I miss 1.4 TC at 6.3 560mm some word and samples, autofocus comparation. Like what was Mr. Morten do. Thank You Ricci for the content 🥂

It's a great video as always. (1) Did you shoot selfie takes in this video with the new Z 30? (2) Focus breathing - I prefer to call it aperture breathing. The focal length of classical lens designs is true at infinity and the focal length becomes longer when we focus closer by. As aperture is represented as fraction of focal length, this means the "number" in f/number must get larger when the "f" gets larger to represent the same pupil. For a cinematographer I would feel that exposure changes are much more annoying than slight focal length (angle) changes. The implication of this is that lenses without focus/aperture breathing are actually zoom lenses that compensate focusing by zooming a bit. (Q) When you test focus breathing, do you check the exposure changes too? (Or are we fooled by the camera adapting aperture to focusing electronically - which it cannot do fully open of course). (3) Have you sometimes wished for a menu item that allows to alter the focusing range that is no fixed on the lens switch when not set to full range? I really want that on my Z 105/2.8 S macro and can imagine I would want it on a long tele too. (4) When focus stepping (and later image stacking) is not an option because of time parallax, then I need to rely on the old-fashioned Depth of Field (DoF). Now DoF depends on the "Circle of Confusion" (CoC) which depends on lens and film/sensor resolution, depiction losses (film enlarger, computer, software), depiction size, and viewing distance to depiction. So, because of CoC, DoF is to some extent subjective and depends on e.g. the camera. Combined with aperture breathing, that may be an excuse to not provide DoF indications anymore. But the Z 105/2.8S still does it in its display. Well, I want it for my primes too and it can simply be on the rear display or in the eVF. I would want the "split screen" viewfinder in a DoF modality where I can tap the front of desired DoF left and the back in the right half, say. The may be feasible or not and the camera - a supercomputer, in fact - can advise me. Of course there would be a menu item to influence the CoC. Have you ever "needed" better DoF control (way back I also shot 4"x5" and 8"x10" so I may have been spoilt).

Thanks for the video. How would you describe a comparison of this new 400mm F/4.5 + 1.4x TC (=560mm F/6.3) to the 500mm F/5.6 PF?

Thanks Ricci. Great Lens, I am sold. I prefer softer backgrounds as you usually can not pick where the birds appear . I guessed the price would be between 100-400 and 500 pf lenses

@@jpdj2715 This lens has 400mm focal length @ infinity. @ 2.5 m the magnification is 0.16 which gives a focal length of 300mm (physics), so the term focus breathing is adequately used. This lens does not extend the length while focussing closer, you will not experience the effect of loosing brightness due to the extension of length (which would be 1/3 stop with 1,6x magnification, physics again) I do expect no loss of light while focussing closer.

I own the 100-400mm so a 400 4.5mm wouldn't make a big difference. The lens that I am looking at is the new Sigma 500 5.6 when it is eventually available for Nikon Z.

Thanks for watching !

Working on that

Thank you 😊

Fro did a video that showed baseball shot with the 4.5 vs the 2.8 obviously the 2.8 obliterated the background the 4.5 was good but not nearly as good but it is $10,000 cheaper lol

@@thebmorephotography yeah I recall seeing that video of the baseball game. Thanks for mentioning it.

I did look at this but I thought that it being a f6.3 meant not that many would be interested I would prefer the extra light and crop the extra 60mm ….. but it’s certainly something to investigate

@@RicciTalks I've been oscillating between the 500 PF, a used 500 F4 or this particular lens. I am getting my Z9 next week and am looking for something that can replace my 200-500 this year. The fact that this is a native lens theoretically making AF accuracy and acquisition faster while being only a third of a stop slower makes ISO requirements a non issue with these modern sensors in real world situations. It is definitely a very interesting conundrum. One I suspect that a lot of Nikon shooters are going through. We can't all afford the 400 2.8 TC, and even if one could save up to buy one, this could be the perfect compromise in the meantime. I agree the extra reach is non essential. I would have gladly paid a half kilo penalty and grand more for it to be a F4

@@RicciTalks Another vote for the 500pf / 1.4 TC comparison. It is only 1/3 of a stop after all. Regardless, thanks for another great video in this one !

Hi I would like to see this with the 1.4 tc as well

Im also on board for seeing the Z 400 4.5 with 1.4tc vs 500 pf. The only reason id buy this lens is if it could replace my 500 pf, because the tc would be married to it for 90% of my shooting. If it can't hold up to the 500pf, than id just stick with the 100-400 and 500pf until nikon makes a Z lens in the 500-600 range (besides the 600f4) I think the 800 6.3 is an awesome lens idea but being limited to a minimum of 800mm wouldn't work for me... the 400mm - 800mm gap is where I do most of my shooting. I really wish Nikon would've made it a 500 5.6 or ideally a 600 5.6 like the old ias manual focus nikkor lens years ago.... or would've been nice if Nikon would've made the 400 4.5 with a built in 1.4 TC. Imo, from now on, Nikon should make every prime 300 2.8 and up, with a built in tc.

The Z8 in DX mode is a mirrorless D500 and phenomenal paired with this lens

@@markr3926 Good point. I would prefer a higher pixel density in a 33 megapixel DX camera if this is what Nikon decides to do.

@@stanobert3475 Yes I suspect a dedicated DX mirrorless D500 replacement would have more pixels however one consideration there is that from a marketing perspective they would love to chase the higher numbers but it does mean smaller pixels to achieve the higher density and this would result in poorer ISO low light performance which is the enemy of many a wildlife shot. Of course new sensor tech may overcome it. My own opinion is that is why the Z8/Z9 are at 45mp and not 65mp for the lowlight performance advantage. Putting a bigger number on a box is the marketing mans dream but not always without a compromise.

good, I am in same suitation as you. After seeing video, I am leaning toward this over the zoom due to faster focusiing which could be main factor when shooting those small bird in flight . Nikon would not be put the price higher then the zoom as due to 1 stop only, the main factor is faster focusing and more portable handheld get the fast moving subject more efficient.

My friend has gotten his and it's fabulous. Hang in there you won't be disappointed (other than cost - which of course you know). Bunch of images at the ATS youtube channel.

I did think about this But I would prefer the extra light and then crop the extra 60mm is needed really Also the 1.4 TC does effect focus speed so you are loosing quite abit

@@RicciTalks How big is the speed hit with the 1.4? Was thinking of getting Z70-200 + 400 4.5 + TC14 instead of Z100-400. Mostly for motorsport. I’m quite used to 70-200(VR2) focal length and low light ability and always thought that I would lose too much with 100-400 in that regard.

​@@RicciTalks I am very interested in this comparison too. I am thinking of getting a 400 4.5 + 1.4TC or the 500 PF + converter instead. 400 4.5 + Z 1.4 TC is lighter, is using the latest technology and can go 4.5 in some situations while 500 PF has come out some time already. I wonder how much Z 1.4 TC would impact the image quality and focusing speed compared with the 500PF + converter. If there is not a huge difference, 400 4.5 + TC is definitely more attractive to me.

I love my 100-400 so I'd hang on to your place in line. Tack sharp, beautiful bokeh, great range and only 7 ounces heavier than this lens, and 1" shorter stored.

Working on the 1.4tc now

It’s something I didn’t mention in the video but I do think for close up nature shots the 100-400 is clearly the choice as you say

@Ricci Talks I think in close focus the 100-400 is not 400 anymore. They do this with all modern lenses. So the difference might not be that substantial.

Yes, I got the 100-400 too , it’s quite good

I don't own any of Nikon F products anymore and never owned the 500, but I know some pretty avid Z camera/lens users that still use their 500PF quite extensively and love it, wouldn't sell it for anything. Maybe now while the new and used market favors a lower price point.