Natural Art: The Photography of Brad Hill

 

Brad Hill: Blog: Photography. Nature. Gadgets. Software. Conservation. Whatever.

Not so short-winded blatherings on whatever is currently occupying the part of my brain that deals with nature photography and related concerns. Updated sorta weekly.

On this page you'll find all my 2019 blog listings (immediately below). And, further down this page you'll also find some key (and very popular) gear-related blog entries from 2018 (jump to that section now).

And, finally, if you're looking for a directory to ALL my blog listings EVER - just follow this link.


I. 2019 Blog Entries...

17 Dec 2019: New Images in Gallery of Latest Additions...

I've added new images to my Gallery of Latest Additions, with more to come over the next few weeks. Check 'em out if you have a second!

Newcomers to this (and my other Galleries) may not realize that each image is accompanied by a boat load of contextual information - just click on the tabs (labelled "In the Field", "Behind the Camera", etc.) below the main image window to view the "story" behind each image.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

13 Dec 2019: Capture One Skips 7 Versions!

If you're one of the ever-growing crowd of photographers who uses Capture One as their primary workflow tool you probably know that Capture One 12 has recently been upgraded. But rather than proceeding from version 12 to 13, Phase One decided to jump all the way to version 20...skipping out on 7 full versions (who wants those pesky teens around anyway?). I've been using Capture One almost continuously since 2004 (somewhere in the middle I somehow convinced myself that going to Lightroom and an all-Adobe workflow would be easier, but after familiarizing myself with Lightroom I happily went back to Capture One about 6 months later). And, as a beta tester, I've now been using Capture One 20 for a little over a month. And I'm liking it more than ever!

While I wouldn't say the jump from Capture One 12 to Capture One 20 was equivalent in feature upgrades to 7 full upgrades, Capture One 20 is a significant upgrade. I won't go into gory detail listing every single feature that has been improved, but suffice to say that the changes impact the User Interface (UI), the culling tools found in the "image management" portion of the application, and several of the image processing tools. Most users are probably most interested in the changes to the image processing tools, and the most notable feature upgrades there include a new implementation of the Color Editor tool (a major modification of how the "Basic" Color Editor tools work), a greatly improved High Dynamic Range Tool (more on this in just a bit), and a tweaked algorithm for the Noise Reduction Tool (more on this below too). And, of course, the new release also added support for the several new cameras (including the Z50) and one new lens. Anyone wishing to see the entire list of new features should go HERE on the Capture One website...

OK...so far this is reading like a press release...let's get down to the nitty gritty: Which feature upgrades do I consider most significant (in terms of time-saving or an improvement in image-editing features)? Good question...

1. In the Image Culling Department:

Capture One allows users to work in two different organizational environments - Catalogs or Sessions (and you can work in both if you prefer). A Capture One catalog is very similar to a Lightroom catalog and this is where MOST of your image organization occurs. Like most wildlife photographers one of the biggest bottlenecks in my workflow is image culling - and since I moved to using catalogs in Capture One my image culling has sped up considerably (one of the features that has sped up my culling the most is the ability to view up to 12 images simultaneously at 100% magnification, which is a huge timesaver when you are trying to separate out a batch of "similars" you shot in a burst).

And now, in Capture One 20 there's a new "little" feature that can REALLY speed up the process of culling. It's called "Select Next When" (and is found, not surprisingly, within the Select Menu). To turn on Select Next When you simply tell it the "condition" when the next image should be moved to during culling - either when you give it a star rating or a color rating (of course, and just like in Lightroom you can always move to the next selected image by hitting an arrow key on your keyboard). AND, if you select a GROUP of images (say 6 "almost identical" shots of an eagle in flight) and are making the decision(s) on which one(s) to keep) using Select Next When means that the minute you either assign a star rating or color rating it automatically jumps to the next image in your group, saving a keystroke each time you accept or reject an image. And, when you get to the LAST image in your group it automatically selects the NEXT group of images (with the same number in that group as in the previous group) and lets you quickly assign ratings to those images too. I know this sounds like a trivial thing, but when you are culling through thousands of images you end up saving thousands of keystrokes when using Select Next When. And the time savings REALLY add up. Little tweak to Capture One that results in BIG time savings. Cool.

2. In the Image Editing Department:

While Capture One 20 has upgraded several of their image-editing tools, for me there is one change with MAJOR consequences and one change with "pretty significant" consequences. Here's a little more about each of the improved tools that have a major impact on my image editing.

A. Improved High Dynamic Range Tool:

In Capture One 12 (and for several versions before) the High Dynamic Range Tool had two sliders in it - one for Highlights and one for Shadows. And, each operated in a "unidirectional" fashion - you could "retrieve" highlights (but not brighten them) and you could "recover" details in shadowed/dark regions (but you could NOT darken the shadows). In Capture One 20 these tools have become "bidirectional" - you can brighten or retrieve highlights now and you can retrieve shadow detail or you can make your shadows darker. Big improvement (and long past due!).

But wait, there's more (in the High Dynamic Range Tool)! There are now two additional bidirectional sliders - Black and White. These sliders work in the more extreme ends of your histogram than the Shadow and Highlight sliders - so the Black slider works on the darkest darks (and doesn't extend into the midtones nearly as much as the Shadow tool) and the White slider works on the whitest whites (and again does NOT extend into the brighter midtones nearly as much as the Highlight slider does).

And, most importantly, the algorithms behind these new Black and White sliders are really well done. As an example, with the Black slider you can darken your darks MUCH more (leading to richer colour and beautiful contrast) without clipping your blacks than you can using a Levels adjustment OR a Curves adjustment. And the same thing is true of the White slider - you can REALLY push up your brightest brights (without clipping them) with it.

The two new slider additions to the High Dynamic Range Tool work extremely well, and if you combine them with Capture One's excellent implementation of the Luma Range tool (which is a user-friendly and fast way to build luminosity masks) you end up with incredible control over your darks and lights (and image contrast in general). In my day-to-day image editing I am finding the improved High Dynamic Range tool is making a HUGE difference to either the time I spend working on an image (i.e., bringing it down) or improving my image quality (or both).

B. Improved Noise Reduction Tool:

I've always liked the noise reduction capabilities of Capture One - and it just got a whole lot better. This time it's an algorithm tweak that has several effects. First, and even with heavy noise reduction, image detail is retained better. Second, colour is more accurately retained in high ISO images (when even high levels of noise reduction are imposed). Third, the impact of moving the NR sliders (for luminosity noise or colour noise) is now more pronounced. Unlike the Improved High Dynamic Range tool I am not seeing a speed bump in my image processing with this improvement, but I am seeing an improvement in the appearance of my high ISO shots. Which is a good thing.

One other tool improvement is worth mentioning, even though it is likely to affect studio shooters more than the average wildlife or nature photographer. It involves the improved ability to copy layers (including intricate layer masks) to a new image (or multiple images), including onto images which already have layers added to them (in the past if you copied layers to images with pre-existing layers you collapsed the pre-existing layers).

Finally...the ultimate question: Is the Capture One 20 upgrade worth the cost (which will vary depending on the type of license you have)? Well...for me - categorically YES. Note that Capture One is available via a subscription model where your upgrades are included in the price of the subscription or through buying a "perpetual license" (i.e., the "old way" we bought software licenses) and you pay for the major (non-decimal single digit) upgrades. And, of course, there is a free trial of the software (available HERE).

Finally #2...and the ultimate ultimate question: Do I RECOMMEND Capture One as a "full-service" digital workflow tool for wildlife and nature photographers? Well...I use it...what does that say? ;-)

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

25 Nov 2019: Brochures Now Available: Spring Photo Tours With Vacancies!

Over the weekend I completed the PDF brochures for the two spring Great Bear Rainforest photo tours that there are still a few open spots on. Here are the details and links to the brochures:

1. Spring in the Southern Great Bear Instructional Photo Tour (mid May 2020):

• Number of Open Spots: 2
• Photo Tour Leader: Brad Hill
• Brochure (PDF; 4.7 MB): Spring in the Southern Great Bear Instructional Photo Tour

2. Spring in the Southern Great Bear Photo Op Photo Tour (late May/early June 2020):

• Number of Open Spots: 1
• Photo Tour Leader: Brad Hill
• Brochure (PDF; 4.0 MB): Spring in the Southern Great Bear Photo Op Photo Tour

Contact me at seminars@naturalart.ca for more info or to reserve your spot!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

17 Nov 2019: For Sale: Nikkor AF-S 300mm f4E PF ED VR Telephoto Lens

18 Nov UPDATE: The lens listed below has been sold and is no longer available.

I've just put my Nikkor 300mm f4 PF telephoto lens up for sale on a first-come, first-served basis. All details here on my Gear 4 Sale page...

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

14 Nov 2019: Musings Part 3 - The AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR

This is the third part of a short series of entries conveying some of my thoughts about the relatively rapid evolution on my Nikon-based wildlife photography kit over the last year or so. The first entry set the stage for the series and the second covered my "gut feelings" about how well the Z7 fit into my wildlife kit. Those entries can be found here:

Musings On My Evolving Nikon Wildlife Kit - Part 1.
Musings Part 2 - The Nikon Z7

Today's entry covers my impressions and opinions on the AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR (hereafter simply known as "the 180-400") after testing it extensively and shooting with it for about 18 months. This entry isn't intended as a full review of the 180-400, but rather as an attempt to describe the "impact" this lens has had on my wildlife photography AND on the other lenses that I have (or had) in my wildlife kit at the time I acquired the 180-400. I have done extensive optical testing on the 180-400 against a plethora of other high-end lenses that overlap it in focal length - the most recent field test blog post on the 180-400 (and links to my previous posts on the lens) can be found right here: Nikkor 180-400mm f4E Field Test IIIF: Optical Performance at 560mm

OVERVIEW

To most wildlife shooters the choice of purchasing and using a super-telephoto zoom lens versus a super-telephoto prime lens comes down to where they stand on a just a few key variables. By its very nature a zoom lens offers focal length versatility which, among other things, can make it easier to compose images in the field, especially when using your feet to "zoom" your prime lens isn't an option! Historically, most super-telephoto zoom lenses were somewhat slower (i.e., had smaller maximum apertures) than super-telephoto prime lenses and that fact has the potential to affect at least two things - the photographer's ability to isolate a subject from the background and how little light they can work in. And, there are at least two more variables that most shooters consider when choosing between a zoom and prime lens. First (and again historically), even the best zoom lenses never were quite as sharp as best prime lenses. Second, even the best telephoto zoom lenses tended to be less expensive than the best prime lenses.

When the 180-400mm f4E lens was first introduced it turned a few heads, and not just for "positive" reasons. First, it absolutely blew the "zooms are cheaper" paradigm out of the water - it came in with an astronomical price tag (not far off TWICE the price that most shooters thought it was replacing - the 200-400mm f4G). Second, with the built-in teleconverter it DID offer an incredibly appealing total focal length range for the wildlife photographer - 180mm to 560mm. So it offered at least the possibility of replacing several prime lenses in a wildlife photographer's kit. And - as it turns out - while not small or light in an absolute sense, the 180-400mm is a little smaller and lighter than the lenses it replaces in a wildlife photographer's kit (notably the 400mm f2.8E, the 500mm f4E, and the 600mm f4E).

So at the end of the day, and especially given the astronomical price of the 180-400, the question really came down to this: Can the 180-400mm REALLY perform at top-notch prime lens performance levels?

THE GOOD

When it comes to the good things about the 180-400mm the list is long. Its optical performance is superb. Its AF system works as well as any of Nikon's best telephoto primes. Its VR performance matches the best super-telephotos too. Probably the best way to show the strengths of the 180-400 - and how it answers questions about its performance - is through viewing a series of images I've shot with it since getting mine. Note that ALL of these images are shot under real-world field conditions using a variety of different cameras. All are hand-held shots, and many were shot from a floating Zodiac. Note that critical tech specs are included on the top left corner of all the shots...

1. Optical Performance: I can honestly say that from an optical perspective the 180-400 is one of the most "solid" lenses I have ever owned - at every aperture, every focal length (including those accessed only by engaging the built-in 1.4x teleconverter), and at all camera-to-subject distances, this lens delivers stunning edge-to-edge sharpness. And note that when I say that optically it is "...one of the most "solid" lenses I have ever owned" I AM including Nikon's best super-telephoto prime lenses. For instance, BEFORE the 180-400 my favourite super-telephoto was the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E. But even as a "proud" owner of the 400mm f2.8E I had to admit that the lens didn't reach its maximum sharpness until you stopped it down to f3.5 or - in some cases - even f4. But the 180-400mm is as sharp wide open as it is stopped down to f5.6 (or f8, or whatever). And, it is SHARPER when it is shot wide open than the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E is when it is shot wide open. And...this is the case at all focal lengths. On to the performance questions and supporting images...

A. Does it perform well optically at ALL camera-to-subject distances? The precursor to the 180-400 was the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G - and the general feeling with that lens was that it was "...strong optically with close subjects, but fell off in performance as the distance to the subject increased". Not so with the 180-400 - not only does it focus very close, but even when shot at wide open at maximum focal length it performs GREAT at all distances. Check out these "shot at wide open at f5.6 from extremely close to extremely far away" 560mm shots:

Immature Old World Swallowtail (Caterpillar) (JPEG: 0.8 MB)
The Lonely Sentinel (JPEG: 0.8 MB)
Ocean, shoreline, rainforest, WOLF (JPEG: 3.1 MB)

B. How well does it perform when shot wide open at focal lengths at up to 400mm (so at f4)? Well...you can't find a focal length where the lens is weak when shot wide open without the TC-engaged. Of course - and as you would expect - because the lens has "only" a maximum aperture of f4 your ability to separate the subject from its background at its shorter focal lengths is compromised a little (compared to f2.8 lenses). Some examples:

• 180mm: The Triple Gulp - Humpbacks Bubble-netting (JPEG: 1.8 MB)
• 220mm: Playing the Hunger Game (Spirit Bear) (JPEG: 1.3 MB)
• 390mm: Spirit Bear Fishing (JPEG: 1.3 MB)
• 400mm: Poncho Attack! (JPEG: 1.1 MB)

C. How well does it perform when shot wide open at focal lengths OVER 400mm (so with the TC engaged and at f5.6)? Over the years I've found that the minute a teleconverter was added you pretty much had to stop down (often a full stop) from wide open before getting decent sharpness. But...as it turns out...it's not so with the 180-400 - you can get GREAT shots with the TC-engaged when shot wide open at f5.6. Some examples:

• 450mm: Hey...Who's Back There? (JPEG: 1.2 MB)
• 560mm (TC engaged): Northern River Otter (JPEG: 2.2 MB)
• 560mm (TC engaged): Kids Will Be Kids (JPEG: 1.5 MB)
• 560mm (TC engaged): Only in Smoke Season! (JPEG: 1.3 MB)
• 560mm (TC engaged): Diving Deep (JPEG: 1.9 MB)
• 560mm (TC engaged): Surveilling the Shoreline (JPEG: 3.1 MB)

D. Can you really use ALL the focal lengths and get "prime-like" results? Yep. And...at all focal lengths you can shoot at ANY aperture and get sharp results...there is absolutely NO NEED WHATSOEVER to stop down from wide open to get that extra "biting" sharpness we all want in an image. Here's a "focal length tour" of some representative images...

• 180mm: I am SO Outta Here... (JPEG: 1.5 MB)
• 190mm: Prime Real Estate (JPEG: 1.9 MB)
• 200mm: After the Downpour - Khutzeymateen Waterfall (JPEG: 3.2 MB)
• 210mm: Bedded Down in the Khutzeymateen (JPEG: 1.2 MB)
• 270mm: Just Another Day in the Life Of... (JPEG: 1.9 MB)
• 310mm: The Wild Life (JPEG: 1.5 MB)
• 330mm: Non-verbal Communication! (JPEG: 1.5 MB)
• 380mm: Grabbing a Soggy Snack... (JPEG: 1.2 MB)
• 400mm: Pop Goes the Bear! (JPEG: 0.7 MB)
• 400mm: Ever Feel Like Everyone Is Talking About You? (JPEG: 1.3 MB)
• 400mm: The Khutzeymateen Estuary (JPEG: 1.3 MB)
• 450mm (TC engaged): Harbour Seals - High and Half Dry! (JPEG: 1.8 MB)
• 460mm (TC engaged): Soaked Top & Bottom (JPEG: 1.1 MB)
• 490mm (TC engaged): Pure Intimidation (JPEG: 1.9 MB)
• 490mm (TC engaged): Hanging Out at the Haul-Out (JPEG: 2.0 MB)
• 500mm (TC engaged): C'mon Mom...Just Grab the Next Fish and Let's Go! (JPEG: 1.7 MB)
• 560mm (TC engaged): Attentive But Calm (JPEG: 1.3 MB)
• 560mm (TC engaged): Eagle on Sitka (JPEG: 2.3 MB)
• 560mm (TC engaged): Relaxed But Attentive (JPEG: 1.5 MB)

E. OK...what happens when you screw up and use the 180-400mm's built-in TC for focal lengths UNDER 400mm - is there a big hit on image quality? Hey...this happens! And the good news is, when it DOES happen there is no obvious decline in image quality. Here's a few samples of some of most memorable "oops...should have disengaged the TC but didn't" screw-ups:

• 280mm (TC engaged - OOPS!): Chaos, Conflict, & Cuddles (JPEG: 1.7 MB)
• 290mm (TC engaged - OOPS!): Classically Coastal (JPEG: 1.9 MB)
• 320mm (TC engaged - OOPS!): Humpback Lunging in the Great Bear (JPEG: 2.0 MB)

F. What about high contrast shooting situations, like when shooting backlit subjects? Many telephoto zoom lenses aren't as effective at shooting high-contrast scenes as super-telephoto primes are - the resulting images often show flare or are simply lacking in contrast. Not so with the 180-400mm - it exhibits great contrast in ALL situations, including in those high-contrast situations. Here's a couple of backlit images (both shot wide open at 560mm, so with the TC engaged) to demonstrate what I mean:

• 560mm (TC engaged): Steamy Sunrise in the Great Bear (JPEG: 1.1 MB)
• 560mm (TC engaged): Sunrise Sentries - Coastal Gray Wolves (JPEG: 1.2 MB)

2. Autofocus Performance: For a wildlife photographer - and especially one who likes to shoot action (like birds in flight) - autofocus performance can make or break their perception of the usefulness of a lens. Historically Nikon's big primes have offered exceptional autofocus performance, especially when paired with their flagship DSLR's. My own experience is that Nikon's previous super-telephoto zoom lenses (including the Nikkor 200-400 f4G, the Nikkor 80-400 f4.5-5.6G, and the Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6E) and premium 3rd party super-telephoto zoom lenses (e.g, the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 and Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3) - all of which I have owned, tested extensively, and shot with - have good autofocus systems, but fall short of that of Nikon's best super-telephoto primes. The 180-400? Absolute measures of autofocus performance are notoriously hard to obtain, but in my own preliminary testing of the autofocus performance of the 180-400mm against the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E and against both the Sigma 500mm f4 Sport and the Nikkor 500mm f4E I have been able to discern no clear difference in autofocus performance (i.e., the 180-400 seems as good the best available primes). Note that I have not yet written up or posted these results on this website.

What about field results of the autofocus performance of the 180-400? Thought you'd never ask! While anecdotal, I can say I have been just thrilled by the results. Here's some examples (all these images were captured with the 180-400mm paired up with a D5):

• 400mm: An Absolutely Steller Ride... (JPEG: 1.3 MB)
• 410mm (TC engaged): Steller Sea Lions - Chaos & Energy (JPEG: 2.1 MB)
• 560mm (TC engaged): Herring Gull - Deploying Landing Gear (JPEG: 0.9 MB)
• 560mm (TC engaged): The Pounce (JPEG: 1.6 MB)
• 560mm (TC engaged): Canada Goose...Into the Setting Sun (JPEG: 0.7 MB)
• 560mm (TC engaged): Tufted Puffin (JPEG: 1.0 MB)

3. Vibration Reduction (VR) Performance: VR is one area where I have not seen a major difference in performance between prime and zoom lenses. And, its contribution to image quality can vary dramatically between photographers (i.e., those wildlife photographers that religiously shoot from tripods may not consider it as important as those who frequently shoot hand-held). In my OWN case - and as one who hand-holds super-telephotos the majority of the time - having good VR performance is absolutely critical in obtaining high quality images. I HAVE done extensive testing of the VR performance of the 180-400mm against a slew of lenses with overlapping focal lengths and have found there to be no significant difference in VR performance between the Nikon super-telephoto prime lenses and the 180-400 (I haven't published these results on this website yet). What have I found about the VR performance of the 180-400 in the field when shooting the lens? Two things...

First, that I CAN obtain very sharp shots with the 180-400mm at very slow shutter speeds. As an example, the following shot was captured hand-held at 1/15s:

• 220mm: Poised & Patient - Awaiting Dinner! (JPEG: 1.9 MB)

Note that I am NOT claiming that you will get sharp shots on EVERY exposure in this shutter speed range (and along with this sharp shot, I DID get a number of soft shots).

Second, with the 180-400 I can regularly count on getting sharp shots (with VR engaged) at shutter speeds of about one half of 1/focal length of focal length the lens is zoomed to. So, at 200mm I can regularly get sharp hand-held shots at 1/100s, at 400mm I can regularly get sharp hand-held shots at 1/200s, etc. This is completely on par with my own experience when shooting Nikon's best super-telephoto lenses.

THE BAD

Are there any weaknesses or downsides to the 180-400mm? I have found - or can think of - only three possible weaknesses:

1. Vignetting: Yes, the 180-400mm does exhibit strong vignetting (darkening of edges and corners of the image). The amount of vignetting is almost identical to that of the 200-400mm f4G. It is worse when shot wide open (at times up to 1.3 stops) and gradually tapers off as you stop down (but it is often still visible even at f8). Vignetting can be easily cleaned up in post-processing (if shooting raw files) or in-camera (to some degree) if shooting JPEG files. Whether it is considered a problem (or even a deal-breaker) will vary between photographers. I consider it a PITA (Pain-In-the-A..), but not even a true "problem". The following image gives a feeling for the amount of vignetting you can expect without he 180-400 (the first is uncorrected for vignetting in post-processing, the second shows the same image with correction in post-processing). The image was captured at 400mm and at f4:

Summer Sunrise - East Kootenays, BC (vignette NOT removed) (JPEG: 0.5 MB)
Summer Sunrise - East Kootenays, BC (vignette removed) (JPEG: 0.5 MB)

2. Weight: The 180-400 tips the scales at 3500 gm (7.7 lb), which is slightly less than that of the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E (3800 gm or 8.4 lb) and slightly MORE than the Nikkor 500mm f4E (3090 gm or 6.8 lb). So it is pretty much "super-telephoto" weight. Which means it will be easily "hand-holdable" for some, and simply too heavy for others to hand-hold. So this could be a deal-breaker for some, and "just a fact of life" for others.

3. Subject Isolation? I've asked several other wildlife photographers who own prime super-telephoto lenses but NOT the 180-400 if they would ever consider swapping their primes for the 180-400. Many would (and have), but one common reason I have run into for why they wouldn't is because they want the extra stop when shot wide open (at f2.8 with a 400mm f2.8 or at f4 with a 500mm f4) because they feel they need it to "isolate" their subject from the background (i.e., keep the subject sharp and blur the background). I understand this logic, but I don't think it's a very valid concern. Why? To begin with, separating a subject from the background (and producing those "dreamy" out-of-focus backgrounds) is more a function of the ratio of distances from the camera to the subject AND the subject to the background than it is having one extra stop available to "open up". Simply put, if you are closer to your subject than your subject is to its background, you can successfully isolate that subject from the background (without shooting wide open). Take a look at the following images to see what I mean. All are shot wide open but the distance to the background varies (and you'll see the impact of "distance from subject to background" in action):

• 560mm (TC engaged): Arrow-leaved Balsamroot (JPEG: 1.0 MB)
• 400mm (Variable distance to background): Focus (JPEG: 1.2 MB)
• 400mm (Distant background): Poncho on West Ridge (JPEG: 1.1 MB)

Another thing to keep in mind is that unlike Nikon's super-telephoto prime lenses (all of which must be stopped down 2/3 of a stop to one full stop to achieve maximum sharpness) you can shoot the 180-400mm absolutely wide open at all focal lengths and get absolutely tack-sharp images. This fact also partially negates the "one stop advantage" (as it pertains to subject isolation) of Nikon's super-telephoto primes.

To be fair, I have noticed that I have to be a LITTLE more conscious of my relative distances (to the subject and from subject to the background) with my 180-400 than with my 400mm f2.8 if my goal is to produce a sharp subject and dreamy soft background. But this performance difference between the 180-400 and the super-telephoto primes is pretty much negligible to me.

THE UGLY!

The absolute ugliest aspect of the 180-400 is its price. Right now in Canada it is retailing for $14,999 CAD. This is MORE than the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 500mm f4E and only slightly less than the Nikkor 600mm f4E. Which puts it out of reach for a whole bunch of photographers. If you compare the price of the 180-400 to the lens it more-or-less replaced (i.e., the 200-400mm f4G) then it seems ridiculously expensive. But if you compare its price to the super-telephoto prime lens (or lenses) it can replace, then it doesn't appear quite so out of whack!

A QUICK SUMMARY

In combination, the great focal length range, exceptional optical performance over its entire focal range, "prime-like" autofocus performance, and absolutely capable VR performance make the 180-400mm an incredible lens. In my experience it is the only super-telephoto zoom lens I have ever shot that can go toe-to-toe with the best super-telephoto primes and - at times - even outperform them (it alone is as sharp when shot wide open as when shot stopped down). To call it "versatile" is an understatement - for many it would be the ONLY wildlife lens they would ever need. It is versatility DEFINED.

IS THE 180-400 A TRUE BREAKTHROUGH PRODUCT?

I have a hard time answering this for anyone but myself - for many folks I know this lens is close to photo gear equivalent of nirvana. But I am sure there are some out there (that I will likely hear from) who think it is "just another over-priced and over-hyped" run-of-the-mill zoom. There is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that is huge evolutionary jump in super-telephoto zooms. It simply annihilates the performance of all other super-telephoto zooms by a huge margin. It was the first lens I ever tested that is as sharp when shot wide open as when stopped down (by any amount) - none of Nikon's super-telephoto primes have this characteristic.

I think the most telling thing about this lens is how much of an impact it had on the OTHER gear in my kit. Keep in mind that my wildlife photography career means I must travel a lot by plane, and often in smaller planes with strict carry-on limits. So for ME having a lens that's easier to carry (which means either lighter OR less bulky OR both) or that takes the place of several other lenses has a HUGE value. Here are a few consequences of me acquiring the 180-400:

• I have sold my Nikkor 400mm f2.8E
• I am about to sell my Sigma Sport 500mm f4 (but note that ownership of my Nikkor 500mm PF has also impacted on this decision)
• I am about to sell my Nikkor 300mm f4 PF
• I WOULD sell my Sigma Sport 150-600mm (but I am keeping it only as a standard to test other lenses against)

That's a pretty huge impact for just ONE lens!

Up next in this series...Musings Part 4 - The Nikkor 500mm f5.6E PF. Stay tuned.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#Musing3

11 Nov 2019: Remaining Openings on 2020 Photo Tours

Our 2020 photo tour season will be getting underway in just under 6 months. The vast majority of available spots have been gobbled up, but there are still a small number of spots available on a few great trips. Here's a quick summary of the remaining openings:

Spring in the Southern Great Bear Instructional Photo Tour (mid May 2020) - TWO spots remaining. Detailed information RIGHT HERE

Spring in the Southern Great Bear Photo Op Photo Tour (late May - early June 2020) - ONE spot remaining. Detailed information RIGHT HERE

Marine Mammals of the Central Pacific Coast Instructional Photo Tour (August 2020) - ONE spot remaining. Detailed information RIGHT HERE

To view ALL our photo tours for 2020 just go here: Photo Tours with Natural Art Images.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

04 Nov 2019: Musings Part 2 - The Nikon Z7

This is the second part of a short series of entries on my thoughts about the significance of the relatively rapid evolution of my Nikon-based wildlife photography kit over the past year or so. The first entry was entitled "Musings on my Evolving Nikon Wildlife Kit" and set the stage for this series - you can read it here. This entry covers my impressions and opinions on the Nikon Z7 after testing it and shooting with it for about one year. This entry isn't intended as a review of the Z7 but rather as an attempt to describe the key factors behind why I disproportionately "gravitate" to some items in my wildlife photography kit more than others (and - to be clear - I DO gravitate to the Z7 for a lot of my shooting - including a lot of my wildlife shooting). And, it's an attempt to answer the question of whether or not I consider the Z7 a "breakthrough" product - and whether or not it was a worthwhile purchase.

Critical Context

When I took delivery of the Nikon Z7 I had three DSLR's in my wildlife photography "kit" - a D5, a D500, and a D850. I use my D5 for shooting extreme action and whenever light levels make it challenging to shoot my D500 and D850 (which for me is a LOT of the time). I turn to my D500 primarily when I want more "reach" relative to my D5 (the sensors of these cameras contain the exact same number of pixels, but the cropped sensor of the D500 means that those pixels are more dense on the D500, thus if all else is equal you do have MORE pixels dedicated to your subject than you would with a D5) and when there is sufficient light to shoot it. I use my 45.7 MP D850 to shoot those "opportunistic" landscape shots that you so commonly encounter when spending hours in the field photographing wildlife. And, I also use my D850 for shooting "animalscape" shots - which are basically landscape shots with an animal in the frame that "anchors" the image. Of course, I also use my D850 for "tighter" shots of wildlife when conditions (especially available light) allow.

Another important consideration to keep in mind when reading my thoughts on the Z7 is that - owing to logistics - I shoot the vast majority of my wildlife shots (including animalscapes) and my landscape shots hand-held. I would estimate that 90% or more of the shots I capture on an annual basis are hand-held.

When I purchased my Z7 I intended to use it for the same things I used my D850 for - landscapes, animalscapes, and occasional "tighter" wildlife shots. And, because I owned both a D5 and D500 I never intended to use either my D850 or Z7 for either extreme action shooting or for low light (and high ISO) shooting.

Here are some examples of the types of subject matter I use a D850 or Z7 for (note these - and all other shots in this entry - are hand-held Z7 shots):

Rocky Mountain Autumn (JPEG: 1.9 MB)
The Golden Hour on the Pacific Rim (JPEG: 0.6 MB)
Eagle in Rainforest (JPEG: 7.0 MB)
Common Raven, Uncommon Beauty (JPEG: 1.1 MB)
The Poser: Nikon Z7 with 500mm f5.6E PF (JPEG: 1.1 MB)

So, at least in my case, I knew that the stage was set for me to be continuously comparing the Z7 to the D850. The obvious question I wanted answered was simply this: Which of the two cameras worked better for me in capturing opportunistic landscape shots, animalscapes, and occasional "tighter" wildlife shots?

As a final nod to context, I have to admit that after previously owning 5 other mirrorless cameras (two Nikon V's, and three from Olympus) I still carried a bit of a negative bias against mirrorless cameras. Why? Mainly due to awful ergonomics and handling (compared to my Nikon DSLR's) and substandard electronic viewfinders (EVF). Simply put, my previous mirrorless cameras got in the way of capturing images (rather than they way my DSLR's "worked with me" in the field).

Four Game-changing Characteristics of the Z7

At the risk of short-circuiting the "Z7 vs. D850 Wars" narrative I have to reveal it took me less than one week of shooting the Z7 head-to-head against the D850 to fully convince me that the Z7 was the far better 45.7 MP camera for me. There were four characteristics of the Z7 that REALLY separated it from the D850 for me (and over the next year of shooting those four "characteristics" quickly evolved to being four "very strong advantages"). Collectively they allowed me to capture much higher quality images (and miss fewer images) with the Z7.

1. The In-Body-Image-Stabilization (IBIS) System

I love how well the IBIS system works on the Z7 (when using Z-mount lenses). When shooting Nikon DSLR's (even with pro-level VR lenses) I never even let myself dream I could shoot tack-sharp, hand-held 45.7 MP images down to shutter speeds in the 0.25s to 0.5s range. Of course, the shutter speed than any particular lens can be hand-held at will vary with lens focal length and between users, but the 5-stop, 5-axis stabilization of the Z7 works amazingly well. The first day of field shooting with my Z7 I captured this hand-held shot at 0.25s (and I was just blown away):

Headwaters - Kootenay River (JPEG: 1.3 MB)

How is the IBIS when you are shooting F-mount VR lenses on the Z7 (using the mount adapter FTZ)? At least as effective as on Nikon's DSLR's, and I have the perception that I gain about another 0.5 stops of image stabilization when using F-mount lenses on the Z7 (compared to a D850). Note that I have captured the necessary images to test this perception, but just haven't had the time to fully scrutinize them. So at this point take this "0.5 stop stabilization advantage" comment with a grain of salt.

One final - and definitely not insignificant - aspect of the IBIS that I really appreciate is how it imparts image stabilization onto non-stabilized lenses. As an example, I own a copy of the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art lens which is amazingly good optically (it has the highest optical rating of any lens ever tested by DXOmark.com). This excellent lens has no VR (or OS) built into it - but when you shoot it on a Z7 the IBIS kicks in and turns this non-OS lens into a OS lens! So that makes the amazing Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art into an even MORE amazing (and user-friendly) lens to use.

Keep in mind that - as an "only occasional" user of tripods - I probably put more emphasis on how important IBIS is to the Z7 "experience" than other shooters might. If someone does the vast majority of their shooting off a tripod then it may be "no big deal". But for me the IBIS advantage of the Z7 is huge.

2. The Electronic Viewfinder (EVF)

Before I used my Z7 I had a well-earned negative bias against EVF's. This was based on the quality of EVF's on my previous 5 mirrorless cameras. After using my Z7 just a couple of times I was sold on its EVF. Not only did the image look WAY BETTER through the Z7 EVF than my older mirrorless cameras, but in particular I loved two features of the Z7 EVF that I knew I'd never get on a DSLR. The first is the ability to display a small histogram in the lower right corner of the viewfinder. When I'm working in tricky lighting I find having this histogram instantly accessible (before the exposure) incredibly useful.

The second feature I just LOVE about the Z7 EVF is the instant exposure setting feedback you get through the viewfinder simply owing to the brightness of the displayed scene (i.e., you have WYSIWYG-like exposure feedback simply by looking at the scene through the EVF). Granted, what you see through the viewfinder isn't a perfect representation of your exposure, but once you have "calibrated" the brightness of the viewfinder it's a darned good exposure approximation. When shooting wildlife you commonly run into instances where you are forced to make tricky exposure decisions in an eye blink and, of course, you DON'T get a "do-over" if you screw up! For instance, think of the how quickly you have to react when you've been shooting a white Spirit Bear in dark shadows and it decides to walk into blinding sunlight (with a dark, dark forest behind it). Hey, it happens. Here's a few examples where the brightness level of the Z7 EVF guided some really quick exposure decisions on my part...

Out of the Shadows (JPEG: 1.2 MB)
The Icon of the Great Bear Rainforest (JPEG: 1.5 MB)

When I go from shooting my Z7 back to shooting any of my DSLR's it feels to me like I'm going "back" from using a smartphone to a flip phone - and I think the biggest single contributor to this feeling is having the info and feedback that an EVF gives me.

3. The Autofocus (AF) System

This section is probably going to surprise some folks, but I MUCH prefer the Z7 AF system (and how it performs) OVER that of the D850. Keep in mind when you're reading this that I rarely use my Z7 (or in the past my D850) for shooting extreme action...that's what I use a D5 - and to a lesser extent - a D500 for.

What do I like about the Z7 AF system? Several things. First, I simply find it more accurate than that of the D850, especially when dealing with off-centre subjects (e.g., focused on the foreground when shooting a wide-angle landscape shot). Because Nikon refuses to let us know the relative contribution of phase detect autofocus (PDAF) and contrast detect autofocus (CDAF) in each of the focusing area modes, it's impossible for me to guess WHY the AF system of the Z7 seems that much more accurate than that of the D850. But, it's just something I have noticed time and time again in the field. Like in this Harbour Seal shot taken with my Z7 and the Nikon 500mm f5.6E PF where having the eye-region tack-sharp (and the DoF distributed correctly) was so important:

Layin' Low... (JPEG: 1.0 MB)

Second, as one who often likes their subjects positioned in extreme positions (especially when shooting animalscapes) I love that the you can toggle the AF point over ALMOST the entire viewfinder (rather than only over a smaller subset of the viewfinder as in the D850) AND focus on your subject with the knowledge that it WILL hit the focus effectively. I am aware that you CAN use "focus-and-recompose" techniques to use extreme subject positions with a D850, but my experience is that the focus-and-recompose technique results in pretty low hit-rates when you do it hand-held. Here's an example of a shot captured with my Z7 (hand-held from a floating Zodiac) where I was able to focus on a subject with a fairly "extreme" position without using focus-and-recompose...

The Vantage Point (JPEG: 5.9 MB)

Third, it is REALLY nice to completely forget about AF tuning! It's my experience that the "best of the best" pro Nikkor lenses are often very well-tuned for Nikon pro DSLR bodies right out of the box, but there ARE instances where AF tuning is needed. And, because tuning values vary with subject distance and focal length, it's almost impossible to do it effectively on Nikon zoom lenses. Moreover, it's also my experience that even very high end 3rd party lenses (e.g., Sigma's Sport and Art lenses) require AF tuning not infrequently when used with a Nikon DSLR. So just get a Z7 and forget about it! ;-)

I'm well aware that many reviews of the Nikon Z7 have criticized its AF capabilities for shooting moving subjects (and, in particular, its focus tracking capabilities). It's my view these reviews have been too harsh and while I would NOT recommend (or use) a Z7 for shooting extreme action, for the vast majority of my wildlife shooting the AF of the Z7 works just fine. I don't use the focus tracking of the Z7 (just like I don't use 3D-Tracking on any of my DSLR's) for shooting action - I much prefer the Dynamic Area modes for shooting action. However, when Nikon does produce a mirrorless camera dedicated to action shooting they will DEFINITELY have to improve its focus tracking, offer more Dynamic Area models, AND improve the viewfinder behavior of the Z7 when shooting fast-moving subjects.

Can you use the Z7 for shooting ANY moving subjects? Of course...here's three shots of moving subjects captured with my Z7 (all using 9-point Dynamic Area mode):

Female Common Merganser - Just Cruisin' (JPEG: 0.9 MB)
The Charge - Fishing Black Bear (JPEG: 1.8 MB)
The Aging Fisherwoman (JPEG: 1.2 MB)

I've also seen references to how the Z7 doesn't focus that well in low light. I agree it's no D5, but I have to say I've had very good luck having it lock on targets in low light, such as this Spirit Bear trying to hide in the shade under a tree while it consumes a salmon:

A Shadowy Spirit (JPEG: 1.4 MB)

And...I've used my Z7 to shoot quite a few of those really quick small perching birds with good success...

Red-breasted Nuthatch (JPEG: 0.8 MB)

My primary point on the Z7 AF system? I'll never claim that it's "awesome" for shooting extreme action. But, for the uses I put my Z7 (and in the past my D850) to, I prefer the autofocus system of the Z7 to that of the D850.

4. The Lenses!

When Nikon introduced the Z-system and the Z-mount they touted that its increased mount diameter and reduced flange distance (from the back element of the lens to the image sensor) released them from some of the constraints of the F-mount that had hobbled their lens designs. Sounded reasonable, but it was hard for most photographers to assess the validity of the claim (i.e., was it true or just marketing hype and tripe?). At this point I own three Z-mount lenses - the 24-70mm f4S, the 14-30mm f4S, and the 85mm f1.8S. I haven't shot the 14-30mm enough to offer a credible assessment of it (but my limited shooting and limited tests have been extremely encouraging), but I have tested the 24-70mm extensively (including against its F-mount equivalents) and am part way through a detailed field test of the 85mm f1.8S (against a veritable slew of competing F-mount lenses) and I can say I'm completely convinced that the Z-mount lenses are...well...better! And by "better" I mean that they are absolutely sharper (including in central regions) when shot wide open, have better edge-to-edge sharpness at all apertures, and - at least in the case of the 85mm f1.8S - have MUCH LESS chromatic aberration at close distance and wide apertures than the F-mount 85mm's (I have both the 85mm f1.4G and the 85mm f1.8G Nikkor).

Here's just a few sample images from the 24-70mm f4S and the 85mm f1.8S lenses (all captured hand-held, of course):

24-70mm f4S: Spring Sunset in Barkley Sound (JPEG: 0.8 MB)
24-70mm f4S: Anchored... (JPEG: 1.1 MB)
85mm f1.8S (the obligate portrait!): Patrick - Great Bear 2019 (JPEG: 3.6 MB)
85mm f1.8S (wide open at f1.8): A Contemplative Pause (JPEG: 1.5 MB)

And a Few More Comments on the Z7...

What about ISO performance? Here's a place where I could find virtually NO difference between the Z7 and the D850 (either in systematic testing or in the field). So...amazingly good for 45.7 MB cameras. My own "rules" on how far I can push the ISO of the Z7 (and D850)? Well...the lower ISO the better! But, depending on the scene (including differences in scene detail and dynamic range) and the use the image is to be put to, you can predictably get "decent" results up to ISO 1600, "almost always" usable results to ISO 3200, and occasionally acceptable results at up to ISO 4000. Here's a few examples of images captured in the ISO 1600 to 4000 range...

ISO 1600: Any Fish Down There? (JPEG: 1.2 MB)
ISO 2800: BACK OFF - MY Fish! (JPEG: 1.4 MB)
ISO 4000: Non-verbal Communication (JPEG: 1.5 MB)
ISO 4000: Spirit Bear on Creekside (JPEG: 2.0 MB)

There are other things I prefer on the Z7 over the D850, such as it having User Settings over Shooting Banks and Custom Banks. And how having an EVF means that your DoF preview button actually shows your DoF! But most of these other "pros" associated with the Z7 are dwarfed by the importance of the 4 game-changing features above.

What about the cons or downsides of the Z7? Yep, there are a few for sure. I really miss having vertical controls (and definitely want this on the Z7 high res "successor" as well as on the coming(?) mirrorless action camera). I'd like a shorter start-up lag. I'd like the ability to program some of its buttons to switch AF area modes (like on the D5, D850, and D500). And, of course, I want more lenses NOW! ;-)

What about the complaints you read about the most online? Well...I'm fine with one card slot only (but I can appreciate why other photographers might want this). Battery life is acceptable to me - I normally get between 1000 to 1300 images per charge. I am yet to even SEE the "banding" issue that Dpreview likes to talk about.

Is the Z7 a True Breakthrough Product?

For me - unequivocally YES. Given my style of shooting and what I use it for, the Z7 allows me to capture images in conditions I could not with my D850 (think lower shutter speeds), sharper images (think IBIS and better lenses), and with a higher hit rate (think better pre-capture exposure information via the EVF). It ain't perfect, but for me it's a whole lot better - and more valuable to me - than my D850 was. The addition of a Z7 made my ever-evolving wildlife kit much stronger.

Up next in this series...Musings Part 3 - The Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Stay tuned.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#Musing2

30 Oct 2019: My Nikon D6 Wish List

Most Nikon shooters are probably aware that Nikon has made their D6 announcement announcement, meaning that they have announced that they will announce the release of D6 sometime in the future. Of course, the announcement announcement was chock full of details - we are absolutely sure the camera will be a DSLR and that, in all likelihood, it will be black in colour. And, of course, we are reasonably sure it will be designed for action shooting and appeal to sports and wildlife shooters.

All kidding aside, I've criticized this newish "announcement announcement" strategy in the past, but this go 'round it was valuable for one reason - it reassured Nikon shooters that they ARE going to produce another DSLR flagship for action shooting and NOT completely abandon DSLR's in favour of mirrorless cameras. Of course, I expect we WILL see a high-performance action-oriented Z-camera (a Z9?) within a year following the D6 introduction. A cynic would say that Nikon is staggering these introductions so that idiots like me will buy BOTH of them (we'd likely be forced into an "either-or" decision if they were simultaneously introduced). I'll take a less skeptical approach and state that I believe Nikon just doesn't have the Z9 ready for introduction quite yet (and I'm saying this while budgeting to buy both a D6 and a Z9 - see...their staggered product introduction strategy just worked).

Anyway...as a "forever" user of Nikon's flagship cameras (since the F4 I've owned every flagship Nikon - except the D3x - they've built) I have a few opinions on what I'd like to see on the D6. And note that I'm a full-time professional wildlife photographer who still shoots stills (not video) - so my wish list excludes features related to wireless transmission of photos that may be needed by sports shooters and it excludes anything related to video.

So here ya go...my pie-in-the-sky Nikon D6 Wish List:

Update Note: A few hours after I posted this entry I was contacted by someone who reminded me how much I prefer User Settings over Shooting Banks and that point should be on this list! It was on my original list and somehow got missed when I typed up the final list. So it now appears below (point #12). Thanks are extended to Mac from Montana for pointing out my mistake!

1. Weight: A reduction!

I'd like to see the 1415 gm (3.12 lb) D5 trimmed down by about 250 gm (about 0.5 lb) to make it about 1165 gm (2.57 lb).

WHY? Hey...almost all lenses are getting lighter, why shouldn't the D6 get lighter? And we ALL are getting older (will ANY young people buy a D6?). Of course, I wouldn't want a weight reduction if it impacted negatively on camera durability, but I don't think it would have to. And, I do know a significant number of serious wildlife photographers who have passed on buying a D5 owing to its weight.

What I expect: No weight reduction. Damn!

2. Resolution: 30 MP.

Given technological advances it SHOULD be possible for Nikon to produce a 30 MP flagship without compromising ISO performance, frame rate, or burst depth.

WHY? Even though I preferentially shoot animalscapes and landscapes with my Z7, there are times when I want to do it with what's in my hands (which is often a D5/D6) and in these cases I would like more resolution. And, while I TRY to shoot compositions that work full-frame, going to 30 MP will allow more "cropability" than a lower resolution will.

What I expect: 24 MP.

3. ISO Performance: Status Quo (no change).

WHY? In this case the question should be "Why not BETTER ISO Performance?" And the answer is this: IF Nikon jumps to 30 MP with the D6 then I don't think it's possible to improve the noise characteristics OR dynamic range of the D5. In fact, if they DO go to 30 MP I think they'd have their hands just maintaining status quo on ISO Performance.

What I expect: Status quo on ISO performance.

4. IBIS (In-Body-Image-Stabilization).

I'd love to see 5-axis image stabilization of up to 5 Stops (with compatible lenses).

WHY? Because after using it for many months with the Z7 I absolutely love it and I am spoiled by it. Part of it is the increased absolute amount of image stabilization and part of it is the increased number of axes of stabilization. And, I LOVE that it imparts VR on non-VR lenses (like the amazing Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art). In my case, logistics often force me to shoot my D5 (and soon my D6) hand-held with super-telephoto lenses in low light...and adding a 5-stop IBIS would REALLY help me. Don't forget - this is MY wish list! ;-)

What I expect: 5-axis, 5-stop IBIS, but only with compatible lenses. And the FIRST compatible lens will be the new Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E super-telephoto. Of course, users of recently introduced lenses like the 180-400mm f4E will scream for a firmware update for full IBIS compatibility, but Nikon will say it is impossible.

5. Autofocus: Number of Focus Points.

I DEFINITELY want to see the number of focus points INCREASED - and with more overall viewfinder coverage.

WHY? Like with IBIS, my Z7 has spoiled me. I LOVE that with my Z7 I can focus accurately on a subject with a more "extreme" (i.e., non-centred) positions without relying on focusing using AF-S (with recomposition) or AF-C plus focus-lock (with recomposition). And note that I DON'T want this accomplished simply by making the focus points larger - I like the D5's small (than D500) focus points.

What I expect: Status quo (sigh...).

6. Autofocus: Improved 3D-Tracking.

WHY? Good already, but make it better to keep the D6 as far ahead of its pack of competitors as the D5 was. And note that ONE way to improve it would be to increase the area of coverage (like you could with more focus points as described above).

What I expect: Improved 3D-Tracking.

7. Autofocus: Improved VIEWFINDER Behaviour With 3D-Tracking.

Currently 3D-Tracking works really quite well, but the behavior of the focus point during 3D-Tracking is so erratic that using this focusing area mode is very unsettling ("What the heck is my camera focusing on???").

WHY? Because it's currently so unsettling to use that I hesitate to trust 3D-Tracking!

What I expect: Status quo (sigh...).

8. Autofocus: Option for a SMALLER Single Point AF Area Mode.

Canon has had this for several years with their Single Point Spot AF mode.

WHY? Because at times you need a REALLY small focus point to focus on something like the eye of a wolf when it's laying down in grass. And because Canon has it! ;-)

What I expect: Status quo (sigh...) - and Nikon almost never does something "because Canon has it" (even if it is a good idea).

9. Frame Rate: SLIGHT Bump with FULL autofocus performance - up to 14 or 16 fps.

WHY? To keep up with Canon (of course). And because when shooting extreme action the more frames the better.

What I expect: Bump up to 14 fps (from 12 fps).

10. Burst Size: Status Quo or Worse!

WHY? Currently you get 200 frames per burst with even a reasonably fast XQD card. With upping the resolution to 30 MP (I wish) I am fine with 200 frames in single burst. Hell, I'd be happy with half that - the longest single burst I have ever shot is 78 frames at 12 fps when photographing Humpback Whales bubble-netting (it can go on and on). With the slightly higher frame rate I'm wishing for that would bump that to around a 100 frame burst.

What I expect: Status quo of 200 frames (hey, the cards WILL be faster).

11. Storage Media: Dual XQD or CFexpress Card Support.

WHY? Because we are about to get a firmware upgrade on the D5 allowing CFexpress compatibility I am assuming it will be a no-brainer that Nikon can give us two slots with compatibility for BOTH XQD cards and CFexpress. Personally, if they choose to make XQD cards obsolete by not supporting them I would be REALLY ticked (hey, SD cards ARE cheap and almost disposable, but my collection of XQD cards represents an INVESTMENT!).

What I expect: Dual XQD or CFexpress Card Support.

12. Grouping of Camera Settings: User Settings, Please!

For some reason Nikon has decided that their PRO cameras should have two means of grouping settings together (Shooting Banks and Custom Banks) that collectively don't allow you to store as many settings as the User Settings convention found on their "semi-pro"(and Z-Series) cameras. Canon, in contrast, puts Custom Settings (which are functionally equivalent to User Settings) on BOTH their pro and semi-pro cameras. I would love to see User Settings on a D6. If that was implemented I could completely live without Shooting Banks and Custom Banks, but if Nikon thinks enough users like those then just keep them and ADD User Settings!

WHY? Because User Settings allow you to store MORE of a camera's settings into a single group, including AF settings (which CANNOT be stored in Shooting Banks or Custom Settings). Canon has this one right!

What I expect: Status quo - no User Settings!

13. Viewfinder Displays: A RADICAL new Grid with Rule of Thirds Lines!

WHY? The current grid display has a bunch of lines in it (and if you look at every 2nd line it is already "kinda" rule of thirds). Just clean it up, make the lines continuous across the viewfinder, and put them in a rule of thirds configuration. Just makes sense.

What I expect: Status quo.

14. Viewfinder Displays: A Virtual Horizon that DOESN'T Hijack My AF Points.

WHY? The Nikon D850 and D500 has a virtual horizon mode that adds an additional display on the bottom of the viewfinder and it works pretty well. I have absolutely NO idea why Nikon chose to do it differently with the D5 and instead of using an additional display the virtual horizon feature hijacks the AF points and functionally kills your AF. Dumb.

What I expect: Status quo.

15. Viewfinder Displays: Depth of Field Display.

WHY? The camera has all the data it needs to calculate the Depth of Field (DoF) dynamically - why not do so and have it as an optional display visible through the viewfinder? It could even be TOTAL DoF (and leave it to the user to estimate how much of it is front of vs. behind the subject).

What I expect: Nope, not this.

16. Fn3 Button: Some USEFUL Options!

WHY? Currently the Fn3 buttons can be used for only three things: Voice Memo, Rating, and Connect to Network. I'm OK with leaving these options in place, but please give us some OTHER options for that button! For many (most?) users this button is pretty much wasted.

What I expect: A reduction to TWO options instead of three! Kidding. No guess on this one...

17. ALL Buttons Programmable to Switch AF Area Mode: Fix 'em!

And the fix is simple - make 'em "push to toggle" buttons, not "push and hold" buttons.

