200-500 and 200-400 moving forward, e.g., Z.

Started Aug 17, 2019 | Discussions thread
owlseye Regular Member • Posts: 234
Re: 200-500 and 200-400 moving forward, e.g., Z.

olindacat wrote:

owlseye wrote:

I think the long distance weakness relates more to these type of atmospheric conditions than anything else.

Inside about 75 yards is best, right?

Yes... I find that the 200-400's performance is best within the length of a football field. This is not to say that I have not shot and liked images beyond that. When shooting distant landscapes with my 2-4 lens, I need to be sure to use my best technique and smaller apertures to increase depth of field. As I stated before, I find that most of my distance focus issues have been resolved when using my Z6 body.

While the converters maintained the sharpness of the lens, the background bokeh seemed to exhibit a pattern/character that I never liked.

When I added a 1.4x to the 200-400, I saw the same thing. Of course this is related to added depth of field, but I also think it is an optical bi-product of the added glass. I know that some people will readily use a converter w/ their 200-400, but that's something that I just won't do.

Never had one myself, as I'm with you: I like the blurry background, as it separates the subject so beautifully.

Recall, I also own the 500PFE, so if I need to go long, I will use my 500mm lens on a D500. If you see yourself needing the full range of 200-500, then rest assured, the 500mm side of things will give you a nice image... just not as nice throughout the range as the 200-400mm lens.

In your bird examples, the little fish (sardines?) were bigger and more discernible in the 200-500 shot, but the contrast seemed different on the bird's feathers. Were those two shots dehired or anything in post? Or was that to illustrate your point about the contrast in the 200-400 being a little more?

If you look at the EXIF on the pictures, one was shot at 400mm (that was by me) and the other was shot at 500mm (by my wife). I was using the 2 to 4 and she was using the 2 to 5. Both are sharp, but my photo exhibits better micro-contrast. Note, I did the post work on both images and processed them in the same way.

A wolverine appeared out of nowhere... clearly, I was thinking Holy $h!T!... since she was on the far side, I asked to use her lens, zoomed to 500mm and shot it at 500mm (750mm equivalent) @ f/5.6... it did great and was the right lens at the right time.

I multitask when I am own the golf course taking photos, as it is a high opportunity cost to be there. Each time I go, I know I want to shoot wildlife, nature, etc. There is a red tailed hawk, a few bunnies, and a fox who appear and disappear as fast as lightning, and I have only gotten soft, crappy shots as I'm not expecting them, and try swapping lenses and seeings as they bolt! Great job with this little guy. Wouldn't want to get on his/her bad side!

Thanks for the help!

-- hide signature --

regards,
bruce

 owlseye's gear list:owlseye's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon 500mm F5.6E PF Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 Nikon Z6 II +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow