not available with all camera + lens combinations in some mounts. I don't know why, maybe the subject recognition needs teaching data captured with a particular lens to work? Anyway, Tamron says it does work with this lens.

I don't think the specs are meant to be compared across mounts. They use Nikon terminology for Nikon mount (M/A mode, for example) and Sony terminology for the Sony mount version. I wouldn't worry about the differences. The new Z mount lens has a linear motor so it should be very fast.

The Zf's sensor is not locked in place when the camera is turned OFF and the clunking sounds can be heard when you turn the camera around (powered OFF) without any lens attached. Some lenses like the VR 70-200/2.8 G II also do not lock their VR groups and the group flops around when the lens is not powered by a camera. Some other lenses lock the group into position.

Right, but by switching between FX and DX modes in video, one can cover the wide end in FX and the long end in DX to achieve an extended range of fields of view to suit a variety of situations.

I'm just guessing that the wide-range zooms became originally popular with the DX 18-200mm and the others are a continuation of this series. However, the 18-200mm was quite compact for the range (96.5mm long at the shortest setting) vs. the 28-400mm is 141.5mm which actually seems amazingly short but may be less comfortable to carry around one's neck than the 18-200mm. I have no doubt the 28-400mm is a lot better than the 18-200 was in objective metrics of image quality (certainly sharpness in the outer parts of the frame) but still I have this feeling that for travel / walkaround shooting, it might not be quite as attractive. I also wonder how well the telescoping barrel will hold up over extended usage and if the lens focal length stays in position when the lens is pointed up or down. Anyway, I remember newspaper photographers using lenses like the Canon 35-350mm at times for large outdoor events back in the 1990s, and this was when ISO 800 film was pretty bad and ISO 400 was actuall very good, so the limits must have been set by those considerations (if going for colour). However, it's clear that some photographers considered the tradeoffs favourable even with those ISO options available. Today I think ISO 6400 can be better than ISO 800 negative film was, so that definitely puts the 28-400 mm with its f/8 maximum aperture at the telephoto end into play in situations where a 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6 could be used, and the 28-400 mm is a lot lighter. So considering these factors, I can imagine that for photojournalistic purposes some might find this lens useful in certain situations. I personally tend to find myself liking images made with wider apertures for the most part but then I'm not required to be able to capture wide angle and super telephoto images of a situation in a quick succession. If I were, unfortunately, in my country, I would still probably find myself happiest with f/2.8 zooms in similar situations and switching lenses as needed. However, I can imagine many people not willing to allocate so much space in the bag for two lenses if there is a possibility of covering with just one. Airshows are one example where f/4-8 would probably work okay and the range would be useful. The 28-400 is lighter than the 100-400 and much lighter than the 180-600 which are probably two of the choices which first come to mind for such situations. I was thinking about what I would need for the next royal coronation in the UK (I find the phenomena surrounding them and the public celebrations very photogenic, plus the logistical challenges of getting to a where shots could be successfully made very demanding with hundreds of thousands or millions of spectators crowding the streets all at once). I had success photographing Harry and Meghan's wedding procession in Windsor, but I was there at 6 am while the procession started at 1pm if I recall correctly, so I had to ration my eating and drinking so that I would not have to leave my spot on the street and potentially lose my good line of sight. 7-8 hours of waiting an 10 seconds of visibility with 3 seconds of good shooting of the couple, leading to maybe 10 good pics. I used the 70-200/2.8 for that and it was the correct choice for the situation. However, having waited there on the street for so many hours in the sun, I was exhausted and probably had heatstroke (according to a doctor I met an hour later, she looked at me and how bewildered I was and thought I should go to the medical tent). If I had prepared mentally for it, I could have run from my location to the other side of the park to see them come backwards a few minutes later, and in that situation a broader-range lens such as the 28-400 would probably have been useful, as there would not have been any way to get to a similarly close position through the crowds so quickly. There can also be balcony viewings (requiring very long focal lengths, I remember seeing a 600/4 with 2X TC) and fighter jet overflys and similar elements at such events, and these would benefit from the 400 mm reach. But I'm not sure if I would run into such situations often enough to justify a dedicated lens for such a purpose, and if I would really be happy with the results. I suspect the 100-400 can actually serve these situations although it's 630 g heavier than the 28-400mm. For now my plan is to use the 100-400mm for this type of occasions. Although I have to say that because of line-of-sight issues and distances (there is often someone in between, if trying to shoot across a long distance), it may be that the use of long focal lengths does not lead to high-quality results. It could work if from an elevated vantage point. Anyway I am sure Nikon has done their market research and they're responding to a need with this lens. I'm personally hoping they would make a 300/4 or 300/2.8 for the Z mount sometime sooner rather than later. 😉 I do have the F-mount 300/2.8 but it's a project to carry around.

I think that wide angle to short telephoto lenses such as the Z 24-70/2.8 are excellent and among the most useful lenses out there, but I agree extended-range wide-to-tele zooms are not that good. I'm personally thinking about trading my 100-400 in for a 400/4.5, but I'm still exploring what the zoom gives me that the prime would not, and to be honest I still need to cover 300 mm with something. I'm hoping that Nikon would consider making more of the zooms with internal zooming design for easier use and lighter zooming without changing the lens's balance. I believe there are applications for high-power zooms especially for video where the requirements on resolution or maximum aperture are not as stringent as typical for stills. However, for high-focal-ratio zooms I would expect that a power zoom design would be preferable for video shooters. Why Nikon have made so far only one power zoom for Z (a wide angle for DX) is a mystery to me.

That's a UK store. Purchasing from the UK by a customer in the EU is just not very easy at all, I've experienced delays of 1-2 months where the item spends most of that time quite close to me in customs but I can't get it because they take their sweet time. Probably some paperwork is not correctly done by the store, resulting in long waits. As for gray market, I'm not really aware of the existence of a gray market for Nikon lens sales in the EU area. Isn't gray market without manufacturer's warranty? The EU doesn't allow the deflection of warranty responsibilities just because of a different company imported it, so there is no incentive for lower priced gray imports (Nikon would not be freed of any responsibilities by using an unofficial import path to the EU market, so where would the lower price come from?). Anyway there is no way I would buy such an expensive lens without Nikon's support for it. Prices do vary in the EU stores and often there are lower prices than Nikon Store's own prices or their recommended retail price. Also the taxes are different in different countries within the EU and Finland has quite high VAT. I believe stores are expected to charge the VAT according to the country where the product will be shipped to (rather than the country the store is in) but I'm not 100% sure. Anyway the 400/2.8 TC is an item which not many people can afford. On higher-volume lenses there are often significant discounts even in the EU area. Eventually perhaps the 400/2.8's price can come down once the eager and wealthy have purchased their copies.

Dieter, In your post you accidentally attributed a part of Mike's post to me. To clarify I am not selling my gear (or considering such actions) to help in the purchase of a 400/2.8. 😉

If I bought it from the UK, the lens would probably be buried in customs and perhaps never arrive. 😉 EU has such love for Brexit Britain.