WHY? Currently there are a number of buttons on the D5 that will allow you to switch from your default focusing area mode to a second mode (e.g., from Single Point to Group Area), but at present you have to push those buttons down AND hold them (thus tying up the finger or thumb you are using). Why not make those "push to toggle" buttons where all you have to do to go to the "alternate" focusing mode is push them once and let go? To return to the original (default) focusing area mode you simply push the same button again. Literally every photographer I have talked to about this has said "Yes...it IS kind of a pain to have to hold those buttons in...

What I expect: Status quo (one more sigh...).

18. Design Changes: Add Phone, Email and Texting Capabilities.

WHY? Why? Apple and other smartphone makers added a camera to a phone and kicked the crap out of the camera industry. Time for payback by producing a smartcamera. I'm sure within a year Apple and Samsung would be on their knees pleading for mercy. And, best of all, just imagine how cool it would be when you go out for coffee or dinner and others put their wimpy smartphones on the table to watch for notifications YOU plunk down your 2.57 lb (or heavier) D6 smartphone. What a dominance statement that would be. Heck, you could even plunk it down on TOP of their smartphones and crush them!

What I expect: Nikon will read this, not realize I'm kidding, decide it's a great idea, delay production of the D6 to add the media features, and EVERYONE waiting for an upgrade to their D5 will want to kill me...

That's it - that's all I want to see in a D6. If YOU have some additional ideas, don't hesitate to hit the "feedback" email link below and let me know what else you'd like to see on a D6. If I get enough ideas I'll post a summary of them here!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#D6_Wishlist

29 Oct 2019: Into the Great Bear Exploratory Photo Adventure - Mission Accomplished!

Each year we run one or more photo tours that we label as "Exploratory Photo Adventures". The goal of these trips is to explore areas on BC's coast that are rarely visited and - much more importantly - are rarely visited by photographers. The upside to this is we can find scenes (and, of course, scenes containing highly sought after wildlife species) that are unique and in virtually no other wildlife photographer's image collections. So, for example, an exploratory photo adventure in the Great Bear Rainforest could yield photos of rare white-coated Spirit Bears in breathtaking settings far different from those on the one island where the majority of Spirit Bear photos are captured. But, as with most things, with every upside there's a downside - right? The downside to our Exploratory Photo Adventures is that we head into a vast wilderness without a "network" of spotters and, consequently, have to really LOOK for our subject matter...which in my mind is what "exploring" means! For me (and I think a lot of adventurous souls) the thrill and personalized experience of photographing a truly wild Spirit Bear (or a wolf, or a wolverine, or...) in a location where it's possible no one else has ever seen that animal completely trumps the possibility you could come away skunked!

So...with our 2019 "Into the Great Bear Rainforest" Exploratory Photo Adventure we decided on a route that we felt had good potential to deliver the current "hottest" of wildlife subjects of the Great Bear (Spirit Bears and coastal Gray Wolves) in new settings. In choosing this route we knew our chances of encountering grizzlies were somewhat reduced, but we also knew that the route was likely to be productive for many species of marine mammals, including not only Humpback Whales, Fin Whales, and Steller Sea Lions but also Sea Otters. The photo adventure ran from September 11-20, 2019 and I was accompanied by six of the most open-to-opportunity, enjoyable and fun-loving wildlife photographers you could ever to be on a trip with! Of course, we also were accompanied by our trusty and always first-rate crew and guides (see the PS below for more details about them!).

So...how did the adventure turn out? Just frigging incredible! But first - before getting into the trip details - those who are keen on seeing a sampling of images from this photo tour should visit the first "corridor" in my Gallery of Latest Additions. If you're new to my image galleries it's important to note that each image (in each of my galleries) is accompanied by a slew of contextual information - just click on the tabs below the main viewer window (the tabs are labelled "In the Field", "Behind the Camera", etc.). Enjoy...

OK...how did things go? Ridiculously well! In all fairness, we DID start the trip with a few VERY rainy days...in fact we received so much rain in the first few days that all the salmon streams were "blown right out" by high water. In fact, a creek we had visited only a few weeks before on our "Summer in the Southern Great Bear" trip (the current trip overlapped a portion of the territory we did well with on the summer trip) had risen by 10 vertical feet! But even in those "oh so tough" conditions we DID see and photograph some great scenes and wildlife, like...

• A great "eaglescape"? Yep...check out this large (4800 pixel) Z7 shot entitled Eagle in Rainforest (JPEG: 6.95 MB)

And, once the rain subsided we MORE than accomplished our goals. A Spirit Bear in a stunning new location? Check...and check out these Nikon Z7 shots:

Spirit of the Great Bear Rainforest (JPEG: 1.6 MB)
Spirit Bear - Scaling the Waterfalls (JPEG: 1.4 MB)
Recon of the Rapids (JPEG: 2.0 MB)

How 'bout coastal Gray Wolves? Yep...we encountered a minimum of 4, with others howling (and howling) deep from within the forest. Here's a "wolfscape" and a closer shot of a black wolf just after it swam across an inlet about a kilometer across:

Ocean, shoreline, rainforest, WOLF (JPEG: 2.5 MB)
Intertidal Inhabitant - Coastal Gray Wolf (JPEG: 2.6 MB)

What about black bears? Here's a few "fun" shots...including one that shows (pretty dramatically) the dangers a young bear faces when fishing in a stream with bigger and more aggressive bears around...

SLOWWW Fishing (JPEG: 1.8 MB)
Chilled Out... (JPEG: 1.5 MB)
Ouch! (JPEG: 2.0 MB)

Humpbacks? Yep, it was a CRAZY good trip for Humpback Whales - we saw and photographed everything from breaching whales through to a group of 10 whales bubble netting together, and even sat in a quiet, glassy-watered bay with about 40 whales blowing and "hanging" with us...just an unforgettable experience...

BREACH!! (JPEG: 1.8 MB)
Group Gulp! (JPEG: 2.2 MB)
Diving Deep! (JPEG: 1.9 MB)

Other marine mammals? Check out these Steller Sea Lion and Harbour Seal shots...

Sea Lion Haulout - The Usual Casual Chaos (JPEG: 2.2 MB)
Harbour Seals - Edge to Edge! (JPEG: 1.0 MB)
Sneaking a Quick Peek (JPEG: 0.8 MB)

I guess the best indication of how well the 2019 Great Bear Exploratory Photo Adventure went is that shortly after I returned home we added another spring South Great Bear trip (venturing into the same areas as our 2019 Summer Great Bear photo tour and our 2019 Exploratory Photo Adventure) to our 2020 schedule. Simply put, these trips are wilderness wildlife photography - complete with "virgin" subject matter - at its very best! So that means we have TWO "Spring in the Southern Great Bear" trips in May of 2020 - and (at least at this point) we still have room on both of them (info on the instructional trip here, and info on the photo op trip here).

Last but not least - I'll be adding more images from BOTH of my last two Great Bear Rainforest trip to my Gallery of Latest Additions in the near future! So stay tuned to that gallery...

Cheers...

Brad

PS: Thanks are extended to Jenn and Chris of Ocean Light II Adventures for their efforts in staging their "normal" excellent adventure - super well done and VERY appreciated!

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

26 October 2019: Musings on my Evolving Nikon Wildlife Kit - Part 1

This is the first part of a short series of commentaries on my thoughts and feelings about the relatively rapid evolution of my Nikon-based wildlife photography kit over the last year or so. This series isn't intended as a product review or a summary of "test-results", even though my fairly extensive testing of each of the products did shape my view of them. Rather, it's a more subjective discharge of my overall impression of a product after using it in the field for a relatively extended period of time. As such it involves a whole lot more than simple "performance" (whether that's optical quality of a lens or ISO performance of a sensor, etc.) - other factors like "portability", ease-of-use, complementarity with "other" bits of gear in my kit, and more all play a role in how often I grab a particular item for use in the field.

In both my day-to-day wildlife shooting around my home in the woods of SE British Columbia and when I am away leading photo tours (that often have weight restrictions in traveling to them) I find myself "gravitating" to a small subset of the lenses and cameras I own. So this series is an attempt to describe WHY I gravitate to some of Nikon's more recent product additions, along with how those additions have impacted on other parts of my camera kit. So don't expect boring, clinical test results in this series! The three products this series will cover are one camera and two lenses: the Nikon Z7, the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E, and the Nikkor 500mm f5.6E PF.

Another important bit of "context" for this series is that I received a thought-provoking email from a regular follower of this website (who I refer to simply as Richard) way back in January of 2019. I have thought about his comments on and off ever since. The author of the email is, like me, a long-time Nikon user, including from the pre-digital (i.e., the film era). The gist of his email was quite simple and he was functionally asking "Is it really worth regularly updating our gear or would the money involved in that upgrading be better spent financing (in one form or another) field outings?"

Here's a few other excerpts from that email from Richard (reproduced here with permission) that are relevant and "set the stage" for this series quite well...

• When reviewing the images within the galleries of this website Richard noted it was..."Something I always enjoy and always leaves me thinking "Dam, what beautiful images". But I've also noticed before that many of them are now quite old images now going back 10 years or so. A long time in digital photography years. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, they aren't lesser compositions for being old but what is remarkable is that the underlying image quality (ok small on screen) look every bit as good as the recent ones taken with the latest greatest kit."

• And...when comparing the massive jump in image quality between the film and digital era with the bump up in image quality between successive digital Richard notes "Well, I got back into wildlife photography in about 2008/9 partly because it had dawned on me that this 'new' digital gear might just let me do stuff that I couldn't achieve with film. It did and does and, as a result, it also gives me an even better excuse for sitting quietly on riverbanks for a day! But looking at the contrast, it occurs that all these fantastic new lenses and bodies are just small incremental gains made at considerable cost when measured against those dramatic steps that probably concluded about 10 years ago with the D3 era of digital."

• And finally..."In all frankness, I've always known that spending 100% more time in the field waiting for the action is going to get me more interesting images than spending 300% more on my gear. But I remain relatively time poor so compensate for that. I really don't need that 500 PF ;-)"

So the two questions in my mind - and that will permeate through this series - are this: Are some of Nikon's most unique and newest bits of gear true "breakthrough" products for THIS wildlife photographer? Or should I have just saved my money and invested more of my time (which usually translates into money) in being out in the field at home and abroad?

Of course these are questions with answers that will vary between photographers...but I suspect many may be interested in my answers.

Up next in this series...Musings Part 2 - The Nikon Z7. Stay tuned.

Oh...and there won't be long breaks or gaps between the entries in this series (photo tour season is over for 2019). ;-)

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#Musing1

18 October 2019: New Images Added to Gallery of Latest Additions...

I just added six new images from our September "Into the Great Bear Rainforest" Exploratory Photo Adventure to my Gallery of Latest Additions. Check 'em out!

Expect a detailed "postscript" blog entry about this trip (along with a whole bunch of additional images) real soon!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca


Spring in the Southern Great Bear 2020

09 Oct 2019: Shhhh...Don't Mention this NEW 2020 Photo Tour to ANYONE!

Wonder what I've been up to over the past few weeks? Just putting together a brand new photo tour for 2020, that's all! To attempt to meet the demand for photo tours into British Columbia's amazing Great Bear Rainforest we JUST added ONE MORE Great Bear Rainforest photo tour to our 2020 schedule. And we're adding a brand new twist to this one - we're tweaking our intended route to overlap that of our highly successful 2019 "Summer in the Southern Great Bear" photo tour where we had excellent luck with both bears and wolves! Of course, because this trip is a "true wilderness" photo tour we can't guarantee Coastal Gray Wolves on this trip, but we'll be doing all we can to maximize our chances of finding and photographing them!

Here are a few critical details about the exciting new trip:

• PHOTO TOUR LEADER: Brad Hill.
• PHOTO TOUR TYPE: Photo Op photo tour (no formal instruction)
• DURATION: 9 DAYS (including arrival and departure days) with 7 full days in the Great Bear aboard the Passing Cloud.
• DATES: May 29-June 6, 2020, including arrival and departure days. May 30-June 6, 2020 aboard the Passing Cloud sailboat.
• COST: $6699 CAD plus 5% GST. Currency converter available here.

Want a whole lot more detail? Just GO HERE (on our photo tours main page): Spring in the Southern Great Bear Photo Op Photo Tour 2020

For even more info (or to book your spot on this amazing new trip), just email me at seminars@naturalart.ca

As always, spots on this trip will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. So...if photographing the wildlife of the Great Bear Rainforest is on your bucket list...here's your chance!

Cheers...

Brad

26 Sept 2019: Summer Great Bear Postscript - Into Uncharted Waters!

Our inaugural "Summer in the Southern Great Bear" photo tour ran from August 24 - September 3. This was our first ever August photo tour into the Great Bear Rainforest and in planning it we decided to do two very unique things: stay in the southern portions of the Great Bear Rainforest and explore new regions that we haven't visited before on a photo tour. Why? For two simple reasons. First, even though the Great Bear Rainforest is home to a diverse array of terrestrial and marine wildlife, a "feature creature" high on the "hit list" of many visitors to the Great Bear is the rare, white-coated Black Bear known as the Spirit Bear. BUT...even though Spirit Bears are found over a reasonably wide area, most viewing (and photography) efforts are focused in one place. And that means the same few Spirit Bears have been photographed in the same area and same scenes literally hundreds of times. So...we decided to do something different - break away from the pack and find (and photograph) Spirit Bears in NEW locations.

Second, there's another very charismatic furry citizen of the Great Bear that has become as desirable as a photographic subject as the Spirit Bear - and that would be the coastal Gray Wolf. There ARE a lot of coastal Gray Wolves in the Great Bear, but the problem is that they are VERY rarely seen, let alone photographed. Why? Decades (and decades, and decades) of aggressive persecution by humans has left them very, very wary. And they happen to live in an amazingly dense rainforest! So...how could we up our chances at encountering and photographing these phantoms of the forest? Well...kinda the same way we hoped to find a Spirit Bear or two - by hitting some remote, tough-to-access, and rarely-visited parts of the Great Bear (which also happened to be areas where we had heard quiet whispers of "decent" wolf densities).

How did we make out? Oops...getting a bit ahead of myself. Ok...for those keen on seeing a sampling of images from this photo tour just visit the first "corridor" in my Gallery of Latest Additions. If you're new to my image galleries it's important to note that each image (in each of my galleries) is accompanied by a slew of contextual information - just click on the tabs below the main viewer window (the tabs are labelled "In the Field", "Behind the Camera", etc.). Enjoy...

OK...how did we make out? Incredibly well! On our first 5 Zodiac excursions we encountered coastal Gray Wolves, and this alone is literally off the charts! Our sightings included a pack of 5 wolves (with two pups) AND a pack of 11 (with 4 pups). Here's a very small sampling of what we saw...

• How 'bout a black wolf in fading evening light? Yep...check out this Phantom of the Forest (JPEG: 1.2 MB)

• Another black wolf working the shoreline? Yep...here's the Black Ghost of the Rainforest (JPEG: 2.1 MB)

• Any wolf pup shots? Yep...this "classically" colored pup decided it just HAD to come down to the water's edge to check us out (he or she eventually laid down to more comfortably watch us): Can I Trust You? (JPEG: 2.1 MB)

• And 4 wolves running out of an estuary (with tails wagging) to greet us (under amazing back-lit conditions). Of course...check out The Greeting (JPEG: 1.2 MB).

Additional wolf images from this trip can be seen in my Gallery of Latest Additions.

OK...but did we find a Spirit Bear in a "new" location? Yep! And, it was a cub with Ma in tow (or, more accurately, leading the way). Check out MOM! What's that thing on the Water? (JPEG: 1.4 MB) and my Gallery of Latest Additions.

And...that's not all! We had a wonderful experience with (and got some great shots of) Black Bears fishing for coho salmon - see both Prey Meets Predator (JPEG: 1.5 MB) and shots in my Gallery of Latest Additions. Grizzlies? Yep...just check out that Gallery of Latest Additions (OK, OK...I'm done...I WON'T mention that gallery again!).

Overall our Summer in the Southern Great Bear photo tour was just an awesome "Great Bear Sampler" and DEFINITELY the strongest wolf trip we've ever run. Simply put, it was wilderness wildlife photography - complete with "virgin" subject matter - at its very best! In fact, this trip went so well that we've decided to modify the route of our 2020 "Spring in the Southern Great Bear" trip to include a large part of the route we visited on this trip. And, best of all, we still have 3 spots available on that trip (info on it HERE...)

Last but not least - why the heck did I include the phrase "Into Uncharted Waters" in the title of this blog entry (I thought you'd never ask!)? Just to give you an idea of just how remote the areas we visited on this trip were (and those familiar with marine navigation charts or electronic chart apps like Navionics will understand the significance of this)...we DID hit areas on this trip where the charts clearly stated "Caution Unsurveyed Area" (you got it - uncharted waters!).

Cheers...

Brad

PS: Thanks are extended to the crew of The Passing Cloud (Russ, Erin, and Dan) for their efforts in staging such a great trip - exceptionally well done and VERY appreciated!

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

22 August 2019: Off to the Great Bear Rainforest - TWICE!

I leave at the crack of dawn tomorrow to lead our "Summer in the Southern Great Bear" Instructional Photo Tour that runs from August 24 through September 3rd (info on this tour HERE). When I return I'll be back home and in my office for one short week - I leave again on September 11 to lead our "Into the Great Bear Rainforest" Exploratory Photo Adventure (info on this tour HERE). I'll be returning from that trip late on September 20 and THEN I'll be able to catch my breath! And...get back to doing things visitors to this blog seem to like - reporting on gear tests, posting new images, and more!

In 2019 we made a major expansion to our photo tour program, pretty much doubling the number of tours we offer. As an example, we went from offering two photo tours into the Great Bear Rainforest in 2018 to five photo tours there in 2019. Despite this, our photo tours continue to sell out very quickly. In 2020 we are offering FOUR Great Bear Rainforest photo tours and, of these, three are already full sold out (and with waiting lists). We do still have room (3 spots) on our mid-May 2020 "Spring in the Southern Great Bear" Instructional photo tour (and you can check out the details about that trip here - Spring in the Southern Great Bear 2020).

In terms of coming gear tests...expect to read more about the Nikkor 500mm PF in September and October. And...depending on how quickly Nikon can get me a 85mm f1.8S (z-mount), expect to see a very detailed comparative review of this lens (pitted against 3 other "top notch" 85mm lenses plus a comparison to the 70-200mm f2.8E shot at 85mm) this autumn.

All for now...here's wishing you great light and great subject matter until I get back!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

20 August 2019: Marine Mammals Photo Tour Postscript?

Our 2019 Marine Mammals Instructional photo tour (more formally known as our "Humpbacks, Orcas, Sea Lions and More: Marine Mammals of the Central Pacific Coast") has now come and gone. How successful was it? Well...each guest who was on the trip has either signed up to repeat the trip or do another of our photo tours! I think that statement speaks for itself!

Like with this year's Khutzeymateen trips I temporarily handed the leader's reins over to my co-conspirator in photo tour crime (Terri Shaddick) for the 2019 version of the trip. And, like with the Khutzeymateen trips it was almost painful to do so as over the years the Marine Mammals trip has become one of my absolute favourite photo tours. Why? Mostly because it always seems to yield great images but also partly because each year it's very different and each year a different species seems to steal the show!

So who stole the show this year? Well...at least according to Terri it was definitely the sea otters - they captured images of them feeding (on crabs, clams, urchins and more), preening, with young pups, resting wrapped in kelp, and more! You can check out Terri's Marine Mammals postscript blog entry entitled "Marine Mammals: Bringing the Action and Unexpected" on her website.

And...before you ask...YES, we have room left on our 2020 edition of our Marine Mammals photo tour. But we have ONLY 1 spot left! You can get all the gory details about the 2020 Marine Mammals photo tour right here: 2020 Marine Mammals Photo Tour.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

04 August 2019: The Gwaii Haanas Explorer 2019 - A Postscript

Our Gwaii Haanas Explorer Instructional Photo Tour ran from July 5-13 and now that I've been back for a few weeks and had time to reflect on the trip I figured it was about time for a brief tour postscript. I have begun posting a sampling of images from the trip in my Gallery of Latest Additions and I will be adding more images in the coming days and weeks. Check 'em out when you have a second.

For those that don't know, Gwaii Haanas is a Canadian National Park Reserve (and National Marine Conservation Area) located on the southern half of the Haida Gwaii archipelago which, in turn, is located about 80 km off the west coast of British Columbia. Haida Gwaii is often referred to as the "Galapagos of the North" and - like the Galapagos - has many unique species and subspecies of mammals, birds, fish, and plants. Around 13,000 years ago Haida Gwaii was connected to the mainland by a land bridge and many species of animals made it across then. Later, once sea levels rose higher, the island chain became re-isolated and for MANY of the species on Haida Gwaii there has been no gene flow with mainland populations. Thus the key conditions for speciation (the formation of new species) are in place.

What's the appeal of Gwaii Haanas to nature and wildlife photographers? Good question! Well...it's simple - abundant marine and terrestrial mammals, huge diversity and abundance of birds (currently there are 248 species on the Haida Gwaii Bird Checklist), towering old growth forests, and jaw-dropping land- and seascapes! Oh...and best of all...almost no other people (or "other" photographers) competing for the same subject matter!

How did we get around Gwaii Haanas - and where did we stay? Like many of our photo tours, the Gwaii Haanas Explorer is a sailboat-based tour, and our group of 7 stayed aboard a 71-foot ocean ketch and we did a LOT (but not all) of our photography from a 19' Zodiac inflatable boat.

Highlights of the trip? Ahhh...I thought you'd never ask! Well...this year it WASN'T whales - we had only a few encounters with Humpbacks and our route didn't intersect with any Killer Whales (as it often does on this trip). BUT...we had some GREAT encounters and photo ops with Steller Sea Lions. And...we spent some quality time with a group of foraging Risso's Dolphins (their behavioural similarity to foraging resident Killer Whales was absolutely remarkable). Of course, we had lots of photo ops with Harbour Seals and even a nice (but short) encounter with a Northern River Otter. Birds? Bald Eagles GALORE! And, just a cornucopia of seabirds (and sea ducks), including Pigeon Guillemots, Marbled Murrelets, Tufted Puffins, Rhinoceros Auklets, Pelagic Cormorants, TONS of Glaucous-wing Gulls, and more! Other bird "highlights" included an inquisitive Peregrine Falcon (that seemed fascinated by our boat) and some incredibly cooperative and calm Sanderlings. On land? Black Bears and a whole lot of Sitka Black-tailed Deer. And the list goes on!

The weather? Well...when you run coastal BC photo tours you kinda get used to rain and wind! BUT...this trip couldn't have been BETTER for photography - amazingly calm seas, mostly muted and "even" lighting, and very moderate temperatures! How often does THAT happen! ;-)

The final word? I think it would be safe to say a good time was had by all! ;-)

And the FINAL QUESTION: Are we offering this trip again in 2020? Well...in 2020 we have a special treat for the adventurous wildlife photographer - we're venturing out to the WESTERN coast of Haida Gwaii (not quite "Where no man has gone before", but definitely "Where few photographers have gone before"!). Details about that trip (which we've dubbed "Haida Gwaii West...AND WILD!") can be found RIGHT HERE. And (best of all!)...we still have 3 spots up for grabs!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

31 July 2019: Status Update: ONE Opening - August in the Great Bear Rainforest Photo Tour

We recently added ONE MORE Great Bear Rainforest photo tour to our 2019 calendar. This new trip begins in late August and ends in early September. Five of six available spots have been spoken for - so only ONE spot is still up for grabs.

SO...if you're into spontaneity AND if getting in on an outstanding Great Bear Rainforest photo tour is on YOUR bucket list, this is your big chance! For more info just go here OR download this PDF brochure!. It's first-come, first-served on this one...so if you're interested...best to get ahold of me pronto!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

03 July 2019: Goings On...

Just a quick update of what's up here and some coming web updates...

• Off to Gwaii Haanas! I leave before the crack of dawn on Friday July 5th to travel to and then lead our "The Gwaii Haanas Explorer" Instructional Photo Tour. This trip travels to the remote Haida Gwaii Islands off the western coast of British Columbia (this island archipelago was formerly known as the Queen Charlotte Islands). This island chain is often referred to as "The Galapagos of the North" in that it's remoteness has lead to the development of many unique (and endemic) subspecies of mammals and birds. This photo tour features "subject richness" in two realms - natural history AND cultural history. While our focus will be on the natural history (great birdlife, amazing intertidal zones, many species of marine mammals, and terrestrial mammals) we will visit some historic Haida Gwaii village sites. Cool trip. More details about it right here. I'll be back in my office on Monday, July 15 (and hopefully THEN I can begin getting caught up on updating this blog and website!!).

• New Gear Performance Update: Shortly after I return I'll be posting an update on how some key bits of gear performed on THIS trip as well as on my two previous 2019 photo tours (the April "Pacific Rim Explorer" photo tour and the May "Spring in the Southern Great Bear" photo tour). This entry will focus on 3 main pieces of gear that literally transformed my wildlife "kit" in the last 18 months or so - the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E, the Nikkor 500mm f5.6E PF, and - of course - the Nikon Z7 mirrorless body. This update will also include some thoughts and impressions of how my two Z-mount lenses (the 24-70mm f4s and the 14-30mm f4s) have been performing.

• Status Update: Our recently added "August in the Great Bear Rainforest" Photo Tour: Not long ago we added ONE MORE Great Bear Rainforest photo tour to our 2019 calendar - this one beginning in late August and ending in early September. At this point four of six available spots have been claimed - so two spots are still up for grabs. If getting into The Great Bear Rainforest is on YOUR bucket list, here's your chance! For more info (all the gory details!) - just go here OR download this PDF brochure!. Enquiries received while I am away in Gwaii Haanas will be dealt with on a first received, first served basis.

Until I return - here's wishing you good light and good subjects!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

17 June 2019: Grizzlies of the Khutzeymateen Postscript?

Earlier this spring I lead both our Pacific Rim Explorer and our Spring in the Southern Great Bear instructional photo tours (the postscript blog entry for the Pacific Rim photo tour can be found here, and the postscript for the Spring in the Southern Great Bear is right below this entry). So...with adding the two new early spring trips into my own schedule I decided to turn over leading our this year's Grizzlies of the Khutzeymateen photo tours to my co-conspirator in photo tour crime - Terri Shaddick. This is the first spring in over a decade that I haven't spent a good chunk of time with the grizzlies in the Khutzeymateen, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss it! And, of course, given I wasn't there, I don't have a Khutzeymateen Postcript for you.

So...how did the late May and early June Khutzeymateen photo tours go? Well according to Terri - very well. And, also according to Terri, it was a "very calm" year in the there. Yep, there were plenty of bears (as always), including 3 females with cubs. But all the bears were quite calm (which, from a photography perspective, is a whole lot better than having nervous bears that run at the drop of a hat...or click of a shutter)! One major highlight was the reappearance of the dominant male that had "ruled" the Khutzeymateen from about 2000 (the turn of the century!) to 2015 - a large male known by many as "Brutus". We last saw Brutus in the spring of 2015, and at that point he was pushing 30 years of age. Because we hadn't seen him in 2016 through 2018 we had guessed he had died. But apparently we were very wrong. He's back!

To read more about how the 2019 Khutzeymateen photo tours went (including a shot of Brutus), check out Terri's Khutzeymateen postscript blog entry entitled "Back from the Khutzeymateen" on her website.

If YOU'RE thinking you might want to spending some quality time in late May or early June of 2020 with the Grizzlies of the Khutzeymateen you can check out all the details about the 2020 trips right here. The 2020 trips are currently full sold out, but at this point there is no one on the waiting lists for either trip and cancellations DO occur. Just contact me (seminars@naturalart.ca) if you would like to be placed on the waiting list for these great grizzly trips. And, if you're interested in the 2021 version of either of Khutzeymateen trips you can place yourself on the Priority Booking List for those trips. Details about joining the 2021 Priority Booking List can be found right here...

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

13 June 2019: Spring in the Summer Great Bear - A Postscript

Our second annual "Spring the Summer Great Bear" Instructional Photo Tour ran from May 3-14 and, as is my habit, I'd thought I'd post a shortish postscript of how the trip went. In short - it was GREAT! I accompanied 6 intrepid wildlife photographers from North America, Europe and India (one Canadian, two Americans, two Italians, and one incredibly keen young shooter from India) into the region between and surrounding Bella Coola and Bella Bella, BC. This region is characterized by long coastal inlets, islands of all sizes, and thick Great Bear Rainforest (some travelogue shots showing the terrain follow). This region is true wilderness, where the wildlife outnumber the humans by a wide margin! The biggest downside to the trip was the weather - and the problem wasn't the rain, but rather the lack of it! We had too many days of bluebird blue skies, and not the usual foggy mornings that add so much atmosphere and mood to the scenes and photos.

Highlights of the trip? Here's some of the things that really stood out for me (in a completely NON-ranked order)...

• A Massive Wilderness...ALL to Ourselves! One of the things that draws many photographers to the Great Bear Rainforest is just how wild it is - it was declared in 2011 as "The Wildest Place in North America" by National Geographic Magazine! I've personally been to the Great Bear dozens of times, but during this trip I saw fewer humans (and signs of human visitation or habitation) than on any other Great Bear trip I've ever been on. Like 3 or 4 boats in the distance over the 7 full days we were in the Great Bear. We had EVERY SHOOTING LOCATION on EVERY DAY completely to ourselves. So sweet...

• Great Wildlife Diversity! For years I have been saying that there is SO much more to the Great Bear Rainforest than just bears! And this trip proved that in spades. We had close to the entire gamut...Grizzly Bears, Black Bears, Killer Whales, Humpback Whales, Sea Otters, River Otters, Mink, American Beaver, Steller and California Sea Lions, Harbour Seals, Dall's Porpoises, Pacific White-sided Dolphins and Black-tailed Deer. Birds? Well...IF I was a birder, I would have really enjoyed this trip! Over 50 species of all sizes and shapes...from Bald Eagles (virtually everywhere) down to Rufous Hummingbirds (seabirds to songbirds, this trip was great for birds). My own bird "highlight" was seeing a small group of Red-throated Pipits up one of the rivers we explored (my first sighting of this species...ever).

Was there a "show-stealing" species on this trip? Absolutely - and probably one you would have never guessed: Pacific White-sided Dolphins! Over the trip we saw over (probably FAR over) 3000 Pacific White-sides, and they were in pretty much the furtherest place from the open ocean that you could find on this trip. We ended up having 5 incredibly memorable (i.e., won't ever forget!) encounters with the White-sides and I have to say that at least in my mind this trip will be remembered as "The Year of the Dolphin".

• Great scenery! While I just love moody, "atmospheric" scenes, on this trip we're in a region where long channels, inlets, and fjords meet tall, snow covered mountains (yes, the type of scenes that make for good postcard-style shots!) and I have to say the sunny skies with some interesting clouds did provide for some breathtaking scenery.

• Wilderness...in Comfort and Style! Exceptional comfort, unbelievable food and first-class experience offered up by our hosts on The Passing Cloud sailboat!

Photos from the trip? I've already begun posting wildlife shots taken during the trip in my Gallery of Latest Additions - check 'em out when you have a second.

What about photos of the region? Well...here you go..."travelogue" style shots captured with my trusty Z7 (with the exception of the sea otter image which I shot with my D5). And all processed from raw using Capture One Pro 12:

1. The General Terrain? Think long inlets with thick forest meeting massive snow-covered peaks...like:

• Early Spring in Labouchere Channel: Download 2400-pixel image (1.1 MB)
• The Southern Great Bear - Where Ocean Meets Snow-capped Mountains: Download 2400-pixel image (1.63 MB)

2. The Obligatory Sunrise and Early Morning Shots:

• Alpenglow Sunrise - Southern Great Bear Rainforest: Download 2400-pixel image (0.7 MB)
• Swimming @ Sunrise - Sea Otter: Download 2400-pixel image (0.8 MB)
• May Morning in the Kimsquit: Download 2400-pixel image (1.0 MB)

3. And the Equally Obligatory Sunset Shots:

• Golden Sunset on the Kwatna River: Download 2400-pixel image (1.56 MB)
• Kwatna River @ Dusk: Download 2400-pixel image (1.21 MB)

4. The "Sailboat-at-Anchor" Scenes? Yep...got 'em:

• The Passing Cloud - Jenny Inlet Anchorage: Download 2400-pixel image (1.49 MB)
• The Passing Cloud in the Kimsquit: Download 2400-pixel image (1.34 MB)

5. Some Coastal Estuary and River Shots? Sure...

• Early Morning in the Kimsquit Estuary: Download 2400-pixel image (1.64 MB)
• Venturing Into the Belly of the Great Bear: Download 2400-pixel image (3.71 MB)

The bad part about this trip? I have to wait almost a full year to do it again! Oh...and on that note...at this point there are 3 spots available on this great trip next year (all trip details here on the Photo Tours page of this website). I've got a hunch those spots won't be available for long!

Cheers...

Brad

PS: Thanks are extended to the crew of The Passing Cloud (Russ, Courtney, and Mikasa) for their efforts in staging this excellent trip - VERY well done and VERY appreciated!

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

1 May 2019: Off to the Great Bear Rainforest!

I leave at the crack of dawn tomorrow to get myself up to the Great Bear Rainforest and to lead our 2nd annual "Spring in the Southern Great Bear" Instructional Photo Tour - YIPPEE! This particular photo tour leaves from Bella Coola, BC and during it we'll be visiting the "saltier" outer coast regions of the Great Bear as well as the calmer sinuous inlets and channels of the more "inner" portions of the Great Bear. Hitting both the inside and the outside portions of the Great Bear exposes us to a greater diversity of habitats and thus a greater diversity of wildlife species.

To see a complete listing of all our Great Bear Rainforest photo tours offered in 2019 and 2020 check out the Photo Tours page of this website. Don't be surprised if you see a brand new Great Bear Rainforest photo tour for August of 2019 (that I quietly added to our 2019 schedule just yesterday!). And...best of all...there's even several spots still available on this new August Great Bear Rainforest photo tour!

I'll be back from the spring Great Bear trip on May 15. And...I'll be back for almost two months before I head off again. And over that period I will be dedicating a huge portion of my time to updating a BUNCH of things on this website, including adding more running reports on some "in-progress" lens reviews to this blog, relating how a lot of new gear performed on my two spring photo tours (and yes the Z-mount Nikkor 14-30mm f4s IS in my gear bag and headed up to the Great Bear with me), adding a ton of new images, and more! Definitely worth staying tuned! ;-)

Until I return and once gain...here's wishing you good light and good subject matter! Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

25 April 2019: ONE Spot Opens up on Grizzlies of the Khutzeymateen Photo Tour!

26 April UPDATE: The spot on the Grizzlies of the Khutzeymateen 4-day Photo Op photo tour listed directly below has been scooped up (and is no longer available). Definitely one of those "ya snooze, ya looze" situations! ;-)

An unfortunate medical situation has forced one of the participants on our late May Grizzlies of the Khutzeymateen 4-day Photo Op photo tour to cancel their participation in the trip. This means that we have ONE spot available for the first taker!

This photo tour is one of our most highly sought-after trips and generally sells out AT LEAST a year ahead of time. It offers absolutely amazing photographic opportunities of grizzlies in the midst of their breeding season - and in a remote and breath-takingly beautiful "where the mountains meet the sea" location on British Columbia's northern coast.

The barest of bones details about the photo tour...

• DATES: May 28 to June 2, 2019, including arrival and departure days.
• TRIP START POINT: Prince Rupert, BC.
• TRIP COST: $4999 CAD plus 5% GST (Canadian federal tax)

For additional info...

• Go HERE on my Photo Tours page or...
Download this PDF Brochure (2.4 MB)

For more information (or if you want to nab the spot), contact me at seminars@naturalart.ca.

Cheers...

Brad

17 April 2019: Pacific Rim Explorer Postscript

Our first-ever Pacific Rim Explorer Instructional Photo Tour ended just over a week ago and I've had some time to digest the experience as well as to review and process a few images from the trip. Before I say much more about the trip I'll answer the obvious question - where the heck does this new photo tour take place? On the southwest coast of Vancouver Island in a stunning region called Barkley Sound. Here's a map showing the region, complete with the exact route our vessel (the beautiful Passing Cloud schooner) took during the trip.

Geographically the region is just stunning - it's a mix of raw, energetic outer Pacific Coast combined with the calm, sheltered islands of the Broken Group of Islands (which, in turn, are part of the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve) and long coastal inlets. And, there are several long, narrow inlets that are amazingly reminiscent of the inlets of the Great Bear Rainforest. To say that the location lends itself to capturing striking land- and seascape shots is an understatement.

Wildlife? During any given year (and photo tour) you can encounter an incredible diversity of wildlife, including marine mammals such as Gray and Humpback Whales, Killer Whales, Steller and California Sea Lions, Harbor Seals, Sea Otters, and more. Terrestrial mammals in the region? In April Black Bears are commonly seen along the beaches and estuaries, and Black-tailed Deer are common. If you're real lucky you MAY spot a coastal Gray Wolf or even a Cougar. Birds? It's a huge list, but includes Bald Eagles, Great Blue Herons, Northwestern Crows, one or more species of cormorants, Surf Scoters, Harlequin Ducks, Black Oystercatchers, Pigeon Guillemots, Marbled Murrelets, and just a whole lot more!

What wildlife did WE see (and photograph) during our photo tour? Like with any trip into nature we had some good breaks and some not-so-good breaks! There was a strong herring spawn that was coming to a close just before our trip and it "drew in" a lot of herring consumers. Those included about 20 Grey Whales that were in a feeding frenzy. We also saw (and photographed) both Steller and California Sea Lions and had one of the best Harbor Seal shooting sessions I've ever had! While we did SEE a few Sea Otters - the water state at the time weren't what you'd call "conducive" to good otter photography! And, we did see (and photograph) just a whack of different bird species - with Bald Eagles and Black Oystercatchers "stealing the show" from the other species.

What about the overall experience? It was just GREAT. Early in the trip we "fought" with some rainy and windy weather, but the sheltered nature of much of Barkley Sound helped to alleviate most of the discomfort associated with that. Of course, the warmth and great food of the Passing Cloud helped there too! Three other things really stood out for me about the trip. First, we had the entire region completely to ourselves (I think we saw one or two other boats during the entire trip!). That was SO nice! Second, because the region has so many different habitats (and islands and islets) packed closely together, we had very little travel time - and that translated into a LOT of time in the field (mostly on Zodiac excursions, but we did go ashore on a few occasions to explore the amazing coastal rainforest characterizing the region). Third, I was really stunned by the diversity of different ecosystems and habitats found in such close proximity to one another - in very little time you go from salty, exposed Pacific Coast (with the associated species that occupy that habitat, including sea lions and sea otters) through to calm, shelter islands and then "Great Bear Rainforest - like" inlets. It truly is a nature photographer's nirvana!

One of the greatest challenges I face (as a leader of photo tours) is finding new tours that match the high quality of our existing tours (such as our Grizzlies of the Khutzeymateen, Great Bear Rainforest, and Marine Mammals photo tours). So I am just thrilled that we HAVE found (and added) just a superb new photo tour to our program. For 2020 we decided to add one more day to the Pacific Rim Explorer Instructional Photo Tour - and I think that was a great decision (details about that photo tour can be found right here. I am already very excited about returning to the area in 2020 (and beyond!).

Oh right...photos from the trip? I've just added a sampling of 6 shots (with more to come) to my Gallery of Latest Additions - check them out when you have a chance!

Cheers...

Brad

PS: Thanks are extended to the crew of The Passing Cloud (Russ, Erin, and Matt) for their efforts in staging such a great trip - well done and VERY appreciated!

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

3 April 2019: Away Leading Inaugural Pacific Rim Explorer Photo Tour

I'm away from now through to April 11 leading our first-ever "Pacific Rim Explorer" photo tour. This trip visits beautiful Barkley Sound on the west coast of Vancouver Island. This is a "mixed subject" photo tour featuring an array of marine wildlife (including Humpback, Gray, and Killer Whales, as well as sea otters, seal lions, and more), a huge array of seabirds, as well as some great land- and seascape shooting. It should be a great trip to give both my Z7 and my 500 PF a good workout! You can find out more about this exciting new trip right here on my photo tours page...

We will be repeating this trip in April of 2020 and at this point there are still 4 spots available on it. More details on the 2020 version of the trip are available right here.

Until I return...may you have good light and good subject matter...and..cheers!

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

12 March 2019: 2019 Photo Tours: 2 Spots Still Available!

April 2 Update: The spot on the August Humpbacks, Orcas, Sea Lions & More Marine Mammals Photo Tour is no longer available.

Since January I've been receiving lots of bookings for 2020 photo tours and we've even had a lot of folks adding their names to the 2021 Priority Booking List (info on that list HERE on my Photo Tours page). But for those who might be interested in doing a photo tour with us THIS year, we still have TWO spots available for 2019:

• July 2019: One spot on the Gwaii Haanas Explorer - for more details DOWNLOAD THIS PDF BROCHURE (2.8 MB)

• August 2019: One spot on the Humpbacks, Orcas, Sea Lions & More Marine Mammals Photo Tour - for more details DOWNLOAD THIS PDF BROCHURE (3.8 MB)

These last two spots will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, so get 'em while they're hot! If you'd like even MORE info (or would like to register for one of these great trips), just contact me at seminars@naturalart.ca.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca


Nikon 500mm PF Field Test: Optical Quality vs. Some Direct Competitors

09 Mar 2019: Nikkor 500mm f5.6E PF Field Test II: Comparative Optical Performance

This is the second installment of several describing my experiences field-testing the Nikkor 500mm f5.6E PF. In my previous entry on this lens (04 Jan 2019) I described my First Impressions of the lens (jump to it here...).

In this entry I describe my results from systematic and comparative optical field-testing of the Nikkor 500mm f5.6E PF against three other current lenses that compete against it - the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 prime lens, the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 zoom lens (at 500mm), and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (at 500mm, so with the built-in TC engaged). Sharpness of the four lenses were compared with images captured at 3 different distances to the subject - at close distance (7 meters or 23 feet), at a "mid-distance" (27 meters or 89 feet), and at long-distance (approx. 1500 meters or ABOUT a mile). The quality of the Out-of-Focus (OoF) zones (AKA "bokeh") of the three lenses were compared at the closest two distances (8 meters and 27 meters) - at 1500 meters the question of quality of the OoF zones becomes pretty much nonsensical as the appearance of any objects in front of or behind the subject are either likely to be in focus as well or - if they are very far away from the subject - do not vary in appearance appreciably. My rationale for choosing these distances is described below in the "Field-Testing Methods" section.

While I am only comparing the 500mm PF against three other lenses in these tests, note that key previous field-tests suggest it's probably safe to extrapolate the results to at least one other lens - the Nikkor 500mm f4E. In my "500mm Wars" field test I compared the Sigma 500mm f4 prime lens against Nikon's latest 500mm lens (the Nikkor 500mm f4E) and found them to be virtually identical in optical performance. So I am pretty comfortable saying that the optical comparison of the Nikkor 500mm PF to the Sigma Sport 500mm would be virtually identical to the comparison of the Nikkor 500mm PF to the Nikkor 500mm f4E.

Please note that because of multiple requests I will be presenting a comparison of the optical quality of the 500mm PF against the Nikkor 300mm combined with the TC-14EIII (1.4x) teleconverter, but this will come in my next blog entry on this topic. I have completed that set of optical tests and can already say that the results came as no surprise to me - the 500mm PF easily beat the 300mm PF plus TC in optical quality at all test distances (yes, that's called "letting the cat out of the bag")...but I will follow-up with details and sample images for those who want to see the differences in optical quality for themselves.

I. Critical Background...And Qualifiers!!

I doubt you could find a Nikon-shooting wildlife photographer anywhere that wouldn't appreciate a 500mm lens that is under half the weight - and WAY smaller - than other high-quality 500mm "solutions" (either in the form of prime lenses or zoom lenses). The multiple advantages of the small size and low weight of the 500mm PF - from increased ease of transport (both in the field and when getting TO the field!), increased ability to hand-hold the lens (and hand-hold it for longer periods of time), and even photographer mobility when actually using the smaller and lighter lens - are simply impossible to ignore.

However, there are many wildlife photographers who are very concerned about top-notch image quality and who are willing to "pay the price" - be that price one of dollars spent or extra weight (and bulk) to carry the lens - to get top-notch quality images. These photographers are probably thinking "Sure, I want a small, light 500mm lens - but not if it means I have to sacrifice image quality".

I have the same concern, and here's the exact questions that were topmost in my mind as I began and proceeded through my 500mm PF field testing...

1. How does the 500mm PF compare in overall sharpness (both central and on the edges) to other high-end 500mm options?

2. How does the quality of the out-of-focus (or OoF) zones of the 500mm PF compare to other high-end 500mm options?

3. Given that the maximum aperture of the 500mm PF is f5.6, how sharp is it when shot wide open? (Note that my thinking here is that if it is "only" a f5.6 lens, it BETTER be sharp when shot wide open!).

4. Given that the maximum aperture of the 500mm PF is f5.6, does it really lose a lot of "subject isolating" ability compared to other and/or "faster" f4 500mm options?

AND...ON MY LENS TESTING PHILOSOPHY:

Those who have followed my past field tests know I don't place much faith in how closely MTF curves predict actual lens performance in the field - in my view those MTF curves are produced under conditions just too far away from what we do in the field and, consequently, they pretty much "fall apart" in their worth in the field. For example, if a lens has an autofocus system that is so bad (or non-existent like in many Zeiss lenses) that you never manage to get a sharp shot in the field...well...those wonderful Zeiss MTF curves don't mean much! Similarly, if you are regularly hand-holding a "big" lens then the quality of the image stabilization system may have more to do with how sharp your image is than does the MTF curve.

My optical field testing could be criticized for similar reasons. I conduct them using methods (see Field-Testing Methods immediately below) that we rarely use in the field. I do this to minimize "confounding" variables and I come up with what I think of as "Maximum Attainable Field Sharpness" (or MAFS) for a specific lens. How close one can get to this MAFS will vary between users AND with how other lens characteristics (that vary between lenses, such as AF performance, VR performance, weight, balance, etc.) permit. And that's the whole reason I combine my optical field tests with VR testing, AF testing, and a whole lot of "just shooting". One negative to this is that my field-testing DOES take quite a while for me to complete (and sometimes a lot longer to write up!) - it is simply not possible for me to answer all the questions I have about a lens from looking at the lens specs or snapping off a few shots over a weekend!

II. Field-Testing Methods

Here's what I did, followed by a quick rationale for why I did it the way I did...

At each of the three test distances, I shot aperture "runs" from wide open through to f11 in 1/3 stop increments for each lens. I then did a full-stop jump to f16 for the last shots of each run. For each aperture I shot two images and "de-focused" the lens after each shot (and re-focused for the next shot). For two of three test distances (short and middle distances) I used both a Nikon D850 and a Nikon Z7. By the time I got to the test shots of the distant subject I had already concluded there was NO difference in the results between the two cameras, so I used ONLY a Nikon Z7 for the distant-subject tests. All images were captured using Live View, a cable release, full electronic shutter, VR or OS OFF, and the lens/camera combination was supported on a firm tripod (Jobu Killarney) and gimbal head (Jobu Heavy Duty Mk IV). Between EACH shot I waited a minimum of 10 seconds for all vibrations to dissipate (my "de-focusing" of the lens required me touching it, which could have produced minor vibrations). All images were captured using Manual exposure mode and a fixed ISO (so aperture and shutter speed varied between each 2-shot sequence).

Now...that rationale for what I did...

Three Test Distances: I shot test images at 7 meters, 27 meters and about 1500 meters. This was done because some lenses are known to vary in optical performance at different camera-to-subject distances. I chose 7 meters because this is the type of distance I often shoot small mammals (e.g., squirrels and chipmunks) and/or medium-size perching birds (from Juncos to Clark's Nutcrackers and Robins and Bluebirds). My subject was a textured stump I have repeatedly used in past tests - it allows me to carefully assess sharpness AND both close OoF zones (opposite side of the stump) and more distant OoF zones. Note that at this distance I did NOT examine edge sharpness (i.e., I was interested primarily in central region sharpness). I'm comfortable with this because at this type of distance we're rarely shooting absolutely flat surfaces (hey...this is PORTRAIT distance) and more often than not the edges are of little concern (and often in OoF zones). Here's the close-distance scene... (JPEG: 1.1 MB)

I chose 27 meters because I often work at this distance when shooting larger mammals (coyotes through to bears and many ungulates). My subject was a highly cooperative and patient eagle with a garden rake positioned 1.5 meters behind it as well as trees behind it at about 8 meters and 40 meters respectively (to help assess the quality of the OoF zones). This setup let me examine image sharpness in the region I was focusing as well as getting a really good handle on how the OoF objects (at different distances) appeared. Here's the mid-distance scene... (JPEG: 1.3 MB)

I chose 1500 meters as my distant subject because this is a distant I often shoot scenes at with long telephoto lenses (including some animalscape shots) and in these shots I almost always care about edge-to-edge sharpness. The scene I chose is a distant treeline that runs perpendicular to the position I shot the images from and the treelike runs completely across the frame (which allows easy edge-to-edge assessment). Here's the long-distance scene... (JPEG: 2.1 MB)

Nikon D850 and Z7: These 46 MP cameras are highly demanding and each shows lens flaws (such as edge softness) more readily than Nikon's lower resolution cameras do. As a general rule, if a lens tests well with the Nikon D850 or Z7 it will perform GREAT on Nikon's lower-resolution bodies.

Live View (and Live View Autofocus): Live View is "immune" to AF tuning issues/biases and, if performed carefully, highly accurate. Using it (rather than the phase detect AF system of the optical viewfinder) removes a confounding variable when testing multiple lenses. Note that for each aperture (for each lens at each distance) I shot two shots - and I "de-focused" and then "re-focused" the lens between shots. As it turns out, this "de-focus and re-focus" step was largely unnecessary - in over 95% of the test "sequences" there was no difference between the two shots (in focus or sharpness). Note that all images captured with the Nikon Z7 were shot using AF-S "Pinpoint" AF area mode which employs contrast-detect autofocus only (thus removing any bias introduced by focus tuning differences between the lenses).

Cable Release and Electronic Shutter: Both used to minimize camera movement/shake...thus assuring the sharpest possible image.

VR/OS OFF: The performance of different VR/OS systems when shot from a firm tripod varies between lenses, and some even make the image "drift" over time (and this image drifting can even blur the image at slow shutter speeds). Simplest way to control for this variable is simply to turn the VR/OS system off (hey...I was shooting from a rock-solid tripod and had cut out other sources of vibration...and my subjects were static!).

III. Image Quality Assessment

I assessed images shot at 7 and 27 meters for central region sharpness AND the quality of the OoF zones. Images shot at 1500 meters were assessed for edge-to-edge (including central region) sharpness but not for quality of OoF zones. Image quality was assessed by viewing raw previews constructed by Capture One Pro V12.0.1 and V12.0.2 (ALL settings affecting preview quality absolutely identical for all images) on an Apple 30" Cinema HD display (101 ppi). Sharpness was assessed at 100% magnification - OoF zone quality was assessed at both lower magnifications AND 100% magnification. The image assessment method could best be described as VERY SLOW AND METHODICAL (AND VERY REPETITIVE) PIXEL-PEEPING! ;-)

IV. The RESULTS!

Here's a couple of executive summaries of my findings, followed by the nitty-gritty details for those who appreciate precision and nuance. Note that unless you REALLY care about minute detail you should probably skip the Nitty Gritty Details section! ;-)

1. TWO Executive Summaries:

The Four Sentence Executive Summary: The Nikkor 500mm PF is a very sharp super-telephoto prime lens over its entire aperture range - and at all distances. It also exhibits excellent contrast and bokeh on par with the "best of the best" super-telephoto lenses. And because the 500mm PF is razor sharp when shot wide open, it provides a stronger ability to separate a subject from the background than you might expect from a lens with a maximum aperture of f5.6. In my view the 500mm PF is completely on par optically with the absolute best super-telephotos money can buy.

A Bit Longer Executive Summary:

At all camera-to-subject distances - and at equivalent apertures - three lenses were very similar optically and thus extremely difficult to separate based solely on image sharpness. Those lenses are the Nikkor 500mm PF, the Nikkor 180-400mm f4 (with built-in TC engaged and set to 500mm), and the 500mm f4 Sigma Sport. At both the short and moderate camera-to-subject distances (7 meters and 27 meters) - and when comparing images shot at equivalent apertures - the OoF zones (i.e., the bokeh) of the 500mm PF and the 180-400mm were both slightly smoother and softer than those of the Sigma Sport 500mm f4. At all distances the Sigma Sport 150-600mm (shot at 500mm) was noticeably softer (less sharp) at wider apertures than the other 3 lenses, but it closed most of the gap in sharpness at apertures of f9 through f11. At both the short and moderate camera-to-subject distances the out-of-focus zones of the Sigma Sport 150-600mm were noticeably less smooth (almost "chunkier"!) than those of the other three lenses.

When comparing the image sharpness "progression" for each lens (as you progress from wide open to f11) only TWO lenses were as sharp when shot wide open as when stopped down (and this was the case at all test distances) - the Nikkor 500mm PF and the Nikkor 180-400mm. In other words, only these two lenses exhibited Aperture Independent Sharpness (or AIS). The Sigma Sport 500mm f4 needed to be stopped down to f5.6 before attaining maximum sharpness and the Sigma Sport 150-600mm continued to "sharpen up" until stopped down to around f9.

What about the OVERALL image quality (factoring in and balancing both image sharpness AND the quality of the OoF zones) when each lens is shot wide open? This is tougher and more subjective to assess - at both 7 meters and 27 meters the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 does exhibit softer and smoother OoF background zones when shot wide open (@ f4) than the other lenses do when they are shot wide open (so at f5.6 - or at f6.3 in the case of the Sigma Sport 150-600). But, both the two Nikkors (the 500mm PF and the 180-400mm) are significantly sharper when they are shot wide open than the Sigma Sport 500 f4 is when it is shot wide open. Here's my own preference in image quality at the two distances where OoF zones plays a role and the lenses are shot wide open:

• At 7 meters I most prefer the "wide open" shots of the Nikkor 180-400mm - they combine excellent subject sharpness with beautiful OoF zones. The wide open shots of the 500mm PF would rank a close 2nd, followed by those of the Sigma Sport 500mm f4, and with the images shot with the Sigma Sport 150-600mm bringing up the rear.

• At 27 meters I can't separate the "wide open" shots of the 500mm PF from those of the 180-400mm f4E in terms of image sharpness. While both beat the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 somewhat in sharpness when all lenses are shot wide open (and beat the Sigma Sport 150-600mm by even more), the softer and smoother OoF zones of the Sigma Sport in the f4 to f5 aperture range do "help out" the Sigma Sport 500mm f4. So...when shot absolutely wide open at 27 meters I see the Nikkor 500mm PF and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E in an absolute dead-heat. Some COULD argue that if you soften up the "shot at wide open" criteria just a little and allow the inclusion of the Sigma Sport 500mm images shot at f5 then the Sigma Sport 500mm provides the best mix of image sharpness with high quality (soft and smooth) OoF zones!

What about the ability to separate a subject from the background - does the 500mm PF make the grade - and compete with the other lenses - here? Another tough call which ultimately comes down to how important subject sharpness is to you. If you are willing to "give a little" on image (subject) sharpness then there's no doubt the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 can (when shot at f4) isolate a subject at short and moderate distances better than the other lenses. However, if you are in love with the sharpest possible subjects and are willing to "give a little" on "lifting" your subject off of the background...well...then either the 500mm PF or the 180-400mm are likely to be your first choice!

2. The Nitty Gritty Details:

A. Optical Performance at 7 meters.

• Overall Sharpness: Parity in sharpness between the Nikkor 500mm PF and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E most apertures between f5.6 and f11 (at some apertures the 500mm PF was slightly sharper and at others the 180-400mm was slightly sharper). Sigma Sport 500mm f4 trailed only very slightly behind (i.e., not quite as sharp at most overlapping apertures), and the Sigma Sport 150-600mm was easily the softest (least sharp) at all overlapping apertures.

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open before attaining maximum sharpness) - Nikkor 500mm PF: No need to stop down whatsoever, meaning the lens is virtually at maximum sharpness when shot wide open (@ 5.6). This is absolutely remarkable and means there is no sharpness penalty in shooting this lens wide open. I have previously described lenses with this characteristic (and the ONLY other lens I have ever tested that exhibited it was the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E) as having Aperture Independent Sharpness, or AIS. Some may find this blog entry on AIS (entitled "What's AIS?") interesting. Note that I could detect no diffraction-induced softening of the image until I stopped down to f16 (but also note that images were not captured or assessed at f13 or f14 for any of the lenses).

• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 180-400mm @ 500mm: As with the 500mm PF - none - no stopping down required to achieve maximum sharpness (full AIS). As with the 500mm PF this is quite remarkable, especially given that at this focal length the built-in TC is engaged. Again no diffraction-induced softening of the image until I stopped down to f16.

• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 500mm f4: Quite soft when shot wide open and requires stopping down 2/3 to a FULL stop (to f5.6) before approaching maximum sharpness (it should be noted that the sharpness difference between f5 and f5.6 is extremely small and for most uses there would be no need to stop down below f5). Note that at this distance (only), even when stopped down to f5.6 and beyond both the 500mm PF and 180-400 were very slightly sharper than the Sigma Sport 500mm. No diffraction-induced softening of the image until I stopped down to f16.

• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-5-6.3: Requires stopping one full stop from wide open (to f9) before hitting maximum sharpness (though the difference in sharpness between f8 and f9 is almost trivial). No diffraction-induced softening of the image until I stopped down to f16.

• OoF Zones (Bokeh): Softest and smoothest out-of-focus (OoF) zones exhibited by the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 at apertures between f4 and f5 (i.e., apertures not found on the other 3 lenses). However, when considering the OoF zones of overlapping apertures (f5.6 through to f16) the softest and smoothest were found on the shots captured with the Nikkor 180-400mm and with the 500mm PF nipping at its heels (and with the Sigma Sport nipping at the heels of the 500mm PF). The least smooth and soft OoF zones were DEFINITELY those of the Sigma Sport 150-600mm, but it is important to note that at this distance focus breathing shortens the focal length of the Sigma Sport 150-600 considerably (it is the ONLY lens in this test that exhibits significant focus breathing).

• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: This criteria IS a subjective "judgement call", but it is interesting. With subjects this close all 4 lenses can easily separate the subject from background (which, given how far the background is behind the subject, is easily blurred into oblivion). The lens/aperture combination that produces the softest backgrounds is DEFINITELY the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 shot at f4. However, at f4 and this distance to the subject, the Sigma Sport 500 produces quite a soft (= not sharp) subject. And, even if you stop down to f5.6 the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 is not as sharp as either the Nikkor 500mm PF or the Nikkor 180-400mm. So the user is forced to decide what they like more - a slightly blurrier and softer background or a sharp subject (with a slightly less blurry background). Some image examples will illustrate what I mean:

Full Frame images shot WIDE OPEN for each lens - to compare background softness: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 1.0 MB)
100% Magnification crops shot WIDE OPEN for each lens - to compare subject sharpness: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 2.1 MB)

Finally, if you want to compare the full-resolution "shot at wide open" images for yourself, here are the full frame, full resolution shots:

The Nikkor 500mm PF @ f5.6: Download Image (JPEG: 12.5 MB)
The Sigma Sport 500mm f4 @ f4: Download Image (JPEG: 10.25 MB)
The Nikkor 180-400mm f4E @ f5.6: Download Image (JPEG: 12.9 MB)
The Sigma Sport 150-600 @ f6.3: Download Image (JPEG: 11.4 MB)

So...if I had ready access to all 4 lenses and wanted the "best quality" shot (balancing sharpness with the quality of the OoF zones and having the most visual "impact") of a squirrel on this stump which lens would I choose? I'd grab the Nikkor 180-400mm first. But, my second choice (that I'd easily switch to with virtually no regrets) would be the Nikkor 500mm PF. Next would be the Sigma Sport 500 f4, but I'd be REALLY thinking of stopping down to f5.6 or beyond while knowing this would start to impact on the quality of the background. Of course I could get a very decent shot with the Sigma Sport 150-600 too, but odds are the subject simply wouldn't "pop" out of the background the way it would with either of the two Nikkors.

OVERALL CONCLUSION: At 7 meters the strongest performing lens (from an optical perspective) was the Nikkor 180-400mm (with its TC engaged). But the 500mm PF was AMAZINGLY CLOSE behind - under normal day-to-day shooting it is unlikely anyone would notice the difference in image quality between the lenses. At this distance the 500mm PF actually outperformed the excellent Sigma Sport 500mm f4. It's worth mentioning here that in my "500mm Wars" field test I compared the Sigma Sport 500mm against the Nikkor 500mm f4E and could find no consistent optical difference between those two lenses - they were virtual optical clones of one another (but note that the 500mm wars testing DID use much lower resolution cameras than the current test did). While it's tempting to extrapolate to the conclusion that the 500mm PF would similarly outperform the Nikkor 500mm f4E in optical performance if the 500mm f4E was in the test, I'm not quite prepared to say that myself. But I am willing to say that the 500mm PF is "in the same league" as the best-of-the-best super-telephotos at this subject distance.

The Sigma Sport 150-600mm at this distance? Still very competent, still capable of producing quality images, still GREAT value...but simply not in the same league as the other 3 lenses optically.

B. Optical Performance at 27 meters.

• Overall Sharpness: Now things tighten up more - even with the most extreme pixel-peeping it was virtually impossible to separate the Nikkor 500mm PF, the Nikkor 180-400mm, and the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 based on central region sharpness (when comparing at equivalent apertures). And all three of these lenses were considerably sharper than the Sigma Sport 150-600mm.

To see how similarly the three lenses performed check out this composite image comparing the four lenses (note that this is a small crop from the central region as seen when viewed at 100% magnification).

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open to attain maximum sharpness) - Nikkor 500mm PF: As at 7 meters...no stopping down needed to get to maximum sharpness - full AIS. And again, I feel compelled to point out that this is really remarkable! And it says that at this distance (as well as at 7 meters) there is absolutely no sharpness-related reason to NOT shoot this lens wide open. No noticeable diffraction-induced image softening until f16 (but again note that images were not captured or assessed at f13 or f14).

• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 180-400mm: As at 7 meters...no stopping down needed to get to maximum sharpness - full AIS. No noticeable diffraction-induced image softening until f16.

• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 500mm f4: Requires stopping down a full stop (to f5.6) before attaining maximum sharpness. But note that at this distance the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 was NOT as soft when shot wide open as it was when shot at the 7m distance. No noticeable diffraction-induced image softening until f16.

• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-5-6.3: Identical to the situation at 7m, i.e., requires stopping one full stop from wide open (to f9) before hitting maximum sharpness (though the difference in sharpness between f8 and f9 is almost trivial). No noticeable diffraction-induced image softening until f16.

• OoF Zones (Bokeh): Not surprisingly, the softest and smoothest out-of-focus (OoF) zones exhibited by the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 at apertures between f4 and f5 (i.e., apertures not found on the other 3 lenses). However, when comparing the OoF zones of shots captured at f5.6 and smaller apertures, it was virtually impossible to find any real differences between the 500mm PF, the Nikkor 180-400, and the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 - they were virtually identical! And...also not surprisingly...the least smooth and soft OoF zones were still those of the Sigma Sport 150-600mm - and in this case focus breathing is quite insignificant at this subject distance and therefore not a possible cause (or excuse!).

• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: At this subject distance (27m) the situation has changed somewhat from that at 7m. The Sigma Sport 500mm f4 is somewhat sharper when shot wide open than it was at 7m and most users would likely feel less driven by the need to stop down to sharpen up the image. And, because the softest and smoothest backgrounds ARE found with the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 when shot between f4 and f5, it could be argued that the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 wins the "best at subject isolation" award. Again, some image examples will illustrate what I mean:

Full Frame images shot WIDE OPEN for each lens - to compare background softness: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 1.1 MB)
100% Magnification crops shot WIDE OPEN for each lens - to compare subject sharpness: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 1.9 MB)

Finally, if you want to compare the full-resolution "shot at wide open" images for yourself, here are the full frame, full resolution shots:

The Nikkor 500mm PF @ f5.6: Download Image (JPEG: 12.6 MB)
The Sigma Sport 500mm f4 @ f4: Download Image (JPEG12.9 MB)
The Nikkor 180-400mm f4E @ f5.6: Download Image (JPEG: 11.9 MB)
The Sigma Sport 150-600 @ f6.3: Download Image (JPEG: 11.0 MB)

So...if I had access to all 4 lenses and wanted the "best quality" shot (balancing sharpness with the quality of the OoF zones and having the most visual "impact") at this distance which lens would I choose? In this case I'd probably grab the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 FIRST (but odds are I'd opt to shoot it at f4.5 or f5, not wide open at f4). Second choice? Flip a coin between the two Nikkors (the 500mm PF and the 180-400mm). Last choice? The Sigma Sport 150-600mm - the strength of this lens is its versatility and value, not its ability to isolate a subject from the background! ;-)

OVERALL CONCLUSION: At 27 meters the Nikkor 500mm PF goes stride-for-stride in optical performance with both the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 (and very likely with the Nikkor 500mm f4E if I had included it in the test). And...like at 7 meters...the 500mm PF performs superbly optically at any aperture. Impressive! The other noteworthy observation is that while the Sigma Sport 150-600mm offers great versatility, it isn't keeping up optically with the other 3 top-notch performers.

C. Optical Performance @ 1500 meters.

As a reminder I test at this distance primarily to assess central sharpness AND edge-to-edge sharpness. When I am using a 500mm focal length at this distance I am almost always shooting an animalscape shot, and for me it's important that these shots are sharp from edge-to-edge.

• Overall Sharpness: The pattern observed at 27 meters repeated itself at 1500 meters - the Nikkor 500mm PF, the Nikkor 180-400mm, and the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 all exhibited strong central sharpness AND strong edge/corner sharpness. And, it was virtually impossible to separate them based on central or edge sharpness. The Sigma Sport 150-600mm didn't fair particularly well at this distance - while not soft at all apertures, even when stopped down to f9 or smaller it produced images noticeably less sharp in both the central regions and edges than the other three lenses.

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open to attain maximum sharpness) - Nikkor 500mm PF: The same boring but remarkable result as at the shorter distances - maximum sharpness from wide open through to f11, including both central image sharpness and edge sharpness. So still full AIS. Diffraction-related softening obvious at f16.

• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 180-400mm: Just like the 500mm PF - full AIS with no obvious increase in sharpness from f5.6 through to f11 (in both central regions and edges). Diffraction-related softening obvious at f16.

• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 500mm f4: Requires stopping down a full stop from wide open (to f5.6) before approaching maximum sharpness in both the center and the edges. Diffraction-related softening apparent at f16.

• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-5-6.3: Never fully sharpens on edges at any aperture; requires stopping 2/3 of a stop from wide open (to f8) before approaching maximum sharpness in central region. Diffraction-related softening obvious at f16.

• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): N/A (at this distance).

• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: N/A (at this distance).

OVERALL CONCLUSION: The Nikkor 500mm continued to perform as a "big league" super-telephoto at 1500 meters - it completely matched (including in edge sharpness) the optical performance of both the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 at this distance. And, like at the previous distances, it easily out-performed the Sigma Sport 150-600mm.

V. Final Discussion and Comments

When the Nikkor 500mm f5.6E PF was first announced I was only moderately excited about the lens. As a reasonably happy owner of the first of Nikon's PF lenses (the 300mm f4 PF) I was fairly confident the newer PF lens would be very light and compact, reasonably sharp, and generally "quite usable". And, I hoped that because of the inexorable march forward in technology it would be even a little better (sharper, better AF system, better VR system) than the 300mm PF. And, because it has "only" a f5.6 aperture, I WANTED it to be tack sharp when shot wide open (but I really didn't think it would be).

But WOW...was I ever wrong! The 500mm f5.6E PF is pretty much as sharp as a prime super-telephoto lens can be - both in the central region AND on the edges. And, it's that sharp at ALL "normal" apertures - from wide open until you stop down to the point of hitting the diffraction limit. It is only the second lens I have ever tested that is as sharp wide open as when stopped down (the other lens being the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E, which costs about three times as much). There is absolutely no sharpness-related reason to stop this lens down, which means you are completely free to shoot it wide open virtually all the time. Which also means it does a MUCH better job at subject isolation (you know...pulling a subject off a busy background) than I expected a f5.6 lens ever could.

Given that other 500mm prime lenses (like, for instance, the Nikkor 500mm f4E and the Sigma Sport 500mm f4) have to be stopped down 2/3 to a full stop to attain maximum sharpness (and sharpness approaching that of the 500mm PF!) one is left wondering why anyone would fork out thousands and thousands more for these much bigger and heavier lenses. I guess the short-term answer is simple: because...unlike the 500mm PF...you can actually order them and they WILL BE DELIVERED! But once the 500mm PF is readily and widely available the question of why anyone would buy another 500mm f-mount lens is much tougher to answer. I personally can't think of a single good reason why I would! The 500mm PF is just THAT flipping amazing...

Next up? Optical performance comparison of the 500mm PF vs. the 300mm PF plus TC-14EIII. Which is kinda both a David and Goliath thing and an apples and oranges thing. But lots of people want to know! ;-)

Stay tuned!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#500PF_OpticalCompetitors

25 Feb 2019: Announcing...Our 2020 Photo Tours!

I've just posted the updated version of my Photo Tours page...and it includes all the critical details about our 2020 Photo Tours. And, we ARE now accepting bookings for all the remaining spots on all the 2020 Photo Tours (if you're curious about why so many spots are already gone just scroll down to the paragraph beginning with the question "Hey Brad...why are so many spots already gone?").

Highlights for the 2020 season include FOUR different photo tours into the Great Bear Rainforest, a brand new and very exciting trip to the WEST coast of Haida Gwaii, and the return of our exceptionally popular Grizzlies of the Khutzeymateen trips and our Marine Mammals trip.

Here's a quick roadmap to some key informational "start points" on the Photo Tours Page:

• To view ALL 2019 and 2020 Photo Tours: Start HERE at the top of the Photo Tours Page
• To jump straight to the beginning of the 2020 Photo Tour listings: Go HERE

Several of our 2020 Photo Tours are already full (or will be very soon). Here's a listing of the trips that still have spaces open on them:

1. The Pacific Rim Explorer (early April 2020)

• Number of Remaining Spots: 4
• For More Info: Go HERE!

2. Spring in the Southern Great Bear (May 2020)

• Number of Remaining Spots: 3
• For More Info: Go HERE!

3. Grizzlies of the Khutzeymateen Photo Op Photo Tour (late May to early June 2020)

• Number of Remaining Spots: 1
• For More Info: Go HERE!

4. Haida Gwaii West...AND WILD (late June to early July 2020)

• Number of Remaining Spots: 3
• For More Info: Go HERE!

5. Marine Mammals of the Central Pacific Coast (August 2020)

• Number of Remaining Spots: 3
• For More Info: Go HERE!

6. Into the Great Bear Rainforest Instructional Photo Tour

• Number of Remaining Spots: 2
• For More Info: Go HERE!

"Hey Brad...why are so many spots already gone...especially if you're just announcing the photo tours NOW?" Good question! Over the past month we have been booking 2020 photo tours for those who had priority access to all the 2020 photo tours. Two groups of photographers were in this "priority access" category. The first group are those who signed themselves up on the 2020 Priority Booking List (which was part of the Photo Tours page from January 2019 until January 2020). Our Priority Booking List is simply a "first right of refusal" list which gives those who sign-up first crack at the trips (with no commitment on their part, i.e., no deposit required, no bestowing of their first borne, etc.). AND, the Priority Booking List for our 2021 Photo Tours IS open now - get more information about it right here: 2021 Priority Booking List.

The second group who received priority access to booking the 2020 Photo Tours are those who signed themselves up for my VERY sporadic newsletter (it's one of the perqs those receiving the newsletter get). You can find out more about The VERY Sporadic Natural Art Images Newsletter right here...

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

14 Jan 2019: Booking 2020 Photo Tours?

My email in-bin has been filled with a lot of enquiries lately about 2020 photo tours. So here's the latest info:

1. When 2020 Photo Tours Will Be Publicly Posted.

Detailed descriptions of our 2020 Photo Tours will be posted on the Photo Tours page of this website in early-to-mid February (we are still working on some final nitty-gritty details on the 2020 photo tours). The minute those trips are listed on the photo tours page we will begin taking registrations for them.

2. Can I Reserve a Spot Ahead of Time?

Sort of. We have a Priority Booking List for EACH photo tour we offer. Think of it as a "first right of refusal" list. If you go on this list you will receive FIRST crack at getting a spot on the trip (based, of course, solely on when you went on the list). So if we have a photo tour where we can take 6 participants, the first 6 on the Priority Booking List are guaranteed of a spot if they still want it when registration opens. We do hold off on taking registrations until we know the final dates and pricing of each trip (which is kinda why the Priority Booking List exists). You can find out more about the Priority Booking List for 2020 Photo Tours right here on our Photo Tours Page. Please note that there is NO commitment on your part in going on any Priority Booking List (no deposit, nada).

To help you out a little, you should know that some of our 2020 photo tours (mostly those that have been around the longest) already have very long Priority Booking Lists and the chances of getting a spot on these trips now (by going onto the Priority Booking List NOW) are low. However, a number of our newer trips have pretty short lists and if you act fast (i.e., going on the Priority Booking List for those trips now) you have a really good chance of getting a spot. So here's a quick and dirty guideline (and just go to our Photo Tours Page if you need more info about these trips):

A. Photo Tours With VERY SHORT Priority Booking Lists (trips you WILL get on):

• Pacific Rim Explorer Instructional Photo Tour: Send Priority Booking List Request
• Spring in the Southern Great Bear Instructional Photo Tour: Send Priority Booking List Request

B. Photo Tours With MODERATE LENGTH Priority Booking Lists (trips you have a GOOD chance to get on):

• Haida Gwaii Explorer Instructional Photo Tour: Send Priority Booking List Request
• Marine Mammals of the Central Pacific Coast: Send Priority Booking List Request
• Summer in the Southern Great Bear Instructional Photo Tour: 2020 Priority Booking List Request

C. Photo Tours With LONG Priority Booking Lists (so in the "What the heck...you never know" category):

• Khutzeymateen 5-day Instructional Photo Tour: Send Priority Booking List Request
• Khutzeymateen 4-day Photo Op Photo Tour: Send Priority Booking List Request
• Into the Great Bear Rainforest Instructional Photo Tour: Send Priority Booking List Request
• Into the Great Bear Rainforest Photo Op Photo Tour: Send Priority Booking List Request

Note that we will be accepting names on any of the 2020 Priority Booking Lists up to the end of day on January 23, 2019.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

10 Jan 2019: Arca-Swiss Lens Plate for Nikkor 500mm f5.6E PF

In my 500mm PF First Impressions blog entry (below) I mentioned that the tripod foot for the 500mm PF was identical to that of the 70-200mm f2.8E VR lens. Here's an example of a well-priced lens plate from Jobu Design that will work for BOTH lenses:

Jobu LP-N7228-E Lens Plate for 500mm f5.6E PF and 70-200mm f2.8E VR

So while you're waiting to get your 500mm PF AT LEAST you can take delivery of the bits needed to make its tripod foot Arca-Swiss compatible! ;-)

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

09 Jan 2019: 2019 Photo Tours: 3 Openings!

14 JANUARY UPDATE: The spot on the "Summer in the Southern Great Bear" Photo tour that is listed below is no longer available.

The new year brought the usual game of "Photo Tour Musical Chairs" where folks moved from one photo tour (or in one year) to another, with the net result that we have a total of 3 openings over 3 different photo tours (i.e., one opening on three different trips). Here are the details:

• July 2019: One spot on the Gwaii Haanas Explorer - more details for more details DOWNLOAD THIS PDF BROCHURE (2.8 MB)

• August 2019: One spot on the Humpbacks, Orcas, Sea Lions & More Marine Mammals Photo Tour - for more details DOWNLOAD THIS PDF BROCHURE (3.8 MB)

• August 2019: One spot on the Summer in the Southern Great Bear Photo Tour - for more details DOWNLOAD THIS PDF BROCHURE (4.1 MB)

So get 'em while they're hot! If you'd like even MORE info (or would like to register for one of these great trips), just contact me at seminars@naturalart.ca.

Information on our 2020 Photo Tours is coming soon.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

07 Jan 2019: The 500mm f5.6E PF vs. the 300mm f4E PF plus TC-14EIII?

Since I posted my first installment of my 500mm PF review last Friday I've received bucketfuls of email. Interestingly, one thing I'm hearing loud and clear is many are interested in how the 500mm PF stacks up against another "diminutive competitor" - the 300mm f4 PF combined with the TC-14EIII (1.4x) teleconverter. In the last 24 hours alone I've received 4 requests to include the 300 PF plus TC-14EIII in my comparison tests. And I suppose that this comparison does make some sense (if we forget about the 80mm difference in focal length) - both are very light and compact ways to go "over 400mm" and both are much more affordable than Nikon's non-PF super-telephoto lenses (making the potential market for the "winner" of a 500 PF vs. 300 PF plus TC shootout much bigger).

Bad news first: I have already completed the image-capture portion of my optical performance testing (I still have to scrutinize and analyse the results) and I don't have time to go back and re-do them all.

Better news next: I will add in some comparative tests of the 300mm PF plus 1.4x TC against the 500mm PF. So I will be able to show and comment on the differences between those two lenses. I won't be comparing the 300 PF plus TC against the other lenses in the review (the Sigma 500mm f4 Sport, the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E @ 500mm, or the Sigma 150-600mmm f5-6.3 Sport).

And...last but not least...an opinion based on a lot of use of the 300mm PF, including with the TC-14EIII: I very much like the 300mm PF, and I have found it to work surprising well with the TC-14EIII (at least surprising to me). I would go so far to say that the results I most commonly get with the 300mm PF plus TC-14EIII are, well..."pretty good". However, both the image quality and the autofocus performance of the 500mm PF are EXCEPTIONAL - right up there with the best super-telephoto primes. Although comparing the optical quality of images captured with a 300mm lens to that of a 500mmm lens is tricky and open to debate, I am already quite confident that if both lenses are shot "native" (meaning with no TC attached) almost everyone viewing the images would easily give the nod to the 500 PF images. And...add a TC to the 300mm PF and that image quality gap compared to the 500 PF (AND the AF performance) will only grow.

I recognize that many will want me to PROVE that the 500mm PF is better than the 300mm plus 1.4x TC, and also that they will want to end up with a decent handle on how much better the 500mm PF images are. So, for those reasons I'm going to take the time to do the needed field tests.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca


Nikon 500mm f5.6E PF Field Test: Intro & First Impressions

04 Jan 2019: Nikkor 500mm f5.6E PF Field Test I: Intro & First Impressions...

This is the first installment of several that will describe my experiences field-testing the Nikkor 500mm f5.6E PF (the full name of the lens is actually the "AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR", but this is WAY too much of a mouthful - and WAY too many odd keystrokes - to type repeatedly...so expect me to refer to it as "the Nikkor 500mm PF" or just "the 500PF"). I took possession of the lens (I bought it) on December 23, 2018. I took advantage of the holiday break to shoot extensively with the 500mm PF - and on a variety of current camera bodies, including the Z7, D5, D850, and D500. And, over the next month or so I will be extensively field-testing testing this new - and relatively tiny - addition to Nikon's lineup of super-telephoto lenses. My goal is to thoroughly field test the new lens' optical quality, autofocus (AF) performance, vibration-reduction (VR) performance - and more - against several other mid-to-high-end lenses that could be competing for the contents of the wallet of serious wildlife and "action" shooters (including, of course, sports photographers). By the end of the testing period I want to have (and share) a thorough understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of this exciting new (and reasonably priced!) photographic tool.

If you have a love for detailed specifications, the place to go get them is here on dpreview.com's website. The key thing in understanding this lens is that Nikon has found a way (through use of a "Phase Fresnel" - or PF - lens element) to reduce the chromatic aberration in this lens without adding a TON of elements. Which is a fancy way of saying that there were able to produce a 500mm lens that is almost tiny in comparison to other 500mm lenses on the market. So how small IS this lens? The closest lens in size in Nikon's lineup is the 70-200mm f2.8E VR - the 500mm PF is only very slightly longer and very slightly heavier than that lens (and it IS lighter than the older 70-200 f2.8's from Nikon).

The only other "specification" I will mention at this point is that this lens has a maximum aperture of f5.6. This smaller maximum aperture (compared to f4 500mm lenses) also contributes greatly to its small size (relative to 500mm f4 lenses). Of course, by going to a smaller maximum aperture there are two potentially negative consequences facing users of the 500PF: it's lack of light gathering ability (i.e., less effectiveness in low light scenarios) and possibly a noticeable reduction in the photographer's ability to isolate (or separate) a subject from a busy background. As a consequence, you will see me almost obsessively focusing during my field testing on how the 500PF performs when shot wide open (in this and future installments of this lens review).

But THE critical point to make here is that when you combine these two key specifications - the Phase Fresnel lens element and the f5.6 maximum aperture - you end up with a 500mm lens that is just diminutive compared to other 500mm lenses on the market. This exceptionally small size (and low weight) helps a wildlife photographer in many ways. It helps when traveling via plane or other means that have a weight or size restriction (something that is often limiting for the traveling wildlife photographer), it helps in day-to-day portability (carrying it around in the field) a LOT, and it helps tremendously in maintaining the mobility of the photographer - including in how fast you can re-position the lens and in how quickly and easily you can re-position yourself when shooting with the lens. When using the 500PF I've literally dove onto the ground a couple of times to get some uber low-level shots that I would have missed if I was shooting a "traditional" (bigger and heavier) 500mm lens. This final consequence of the tiny size of the 500PF (maintenance of photographer mobility when using the 500PF) was absolutely striking to me when I was shooting in the field. You simply don't realize how much you miss this mobility when using a "traditional" 500mm lens until you try the 500PF - after my first session with the 500PF I was already thinking (BEFORE seeing any the results) "How could any wildlife photographer NOT love this lens?"

Anyway...the remainder of today's entry focuses on two things: my simple first impressions of the 500PF plus a little of what my initial shooting has clearly indicated or, at the very least, strongly suggested.

For those who want a SINGLE WORD SUMMARY of the nuances of the performance of this cool little tool...well...after about 10 days of shooting I am quite comfortable saying this: WOW!

OK...let's get to it:

1. First Impressions - Build Quality.

This new lens is - like the 300mm f4 PF - manufactured in China (unlike most of Nikon's other pro lenses that are made in Japan). Over the years we have seen the quality of Chinese manufactured products go up but, to date, an experienced lens aficionado could instantly distinguish a Japanese-built lens from a Chinese-built lens. Well, they could do this up until now - if I didn't see "Made in China" stamped on this lens I would have thought it was Japanese-built. Simply put - the build quality and finishing is absolutely excellent. The focusing ring spins very, very smoothly, and even the tripod collar moves as smooth (or smoother) than all other lenses I've owned or tried. Toggle switches are positive. And, as stated on Nikon's website, the lens is extensively weather-sealed and the front element is coated in fluorine (to repel water drops and other gunk). Even the supplied hood is not too bad (and much better than the hood found on the Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6E zoom lens). So full marks on build quality.

2. First Impressions - Physical Characteristics: Length and Weight.

You can't compare the 500PF to other 500mm lenses and have that comparison make much sense or have any degree of "relatability" - saying that the lens is almost 3100 gm (or over 3.5 lb) lighter than the Nikkor 500mm f4E doesn't do it justice. So let's compare it to the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E. The shooting weight of the 500PF (no lens caps, no tripod foot, but with hood in place) is 1474 gm (3.25 lb). The shooting weight of the 70-200mm f2.8E is 1418 gm (3.125 lb). SO...that means the 500PF is ONLY 56 gm (one EIGHTH of a pound) heavier than the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8E.

Length? Again, the only sensible comparison is against the 70-200 f2.8E. So...the 500PF comes in at 23.8 cm (9.37") and the 70-200 f2.8E comes in at 20.4 cm (8.03") - both measured without the hood in place. So the 500PF is only about 3.4 cm (or 1.33") longer than the 70-200 f2.8E.

Like I said, this lens is - when compared to other 500mm prime lenses - absolutely TINY!

3. First Impressions - Physical Characteristics: Balance.

I find the 500PF well-balanced on any of Nikon's top-end DSLR's - kinda feels like have a 70-200 mounted on your camera! With the lighter weight Z7 the entire "rig" feels slightly front-heavy, but not so much that it's any problem or inconvenience to hold (don't forget that when using the 500PF with the Z7 you have the mount adapter FTZ in the middle, which adds about another 3 cm - just over an inch - to the total length of the setup).

4. First Impressions - Physical Characteristics: Tripod Foot.

The bad news? Just like with ALL of Nikon's super-telephoto lens (and the foot on the 70-200mm f2.8E) the OEM tripod foot is NOT Arca-Swiss compatible (why not Nikon??). The good news? Well...just so happens that the tripod foot - including the mounting mechanism - is the exact same one as on the 70-200mm f2.8E. So if you have invested in a 3rd party tripod foot with Arca-Swiss compatibility for your 70-200mm f2.8E (like the one from Jobu Designs or the LCF-11 from Really Right Stuff)...well...you ALREADY have an Arca-Swiss compatible tripod foot.

5. First Impressions - Ergonomics and Controls.

The ergonomics and button/toggle locations are similar to those on the majority of Nikon telephoto lenses. This lens DOES come equipped with a "ring" of 4 AF activation buttons and, at least for me, they are positioned exactly where my hand naturally "falls" when hand-holding the lens. Those buttons (near the distal end of the lens) can be used to focus the lens, lock the focus of the lens, or for "memory recall" of a pre-focused point that you previously stored using ANOTHER button on the lens - the Memory Set button. Of course, if you have a camera body that supports the functionality, you can use the AF activation button to switch to a different AF Area mode on the fly. And...something I just learned when playing with the 500PF on the Z7 - if you are using the "memory recall" function with a Z7 (and presumably a Z6 but I haven't tried it), when you push the AF activation button not only does the lens refocus on the previously stored position, it automatically uses focus peaking to show you what actually IS in focus. Pretty cool!

Have I identified any problems with the ergonomics of the lens? Sort of. The focusing ring is RIGHT beside the AF activation buttons and right where my hand naturally rests. This means it's easy for me to bump that focus ring (of course, always at inopportune times). I DO wish that the gap between the AF activation buttons and the focus ring was wider. My workaround is to ensure that I am always shooting in A/M mode when gives priority to autofocus over manual focus (and thus accidentally bumping that focus ring is less consequential).

6. First Impressions - Optical Quality

Systematic testing of the 500PF will be a huge part of future blog entries (and my final full lens review). In those tests I will be comparing the 500PF against 3 other lenses and at 3 distances (and from wide open through to f11). The lenses I'll be comparing against are the Sigma 500mm f4 Sport, the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (at 500mm...so with the built-in TC engaged) and the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3. I'll be making the comparisons at short distance (7 meters), "moderate" distances (27 meters) and with distant scenes (over 1 km away).

BUT...I have already shot about 5000 images with the 500PF and I can say several things with at least reasonable confidence AND show you several sample images illustrating those points. So let's go there now...

A. With Close Subjects (7 meters or about 23 feet):

After spending some time shooting perching birds and small mammals (squirrels!) at close distances it's REAL hard not to just gush about the extreme sharpness AND the quality of the out-of-focus (OOF) zones of the 500PF. Check out these two 2400 pixel annotated sample shots (and it will likely be worth it to you to read the notes accompanying the images):

• Mountain Chickadee: DOWNLOAD 2400 PIXEL IMAGE (JPEG; 1.7 MB).
• Clark's Nutcracker: DOWNLOAD 2400 PIXEL IMAGE (JPEG; 1.4 MB).

B. With "Mid-distance" Subjects (10-40 meters or about 32-130 feet):

This is a distance zone that I work in a LOT with my wildlife photography. So how the lens performs here is critical to its usefulness to me. Of particular interest (at least to me) is how well the lens performs in this distance range when shot wide open (in both sharpness AND in the quality of the OOF zones or bokeh). And...while I know I'm letting the cat out of the bag a little with this next statement, the optical performance of the 500PF in this distance range has JUST BLOWN ME AWAY. It has exceeded my expectations by a huge amount! Here's a few annotated samples (and those annotations ARE worth looking at for context):

• Vigilance - White-tailed Deer: DOWNLOAD 2400 PIXEL IMAGE (JPEG; 1.49 MB).

What about the contrast and overall lens performance in a back-lit situation with a subject about 40 meters (130 feet) away? Check out this image:

• Backlit Snow Dog: DOWNLOAD 2400 PIXEL IMAGE (JPEG; 1.80 MB).

And what about those really "dreamy" and buttery soft backgrounds that users of the Nikkor 300mm f2.8 and Nikkor 400mm f2.8E's know so well - can you really get those with an f5.6 lens? Well...just check out this shot of Poncho (my Portuguese Water Dog) trotting at me in the snow:

• Going Low: DOWNLOAD 2400 PIXEL IMAGE (JPEG; 1.68 MB).

Note that this is one of the shots previously mentioned where I spontaneously dove to the ground (with my 500PF in hand) to get the shot. That's not something I'd try with a 8 lb 500mm f4 in my hands.

C. With Distant Scenes (500+ meters):

This is another aspect of optical performance I am going to systematically test and examine in the near future. But on a recent hike I ran into a good scenario to do an impromptu "test" (albeit an "anecdotal" test). The following image is a full-resolution Z7 shot where the focus point (front-most grass edge where it meets the foreground snow). This is a handheld shot (using my Z7) and to full appreciate what you're seeing here you should download the image and view central portions AND edges at 100% magnification. Note that the 500PF was WIDE OPEN (at f5.6) when I shot this shot - and it's another shot that basically blew me away when I checked it out. You can check it out here:

• Columbia Wetlands from 600 meters: DOWNLOAD 8256 PIXEL IMAGE (JPEG; 15.3 MB).

Summing up my first impressions on the optical performance of the 500PF: While I still have a lot of head-to-head systematic optical testing to do on the 500PF (to determine things like "how do wide open shots of the 500PF compare to wide open shots of the Sigma Sport 500 f4?") I already know that Nikon has designed and built an optically top-shelf lens in the 500PF. In my view lens performance is not just about sharpness - it's about both the quality of the in-focus zones, the quality of the out-of-focus zones, AND how those zones interact in any given image. And the 500PF balances those characteristics beautifully!

7. First Impressions - Autofocus Performance.

Nikon makes an interesting claim about the AF performance of the 500mm PF. And it relates to the size and weight of the focusing elements of the lens. In their words "By employing a lighter focus lens group, higher AF speed is achieved, assuring superb subject-tracking performance."

User's of Nikon's latest super-telephoto primes (like the 400mm f2.8E) know how fast those lenses focus, and they have much heavier focusing elements than the 500PF. Can we actually expect an f5.6 lens at under half the price of Nikon's other super-telephotos will focus as fast (or faster) than them? I haven't done head-to-head tests YET (that will come in the near future) - but I have done some "anecdotal testing" using Poncho, my Portuguese Water Dog and well-paid assistant. In these tests (where all animal subjects are very happy and gorging themselves with treats) I have Poncho run at me at full-tilt and blast away with my D5 as he approaches me. This tests both the predictive AF capabilities of the lens and just how fast it can re-focus when shooting a fast-moving subject at a high frame rate. I have done this test for years and it REALLY separates out the fast focusing lenses from the pretenders. To date, the best lens in this test has been my 400mm f2.8E and I can count on it producing a "tack sharp hit rate" of 85-90%.

So...I took Poncho out and ran 3 test sequences of this "test", capturing a total of 305 images. How many were tack sharp? Only 297 of them! That's an absolutely astounding 97.38% of them tack sharp. And, that's mind-boggling good and off-the-charts in AF performance. Note that these trials were run with a D5 - Nikon's absolute best DSLR in terms of autofocus performance. With a D850 or D500 I'd expect a somewhat lower hit rate (probably in the 70% range) and with a Z7 more like 50%.

Sample image? Here you go...

• Cho on the Go: DOWNLOAD 2400 PIXEL IMAGE (JPEG; 1.62 MB).

Expect more systematic testing of the AF of the 500PF in coming days (including head-to-head comparisons against other lenses).

8. First Impressions - VR Performance & "Hand-holdability"

VR performance is only one of the contributing factors to one's ability to hand-hold a lens under field conditions - others include lens weight, balance, and (now) whether or not the camera body it is being used with adds supplementary stabilization (as the Z Series mirrorless bodies do). At this point I haven't had a chance to systematically compare how effectively I can hand-hold the 500PF against other 500mm lenses, but here's several anecdotal observations I've made to date...

First, the obvious (if you cut the weight of a super-telephoto by over 50% it should be easier to hand-hold and most should be able to hand-hold it for longer bouts) is true. Hand-holding the 500PF is dramatically easier than hand-holding any of the other 500mm lenses I've ever used. If you are in a situation where you are forced to hand-hold a lens (as I often am when working from a Zodiac on British Columbia's coast) the small size and low weight of this lens give it a massive advantage over "traditional" 500mm lenses. There ARE many people who simple can't effectively hand-hold a "traditional" 500mm lens - and I suspect MOST of these shooters would find that they could easily hand-hold the 500PF. This can open up huge possibilities.

What about the VR itself? Nikon claims a 4.0 stop advantage when shooting in VR Normal mode and at this point (and anecdotally) I have no reason to doubt this claim - the VR seems very effective. The 500PF also offers VR Sport mode which offers a little less image stabilization but is MUCH better if you're shooting in high frame-rate sequences (there's a whole lot less between-frame "jerkiness" in what you see through the viewfinder in Sport mode than there is in Normal mode).

I will be teasing apart the nuances of the VR and hand-holdability (and comparing the shutter speeds that I can hand-hold this lens at vs. other 500mm lenses) in the near future. But one thing that won't show up in those tests - but can have a big impact on your shooting - is how LONG you can hand-hold this lens for (in a single bout) and how many times you can do it in a single day (without coming home exhausted). I don't know how many times I've heard wildlife photographers say "Of course, I can hand-hold my 500mm...for about 30 seconds at a time". If that same user can hand-hold the 500PF for two minutes at a time, their chances of getting that "oh so special shot" just went up 4-fold!

9. First Impressions - My OVERALL Early Impression of the 500PF!

We live in an age of exaggerated - and even blatantly false - marketing claims and ever-increasing hyperbole. Products with a 1% increase in performance are labelled as "game-changing" or "revolutionary". I don't want to contribute to this myself and make claims about what this lens will do for OTHERS. So I am just going to say three things in summarizing my overall first impression of the 500PF and how it works for me:

A. WOW!

B. Expectations Exceeded! This lens has already wildly exceeded my own expectations for it. To be fair, my expectations weren't tremendously high - I KNEW the lens was going to be small, easy to transport and carry, and "convenient" to use. And I expected it would be acceptable optically. But I really felt its main selling point would be its relatively diminutive size...and for this alone we'd be willing to accept a slight degrade in image quality relative to Nikon's "best" super-telephotos. But I am completely shocked at how good this lens is in both optical and autofocus performance. It is right there (stride for stride) with Nikon's best super-telephoto lenses.

C. A Revolutionary Game-changer for ME! I won't say this lens will be a revolutionary or game-changing product for anyone else - but it IS for ME. My use of a 500mm lens will no longer be limited to areas where it can be easily transported to or easily set-up and/or used. This lens will be with me whenever I'm out in the woods and whenever I could carry a 70-200mm f2.8 lens. And I am already confident that in owning this lens I will have a distinct advantage in the field (compared to "the me without a 500PF") and it will allow me to capture images I could not have otherwise captured.

So Nikon...when is the 600mm f5.6E PF coming? Sign me up for that one too...

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#500PF_FirstImpressions

02 Jan 2019: HNY! And Looking Forward to a GREAT 2019 Season!

First off - a simple Happy New Year to all followers of this blog. I truly wish you GREAT light and GREAT photo ops in the coming year. Get out there and create some great images, eh? ;-)

Second...MAN is it ever a good time to be a Nikon-shooting nature and wildlife photographer! I honestly can't recall ever being this excited about a coming year of shooting. Why? I think a big part of it is that over the past year Nikon has delivered a series of products that have shored up many of the "holes" or "gaps" in equipment that I felt held me back at times. The Z7 brings the promise of great high resolution landscape, animalscape, and wildlife shots with a higher degree of control (in exposure and focusing) than any Nikon before it. The Nikkor 180-400mm f4E gives me - in ONE lens - the ability to capture incredibly sharp images over a wide range of focal lengths. And - with the 500mm PF - I can now bring along a top-notch super-telephoto with me on any hike, snowshoe trip, and...well...almost anywhere I could take a 70-200!

What direction is my blog going to take in 2019? Good question. I never know, with any degree of accuracy, where it will go or what I will write about. In the first quarter of the year you can expect I'll be finalizing my very detailed 180-400mm f4E review (nope, it's not done yet!). And...you should see my detailed 500mm f5.6E PF review begin AND end in Q1 2019. After that? Who knows! Maybe a review of the Nikon D6. Or maybe...ahhhh...I dunno! ;-)

So stay tuned...there's some real good stuff coming soon!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca


II. Selected and Popular 2018 Gear-related Blog Entries

18 Dec 2018: FINALLY! My Nikkor 500mm f5.6E PF Arrives (sort of)

I can't speak for what's been happening in RoW (Rest of World) but copies of the Nikkor 500mm f5.6 PF's have been trickling into this country (Canada) at below a snail's pace. Like...a handful to date for the entire country - just painfully (and frustratingly) slow! And, at least from what I see, it appears that even the majority of Canadian Nikon Professional Service (NPS) members who applied for priority purchase privileges on them are still waiting for their lenses.

So...when I got the call this morning that my 500mm PF had arrived in Calgary (the closest major city to my hideaway in the woods!) I was close to ecstatic! YESSSSS...I get to begin my testing of the 500mm PF over the holiday season! Now all I have to do is figure out how to get the lens the last 300 km or so to my home in an expedited fashion.

I stated quite a while ago that I wouldn't be doing a full field-test of the Nikon Z7 (but I would post a series of blog posts about how it was working out for me). BUT, I have been planning all along - and it's STILL in my plans - to do a "full-blown" field-test and review of the 500mm PF. Like with the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E, I will be comparing the 500mm f5.6 PF to a number of lenses (notably the 180-400mm f4E and the Sigma Sport 500mm f4) in optical performance, autofocus, and "hand-holdability". And, again like the 180-400mm, you'll see a series of posts on this blog while my testing is proceeding and (eventually) a final review in a permanent home (yes, I know...that final 180-400 review is still not posted!).

So...expect to start seeing my firt "interim" blog posts on the 500mm f5.6E PF starting within the next 10 days to two weeks.

Cheers...

Brad

PS: The 500mm f5.6E PF that I'm taking possession of was actually originally going to another Canadian wildlife photography who VERY GENEROUSLY offered it up to me so I could begin testing and evaluating it. So I - and anyone who finds the material I post about the 500mm PF useful - owe DS a very special thanks! I owe you big time Duane! ;-)

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

8 November 2018: So Brad...Z7 or D850?

Given how many emails I'm currently receiving from people asking me if they should get a D850 or Z7 I am guessing there are just huge numbers of photographers wondering the same thing. So...in an effort to stem the flow of emails with this question (a move that almost always backfires on me) here's some thoughts on the "D850 or Z7?" issue.

But first things first: It's absolutely impossible for me to tell someone I don't know - and don't how they shoot, what they shoot, what other gear they have, et cetera - which of these two cameras is BEST for them. The only thing I can do is tell you which camera I prefer and why. It's then up to you to decide if my reasons and use of the camera(s) parallel yours and the same decision would work for you.

Here's the most succinct-but-complete statement I can make:

For my own uses of a high resolution camera I prefer the Z7 over the D850. But if I could only have ONE camera for ALL my uses - and it had to be either a D850 or a Z7 - I would go for the D850.

How does this make any sense? Why would I take the D850 over the Z7 if I could only have one camera? Simply because - in my opinion - the D850 is slightly better for action shooting than the Z7 is. I say this because my own testing has shown that the D850 keeps up with rapidly moving subjects (especially those moving rapidly toward me) a little better than the Z7 does. Please note that my answer has NOTHING to do with subject-tracking as per dpreview's "have the track the drunk bike rider who rides from frame-edge-to-frame-edge as she approaches me" test - I don't bolt my camera to the ground and expect it to track my subject all over the viewfinder - if I'm shooting action I am invariably panning with it. When I am panning birds in flight or running mammals the Z7 does pretty darned well. But most germane to the current discussion...I DO have multiple camera bodies and one of those cameras is particularly well-suited to shooting action - the D5. In fact - and again in my opinion- the D5 is the best camera that has ever been made for shooting action - and it is leaps and bounds ahead of BOTH the D850 and Z7 when it comes to shooting action. So I simply don't CARE if the D850 is a little better for shooting action than the Z7 is.

So what do I use the D850 (and Z7 for)? I explained that in detail in a previous blog entry (entitled "Why I Ordered the Nikon Z7 (and NOT the Z6)" on September 8 - right here...) but long story short, I use the D850 (and Z7) for shooting "more static" wildlife, animalscapes, and landscapes - but only when I have sufficient light to keep the ISO down (or have the time to set up a tripod). In my view, this is the absolute "sweet spot" of the D850 and of the Z7 and what those two cameras are GREAT at. Action shooting? That's what the D5 (and to a lesser extent, the D500) is great for. Action shooting in low light? Definitely NOT the sweet spot of the D850 or the Z7 (or the D500) - and RIGHT in the D5's wheelhouse!

What features or attributes of the Z7 stand out above and beyond those on the D850 for ME? A bunch of 'em...and YES, this is a pared-down and "ranked and weighted by real world use" condensed list derived from about a zillion marketing bullet points (many of which are irrelevant to me and probably many other users).

1. Size and weight! Only one variable to consider in comparing two cameras (of course) but for me it IS a biggie. It's just so much easier to carry around or travel with (compared to the big "pro" DSLR's).

2. More ACCURATE AF. I AM finding that I get more accurate AF with the Z7 than with the D850 (unless using Live View on the D850, in which case AF was definitely very accurate). I am noticing this particularly when using "wider" angle zooms, like a 24-70mm.

3. Ability to focus closer to the frame edge. When shooting animalscapes or landscapes I often DO want to focus on something close to the edge of the frame (normally the bottom edge), and I LOVE that I can do this without going through the focus, focus-lock, and then recompose routine.

4. MUCH Better VR. So far I'm finding the VR system of the Z7 allows me to effectively hand-hold lenses (Z-mount, VR F-mounts, and of course NON-VR F-mounts) at significantly slower shutter speeds than I could with the D850 (and still get sharp shots!). And given the D850's penchant for beating up on image quality if there is camera shake and/or vibrations, this is a big feature. It ends up meaning I can either capture shots I couldn't with a D850 OR that I can shoot the same shot at a lower ISO (which is always a good thing).

5. Extra Viewfinder Info. Yep, I DO like having a histogram in view when shooting...and it's fast and convenient to display a virtual level or other info through the viewfinder.

6. Imparting VR on non-VR lenses. I have some lenses that I REALLY like but were pretty much limited to collecting dust because they pretty much needed to be used on a tripod if I shot them with the D850 (given the apertures I wanted to shoot at and the uses I wanted to put the lenses to). Two in particular are the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art and the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art. I love the fact that if I use these lenses (and others) on the Z7 they instantly "have" VR.

7. Performance of the Z-mount 24-70mm f4S. I've done enough testing of the 24-70mm f4S against the Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8E (the VR version) and the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 OS Art to convince myself that there IS something to Nikon's claim that the new Z-mount allows them to build optically superior lenses. In the case of the 24-70's I can find virtually no difference in central sharpness (of the 3 lenses), but the edges of the Z-mount 24-70mm f4S are definitely sharper (at all apertures). Some may say "but what about the stop of "lost" light?", but I am finding the much better VR of the Z-mount 24-70mm f4s (5 axis stabilization rather than 3 with non-Z-mounts) MORE than makes up for the lost light. And...while OTHERS may like the creative options of having a 24-70mm with a f2.8 aperture, when I am shooting a 24-70mm I am usually stopping it down to f5 or smaller far more commonly than even opening it up to f4 (but that's a "different strokes for different folks" thing).

8. Charger-less Battery Charging! Hey, I travel a lot and sometimes I have really restrictive baggage restrictions (on float planes and/or helicopters, etc.). I fork out oodles of money for compact, light outdoor clothing (thanks for your help ARC'TERYX) just to save weight and bulk and the same goes for my camera gear - I love that I only have to take an "adapter" along to charge the Z7 (but I am hoping Nikon finds a way to make the AC adapter a LITTLE smaller).

Are there features of the D850 do I prefer over the Z7? Yep, a few...

1. Clarity and brightness of its optical viewfinder. This is really just "legacy preference" and has no true functionality "correlate" - just a bias!

2. Availability of a battery grip with vertical controls. While I AM finding the Z7 to be easier to use vertically than my D850 sans battery grip (probably just because the Z7 is smaller and the buttons are a little easier to get to when held vertically), I STILL prefer having vertical controls. I wouldn't want the body increased in size to accommodate the vertical controls (like a D5 is), but having the option of attaching a grip with vertical controls would be nice.

3. Hmmm...can't think of a 3rd feature preference on the D850...I personally don't care about the 2nd card slot and I haven't exhausted an EN-EL15B battery during a single field shoot with my Z7 yet...

One other interesting but possibly telling (or possibly meaningless!) observation: After shooting my Z7 for awhile and then going back to my D850 I kinda feel like I'm picking up a turn of the century cell phone (note that I have not figured out how to make a phone call or send a text with either my D850 or Z7).

I am just FINE with others preferring the D850 over the Z7 and I have no interest in convincing them otherwise. Of course I don't mind hearing about why someone prefers one camera over another, but odds are you won't convince me that a D850 is better than a Z7 for ME! ;-)

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#Z7_OR_D850

1 November 2018: The Nikon Z7: A Few More Tidbits

Since posting my 17 October blog entry entitled "The Nikon Z7: Three Weeks In..." a combination of several things (questions to me via email, a discussion with a technical representative from Nikon, and further scrutiny of images I've captured with the Z7) have put me in a position to add a few more tidbits to the fog bank of knowledge about the Z7! ;-)

So here goes...

1. Z7 Image Quality?

Since that last blog entry several people emailed me and asked me what I thought about the overall image quality of the Z7 images (in that previous blog entry I DID mention that I could see absolutely no difference in visible noise between the two cameras over an ISO range of ISO 64 to ISO 12,800 - they were in a dead heat). While I have absolutely no objective way to measure dynamic range beyond visible inspection of images, at this point I can SEE no differences in how dynamic range of the two cameras vary with ISO.

But what about overall image quality of the Z7 images? Well...just like D850 images - fantastic. Great colour, wonderful tonal range, and - with the right lenses - the incredible detail you'd expect out of a 45.6 MP sensor. And, just like with the D850, if you use "less than stellar" quality lenses or sloppy image capture techniques the 45.6 MP sensor can reveal lens and/or user technique flaws real quick! I have called the D850 the "Camera of Truth" in the past, and in many regards the same thing can be said of the Z7. However (and I'll expand on this a little more below in the VR section) the amazing VR performance of the Z7 camera CAN make up for some user technique sloppiness that the D850 would be more likely to reveal (in other words, you can often get away with using SLOWER shutter speeds than you could with a D850, even if you are using a lens on the D850 that has a very good VR on it).

2. Further Z7 VR Thoughts...

Two things to say on the VR of the Z7 today. First, I am still blown away with just how well the VR works on the Z7, particularly at the "crazy slow" shutter speeds in the 0.1s to 0.5s range (with the 24-70mm f4S Z-mount lens). I am still feeling that if you use a Nikkor F-mount lens with VR (or a 3rd party lens like a Sigma with its own Optical Stabilization or "OS") the VR improves compared to shooting that lens on a DSLR, but I haven't had a chance to test this yet (I will as soon as I can).

Second, I spent some time testing to see if there was ANY negative impact associated with leaving the VR on (in either VR Normal or VR Sport mode) when shooting off a firm tripod. The reason I looked at this is that the Z7 manual states...

"To avoid unintended results, select Off when the camera is mounted on a tripod unless the tripod head is unsecured or the camera is mounted on a monopod, in which case Normal, Sport, or On is recommended."

So I tested 3 different lenses that were mounted on a firm tripod (with the head fully tightened down) over a shutter speed range of 1/500s down to 0.1s and in each of 3 states: VR Off, VR Normal, VR Sport. The three lenses I tested were the Z-mount 24-70mm f4S, the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E (which has Normal, Sport, and Off as its three VR modes), and the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art (a non-stabilized lens that gets its stabilization from the Z7 body). In evaluating the results I compared image sharpness AND the quality of the out-of-focus zones for each lens (at each shutter speed and each VR mode).

The result: I could discern NO difference in image sharpness or the quality of the out-of-focus zones among each of the 3 VR states for any shutter speed on ANY of the three lenses. In other words, in the shutter speed range from 1/500s all the way down to 0.1s you can just always leave the VR on in your preferred mode (even if you are shooting from a rock-solid tripod).

This means when I'm using my Z7 for casual shooting or any form of wildlife photography (and using a telephoto lens hand-held or on a tripod) I'll simply leave the VR on. However, if I am doing some extremely slow shutter speed work (like in the 0.5s or slower range, and likely when shooting landscapes and/or scenes) and am bolted down on a tripod and using a cable release, I'll likely just play it safe and turn the VR off. Of course, in these cases I'll be using the full electronic shutter to remove one more contributor to camera shake...

3. The Autofocus Lowdown

In my previous blog entry on the Z7 I stated that if you looked at the published information on how Nikon's Hybrid AF system works it's not easy "...to figure out (or get reliable information about) how Nikon's Hybrid AF system (meaning "part phase-detect, part contrast-detect") actually works."

Since then I have had the opportunity to shoot with the Z7 even more and also (and more importantly) chat with a technical specialist at Nikon Canada about how the AF system really works. And...it's how I thought and really quite simple. Here's the lowdown:

• There is ONE mode where the camera uses full-time (i.e., dedicated) contrast-detect AF: Pinpoint AF. This mode is ONLY available when you're using Single AF (AF-S) mode. And, Nikon warns that it may be a little slower than all other modes.

• For ALL other AF area modes (in both AF-S and AF-C servo modes) the camera uses BOTH Phase Detect Autofocus (PDAF) and Contrast Detect Autofocus (CDAF). So...in any focusing trial the camera first approximates focus quickly using PDAF and then tweaks and finalizes the focus with CDAF.

There are a few repercussions of this "hybrid" (and dual) AF action:

First, and very positively, it means that AF tuning is NOT needed for any lens. During the final Contrast Detect portion of the focusing the contrast is being maximized on the image sensor itself...which means tuning issues become irrelevant.

So that leads to a related question: If AF tuning is not needed to obtain accurate focus, why is there a way (in the Set-up Menu) to input tuning values for specific lenses? That's for the those who have decided they WANT their camera to slightly front- or back-focus for their OWN reasons. So, for instance, if a photographer of wildlife decides he/she want a LITTLE front-focus so that they have a little foreground in focus (and they don't want to play the focus-lock and re-compose game) they can do so. Note that the tuning values you input for a lens over-ride the final contrast-detect "correct" focus.

Second...if you think about how this hybrid-AF system works a logical question would be this: Does the 2-part PDAF and CDAF system work slower than a simpler PDAF system of our DSLR's? Intuitively it seems logical that it might. And...one thing I have noticed when I am shooting the Z7 on a subject that is rapidly moving toward (or away) from me (when the camera's Predictive AF is working) is that the camera doesn't keep up in focusing quite as well as my fastest DSLR's (like my D5) do. So it's at least possible that this is because of the 2-step hybrid AF system. But it's important to point out that even if this observation of a slightly degraded ability to keep the focus on a rapidly moving object it's still pretty darned good (and certainly better than I had anticipated prior to getting the Z7).

Third, and again positively, the fact that CDAF makes the "final" tweaking of the focus means it may end up being overall more reliable (and accurate) than with the PDAF-only AF system of our DSLR's, especially our high-resolution DSLR's. It's been my experience since acquiring my D850 that focus on it can be "finicky", especially when using zoom lenses (and, for some reason, especially with wider angle zooms, like a 24-70mm). In fact, I had almost given up using 24-70's for landscape shooting with my D850 if I was hand-holding my camera (and not able to effectively use the contrast-detect AF mode of Live View). Months ago (long before the Z7 was shipping) I was hopeful that the Z7 would allow more accurate focus with wide angle lenses and so far I am very pleased that I am finding this to be the case.

4. The Mount Adapter FTZ

I've received a lot of email asking me how the mount adapter FTZ performs. Simple answer on this one - just fine...and it works as advertised. To date I've tried my Z7 with all my Nikkor F-mount lenses (and they're all AF-S lenses) and all have worked perfectly. And, I have tried it with most of my Sigma lenses with the same result...and so-far so-good! Not much else to say on this one...

5. Feedback I've Received on the Z7?

Finally, a lot of folks spontaneously email me about gear, and I received quite a few emails after my October 17 blog entry on the Z7. So far NONE have been negative, and several have expressed almost surprise at how well the Z7 performs. I received one email from a pro shooter from the east coast of the US that had been using a Nikon D810 as his main (and "trusty") tool of choice. His comment after a 4-day shoot (where he began shooting with the Z7 early in the shoot was that after day one the D810 "...never saw the light of day again." And, he concluded the email with a very interesting statement:

"I've read that some think the transition from DSLR to mirrorless will be gradual and take years, but for me it's all over already, and I'm an old school photographer!"

Food for thought, eh?

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#Z7_Tidbits1

17 October 2018: The Nikon Z7: Three Weeks In...

I took delivery of my Nikon Z7 kit (including the 24-70mm f4S zoom lens and the mount adapter FTZ) almost three weeks ago. And while I vowed (to myself and those around me) to NOT do a full review of the camera, after 3 weeks (and pushing 5,000 shots) I do have a few thoughts about the camera and figured I'd share them with a few of you - hope you don't mind! ;-)

There has been an almost unprecedented amount of internet chatter about this camera over the last few months, and much of it was based solely on its specifications or by Nikon "insiders" who receive benefits for saying nice things about Nikon's products. I did post a few blogs entries about the Z7 before I took delivery of it (Sept 7: Cautious Excitement about Nikon's New Z Series System; Sept 8: Why I've Ordered the Z7 [and NOT the Z6]), but I hesitated stating anything definitive about it (or trashing its specs) until I did something unique these days - waited until I actually USED the camera in the field. So...since the arrival of my Z7 on September 27 I have poked it, prodded it, tested it, just shot with it, and spent a whole lot of time looking at images spit out of it. So what follows is a summary of my thoughts to date...

For those wanting a real short answer...here ya go: I like the Z7 - a lot. I'm almost certain that I'll soon conclude it has earned a spot in my camera kit. A likely consequence of that is that it will replace my D850 in my kit.

If anyone is shocked that THIS wildlife photographer would consider replacing a D850 with a Z7 they should look at two previous blog entries to get the context they need - my 8 Sept entry on why I ordered the Z7 (right here) and my 27 March entry about which Nikon DSLR I consider best for wildlife photography (right here). Bottom line: I use my D850 largely for landscape and animalscape shooting and it's my opinion the Z7 will meet this need equally as well as my D850 does. And, it has other features - and does many things - my D850 doesn't have or do. Like being way smaller and lighter. Like imparting VR on several of my F-mount non-VR lenses (from both Nikon and Sigma). Like providing "live histograms" for me BEFORE I shoot. Like offering User Settings (rather than Shooting Banks)...which is something I have LONG wanted Nikon to do with their pro cameras. Like...yada, yada, yada...you get the picture. Given the type of shooting I do (and where I do it), the Z7 complements my D5 very nicely and in no way competes with it. And...to a certain degree that also could be said about the Z7 and my D500. But for MY uses...the Z7 competes pretty much directly with my D850 AND it will give me additional capabilities the D850 doesn't.

But let's get back on track...and look at some specifics...

1. Setting Up the Z7

OK...unless you're one of "those people" who make those pointless and kinda weird "unboxing" videos, the FIRST thing you have to do when you get a new camera is set it up. And here's good news for existing users of Nikon DSLR's - you'll find the initial setup of the camera VERY familiar - and very "Nikon-ish". Both the menu "logic" and menu navigation is very similar to that of most Nikon DSLR's. Some of the available options may differ between your Nikon DSLR and the Z7, but you're going to find those features in pretty much the same place as always. So...if you're an experienced Nikon DSLR user it's totally safe to do the "guy thing" and toss the manual over your shoulder (at least for now).

How user-friendly is the camera's initial set-up if you're NOT familiar with setting up a Nikon? Hard for me to forget what I know about Nikon cameras and answer this, but probably not much better than some of the other "better" modern mirrorless cameras. Which means "totally confusing and incomprehensible" if you're a novice photographer and you're trying to use the User's Guide to guide you in setting the camera up!

2. Build Quality?

Shortly after I took my Z7 out of its box (sorry, no video of that) and began setting it up I was impressed with it's "high-end Nikon" build quality. Buttons and dials were nicely finished and were positive in their "movements" (dialing or pushing). The "Made in Japan" label instilled confidence. And although this is obviously subjective - the camera felt like a serious tool rather than a toy.

Durability and sealing? This is something impossible to comment on shortly after you get a camera - I'm not willing to drop my own camera on the floor or take a shower with it to test it. Nikon claims (in the Z Series brochure) that "Effective sealing, equivalent to the D850, is applied to the joints of each exterior cover, as well as the shutter release button and battery chamber cover. Sealing is also employed in the Nikkor Z lenses and Mount Adapter FTZ, to enhance total reliability as a system." Time and use will tell...but with the D850-ish apparent build quality I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until then. But...as someone who has lead a lot of photo tours in very wet conditions (and seen a LOT of good DSLR's give up the ghost) I wouldn't recommend shooting the Z7 in heavy rain or snow without a quality raincover.

3. Camera Layout & Ergonomics

Most of the most commonly used buttons on the camera are where you'd expect them - on a Nikon DSLR. So the command and sub-command dials are in the same place. And the AF-On button is right where it should be (and has always been). And there are "function" buttons on the front side of the camera beside the lens. Given the camera is smaller than Nikon's "serious" DSLR's - and given the monitor occupies MOST of the back of the camera - some buttons have been moved. As an example, all the buttons associated with image playback and menu display have shifted to the right side of the back of the camera (rather than being in a column to the left of the LCD).

There's a "macro" level difference in the Z7 (compared to Nikon's top DSLR's) that's worth mentioning now - overall the camera has fewer buttons. This means MORE of the cameras functions (including some you would want access to quite commonly) are accessible only via menus. At first this might seem almost cringe-worthy. BUT...Nikon was actually pretty smart about how they dealt with this "problem" - once you discover how the menu triggered by the i-button works you end up with quick access to even MORE functions than you ever had with a DSLR. Hit the i-button when you're in shooting mode (i.e., not in image playback mode) and you'll be presented - within the viewfinder and/or on the LCD - with a 2x6 grid of settings (called the i Menu) displayed along the bottom of the display. Any of those settings can be changed on-the-fly without taking your eye out of the viewfinder (or off the LCD). And...best of all...you can customize each of the 12 setting choices within the i Menu. Very cool...and very, very handy when you're shooting.

One quick "tip" about customizing the i Menu: The Nikon Z7 features User Settings (like the Nikon D750 and D600's) which allows the user to collect a whole array of camera settings into a single group, allowing you to switch a ton of settings at once. (Side note: Having User Settings configured to match your style can allow you to quickly change between settings. So, for instance, you could choose to have U1 (User Setting 1) set up for landscape photography. So U1 might be set up as follows: Manual Exposure Mode, Manual ISO, RAW 14-bit images, AF-S with Pinpoint area mode, et cetera. But, being a landscape photographer you're out in the wilderness (right?) and you just might come across...say...a bird-in-flight (BIF)...and you want to re-configure your whole camera to be able to nab that BIF shot in an eye blink. So...you've set up U2 (User Setting 2) for "action shooting" - so it's in Aperture Priority Mode, with Auto ISO on and with a high minimum shutter speed, AF-C with Wide Area (S) AF mode, et cetera. And...you're able to instantly switch from U1 (landscape shooting) to U2 (action shooting) with a quick rotation of the Mode dial. Cool, eh?)

Now...what about that i Menu tip? OK...even if you set up all your User Settings for different things, odds are you'll want the choices available in the i Menu to be the same throughout ALL your Mode options (M, A, P, S, and your User Settings). If not, you'll likely be as confused as hell whenever you display the i Menu! ANYWAY...if you want to save yourself a good hour or so during your initial set up, configure your i Menu BEFORE you create your User Settings! If you don't you'll end up having to go to EACH User Setting and re-do your i Menu options (and then re-save those User Settings).

Confused? Once you have your Z7 in your hands and begin to set it up this will all make sense (trust me).

BTW: I LOVE the fact that the Z7 has User Settings. I find this approach superior (for my type of shooting) to what Nikon does with its best DSLR's, i.e., giving you Shooting Banks, Extended Shooting Banks, and Custom Banks. I've long wished that Nikon's pro DSLR's offered User Settings...

4. Shooting and Camera Handling

OK...the actual experience you have shooting the Z7 is partly dependent on the camera layout and ergonomics, the menu logic, and user-dependent things like the size of your hand. I have medium-sized (but bigger than Trump's) hands (as I'm sure most males do), and I am finding the small size of the Z7 just fine in the field. Yes, my pinky finger on my right hand is kinda "off the bottom" of the camera most of the time, but button and control spacing is just fine for me. And, as an experienced Nikon shooter, my fingers instinctively know where to go for all the basic functions. So I have NO issue instantly changing my aperture (sub-command dial), easy exposure compensation (main command dial...I'm an Aperture Priority shooter mostly), toggle the focus point in the viewfinder, etc.

Is there ANYTHING I find awkward? Well...if I'm being honest (why not, eh?) I'm still struggling a little in getting my thumb down to the i button when my eye is looking through the viewfinder (remember that this button triggers the "delicious" i Menu you can see through the viewfinder) AND I am still finding it challenging to find the Display button with my thumb as well (while looking through the viewfinder). This Display button is one you DO want to be able to access quickly - if you're looking through the viewfinder it lets you toggle between a "clean" display vs. showing a Live Histogram, vs. showing a Virtual Horizon display, et cetera. I know it will only be a matter of time before my thumb can instantly "find" these buttons without any active thinking on my part.

The most important take-home lesson? Anyone familiar with a Nikon DSLR will likely master the controls and find the Z7 easy to shoot with in minutes. And, I think this is a pretty important thing. And...one reason for a Nikon DSLR user to NOT go mirrorless ("Arrgghhh...I have to go through the pain of learning a totally new camera set-up, menu logic, and more!!") has just gone away.

One other almost random comment about the Z7 "user experience": As a user of Nikon's BEST DSLR's I am used to a camera having an unnoticeable start-up lag - you turn the camera on and it's instantly ready to go. However, with the Z7 it takes many times longer before it's ready to shoot (like maybe a whole second). Not really a problem, but definitely noticeable (and it does make me tend to leave the camera on more than I do with my DSLR's).

Big picture question: How easy is it for a NON-Nikon shooting user (novice or experienced photographer) to pick up a Z7 and start shooting effectively with it? Tough for me to answer...but probably safe to say it's infinitely more challenging for the average person than figuring out how to use the "super-competitor" camera we all want to forget about - the iPhone! (Ironically...I find my iPhone infinitely harder to use and understand than my D5 OR my Z7, but I have this bizarre "I want to CONTROL my camera" attitude I can't beat into submission.)

5. The Electronic Viewfinder (EVF)

Ok...here's an admission on my part: I have never liked EVF's. I love a clear and bright optical viewfinder. Heck, I travel to some pretty amazing places with my photography and I'd prefer to see them MOSTLY as they appear (through an optical viewfinder) rather than looking at them through what is kinda like looking at them through a 20-year old TV screen (an EVF). Yes, I admit this is a personal quirk and it may be shared with no one else.

Now...that being said, here's what I think of the Z7 EVF: It's pretty darned nice! And...more importantly...when you get used to what it can offer you (after you master getting to the Display button and the i button) - things like a live (before you shoot) histogram, availability of tweaking a zillion settings with the i Menu while you are looking through the viewfinder and more - well - Z7 EVF DOES seem like the future of photography.

An example of what I mean may be helpful here: I have been using Matrix metering as my primary metering method for ages (count that in decades). When I look at a scene with my eyes OR with an optical viewfinder, I can almost always nail the amount of exposure compensation needed (if any) to get the exposure I want. But when I look at a scene with the Z7's EVF I lose my ability to judge the scene's brightness based on what I'm seeing through the viewfinder (it's always bright, regardless of of how bright the scene is). BUT...having a Live Histogram there in the viewfinder MORE than makes up for it! I was really good at getting the exposure right with my Nikon DSLR's, but I'm BETTER at it with my Z7!

Note that there is an unexpected (at least by me) positive thing associated with the "it's always bright" EVF: I've already found that it's easier to see (and follow) a dark subject in low light. So if you're photographing a black bear in the shade in a dark forest you'll probably have a better idea what its eyes are doing - and where they're looking - with this EVF than with an optical viewfinder.

Any negatives of the EVF? Yep. High contrast scenes go excessively contrasty (and look like crap). And...obviously it pulls power and reduces battery life. Which gives me a nice transition to my next topic...

6. Battery Life

Ok...I pity Nikon here. To their credit they published the exceptionally conservative CIPA rating of 330 shots per charge in their specifications. If this rating was accurate in the real world it would be have been AWFUL (yep, light camera, but my backpack FULL of EN-EL15B batteries is sure heavy). In reality I'm finding I'm averaging about 1300 shots per charge, which is just under 4 times the CIPA rating. Hey CIPA - time to re-do how that rating is determined!!

Bottom line: Battery life is NOT the problem we thought it would be (when we read the camera's specs).

7. Autofocus Performance

I am going to tackle this issue in a MUCH bigger way in a few months. It's not easy to figure out (or get reliable information about) how Nikon's Hybrid AF system (meaning "part phase-detect, part contrast-detect") actually works. As an example, it seems quite clear that the new "tiny" area mode called Pinpoint AF (available only when using Single Servo - or AF-S - mode) is fully contrast-detect. But how much of a role contrast-detect plays in the "other" AF-S modes and ALL the AF-C modes isn't clear. Many (including me) assumed that the "hybrid" AF system meant that contrast-detect was ALWAYS contributing to the AF (in any mode) and thus negated the need for any form of AF tuning on a lens. However, given that the camera allows the user to input AF tuning values for lenses makes me question that. And...I have read quotes of Nikon executives saying "Contrast-detect is always in effect when AF-S mode is used" but that assumes that the executive being interviewed actually knows what he/she is saying! Like I said, I will be digging into this fully in the coming months.

BUT...I CAN comment on several things about the AF system (based on my own use) already:

First, initial acquisition of focus on a subject seems very fast. When I pair my Z7 with a very fast focusing lens (like a 70-200mm f2.8E or my 400mm f2.8E) it snaps into focus extremely fast (so fast that it SEEMS as fast as my DSLR's, tho' this is a qualitative statement that I can't verify). I am more than slightly pleased (and pleasantly surprised) that the Z7 acquires initial focus as fast as it does.

Second, the predictive AF seems good, but NOT as good as on Nikon's best DSLR's. What's predictive AF? It's what your camera is doing when an object (like my dog, though he'll bite you if you call him an object) moves directly towards you (or away from you) and stays under the same focus point (the camera is actually calculating its exact position when the shutter exposes the sensor to light). So...when good old Poncho the Portie is running right at me I CAN get shots in focus (like this one of Poncho trotting at me and captured with the Z7 plus my 400mm f2.8E), but the hit rate (shots in tack sharp focus) doesn't appear as high as on my D5 (which is Nikon's best camera at this test). I say "doesn't appear" because I haven't had the chance to systematically test this so can't fully quantify it yet...but in time I will.

Third...on Focus Tracking: There's been a LOT of negative internet chatter about how Nikon has executed focus-tracking on the Z7 and on the fact that it doesn't have 3D-tracking (and I have also heard some complaints about how the Z7 doesn't have Group Area or as many Dynamic Area modes). As a wildlife photographer I almost NEVER use 3D-tracking for any form of action shooting - not with birds in flight, not with sparring grizzlies, not with any running mammals (or breaching humpback whales). While the 3D-tracking has improved a lot on recent DSLR's (its BEST execution is on the D5), in the brown-on-brown world of wildlife photography it isn't the "go-to" mode for MOST wildlife photographers when they are shooting action. Rather, they tend to use ONE of the Dynamic Area modes OR, if there's no chance of having foreground nab the wrong subject, Group Area AF. And, MOST wildlife photographers don't "bolt" their camera in one place and expect the AF system to track it all over their frame - rather, they PAN with the subject.

So...the Z7 DOES have 9-point Dynamic Area mode, and the area enclosed by the points is MUCH larger (i.e., a larger proportion of the frame) than on the D5. And...it works pretty darn well for panning on (and keep a moving subject) in focus. D5 good? Nope. But not too darned bad.

What about the missing Group Area AF modes? Well...they're not really missing - they've been re-named. On the Z7 there are two Wide Area modes where a MUCH bigger area than a single focus point acts as one BIG focus point (kinda like Group Area!). And, again kinda like Group Area, the AF system prioritizes on focusing on the closest object within the "box" that defines the focus area boundaries. And, the Wide Area S mode is smaller (compared to the size of the Group Area mode on a D850) and the Wide Area L mode is larger (again than the D850's Group Area AF). So...if you have to worry about keeping foreground out of the Wide Area bounding box you choose the S (small) option - if your subject is moving erratically choose the L (larger) option. Hmmm...just like Group Area, but with more size options!

Focus accuracy on the Z7? Seems very good in all modes...and incredibly good if you use the pinpoint mode, which is a very small focus point and is dedicated to contrast-detect AF. Where I have noticed the accuracy of that pinpoint mode the most has been when comparing the focus accuracy of wide angle zooms, like 24-70's (which always seemed a bit hit and miss with my D850 when I was focusing using the optical viewfinder).

Expect more to read more about the AF performance of the Z7 on this blog in the coming months...but at this point I can honestly say this: the AF system of the Z7 has exceeded my expectations. In most modes it is very fast, it's acceptable for panning, and - used correctly - it is deadly accurate.

8. ISO Performance

As a wildlife photographer who often works under low light I am primarily concerned about how two things vary with ISO - noise (both luminance and colour) and dynamic range. I have done systematic tests comparing the luminance and colour noise of the Z7 to that of the D850 from ISO 64 through to ISO 12,800. My finding was very simple: I could find NO difference between the Z7 and the D850 (in how luminance and colour noise varied with ISO).

What does this mean in practical terms? I'm going to set my own ISO limits on the Z7 the same as I set them on my D850 - in most situations I will want to set the limit at ISO 3200 and try to keep it as far below that as I can. And because the camera has a great VR system (see more on this below), it means I will probably shoot AVERAGE ISO's that are lower on the Z7 than on the D850 (i.e., I can risk hand-holding slower shutter speeds without blurring the shot through camera shake on the Z7 and consequently I won't have to bump the ISO up quite as much).

Dynamic Range? I have no way to accurately measure this, but based on my shooting results so far I have no reason to believe there is a significant difference in dynamic range between the Z7 and the D850 (or that how it changes with ISO is any different than the D850).

9. VR Performance

As I'm sure most know, Nikon has made a BIG departure on how they have executed VR on this camera - it's Nikon's first serious camera with in-camera (in the body!) VR. And, if you use Z-mount lenses it stabilizes the image in 5 planes (rather than the 3 of lens-based VR systems we're mostly familiar with). When you use a Z-mount lens you have 3 VR options: Off, VR Normal, and VR Sport. These modes work pretty much the same as they do on Nikon's lenses with the same 3 modes - VR Normal gives you the MOST stabilization but if you are shooting bursts the frame jumps around between in a herky-jerky fashion. VR Sport has slightly less stabilization capability, but the image is much more stable between frames in a burst.

Before I discuss the actual performance of the VR system I have to mention a few consequences of the in-body VR and how Nikon has made it work with F-mount lenses (if one has a mount adapter FTZ...as I assume most early Z7 buyers will):

• If you are using the Z7 with an F-mount lens with the same VR modes as the camera (Off, VR Normal, VR Sport) you control the VR FROM THE LENS (including choosing the VR mode you want)

• If you are using the Z7 with an F-mount lens with DIFFERENT VR modes than the camera (e.g., Off, VR Normal, VR Active) you end up with TWO usable VR modes - Off and Normal (you don't get Sport mode)

• If you are using the Z7 with an F-mount lens with NO VR (including 3rd partly lenses like Sigma) you control the VR from the camera AND you get all 3 of its modes - Off, VR Normal, and VR Sport. And YES - this means that a Z7 imparts VR capability on your "system" even if you are using a lens that has NO image stabilization (and I am just LOVING this and using some "normally left at home" lenses a LOT more now).

When you're in the field this implementation of the VR system makes perfect sense (nicely done Nikon).

So...how well does the VR system work? Time for a few more bullet points...

• The MOST striking thing when using Z-mount lenses is amazing performance at super-slow shutter speeds. I am able to get extremely sharp shots (and I'm an anal pixel-peeper) down to shots BELOW one tenth (0.1s) while hand-holding the 24-70mm f4s. As an example, check out this shot of a mountain stream captured hand-held with a shutter speed of one-quarter of a second (0.25s) - with no form of support whatsoever...no leaning on anything...no wedging of the camera against a rock or tree...just standing upright holding the camera in my hands. This shot was captured with the Z-mount 24-70mm f4s at 32mm. And note that I did NOT have to shoot a zillion shots of this scene (at this shutter speed) to get a single sharp shot - I shot 10 frames of this scene and 7 of them were as sharp as the image linked here.

• What about F-mount lenses with VR systems - is the VR any BETTER with the Z7 than with a DSLR of the same resolution (like a D850)? I THINK so. Late last week I was in a scenario where I was shooting raven portraits with the Z7 and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E at its longest focal length with the TC engaged (560mm). I shot around 200 frames of the raven under low-light conditions and all were shot hand-held at either 1/200s or 1/250s (this 560mm shot hand-held at 1/200s). And almost ALL of them were tack sharp. I didn't get the chance to repeat the exercise with my D850, but in the past I have found myself on thin ice getting ANY tack sharp shots if I shoot the 180-400mm at 560mm and 1/200s. This is anecdotal information at best...but my gut is telling me you DO get better VR performance out of a VR lens if it's on the Z7. I will follow up on this in future testing of the camera.

• What about F-mount lenses WITHOUT VR's? To date I've only shot TWO of them - the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art (a remarkably sharp lens with wonderful bokeh) and the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art (another very sharp lens). The results have been very good. Check out this shot - it's a 1:1 crop from the central region of a hand-held shot captured at 0.1s using the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art (attached to the Z7 with the mount adapter FTZ).

Bottom line: I definitely have to do more VR testing, but at this point Nikon seems to have done a remarkable job at their first real crack at in-body image stabilization. And I love the increased opportunities to capture slow shutter speed shots with the Z7 (that I couldn't capture with my D850) when on hikes or even photo tours where I might not have access to a tripod. Yes!!!!

10. Frame Rate and Burst Depth

As most anyone who can read specs knows, there are TWO "fastest" frame rates on the Z7 when shooting in continuous mode - Continuous High (5.5 fps) and Continuous High Extended (9 fps). What's the difference? Continuous High (5.5 fps) utilizes the mechanical shutter and Continuous High Extended (9 fps) utilizes the electronic shutter. You DO get AF with both modes (but AE is fixed on the first frame when in Continuous High Extended mode).

Are there consequences of which of the two Continuous High Speed modes you're in when shooting action...like...say...panning on a bird in flight? ABSOLUTELY. When shooting in Continuous High (at 5.5 fps) the appearance of the subject through the viewfinder is like a DSLR, including with blackout time. And, that blackout time IS longer than you'd get with Nikon's top DSLR's (and that blackout time appears very pronounced if you are comparing it to a D5 where blackout time is almost unnoticeable).

Shift to Continuous High Speed Extended mode and the image blackout is gone! But...something worse happens (if you are trying to pan on a moving object) - through the viewfinder you see a "herky-jerky" freeze-frame sequence that looks almost like the flickering of an ancient movie. And it makes panning on your subject very challenging (if I'm being generous).

Others may find the Continuous High Speed Extended mode just fine for panning on moving subjects, but I don't. For me the highest FUNCTIONAL frame rate for photographing the type of action I most commonly encounter when photographing wildlife is 5.5 fps (so a little slower than the 7 fps of a D850).

But that doesn't make the Z7's Continuous High Extended mode "useless". If you're in a scenario where you are shooting action and you are NOT panning (say two grizzlies going toe-to-toe sparring) it will work just fine - and capture images at a higher rate than a D850!

What about burst depth? During my own testing shooting 14-bit compressed raw files I am consistently getting around 30 frames (using Continuous High at 5.5 fps and a Sony G-Series 440 MB/s XQD card) before the camera slows down to a crawl. That number jumps up to an average of 35 frames if I shoot 12-bit compressed raw files. If I go over to Continuous High Extended mode (9 fps) the burst depth falls to 18 frames with 14-bit compressed raws and 22 frames with 12-bit compressed raws.

So this burst depth is a little lower than on a D850 and WAY lower than on the lower resolution D5 or D500 (200 frames before the camera abruptly stops, but is ready to shot another 200 virtually instantly).

11. So...How 'bout ACTION SHOOTING?

The suitability of a camera for successful action shooting is dependent on several things - AF capability, frame rate, burst depth, and now with mirrorless cameras, viewfinder "behavior". If you compare a Z7 to a D5 for action shooting (or even a D500) there is simply no comparison - the Z7 doesn't come close. But...if you compare the Z7 to a D850 (a camera with the same resolution) the comparison is fairer - and the cameras' performance is far more similar (in terms of hit rates when action shooting). Yes, the D850 is still a little better at action shooting, but the gap in performance in action shooting capability between a Z7 and a D850 is FAR smaller than the gap between a Z7 (or D850) and a D5. Yes, you will be able to capture great high-resolution shots of a bird in flight with a Z7. And, capture things like sparring grizzlies at a higher frame rate than a D850. So...for MOST action shooting you will likely experience a slightly lower success rate than on a D850 (and WAY lower than on a D5) but it's wrong to think of a Z7 as completely unsuitable for action shooting...

12. So...How 'bout for WILDLIFE PHOTOGRAPHY?

It appears to be fashionable to declare a camera to be "not good for genre X" even before you've had that camera in your hands. I've read online comments (and seen videos) claiming how poorly the Z7 is designed for wildlife photography (and I think many of these pundits equate shooting birds-in-flight with ALL wildlife photography, which is plain wrong!). I'm going to reserve judgment a little longer and I've had a little more opportunity to use it for wildlife shooting. I'm quite confident it won't replace my D5 as my "go-to" wildlife camera. But...after carefully reviewing my favourite wildlife photos that I have captured with the Nikon D850, I haven't actually found a single one that I couldn't have captured with the Z7. I can't say the same about my favourite D5 shots. So stay tuned on more on this topic in the coming months...

13. And That Pesky SINGLE Card Slot "Issue"?

Yep, no matter how much time you spend looking for a second card slot you won't find it (I've looked EVERYWHERE). I get how those who photograph weddings or other "crucial" events - and are used to using less reliable storage media than XQD cards (like SD cards) - think NOT having a second card slot (for backup) is a deal-breaker. And, I understand how those who like to segregate format types by slot (e.g., raw in card slot 1, JPEG in card slot 2) are disappointed that the Z7 won't do this. But I have always used my 2nd card slot as an overflow (and my experience is that this is how MOST wildlife shooters work) and I have never had an XQD card fail - so I am completely unconcerned that the Z7 has only one card slot. I saw a recent interview of a Nikon executive from Europe and he called it like it was - the decision of having a second card slot came down to this: have one card slot and have a smaller camera or have two card slots and have a larger camera. Personally, I have enough big cameras - I'll go for the "one card slot and smaller camera" option.

My final "after 3 weeks" comment about the Z7? Well...it ain't perfect, but it works pretty darned well for me.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#Z7_3weeks

09 Sept 2018: Hey Canon - GOOD IDEA!

Lke Nikon, Canon has just announced their new full-frame entry into the mirrorless market - the EOS R. Like Nikon, Canon realized that a big part of getting immediate sales and "converts" to their system was to offer a mount adapter so Canon EF and EF-S lenses could be used on their mirrorless body. But on the mount adapter front Canon scooped Nikon by offering multiple adapters. One of their adapters is called the "Drop-in Filter Mount Adapter EF-EOS R" and I bet you'll never guess what it does. Oh...good guess - it includes drop-in filter capability for use with circular polarizing filters or variable ND filters! OK...think about that - wouldn't it be incredibly nice to have ONE circular polarizer or ONE variable ND filter that fits ALL your lenses! Good idea Canon.

Take note Nikon (please). And if there's internal resistance at head office to "copying" Canon, just think how many drop-in CPL's and drop-in variable ND's you'd be able to sell (stolen market share from B+W and others!) if you followed suit and independently came up with the cleverly named Mount Adapter FTZ with Drop-in Filter Holder! Heck, you'd even sell a whole lot more mount adapters (I'm sure a LOT of shooters would end up owning the standard mount adapter PLUS the drop-in filter mount adapter).

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

08 Sept 2018: Why I've Ordered the Nikon Z7 (and NOT the Z6)

NOTE: Minor revisions to this entry were made on 09 September.

In my last blog entry I outlined why I was cautiously excited and optimistic about the new Z Series mirrorless camera system recently announced by Nikon. In this blog entry I'm going to try to explain why I have ordered the 45.7 MP Z7 rather than the considerably less expensive, lower resolution, faster, and presumably the new mirrorless with better ISO performance - the Z6. Along the way I'm going to tell it exactly as I see it - from my perspective as a nature photographer.

In understanding why I have chosen to go with the Z7 (rather than the Z6) it's probably important to note that beyond being "just" a nature photographer, I'm one who primarily specializes in wildlife photography on British Columbia's wild and dark coast. This means that a disproportionately large amount of my own shooting is in low-light conditions and often hand-held from a Zodiac inflatable boat. A large proportion of my wildlife photography is of animals in action...including animals in action in low light. The key point here is that my camera needs for MY wildlife shooting probably differ a lot from someone who shoots sleeping lions in bright African sun! Stick with me...you'll see where I'm going with this in a few more sentences! ;-)

As a final background note - I do enjoy landscape photography, but at this point I'm an opportunistic (and spontaneous) landscape shooter. Given the opportunity I will meticulously set up a landscape shot (using a firm tripod, cable release, electronic shutter, etc.), but my reality is that those opportunities are few and far between and I often have to hand-hold my landscape shots. A camera facilitating spontaneous hand-held shooting (with - hint - perhaps an excellent 5-stop VR system with ALL lenses I might use it with) just might have some value for me.

An important part of understanding my interest in the Z7 is related to how I perceive and use Nikon's other 45.7 MP camera - the D850. Very long story short, the D850 doesn't work too well for me as a wildlife camera. Why? Partly because of the region and conditions under which I do the bulk of my wildlife photography and partly because I own a different camera far better suited to my style of wildlife shooting - the Nikon D5. Don't get me wrong - I think the D850 is a great camera. But the D5 has many attributes that makes it a MUCH better wildlife camera for me than the D850 - and those would be better ISO performance, better dynamic range in the ISO region I mostly live in (above ISO 640), a faster frame rate, MUCH better burst depth, better AF performance, a superior mirror-driving mechanism (which leads to shorter blackout times and better between-frame image stability when shooting bursts) and more. Anyone interested in a much more detailed comparison of the effectiveness of Nikon's latest models as wildlife cameras should read my 27 March 2018 blog entry entitled "The BEST Nikon DSLR for Wildlife Photography?").

So...what do I use my D850 for? Mainly three things - opportunistic landscape shooting, animalscape shooting, and a lot of lens testing! The common denominator here is that I DON'T use it much at all for action shooting or "wildlife in action" shooting. My D5 is a much better tool for any form of action shooting than is my D850. Oh...and if anyone wants to know exactly what I mean by animalscape shooting there are two places you can go (on this website - and neither are located in Hades!) - either here for a written description, or to my Animalscapes Gallery for some sample animalscape shots (for the visually inclined!).

Now - the bottom line - and please read this carefully: It's my opinion that the Z7 will come closer to matching the D850 for what I use that camera for than the Z6 will come to the D5 for what I use THAT camera for. And, most importantly, I think it is likely that the Z7 will beat (or offer additional features beyond) the D850 in a few areas that are important to me. These areas include in the absolute accuracy of autofocus on stationary or near-stationary subjects (landscapes and animalscapes), the addition of VR to some key non-VR lenses I like (including the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art, the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art, and more), improved "automated" capture of images for focus-stacking, a wider area of AF coverage, and more. Central to my argument is that I think it's completely reasonable to assume that the image QUALITY of the 45.7 MP images coming out Z7 will match the quality of the images coming out of the D850 (so in sharpness, dynamic range, ISO performance, etc.).

The clever reader (so everyone reading this) will instantly realize there are a lot of consequences and/or assumptions (and preconceptions) behind the statement immediately above. Yep, guilty as charged. And those preconceptions include:

1. That I don't think the first generation Nikon Z Series cameras will match the D5 as wildlife cameras.

Yep, no surprise there. And this first generation of Z's won't fully match the D850 or the D500 as wildlife cameras either. But this doesn't disappoint me at all. The current top Nikon DSLR's are the result of decades of development. If the version 1.0's of the Z's matched Nikon's best DSLR's in the demanding field of wildlife photography it wouldn't say much about those DSLR's! And most importantly - the new Z's will have some different and unique attributes that NO DSLR has (How good are you at guessing the DoF of a zoom lens used on your DSLR at EACH focal length it offers? Oh...you can SEE that on the EVF of a Z7? Hey, that's pretty cool!).

But what are the specific "deficiencies" that I expect to see in the Z7 that will prevent it from being my preferred camera for wildlife? Pretty much the same ones that prevent my D850 from being my go-to wildlife camera (and it's likely that with a few of them the deficiency will be greater than with my D850). Relative to my current #1 wildlife camera for wildlife photography (yep, the D5) these will - or are likely to - include reduced frame rates, reduced burst sizes, increased viewfinder black out times, decreased focus-tracking ability, and decreased ISO performance.

Based on email I've received - and a certain video I've seen online - there seem to be some who are disappointed that the first Z's can't match the world's best DSLR's as wildlife cameras. Uhhhh...what did you expect with Version 1.0? Some might argue the Sony A9 can compete with a Nikon D5 as a wildlife camera (I'd argue otherwise, but that's another story), but it seems to me that expecting the first Z's to be top-notch wildlife cameras is unrealistic. Obviously it will be POSSIBLE to grab a great bird-in-flight shot with a Nikon Z7 or Z6, but your hit rate on capturing any form of high-speed action won't be anywhere close to that of Nikon's top DSLR's.

If anyone is interested in unfettered speculation, my best guess is that discerning and demanding wildlife photographers will opt for at least one more generation of DSLR's before going to mirrorless for their "go-to" wildlife camera. I think I will be be buying a D6 as my NEXT preferred wildlife camera (just think - D5 AF and ISO performance with a 30 MP sensor!). But a D7 (if we even see it)? Maybe not...

2. That I think the Z7 will be a highly capable landscape and animalscape camera.

Yep, I definitely believe that. And, moreover, I think it will be a really good all-rounder too! I also think the Z6 will be a good "all-rounder" (and likely offer great ISO performance with pretty decent speed), but anyone thinking that it can compete with a D5 for action or wildlife shooting is bound to be disappointed.

3. That I think that at product launch the Nikon Z's will be GREAT (and highly useful) complements to Nikon DSLR's for serious enthusiast and professional shooters.

Yep. In fact, I think the Z7 will complement my D5 and D500 so well that I may be able to sell my D850 without losing a step (and I'll even gaining a step in some ways). And this is in no way a criticism of my D850 - I think it's an amazing 45.7 DSLR.

Anyway...back to the point of this entry - why I have ordered a Z7 and not a Z6. And it's simply because I think in a few ways the Z7 will be more useful for me than my D850 (i.e., has the potential to replace my D850). But, given I own both a D5 and D500, I can't begin to imagine what advantage or "edge" a Z6 would give to this wildlife photographer. And, compared to my D5 and even my D500, I'm quite confident that the Z6 would fall short in some key performance parameters that are critical to me in my wildlife work, including AF performance, realized frame rate, burst size, blackout time, yada, yada, yada! So...ME buying a Z6 would be akin to burning money and make ZERO sense...

All-in-all...it's a good and highly interesting time to be a Nikon-shooting wildlife photographer. The Z Series introduction won't instantly shake up our world, but that shake-up is coming and it's just around the corner. I'm choosing to embrace and move forward with the mirrorless revolution. Along the way I plan to enjoy learning something new with it, and just have some good ol' fun with it. I am genuinely excited about starting shooting with my Z7 and having it open up my "photographic thinking".

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#WhyZ7

07 Sept 2018: Cautious Excitement About Nikon's New Z Series System

By now most visitors to this website know that Nikon (and Canon) are about to seriously step into the mirrorless camera market. I won't get into the specs of Nikon's new Z Series cameras and lenses here - anyone wanting that information can go to dpreview.com, nikonrumors.com, or even their favourite Nikon website (like nikon.ca). I'm going to limit this blog entry to why I'm personally excited - but cautiously excited - about Nikon's new mirrorless system. A subsequent blog entry will explain my rationale and reasoning for ordering the 45.7 MP Z7 (with a 24-70mm f4S lens) rather than the 24.5 MP Z6.

CONTEXT:

Keep in mind this commentary is written by a nature photographer who primarily specializes in wildlife photography on British Columbia's wild - and often dark - coast. This means that a disproportionately large amount of my own shooting is in low-light conditions and often hand-held from a Zodiac inflatable boat (there aren't many roads leading into the Great Bear Rainforest or to the coastal islands I work and play on). I enjoy landscape photography, but at this point I'm an opportunistic (and spontaneous) landscape shooter. Given the opportunity I will meticulously set up a landscape shot (using a firm tripod, cable release, electronic shutter, etc.), but my reality is that those opportunities are few and far between and I often have to hand-hold my landscape shots.

What about my previous mirrorless experiences? Some may be surprised to find out that I've owned 5 mirrorless cameras, including offerings from Olympus, Panasonic, and Nikon 1's (both a V1 and V2). To date - and relative to my Nikon DSLR's - I have found them awkward, slow, too small for my medium-sized hands, and pretty much in the way of the image-capturing process. I have NOT owned (or extensively used) any of the more recent "high end" mirrorless from Sony (such as an A7 MkIII or an A9) - so my comments in the previous sentence don't necessarily apply to them.

Finally, I have a considerable investment in F-mount lenses and love many of them. And...not all of them have VR.

WHY I'M EXCITED

So...as long as image quality isn't compromised, who wouldn't want a smaller and lighter camera body? I think at the most basic level this is the key appeal of a mirrorless system. Of course, other features most commonly found on mirrorless systems have appeal as well - things like a silent, vibration-free electronic shutter (yep, you CAN find this on a D850 as well), exceptionally high frame rates, and more. But why should a Nikon-shooting nature photographer like me be excited about Nikon's first serious entry into the mirrorless market? Here's a few things - starting with the most important - that interest and excite me...

1. Nikon Ergonomics:

I mentioned above that I found all previous mirrorless systems I have used more or less got in the way of the image capture process. A big part of this is simply ergonomics and having a "different" layout than the Nikon DSLR's my hands know so well. By all accounts - and after discounting the hype - it appears that the size and layout of the key operating controls of the Z Series bodies largely mimics that of their DSLR's. My reality is that for the foreseeable future (3 years? 4 years?) I will still be shooting a DSLR for a large (but possibly changing) proportion of my work, and the ease of going back and forth between mirrorless and DSLR - without having to actively think about where the controls are - is an absolutely HUGE concern for me. Sure...one Sony model or another may have a feature or two I prefer over the Z7, but for me this is absolutely dwarfed in comparison to having a mirrorless camera that my fingers alone can control as well as they can control my Nikon DSLR (i.e., with almost no active involvement of my brain!).

2. The Mount Adapter FTZ:

This one is a no-brainer: I have a HUGE investment in F-mount lenses and I want to be able to use many (if not all) of them on any new camera I acquire. And with the Mount Adapter FTZ all the lenses in my own collection should work seamlessly with the Z7. In fact, I currently have a 500mm f5.6 PF on order - and if there wasn't a way to use this lens with the Z Series bodies I may not have ordered it (I have a feeling that it won't be long before you start seeing a lot of traveling wildlife photographers with a Z6 or Z7 in their hands with either a 300mm PF or a 500mm PF attached to them).

3. VR on my Non-VR Lenses!

I have a few lenses that I really like but use less than I would if they had VR on them. These lenses include my Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art (my sharpest lens, period!), my Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art, and even my Nikkor 200mm f4 Micro (Note: At this time I am assuming that Sigma F-mount lenses will be fully compatible with the Z Series cameras via the mount adapter FTZ). When you use a non-VR F-mount lens on a Z Series mirrorless camera you gain the benefit of the in-body VR and your non-VR lens instantly has up to 5-stops of 3-axis image stabilization. In my books this is really cool and really useful. And, it's something above and beyond what I can get on ANY of my Nikon DSLR's (that IS the ultimate question, isn't it - what true performance advantage do you get with a mirrorless camera that you CAN'T get with a DSLR?). Got a sharp F-mount lens that has become a paperweight largely because it doesn't have VR? Well...it just might be time to dust it off!

4. The Promise of the Z-mount?

OK...I've read and watched everything about the "potential" of the large mount diameter and short flange focal distance of the new Z-mount lenses that I can lay my hands on. And, it's all claiming that the new mount design gives optical engineers new and relaxed design contraints and will lead to more light transmission (= faster lenses) and more. But, at this point virtually all the readily-available information is from Nikon or Nikon-sponsored sources - so it's challenging to separate the marketing hype and spin from objective facts. But, the claimed benefits of the Z-mount seem logical and, interestingly, Canon is doing the exact same things - and making the same claims (is that an indication of collusion or just good industrial espionage?). But maybe...just maybe...some of the new Z-mount lenses WILL offer better optics (such as better corner sharpness?) than the F-mount lenses. And that thought IS quite exciting, especially as sensor resolution rises...

5. USB-Rechargeable Batteries!

For many the fact that you can recharge the new EN-EL15B batteries simply via a USB cable (without need for a charging station) may seem like no big deal. But for a traveling photographer (and especially one that flies under increasingly strict luggage limits) this is great news. Especially if one is looking to combine a Z Series body with one like the D5 that takes different battery types and requires a different charger. This is cool.

WHY MY EXCITEMENT IS CAUTIOUS

I mentioned above that I'm cautiously excited about the Z Series System. Why the caution? Simple - because of my previous quite negative experiences with mirrorless systems. Here are my primary concerns with the Z Series cameras - and they're things that Nikon may or may not have "fixed" to my satisfaction.

1. The Electronic Viewfinder (EVF)

OK...upfront admission of a bias that may lack logic - but to date I absolutely hate the EVF's I have used (but please note that I have NOT tried the latest Sony EVF's which are reportedly very good). I like a bright optical viewfinder. I go to some amazing places, and to view them through what looks like a decades old TV screen is beyond unappealing to me. I fully understand the advantages of an EVF (including showing you exactly what the sensor "sees" - like your DoF - and all sorts of additional handy info), but having a crappy view of the scene overrides these advantages for me. I have already heard very good things about the Z Series EVF's - and I know developing an EVF that would please picky DSLR owners was a design priority for Nikon's mirrorless cameras. I truly hope Nikon has taken EVF's to a new level and I like what I see through the viewfinder. But I'm still concerned about this...

2. Autofocus Performance

I have an honestly developed bias here - I'm used to the stunning autofocus performance of the Nikon D5. So anything less - which for me includes the AF performance of the D500 and D850 - feels somehow "inferior". But if I do two things - think about my own experiences with mirrorless autofocus systems AND listen to the feedback of others - I hear three recurring themes about other mirrorless AF systems: very good accuracy, relatively slow initial acquisition of focus, and relatively poor tracking ability. But, if any camera company "gets" autofocus (and knows how to make it work almost seamlessly), it's Nikon.

So what's my expectation (educated guess?) about the autofocus performance of the first Z Series cameras? LIKELY the best in the mirrorless world (sorry Sony, but just telling it like I think it will be!). LIKELY good enough for an awful lot of uses and/or users. How about in comparison to DSLR's? LIKELY better than many - and possibly "almost as good" as some of the better ones (like the D500 and D850). But I would be shocked if it was even close to the performance of the D5. And for a wildlife photographer that pushes a D5 to the limit, the Z6 or Z7 AF system may just not quite cut it.

