Z72 Mid Telephoto (Page 2): outstanding photos...

srg

gwilliams6 wrote:

Option #1, use what you have and wait to see how N... (show quote)

outstanding photos

IDguy Loc: Idaho

gwilliams6 wrote:

Option #1, use what you have and wait to see how N... (show quote)

Awesome images! Thanks for sharing.

Your advice is where I’ll likely end up. Would I pay $2k for the Z 200-600? Unlikely. The exception will be based on specs and performance. I find it unlikely they’d price it below the 100-400.

I’ll likely end up with Tamron Z mounts.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Grahame wrote:

I'm using the 80-400 G (F mount) with 1.4 TC111 along with the FTZ on the Z6 primarily for cricket.

Here's an example of the combination. 560mm (max FL), ISO 1800, 1/1600s, no PP, std camera profile, with crop not reduced in size. As with everything it depends upon final use required, this example would have minor PP undertaken and reduced down to about 1800 to 2048px wide for social media sharing. The Z version is most likely to be better with respect to image quality and AF response.

You seem to be doing fine!

IDguy Loc: Idaho

imagemeister wrote:

1. If you are doing MOVING subjects AF will matter and if AF matters, stick with Nikon lens.
2. Stay away from TC's if at all possible.......consider cropping with pixel enlargement.
3. KEEP the FX 70-300 and loose the DX version !
4. Be happy with 200-500 !
.

Thanks. Mostly where I am at.

My DX 70-300 is grey market. Paid $200. Unlikely it will fetch much…albeit excellent lens.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

amfoto1 wrote:

While I agree that the Tamron is a nice lens, just to clarify... there is no "100-400mm G2". There has only been the one, original version of that lens, so far.

That said, yes it would be a bit lighter weight option... Lighter than the Nikkor 80-400mm and a lot lighter than the Nikkor 200-500mm!

Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD weighs approx. 2.5 lb. That's a full lb. lighter than the Nikkor 80-400mm (3.5 lb.)

I like that the Tamron 100-400mm can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. That's sold separately for an additional $129 and, of course, will add a little weight, but is something I'd want on a lens that reaches 400mm.

The Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM weighs the same 2.5 lb. and costs the same $799 as the Tamron lens. HOWEVER, the Sigma does not have the same option of fitting a tripod ring AND the Sigma is a "dimmer" lens.

While the Sigma is only 1/3 stop dimmer f/5 at 100mm, it drops to f/5.6 very quickly, at 112mm, and further to f/6.3 at 234mm and beyond.

For comparison the Tamron starts out 1/3 stop brighter at f/4.5, drops to f/5 at 137mm, drops further to f/5.6 at 181mm and finally to f/6.3 at 281mm and beyond.

The Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR is also f/4.5 up to 134mm, but it maintains f/5 from 135mm to 249mm and is f/5.6 the rest of the way from 250mm to 400mm. (Tripod ring included.)

Canon's EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM zoom weighs approx. 3.5 lb. and is f/4.5 from 100mm to 134mm, f/5 from 135mm to 311mm, and f.5.6 at 312mm to 400mm. (Tripod ring included.)

In comparison, the Nikkor 200-500mm that the original poster already has weighs about 5 lb. and is f/5.6 through it's entire zoom range. (Tripod ring included.)

A final comparison, for their mirrorless R-series Canon has recently announced as light and affordable as possible RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM that weighs under 1.5 lb., sells for $500 and doesn't have option for a tripod ring.

Personally I have 1.4X and 2X teleconverters, but only use them with select lenses and really don't see the OP's need for them. Unless they have some other problems, it seems to me they are pretty well set with 70-300mm and 200-500mm lenses, as well as both full frame and APS-C (DX) cameras to use them upon. The DX is effectively a "free 1.5X teleconverter", where "free" means no loss of light... as with the one stop a 1.4X "costs" and the two stops lost to a 2X. Between the various combinations of lenses and cameras, they have telephoto coverage equivalent to everything from 70mm to 750mm on full frame (FX). Might just want to get a little closer. Or wait for that upcoming Nikkor 200-600mm. Or get the Tamron 150-600mm or one of the similar Sigma lenses.

While I agree that the Tamron is a nice lens, just... (show quote)

Thanks for your thoughts,

ksmmike

I spoke earlier about the Tamron 70-300 for the Z system. It came in today and this was one of the first images. I haven't used it much since it just came in today but so far so good.

jno

IDguy wrote:

Addressing range of 100-400. Most of you know Niko... (show quote)

Sell the 70-300mm and get a used 80-400mm Nikon which is very sharp and will work with your FTZ adapter.

ksmmike

jno wrote:

Sell the 70-300mm and get a used 80-400mm Nikon which is very sharp and will work with your FTZ adapter.

Ive owned the Nikon 80-400 in the past. In using the 70-300 for 2 days now, I prefer the 70-300. It's much lighter and produces better images, certainly as good as the Nikon. I'm going to test the Tamron against the Nikon 300 F4 at 300mm in the near future. Obviously using a F4 prime has advantages in lower light, however so far, I'm not convinced at F8 in daylight for landscapes, there will be much difference between the 2 lenses. However, i dont want to say for sure until I do some testing. After the first day, I would have agreed the 80-400 was maybe the better choice. After the 2nd day and comparing it to my older images taken with the Nikon 80-400, I'm happy with the Tamron. Keep in mind this new Tamron lens is designed for the Z cameras. IMHO, it makes a difference.

I'll post more images later.

Mike

jno

ksmmike wrote:

Ive owned the Nikon 80-400 in the past. In using t... (show quote)

Image quality depends on which 80-400 Nikon you used. The old(original) model was not nearly as good as the later version. Noticeable increase in sharpness using current version on mirrorless vs DSLR.

ksmmike

jno wrote:

Image quality depends on which 80-400 Nikon you used. The old(original) model was not nearly as good as the later version. Noticeable increase in sharpness using current version on mirrorless vs DSLR.

I'm aware of the different versions of the Nikon 80-400. I've been a Nikon shooter for decades and rarely use lenses that are not Nikon. However, for the money, I think this new Tamron performs pretty well compared to the any of the 80-400's. Plus, it's far lighter to carry around for 3 hours at a time. However, everyone can decide for themselves.

These were shot earlier today with the Tamron 70-300 on a Z7II. The tiger was behind a fence with small openings and the eagle was shot behind a mesh screen. The lizard was in the open. The panther was behind fencing as well.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

If you're attempting to show how a lens performs, why such small images and of subjects shot behind screens and fences?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Grahame wrote:

If you're attempting to show how a lens performs, why such small images and of subjects shot behind screens and fences?

ksmmike

imagemeister wrote:

you guys are tough.. because they are the only things that I've had time to photograph so far.. heesh..

ksmmike

ksmmike wrote:

you guys are tough.. because they are the only things that I've had time to photograph so far.. heesh..

here are 2 that we shot in the open. I reduced them some because the images were 130mb each. They are straight out of camera with no adjustments other than reducing the sizes to be more manageable for this site.

ksmmike

ksmmike wrote:

here are 2 that we shot in the open. I reduced them some because the images were 130mb each. They are straight out of camera with no adjustments other than reducing the sizes to be more manageable for this site.

they should be 15x10 and 300dpi