At this point I find it hard to make too many definitive statements about the feature set of the Z Series cameras based solely on the "spotty" specs we have. For example, a quick perusal of the Z Series camera specs shows that there is no "Group Area" AF mode - instead we see Wide-area AF (S and L, which is presumably Small and Large) with no detailed information (at least that I have been able to find) in terms of how those modes actually work. Are the Wide-area AF modes simply "re-named" Group Area modes? And, it appears there is only ONE Dynamic-area AF - which of the many Dynamic-area AF modes found on the newest Nikon DSLR's do they most directly compare to? We simply don't know yet.

And here's a point I will go into in more detail in my coming post on why I chose the Z7 over the Z6 - I DO expect to see excellent AF accuracy on the Z Series cameras. In fact, it would not surprise me to see (and I am actually counting on) the AF accuracy of the 45.7 MP Z7 exceeding that of the phase detect AF system of the 45.7 MP D850 (but not necessarily of the contrast detect AF system of the D850 when you shoot it in Live View mode).

Last but not least - and this is speculative until I can find more technical information on the Z Series hybrid AF system - I think it is likely that the Z Series cameras will mark the end of the need to perform AF tuning. I truly hope this is the case (I view AF tuning as an almost painful task I would LOVE to be able to forget about).

3. Battery Life?

While I am getting mixed signals on this one (I see a rating of 330 shots per charge on Nikon's website and videos online showing between 1000-2000 shots per charge), it's likely that the per-charge battery life of the Z Series cameras will allow for far fewer shots than on the EN-EL18's I use on my D5, D500, and D850 (the latter two via use of a battery grip). If Nikon's published rating of 330 shots per charge is close to accurate it would be a big negative for me. If the "rating" on the video I saw online (by good 'ol @nikonricci) suggesting a battery life of about 1000-2000 shots (depending on camera settings) battery life could be a total non-issue. This one will have to wait until I get a Z7 in my hands and start shooting with it.

4. Burst Depth?

And...this is another one I'll just have to wait to test before saying too much about. But, at least for my wildlife shooting, burst depth does matter to me - any camera with less than about 40 frames per burst (at the highest frame rate) more or less disqualifies itself from being my primary wildlife camera.

For obvious reasons (different file sizes and data flow rate limitations) I'm sure the burst depth of the Z6 will exceed that of the Z7. I have no a priori reason to believe that they will differ greatly from Nikon's DSLR's of comparable resolution (so I expect the Z7 will be similar to the D850). But we'll see...

All in all? I'm just really looking forward to getting my Z7 and trying it out. Who knows - I may even keep it! ;-)

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#Z7_cautiousexcitement



Nikon 180-400mm Field Test: Optical Performance at 560mm

02 August 2018: Nikkor 180-400mm f4E Field Test IIIF: Optical Performance at 560mm

This is the ninth installment in an on-going series describing my experiences field-testing the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Previous entries covered:

• 21 May 2018: First Impressions
• 18 June 2018: Shooting the 180-400mm in the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary (including 27 sample images)
• 29 June 2018: Optical Performance at 500mm
• 02 July 2018: Optical Performance at 400mm
• 05 July 2018: Commentary 1 - What's AIS?
• 09 July 2018: Optical Performance - MORE at 400mm
• 16 July 2018: Optical Performance at 200mm
• 25 July 2018: Optical Performance at 300mm

In this entry I describe my results from systematic and comparative optical field-testing of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E lens at a 560mm focal length against 3 other 560mm "options". Here's the list of lenses in this comparison:

• Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (at 400mm with built-in TC engaged)
• Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus Nikkor TC-14EIII (1.4x) teleconverter
• Nikkor 200-400mm f4G plus TC-14EIII
• Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 @ 560mm

This is my FINAL detailed entry on optical performance of the 180-400mm at any particular focal length (thank gawd!). I am planning on two more entries that touch on optical performance in a general sense, i.e., entries on the vignetting exhibited by the Nikkor 180-400mm and on the performance of its integrated TC (including comparisons of it against the TC-14EIII). I don't anticipate these entries will be as exhaustive (or exhausting for me!) as the previous ones on optical performance at the various focal lengths.

As with all previous optical performance tests the lenses were tested over an aperture range from maximum aperture (wide open) through to f11. And, all lenses were tested at 3 distances. In this 560mm comparison the distances were 9.5 meters, 30 meters, and 1500 meters (i.e., a distant scene). The close and mid-range distances were selected to produce final images with subjects occupying very close to the same proportion of the viewfinder and/or final image as they did in all previous optical performance tests.

For both the close (9.5 meters) and mid-range (30 meters) working distances the images were examined for central region sharpness and the "quality" of the Out-of-Focus (OoF) zones (i.e., bokeh quality). The images of the distant scene (1500 meters) were captured and evaluated for both central and edge-to-edge sharpness (but not for bokeh).

Anyone wishing to skip the remaining background material and description of my methodology can jump directly to The Executive Summary of my results by following this link...

I. Critical Background!

Why the test at 180-400mm f4E at 560mm? That's easy to answer. First, it's the absolute LONGEST focal length offered by the 180-400mm f4E (if shot on an FX body) - you get there by taking the lens to its maximum native focal length (400mm) and then engaging the built-in 1.4 teleconverter (or in the reverse order!). Historically Nikon zoom lenses have tended to be at their weakest optically (= least sharp) at their longest focal length (and please note that I did NOT just say they were BAD at their longest focal length - they're just not quite as GOOD at their longest focal length). And...most serious shooters accept that ALL teleconverters degrade image quality at least SOME. So...if you take a newly-designed zoom lens to its longest focal length and THEN add an image-degrading teleconverter to it can you expect to get professional-level image quality out of it? Tons of folks want to know the answer to this question (and obviously I wanted to know too!).

Second, in my opinion the absolute GOLD STANDARD of Nikon teleconverter performance just happens to be at this focal length. I'm referring to the stellar combination of the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus the Nikkor TC-14EIII teleconverter. I have shot this combination for years (and know many, many other wildlife photographers who have too) and have found it to be absolutely excellent (both in image sharpness and in bokeh). In fact, I made the decision to sell my Nikkor 600mm f4G VR solely because of how well the 400mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII performed (at only 40mm less). IF the 180-400mm f4E at 560mm can rival the 400mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII in optical performance THAT will be something (and potentially impact the purchase decision and the "what to sell to pay for the 180-400mm" decision for me AND a lot of other people!).

In a related sense, IF the 180-400mm f4E performs well at 560mm (we already know it performs exceptionally well at virtually all focal lengths up to 500mm) then this new lens becomes even MORE versatile and - in a sense - valuable to the wildlife photographer. But, if we discover the "reverse" (i.e., if it sucks at 560mm), then I know a lot of wildlife photographers (including this one) who would likely decide to pass on buying the 180-400mm and park all that money in OTHER gear!

Many people like to read multiple reviews before buying a lens, especially an expensive lens like this one (which makes a lot of sense). Unfortunately, if you read multiple reviews about the performance of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E at 560mm you'll see some very different "stories" - including everything from "Way better than the Canon 200-400mm f4 with its teleconverter" through to "Perfectly sharp and as good as any prime" (from those completely unrestrained by objectivity - Nikon-sponsored photographers!) and "Weak, use only as a last resort" (from, no doubt, someone who paid more attention to MTF curves than what they could capture in the field!). The bottom line - I was both very skeptical of everything I had read on both sides of the "performance at 560mm" debate and I could really find no instances of a systematic and comparative approach to unravelling the mystery of how the 180-560mm performed at 560mm in the field. Thus this test...

One final introductory note: WAY back in late May and early June I took the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E into British Columbia's Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary and shot with it over 9 days. During that time I shot a LOT of images at 560mm. So...besides the "comparison shots" below, here's some additional "real world" samples of images captured at 560mm that some may find interesting or helpful:

• Grizzly Swimming with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.27 MB)
• Grizzlies Sparring with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.95 MB)
• Grizzly Portrait with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.88 MB)
• Grizzly Portrait with D500: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.21 MB)
• Grizzly Portrait with D850: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.02 MB)
• Crow with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.21 MB)
• Distant Eagle with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.91 MB)
• Seal with D850: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.44 MB)
• Mew Gull in Flight with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.56 MB)

You'll also currently find a few more images shot with the 180-400mm at 560mm in my Gallery of Latest Additions.

II. Field-Testing Methods

With the exception of slightly different sdistances for the close and mid-distant subjects (as discussed above) both the field-testing methods and the assessment of the final images were made using the exact same methodology as described in my 02 July 2018 blog entry on the optical performance at 400mm (open the methodology section of that entry in a new tab/window using this link).

The goal of the optical testing is to get a good handle on what I refer to as the Maximum Attainable Field Sharpness (or MAFS) for each lens. This means that I try to control as many variables as possible - the images are captured from a firm tripod and gimbal head, Live View focus is used (to remove any bias associated with AF tuning issues), a cable release is used, a FULL electronic shutter is used, optical stabilization systems are all turned OFF, et cetera. And, to reveal as many lens flaws as possible, all tests are performed using the highest resolution DSLR currently available from Nikon - the D850.

For those seeking a "visual" of the subjects I used (and the "scenes") at each of the three test distances in this test, here ya go AGAIN...(each image is full-frame, but reduced in resolution from 8256 x 5504 pixels to 2400 x 1600 pixels):

• Close Subject (9.5 meters): The Stump (JPEG: 1.0 MB)
• Mid-distance Subject (30 meters): My Amazingly Cooperative Eagle (JPEG: 1.25 MB)
• Distant Subject (1500 meters): Distant Treeline at Sunrise (JPEG: 1.6 MB)

III. The RESULTS!

As always, I'll give you a quick and dirty Executive Summary followed by a few more nitty-gritty details of the results.

1. The Executive Summary:

Overall the 4 lenses in this group quickly sorted themselves into two groups from a sharpness perspective. The first group consisted of the 400mm f2.8E plus 1.4x TC and the 180-400mm f4E with built-in TC engaged. These two lenses were much sharper at all distances and at almost all apertures than the lenses in the other group (i..e, the Sigma Sport 150-600mm at 560mm and the Nikkor 200-400mm plus 1.4x TC). And, they exhibited VERY similar (and almost indistinguishable) sharpness to one another.

At the working distances where bokeh (and the ability to separate subjects from a background) were important the wider aperture of the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus 1.4x TC (i.e., f4 vs. f5.6) did make an appreciable difference. At both 9.5 meters and 30 meters the Out-of-Focus (OoF) zones of the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC could be made less detailed and smoother (and a subject could be made to stand out from its background better) than with the other lenses in this test.

What about at long subject distances at 560mm? In both the central region and on the edges it was pretty much a tie for the sharpness "title" between two of the four lenses - the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E with built-in TC engaged. With enough stopping down (f9 and smaller) both the Sigma Sport 150-600mm plus the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G plus TC could pretty much match the two others in sharpness of the central region, but the edges were never as sharp (at any aperture).

At 560mm only one lens exhibited Aperture Independent Sharpness (AIS) at all distances - the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (read more about AIS HERE). This means it was as sharp wide open as when stopped down (including on the edges with the long distant subject). The Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC needed very little stopping down before approaching maximum sharpness (details below) which means that the widest "usable" apertures were available on this lens/TC combination.

The overall top performer at 560mm? If we JUST look at image sharpness it's almost a dead-heat between the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E with TC engaged. In bokeh it's clearly the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC. So...overall...the nod for first place does go to the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC, but the Nikkor 180-400mm is nipping very closely at its heels!

2. The Nitty Gritty Details:

A. Optical Performance at 9.5 meters (560mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: At close distance (9.5 meters) - and at all overlapping apertures - the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus 1.4x TC is very (as in "very, very") slightly sharper than Nikkor 180-400mm f4E with its built-in TC engaged. The difference is almost "statistical" and certainly within the range where careful sharpening in post-processing would remove any visible difference (and even without sharpening it would be next to impossible to see on a high-resolution display...like a Retina). At this close distance both the Sigma Sport 150-600mm and the Nikkor 200-400mm plus TC were very noticeably softer (less sharp) and had to be stopped WAY down (in the f8 to f10 range) before approaching the sharpness of the other two lenses (and still never fully matched them).

How large of a difference is there in sharpness between these lenses at various apertures? See for yourself - here's a few comparisons of the central portions of the test images (at 100% magnification in viewer window of Capture One Pro). As always, these comparisons are best viewed at 100% magnification (on YOUR computer) and the sharpness differences will be harder to see on higher resolution (e.g., Retina) displays:

• All 4 lenses shot WIDE OPEN @ 9.5 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 2.5 MB)
• All 4 lenses shot @ f6.3 @ 9.5 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 2.5 MB)
• All 4 lenses shot @ f8 @ 9.5 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 2.7 MB)

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open to attain maximum sharpness) - Nikkor 180-400mm f4E: None, meaning the lens is at maximum sharpness when shot wide open (@ f4). This is a consistent with all previous optical performance test, and this was the ONLY lens exhibiting AIS (HUH? What's AIS?) at this distance. When you consider that a TC is involved, and that I have NEVER seen a lens/TC combination before that didn't benefit at least a LITTLE via stopping down, this is quite amazing!
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII: 0.3 stops (to f4.5) before approximating maximum sharpness. Darned good!
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 200-400mm f4G plus TC-14EIII: 1 stop (to f8), but note that this lens was NEVER quite as sharp as the Nikkor 400 or the Nikkor 180-400 at this distance.
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-5-6.3: 0.67 stops (to f8), but note that this lens was NEVER quite as sharp as the Nikkor 400 or the Nikkor 180-400 at this distance.

• OoF Zones (Bokeh): OK...this is where the wide aperture (and great optics) of the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E (plus TC) shows its stuff. When all lenses are shot wide open you DEFINITELY get less detailed and smoother OoF zones - period. But even when all four lenses are stopped down to f8 the OoF zones of the 400mm f2.8E are STILL nicer than the other lenses (see examples below). Note that both the Nikkor 180-400 AND the Nikkor 200-400 (each with a TC) did fairly well in this regard too. The Sigma Sport exhibits enough focus-breathing at this distance that it shows considerably more detail (and is less smooth) in its OoF zones.

How noticeable are the bokeh differences? Check out these composite images and decide for yourself:

• Comparative Bokeh When Shot Wide Open @ 560mm: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 1.6 MB)
• Comparative Bokeh When Shot at f8 @ 560mm: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 1.5 MB)

• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: When this close to a subject pretty much all the lenses can do a decent job of isolating the subject from the background. But because in this case two lenses (the 400mm f2.8E and the 180-400mm f4e) are appreciably sharper at wide apertures than the other lenses - and because the 400mm f2.8E has noticeably better bokeh than the 180-400mm f4E - I have to give the nod to the 400mm f2.8E plus TC as "the best" in subject isolation ability at this distance.

OVERALL CONCLUSION: Here the "overall conclusion" parallels what I just said re: the difference in subject isolation ability - you have to acknowledge that at this distance the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC has a slight edge over the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E plus built-in TC. But they are REALLY close and both are considerably better than the other two options.

B. Optical Performance at 30 meters (560mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: The pattern at the mid-range working distance (30 meters) was very similar to that at 9.5 meters. If your primary concern is image sharpness then once again you have two great options - the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E with built-in TC engaged. Interestingly, at this distance if you shoot both of these lenses wide open the 180-400mm is slightly sharper. And, no matter how much you stop down, neither the Sigma Sport 150-600mm or the Nikkor 200-400mm plus TC can match their sharpness.

Just how significant is the difference in sharpness between the lenses at this distance? Here's two examples - the first with all lenses wide open and the second with all lenses at f8:

• All 4 lenses shot WIDE OPEN @ 30 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 2.3 MB)
• All 4 lenses shot @ f8 @ 30 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 2.5 MB)

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open to attain maximum sharpness) - Nikkor 180-400mm f4E: Once more...NONE. And, once more, this is the ONLY lens in the test exhibiting AIS.
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII: 0.3 stops (to f4.5), but note that the lens still sharpens up very slightly more (incrementally) up to f5.6.
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 200-400mm f4G plus TC-14EIII: 0.67 stops (to f7.1), but note that the lens/TC combination isn't very sharp at this distant at ANY aperture.
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-5-6.3: 0.3 stops (to f7.1), but note that this lens very slowly sharpens up all the way to f10.

• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): Like at 9.5 meters, the larger aperture of the 400mm f2.8E plus TC (f4 vs f5.6 or f6.3) DOES make a difference here. So you WILL see the smoothest and least detailed OoF zones with the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC in the aperture range of f4 to f5 (simply because the other options can't get to these apertures). But once you're at f5.6 and smaller there is functionally no difference between the Nikkor 400mm f2.8 plus TC, the Nikkor 180-400mm with built-in TC engaged, and the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G plus TC (the Sigma Sport STILL shows focus-breathing at this distance and consequently its background is less smooth and more detailed).

• All 4 lenses shot WIDE OPEN @ 30 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 1.7 MB)
• All 4 lenses shot @ f8 @ 30 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 1.65 MB)

• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: Unless you shoot at the wide apertures ONLY available on the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC (f4 through f5) you won't find much real difference in the ability to separate your subject (i.e., "make it pop") between these lenses. And the fact that the Nikkor 180-400mm f4e is SHARPER when it is shot wide open than the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC is when it is shot wide open (and because the ability to make a subject pop is based on the sharpness differential between the in-focus and the out-of-focus zones) further complicates declaring a clear-cut "winner" in this regard!

OVERALL CONCLUSION: In purely optical terms the very slight advantage must go to the Nikkor f2.8E plus TC-14EIII over the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E with built-in TC engaged. And that's simply because of its wider aperture and the slight advantage that can give in separating or isolating a subject from its background. In practical terms, the smaller size, lighter weight, and ability to zoom the focal length of the 180-400mm f4E would all bias me towards choosing this lens over the 400mm f2.8E plus TC combination in a field setting where I needed to get to a 560mm focal length (i.e., to me these variables outweigh the tiny difference in optical performance). Oh...and if you like sharp images, at this distance the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G plus TC-14EIII isn't for you! ;-)

C. Optical Performance with Distant (1500 meters) Subject (560mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: The trend with a distant subject was very clear - in both the central region and on the edges it was pretty much a tie for the sharpness "title" between two of the four lenses - the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E with built-in TC engaged. With enough stopping down (f9 and smaller) both the Sigma Sport 150-600mm plus the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G plus TC came very close to matching the two others in sharpness of the central region, but the edge sharpness of both the Sigma Sport 150-600mm and the Nikkor 200-400 plus TC was quite poor (i.e., soft edges) at all apertures.

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open to attain maximum sharpness) - Nikkor 180-400mm f4E: Center AND Edges: None, even with distant subjects there's no sharpness-related reason to stop down this lens at 560mm and with a distant subject.
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII: Center: 0.3 stops (to f4.5); Edges: 0.67 stops (to f5).
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 200-400mm f4G plus TC-14EIII: Center and Edges: 1.0 to 1.3 stops (to f8-f9), but note that the "maximum sharpness of the edges" wasn't very maximum (meaning the edges were soft at all apertures).
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-5-6.3: Center and Edges: 0.67 stops (f8), but like with the Nikkor 200-400mm plus TC even the "maximum sharpness" of the edges simply wasn't very sharp.

• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): N/A (at this distance).
• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: N/A (at this distance).

OVERALL CONCLUSION: At long distance you have two excellent options giving you very good edge-to-edge sharpness - the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E with built-in TC engaged and the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII. With long distance subjects you CAN get decent central sharpness with both Nikkor 200-400mm f4G plus the TC-14EIII or the Sigma Sport 150-600mm if you stop down enough, but edges are soft at all apertures. So if you like to shoot distant landscapes OR animalscapes at 560mm and that require edge-to-edge sharpness you're best served with either the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC or the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E with its built-in TC engaged.

V. Final Discussion and Comments

If we start with the "biggest picture" findings about the optical performance of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E at 560mm it's simple to produce a succinct summary: it performs very, very well. In sharpness it is functionally equal to the previous "gold standard" for both teleconverter and 560mm performance - the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus the TC-14EIII teleconverter. And, the quality of its OoF zones (bokeh) and its ability to separate a subject from a busy background at normal working distances are both very good, but can't quite match the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E plus TC in these regards. The final big picture comment about this lens is becoming so boring to write about it's darned easy to forget it's very remarkable: At each distance in this test only ONE lens exhibited complete aperture independent sharpness (i.e., required NO stopping down to get to maximum sharpness in the central regions OR on the edges) - and it WASN'T the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E. Yep, it was the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E.

In the "other" optical performance test I previously performed with the TC engaged (that at 500mm - details here) I obtained a similar result - the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E compares very favorably with the "best of the best" primes even when its TC is engaged.

If I combine both of these sets of test results (i.e., at 500mm and at 560mm) with the photographic results I obtained when I shot thousands of images with the 180-400mm with its TC engaged over 9 days in the Khutzeymateen I find myself left with absolutely NO reason to be reluctant to engage the built-in TC and use the "extended" portion of the focal range of this lens. For me, using this lens with the TC engaged is definitely NOT - as at least one other reviewer has reported - a last resort!

How do the other lenses in this test stack up against the two front-runners? In previous segments of this series I have found the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G surprisingly strong at native (without a TC) focal lengths. But...the Nikon 200-400mm f4G does not like (or do well with) teleconverters! Keep this lens away from TC's and you will be very happy with it - and it's certainly a lens capable of producing professional-level output (as long as you keep it away from teleconverters!).

The optical performance of the Sigma 150-600mm at 560mm is a bit more complex. At short and mid-range working distances it definitely will produce sharp images (with just a little stopping down), but at these same distances its focus-breathing does negatively impact on the quality of its OoF zones (bokeh) and its ability to isolate a subject from a busy background. At very long distances it can produce good central sharpness, but - at least on the high resolution D850 - it doesn't do well in edge sharpness. But its always important to remember that this lens costs a fraction of what the others in this lens cost. I STILL think this lens represents EXCELLENT value and there's a darned good reason you see so many of them out in the field.

Where am I going next with my testing of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E? Good question! Before I have all the information I need to decide on where the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E "fits" in my own camera kit (and what that kit will look like moving forward in the near future) I still have to evaluate the VR performance/hand-holdability of the lens, learn more about its autofocus capabilities, quantify the degree of its vignetting "issue", and...as much for curiosity as anything...determine even MORE about it's TC performance (and surely I can't be the only one out there wondering how this lens will perform with the TC-20EIII...with its built-in TC UN-engaged).

A while ago someone asked me about what I thought the "sweet spot" of the 180-400mm f4E was (presumably he was asking both what focal lengths it performed best at AND what apertures were its strongest). The best focal length? That would be 180-560mm. The best aperture? That would be f4 through to f11 or beyond. I have NEVER seen a lens (prime or zoom) as solid optically as this one.

Stay tuned!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#180-400_Optic560mm

30 July 2018: So Brad...What About the 180-400mm's Vignetting??

Over the last few weeks I've received a fair amount of email asking me about the vignetting "issue" of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Yes, the 180-400mm vignettes and it DOES exhibit MORE vignetting than many other lenses. I am planning to produce a fairly extensive and thorough discussion on the vignetting shown by the 180-400mm f4E (including how it varies with aperture, focal length, and distance) in the not-so-distant future. That discussion will appear first here on my blog and later in my final review of the 180-400mm f4E (which will permanently reside in the Field Tests section of this website.)

For those wanting a LITTLE more information on the vignetting NOW...I just posted an image (titled "Summer Sunrise - East Kootenays") in my Gallery of Latest Additions that shows an example of the vignetting on a shot captured with the 180-400mm f4E at 400mm and f4. The comparison images (vignetting removed vs. vignetting untouched) AND the discussion about the vignetting are revealed BELOW that image when you click on the "In the Field" tab (which is immediately below the main image window).

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca



Nikon 180-400mm Field Test: Optical Performance at 300mm

25 July 2018: Nikkor 180-400mm f4E Field Test IIIE: Optical Performance at 300mm

This is the eight installment in an on-going series describing my experiences field-testing the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Previous entries covered:

• 21 May 2018: First Impressions
• 18 June 2018: Shooting the 180-400mm in the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary (including 27 sample images)
• 29 June 2018: Optical Performance at 500mm
• 02 July 2018: Optical Performance at 400mm
• 05 July 2018: Commentary 1 - What's AIS?
• 09 July 2018: Optical Performance - MORE at 400mm
• 16 July 2018: Optical Performance at 200mm

In this entry I describe my results from systematic and comparative optical field-testing of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E lens at a 300mm focal length against 5 other 300mm "options". Here's the list of lenses in this comparison:

• Nikkor 180-400mm f4E
• Nikkor 200-400mm f4G
• Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII
• Nikkor 300mm f4 PF
• Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8
• Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3

As with all previous optical performance tests the lenses were tested over an aperture range from maximum aperture (wide open) through to f11. And, all lenses were tested at 3 distances. In this 300mm comparison the distances were 4.5 meters, 18 meters, and 1500 meters (i.e., a distant scene). The close and mid-range distances were selected to produce final images with subjects occupying very close to the same proportion of the viewfinder and/or final image as they did in all previous optical performance tests.

For both the close (4.5 meters) and mid-range (18 meters) distances to the subject the images were examined for central region sharpness and the "quality" of the Out-of-Focus (OoF) zones (i.e., bokeh quality). The images of the distant scene (1500 meters) were captured and evaluated for both central and edge-to-edge sharpness (but not for bokeh).

Anyone wishing to skip the remaining background material and description of my methodology can jump directly to The Executive Summary of my results by following this link...

I. Critical Background!

Why the test at 300mm? I think the most significant reason is that many wildlife photographers will already own at least one other "option" for getting to 300mm - and many of those shooters are probably quite interested in knowing how their "current" 300mm option stacks up against the new 180-400mm f4E at 300mm. I chose lenses for this comparison that most Nikon-shooting wildlife photographers are likely to be familiar with - all but two come from my own collection of lenses. Many thanks are extended to Nikon Canada for loaning me the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII and Mike Wieser for loaning me the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G - without these two lenses this comparison would have been far less interesting or useful.

Personally, I'm happy my acquisition of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4G gave me the justification and motivation to allocate (sacrifice?) the time needed to perform all these optical tests at this time (at this and all other focal lengths). It's been a few years since I owned a copy of the 300mm f2.8G VRII or a copy of the 200-400mm f4G and I have wondered how those lenses truly stack up against some of the "newer" lenses in my collection. I've had the perception (= gut feeling) that the newer lenses (and in particular the newest lenses, like the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E) are simply better optically, and that this is likely because lens-makers have been forced to "up the ante" on their optical standards (and quality control) to meet the demands of the higher resolution sensors in use today. And, of course, you'd have to be living in a cave to miss the fact that the 3rd-party lens makers (such as Sigma) have REALLY upped their game in recent years (and perhaps they're forcing Nikon to up their game in response). In a related fashion, since the development of the D800-series cameras (especially the 46 MP D850) I've been wondering how those "older" lenses - and that were developed in a lower resolution world - would perform when paired up with demanding D850 that just LOVES to show lens flaws! So that leads to questions like "Is the venerable Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII competent enough to excel on the D850 or will it start to show its age" (like the 200mm f4D Micro did in the 200mm test).

So while the main goal of this test is to see how the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E at 300mm compares against the other lenses, this test will have lots of other interesting match-ups. Like how the 300mm f2.8G VRII and 300mm f4 PF stack up against each other when mounted on the D850 - as well as against Sigma's highly capable 120-300mm f2.8 Sport.

II. Field-Testing Methods

With the exception of using shorter distances for the close and mid-distant subjects (as discussed above) both the field-testing methods and the assessment of the final images were made using the exact same methodology as described in my 02 July 2018 blog entry on the optical performance at 400mm (open the methodology section of that entry in a new tab/window using this link).

The goal of the optical testing is to get a good handle on what I refer to as the Maximum Attainable Field Sharpness (or MAFS) for each lens. This means that I try to control as many variables as possible - the images are captured from a firm tripod and gimbal head, Live View focus is used (to remove any bias associated with AF tuning issues), a cable release is used, a FULL electronic shutter is used, optical stabilization systems are all turned OFF, et cetera. And, to reveal as many lens flaws as possible, all tests are performed using the highest resolution DSLR currently available from Nikon - the D850.

For those seeking a "visual" of the subjects I used (and the "scenes") at each of the three test distances in this test, here ya go AGAIN...(each image is full-frame, but reduced in resolution from 8256 x 5504 pixels to 2400 x 1600 pixels):

• Close Subject (4.5 meters): The Stump (JPEG: 1.1 MB)
• Mid-distance Subject (18 meters): My Amazingly Cooperative Eagle (JPEG: 1.4 MB)
• Distant Subject (1500 meters): Distant Treeline at Sunrise (JPEG: 1.6 MB)

III. The RESULTS!

As always, I'll give you a quick and dirty Executive Summary followed by a few more nitty-gritty details of the results.

1. The Executive Summary:

Overall the differences in central sharpness between most of the lenses at 300mm (at all distances) varied quite dramatically with aperture, especially at close and mid-range working distances. At close distance (4.5 meters) the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E was the sharpest lens from wide open up to f5. With further stopping down most of the other lenses eventually produced images of equal sharpness (details in "Nitty Gritty Details" below), but none exceeded the sharpness of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E - at any aperture.

What about bokeh at 4.5 meters? This is the "wheelhouse" of the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII! It clearly had the best bokeh at all apertures, though at apertures from f5 and smaller the 180-400mm f4E drew very close to the Nikkor 300mm f2.8 in bokeh quality.

The pattern at the mid-range distance (18 meters) was very similar to that at 4.5 meters. If your primary concern is image sharpness - no lens matched the Nikkor 180-400mm in sharpness from wide open up to f5.6. If your primary concern is bokeh - no lens fully matched the bokeh of the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII at any aperture.

What about at long subject distances? In the central region it was pretty much a tie for the sharpness "title" between two of the six lenses - the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 were slightly but noticeably sharper than all the other lenses (at all apertures). Interestingly, when it came to EDGE sharpness, the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII drew even with the 180-400mm f4E and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm.

At 300mm only one lens exhibited Aperture Independent Sharpness (AIS) at all distances - the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (read more about AIS HERE). This means it was as sharp wide open as when stopped down (including on the edges with the long distant subject). Interestingly, the lens that needed to be stopped down the MOST to attain maximum sharpness was the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII (details below).

The overall top performer at 300mm? This is a tough call - if we JUST look at image sharpness it's clearly the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. In bokeh it's clearly the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII. But...because the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E was nipping at the heels of the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII in bokeh at moderate to small apertures (and clearly in 2nd place at the widest apertures), I'd give the overall nod to the 180-400mm f4E once more.

2. The Nitty Gritty Details:

A. Optical Performance at 4.5 meters (300mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: At close distance (4.5 meters) and apertures up to and including f5 the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E clearly produced the sharpest images. At f5.6 both the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 drew even with the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E, and both the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G and the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G produced images equally sharp to the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E at f6.3 and beyond. The Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 was slightly but noticeably softer than the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E at all overlapping apertures.

How large of a difference is there in sharpness between these lenses at the wider apertures? It's definitely significant - here's a few comparisons of the central portions of the test image (at 100% magnification in viewer window of Capture One Pro). As always, these comparisons are best viewed at 100% magnification (on YOUR computer) and the sharpness differences will be harder to see on higher resolution (e.g., Retina) displays:

• Nikkor 300mm f2.8 vs. "The Nikkor Zooms" @ 4.5 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 2.4 MB)
• Nikkor 300mm f2.8 vs. Nikkor 300mm f4 PF @ 4.5 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 2.4 MB)
• Nikkor 300mm f2.8 vs. Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 @ 4.5 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 2.3 MB)

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open to attain maximum sharpness) - Nikkor 180-400mm f4E: None, meaning the lens is at maximum sharpness when shot wide open (@ f4). This is a consistent with previous tests at 200mm, 400mm and 500mm - this was the ONLY lens exhibiting AIS (HUH? What's AIS?) at this distance.
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII: 1.3 stops - required stopping down to f4.5 before approximating maximum sharpness.
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 300mm f4 PF: 0.67 stops - required stopping down to f5 before approximating maximum sharpness.
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 200-400mm f4G: 0.3 stops - required stopping down to f4.5 before approximating maximum sharpness.
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8: 0.67 stops - required stopping down to f3.5 before approximating maximum sharpness.
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-5-6.3: Just less than 0.3 stops - required stopping down to f6.3 (from f6) before approximating maximum sharpness (but note that this lens was NEVER as sharp as its competitors at 300mm - at any aperture).

• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): At this distance 3 lenses fell out of the running owing to focus-breathing - the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8, the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3, and (to a lesser extent) the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF all had enough focal length shortening (focus-breathing) that their OoF zones contained much more detail and far less pleasing bokeh. Three lenses showed no noticeable focus-breathing - the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII, the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E, and the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G. And at ALL apertures this is where the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VR REALLY showed its stuff - at all apertures it had the smoothest and most visually appealing bokeh. At f5 and smaller apertures the 180-400mm f4E drew very close to the 300mm f2.8 in bokeh quality, but never quite matched it. And, at f8 and smaller apertures the bokeh of the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G was ALMOST identical to that of the Nikkor 180-400mm (and thus very close to the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G as well).

How noticeable are the bokeh differences? Check out this composite image and decide for yourself:

• A Few Bokeh vs. Aperture Comparisons at 4.5 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 1.65 MB)

• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: When this close to a subject pretty much all the lenses can do a decent job of isolating the subject from the background. The trick in declaring an absolute "winner" in this category is that ONE lens (the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E) was noticeably sharper at wide apertures and a different lens (the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII) had the best bokeh at wide apertures. In my view "subject isolation ability" is about the "visual differential" between the sharp areas and the OoF zones in an image. If I was forced to grab for one lens or the other to isolate a subject I'd probably opt for the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E, largely owing for my own predilection for liking VERY sharp in-focus zones. But it is a personal and subjective decision - there isn't much between them!

OVERALL CONCLUSION: In a sense this "conclusion" parallels what I just said re: the difference in subject isolation ability. If you're into crazy sharpness the 180-400mm f4E is the clear winner. If you're into absolutely dreamy OoF zones then you'd probably argue for being the best overall lens at this distance. Me? I'll take the 180-400mm f4E! ;-)

B. Optical Performance at 18 meters (300mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: The pattern at the mid-range distance (18 meters) was very similar to that at 4.5 meters. If your primary concern is image sharpness - no lens matched the Nikkor 180-400mm in sharpness from wide open up to f5.6. And, by f7.1, all lenses in the test EXCEPT the Sigma Sport 150-600mm produced images of comparable central region sharpness (like at 4.5 meters the Sigma Sport 150-600mm was slightly softer than the other lenses at all apertures). One result that may interest some readers - while the sharpest lens at this distance was the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E, if you compare ONLY the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII against the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 when BOTH are shot wide open (f2.8), the Sigma Sport is MUCH sharper!

Just how significant is the difference in sharpness between the lenses at this distance? As always, it depends a lot on how you're going to use the images, but this composite image should give you a bit of a feel for the magnitude of the sharpness differences:

• Nikkor 300mm f2.8 vs. "The Nikkor Zooms" @ 18 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 2.7 MB)

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open to attain maximum sharpness) - Nikkor 180-400mm f4E: None, meaning the lens is at maximum sharpness when shot wide open (@ f4). This is a consistent with previous tests at 200mm, 400mm and 500mm - this was the ONLY lens exhibiting AIS.
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII: Two full stops - required stopping down to f5.6 before approximating maximum sharpness.
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 300mm f4 PF: 0.67 stops - required stopping down to f5 before approximating maximum sharpness.
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 200-400mm f4G: 0.3 stops (at most) - required stopping down to f4.5 before approximating maximum sharpness (but was very sharp at f4).
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8: 0.67 stops - required stopping down to f3.5 before approximating maximum sharpness.
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-5-6.3: Just less than 0.3 stops - required stopping down to f6.3 (from f6) before approximating maximum sharpness (but note that this lens was NEVER as sharp as its competitors at 300mm - at any aperture).

• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): If your primary concern is bokeh - no lens fully matched the bokeh of the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII at any aperture (though at f5.6 the bokeh of both the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E and the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF were nipping at its heels). Note that focus-breathing of the two Sigma Sport lenses was still significant enough to reduce the quality of their OoF zones. Of course, at this distance the differences you'll see in the bokeh and OoF zones is more subtle and nuanced (lost on someone like Donald Trump)...as this example shows...

• A Few Bokeh vs. Aperture Comparisons @ 18 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 1.52 MB)

• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: Just like at 4.5 meters this is darned close to a toss-up between the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII and the 180-400mm f4E. AND, if the focus-breathing of the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 WASN'T impacted as much as it is by bokeh-damaging focus-breathing, it would be in the running (simply because it's considerably sharper than the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G at f2.8). Tough call to declare a "winner" here...can't really go too wrong with any of the 3 lenses. Here's a visual comparing all 3 of these lenses and "showing" the various issues:

• Subject Isolation Ability @ 18 meters: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 2/0 MB)

OVERALL CONCLUSION: Same story as at 4.5 meters - you want maximum image sharpness you want the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. You want the absolute SOFTEST OoF zones then you want the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII. You want a darned good compromise with high sharpness when shot at wide apertures (and you can live with some focus-breathing) at a whole lot less money - then you want the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8!

C. Optical Performance with Distant (1500 meters) Subject (300mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: In the central region it was pretty much a tie for the sharpness "title" between two of the six lenses - the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 were slightly but noticeably sharper than all the other lenses (at all apertures). Both the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII and the Nikkor 200-400mm came in just behind the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Sigma Sport 120-300 at virtually all apertures. Next in central sharpness came the Sigma Sport 150-600mm and, a bit surprisingly, the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF brought up the rear!

Interestingly, when it came to EDGE sharpness, the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII drew even with the 180-400mm f4E and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm. In a bit of a shock to me, the Nikkor 200-400 came in next in edge sharpness - at most apertures it had decent (and acceptable) edge sharpness and wasn't far behind the top 3! Both the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 and the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF faired poorer - their edges were quite comparable to one another (both had quite soft edges).

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open to attain maximum sharpness) - Nikkor 180-400mm f4E: None, even with distant subjects there's no sharpness-related reason to stop down this lens. This is a consistent with previous tests at 200mm, 400mm and 500mm - still incredible! And it's AIS at long subject distance for this lens ONLY.
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII: Center AND Edges - 0.3 stop ONLY (to f3.2) to approach maximum sharpness.
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 300mm f4 PF: Center AND Edges - 0.67 stop (to f5) to approach maximum sharpness (but note that neither center or edges were particularly sharp at any aperture).
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 200-400mm f4G: Center AND Edges - 0.67 stop (to f5) to approach maximum sharpness.
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8: Center AND Edges - 0.67 stop (to f3.5) to approach maximum sharpness.
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-5-6.3: Center AND Edges - less than 0.3 stop (from f6 to f6.3) to approach maximum sharpness.

• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): N/A (at this distance).
• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: N/A (at this distance).

OVERALL CONCLUSION: At long distance you have two excellent options giving you very good edge-to-edge sharpness - the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8. Both the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII and the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G do very well too. But if long-distance scenes captured at 300mm are your thing (especially on a high-res camera like the D850) you probably want to avoid using the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF and the Sigma Sport 150-600mm!

V. Final Discussion and Comments

Several things stood out for me in the testing at 300mm. The first is obvious - at all distances the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E was very strong optically. As in mind-boggling good. It was overall the sharpest of the lot, and at "normal" working distances (4.5 meters and 18 meters) it had really good bokeh. And, at 300mm (and at all distances to the subject) it once more exhibited Aperture Independent Sharpness - just tack sharp at any aperture at any distance! Incredible.

The second was the optical performance of the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII. As most everyone who has shot with this lens would expect, it has GREAT bokeh! But...it really wasn't very sharp at wide apertures - at the distances one would commonly use this lens for (the short and mid-range working distances in this test) you had to stop down a LOT before getting to maximum sharpness. My own suspicion is that this observation on the need to stop the lens down to get to excellent sharpness is more obvious when pixel-peeping D850 images than it would be with images captured using lower resolution cameras. So, when I get emails from irritated owners of the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII who tell me something like "...hey you idiot...I get GREAT images with my 300mm f2.8G VRII when I shoot it wide open on my D3s" my response will be "Yep, I believe you..." But, like I found with the 200mm f4 Micro...I think this lens was designed to work best with DSLR's of a few generations back and is need of an update.

The third was the continuing solid performance of the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G - this time at 300mm. At short and medium working distances this lens is really quite sharp, even shot wide open. And, it gets to maximum sharpness fast - usually by f4.5. And, contrary to that "interweb" thing, it's still solid at long distance at 300mm. In my view this lens can still - even with the Nikon D850 - produce incredible images. Those who already own it and have been thinking they should let it go might want to think again! And, those looking for a real high quality wildlife lens at a decent price should definitely see if they can find a used 200-400mm f4G.

How did the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF stack up against Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII? At short and mid-range working distances there really wasn't much difference in central region sharpness, and the 300mm f4 PF required less stopping down to get to maximum sharpness. But the bokeh of the 300mm f2.8G VRII was definitely better at the shortest distance (and this difference was exacerbated by the focus-breathing of the 300mm f4 PF) and even at 18 meters you could definitely see a difference in bokeh quality between the 300mm f4 PF and the 300mm f2.8G VRII (with the f2.8G producing smoother bokeh and an enhanced ability to isolate the subject from a busy background). However, with a distant subject the 300mm f2.8G VRII produced noticeably sharper images (from edge-to-edge) than the 300mm f4 PF. A few years back I decided to sell my Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII in favor of the 300mm f4 PF. On balance - and factoring in the very small size and low weight of the 300mm f4 PF - I'm not regretting that decision at all.

And, how did the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 and the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII compare? Well...the Sigma Sport definitely held its own (and then some). At short and mid-range working distances the Sigma Sport was as sharp (or sharper) than the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII at the widest apertures, AND you had to stop down much less to get to maximum sharpness. And at long distance the Sigma Sport was slightly sharper than the Nikkor 300mm f2.8 in the central regions (with the edges being virtually identical). In a sense, the ONLY negative thing about the Sigma Sport was its focus-breathing at short and mid-range working distances. This focus-breathing meant that you lost some bokeh quality and its ability to isolate a subject from its background was slightly impaired (relative to the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII). I continue to be impressed with the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 (and let's not forget - it's a zoom!).

What about the the Sigma Sport 150-600mm? Like with the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF, the D850 kinda beats it up at long subject distances. But when you go back to "normal wildlife working distances" - it really is still quite sharp. Focus breathing and the small maximum apertures DOES limit your ability to isolate a subject with this lens, but for the money it offers a lot.

Finally, which lens do I consider the overall BEST lens in the test at 300mm and at all distances (and factoring in both sharpness AND the quality of the bokeh)? Well...it's getting repetitive...but it was clearly the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E.

Up next? Comparative optical performance at 560mm. Stay tuned!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#180-400_Optic300mm



Nikon 180-400mm Field Test: Optical Performance at 200mm

16 July 2018: Nikkor 180-400mm f4E Field Test IIID: Optical Performance at 200mm

This is the seventth installment in an on-going series describing my experiences field-testing the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Previous entries covered:

• 21 May 2018: First Impressions
• 18 June 2018: Shooting the 180-400mm in the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary (including 27 sample images)
• 29 June 2018: Optical Performance at 500mm
• 02 July 2018: Optical Performance at 400mm
• 05 July 2018: Commentary 1 - What's AIS?
• 09 July 2018: Optical Performance - MORE at 400mm

In this entry I describe my results from systematic and comparative optical field-testing of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E lens at a 200mm focal length against 6 other 200mm "options". Here's the list of lenses in this comparison:

• Nikkor 180-400mm f4E
• Nikkor 200-400mm f4G
• Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3
• Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8
• Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E
• Nikkor 70-200mm f4G
• Nikkor 200mm f4D Micro

As with the previous comparative tests at 400mm and 500mm the lenses were tested over an aperture range from maximum aperture (wide open) through to f11. And, as with previous tests, they were tested at 3 distances. In this 200mm comparison the distances were 3 meters, 11 meters, and 1500 meters (i.e., a distant scene). The close and mid-range distances were closer than in previous tests and produced subjects that occupied very close to the same proportion of the viewfinder and/or final image as they did in the 400mm and 500mm tests.

For both the close (3 meters) and medium (11 meters) distances to the subject the images were examined for central region sharpness and the "quality" of the Out-of-Focus (OoF) zones (i.e., bokeh quality). The images of the distant scene (1500 meters) were captured and evaluated for both central and edge-to-edge sharpness (but, for obvious reasons, not bokeh).

For those wondering where the 300mm comparison went - hey, who said I had to do them in order? Actually, I had to wait for delivery of a Nikkor 300mm f2.8 VRII before performing the 300mm comparison tests. I should have that lens today or tomorrow and I'll begin that testing as soon as conditions (mostly weather) permits. And thanks are extended to Nikon Canada for supplying me with the 300mm f2.8 VRII for testing purposes.

Anyone wishing to skip the remaining background material and description of my methodology can jump directly to The Executive Summary of my results at 200mm by following this link...

I. Critical Background!

Why the test at 200mm? First, it's my view that if you're buying a zoom lens you are likely at least planning to use it over it over its full focal range. And if that's the case, there's value in knowing exactly how it performs over that full focal range (including if there are any anomalies you have to take into consideration at any focal length...such as stopping down to sharpen up the edges, etc.). Obviously the very same information (i.e., how the lens performs over its full focal range) is useful in making a purchase decision - especially when consdering a lens as expensive as the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E.

Second, it's likely that many who will get the 180-400mm will use it (and take it on outings or trips) in combination with other lenses. Based on my OWN needs, and certainly on what I'm hearing from other wildlife photographers, the 180-400mm will commonly be used in combination with a 70-200mm zoom...such as the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E or perhaps the Nikkor 70-200mm f4G. So, it likely won't be uncommon at all that a wildlife photographer runs into a "200mm scene" and has to decide between using their 180-400mm and the 70-200mm they have with them. So knowing the idiosyncrasies of their relative optical performance (e.g., which is better at separating a close subject from its background or which has sharper edges on distance scenes) can be pretty darned useful information.

So...I figure it's worth it to do this testing! ;-)

II. Field-Testing Methods

With the exception of using shorter distances for the close and mid-distant subjects (as discussed above) both the field-testing methods and the assessment of the final images were made using the exact same methodology as described in my 02 July 2018 blog entry (open the methodology section of that entry in a new tab/window using this link).

For those who haven't read or reviewed previous blog entries in this field-testing series, the goal of the optical testing is to get a good handle on what I refer to as the Maximum Attainable Field Sharpness (or MAFS) for each lens. This means that I try to control as many variables as possible - the images are captured from a firm tripod and gimbal head, Live View focus is used (to remove any bias associated with AF tuning issues), a cable release is used, a FULL electronic shutter is used, et cetera. And, to reveal as many lens flaws as possible, all tests are performed using the highest resolution DSLR currently available from Nikon - the D850.

Of course, in many field situations we aren't able to use techniques quite this disciplined - we may have to hand-hold lenses, we are likely using the faster but possibly less accurate (and possibly out-of-tune) phase-detection-through-the-optical-viewfinder AF system, et cetera. So...we often don't (or can't) achieve MAFS. Moreover, the quality and performance of the VR systems and the AF systems varies between lenses - and that variation can impact on how close one can get to MAFS in a REAL field situation. So, I combine my optical performance testing with both VR ("hand-holdabiity") and AF testing as well as many sessions of just plain old shooting during full lens testing regime. Only after all that do I really have a handle on the nebulous thing that most would think of as the true "usability" (or, in Pirsig's world, the "quality") of a lens.

For those seeking a "visual" of the subjects I used (and the "scenes") at each of the three test distances, here ya go...(each image is full-frame, but reduced in resolution from 8256 x 5504 pixels to 2400 x 1600 pixels):

• Close Subject (3 meters): The Stump (JPEG: 1.1 MB)
• Mid-distance Subject (11 meters): My Amazingly Cooperative Eagle (JPEG: 1.5 MB)
• Distant Subject (1500 meters): The Distant Treeline (JPEG: 1.43 MB)

III. The RESULTS!

As before, I'll give you a quick and dirty Executive Summary followed by a few more nitty-gritty details of the results.

1. The Executive Summary:

Overall the differences in central sharpness between most of the lenses at 200mm (at all distances) were very small. At close distance (3 meters) and wide apertures the Nikkor 180-400mm, Nikkor 200-400mm, and the Sigma 120-300mm separated themselves out from the other lenses by being both slightly sharper (central region) and in the quality of their OoF zones. Similarly, at mid-distance to subject (11 meters) the same three lenses (Nikkor 180-400mm, Nikkor 200-400mm and the Sigma 120-300mm) were both slightly sharper than the competing lenses and - at wide apertures - produced slightly smoother and less detailed OoF zones (it is important to note that at this distance the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E trailed by only VERY little in sharpness and bokeh).

What about at long subject distances? In the central region it was pretty much a toss-up in sharpness (at all overlapping apertures) for six of the seven lenses - only the Nikkor 200mm f4 Micro faltered and was noticeably softer (less sharp) in the central region. But on the edges it was a far different story - the ONLY lens sharp on the edges at ALL apertures was the Nikkor 180-400mm. Interestingly, the second best lens in edge sharpness at wide apertures was the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G. From f5.6 on (i.e., and smaller apertures) the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E also exhibited excellent edge sharpness. The edges of the remaining lenses (the two Sigma zooms, the Nikkor 70-200mm f4 and the Nikkor 200mm f4 Micro) were considerably softer (less sharp) at all apertures.

At 200mm only one lens exhibited Aperture Independent Sharpness (AIS) at all distances - the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (read more about AIS HERE). This means it was as sharp wide open as when stopped down (including on the edges with the long distant subject). The Nikkor 200-400mm f4G exhibited AIS at the closest distance but not with mid-distance or distant subjects.

The overall top performer at 200mm? Factoring in both sharpness (central region and edges) and the quality of the bokeh - definitely the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E.

2. The Nitty Gritty Details:

In interpreting these results it's important to remember that the two closer distances (3 meters and 11 meters) were included to assess two things only: Central sharpness and the quality of the OoF zones (or bokeh). The longest distance-to-subject (1500 meters) test was included to assess both central region sharpness AND edge sharpness (but not bokeh).

A. Optical Performance at 3 meters (200mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: While the majority of lenses tested needed to be stopped down a little to achieve maximum sharpness (see below for details), once each lens was at maximum sharpness the sharpness differences BETWEEN lenses was almost non-existent. The only exception to this was the Nikkor 200mm f4 Micro - it was noticeably softer (less sharp) than all the other lenses at equivalent apertures.

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open to attain maximum sharpness) - Nikkor 180-400mm f4E: None, meaning the lens is at maximum sharpness when shot wide open (@ f4). This is a consistent with previous tests at 400mm and 500mm - and it's still very noteworthy. AIS in action! (HUH? What's AIS?).
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 200-400mm f4G: NONE! At this distance the Nikkor 200-400mm is very sharp at all apertures. This is the ONLY case in the entire comparison test where a lens other than the Nikkor 180-400mm exhibits AIS.
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-5-6.3: Less than 0.3 stops (from f5.3 to f5.6).
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8: Approx. 0.67 stops - so down to f3.5. But note this lens was still VERY sharp at f2.8 (sharper than the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E at f2.8).
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8Emm: 1 stop (to f4).
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 70-200mm f4G: 0.67 stops (to f5)
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 200mm f4D Micro: 0.3 stops (to f4.5)

• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): Now THIS is interesting! While one would likely expect the f2.8 lenses (the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 and the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E) to show the softest and most pleasingly blurred backgrounds, both of these lenses exhibited some focus-breathing (shortening of focal length) at this close distance. Consequently, even shot wide open their OoF zones aren't as soft as two other lenses shot at f4 - the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Nikkor 200-400mm. So the first-place honours here are shared between the "old" 200-400 and the "new" 180-400mm. Confused? Check out this composite image comparing the OoF zones of the Nikkor 180-400mm vs. the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E - it might help:

• A Few Bokeh vs. Aperture Comparisons: Download Composite Image (JPEG: 1.2 MB)

• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: When this close to a subject pretty much all the lenses can do a decent job of isolating the subject from the background. But, because two lenses in this test have equal sharpness (to all the others) AND they exhibit the softest and most-pleasing OoF zones of the batch, I'd argue that the two BEST lenses in this test (at this distance) for isolating a subject from the background are the Nikkor 180-400mnm f4E and the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G.

OVERALL CONCLUSION: At 200mm and a subject distance of 3 meters almost all the lenses in this test exhibit top-notch central sharpness - it's definitely an exercise in pixel-peeping and hair-splitting to see differences between them. You get a small but noticeable advantage in bokeh with both the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Nikkor 200-400mm and in my view that puts them at the top of the heap at this distance. Interestingly the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 very slightly outperformed the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E in both sharpness and bokeh so I'd rank them as third and fourth respectively. Fifth place (and really still quite similar to all the others) would be a two-way tie between the Sigma Sport 150-600mm and the Nikkor 70-200mm f4. The Nikkor 200mm f4D Micro lagged behind all the others in sharpness at this distance.

B. Optical Performance at 11 meters (200mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: Like at 3 meters, at a distance of 11 meters there's darned little difference in central region sharpness between most of these lenses (once they are stopped down enough to hit their maximum sharpness). The only two lenses that were noticeably softer (less sharp) than the others were the Nikkor 70-200mm f4G and the Nikkor 200mm f4 Micro (but even they weren't too darned bad!).

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open to attain maximum sharpness) - Nikkor 180-400mm f4E: Once more - None! This result is almost getting predictable (and boring) - but it's still amazing. Another case of AIS. (HUH? What's AIS?).
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 200-400mm f4G: 0.3 stops (to f4.5).
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-5-6.3: Less than 0.3 stops (from f5.3 to f5.6).
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8: Approx. 0.67 stops - so down to f3.5. But again this lens was still VERY sharp at f2.8 (sharper than the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E at f2.8 through to f4).
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8Emm: 1 stop (to f4).
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 70-200mm f4G: 0.3 stops (to f4.5).
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 200mm f4D Micro: 0.67 stops (to f5).

• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): Again an interesting situation here! At f4 and f4.5 the "new" Nikkor 180-400mm and the "old" Nikkor 200-400mm have the smoothest OoF zones of ALL the others lenses shot at the same apertures (but note that at f2.8 the OoF zones of the Sigma 120-300 are definitely softer again). But at f5 and smaller the BEST OoF zones are produced by the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8.

• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: Here the first-place award goes to the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8. It's awfully darned sharp at f2.8, and maximally sharp at f3.2 (it handily beats the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E in sharpness at these apertures). And, at these apertures it DEFINITELY has the smoothest OoF zones (yep, smoother than the 70-200mm f2.8E).

OVERALL CONCLUSION: OK...at this distance if I was forced to choose between all the lenses I'd grab for the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 first. My second choice? Well, in optical terms only it would be a tie between the 180-400mm f4E and the 200-400mm f4G. The Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E would be nipping incredibly closely at their heels. Fifth choice would be a dead-heat between the Sigma Sport 150-600mm and the Nikkor 70-200mm f4G. And note that the difference between the fifth choices and the first choice are at the pixel-peeping level. The only lens I would actually AVOID would be the last place finisher - the 200mm f4D Micro.

C. Optical Performance with Distant (1500 meters) Subject (200mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: If ALL you care about is central sharpness you CAN get there with all 5 of 6 lenses (with, in some cases, a little stopping down). Only the Nikkor 200mm f4D Micro DOESN'T compare favorably with the others in central sharpness. How 'bout the edges? NOW we see BIG differences between the lenses - only the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E produces very sharp edges (and for BOTH edges) at all apertures - it easily beats the other lenses in this test. Second best - definitely the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E, but to get those sharp edges you have to stop down to f5.6 or smaller. After that? You won't get REALLY sharp edges (on both sides of the frame) out of any of the other lenses at any aperture (both Sigma's will give you ONE sharp edge, but not two!).

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open to attain maximum sharpness) - Nikkor 180-400mm f4E: None! At f4 this lens is maximally sharp in BOTH the center and edges. Just crazy. And still exhibiting AIS! (HUH? What's AIS?).
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 200-400mm f4G: Center: 1/3 stop only (to f4.5). Edges: Left edge 0.3 stops (to f4.5); right edge 1.3 stops (to f6.3).
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-5-6.3: Center: Less than 0.3 stops (from f5.3 to f5.6). Edges: Left edge <0.3 stop (to f5.6, but never as sharp as center); right edge 1.3 stops (to f9, but still quite soft).
• Sharpness Progression - Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8: Center: Barely 0.3 stops (to f3.2). Edges: Left edge 2.3 stops (to f6.3); right edge never sharpens up.
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8Emm: Center: 0.3 stops (to f3.2); BOTH Edges: 0.3 stops (to f3.2) - this is DEFINITELY the second best result in this test (the 180-400mm not only sharpens up with no stopping down, but it invariably is slightly sharper than the 70-200mm f2.8E in center and edges in this test). Note that to get EXTREMELY sharp edges you do have to stop down to f5.6.
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 70-200mm f4G: Center: 0.3 stops (to f4.5); BOTH Edges: 1 stop (to f5.6).
• Sharpness Progression - Nikkor 200mm f4D Micro: 0.67 stops (to f5); BOTH Edges: 1 stop (to f5.6) but here "maximum sharpness" isn't very darn sharp!

• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): N/A (at this distance).
• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: N/A (at this distance).

OVERALL CONCLUSION: Without boring you with dozens of images it's hard to describe how much better the 180-400mm f4E is on a distant subject at 200mm than all the others. If you shoot a lot of distant landscapes or animalscapes at 200mm you'll LOVE the 180-400mm f4E (especially if you're using a high-resolution camera like the D850). The Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E does fairly well too, but you have to stop it down to f5.6 (or smaller) to sharpen up the edges and even then it's simply not as sharp as the 180-400mm (in either the center or edges).

V. Final Discussion and Comments

Historically Nikon telephoto zooms lenses are their optical best at or near the short end of their focal range (and weakest optically at their longest focal lengths). So, in a sense, it's not surprising that both the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Nikkor 200-400mm outperformed both of the Nikkor 70-200's at short and medium distances to the subject. Of course, for many users other practicalities (such as handling ease or even affordability) may take precedence over optical performance and it's good for them to know that with the exception of the Nikkor 200mm f4 Micro virtually all the lenses produce darned good results at the shorter distances to the subject.

Most wildlife photographers are probably most interested in optical performance at those shorter distances to the subject (11 meters or less) as they probably shoot at those distances much more than they shoot distant scenes. At those distances - and if you factor in both image sharpness AND the quality of the out-of-focus zones - three lenses really stood out for me...the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E, the Nikkor 200-400mm f4, and the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. Realistically any 3 of these lenses will MORE than do the trick. And, the excellent Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E may not quite as dreamy backgrounds on very close subjects, but it's still a pretty amazing lens.

The overall BEST lens in the test at 200mm and at all distances (and factoring in both sharpness AND the quality of the bokeh)? I almost hate to say it, but it's clearly the 180-400mm f4E. Anyone looking to NOT buy it (or, in my case, not keep it) sure can't use "poor performance at 200mm" as a reason! ;-)

At this point I feel compelled to say a few things about two of the "supporting cast" lenses in this test. First, as is so often the case these days with so many things (largely thanks to the internet and "herd" mentality), it's become almost fashionable to outright dump on the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G. I see this all the time - people who have never even shot with it condemn it because of something they read online. At this point in my optical testing (with ONLY the 300mm focal length left), the 200-400 is testing out pretty darned well. No, it's NOT fully keeping up with the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E, but it's much older and half the price (or far less bought second hand). It's definitely still capable of professional quality output on ANY Nikon DSLR.

Finally...one clear result from this test almost saddened me. I've owned the Nikkor 200mm f4D Micro for years and with lower resolution bodies (including even the D800e) it always tested out very well at all distances. And it's a lens I have really liked for its long macro "working distance" and great output. But it's an old design and it appears as though the demanding 46 MP D850 sensor is now kicking the old dog around a little (OK...a lot). Bummer...

Up next? Comparative optical performance at 300mm. Featuring the Nikkor 300mm f2.8 VRII, the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF, the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G, the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8, and the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3. Oh right, and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Stay tuned!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#180-400_Optic200mm



Nikon 180-400mm Field Test: MORE at 400mm

09 July 2018: Nikkor 180-400mm Field Test IIIC: MORE at 400mm

This is the sixth installment in an on-going series describing my experiences field-testing the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Previous entries covered:

• 21 May 2018: First Impressions
• 18 June 2018: Shooting the 180-400mm in the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary (including 27 sample images)
• 29 June 2018: Optical Performance at 500mm
• 02 July 2018: Optical Performance at 400mm
• 05 July 2018: Commentary 1 - What's AIS?

In today's entry I describe my results from additional optical performance testing of two more 400mm (or thereabouts!) options vs. the Nikkor 180-400mm @ 400mm. The additional two lenses I am bringing into the mix are the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF combined with the TC-14EIII (1.4x) teleconverter (AKA "TC") and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 plus its 1.4x TC (the Sigma TC-1401). The full testing protocol (including the three distances chosen) and the image assessment procedure is exactly the same as in the previous optical performance testing at 400mm. Those procedures can be reviewed in the 02 July 2018 blog entry below (open in new browser tab with this link). My previous (02 July 2018) blog entry on optical performance at 400mm compared the following lenses at 3 distances: Nikkor 400mm f2.8E, Nikkor 180-400mm f4E; Nikkor 200-400 f4G; and the Sigma Sport 150-600mm. That comparison can be viewed right here...

Anyone wishing to skip the remaining background material and description of my methodology can jump directly to The Executive Summary of my results by following this link...

I. Critical Background!

Why am I testing these two lens-TC combinations against the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E? To begin with, it's partly due to popular demand - I received multiple requests for these tests against the 180-400mm for each lens. Moreover, I know absolutely that I will be quizzed on how these lenses stacked up against the 180-400mm many times in the future - both from followers of this website and blog AND from clients participating in my photo tours and seeking equipment advice about what gear to bring on the tours.

The Nikkor 300mm f4 PF has developed a strong following among wildlife photographers. The lens is comparatively affordable (VERY affordable compared to the Nikkor 180-400mm), extremely small and light (= very portable) and very solid optically. Moreover, it has a reputation (that I agree with) of performing quite well with Nikon's 1.4x teleconverter (the TC-14EIII). It's natural that many would want to know how this really handy 420mm combination compares optically against the 180-400mm f4E at 400mm. After all, it is likely that many who eventually end up with the 180-400mm will also own the 300mm f4 PF and undoubtedly some will face situations where a certain "shoot" will force them into deciding which option (to get to 400mm or thereabouts) they should bring with them (and to make that decision knowing the compromises associated with going with the 300mm f4 PF plus TC-14EIII option).

The Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 is a completely different kettle of fish. It isn't light (it's a little over 3600 gm - or pushing 8 lb) and isn't "inexpensive" (unless one compares it to the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E or any of the other Nikkor FL super-telephotos). But, when shot native (without a TC), it is VERY strong optically - both in terms of sharpness and bokeh. And, when Sigma's 1.4x TC is added to the equation it performs better than many "zoom-plus-TC" combinations (and it's still a comparatively fast f4 lens with TC in place). So...when you combine the full focal range this lens can cover (including shot native as well as with a TC) it overlaps a LOT of the focal range of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Factor in that price differential (a factor of 3 give-or-take) and it's no wonder many are wondering if this is a decent alternative to spending their kids' inheritance on a 180-400mm f4E.

Two final quick introductory comments. First, does it make any sense to compare a 400mm lens against two other lenses that are supposed to be produce a focal length of 420mm? Yep, not only would that be a pretty minor difference if all of the lenses produced "true" focal lengths, but it's important to remember that almost all lenses exhibit SOME degree of "focus-breathing" (where the focal length functionally "shortens" when used on close subjects). As it turns out, I've noticed that the Nikkor 180-400mm exhibits VERY little focus breathing (if any at all) - with short and mid-distance subjects it produces images virtually IDENTICAL in "size" relative to the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E. Conversely, the Sigma Sport 120-300mm exhibits significant focus-breathing (with or without the TC in place) - so much so that the at close and mid-distances its 420mm focal lengths produces "smaller" images (= shorter REAL focal length) than the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E at 400mm. The 300mm f4 PF plus TC-14EIII? It exhibits just a little focus-breathing...such that images captured at close and mid-distances with the 180-400mm @ 400mm or the 300mm f4 PF plus TC0-14EIII appear to be shot with virtually identical focal lengths. Which makes the whole "hey...don't compare images shot with different focal lengths" argument academic (or pretty much moot).

Finally, and for the record, I have always been a VERY selective TC user. I totally understand the appeal of TC's, but over the years I have found almost no lenses where TC's can be used without more compromises than I am prepared to make in my own shooting. Those compromises come in several forms - you lose one stop of light (with a 1.4x TC), you always give up at least some optical quality (both in sharpness and the bokeh), and with most lenses you have to stop down quite a bit to "squeeze" maximum sharpness out of them. I have also found that they rarely perform well optically with zoom lenses (not "never", just "rarely"). Finally, I have found them to perform best (and be most useful) on lenses with a maximum aperture of f2.8. At the end of the day the ONLY lens I historically added a TC to with no hesitation was the Nikkor 400mm f2.8 (both the G and E versions).

The cold, hard truth is that when it comes to telephoto lenses the nearly-trite saying "You get what you pay for" is, quite sadly, almost always true. And, what you're invariably paying for is fewer and fewer compromises (as price rises). My testing of the 180-400mm f4E - at least to date and including today's results - has made this abundantly clear (costs FAR more than any other zoom, but FAR fewer compromises than any other zoom).

II. Field-Testing Methods

Both the field-testing methods and the assessment of the final images were made using the exact same methodology as described in my 02 July 2018 blog entry (open the methodology section of that entry in a new tab/window using this link).

For those seeking a "visual" of the subjects I used (and the "scenes") at each of the three test distances, here ya go...(each image is full-frame, but reduced in resolution from 8256 x 5504 pixels to 2400 x 1600 pixels):

• Close Subject (7 meters): The Stump (JPEG: 1.14 MB)
• Mid-distance Subject (25 meters): My Amazingly Cooperative Eagle (JPEG: 1.29 MB)
• Distant Subject (1500 meters): The Distant Treeline at Sunrise (JPEG: 1.32 MB)

III. The RESULTS!

As in past entries, I'll give you a quick and dirty Executive Summary followed by a few more nitty-gritty details of the results.

1. The Executive Summary:

With only a few very limited exceptions (at very small apertures), the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E @ 400mm easily optically outperformed both the Nikkor 300mm plus TC-14EIII and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm plus TC-1401. At short distances (7 meters) the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 plus TC-1401 had to be stopped down to f9 before approximating the sharpness of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E when shot wide open. And, the 300mm plus TC-14EIII did not produce images as sharp as the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (shot wide open) at ANY aperture tested. At mid-distances to the subject (25 meters) neither the Sigma 120-300 plus TC nor the 300mm PF f4E matched the sharpness of the 180-400mm f4E when shot wide open. What about bokeh? A bit different story - at close distances the Sigma Sport 120-300 (plus TC) matched the Nikkor 180-400mm at most equivalent apertures. And, at 25 meters the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF (plus TC) produced the best bokeh - its OoF zones were noticeably smoother than both the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm (plus TC) at all overlapping apertures (and the Nikkor 180-400 and the Sigma Sport 120-300 were in a virtual dead heat).

At long distance the difference between the optics of the 3 lenses was even more pronounced, especially on the edges. The central region of the 180-400mm (even at f4) was sharper than the central region of the other lenses until f10 (for the Sigma Sport plus TC) and f11 (for the 300mm PF plus TC). Edges? Neither the Sigma Sport 120-300 plus TC nor the 300mm f4 PF approximated the sharpness of the edges of the Nikkor 180-400mm (even when this lens was shot wide open) at ANY aperture. In other words, the edges of the Sigma Sport 120-300 and the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF never fully sharpened up. If you like shooting distant scenes (including animalscapes) with good edge-to-edge sharpness with the Nikon D850 only the Nikkor 180-400mm is up to the task. And, remarkably, it is up to the task at any aperture (including shot wide open).

2. The Nitty Gritty Details:

In interpreting these results it's important to remember that the two closer distances (7 meters and 25 meters) were included to assess two things only: Central sharpness and the quality of the OoF zones (or bokeh). The longest distance-to-subject (1500 meters) test was included to assess both central region sharpness AND edge sharpness (but not bokeh).

A. Optical Performance at 7 meters (400mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: At all apertures the Nikkor 180-400mm @ 400m placed "first" in sharpness in the central region of the image. The Sigma Sport 120-300 plus TC placed 2nd in sharpness at all apertures until f9, at which point (and at f10 and f11) it drew even with the Nikkor 180-400mm in a tie for first place. The Nikkor 300mm f4 PF plus TC never matched either of the other two lenses in central region sharpness.

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 180-400mm: Virtually none, meaning the lens is virtually at maximum sharpness when shot wide open (@ f4). This is a consistent with previous tests at 400mm - and it's still a remarkable result. Good old AIS in action! (HUH? What's AIS?).
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 plus TC-1401: Requires stopping down about 1.3 stops from wide open (to f6.3) before approaching maximum sharpness, and still slowly sharpens up more until f9. Approximates sharpness of 180-400mm f4E (shot at any aperture) from f9 to f11.
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 300mm f4 PF plus TC-14EIII: Requires stopping down about 1 stop (to f8) to get to maximum sharpness. But note that it never gets to the sharpness of the Nikon 180-400mm (at any aperture) or the Sigma Sport 120-300 plus TC shot at f9.
• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): Best (and smoothest) OoF zones in the test were VERY similar between the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 plus TC. The Nikkor 300mm f4 PF plus TC invariably showed more detail (in the OoF zones) and appeared "less pleasing" than the other two lenses.
• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: With subjects this close all lenses can easily separate the subject from background. However, between producing the sharpest images at all apertures (especially at the widest apertures) AND being in a tie with the Sigma Sport 120-300 plus TC in bokeh...the clear BEST CHOICE in subject-isolation ability (with maximum quality images) is the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E.

OVERALL CONCLUSION: At 7 meters the difference in image quality between the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E and both the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 plus TC and the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF is quite stark. And, the most striking "feeling" you get when shooting all 3 lenses is the difference in the number of compromises you have to make when shooting the different lenses: with the Nikkor 180-400mm there are virtually NO compromises (you have freedom to choose any aperture you want) while you have to stop down a TON with the other two lenses to get acceptable images.

So...for context...just how signficant are the differences in sharpness discussed above? Is this just advanced pixel-peeping? Or...are the sharpness differences just "statistically" (but not visibly) different? Nope...not at ALL...check out this sample to see for yourself (100% previews of a small section of the scene):

• Wide Open vs. Wide Open vs. Wide Open: Download Sample Image (JPEG: 1.72 MB)

B. Optical Performance at 25 meters (400mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: At 25 meters the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E claims the top stop on the sharpness podium (and without having to share the top spot with any other of the test lenses at any aperture). The Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 plus TC is alone in 2nd spot until f8, at which point it's in a dead-heat (for SECOND place) with the Nikkor 300mm PF plus TC.

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 180-400mm: Virtually none, meaning the lens is virtually at maximum sharpness when shot wide open (@ f4). A consistent - but in no way unremarkable - result. More AIS! (HUH? What's AIS?).
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 plus TC-1401: Requires stopping down about 1 to 1.3 stops from wide open (to f6.3) before approaching maximum sharpness, and again still slowly sharpens up more until f9.
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 300mm f4 PF plus TC-14EIII: Identical to result at 7 meters, i.e., requires stopping down about 1 stop (to f8) to get to maximum sharpness.
• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): Interestingly, now the best (smoothest and with least detail) shifts over to the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF plus TC. Both the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm are close at all apertures (and virtually identical to one another).
• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: Actually - close to a saw-off. But it's still important to note that in the field I'd definitely select the Nikkor 180-400mm at this distance (and at 400mm) if my goal was to effectively separate a subject from a busy background. Why? Well...BOTH the 180-400 and the Sigma Sport 120-300 will let me shoot at a background-blurring f4, but at f4 the Nikkor 180-400 is a LOT sharper than the Sigma 120-300 plus TC. And...while the 300mm f4 PF plus TC will produce a very nice background at f5.6 (but with a little more detail than the 180-400mm at f4), unfortunately the subject is soft too! ;-)

OVERALL CONCLUSION: At 25 meters you simply have superior optical performance - and fewer optical compromises (as in almost NONE) - with the 180-400mm f4E than either of the other two 400mm options. The compromise to the condition of your wallet for the 180-400mm f4E is a different (non-optical) issue.

C. Optical Performance with Distant (1500 meters) Subject (400mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: Well...if ALL you care about is central sharpness you CAN get there with all 3 lenses. With the Nikkor 180-400mm you can get it from f4 to f11. With the Sigma Sport 120-300 plus TC you can get it from f10 through to f11. With the Nikkor 300 f4 PF plus TC you can get it at f11 (only). Sharp edges? Available from f4 to f11 with the Nikkor 180-400mm. Not available with the other two lenses.

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 180-400mm: None! At f4 this lens is maximally sharp in both the center and edges. Still mind-boggling. And still exhibiting AIS! (HUH? What's AIS?).
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Sigma Sport 120-300mm plus TC-1401: Requires stopping down 2/3 of a stop from wide open (to f5) before approaching maximum sharpness in the central region, and one full stop (to f5.6) before approaching maximum sharpness on the edges.
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 300mm f4 PF plus TC-14EIII: Requires stopping down one stop (to f8) to get to close to maximum sharpness in the central region. Edges remain very soft at all apertures.
• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): N/A (at this distance).
• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: N/A (at this distance).

OVERALL CONCLUSION: Very good center and edge sharpness together is only available with the Nikkor 180-400mm - and it's available at all apertures. You CAN get decent central sharpness if you stop down (a lot) with both the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 plus TC and the 300mm f4 PF plus TC. Some MAY find the edge sharpness of the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 at f5.6 and smaller apertures, but I doubt anyone would be happy with the edges of the 300mm f4 PF at long distances (regardless of aperture). Again...the big difference in the lenses comes down to the number of compromises you are willing to make...

V. Final Discussion and Comments

Not too surprisingly the Nikkor 180-400mm - shot native at 400mm - outperformed its "TC-endowed" competitors in this test. There were only a few instances - and they occurred ONLY when the lenses paired up with their respective TC's were stopped WAY down - where you could approximate the optical performance of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E with either the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 (plus TC) or the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF (plus TC). For me the test confirmed my long-held belief that teleconverters CAN produce good results, but it takes a lot of compromises to get those results. For some shooters - especially those who shoot a lot in bright light - those compromises may well be acceptable. As one who shoots a lot in low light - AND who likes to shoot a lot of scenes at longer distances (and almost always want edge-to-edge sharpness in those distant scenes or animalscapes) - the compromises don't work for me.

One final "Let's put this in context" note: This test was performed using a very demanding DSLR (especially when it comes to edge-sharpness) - the D850. The differentials I experienced in image quality - especially differences in edge sharpness - may not be nearly so evident if you are shooting with lower resolution cameras than the D850.

Up next? Comparative optical performance at 200mm - a 7 lens shootout! Stay tuned!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#180-400_OpticalMORE_400



Nikon 180-400mm Field Test: Commentary 1 - Aperture-Independent Sharpness?

05 July 2018: Nikkor 180-400mm Field Test: Commentary 1 - What's AIS?

After a few highly detailed posts on the optical performance of the Nikkor 180-400mm at 400mm and 500mm I think it's high time for a bit of a "Let's look at the forest, not just the trees" commentary.

Yesterday and early this morning I - while I was going cross-eyed reviewing images captured comparing the optical characteristics of the Nikkor 180-400mm vs. two other 400mm "solutions" (specifically the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 plus its 1.4x TC and the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF plus its 1.4x TC) - I saw a VERY similar pattern emerge once again. That pattern can be summed up in a few words and nicely encapsulates what I have learned to date about the optical performance of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. And it's primarily three things:

1. Exceptional Overall Sharpness - Central Region:

After systematic testing at 400mm and 500mm Nikon has appeared to achieve what many thought was unattainable - producing a zoom lens that can go head-to-head in overall sharpness in the central region of an image with the best primes (at least at 400mm and 500mm). This includes when the built-in teleconverter is engaged and the lens is compared to primes at over 400mm (specifically at 500mm). Of course many of us hoped this would be the case, but I doubt many thought it WOULD be the case. Kudos to Nikon on this.

2. Exceptional Consistency in Sharpness ACROSS the Frame:

It's not only the central region of the images shot with the 180-400mm that are sharp - that sharpness extends completely across the frame (from edge-to-edge), even on the demanding D850 46 MP sensor (which beats up the edges of many a good lens). Again, this is a place where the best-of-the-best primes often (but not always) shined and it was, in a sense, a place no super-telephoto zoom had gone before. Despite conventional wisdom, I have found that you CAN get great central region sharpness out of the "old" Nikkor 200-400mm f4 lens - with a little stopping down. But the sharpness of the edges on that lens never matches the sharpness of the central region (even at f11). And...once again...kudos to Nikon on this achievement.

So...in overall sharpness and edge sharpness Nikon has managed to make the 180-400mm perform like a prime lens. That's simply amazing. BUT...in one other regard...and one that is also REALLY significant...Nikon has actually done something that SURPASSES all the prime lenses (and all the zooms) I have ever used or tested. That performance characteristic is...

3. Aperture Independent Sharpness:

Over the years I have tested (and used) oodles of lenses. And, until now, I have never found a lens that was at its maximum sharpness when shot absolutely wide open. Of course, every bit of marketing propaganda for any lens (made by any manufacturer) made in the last two decades claims they're "sharp even at wide apertures". But the reality is that those claims are just typical marketing BS (with the appropriate and intentionally misleading weasel-words cleverly inserted). Yep, they may be "sharp" when wide open, but they aren't their "sharpest" when shot wide open (which is, of course, what they WANT you to believe).

Take the amazing Nikkor 400mm f2.8E and shoot it at f2.8 and what do you see? A very sharp image. But stop it down to f3.2 or - even better - f3.5 and what do you see? An even sharper image. Same thing with the best 70-200mm f2.8 ever made - the 70-200mm f2.8E: Shoot it at f2.8 and it's sharp, but it doesn't get really (as in "really really") close to its maximum sharpness until f3.5.

The 180-400mm? So far - at least when the TC is not engaged (and even MOST of the time with the TC engaged) - the 180-400mm hits about 99% of maximum sharpness when shot absolutely wide open (in most cases I have been completely unable to detect ANY difference in sharpness when the lens is shot wide open vs. at f4.5, or f5, or f8, etc.). And that doesn't mean just central sharpness - it includes full edge-to-edge sharpness! Major, major kudos to Nikon on this breakthrough!

Why is this significant? Well...some of the best lenses (like the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E) require only a little stopping down (1/3 to 1/2 stop) before you get to maximum sharpness. Some shooters adjust their shooting to accommodate this, as I did in this shot where I wanted to get the cub super sharp but I wanted the foreground and background as soft as possible. So, I faced an "optimization" problem and had to think about how to balance sharpness against the subject isolation associated with shooting with a wide aperture (that shot was shot at f3.2, and I kinda wished I shot it at f3.5). But with the 180-400mm (at least at the focal lengths I've tested so far) in almost all cases you can just forget about the relationship between aperture choice and sharpness and think ONLY about the impact of aperture on depth-of-field (DoF).

And don't forget that with MOST lenses (and certainly most zooms) you have to stop down WAY more to get anywhere near the sharpness of the 180-400mm. As an example, when I was comparing the 180-400mm to the Nikkor 200-400mm f4 at 400mm with a subject 25 meters away I had to stop the 200-400mm down to f10 to approach the sharpness of the 180-400mm when shot wide open (at f4). SO...if I wanted as sharp a subject with the 200-400mm as I could get with the 180-400mm I had absolutely no aperture "latitude" to play with, and had NO control over DoF (or the ability to isolate the subject from its surroundings). With the 180-400mm I could choose f4, f4.5, f5, f5.6, f6.3, f7.1, f8, f9, f10, and f11 (that's 10 different aperture settings) - and with the 200-400 I could choose only f10 or f11 (after f11 - with both lenses - the image starts to soften up noticeably due to diffraction issues).

Anyway...to my way of thinking (and shooting) this characteristic of Aperture Independent Sharpness (or AIS...yippee...yet another acronym is born) of the 180-400mm is INCREDIBLY liberating in a field setting. It's already affecting my shooting (and my thinking while I'm shooting) - now I don't have to think about how much I have to stop down to maximize the sharpness of my subject and concentrate solely on how I can best use my aperture from a creative perspective. Of course, you still have to think about how much light you have (and how that might limit how much you can stop down or how much you must open up based on shutter speed concerns).

Very cool. And you can bet I'll be watching to see if AIS continues to be exhibited as I test the optical performance of the 180-400mm at 200mm and 300mm.

More coming on the Nikkor 180-400 soon...stay tuned!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#180-400_comment1_AIS

03 July 2018: Now Appearing: NEW IMAGES (finally!)

Images from my early season photo tours are NOW appearing in my Gallery of Latest Additions. I just posted a few new Khutzeymateen Grizzlies images, and in the coming days and weeks there will be LOTS more images appearing in there, including images shot with the new Nikkor 180-400mm f4E that have NOT been publicly displayed (anywhere) before!

New visitors to this website may not realize that each image (in each of my many galleries) is accompanied by absolute oodles of contextual information and metadata. To access the information all you have to do is to click on the tabs BELOW the image - that's those "In the Field" and "Behind the Camera", etc. tabs!

ENJOY!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca



Nikon 180-400mm Field Test: Optical Performance at 400mm

02 July 2018: Nikkor 180-400mm f4E TC1.4 VR Field Test IIIB: Optical Performance at 400mm

This is the fourth installment in an on-going series describing my experiences field-testing the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Here's what was covered in previous entries in this series:

• 21 May 2018: First Impressions
• 18 June 2018: Shooting the 180-400mm in the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary (including 27 sample images)
• 29 June 2018: Optical Performance at 500mm

In this entry I describe my results from systematic and comparative optical field-testing of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E lens at 400mm - its longest "native" focal length. I compared the 180-400mm against three other lens (all, of course, at 400mm) - the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E, the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G, and the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3. Just like my previous entry on optical performance at 500mm, in this entry sharpness of the three lenses was compared with images captured at 3 different distances to the subject. In this comparative 400mm test I slightly shortened the "close distance" test to 7 meters (rather than 8 meters as in the 500mm test) and the "mid-distance" test to 25 meters (rather than 27 meters). This was done to reflect the normal field practice of using shorter focal lengths as the distance to the subject decreases. The "long distance" test was done at the exact same distance - about 1500 meters to the subject (just under a mile). Both central region sharpness and the quality of the Out-of-Focus (or "OoF"...AKA the "bokeh") were examined in the tests performed at the two shortest distances-to-subject (7 meters and 25 meters). Edge-to-edge sharpness (only) was examined in the long camera-to-subject (1500 meters) test. My reasons for choosing these distances - and for NOT examining the quality of the OoF zone at 1500 meters - are parallel to those for the 500mm optical test. Anyone interested can read those reasons in the 29 June blog entry (jump directly to those reasons with this link).

Anyone wishing to skip the remaining background material and description of my methodology can jump directly to The Executive Summary of my results by following this link...

I. Critical Background!

There are a number of different reasons why this test at 400mm will be of interest to a lot of shooters. First, I'm pitting the new 180-400mm zoom lens against what many wildlife (and sports) photographers consider Nikon's sharpest super-telephoto prime lens - the almost venerable Nikkor 400mm f2.8E. If Nikon has found a way to make this new zoom lens as sharp (or as close to as sharp) as the 400mm f2.8E not only will it be a more than a bit mind-boggling, but it will likely make many (including me) think of the 180-400mm as a true game-changer. And, it will likely make many think that the sky-high price of the 180-400mm isn't as unreasonable as it first appeared (or at least no more unreasonable than the price of the "other" Nikkor super-telephoto lenses with fluorine elements!).

Second, many (if not most...or even all) of Nikon's previous super-telephoto zooms are at their weakest optically at their longest focal length. This doesn't mean they aren't still good at their longest focal length, simply that they're usually not quite AS GOOD at maximum focal length as they are at shorter focal lengths. So if the Nikkor 180-400 is strong at 400mm it will make the lens very appealing to a lot of shooters (and suggest that at even shorter focal lengths the lens will be amazing!). It's my observation a lot of wildlife shooters use super-telephoto zooms at their maximum focal length a LOT, so performance at maximum focal length is critical to a LOT of wildlife photographers.

Third, if one wants to use the 180-400mm at 400mm there is no need to engage the built-in teleconverter (of course, you COULD zoom the lens to about 286mm and engage the 1.4x TC to get to 400mm...but this way of using the lens should only be done by those looking to unnecessarily shoot themselves in the foot!). In my previous test at 500mm I found the Nikkor 180-400mm amazingly sharp at short and mid-distances to a subject (pretty much on par with the highly-regarded Sigma Sport 500mm f4) but its performance on a long-distance subject was slightly weaker (I had to stop the Nikkor 180-400mm down to f8 before it approximated the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 in sharpness). So the question became "Is this an indication that the 180-400mm doesn't perform well at long distances at any focal length or was the slightly weaker performance at distance owing largely to having the TC engaged?".

Fourth, I am including the "old" Nikon 200-400mm f4G in this test...and many have long-thought that this lens was great EXCEPT for how it performed at long distances to the subject. To be honest, I have always wondered if this was one of those "internet things" where someone says it online (possibly without rigorous testing) and then it gets repeated often enough that it becomes dogma. So in including this lens in the test I can verify for myself if the 200-400mm is weak at long distances and IF this perceived problem IS real, whether or not Nikon has "remedied it" on the 180-400mm.

So in this test the gloves - and the teleconverters - come off (or are disengaged)! Based on the email I have received about the 180-400mm the burning issue for a LOT of wildlife photographers was how the 180-400mm performed at 400mm. And I know lots are wondering how it compares to the amazing 400mm f2.8E! It's crunch time!!

One final comment: My optical testing at 500mm revealed a few things about the 180-400mm that were quite astounding. The first was amazing edge-to-edge sharpness (as in "prime lens sharpness") on the 180-400 at all distances (with the only minor exception was in the f5.6 to f7.1 range with a distant subject). The other was the fact that the lens is pretty much as sharp as a tack (edge-to-edge) when shot completely wide open, i.e., there was no need to stop down at all to get the central or edge regions to sharpen up. My results when I was shooting in the Khutzeymateen in late May and early June were absolutely consistent with these test results. If these same trends continue at 400mm and shorter focal lengths then Nikon may have done something I once thought was impossible: producing a zoom lens with almost no optical compromises...

II. Field-Testing Methods

With the exception of using slightly different distances, the methods I used for capturing the images and assessing the images are identical for those used in my 500mm optical testing. You can check out all those gory details right here...

In short, I captured all the images using a Nikon D850 in a field-setting using a highly-disciplined approach and systematic approach (stable tripod, Live View, cable release, etc.) designed to minimize confounding variables. My goal in these tests is to get to what I refer to as "Maximum Attainable Field Sharpness" (or MAFS) for a given lens. It's likely there is a correlation between these results and MTF curves, but I have not tested this assumption. Of course, in most of our REAL field-shooting we'll never fully attain MAFS but I believe the "best-of-the-best" lenses have other performance-related characteristics (like AF performance, VR performance, lens weight and balance, etc.) that let us approach the MAFS quite closely (while with "lesser" lenses we may NEVER get close to their MAFS). And that's the whole reason my full field-testing regime involves the disciplined and systematic optical testing PLUS AF testing, VR testing, AND a whole lot of time doing real world "just shooting". This field test is a bit unique in that I have done a lot of my "just shooting" already (as reported - including with sample images - in my June 21 "Shooting the Khutzeymateen" blog entry).

For those seeking a "visual" of the subjects I used (and the "scenes") at each of the three test distances, here ya go...(each image is full-frame, but reduced in resolution from 8256 x 5504 pixels to 2400 x 1600 pixels):

• Close Subject (7 meters): The Stump (JPEG: 1.14 MB)
• Mid-distance Subject (25 meters): My Amazingly Cooperative Eagle (JPEG: 1.29 MB)
• Distant Subject (1500 meters): The Distant Treeline at Sunrise (JPEG: 1.32 MB)

III. The RESULTS!

As usual, here's a quick and dirty Executive Summary followed by a few more nitty-gritty details (for those who really want to understand the nuances of the 180-400mm).

1. The Executive Summary:

At 400mm the Nikkor 180-400mm exhibited mind-boggling (and I dare say game-changing) edge-to-edge sharpness and exceptional bokeh (along with great contrast!). Shockingly, with one or two very minor exceptions that are described in the Nitty Gritty Details section below, there was virtually no observable difference in image sharpness between the 180-400mm f4E and the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E at all overlapping apertures. This was true at all test distances - with subjects at a close distance (7 meters), mid-distance (25 meters), and long distance (1500 meters). Even more surprisingly, images captured wide open with the 180-400mm f4E (so at f4) were sharper at all distances than images captured wide open with the 400mm f2.8E (so at f2.8). Both the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E outperformed the Sigma Sport 150-600mm and the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G by a significant margin (at all distances) until all lenses were stopped down to the f8/f9 range. At both close and mid-distances the Sigma Sport 150-600mm and the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G were quite comparable in sharpness to one another, but the Sigma 150-600 had to be stopped down less (from its smaller largest aperture!) than the Nikkor 200-400 to get to maximum sharpness. Interestingly, the Nikkor 200-400 f4G did NOT exhibit the expected "soft-at-long-subject-distance" characteristic it has a reputation for - like with other distances it needed to be stopped down to f5 to get to maximum sharpness, but once this was done it was as sharp as the Nikkor 180-400 AND the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E in the central region (but slightly softer on the edges). Like at 500mm, the Sigma Sport 150-600mm showed good central region sharpness with a distant subject once stopped down (in this case to f7.1) but its edges remained soft on the distant subject at all apertures tested.

2. The Nitty Gritty Details:

In interpreting these results it's important to remember that the two closer distances (7 meters and 25 meters) were included to assess two things only: Central sharpness and the quality of the OoF zones (or bokeh). The longest distance-to-subject (1500 meters) test was included to assess both central region sharpness AND edge sharpness (but not bokeh).

A. Optical Performance at 7 meters (400mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: Parity in sharpness between Nikkor 180-400mm f4E and Nikkor 400mm f2.8E at all equivalent apertures (from f4.5 to f11) EXCEPT at f4 where the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E was very slightly sharper. Nikkor 200-400mm f4G very soft at f4 through f5 and only equivalent to the Nikkor 180-400 and the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E at f11. Sigma Sport slightly sharper than the Nikkor 200-400 at all overlapping apertures and approached sharpness of Nikkor 180-400 and Nikkor 400mm f2.8E at f10 and smaller apertures.

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 400mm f2.8E: Requires stopping down 2/3 of a stop from wide open (to f3.5) before approaching maximum sharpness.
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 180-400mm: Virtually none, meaning the lens is virtually at maximum sharpness when shot wide open (@ f4). This is a remarkable result.
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 200-400mm f4G: Requires stopping down 2/3 of a stop from wide open (to f5) before approaching maximum sharpness, and only approaches sharpness of Nikkor 180-400mm and Nikkor 400mm f2.8E when stopped all the way down to f11.
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3: Requires stopping down only 1/3 of a stop or less (from f6 to f6.3) to get to maximum sharpness. Only approaches sharpness of Nikkor 180-400mm and Nikkor 400mm f2.8E when stopped down to f10.
• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): Best (and smoothest) OoF zones in the test were shown by the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E from f4 through f5, with both the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Nikkor 200-400 showing virtual identical OoF zones to the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E from f5.6 to f11. The Sigma Sport 150-600 showed more "nervous" (slightly less smooth and slightly more "jittery") bokeh than the other 3 lenses at all overlapping apertures.
• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: With subjects this close all lenses can easily separate the subject from background. However, the 400mm f2.8E produces the absolute smoothest and least detailed OoF zones (pure beauty) when shot wide open - none of the other lenses could produce comparable bokeh. At this point the 400mm f2.8E offers the BEST subject isolation from a background. However, shooting the 400mm f2.8E at f2.8 comes with a penalty - the in-focus regions soften up somewhat and the lens must be stopped down to f3.5 before it hits maximum sharpness, and at this point the ability to separate the subject from the background isn't much different than that of the Nikkor 180-400mm! Two sample images will help you get a handle on these trade-offs...

Wide Open (Nikkor 400mm f2.8E) vs. Wide Open (Nikkor 180-400mm f4E) Version 1: Aperture's effect on background and subject isolation (JPEG: 2.29 MB)
Wide Open (Nikkor 400mm f2.8E) vs. Wide Open (Nikkor 180-400mm f4E) Version 1: Comparative Subject Sharpness (100% magnification crop) (JPEG: 2.07 MB)

OVERALL CONCLUSION: At 7 meters the difference in image sharpness and bokeh between the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E is reduced to hair-splitting (and extreme pixel-peeping!). My own feeling is that the difference is image quality between these two lenses is so insignificant at this distance that photographer technique/abilities and/or post-processing skills would both be more important in final image quality than lens choice. The Nikkor 200-400mm f4G and the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 performed well, but showed the typical compromises we have historically come to expect from zoom lenses - they either required significantly more stopping down to get to maximum sharpness (in the case of the Nikkor 200-400mm) or produced poorer quality bokeh at all overlapping apertures (in the case of the Sigma Sport 150-600).

B. Optical Performance at 25 meters (400mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: After an extended period of pixel-peeping I was finally able to convince myself there was a real (but extremely slight) difference in sharpness between images shot with the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E between f4 and f5. At apertures of f5.6 and smaller I could discern NO difference whatsoever in sharpness between images shot with those two lenses. At this distance the Nikkor 200-400mm was very weak when shot wide open, but by f5.6 it sharpened up enough to be called "decent", but it was still much less sharp than the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E and Nikkor 180-400 f4E until f9 (and it more or less drew even at f10). To get a feeling for the sharpness "gaps" I am talking about, check out this composite image showing 100% magnification previews of a tiny portion of the scene with the 3 Nikkors at f4 (and note that this is the WORST result for the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E of ALL the 400mm tests). (If you DO view that composite shot, look beyond the end of the broken beak [which is arguably a function of micro-focus differences] and examine several of the other areas on the image, including the carved feathers on the neck - you'll see the two images are STILL very similar). The Sigma Sport didn't fare quite as well at this distance - it was last in sharpness up to f7.1, drew even with the Nikkor 200-400 at f8, and then was arguably as sharp as the other 3 lenses at f10.

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 400mm f2.8E: Requires stopping down 1/3 of a stop from wide open (to f3.2) before approaching maximum sharpness.
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 180-400mm: Requires stopping down 1/3 of a stop from wide open (to f4.5) before approaching maximum sharpness.
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 200-400mm f4G: Requires stopping down 2/3 of a stop from wide open (to f5) before approaching maximum sharpness, and only approaches sharpness of Nikkor 180-400mm and Nikkor 400mm f2.8E when stopped down to f10.
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3: Requires stopping down about 2/3 of a stop or less (from f6 to f7.1) to get to maximum sharpness. Only approaches sharpness of Nikkor 180-400mm and Nikkor 400mm f2.8E when stopped down to f10.
• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): At apertures from wide open to f4.5 the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E places first (smoothest and "most buttery" bokeh). But beyond f4.5 you pretty much couldn't see any difference in the quality of the OoF zones of the three Nikkors (the 400mm f2.8E, the 180-400mm, or the 200-400mm). The Sigma Sport 150-600 faltered here a little - up until f9 its OoF zones were noticeably less smooth and less eye-pleasing than the 3 Nikkors.
• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: Now the situation between the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E is even murkier. There's no doubt you can separate the subject from the background better at this distance if you shoot both the 400mm and the 180-400mm wide open (check out this composite sample). But the difference in the ability to render the background "soft" is less pronounced between the two lenses than it was at 7 meters. And, once more the 180-400mm is sharper when it is shot wide open than the 400mm f2.8E is when it is shot wide open. In fact, you have to stop down the 400mm f2.8E down to f3.5 before it is as sharp as the 180-400mm is at f4. So...once more...if you care about maximizing the sharpness of your subject you have very little difference between the lenses in the ability to separate a subject from a busy background! Does your head hurt as much as mine does? ;-)

OVERALL CONCLUSION: At 25 meters the priciest lenses in this comparison (the 400mm f2.8 and the 180-400mm) continue to be separated optically by only an infinitesimally small amount. And, I think most importantly, any sharpness differences between the lenses falls within the range that can be negated by careful post-processing. The two "other" zooms lenses in the comparison (the Nikkor 200-400 and the Sigma 150-600) continue to perform quite similarly overall. In a sense you have two lenses battling it out for first place with a tiny gap between them, and you have two lenses battling it out for the 3rd and 4th spot with a tiny gap between them. BUT, the gap between the top two and the bottom two is MUCH larger (i.e., relatively huge) in comparison!

C. Optical Performance with Distant (1500 meters) Subject (400mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: Yup, Nikon fixed the perceived problem of "soft-at-long-distances" when they produced the 180-400mm. In what I consider an AMAZING result, there was NO VISIBLE DIFFERENCE IN EITHER CENTRAL OR EDGE SHARPNESS between the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 180-400mm at any overlapping aperture (from f4 to f11). NO DIFFERENCE. BUT...if you compare the results of shooting the 400mm f2.8 wide open vs. shooting the 180-400mm f4 wide open you'll find the 180-400mm sharper (in both the center and the edge). Another intriguing result is that after you stop the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G down to f5 (it's gawd-awful at this distance wide open!) it is as sharp in the central region as the other two Nikkors! It never gets as sharp on the edges as the other two Nikkors (it's not bad in edge sharpness at f5.6 and smaller apertures, but definitely softer than the two pricier Nikkors). The Sigma Sport 150-600 is excellent in the central region at f7.1 and smaller apertures (as good as the other 3 lenses), but is the worst on the edges (and never sharpens up much, even at f11).

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 400mm f2.8E: Requires stopping down 1/3 of a stop from wide open (to f3.2) before approaching maximum sharpness (in both center and edges).
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 180-400mm: None! At f4 this lens is maximally sharp in both the center and edges - insert one "amazing" right here!
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 200-400mm f4G: Requires stopping down 2/3 of a stop from wide open (to f5) before approaching maximum sharpness in the central region, and one full stop (to f5.6) before approaching maximum sharpness on the edges.
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3: equires stopping down just over one third of a stop or less (from f6 to f7.1) to get to maximum sharpness in the central regions, and just over 1.67 stops (from f6 to f10) for the edges (and they're still not too sharp!).
• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): N/A (at this distance).
• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: N/A (at this distance).

OVERALL CONCLUSION: At 1500 meters there is simply no visible difference whatsoever in the optical performance of the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. If you're into long-distance scenes with great edge-to-edge sharpness (including animalscapes) shot at 400mm either of these high-end lenses will make you very happy. And, there's nothing you can do (including stopping WAY down) to make the Nikkor 200-400 OR the Sigma Sport 150-600mm match them in edge-to-edge sharpness.

V. Final Discussion and Comments

Well...somehow Nikon has managed to produce a zoom lens that can go toe-to-toe with the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 at 500mm and the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E at 400mm - and come away without a black eye (or even a bruise). For all intents and purposes there was no significant difference in my tests in sharpness between images captured with the 400mm f2.8E and the 180-400mm f4E (at any distance). Simply mind-boggling. Hell, even if your zoom on the 180-400mm f4E broke and the lens was frozen at 400mm you'd be left with a damn good 400mm f4 lens that could produce images that - in most cases - would be completely comparable to those captured with the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E! Like I said...just mind-boggling.

Many - including me - will be encouraged and excited by the strong results of the 180-400mm on a distant subject at 400mm. While I have always thought that the "problem" of the 200-400 being "soft" when shooting distances was overblown (and I think this even more after the results reported here today), I LOVE shooting distant scenes, including reasonably distant animalscapes. For ME, the ability to capture these distant scenes with a zoom lens offering great edge-to-edge sharpness (just like you can do with the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E) is a HUGE bonus!

And now we have - for the very first time - a totally new question for wildlife shooters to deal with: "Are there really ANY valid arguments left to justify owning one of the big primes?" There is still the one extra stop you get with a 500mm f4 (over the Nikkor 180-400mm with the TC engaged) and a 400mm f2.8 (over the Nikkor 180-400mm shot native). But what does this extra stop really mean in the field? I can't speak for others, but with today's "good to a zillion ISO" Nikon DSLR's I almost never shoot a f2.8 lens at f2.8 for "light-gathering" reasons any more. I DO shoot lenses with wide apertures wide open (or close to it) for creative reasons (such as isolating my subject from a busy background or getting the smoothest OoF zones possible). But...because the 180-400mm is so darned sharp when shot wide open (as in "sharper than the big primes when shot wide open")...some may choose to stop their big primes down a little (and lose what little advantage they have in subject-isolation ability).

A final comment: I have received a ton of email about the 180-400mm lens - and many said they were waiting for THIS blog entry (on performance at 400mm) before making their own purchase decision. I am confident that if anyone else replicated what I did in these systematic tests they would get similar or identical results. BUT...I can only report on my OWN experiences, especially when we move away from controlled tests and start "just shooting". A number of variables that can (and usually DO) vary between users (including user technique and skill, camera paired with the lens, differing shooting conditions, AF tuning, possible variation in quality control and sample quality and a whole bunch more) may influence others' experiences with a given lens. Given what I have already learned with my systematic testing AND what I found when shooting the 180-400mm for 9-days in the Khutzeymateen Grizzly sanctuary, I am now convinced that the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E is the single best wildlife lens on the market - for ME. Is it worth the HUGE price? I'm still deciding and I'll address this fully after I have completed ALL aspects of my testing. But at the end of the day it is still a tool - and what any given user can produce with it is MORE dependent on the hands (and eyes) of the craftsman than it is on the tool...

What's left in my 180-400mm testing? Lots. Optical performance at 200mm and 300mm. AF testing. VR testing. TC testing. So stay tuned!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#180-400_Optical400


Nikon 180-400mm Field Test: Optical Performance at 500mm

29 June 2018: Nikkor 180-400mm f4E TC1.4 VR Field Test IIIA: Optical Performance at 500mm

This is the third installment of several describing my experiences field-testing the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Previous installments in this 180-400mm series included an overview of my First Impressions and a detailed description of my experiences shooting the 180-400mm for 9 straight days in British Columbia's Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary.

In today's entry I describe my results from systematic and comparative optical field-testing of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E lens at 500mm (TC-engaged) against two other lenses - the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 prime lens and the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 zoom lens (at 500mm). Sharpness of the three lenses were compared with images captured at 3 different distances to the subject - at close distance (8 meters or 26 feet), at a "mid-distance" (27 meters or 89 feet), and at long-distance (approx. 1500 meters or ABOUT a mile). The quality of the Out-of-Focus (OoF) zones (AKA "bokeh") of the three lenses were compared at the closest two distances (8 meters and 27 meters) - at 1500 meters the question of quality of the OoF zones becomes pretty much nonsensical as the appearance of any objects in front of or behind the subject are either likely to be in focus as well or - if they are very far away from the subject - not vary in appearance appreciably. My rationale for choosing these distances is described below in the "Field-Testing Methods" section.

The reason I'm presenting my results of optical testing at 500mm first is twofold. First, using the 180-400mm f4E at 500mm means the built-in teleconverter must be engaged and one of the obvious key questions about the 180-400mm is "...how does it perform with the TC engaged"? Second, at 500mm I can compare the optical performance of the 180-400mm against both a top-notch prime lens and one of the leading "ultra-zoom" lenses.

While I am only comparing the 180-400mm against two other lenses in these tests, note that key previous field-tests suggest it's probably safe to extrapolate the results to at least a few other lenses. In my "500mm Wars" field test I compared the Sigma 500mm f4 prime lens against Nikon's latest 500mm lens (the Nikkor 500mm f4E) and found them to be virtually identical in optical performance. So I am pretty comfortable saying that the optical comparison of the Nikkor 180-400 to the Sigma Sport 500mm would be virtually identical to the comparison of the Nikkor 180-400 to the Nikkor 500mm f4E. On the zoom side, way back in December of 2015 (that blog entry right here I compared the optical performance of the Sigma Sport 150-600mm against the ONLY OTHER current Nikkor offering a 500mm focal point (the Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6 zoom), including at 500mm. In that test I found the Sigma Sport 150-600mm to be slightly sharper than the Nikkor 200-500mm @ 500mm (and with extremely similar OoF zones).

Those who are impatient and don't care about context or reading about my field-testing methods, you can skip to The Executive Summary of my results by following this link...

I. Critical Background...And Qualifiers!

Historically the general feeling among serious wildlife photographers was that prime (fixed focal length) super-telephoto lenses offered the ultimate in image quality, with super-telephoto zooms falling behind at least a little in image quality, especially at their longest focal lengths (and, in some cases, at long camera-to-subject distances). However, zooms offered the photographer a wide range of focal lengths and all that go with that, including the ability to compose shots exactly as the photographer wanted (while the saying that with primes you have to "....zoom with your feet" is cute, it often isn't possible) and thus end up with shots that need little or no cropping. Another historical trend was that the super-telephoto primes cost a whole lot more than even the "best-of-the-best" super-telephoto primes.

When Nikon recently introduced the 180-400mm f4E zoom lens the price differential between their best prime lenses and the 180-400mm pretty much evaporated! Consequently, I (along with probably thousands of other photographers) began wondering if Nikon had managed to develop a lens with optical performance approaching that of the prime lenses with the focal lengths it overlapped. If that had done that, then perhaps the stratospheric price of the 180-400mm just might be justified (considering the number of lenses it could functionally replace). Of course, the 180-400 is a full stop slower than the top prime lenses it overlaps with in focal length, so a secondary consideration becomes "But can it isolate a subject as effectively as the big primes?".

So...that's where I'm coming from on this field test - not only do I care about the image quality at the longer focal lengths being "good enough" for me, but if I am going to keep my copy of the 180-400 I pretty much want it to perform as well as Nikon's (and Sigma's) big primes do.

Those who have followed my past field tests know I don't place much faith in how closely MTF curves predict lens performance in the field - in my view those MTF curves are produced under conditions just too far away from what we do in the field that they pretty much "fall apart" in usefulness. For example, if a lens has an autofocus system that is so bad (or non-existent like in many Zeiss lenses) that you never manage to get a sharp shot in the field...well...those wonderful Zeiss MTF curves don't mean much! Similarly, if you are regularly hand-holding a "big" lens then the quality of the image stabilization system may have more to do with how sharp your image is than does the MTF curve.

My optical field testing could be criticized for similar reasons. I conduct them using methods (see "Field-Testing Methods" below) that we rarely use in the field. I do this to minimize "confounding" variables and I come up with what I think of as "Maximum Attainable Field Sharpness" (all right...the birth of yet another acronym: MAFS!). How close one can get to this MAFS will vary between users AND with how other lens characteristics (that vary between lenses, such as AF performance, VR performance, weight, balance, etc.) permit. And that's the whole reason I combine my optical field tests with a lot of "just shooting" (like my 9-day stint shooting the Khutzeymateen Grizzlies - see blog entry below).

II. Field-Testing Methods

Okey dokey - here's what I did, followed by a quick rationale for why I did it the way I did...

At each of the three test distances - and for each lens - I shot aperture "runs" from wide open through to f11 in 1/3 stop increments. For each aperture I shot two images and "de-focused" the lens after each shot (and re-focused for the next shot). All images were captured with a Nikon D850 using Live View, a cable release, full electronic shutter, VR or OS OFF, and the lens/camera combination was supported on a firm tripod (Jobu Algonquin) and gimbal head (Jobu Heavy Duty Mk IV). Between EACH shot I waited a minimum of 10 seconds (and I have the mosquito bites to prove it) for all vibrations to dissipate (my "de-focusing" of the lens required me touching it, which could have produced minor vibrations). All images were captured using Manual exposure mode and a fixed ISO (so aperture and shutter speed varied between each 2-shot sequence). Now...that rationale...

• Three Test Distances: I shot test images at 8 meters, 27 meters and about 1500 meters. This was done because some lenses are known to vary in optical quality at different distances. I chose 8 meters because this is the type of distance I often shoot small mammals (e.g., squirrels and chipmunks) and/or medium-size perching birds (from Juncos to Clark's Nutcrackers and Robins and Bluebirds) at. My subject was my nearly-famous stump (and here it is!) - it allows me to carefully assess sharpness AND both close OoF zones (opposite side of the stump) and more distant OoF zones. Note that at this distance (and using this subject) I did NOT examine edge sharpness (i.e., I was interested primarily in central region sharpness). I'm comfortable with this because at this type of distance we're rarely shooting absolutely flat surfaces (hey...this is PORTRAIT distance) and more often than not the edges are of little concern (and often in OoF zones).

I chose 27 meters because I often work at this distance when shooting larger mammals (coyotes through to bears and many ungulates). My subject was a highly cooperative and patient eagle (see it here) with a garden rake positioned 1.5 meters behind it as well as trees behind it at about 8 meters and 40 meters respectively (to help assess the quality of the OoF zones). This setup let me examine image sharpness in the region I was focusing as well as getting a really good handle on how the OoF objects (at different distances) appeared.

I chose 1500 meters as my distant subject because this is a distant I often shoot scenes at with long telephoto lenses (including some animalscape shots) and in these shots I almost always care about edge-to-edge sharpness. The scene I chose is a distant treeline that runs perpendicular to the position I shot the images from and the treelike runs completely across the frame (which allows easy edge-to-edge assessment). Here's the scene...

• Nikon D850: This 46 MP DSLR is highly demanding and shows lens flaws (such as edge softness) more readily than Nikon's lower res DSLR's do. As a general rule, if a lens tests well with the Nikon D850 it will perform GREAT on Nikon's lower-resolution DSLR's. All images were captured as maximum resolution 14-bit compressed raw files.

• Live View (and Live View Autofocus): Live View is "immune" to AF tuning issues/biases and highly accurate. Using it (rather than the phase detect AF system of the optical viewfinder) removes a confounding variable. Note that for each aperture (for each lens at each distance) I shot two shots - and I "de-focused" and then "re-focused" the lens between shots. As it turns out, this "de-focus and re-focus" step was largely unnecessary - in over 95% of the test "sequences" there was no difference between the two shots (in focus or sharpness).

• Cable Release and Electronic Shutter: Both used to minimize camera movement/shake...thus assuring the sharpest possible image.

• VR/OS OFF: The performance of different VR/OS systems when shot from a firm tripod varies between lenses, and some even make the image "drift" over time (and this image drifting can even blur the image at slow shutter speeds). Simplest way to control for this variable is simply to turn the VR/OS system off (hey...I was shooting from a rock-solid tripod and had cut out other sources of vibration...and my subjects were static!).

III. Image Quality Assessment

I assessed images shot at 8 and 27 meters for central region sharpness AND the quality of the OoF zones. Images shot at 1500 meters were assessed for edge-to-edge (including central region) sharpness but not for quality of OoF zones. Image quality was assessed by viewing raw previews constructed by Capture One Pro V11.1.1 (ALL settings affecting preview quality absolutely identical for all images) on a Apple 30" Cinema HD display (101 ppi). Sharpness was assessed at 100% magnification - OoF zone quality was assessed at both lower magnifications AND 100% magnification. The image assessment method could best be described as VERY SLOW AND METHODICAL (AND REPETITIVE) PIXEL-PEEPING! ;-)

IV. The RESULTS!

Here's a quick and dirty executive summary PLUS a few more nitty-gritty details for those who appreciate precision and nuance...

1. The Executive Summary:

At both close and moderate camera-to-subject distances (8 meters and 27 meters) the Nikkor 180-400mm (at a 500mm focal length - with TC engaged) and the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 were virtually identical optically. At those same distances the Sigma Sport 150-600mm (@ 500mm) was noticeably softer (less sharp) at wider apertures but was closely nipping at the heels of the other two lenses at f9 through f11. When the subject was much more distant (1500 meters) the Sigma Sport was noticeably sharper (in both the central regions and edges) than the Nikkor 180-400mm, but only at "wider" apertures (f5.6 through f7.1). From f8 through f11 there was little difference in sharpness between the Nikkor 180-400 and the Sigma 500. The Sigma Sport 150-600mm faltered more at the long distance - central region sharpness was decent at f8 and smaller apertures but the edges did not sharpen up even at f11.

2. The Nitty Gritty Details:

A. Optical Performance at 8 meters (500mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: Parity in sharpness between Nikkor 180-400mm f4E and Sigma Sport 500mm f4 at all equivalent apertures (from f5.6 to f11). Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 noticeably softer up to (and including) f8 but approaches (but does not fully match) sharpness of the other two lenses from f9 to f11.

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 180-400mm: Virtually none, meaning the lens is virtually at maximum sharpness when shot wide open (@ 5.6). This is absolutely remarkable, especially given that at this focal length the built-in TC is engaged (not only have I never seen ANY lens at maximum sharpness when shot wide before, but normally even MORE stopping down is required to get to maximum sharpness if a TC is added to the equation).
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Sigma Sport 500mm f4: Requires stopping down 2/3 of a stop from wide open (to f5) before approaching maximal sharpness, and must be stopped down to f5.6 to match the sharpness of the Nikkor 180-400mm shot wide open (@ f5.6).
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3: Requires stopping one full stop from wide open (to f9) before approaching maximum sharpness.
• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): Parity in the smoothness and aesthetic appeal of the OoF zones of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E and the Sigma Sport f5.6 at all equivalent apertures. OoF zones of Sigma Sport 150-600mm slightly less smooth (more "jittery" or "nervous") than the other two lenses at equivalent apertures.
• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: With subjects this close all 3 lenses can easily separate the subject from background. Given that the quality of the OoF zones of the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Sigma Sport 500mm are virtually identical, and given that the Sigma Sport 500mm must be stopped down to f5.6 to match the sharpness of the Nikkor 180-400mm when shot wide open (which is f5.6 with the TC engaged), I can find no net difference in the ability of the Nikkor 180-400 and the Sigma 500 to isolate a close subject.

OVERALL CONCLUSION: At 8 meters I could find no image quality compromises associated with using the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E zoom compared to the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 prime lens. And overall both lenses outperformed the Sigma Sport 150-600mm.

B. Optical Performance at 27 meters (500mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: Again, a virtual dead-heat in sharpness between the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E and the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 at all equivalent apertures (from f5.6 to f11). I was able to detect an extremely small difference in sharpness between the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Sigma Sport 500mm at TWO apertures (f7.1 and f9). At both of these apertures the Nikkor 180-400 was very slightly sharper, but seeing the difference required extreme pixel-peeping on a 101 ppi monitor and would have been invisible on a higher resolution monitor and was within the range that could have been easily negated with sharpening during post-processing. Again, the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 was noticeably softer up to (and including) f8 but approaches (but does not fully match) sharpness of the other two lenses from f9 to f11.

Here's an image shot that shows a sample result (this one at f6.3) comparing the three images (note that this is a small crop from the central region as seen when viewed at 100% magnification: Download image (JPEG: 1.87 MB)

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 180-400mm: As at 8 meters...virtually no stopping down needed to get to maximum sharpness. And again, I feel compelled to point out that this is absolutely remarkable!
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Sigma Sport 500mm f4: Requires stopping down 2/3 of a stop from wide open (to f5) before approaching maximum sharpness, and (like at 8 meters) the Sigma 500mm f4 must be stopped down to f5.6 to match sharpness of Nikkor 180-400mm shot wide open (@ f5.6).
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3: Requires stopping down one full stop from wide open (to f9) before approaching maximum sharpness.
• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): This is interesting...I found the OoF zones of the Nikkor 180-400mm to be noticeably smoother and more aesthetically pleasing compared to both the Sigma Sport 500 and the Sigma Sport 150-600 when images shot at the same aperture were compared. This means there was less "ghosting" around fine OoF lines (like branches) and the various OoF objects (regardless of distance behind the subject) always appeared "smoother" on the images shot with the Nikkor 180-400mm. Interestingly, the OoF zones of the Sigma 500 and the Sigma 150-600 were virtually identical at all equivalent apertures.
• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: Hmmm...this is a bit complicated and the result kind of depends on how you look at it. If you compare images shot wide open with the Sigma 500 (so at f4) and wide open with the Nikkor 180-400 (so at f5.6) you CAN see a difference in the ability of the "faster" Sigma 500 to separate the subject from the background (see THIS sample comparative image). BUT...if you were to pixel-peep full resolution versions of these images you'd notice that the Nikkor 180-400 shot is considerably sharper. If you want to compare the quality of the OoF zones of the shots where the subjects are equivalently sharp (which occurs at f5.6), then you'd notice the OoF zone of the image shot with the Nikkor 180-400 has better (smoother and "more buttery") OoF zones (see THIS Sample Comparative Image).

OVERALL CONCLUSION: At 27 meters there is arguably a small advantage to the optical performance of the Nikkor 180-400mm over the Sigma Sport 500 - their sharpness is virtually identical at all equivalent apertures BUT the OoF zones of the 180-400mm are slightly smoother and "more buttery". BUT...if you're OK with a slightly less sharp subject, the f4 aperture of the Sigma Sport 500mm does allow you to separate your subject from a busy background a little better. Which lens would I choose when shooting a subject at this distance? I'd probably grab the Nikon 180-400mm. Why? Given the near optical equivalence I'd give up the slightly better ability of the Sigma 500mm f4 to isolate the subject from the background for the ability to tweak the framing and composition via zooming a little. But it's pretty much a coin toss!

C. Optical Performance with Distant (1500 meters) Subject (500mm focal length):

• Overall Sharpness: Now the Sigma Sport 500mm prime lens pulls away from both of the zooms. Between f5.6 and f7.1 the Sigma 500mm f4 was noticeably sharper than the Nikkor 180-400mm in both the center and edges of the frame. Once stopped down to f8 (and through to f11) the differential in sharpness between the Sigma 500mm and the Nikkor 180-400mm fell dramatically and it took pixel-peeping at 100% magnification to see that the Sigma 500mm was still a little sharper (i.e., once stopped down to f8 the 180-400mm and the Sigma 500 were EXTREMELY similar in sharpness).180-400_500_methods How did the Sigma 150-600mm fare? Soft on the edges at all apertures but not bad central sharpness (close to the same as the Nikkor 180-400) when stopped down to f8 and beyond.

• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Nikkor 180-400mm: Now the 180-400mm becomes mortal! Maximum sharpness (center and edges) not attained until stopped down one full stop (to f8)
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Sigma Sport 500mm f4: Requires stopping down a full stop from wide open (to f5.6) before approaching maximum sharpness in center and edges.
• Sharpness Progression (need to stop down from wide open) - Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3: Never sharpens on edges at any aperture; requires stopping 2/3 of a stop from wide open (to f8) before approaching maximum sharpness in central region.
• Out-of-Focus (OoF) Zones (or Bokeh): N/A (at this distance).
• Difference in Ability to Isolate Subject from Background: N/A (at this distance).

OVERALL CONCLUSION: This is the only distance where the Sigma 500mm showed a clear optical advantage over the Nikkor 180-400mm. If one is going to use the Nikkor 180-400mm at these types of distances they should stop down to f8 (or smaller apertures). At this point it is impossible to determine if the diminished performance of the 180-400 with distant subjects (compared to its performance at shorter distances) means that the lens will generally perform poorer at long distances (at all focal lengths) or if this result is a function of the TC being in use. This makes further testing at "native" focal lengths (TC NOT engaged) essential (and quite interesting!).

V. Final Discussion and Comments

I find the result that the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E @ 500mm matches the optical performance of the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 at most "normal" wildlife working distances to be absolutely amazing. It's important to remember that this result was obtained with the teleconverter ENGAGED and it makes me wonder how the Nikkor 180-400 will compare against the venerable Nikkor 400mm f2.8E when both are shot without teleconverters involved! In my mind one other result is really significant - the fact that at most normal working distances (for wildlife) the Nikkor 180-400 can be shot absolutely wide open (even with the TC engaged) without any optical penalty. For those worried that you'd have to stop the lens down to get maximum sharpness - and in doing so lose the critical ability to separate a subject from the background - well...scratch that concern off your list!

Next up? Optical performance at 400mm. This means a 4-way comparison between the Nikkor 180-400mm vs. the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E vs. the Nikkor 200-400mm f4 vs. the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3. Stay tuned!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#Optical500


Nikon 180-400mm Field Test: Shooting the Khutzeymateen Grizzlies

18 June 2018: Nikkor 180-400mm f4E TC1.4 VR Field Test II: Shooting the Khutzeymateen...

This is the second installment of several describing my experiences field-testing the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. In this entry I describe my experiences and impressions of the 180-400mm after a focused 9-day stint of shooting the "Grizzlies of the Khutzeymateen" under very real-world conditions in late May and early June. I took possession of my copy of the 180-400mm about a week before heading into the Khutzeymateen which gave me some time do some preliminary testing of the lens. The prefatory results of this early testing were reported in my 21 May blog entry and they suggested that the 180-400mm exhibited very good edge-to-edge sharpness at several "native" focal lengths (i.e., without the built-in teleconverter engaged). They also suggested that the autofocus (AF) system was very good at native focal lengths but in at least some tests (that may or may not be highly correlated with most real-world shooting situations) some aspects of AF performance MAY be degraded when the TC was engaged. And...during that 1-week pre-Khutzeymateen period I had the impression (without hard evidence) that the Vibration Reduction (VR) system was very effective. And that's pretty much all I knew about the performance of the 180-400mm when I packed it up and took it into the Khutzeymateen.

I. Critical Background...And Qualifiers!

For those who don't know, the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary is one of the world's premiere locations to photograph grizzly bears (AKA Coastal Brown Bears). It is located on British Columbia's northern coast and is closely regulated (which means there's a long lineup to get in there!). The "hottest" spot in the Khutzeymateen for photographing bears is invariably the estuary at the top of the inlet. The estuary can only be accessed at moderately high tides and via smallish inflatable boats (typically Zodiacs). Why am I mentioning this? Because it has a huge consequence on how you must do your photography in there - you can't use a tripod in a smallish Zodiac and consequently ALL shots are captured hand-held in the Khutzeymateen.

I have been leading photo tours in the Khutzeymateen for 12 years now (info on the 2018 photo tours that lead to this blog entry are described here on my Photo Tours page). In all my years of going into the Khutzeymateen I can honestly say the 2018 "edition" of my photo tours were the wettest and coldest ever! We awoke several mornings to fresh snow on the mountains around us (fortunately not on us). Why am I mentioning this? Well...during the vast majority of my time in the Khutzeymateen this year it was heavily overcast and/or raining. So think low-light. And...as mentioned just above...all shooting in the Khutzeymateen is done hand-held. Which means higher ISO shooting, which means (you guessed it!) I did the VAST majority of my Khutzeymateen shooting in 2018 using my D5. Overall 70% of the 17,107 shots I took over my 9 days in the Khutzeymateen were with my D5. I used my D850 for 28% of the shots and my D500 for only 2% of my shots. Of all the shots I took with the 180-400 there was even a slightly stronger bias towards D5 use - a full 75% of the shots taken using the 180-400 were when it was paired with my D5. Consequently...it's worth keeping this D5 bias in mind when reading the rest of this blog entry - if I say something like "The autofocus of the 180-400mm was phenomenal" it should probably be read as "The autofocus of the 180-400mm was phenomenal when paired with the D5". While I have no a priori reason to argue that my observations of the performance of the 180-400mm wouldn't also apply to other Nikon DSLR's, my results in the Khutzeymateen indicating stellar performance of the 180-400mm (oops...getting ahead of myself there) are based almost exclusively on pairing it with Nikon's flagship DSLR (and its number 1 action camera by a wide margin). Just sayin'...

Oh...and BTW...all the rain we received in the Khutzeymateen gave me a great chance to evaluate how a new rain cover I purchased for the 180-400mm performed under tough conditions. And, on that note, if someone is looking for a GREAT rain cover for the 180-400mm I can highly recommend the AquaTech SSRC Large Sport Shield Rain Cover (info on this rain cover right here).

Some Interesting Khutzeymateen Shooting Stats:

Here's a few shooting stats from my Khutzeymateen trip that some may find interesting (including a few that lead to interesting conclusions):

• Total number of raw images captured over 9 days: 17,107
• Total number of raw images captured with the 180-400mm: 15,729 (92% of all images captured)
• Total number of raw images captured using 180-400mm WITHOUT the TC engaged: 4,491
• Total number of raw images captured using 180-400mm WITH the TC engaged: 11,238

The heavy usage of the 180-400mm relative to the other lenses I took into the Khutzeymateen speaks volumes about the versatility of the lens. In past years I have taken other combinations of lenses into the Khutzeymateen and one of my favourite combinations in the Khutz has been the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 with the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E VR. I took this combination with me in 2018 and my initial plan was to alternate between using the 180-400mm and the Sigma Sport 120-300 plus 400mm f2.8E combination daily (one day with the 180-400mm, next day with the Sigma Sport plus the Nikkor 400). But after one day with the 180-400 (including what I learned from reviewing day #1's images on my laptop the first evening of the trip) I almost instantly dumped that plan (and used the 180-400mm each day of the trip). I can honestly say (as I mentioned in my last blog entry) that I never once find myself thinking "I wish I had my 400mm f2.8E (or my Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8) in my hands right now..."

Another "factoid" (not shown in the stats above) that further argues for the versatility (and overall usefulness) of the 180-400mm is that when reviewing the images from Khutzeymateen - I used virtually EVERY focal length between 180-560mm during my Khutzeymateen stint. I WAS biased heavily towards using the longest native focal length (400mm) and longest overall focal length (550/560mm), but a large part of this was simply because I was VERY keen on knowing how this lens performed at "maximum" focal lengths. When I was examining the focal lengths I used with the 180-400mm I noticed some things about how the cameras I used (D5, D850, D500) recorded that were partly interesting and partly quirky (and deserve documentation somewhere...why not here?!):

1. The D5, D500, and D850 all record the focal lengths used in 10mm increments from 180-500mm. So you can see focal lengths (when reviewing images on the back of your camera or on any image-editing program) of 180mm, 190mm, 230mm, et cetera. But ALL focal lengths longer than 490mm are recorded as 500mm or 550mm (or 560mm if you are shooting with a D5 with the most recent firmware update). So...according to the cameras you NEVER shoot at 510mm or 520mm or 530mm, et cetera. Weird.

2. The cameras perceive that the 180-400mm without the TC engaged is a different lens than WITH the TC engaged. For shots without the TC engaged the lens is listed as the "180.0-400.0 mm f/4.0" and with the TC engaged it is listed as the "250.0-550.0 mm f5.6" (add in an external TC WITHOUT the TC engaged and it calls the lens a 250-550 mm f5.6...without the decimal points!). So what? Well...two consequences - one trivial and one not-so-trivial. The trivial one is that if you are tallying up (or filtering) images by lens type in any image management program (e.g., Lightroom, Capture One Pro, etc.) you have to be careful or you can miss a lot of images. The not-so-trivial consequence? Because the cameras perceive that the 180-400mm (TC NOT engaged) is a different lens than the 250-550/560mm (TC engaged) it allows you to store DIFFERENT AF tuning values for them. This is good. It means that if the TC changes your AF tuning values (which often happens with TC's), you can "accommodate" that need (I will avoid going into a tirade right now about how inadequate it is to use a single AF tuning value for a zoom lens! ;-)

3. Focal length and firmware update chaos! OK...so Nikon is being really inconsistent in its firmware updates (in terms of the maximum focal lengths this lens actually has). If you have a D5 and HAVEN'T done the firmware update that came out on or about May 24, 2018 then the maximum focal of the lens with the TC engaged is 550mm. If you HAVE done the firmware update then the longest focal length is 560mm. What about the D500 and D850's? Well...if you have OR haven't done the June 7, 2018 firmware update (and note that date) the maximum focal length of the lens always 550mm. Makes total sense - right? Yep, but only in random world. I had no idea that Donald Trump had taken over the Department of Firmware and Metadata Logic at Nikon.

Back to the Khutzeymateen shooting stats. Why such a high percentage of shots WITH the TC engaged (almost two thirds of all shots captured with the 180-400)? This is biased upwards at least some by my interest in testing how well the lens worked with the TC engaged...and it's obviously influenced by the average shooting distance to the subjects. But it's also a reflection of how rapidly my confidence grew in the quality of the shots captured with the TC engaged (I was reviewing each day's shots in the evenings...and there was more than one "holy crap...these 560mm shots are great" statements uttered on night 1!).

And HERE's the biggest qualifier that should be kept in mind while reading this blog entry: I did NO comparative and/or systematic testing in the Khutzeymateen - I was "just shooting". Consequently, everything that follows is subjective and in no way scientific. Some findings ARE a little beyond "anecdotal" (if all of the 15,729 shots captured showed vignetting there's a darned good chance the lens vignettes!), but I can't make absolute or comparative statements with any degree of confidence. I CAN say that the lens appeared very sharp but I CAN'T say the lens is the sharpest lens I ever shot OR that the lens was "slightly less sharp than the 400mm f2.8E". When hand-holding ANY lens in a floating Zodiac and shooting wildlife under rapidly changing conditions there are a plethora of uncontrolled variables. But...I HAVE been going into the Khutzeymateen for over a decade now and my "gut feelings" probably have some merit! ;-)

II. My Primary Observations, Findings and Thoughts?

So...qualifiers in mind...what were my "big picture" observations, findings and thoughts after shooting the 180-400mm f4E for 9 days in the Khutzeymateen? Because there are so few of them, I'll start with the negatives...

1. Vignetting: The vignetting I reported on in my First Impressions blog entry was persistent and affected ALL the images I captured. Repeat after me - "The Nikkor 180-400mm f4E vignettes". As anticipated, the vignetting is less obvious on most wildlife shots than on landscape shots (especially if the wildlife subject is in dark surroundings), but it's always there. How much? It varies with focal length and aperture, but in most cases it's cleaned up "enough" if I apply a correction of 0.67 stops using Capture One Pro's "Circular On Crop" vignetting correction factor.

2. Weight: While I had no problem at all hand-holding the 180-400mm for extended periods of time in the Khutzeymateen, it is still a 3700+ gm (8+ lb) lens. And those who feel that the Nikkor 80-400mm (1570 gm or 3.5 lb), Nikkor 200-500 (2300 gm or 5.1 lb) or the Sigma Sport 150-600mm (2860 gm or 6.3 lb) are on the heavy side may find the 180-400mm just too heavy for them. The current reality (at least until Nikon introduces its 400, 500, and 600mm PF lenses) is that if you want a top-notch super-telephoto lens (prime or zoom) you will be adding about 8 lbs to your kit.

3. Price: No matter how great the 180-400mm turns out to be (or how blown away I was by its performance in the Khutzeymateen) I still consider its price to be "off the charts". And, sadly, it puts it out of reach of countless wildlife photographers of all levels (from novices through to seasoned pros). In my view the lens is somewhere between $4000 and $5000 CAD over-priced. But I doubt Nikon will drop the price on it much (if any) anytime soon. Sigh.

The positives? Where do I begin? In the field - when doing what you're supposed to be doing with it - well...in my never-humble opinion this is simply a STELLAR lens. Here's what stood out the MOST for me:

1. Astounding "Hit Rate: When I began scrolling through my images after the first day in the Khutzeymateen the first thing that struck me was just how few shots I missed with the 180-400mm. Almost all my shots captured with the 180-400mm and the D5 were tack sharp. And this includes shots of static subjects, rapidly moving subjects, subjects shot in absolute downpours, flying subjects, subjects shot in great light, subjects shot in terrible light...all of which were shot hand-held from a floating inflatable boat! In my view the observation of a noticeably higher "hit rate" in the field means that all performance-related lens characteristics (optical quality, autofocus, vibration reduction, etc.) are interacting (co-mingling?) to produce a lens that is somehow more than the sum of its parts (yeah, I know it sounds almost "sucky", but it's true). For me, this exceptionally high hit ratio was the single most mind-boggling aspect of the performance of the 180-400mm in the Khutzeymateen.

2. Excellent Image Quality - Native Focal Range (180-400mm): As my preliminary testing had suggested the image quality of the 180-400mm was simply excellent. This means several things - great edge-to-edge sharpness, exceptionally pleasing out-of-focus zones (AKA "bokeh"), and fantastic contrast (including in back-lit scenarios). What continues to surprise me is that the sharpness of the 180-400mm isn't just found when you stop down - at virtually ALL apertures (including when shot wide open) - this lens is SHARP. It's also darned sharp at its maximum focal length (400mm). And, very importantly, this image quality was consistent over all distances to subject - from portraits of cooperative bears through to distant scenes. In the sample images below I intentionally picked subjects over a variety of distances-to-subject - keep that in the back of your mind when examining the sample shots.

3. Very Good to Excellent Image Quality - "Extended" Focal Range (with TC engaged: 250-550/560mm): While my shooting in the Khutzeymateen doesn't permit me to say that engaging the built-in 1.4x teleconverter had no negative consequences on image quality, I got results in the 401-550/560mm focal range that pleased me very much. Sharpness, bokeh, and contrast were all extremely good (if not excellent). I think it's very notable that I obtained excellent results with the TC engaged and the lens shot at MAXIMUM focal length even when shooting wide open (f5.6). And I think it's worth mentioning that after the first day any "reluctance" I had to engage the TC (for fear of diminishing the image quality lower than I would deem acceptable) completely evaporated.

4. Exceptional Versatility: I shot 17,107 images over the 9 days - and 15,729 (92%) of these were with the 180-400mm. I never once took (or felt the need to take) my 400mm f2.8E or Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 into the field during the 9 days. What does this tell you? Yep...this is an incredibly versatile lens. The allure of taking only this lens - plus a 70-200mm and 24-70mm - and NO OTHER LENSES on any trips involving weight restrictions or air travel (and making virtually no compromises in image quality) is very strong.

5. Excellent Autofocus (all focal lengths): Seemed great, even when the TC was engaged. My shooting included lots of action shots - including sparring grizzlies and birds in flight - and listening to me when I was reviewing shots in the evening would have been very boring (and probably very irritating): "Sharp...sharp...sharp again...another sharp one...sharp...that one's sharp..sharp...sharp..." But note that I find it extremely challenging to determine anything "quantitative" or definitive about AF when shooting in the field. For this reason I will be doing a lot more AF testing (under controlled conditions) in the coming weeks...

6. Rock Solid Vibration Reduction: Again...it seemed great, but like with AF I find this hard to assess when "just shooting" (but the high "hit ratio" above does argue for the VR system being at least adequate...and I THINK it's WAY beyond this, but I haven't done systematic testing on it yet). I will be doing a lot more VR testing in the coming weeks (so stay tuned on this). One "not-so-surprising" observation is worth mentioning: like with other Nikkors that offer the VR Sport or VR Normal options I found that the biggest difference between these two modes is the "good old HJ factor", where HJ = Herky Jerky, and it refers to how much the image jumps around BETWEEN frames shot in a burst. In Sport Mode the image is rock solid in position from the first frame in a burst through to the last frame. In Normal Mode (where presumably you get a LITTLE more VR performance) the image jumps around like crazy between shots in a burst (you do NOT want to be shooting action - be it sparring bears or a bird in flight - using VR normal).

7. Smart Ergonomics: Nikon is almost always very good at ergonomics, and they did TWO things on this lens that I REALLY like. The first is position of the lever that toggles the TC on and off. During my first day in the Khutzeymateen I found myself toggling the TC on and off almost subconsciously and without ever taking my eye away the viewfinder. Full marks to Nikon on positioning of this lever. The second thing I really like is "reversing" the zoom and AF rings (relative to the 200-400 and "older" generation Nikon zooms). On the 180-400mm the zoom ring is now the distal ring (closest to the far end of the lens) and, at least for me, it falls right where it needs to so that I can zoom the lens when I am "naturally" holding the lens. The end-result of this is that I DID end up zooming the lens far more than I did when I owned the 200-400. Good move Nikon.

III. ANNOTATED Sample Images

In my mind this is the heart of this blog entry - the darned images! Note that each image is annotated with tech specs, processing notes, and MOST IMPORTANTLY comments about the lens. If you take the time to look at the image AND read the comments you will learn a LOT more about my observations, findings, and thoughts about the lens than simply by reading the information above. Because there seems to be a tremendous amount of interest about how this lens performs with the TC engaged I'm ordering the sample images below based on focal length starting with the LONGEST focal length sample images. Of course, all these sample images were captured in full compliance with the Wildlife FIRST! Principles of Photographer Conduct.

Oh...and a final warning: It was raining a LOT during our trip - you WILL see a lot of raindrops in these shots. And...despite their "fierce" reputation, 95% of what grizzlies eat is vegetative matter, including a whole lot of grass! ;-)

1. At 550/560mm

• Grizzly Swimming with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.27 MB)
• Grizzlies Sparring with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.95 MB)
• Grizzly Portrait with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.88 MB)
• Grizzly Portrait with D500: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.21 MB)
• Grizzly Portrait with D850: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.02 MB)
• Crow with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.21 MB)
• Distant Eagle with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.91 MB)
• Seal with D850: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.44 MB)
• Mew Gull in Flight with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.56 MB)

2. At 500mm (or somewhere between 500mm and 550/560mm!)

• Grizzly Portrait with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.32 MB)
• Grizzly "Enviroscape" with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.72 MB)

3. At 490mm

• Big Male Griz with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.2 MB)

4. At 460mm

• Griz Wet Both Sides with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.54 MB)

5. At 450mm

• Griz Looking Back with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.69 MB)

6. At 440mm

• The Big Dude with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.27 MB)

7. At 420mm

• Female Griz Profile with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.82 MB)

8. At 400mm (TC NOT engaged)

• Muddy Clammer with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.12 MB)
• Griz Animalscape with D850: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.88 MB)
• Drive by Shooting with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.64 MB)

9. At 380mm

• Prime Time with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.65 MB)

10. At 320mm

• Reflections on Zooming with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.54 MB)

11. At 300mm

• Khutz Life with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.86 MB)

12. At 260mm

• Shake it Off with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.24 MB)

13. At 240mm

• Edge-to-Edge with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 3.53 MB)

14. At 210mm

• Where's Waldo Animalscape with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.15 MB)
• Chilled Out with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.72 MB)

15. At 200mm

• Running Water with D5: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 3.96 MB)

IV. Conclusion...and Up Next?

Yep, I like the 180-400mm f4E - a LOT. In my view Nikon has set a new standard in super-telephoto zoom lens performance with this one. But...believe it or not...I still haven't fully decided if I'm going to keep mine. Or what else I will sell if I do choose to keep it. If the lens was priced where it should be I wouldn't feel nearly as conflicted - I'd just keep the 180-400mm AND my other "key" wildlife lenses. Only time - and more detailed testing of the 180-400mm - will tell.

Anyway...what's left to do in my 180-400mm f4E testing - and what's up next? It's back to systematic field testing of...

• Optical quality, including direct systematic comparisons with several other lenses at key focal lengths and multiple camera-to-subject distances
• Detailed TC evaluation, including comparison of 180-400mm with TC engaged vs. other key super-telephoto primes and zooms plus evaluation of the built-in TC vs. using an "external" TC-14EIII, et cetera
• Further Autofocus testing
• Detailed VR (and comparative "hand-holdability") testing
• And a whole lot more sessions of "just shooting"...

By the time this is all over we'll all know WAY more about the 180-400mm than we ever wanted to! ;-)

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#180-400_ShootKhutz


Nikon 180-400mm Field Test: First Impressions

21 May 2018: Nikkor 180-400mm f4E TC1.4 VR Field Test I: First Impressions...

This is the first installment of many that will describe my experiences field-testing the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (the full name of the lens is actually the "AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR", but this is WAY too much of a mouthful - and WAY too many odd keystrokes - to type repeatedly...so expect me to refer to it as either "the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E" or just "the 180-400mm"!). Over the next 1-2 months I will be extensively field-testing testing Nikon's latest high-end super-telephoto zoom. My goal is to thoroughly test the new lens' optical quality, autofocus (AF) performance, vibration-reduction (VR) performance - and more - against a wide variety of other high-end lenses that could be competing for the contents of the wallet of serious wildlife and "action" shooters (including, of course, sports photographers). By the end of the testing period I want to have (and share) a thorough understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of this highly promising (and highly expensive) photographic tool.

Those with a love for specifications will already know that Nikon has pulled out ALL the stops on the design of this new lens - it features a VERY convenient "native" focal range of 180-400mm, an integrated 1.4x teleconverter (which extends the focal range to 550mm), a fixed f4 aperture over the native focal range (which shifts to f5.6 with the teleconverter engaged), a totally new lens formula that includes a 8 ED and one fluorite lens, Nikon's latest AF technology, a "next-generation" vibration-reduction system, and "advanced" weather sealing. Those wishing to examine the specs in detail can check them out right here on dpreview.com's website...

The only other "specification" I will mention at this point is the price - in Canada the MSRP is $15,549.95 CAD and on the Nikon USA website it is listed as going for $12,399.95 USD (at the time of this writing). And, as of today it is listed at $12,396.95 on the B&H website. I mention the price here for one reason only: with a price like this comes the expectation that the lens MUST break new ground in super-telephoto zoom lens performance. For me, this means that the lens MUST offer "near-prime" performance in all regards - optical quality, AF and VR performance, handling, and more! For this reason my field testing period will pit the 180-400 against both competing zoom lenses AND "state-of-the-art" primes that overlap it in focal length.

My copy of the 180-400mm f4E arrived a few weeks ago but because I was away leading a photo tour I was only able to pick it up last Tuesday. I am leaving to lead back-to-back "Grizzlies of the Khutzeymateen" photo tours tomorrow (where I will, of course, be shooting the 180-400 extensively). Since I picked up the lens I have been actively shooting AND doing selective "preliminary" testing on it (with a focus on some aspects of its performance that I wanted to have "nailed down" before heading into the Khutzeymateen).

So...today's entry focuses on two things: my simple first impressions of the 180-400mm plus what my earliest testing has clearly indicated or, at the very least, strongly suggested.

For those who want a single sentence summary of the nuances the performance of what is a very complex tool...well...after only 5 days of shooting I am quite comfortable saying this:

In MOST respects the performance of the 180-400mm f4E is absolutely remarkable, but it comes with a FEW compromises and even some shortcomings.

OK...let's get to it:

1. First Impressions - Build Quality.

Just superb! This Japanese-made lens simply exudes quality. Zoom and focus rings couldn't rotate more smoothly (nor could their "friction" or resistance to turning be dialed in any better). I'm not sure what else can really be said about the build quality at this point beyond the fact that the lens "projects" the feeling that it will hold up to heavy field use for years. Excellent quality hood (unlike the Nikkor 200-500), "positive-clicking" and snappy toggle switches...and just good old-fashioned quality. Absolutely the best of bling!

2. First Impressions - Physical Characteristics: Length and Weight.

The lens is virtually identical in length to the 200-400 f4 VR zoom it is functionally replacing. Nikon claims the weight to be 3500 grams (7.7 lb). My copy came to EXACTLY this weight - once I removed the "caps" from both ends AND took the hood off. If you're interested in what I consider "shooting weight" (with the hood on) - the lens comes in at 3735 gm (8.25 lb) both with the stock tripod foot (no lens plate installed) and with my preferred Arca-swiss compatible replacement foot (more on this below). So...this makes it a "little" heavier than the "old" 200-400mm and a little heavier than both the Nikkor 500mm f4E and Sigma Sport 500mm f4. It also comes in at about 100 grams (about 4 oz) heavier than the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8. If you own a copy of the Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6 VR you can take heart in the fact that YOUR lens is around 1200 grams (a little under 3 lbs) lighter than the new 180-400. For those who shoot the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E - well...THAT lens is very close to 450 grams (about a pound) HEAVIER than the 180-400.

The bottom line: The 180-400mm is smack-dab in the middle of the weights of most contemporary super-telephoto lenses - you aren't buying this one because it's real light!

3. First Impressions - Physical Characteristics: Balance.

Ahhh...THIS is what Nikon got right - especially if you're shooting a D5 (or one of its D-single-digit precursors) or a "semi-pro" Nikon DSLR with a battery grip attached. I find the balance - and consequently the ease of hand-holding the lens - to be just excellent. Note that when you zoom the lens (from shortest to longest focal length or vice-versa) the balance is completely unaffected (the balance point on a smoothly rotating and "loose" gimbal head doesn't change at all when you zoom the lens). Some shooting the lens with a lighter Nikon DSLR (without a battery grip attached) MAY find the lens a bit front-heavy, though when I took the battery grip off my D850 and mounted the 180-400mm on it the unit still felt quite nicely balanced to me. In my view (and up to a certain point), balance can be as critical as weight in determining the ease of "hand-holdability" of a lens.

4. First Impressions - Physical Characteristics: Tripod Foot.

Well...Nikon has finally realized that virtually no one has hands the size of the Hulk...and they've reduced the "drop" down to the tripod foot considerably. But...sigh...they haven't realized that virtually anyone using the tripod foot on a tripod (or monopod) on a lens like this would benefit from having that foot being Arca-swiss compatible! So...most users will want/need to replace the stock foot with one from a third party. And there's good news here - Nikon DIDN'T change the bolt (screw) pattern - it's STILL the same as the "old" 200-400 and virtually all current Nikon super-telephotos. So...I had several "workable" tripod feet in my collection. The one I have settled on that gives a nice amount of space between foot and lens barrel (important when using the tripod foot as a handle for carrying the lens) AND long enough to balance the lens with a wide variety of DSLR bodies (including those WITHOUT battery grips installed) is the Jobu LF-N504LP (info on that one right here).

5. First Impressions - Ergonomics.

Like with other recently introduced "new" zooms, Nikon has moved the zoom ring to the distal end of the lens. Unlike some other recent zoom lens introductions (e.g., the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E) the zoom ring IS still accessible when the lens hood is in the "carrying" (i.e., reversed position). And, this positioning of the zoom ring puts it exactly where someone with the same length of arms as me would want it - right where the left hand naturally "falls" under the lens (when hand-holding it). Consequently, I find it remarkably easy to zoom the lens (using only my left thumb) over its entire focal range (which requires only one-quarter of a full turn) with a single "swipe" of my thumb. Very, very convenient. Well done Nikon.

Similarly, Nikon did some thinking in where they positioned the lens activation buttons - they too naturally fall right where they should (when shooting the lens horizontally or vertically) - right under my thumb. In fact, I have already learned that if I always place my thumb over one of the four lens-activation buttons when I grab the lens then my thumb is always perfectly positioned to hit the button OR zoom the lens.

What about the lever to engage (or disengage) the integrated 1.4x TC? Well...another feather in the cap of the design team: that lever can be accessed (and easily toggled) with one's right hand when holding the camera. In practice, it's a little easier to flip the lever when the lens is supported on a tripod than when hand-holding it. But, that being said, with a little practice you can quite easily flip the TC on or off when hand-holding the lens (without having to take your eyes from the viewfinder). What works best for me is to flip the lever down (from the 1x position TO the 1.4x position using my middle finger (i.e., the "flip the bird finger") and up (from the 1.4x to the 1x position) using my fourth ("ring") finger.

So...summing up...both the build quality and the ergonomics of the 180-400mm get absolute full marks from me. And the ONLY negative I really have is Nikon's on-going refusal to make their stock tripod feet Arca-Swiss Compatible. But how does the lens actually perform? Read on...

6. Preliminary Testing - Optical Quality

OK...at this point I have shot about 2000 images with the 180-400mm with a Nikon D5 and Nikon D850. Of these, about 1000 were shot during systematic (but preliminary) testing and the remaining 1000 while "just shooting". So far ALL my systematic testing has been WITHOUT the TC engaged, i.e., in the 180-400mm focal range. But, I have done a lot of my "just shooting" sessions with the TC engaged (and thus over the 400-550mm focal range). To be really clear...while I am completely confident of the results I have obtained during my systematic comparisons (these were ALL shot using a D850 and with a tripod, VR off, Live View (using electronic shutter), cable release, yada, yada, yada), I still have a LOT more systematic testing left to do. MOST of my systematic comparisons to this point have been with distant scenes (a tree line against a bright sky almost 2 km away) but I have done a LITTLE with very close subjects (about 6 meters to subject).

So...what have I found with the preliminary systematic testing done to date? Two things have already jumped out:

• The 180-400mm has absolutely amazing edge-to-edge sharpness at all focal lengths when shooting distant subjects, even on the D850. Like...top-notch prime lens quality.

• I have NEVER seen a lens where the difference in sharpness (both in the center AND on the edges) between images shot with the aperture wide open vs. those shot after stopping down by 2/3 to a full stop is so trivial. In other words, this lens is very, very close to its maximum sharpness when shot absolutely wide open (and at ALL focal lengths). To some this may not sound like a big deal, but for someone like me (who shoots a lot in low light and is comparing the lens against top-notch primes like the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E) this is just HUGE.

Some example results from the systematic comparisons I have already done (and please note I will be providing a lot more detail, including sample images, about my testing protocols and detailed results in future blog entries focused specifically on optical quality of the lens):

A. Versus the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E at 180mm and 200mm focal lengths: A dead heat (tie) in central sharpness at all apertures from f4 through f11 (and don't forget that with the 70-200mm f2.8E you are already a stop down from wide open at f4). Edges? Very slightly sharper on the 180-400 at f4 and f4.5, then virtually identical at all smaller apertures.

B. Versus the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF (on distant scenes): 180-400mm f4E sharper in the central region from f4 to f5, with the 300mm f4 PF drawing even in sharpness at f5.6. At f4 the 180-400mm was dramatically sharper (in the central region). Edges? Same trend - the edges of the 180-400 were much sharper than the 300mm f4 PF at f4 and the 300mm PF didn't match the 180-400 until f5.6.

C. Versus 3 other lenses (Nikkor 400mm f2.8E, Nikkor 200-400 f4 VR, Sigma Sport 150-600) at 400mm focal length and, again, on distant scenes: Are you sitting down? From f4 to f5.6 two of these 4 lenses were in a dead heat in center AND edge sharpness. Those lenses were the 180-400mm f4E and the amazing 400mm f2.8E. The 200-400 Nikkor lagged far behind in BOTH centre and edge sharpness in that aperture range (note that at 400mm the Sigma Sport has a maximum aperture of f6, so it couldn't be tested in the f4 to ff5.6 range). By f6.3 all four lenses were in a dead-heat in sharpness in the central region, but neither the Nikkor 200-400 nor the Sigma Sport 150-600mm matched the other two lenses in edge sharpness - at any aperture.

Until now I have never found another lens that can match the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E (or the 2.8G) in centre AND edge sharpness on distant scenes. That the 180-400mm can do it at 400mm (its LONGEST focal length without the TC engaged, which is where most Nikon zooms are traditionally their weakest) is nothing short of mind-boggling.

While I have MUCH more systematic testing to do (including bringing more lenses into the mix AND testing at different distances), the results obtained to date are very suggestive of the 180-400 being a superb performer optically under real-world field conditions.

What have I found when "Just Shooting" (mostly hand-held) the 180-400? Lots of "suggestions" (all of which I will follow up on in subsequent testing). Here's some examples...

A. That in the 180-400mm focal range the lens is just crazy sharp.

B. That when the TC is engaged the lens is still quite sharp...but there is SOME image degradation. How much? Still to be fully sussed out...stay tuned.

C. That the 180-400mm has fantastic contrast. While this is obviously something that can be adjusted in post-processing, it's always nice to START with an image with great contrast.

D. That the AF system seems to be top-notch and grabs initial focus stunningly fast, at least in the 180-400mm range. One way I test the speed of AF systems (and, in particular, the ability of a lens to maintain sharp focus on a subject moving directly at me) is to shoot extended bursts of shots (usually 100 consecutive frames) of my Portuguese Water Dog running directly at me. I have used this test for years and have found lenses differ dramatically in their "hit ratio" (percentage of acceptably sharp shots to be deemed as "keepers") with this test (and a single lens and camera combination will produce very similar results when the test is run over and over again). Anyway...at this point I have run two trials of this test with the 180-400 (both using my D5 shooting at a rate of 12 fps). Here's what I found:

• At 400mm I obtained an absolutely stunning "hit ratio": 95%. No lens, including my 400mm f2.8E, has ever produced a higher hit ratio.
• At 550mm (400mm with the TC engaged) the hit ratio dropped - a lot. It fell to 39%.

At this point (partly because of the small sample size - one trial) I am considering these results preliminary and suggestive, but not definitive - I will be doing a LOT more AF testing of the 180-400mm in June. In those tests I will be particularly interested in seeing what kind of hit ratios I obtain over the full range of focal lengths accessible with the TC engaged (so 401mm through to 550mm).

E. That, at least anecdotally, the VR system seems very good. What makes me think this is that I have shot a LOT of hand-held images at a shutter speed of 1/focal length of the lens (using Auto ISO with Auto shutter speed). It's not particularly surprising that images shot at 400mm (and thus 1/400s) should be sharp, but it's my experience that when shooting a "big" zoom that images shot at 1/focal length at shorter focal lengths (e.g., 180mm focal length at 1/200s) are often a bit soft. But so far I've found virtually all images shot at 1/focal length (even on the demanding D850, a camera that I've found to be harder to effectively hand-hold at slower shutter speeds) have been tack sharp. And...yep...you've guessed it...I will be testing this aspect of lens performance MUCH more thoroughly in the near future.

F. That the ability of this lens to focus very close is wonderful - I LOVE how closely this lens focuses, especially at 550mm! The minimum focus of this lens is 2 meters (about 6'6"), even with the TC engaged. You can FILL the frame with flowers, insects, etc. And...the lens seems incredibly sharp (even at 550mm) at "near its closest focus" distances.

H. That the lens exhibits very noticeable vignetting. There's no way to candy coat this: the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E vignettes (produces images with darker corners and edges) very noticeably at all focal lengths and all apertures up to AT LEAST f9. I noticed this instantly on my very first series of test images (mostly because those shots had a white sky covering 50% of the frame). Does this vignetting have anything to do with the lens hood? Nope...I did several test series with and without the hood - and got the exact same amount of vignetting. Does the vignetting have anything to do with focus distance? Nope. Tested for that too. Here's what I found during my vignette testing (and the values listed below are the adjustments needed to remove the vignetting - measured in f-stops - using the vignette-removal tool in Phase One's Capture One Pro):

• At 180mm: 1.3 stops at f4, just under 0.3 stops at f8. Vignetting virtually unnoticeable at f9 and smaller apertures.

• At 200mm, 250mm, and 300mm: Same as at 180mm.

• At 400mm: 0.8 stops at f4, down to just under 0.3 stops at f8 and almost unnoticeable by f9 and smaller apertures.

• Beyond 400mm (with TC engaged): Not yet tested.

A few other factoids about the vignetting: It occurs on both raw files and in-camera JPEG's - but is automatically "cleaned up" if you view or process your raw files using Nikon's Capture NX-D.

Of course, vignetting can be easily removed during post-processing with most popular raw converters. It will be most noticeable on images of scenes that contain lighter tones in the corners and sides. During a lot of wildlife photography (subjects in non-white or "non-light" scenes) many users would likely not notice the effect (unless of course, they are shooting with a snowy background)...unless the user happened to bump the vignette slider on their raw converter!

How serious of a "flaw" is this vignetting? I'm sure opinions will vary dramatically - some will (no doubt) consider it a fatal flaw while others will consider it trivial. If I'm being honest I am already finding it annoying, but I am way more impressed with all the positives of the 180-400mm than I am "turned off" by this negative issue.

Anyway...like I said above...in MOST respects the performance of the 180-400mm f4E is absolutely remarkable, but it comes with a FEW compromises and even some shortcomings.

Tomorrow I am off to the Khutzeymateen and without internet access. Expect to see more blog entries on my on-going field-testing (plus a whole lot of images) in early June.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#180-400_FirstImpressions

01 April 2018: TOO Hard on the Nikon D850?

Not surprisingly, my last blog entry entitled "The BEST Nikon DSLR for Wildlife Photography?" generated a lot of feedback. Most of the email I received was positive, and only a few who sent email strongly disagreed with me. Some appeared to think I was a little too hard on the D850, and more than one said things like "But the D850 can do so much so well".

I FULLY agree that the Nikon D850 can do a lot of things very well. BUT...that last blog entry was evaluating it (against the D5 and the D500) as a camera for wildlife photography (not for landscape use, not for studio use, etc.).

So...to be fully clear, I think the D850 is a WONDERFUL camera. And I think it's amazing that Nikon put together a 46 MP camera versatile enough for us to even debate its merits for wildlife photography against Nikon's flagship - the D5.

In late February I put out my latest edition of my very sporadic newsletter (info about my newsletter can be found here...). Here's what I said about the D850 in that newsletter...

THE NIKON D850 - THE CAMERA OF TRUTH?

It's been a long time since we've seen as much excitement about a camera as the 46MP Nikon D850 has generated. I've been testing and shooting with the D850 since early August and have definitely formed some opinions about it. It's hard to sum up the performance and utility of a camera in just a few words (and still retain any value to the statement), but here goes..."

In my view the title of "most versatile DSLR" has now been passed from the Nikon D750 to the D850. The dynamic range and resolution (along with several other features such as the fully electronic shutter) make the D850 a SUPERB landscape camera. And, its top-notch autofocus system, frame rate and burst size make it "very good" at several other things as well, including wildlife and sports photography. I don't believe the D850 supplants the D5 as Nikon's premiere action camera OR low-light performer (and my OWN number one choice for wildlife shooting is still the D5), but it just does so darned much so well!

But (always the "but", eh?), I would be remiss not to mention the "downside" of shooting with a camera of such high resolution. While capable of superb detail, the D850 has so much resolution (and such small pixel pitch) that it can quickly reveal flaws in lenses OR flaws in photographer technique. It performs best at low ISO's - crank the ISO up and noise quickly increases and dynamic range quickly falls. Use the D850 with high-quality lenses and with medium-format like discipline and it CAN provide images of stunning quality. But...use it like a point-and-shoot and/or with consumer-level lenses and it can really beat you up!

I can't think of a better single phrase to describe the D850 than "The Nikon D850 - the Camera of Truth"!

Too hard on the Nikon D850? Nah, just realistic! ;-)

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

27 March 2018: The BEST Nikon DSLR for Wildlife Photography?

I field an absolute ton of questions about camera gear. But over the last 6 months or so the one I have received most is this:

Which is the best of Nikon's current DSLRs for wildlife photography?

Sometimes the question comes with a lot of valuable "qualifying" information that helps me point the curious enquirer in the right direction, sometimes it doesn't. Based on how often I get this question I assume there are thousands (or perhaps tens of thousands) of others out there with the same question. And that's the main reason for this blog entry. There's also a selfish motivation - after doing up this entry I'll have a place to send all those in the future who ask the question (at least until Nikon comes out with the D5s, or the D550, or the D860...).

I. Overview - And Some Qualifiers:

1. Scope: I'm going to limit this discussion to the current (and recent) Nikon DSLR's, specifically the Nikon D5, D500, and D850. These are the three Nikon DSLR's I get asked about the most (as "tools" for wildlife photography). A few other Nikon DSLR's are still commonly used for wildlife photography (e.g., Nikon D4s or D750) but the rapid pace of change in the digital photography world means that most who are considering their "next" (or perhaps first) DSLR purchase for wildlife photography are trying to decide between a D5, D500, or D850.

2. Best for WILDLIFE Photography: This blog entry is about which Nikon DSLR is best suited to WILDLIFE photography. So...not landscape photography, not sports photography, not portrait photography, not best "all-rounder", etc.

3. Price is IRRELEVANT: Well, at least for this blog entry. While there is some correlation between camera price and camera performance, the impact of the price on your selection of a camera is a personal choice. But, despite what many seem to think, that choice has no impact on how well the camera performs.

4. Keeping it Concise and Cogent: This is the type of blog entry where if I explained or gave background to every statement or opinion that I made it would quickly turn into a book. I very much like long-form and nuanced discussions (my personal backlash against Twitter!), but for the sake of brevity I am going to do my best to keep this one as "to the point" as possible.

So what follows is a summary of my views of how the Nikon D5, D500, and D850 stack up against one another as wildlife cameras. It is based on literally thousands of test shots - AND thousands of shots captured under real-world field conditions - over 7 months of overlapping and simultaneous use of the three cameras. And, of course, it's based on a ridiculous amount of time behind my computer carefully scrutinizing just a pile images! ;-)

What Characteristics Make for a Great Wildlife Camera?

Modern DSLR's have a mind-numbing number (about a billion) features. But once you get in the field and actually use a DSLR for wildlife photography you quickly realize that just a handful of characteristics have a tremendous and oversized importance in how well a particular camera delivers (and, in comparison, the several hundred million other features of a DSLR are almost trivial in importance). In my biased view the most critical characteristics are ISO performance, autofocus performance, frame rate and burst depth, resolution, and build quality. It could be argued that a few other characteristics merit honourable mention as well - and those would be dynamic range, camera layout and ergonomics, and possibly even image blackout time (during high frame-rate bursts).

SO...I am going to focus primarily on how the Nikon D5, D500, and D850 differ in the primary characteristics associated with being a great wildlife camera. And I'm going to add one more thing to the list: FX vs. DX format.

II. A CRITICAL Tangent - Evaluating ISO Performance

WARNING: I am going to say some things about ISO performance that those who prefer quoting dxomark.com or dpreview.com over going into the field and shooting images (and closely evaluating those images) will disagree with. Most photographers equate ISO performance with image noise. In reality, there is a whole lot more to it than that. The amount of luminosity noise and colour noise in an image DOES vary with ISO. But so do other critical variables, including dynamic range, tonal range, color depth, color fidelity, and more. But even if we limit our discussion to JUST image noise, there are two VERY different ways to assess it:

1. Compare FULL Resolution Images at 100% Magnification: In my view, this is the way MOST photographers (or at least most wildlife photographers) relate to image noise in their own photos - they examine an image on a computer screen and zoom in to 100% (or 1:1 magnification) and say "Oh...that's pretty clean" or "Wow...is that ever noisy". Depending on a particular photographer's experience in post-processing they may be able to judge just how noisy an image can be and still be made to "look good" for whatever they want to do with it (whether it's reducing it in resolution and/or cropping it for web use, re-sizing it for printing, etc.). Of course, many of these photographers will know that the more you reduce the resolution of an image (i.e., downsample it on their computer) the less you notice the noise in that image. BUT...the key point is that those photographers who examine their own images for noise on a computer screen (at full resolution and 100% magnification) usually quickly come up with their OWN decision-rules on how high of an ISO they will shoot a specific camera at. So...you'll hear them say things like "I will only shoot my D500 up to ISO 2000" or "ISO 4000 shots on my D850 almost always suck".

2. Compare Noise AFTER Reducing the Resolution of Images to an Arbitrary "Standard". Some argue that the only way to compare the ISO performance of cameras of different resolution (and more often than not they are referring to image noise only) is to reduce the resolution of an image to a "fixed" standard and then see how the resolution-reduced images compare in noise. As an example, dxomark.com has decided that images from ANY camera must be reduced to the size needed to make a print of 8"x12" @ 300ppi (so 8 MP) before they can be compared for noise. So...if you are comparing the ISO performance of a D5 (20.9 MP or 5588 x 3712 pixels) to that of a D850 (45.9 MP or 8256 x 5504 pixels) you end up reducing the resolution of the D850 DRAMATICALLY MORE than that of the D5 BEFORE you compare the noise characteristics of the image. Note that this method is perfectly valid if your end goal is to always make 8" x 12" prints. But it tells you NOTHING (and is often incredibly misleading) about how images from those two cameras look if you compare them at full resolution and 1:1 magnification. In defense of dxomark.com - if you dig deeper and look at more of what they present on their website - they DO let you look at both how cameras compare in various characteristics (in noise and more) at full resolution on-screen (at 100% magnification) AND using their "Reduced to 8x12" Print Size" method. NOT in defense of dxomark.com - their single reported value for "Sports (Low-Light ISO)" performance (which many online pundits love to quote) seems to be based solely on their "Reduce Resolution BEFORE Comparing (Print)" methodology and ignores how the images look at full-resolution.

For the record, my following comments (and the supplied test images) on ISO performance of the D5, D500, and D850 will be based on the first method above, i.e., how they appear on-screen at full-resolution and 100% magnification (which is equivalent to the graphs for "Screen" on dxomark.com). It's my view that this characteristic (the appearance of the raw image at full resolution and 100% magnification) ultimately determines what the image can be used for, including things like how large it can be printed, how much it can be cropped and still be made "presentable", et cetera. At the end of the day, anything you do with your image is simply a derivative of the quality of the full res raw image.

III. Comparing the D5, D500, and D850 In...

1. ISO Performance - Visible Image Noise

This one is incredibly easy - at high ISO's the D5 kicks the butt of both the D500 and the D850 in the amount of visible noise in an image. Up to about ISO 800 all 3 cameras shoot "very clean" images. By about ISO 1600 images shot with the D5 show less noise than those shot with the D500 and D850. By ISO 3200 the difference in the amount of noise visible in the images shot with the different cameras is quite pronounced and the gap between the D5 and the others only gets more noticeable as the ISO climbs.

What about the D500 vs. the D850? Fairly close (as you'd expect based on their pixel pitch). In my own tests (a few examples below) I noticed about a 1/3 stop advantage to the D500 over the D850 in visible image noise.

What does this mean in the field? Well...like most photographers I have my own "limits" as to what I'll take each camera to. And please note these are my OWN subjective ISO boundaries - yours may be very different. In all cases how high you can go in ISO depends somewhat on the nature of the scene (including the required dynamic range to capture the scene - see immediately below). But based MOSTLY on image noise, for most uses I "throttle" my D5 (in the Auto ISO menu) to ISO 12,800. YES, I CAN get highly usable images up to ISO 12,800 (and sometimes higher). And I can almost always get really good results up to ISO 8000.

For most scenes and shot types I throttle BOTH my D850 and my D500 to never exceed ISO 3200. Of course, with both cameras I can occasionally get good results up to ISO 4000 to 5000 (but almost never at ISO 6400). And...interestingly I seem to end up with more "unacceptable" shots with the D500 at ISO 3200 than I do with the D850. I think this is due to better tonal range (with increasing ISO) on the D850...but have to admit that is speculation on my part.

Can I back these statements up? Sure...here's a few test shot comparisons from 3 cameras in question plus one more (I've also included shots from the D800e). They were captured under controlled conditions (firm tripod, cable release, live view, etc.) in the field and under genuine low-light conditions. How much difference you notice between the images will depend partly on the resolution (pixels per inch) of the display device you are using, with lower resolution devices showing greater differences between the images. I'd recommend examining the shots at 100% magnification (or 1:1). Note that I also have literally thousands of wildlife images shot with each camera under "true" field conditions...and what you see in the test shots below is absolutely consistent with what I have found when "just shooting" in the field.

i. ISO 3200 Comparison:

• Luminosity Noise ONLY: Download Image Comparison (JPEG: 2.5 MB)
• Luminosity AND Colour Noise: Download Image Comparison (JPEG: 3.1 MB)

ii. ISO 6400 Comparison:

• Luminosity Noise ONLY: Download Image Comparison (JPEG: 2.74 MB)
• Luminosity AND Colour Noise: Download Image Comparison (JPEG: 3.2 MB)

CONTEXT (for your friendly neighborhood wildlife photographer)? Ok...this is critical: While there is no doubt to me that the D5 greatly outperforms both the D500 and D850 in visible noise at ISO 1600 and above, whether or not this is important to YOU as a wildlife photographer will depend a LOT on the conditions under which you shoot. If you shoot mostly in bright light then it may not be that important to you. But if you shoot a LOT in low light (as I think many wildlife photographers do, especially those who shoot species that are most active at dawn and dusk) the relationship between visible noise and ISO MAY be critical to you (and make a D5 a very attractive tool). ME? I shoot a ton in the low light environment of the Great Bear Rainforest - so for ME ISO performance is the single most important characteristic of a camera for wildlife photography.

2. ISO Performance - Dynamic Range

Most wildlife photographers (including me) put MORE emphasis on how image noise varies with ISO than how dynamic range varies with ISO. But there is a point I HAVE to mention here (because I heard it from SO MANY photographers in 2017): Yes, it IS true that the D5 has significantly lower dynamic range than either the D500 and D850 at ISO 100 (dpreview.com made a HUGE deal about how the D5 was unique in this regard and how awful its dynamic range was, even though they had never tested the two precursors to the D5 - the D4 and D4s - and they "suffered" from the very same imagined problem). BUT...like image noise, dynamic range varies with ISO (decreases with increasing ISO) and, most importantly, at ISO 800 and above the the D5 has more dynamic range than either the D500 or the D850.

And, the D5 happens to have a higher tonal range (at ALL ISO's) than either the D500 and the D850.

CONTEXT for the wildlife photographer? If you're a wildlife photographer who shoots in low light the D5 is the clear "best choice" - from all perspectives, including image noise, dynamic range, and tonal range . And the D500 and the D850 are in a neck-and-neck battle for next best (but neither are nipping at the D5's heels).

3. Autofocus Performance

Overall the autofocus "feature sets" of the Nikon D5, D500 and D850 are quite similar. The only really "specification" differences are in the number of AF Area Modes offered by the various cameras. The D5 and D850 are identical in area modes EXCEPT that the D5 has two "extra" Group Area Modes, specifically two "new" ones that were added in a firmware update in 2017 - Group HL (horizontal line) and Group VL (vertical line). To avoid going down an endless rabbit hole explaining the nuances of how the Group HL and Group VL work, all I'll say about them is that I have yet to even conceive of a scenario in nature photography where they would be your BEST autofocus Group Area choice. So, for all intents and purposes, the D5 and D850 have identical autofocus feature sets.

What about the D500? Well...it also lacks the Group HL and Group VL area modes (so no loss there). BUT, it also lacks the 9-point Dynamic Area Mode, which is the Dynamic Area mode featuring the tightest "cluster" of focus points. Since this area mode was introduced as a firmware update to the D5 it quickly replace Single Point Area Mode as my favourite area mode for all my shooting. Yes, under specific situations I switch to other area modes, but in general I find 9-point Dynamic Area to be just excellent - in my opinion it's a near perfect balance of focus point size vs. the ability of the focus point to "stick" to a subject that may be moving (or, if you're hand-holding a big lens, it helps prevent the focus point from "slipping off" the subject if you're a little wobbly in holding the lens). Note that with its later introduction date, the D850 came equipped with the 9-point Dynamic Area mode from the outset.

Are there any other differences between the operation of the AF systems of the cameras that are of function of...say...camera design? Good question. And the answer is YES. On all 3 cameras the AF points occupy the same amount on area on the image sensor. BUT, because the D500 is a cropped sensor camera (i.e., a DX sensor) the focus points occupy a larger portion of the image sensor (and viewfinder), with the points extending ALMOST to the lateral edges of the sensor and/or viewfinder (and a LITTLE closer to the top and bottom) whereas the focus points don't come very close to the lateral edges of the D5 or D850 (assuming you're shooting in FX mode...they DO come just as close to the edge of the sensor if you're shooting the cameras in DX mode).

There's ONE MORE consequence of using identically-sized focus point arrays on DX vs. FX cameras: On the D500 (DX) each of the 55 selectable focus points appear MUCH larger through the viewfinder than on the two FX (D5 and D850) cameras. The net result in the field is that the relatively smaller (as seen through the viewfinder) focus points of the D5 and D850 allow for more precise positioning of the focus points on your subject. Might sound like a trivial issue, but when you're trying to focus on a grizzly in an area with grasses or twigs overlapping the subject it's way easier to screw up with a D500 than a D5 or D850 (shot in FX mode), as THIS SHOT SHOWS (JPEG: 1.95 MB).

What about performance in the field? Thought you'd NEVER ask! Since its introduction the D5 has been widely recognized as having the industry's leading AF system - it's simply amazing (in speed, accuracy, focus-tracking, predictive AF, etc.). The D850 has a functionally identical feature set and it's amazing too. BUT my experience is that they don't perform identically: When shooting eagles in flight in Alaska (under snowy and overcast conditions) in November of 2017 I noticed one consistent difference between the AF of the D5 and the D850 - for some reason the D850 struggled with initial focus acquisition (compared to the D5) under very low contrast conditions. Once I noticed this I tested it several times both on the same subject (using the same lens, same area mode, same focus point, etc.) and other subjects in low contrast light. And, the result was always the same - the D5 could focus successfully under the very low contrast light I was dealing with whereas the D850 simply could not. And please note I am talking VERY low contrast scenes - eagle in the distance with snow coming down between me and the subject and with a gray sky background.

What about the D500? It has a damn good AF system - if it weren't for the D5 and D850 it would likely be considered the best in the business. BUT...I haven't found it to be as accurate (possibly owing to those "large" AF points) or as good at focus-tracking as either the D5 or D850. And, after getting used to the 9-point Dynamic Area mode (which is now the default area mode on both my D5 and D850) I find I REALLY miss it on the D500.

The bottom line on AF performance: The D5 places first again, but this time the D850 is nipping REALLY closely at its heels (and in most scenarios you likely couldn't separate their performance in the field). The D500 places third here in accuracy and focus-tracking and (at least for me) in NOT having the 9-point Dynamic Area mode. Some may like how close the D500 will allow you to the lateral edges of the viewfinder, but for me the negative consequences of the relatively larger focus points of the D500 more than offsets the increased viewfinder coverage.

CONTEXT for the wildlife photographer? Under MOST conditions the AF systems of all 3 cameras will deliver very good results. If you are the type of wildlife photographer who really likes to push the limits (including shooting fast action) nothing fully matches the D5 (but the D850 isn't far behind). My own experience is that I always get the highest proportion of sharp shots (which is obviously correlated with autofocus performance) if I'm using my D5 - and this is true whether I'm shooting static subjects or those that are moving. While there are probably some wildlife photographers who don't place too much importance on the ISO performance of a camera, I have a hard time imagining any wildlife photographer who wouldn't place high value on the AF performance of a camera. So with Nikon's DSLRs we have the options of good (D500), better (D850), and best (D5) in autofocus performance...and it's up to you how high up the food chain you have to go! ;-)

4. Camera Speed - Frame Rate and Burst Depth

Camera speed differences - expressed in terms of both frame rate and burst depth (how many consecutive images that can be shot at the highest frame rate before the camera slows down or stops) - are reasonably easy to sort out. If we compare the maximum possible frame rates where the cameras retain full functionality (full autofocus) AND we use the same EN-EL18 battery (which requires battery grips in the D500 and D850 but not the D5), the D5 is the fastest at 12 frame per second (fps), the D500 comes in second at 10 fps, and the D850 third at 9 fps (or 7 fps if you DON'T use the battery grip and EN-EL18 battery).

Burst Depth is slightly trickier to compare - with both the D5 and D500 it's 200 frames when shooting the highest quality RAW files (14-bit compressed raws) and using a reasonably fast XQD card. But even when using the fastest XQD card the burst depth of the D850 varies with two more factors - the bit-depth you select and the maximum frame rate you use (7 fps with NO battery grip, 8 fps with battery grip, or 9 fps with battery grip). My blog entry of 15 October 2017 gave burst depths for all the various permutations and combinations (view it here). But if you want to compare apples-to-apples as closely as possible, if you shoot each of the cameras at its highest possible frame rate and capture the highest quality raw images you get a burst depth of 200 frames with both the D5 and D500 and 25 frames with the D850. You CAN get longer bursts out of the D850 if you slow down the frame rate and/or shoot 12-bit raw images (again, all the permutations and combinations are right here...).

So...the D5 is Nikon's overall king of speed, with the D500 not far behind. The D850 is incredibly fast for a 46 MP camera (hats off to Nikon for pulling that off!), but it does lag quite a ways behind both the D5 and D500 in frame rate, and even more so in burst depth.

CONTEXT for the wildlife photographer? If you like shooting wildlife in action (including birds in flight), the D5 is clearly Nikon's "fastest" DSLR. The D500 lags only a little in frame rate and has a buffer depth to match. The D850 lags behind in both frame rate and burst depth. But does it matter? That will vary between photographers. Some could probably care less. But I know I have run into a number of scenarios (including when shooting pairs of eagles "battling" while in flight and when shooting bubble-netting humpback whales) where I absolutely NEEDED burst depths of over 75 frames to capture the full duration of the action (and I wanted the fastest frame rate possible). And I have "buffered out" the D850 (after only 25 frames) on several occasions and, when it has happened, I have missed out on capturing a lot of shots at the end of the action sequence.

So...it's another good, better, best scenario with Nikon's top DSLRs, but this time good is the D850, better is the D500, and best is the D5.

5. Resolution and the DX-FX "Thing"

To this day I commonly see massive confusion among photographers about how a camera's resolution, sensor size, and "magnification" are interrelated (and in determining when you DO actually have a true magnification "increase" with a DX sensor). The most critical thing to remember when you're going down this rabbit hole is that what you can do with an image is always determined by the number of pixels dedicated to the subject. Repeat after me: the thing that REALLY matters is the number of pixels dedicated to the subject.

Let's quickly look at each camera's resolution in terms of pixels:

• D5: 5568 pixels x 3712 pixels
• D500: 5568 x 3712 pixels (identical to D5!)
• D850: 8256 x 5504 pixels in FX mode; 5408 x 3600 pixels in DX crop mode.

The observant reader will notice that the FX-format D5 has the same total number of pixels as the DX-format D500. That observant reader already knows that the sensor of the D5 is larger than the D500 - in fact they know that the D5 sensor is about 36mm wide by 24mm high whereas the D500 sensor is about 24mm wide x 16mm high. Because they have the same total number of pixels those pixels MUST be jammed in tighter (or are "smaller") in the D500 than in the D5 (and that smaller pixel pitch is what is most "linked" to their different ISO performance, but that's another rabbit hole we're going to avoid for now).

Now, because the D5 and D500 have exactly the same number of pixels but in DIFFERENT sized sensors, if you set your camera up on a tripod and shoot the same scene (say of a deer 25 feet away) with the same lens with both cameras, you end up with MORE pixels dedicated to the subject (that deer) with the D500. SO...if you view images shot with the D5 and D500 on a computer monitor at 100% magnification (where 1 image pixel = 1 display device pixel) you magically have what appears to be a 50% increase in magnification on the D500. And, if you shot the images with a 300mm lens, the D500 will appear (in size of subject and field of view) just like a D5 image if that D5 image was shot with a 450mmm lens.

The critical take-home point: If you're comparing a D5 to a D500 you will see a "true" increase in the number of pixels dedicated to the subject with the D500 and you can safely say that it has a relative increase in "reach" compared to the D5 (it's just like using a lens with a focal length 50% longer). But this is ONLY because the cameras have the same total resolution (20.9 MP...or 5568 pixels x 3712 pixels).

But what happens if you compare a D500 to a D850? Do you still have the same DX "reach advantage" on the D500. Nope. Don't forget that the D850 has WAY more resolution - it's a 46 MP camera (8256 x 5504 pixels). Heck, if you shoot a D850 in crop mode it will have almost exactly the same number of pixels as the same shot (shot, of course, from the same place with the same lens) as a D500 (in truth the D500 will have about 6% more pixels dedicated to the subject). So what WAS a 50% crop factor (or increase in "effective focal length") when you compared a D5 and D500 is now only a 3% crop factor (when you compare a D500 to a D850).

RELEVANCE: If you're thinking "I want to increase the effective focal length of my lenses to get closer shots of wildlife by buying a D500" that argument applies ONLY to the D5, not the D850. You WILL have more pixels dedicated to the subject if you are comparing a D500 to a D5, but you will have almost no increase in pixels dedicated to subject if you are comparing a D500 to a D850.

The most germane thing for ANY photographer to be thinking about? t's this: "Given what I actually DO with my photos, how much resolution to I really need?" If your main goal is to produce images for any form of digital (electronic) display (posting on the web, emailing to friends, doing the Instagram thing, whatever) ALL 3 of these cameras are OVERKILL (i.e., have way more pixels than you need). If you want to make massive prints (90 cm - or 3' - or longer on the long axis)...yep...the D850 is going to be the best choice.

And...what about CROPPING? Yep, the D850 has the most resolution of the batch and allows for the most cropping (and I know some wildlife photographers who have gravitated to the D850 for exactly this reason). But...if you ARE a cropper (and there's nothing wrong with that...it's self-limiting anyways) keep in mind that with more cropping you reduce the amount of resolution reduction (down-sampling) left available to you...which means you have impaired your ability to "hide" noise via downsampling. So croppers are probably better off judging ISO performance via viewing the images at 100% on a computer display rather then relying on dxomark.com's "Print" scores! After you have re-read this paragraph about 5 times (and thought about the consequences) you'll come to the realization that at the end of the day there is no free lunch.

CONTEXT for the wildlife photographer? The decision on the amount of resolution any individual wildlife photographer needs - and whether or not they'd benefit from a "crop" factor - will vary between photographers. There's no simple "one size fits all" answer. You have to know how much resolution you actually NEED for your own uses of your images to decide if you "need" the increased resolution of a D850 over either a D5 or D500. If you're comparing a D500 to a D5 and trying to decide if you NEED the crop factor you should consider the type of images you like (e.g., animalscape vs. portrait), how close you can work with your preferred subject matter, the focal length of the lenses in YOUR kit (and thus if you NEED an increase in "reach"), and more.

Me? For MOST of my wildlife shooting 20.9 MP is more than enough resolution and in most cases (with my preferred subject matter and the lenses I own) I rarely "need" the DX crop factor (and I'm NOT a member of the "closer is better" club of wildlife photography). If I run into a situation where I run into a scene that will make a great animalscape...well...THAT'S exactly when the value of the resolution of the D850 kicks in.

6. Build Quality and Camera Reliability

This is one of those features you READ about before you buy your shiny new wildlife camera and then forget about UNTIL your camera stops working. Which can be devastating if you're in a remote region and without easy access to a "replacement" camera.

There is some correlation between country of origin and the price of a camera and its build quality and durability. ALL cameras can break down and quit working. Nikon's "D single-digit" flagships - including the D5 - have always been built in Japan and have always been built like tanks. In contrast, both the D500 and the D850 are built in Thailand and - on the surface - appear to be built quite well. But they aren't built to withstand the heavy use that the D5 is. On the photo tours I lead I have already seen a higher proportion of D500's experience breakdowns (of one form or another) than any of the "D-single digit" Nikon flagships (so far I haven't seen enough D850's in use under tough field conditions to make any judgement about them at all). This is obviously anecdotal information and only Nikon would have the hard numbers on breakdown rates.

Of course, there is a negative side to the tank-like build quality of the D5 relative to both the D500 and D850: weight! Yep, the D5 is darned heavy! I find if I'm going hiking (and not going out to photograph wildlife in a specific place) I preferentially grab my D500 or D850 over my D5 based on camera size and camera weight. And in those situations (which I'd describe as "general use nature photography", not wildlife photography), I do like that I can strip off the battery grip and make the camera both lighter and more compact.

CONTEXT for the wildlife photographer? While ALL wildlife photographers work (by definition) in the "field", there's HUGE variation in the conditions they shoot in (or are willing to shoot in!) and how well they look after their gear. I shoot in all conditions - from torrential downpours down to -30C temperatures (about the only conditions I don't end up shooting under are warm, sunny conditions!). I tend to be careful with my gear, but no matter how careful I am my cameras get wet, muddy, and frozen! But I so know of other wildlife photographers (including some pretty serious ones) that shoot primarily under more "benign" conditions. My point is simple - how much emphasis should be placed on build quality and average camera durability does vary dramatically between users. But for me - it's a critical feature in a wildlife camera.

7. And Some "Honourable Mention" Characteristics To Consider

When talking to other wildlife photographers about what they like (or dislike) about a particular camera you sometimes hear things that NEVER crossed your mind about a camera (or thought of it as an issue). One example of this is how a camera "fits my hand" (something that I have almost never given a second of thought to). I hear as much about a camera being too small (obviously from big-handed shooters!) as I hear about a camera being too large. In my case, it would be easy to think I like "big and heavy" camera bodies (whenever I do "serious" wildlife photography you'll see that I have either a big "D-single digit" camera in my hands or another body with a battery grip attached). I do this for a few reasons. First, I like the vertical controls that battery grips offer. Second, I like that the extra weight associated with the battery grip helps balance the camera with a big lens installed (whether or not I'm shooting on a tripod or hand-held). Third, using a battery grip allows me (with the D500 and D850) use the same battery as my D5 uses. Not only does this give me more shots per battery (compared to those piddly little EN-EL15's), but it allows me to carry a single charger (and single type of spare battery) when traveling. While this information doesn't "separate out" the appeal of any of the 3 cameras I'm discussing, it may help someone choose a complimentary camera to purchase next if they already have one of the 3 cameras.

Getting back to the point, there are two other characteristics that differ BETWEEN these cameras that bias me a little more toward the D5 for wildlife photography. When Nikon introduced the D5 and D500 (and thankfully they carried this over to the D850) they FINALLY gave us the ability to switch between AF area modes using any of a number of programmable buttons on the camera body. I LOVE this feature and use it ALL the time (pressing the AF-On button on any of my cameras now instantly takes me to Group Area AF, and pressing the sub-selector switches me instantly to 72-point Dynamic Area AF). And, this ability to switch AF area modes with programmable buttons dramatically increases the value of the programmable buttons. And, the more of 'em the better, especially if they're within easy reach of your fingers during normal camera operation. And the D5 has one extra programmable button along the front side of the body that can be reached with fingers on the right hand (with the D5 you have Pv, Fn1, and F2 there, not just Pv and Fn1). Little thing on paper. Big thing in the field!

And...here's an even MORE obscure thing that almost no one ever talks about (and where the D5 has the edge). When Nikon came out with the D5 they updated the mirror-driving mechanism. This had two real world effects. It dramatically reduced blackout time on the camera. If you're shooting static subjects this is close to irrelevant. BUT, if you're doing a high-speed burst of a moving subject (think BIF or a running anything!) this reduced blackout time makes it WAY easier to follow the moving subject while you're firing off shots. Note that Nikon also revamped the mirror-driving mechanism on the D500 (I'm still scratching my head over just what they revamped it from on this camera!) and the D850 as well, but they didn't do as good as job with it as they did on the D5. The blackout time on the D5 is definitely reduced compared to both the D500 and D850.

The second real-world consequence of the updated mirror-driving mechanism on the performance of the D5 is just how darned stable the image in the viewfinder is between frames in a high-speed burst. This is true regardless of the lens in use or the VR mode you select on that lens (you'll also see much more between-frame stability in the image if you are using the "Sport" VR mode on lens than if you use "Normal' VR mode, assuming that the lens in use has the "Sport" option). Again, done pretty well on the D500 and D850, but done the best on the D5.

IV. And the BEST Nikon DSLR for Wildlife Photography IS...

Sorry - BAD news: There isn't ONE best Nikon DSLR for wildlife photography. Selecting the most appropriate Nikon DSLR for YOUR wildlife photography needs will require some thought. Damn...don't you just HATE when that happens? But only YOU know what your favourite subject matter is, what conditions you most often shoot under, what lenses you have in your collection, how important action shots are, what your budget is, blah, blah, blah! ;-)

BUT...there's GOOD news too: You're shooting Nikon - and right now Nikon has the BEST DSLR trio out there for shooting wildlife! Pick the RIGHT Nikon DSLR (or, better yet, the best two DSLR's for you!) you'll be able to handle virtually any conditions (and subject matter) that the natural world can throw at you. And that's pretty cool...

My DSLR choice for shooting wildlife? Well...I predominantly shoot large mammals that can be approached quite closely AND I have an extensive collection of lenses up to 600mm in focal length. And I LOVE shooting "wide" animalscapes when I run into them. All this means I likely have LESS need for a DX crop factor than many. I also tend to work in dark, coastal rainforests and from a Zodiac inflatable boat where I have to hand-hold my lenses, including super-telephotos. This means I place a HUGE value on ISO performance. I also like to shoot a lot of action (birds in flight, sparring bears, breaching or bubble-netting Humpback Whales, running wolves, etc.). This means that BOTH autofocus performance and camera speed (including large burst depths) are critical to me. And, I often work in gawd-awful conditions, putting a big premium on build quality and reliability.

So what SINGLE camera is absolutely BEST for me for wildlife photography? Hands down it's the D5. And, believe it or not, if a D5 didn't exist then my SECOND choice for me for my go-to DSLR for wildlife photography would be the D4s. And my third choice, probably a D4! ;-)

What two-camera combination is absolutely BEST for me for wildlife photography? Hands down it's the D5 paired with the D850. Best of all worlds - for the bulk of my shooting I have the D5. But if there's gobs of light, little chance of prolonged action breaking out, OR a great animalscape unfolding before me...well...it's wonderful to have a D850 within reach!

What about the D500? For many it would meet all (or most) of their needs in a wildlife camera. But, in my case, owning both the D5 and the D850 largely makes the D500 redundant. But I HAVE kept mine...it's just one helluva backup body! ;-)

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#BEST_Wildlife_Nikon

13 Feb 2018: If NOT the Nikkor 180-400mm F4E TC1.4 FL ED VR, Then What?

My two previous blog entries on the recently announced Nikkor 180-400mm f4E VR zoom lens resulted in a lot of email flowing into my inbin. Many who emailed me were wondering if I could recommend some other (and less astronomically priced) lens options they could consider in lieu of the 180-400mm. To be honest, I strongly dislike recommending specific lenses to photographers I haven't spent a lot of time shooting with. What works great for me may not work as well for them (and vice versa). Photographers differ in many ways...they may have different creative vision and photographic goals, different past experiences, different physical skills and abilities, different camera bodies to "host" a lens with, and much more. So about the best I can do is describe my approach to wildlife photography, the constraints I face, and what lenses work well for me (and why) and hopefully the reader can decide if that lens might work well for them.

So...here's MY answer to the question: "Which single lens makes you feel you can pass on the new Nikkor 180-400mm f4E VR without handicapping your ability to capture top-notch wildlife images?" You might be a little surprised by the answer...

I. Background and Context

OK...a little background is essential to making sense of my answer. So...here's a few critical contextual comments that strongly influence my first choice among the various options to the 180-400mm f4E VR:

1. Zooms vs. Primes?

OK...I'm going to limit my answer and discussion to zoom lenses (and exclude discussion of prime lenses as alternatives to the 180-400). I buy zoom lenses for convenience in covering a focal range I may need in a particular - and often unforeseen - situation, ease of travel (i.e., it's usually a LOT easier to pack and transport one zoom compared to up to 3 or so prime lenses!), and easy of carrying in the field (such as when hiking). I buy primes for ultimate image quality which, to me, means maximum sharpness (across the full frame) plus smooth and almost buttery out-of-focus zones. I also tend to buy FAST (wide aperture) primes because they offer an enhanced ability to better separate a subject from the background (i.e., the wider apertures allow you to shoot with thinner DoF's).

So...budgetary issues aside...I don't think in terms of buying either zoom X or prime Y - even if their focal lengths overlap I don't necessarily see "redundancy" in owning both of them. I own the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E VR lens - which is, in my opinion, arguably the best short telephoto zoom lens ever made. But I also own Sigma's 85mm f1.4 Art prime lens, which absolutely kicks the butt of the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E VR at 85mm. If I KNOW I'm going to encounter a scene where 85mm is the "right" focal length, there's no doubt you'll find the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art in my pack. But...if I'm NOT sure that I'm about to encounter a 85mm scene...well...odds are I'll be carrying the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E VR.

Similarly - and more relevant to this entry - owning the excellent Nikkor 400mm f2.8E VR doesn't impact at ALL on my decision to buy (or not buy) the 180-400mm f4E VR zoom. I'd own them for different reasons.

2. The Longer the Better?

OK...more context...I'm NOT a member of the "more focal length is better" school of wildlife photography. Similarly, I don't think "closer is always better" when it comes to framing up wildlife images. I tend to LIKE "wider" wildlife shots that include more surrounding habitat or capture the essence of the environment the animal is typically found in. Check out my Animalscapes Gallery if you want to see what I mean...

And...anyone who has shot with me (or sat in on a workshop I have given on the creative side of wildlife photography) knows that I am anal about how out-of-focus zones are used in a photo. Which is another reason I'm not a proponent of the "longer is better" way of thinking about focal length - the reality in the field is that as lens focal length increases your ability to control your distribution of DoF (especially in the critical foreground) decreases.

Finally...I don't do a LOT of shooting of small birds (many of the bird photographers I know tend to favor LONG focal lengths). I gravitate more towards shooting large carnivores and marine mammals...and my preference when photographing those is to stay in the 300-500mm focal range. So my NEED for focal lengths over 500mm (in full-frame terms) is pretty low.

3. I LIVE in Low Light!

I do a LOT of shooting in rainy (and cloudy) coastal environments, including in dark temperate coastal rainforests. Which is another reason I like the light-gathering ability of large aperture lenses. So...when I am choosing a lens for wildlife work - be it a zoom or prime lens - I'll almost always opt for the one with the wider aperture. This doesn't mean ALL my lenses are uber-fast wide aperture lenses - I DO own the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 zoom and my lightweight "commando" kit (for use when I need to go REALLY light) includes Nikon's 300mm f4 PF VR. But the lenses I tend to rely on for most of my "serious" shooting tend to have large maximum apertures.

4. Lens Weight?

Within reason, I put less emphasis on lens weight than lens quality (and lens speed). I have had years of experience with (and practice at) hand-holding lenses in the 3500+ gm (8 lb) - and even more - weight range. Of course, all else being equal, I would prefer a lighter lens, but usually not all else is equal. I KNOW many feel differently on this point - and that's OK. But it may mean that a lens that works well for me may not work well for someone else who places more importance on lens weight. Different strokes...

II. MY Alternate Choice to the Nikon 180-400mm f4E VR?

SO...which single lens in my personal collection makes me feel like I can easily pass on the new Nikkor 180-400mm f4E VR without negatively impacting on my ability to capture top-notch wildlife shots?

Are you sitting down? It's...the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 (AKA - in full Sigma Speak - The Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM | S)

Why? Here are my 5 top reasons:

1. It's GREAT Optically.

In my own controlled field tests using a D800e (tripod mounted, Live View, cable release, full aperture runs, etc.) it compared incredibly well to the "best" Nikkors. As an example, at 200mm it was actually sharper from edge-to-edge than the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E VR (with both close and distant subjects). And, at 300mm I tested it against the Nikkor 300mm f2.8 VRII...and the results were almost indistinguishable at most apertures (the Nikkor prime WAS slightly sharper on the edges from f2.8 through f4, but by f5 the Sigma was actually sharper). And, the out-of-focus zones (the bokeh) of the 120-300mm are superb.

In the past I have made the point that lens "tests" often don't tell the whole story about lens "usefulness" - and that other factors (such as optical stabilization and autofocus and even lens balance) combine with optical quality to determine the quality of images you can capture in a field setting (using your own techniques, etc.). I can happily report that the solid field tests I have done with the 120-300mm f2.8 Sport have translated into EXCELLENT results when doing what this wildlife photographer does - capturing images in the field. See the Sample Images section below for 10 examples of shots captured with the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 in 2017 (using a variety of Nikon bodies).

2. Excellent Build Quality.

Like with all the Sigma Sport (and Art) lenses, the build quality of the 120-300mm f2.8 is just excellent. It's environmentally sealed (highly resistant to moisture and dust) and built like a tank. Over the last few years I have exposed this and other Sigma Sport lenses to some pretty horrendous conditions and they've never let me down. This is extremely important to me.

3. It's Teleconverter "Friendly" - Giving it a Great TOTAL Focal Range.

It's my experience that few zooms do very well with teleconverters (compared to how selected primes work with teleconverters). One notable exception to this in the lineup of Nikon zooms is the new 70-200mm f2.8E - it performs very well with the 1.4x TC-14EIII. Another notable exception - the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 with the Sigma 1.4x TC-1401 teleconverter. Add the Sigma TC-1401 TC to the Sigma Sport 120-300 f2.8 on a FX body and you have a 168-420mm f4 zoom. Do the same on a DX body and you have the equivalent of about a 250-630mm f4 zoom. Of course, putting the 120-300mm on a DX body without a TC and it's equivalent to a 180-450mm f2.8 zoom (in light gathering ability) and a 180-450mm f4 zoom (in DoF).

Hmmm...it's obvious that the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 is still shorter at the long end of the focal range than the new Nikkor 180-400mm f4E VR zoom. How much that matters will vary tremendously between users. But overall, and if one has DX and FX bodies AND the Sigma teleconverter, well...the 120-300mm f2.8 covers a very critical focal range for the type of wildlife photography THIS wildlife photographer practices.

4. Adequate Autofocus.

You CAN find some Nikkor lenses AND some Sigma lenses that autofocus faster than the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. On the Nikon side that would include lenses like the Nikkor 300mm f2.8 VRII and the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E VR. And, on the Sigma side, the new AF motor found in the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 makes it focus a little faster than 120-300mm f2.8. To be very clear and fair, I HAVE been able to create test situations where the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 (at 300mm) lagged behind the Nikkor 300mm f2.8E VRII in autofocus performance (in tracking moving subjects). But I can honestly say that I have only VERY rarely run into field situations in the real world where the autofocus system of the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 didn't produce great results.

5. Highly Competent Optical Stabilization (OS) System - and "Hand-holdability".

My chosen subject matter and shooting locations (often from an inflatable boat) pretty much guarantee I end up hand-holding my equipment more than the "average" wildlife photographer. Add in the fact that I shoot in low light a lot and having a quality optical stabilization system becomes very critical to me. Does the OS on the 120-300 stack up well against the competition? To this point I haven't performed a systematic test of the OS system of the 120-300 against other lenses, but in the field I have found that the OS system of the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 allows me to shoot hand-held within the same range of shutter speeds (when shooting as the same focal lengths) as the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E VR and the Nikkor 300mm f2.8 VRII. So I'm very comfortable saying that the OS system on the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 simply does its job.

Of course, the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 isn't perfect (what lens is?). If I were asked what should change on the NEXT version of the lens here's what I'd say:

• Shave Some Weight Off! I can live with the 3390 gm (7.5 lb) weight of the 120-300mm, but its heft may be a problem for some. I'd like to see close to 500 gm (slightly more than a pound) shaved off it...and re-designing the tripod collar and foot ALONE (see below) could go a long way toward accomplishing this.

• Improve the Tripod Collar and Foot. On the current version of the lens the tripod collar and foot are decidedly over-built. If Sigma replaced the current system with the same collar and foot used on the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 and the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 they'd save weight. And...while they're at it, why not make the tripod foot Arca-Swiss compatible (so the end-user doesn't have to add MORE weight by adding an Area-Swiss lens plate to it)?

• Improve the AF System. When Sigma introduced the 500mm f4 Sport lens they used a newer "Hyper Sonic Motor" to drive the AF system that provided 1.3x more torque (and sped up the AF system). It would be great if the NEXT version of the 120-300 used the same new AF motor.

• Lengthen the Lens Hood. The Sigma Sport 150-600mm and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 share the same lens hood. And they both have the same problem - they're slightly too short. Why is this a problem? If you're shooting in the rain (even if it's coming STRAIGHT down) and a water drop strikes the distal END of the lens hood the resulting splashing droplets makes it ALL the way back to the front element of the lens. And, if it's raining hard this happens a LOT, with the net result that you end up spending WAY too much time wiping water droplets off the front of the lens (and way more than with virtually any other lens I regularly use for wildlife shooting). For those that don't shoot (or don't shoot regularly) in the rain this will be a non-issue. As one who shoots in the rain a LOT, this is a constant irritant for me.

• Add AF Activation Buttons to the Lens Barrel. Many users of Nikon's latest DSLR bodies love the fact that you can switch AF Area modes using a lot of different buttons on the camera bodies AND by using the AF Activation buttons on selected lenses. Sigma has these buttons on the 500mm f4 Sport lens (Sigma calls these buttons "AF Function Buttons") and you CAN switch AF Area modes using them. Given Sigma clearly knows about the buttons (and how to make 'em) why not add them to the next version of the 120-300?

III. But What About...

I anticipate getting a lot of email asking me why I didn't list one of several other "super-zooms" as the reason for not feeling like I NEED the new Nikkor 180-400mm f4 VR. Included in this list would be the Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm zooms, the Nikkor 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR, the Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6 VR, et cetera.

Long story short, I consider the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 to be the best of the more economical super zooms. After testing it against virtually all of its primary competitors I kept it and sold all the others. I DO use the Sigma Sport 150-600mm but its f6.3 aperture at focal lengths of about 420mm (and longer) has two consequences that limits its use for me. First, on even Nikon's latest DSLR's the f6.3 maximum aperture makes several focus points unusable. Most of the affected points are on the "periphery" of the array of focus points, but it can be inconvenient nonetheless. Second - and more importantly - as someone who shoots a lot in low light a f5.6 or f6.3 maximum aperture is quite limiting. I have absolutely NO doubt that I would get MORE use out of the new Nikkor 180-400mm f4E VR zoom than ANY of the super-zooms simply owing to its larger maximum aperture. So, just like with my prime lenses, owning any (or ALL!) of the lower-priced super-zooms has absolutely no impact on my decision to buy (or not buy) the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E VR.

This leads to a short tangent that's slightly off-topic (but I know if I don't address it I will get asked about it many times). Why did I elect to keep the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 super zoom and reject the others? Clever readers (so everyone reading this) will know this answer will also contain little tidbits about why I don't consider these other lenses to be serious "options" to the new 180-400mm f4. And I'm limiting myself to TWO sentences in describing why these lenses didn't beat out the Sigma Sport 150-600mm in joining my kit:

• Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | C (Contemporary model): Great value and surprisingly good build quality, but I found it to be noticeably softer (less sharp) than the Sigma Sport at focal lengths of 400mm or longer.

• Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD (G1 version): Aside from image stabilization (where this lens was very good), this Tamron zoom fell short of the Sigma Sport 150-600 in almost all categories - so in build quality, optical quality, autofocus performance (much less effective than the Sigma), and more. To be blunt, I just couldn't squeeze the image quality out of this lens that pleased me.

• Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 Di VC USD G2: Based on how the G1 version of this lens performed I couldn't justify spending the time needed to fully test the G2 version (sorry Tamron, but I couldn't believe it was SO improved it could challenge the Sigma Sport or Nikkor competitors). So no comment.

• Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR: Lots to like, including decent image sharpness, relatively compact size, good VR system and more. But the single factor that turned me against this lens was the extremely poor quality of the out-of-focus zones (compared to ALL the other lenses in this list)...just downright ugly bokeh!

• Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm F5.6E ED VR: Surprisingly good optically (as sharp as the Sigma Sport 150-600mm at most overlapping focal lengths and with very slightly better bokeh) plus quite light and easy to hand-hold. But, the general build quality, total lack of environmental sealing, and extreme wimpiness of the hood (dislodged even by a soft and light rain cover!) collectively conspired to bias me strongly against adding this lens to my kit.

IV. Sample Images - Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8

Here's 10 images I captured in 2017 using the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 zoom lens. I chose a mix that included images captured with the 3 latest Nikon DSLR's used by serious wildlife photographers (D5, D500, D850), at a variety of focal lengths, and several different apertures. I also included two shots captured with the 1.4x Sigma TC-1401 teleconverter. All 10 images can be downloaded and viewed as 2400-pixel (on long axis) JPEG's. Seven of the 10 images can be found in various image galleries on this website (along with a LOT more contextual information about the shot) - for those 7 images I included links to them in their respective galleries...

1. A September Great Bear Morning. Nikon D5; 155mm; f4

Download 2400 pixel image
More info (Animalscapes Gallery)

2. The Exit Ramp. Nikon D500; 195mm; f5

Download 2400 pixel image
More info (Bears Gallery)

3. Of Two Minds. Nikon D500; 270mm; f5

Download 2400 pixel image
More info (Bears Gallery)

4. The Spin Cycle. Nikon D5; 300mm; f3.5

Download 2400 pixel image
More info (Bears Gallery)

5. Khutzeymateen Cruising. Nikon D500; 300mm; f4

Download 2400 pixel image
More info (Bears Gallery)

6. Salmon Fishing. Nikon D850; 300mm; f3.2

Download 2400 pixel image
More info (Bears Gallery)

7. Great Blue Heron - Keep on Truckin'. Nikon D5; 300mm; f4.5

Download 2400 pixel image

8. The Sea Wolf. Nikon D500; 300mm; f4

Download 2400 pixel image
More info (Wolves & Kin Gallery)

9. Shoreline She-Wolf. Nikon D5; 300mm plus 1.4x TC (420mm); f5.6

Download 2400 pixel image

10. When Urges Diverge. Nikon D500; 260mm plus 1.4x TC (365mm); f8

Download 2400 pixel image

Could the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 tame YOUR desire (or need) to own the Nikkor 180-400mm f2E VR zoom? Possibly. Good food for thought...

Cheers...

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#Nikon180-400_alternatives

25 Jan 2018: More on the New AF-S Nikkor 180-400mm F4E TC1.4 FL ED VR

Since my 9 January blog entry on the recently announced Nikkor 180-400mm f4E VR I've received a lot of email feedback (both on what many are thinking about the lens and my comments on it). Interestingly, I don't think I've ever had so much feedback after posting a blog entry on a new lens (which I take to mean there is a LOT of interest in this lens). So...based on that feedback - and some more thinking about the lens - here's a few more comments and thoughts.

1. Universal Sticker Shock!

Unsurprisingly, the only common thread in all the feedback I've received on the lens is major "sticker shock" (i.e., shock at the price of the new zoom). I've had comments like "Hmmm...looks like I have to choose between this lens and that new car I've been wanting". Many have said that regardless of the quality of the lens, the price alone will make them hesitate or wait to make the purchase (for some until they've tried it or read objective reviews). And several have said it will completely prevent them from making the purchase. Several of my points below are related to the high price of the lens in some way.

One possible consequence (which means this is speculation) of Nikon's pricing strategy on this lens is that it may keep it out of the hands of a significant part of its target market, i.e., the working sports or wildlife photographer who is NOT sponsored by Nikon and largely considers a lens purchase as a business decision (and who already likely has a decent collection of "glass"). My next point below expands on this point...

2. A Business Decision OR a "Can I Hide This From My Spouse?" Decision?

In a sense there are two extreme ends of a continuum in how those in the target market for this lens are looking at this purchase decision. At one end are those who are looking at it purely as a business decision - they're asking "Will buying this lens increase my revenue and year-end profit enough to justify the purchase?" Many pro wildlife photographers (or sports photographers) who are still in business fit into this group.

In my case my photography revenue comes not only from image sales, but also from photo tours and private tutoring (and, to some degree, public speaking engagements). For ME a lens purchase CAN be partly a marketing expense - if owning that lens (and testing it, and reporting the results on this website) drives web traffic it can lead to an increase in my revenue (as people who are driven to the website book trips, engage me for private tutoring, etc.). But because I already have a strong lens collection I really can't convince myself that owning this uber-expensive new zoom will likely lead to a significant bump up in image sales. And...while web traffic is great, when virtually all of my other revenue streams (photo tours, teaching, speaking engagements, etc.) are at close to capacity (until I clone myself) there's pretty much no economic gain that I can realize via the "marketing leads to increased sales" argument for me buying this lens (to report on it here and drive web traffic, etc.). So...for me...buying the new AF-S Nikkor 180-400mm F4E TC1.4 FL ED VR can't be justified on economic terms.

I am only ONE professional wildlife photographer and I acknowledge that other pros may have different priorities (and different existing lens collections!). And perhaps for some it DOES make business sense to buy this lens. But based on the feedback I have been receiving (and based on some conversations I have with people in the business of selling camera gear) it does not appear that many working and "non-sponsored" pros are lining up to give Nikon money for this new zoom.

The OTHER end of the continuum of the market for this lens is the serious amateur photographer with a large amount of disposable income (or accumulated financial resources) who could care less if buying the lens makes business or economic sense. They simply WANT it, can afford it (and many HAVE said to me that their biggest concern is finding a way to get it by their "better half").

Of course, these are only the extreme ends of the continuum of how those in the market for this lens will view the decision - many potential buyers are probably somewhere in the middle between the extremes. Heck, even the most pragmatic pro gets a little excited about new gear! ;-)

But...and here's my main point...my best guess (yep, more speculation) is that the VAST majority of those who do buy this new zoom will be closer to the "Can I Hide This From My Spouse" end of the market spectrum (and few looking at the lens from a "Does it make business sense?" point of view will fork out for it). Interestingly, I've received feedback from several people who are in the "Can I Hide This Purchase" category of buyers and even many of them seem to be really having to work hard to talk themselves into the need for this lens.

3. Hand-holdability?

In my last blog entry I said:

"Based on my own experience of watching hundreds and hundreds of pretty serious enthusiast wildlife photographers attempt to hand-hold big lenses (from over a decade of leading photo tours), I would suggest that MANY of the photographers in Nikon's most lucrative target market for this lens won't be able to effectively hand-hold it."

Given the amount of feedback I received on this statement it's apparent that this point needs a bit more clarification. So...

• Lens weight is only ONE variable determining how easy it is for a given user to hand-hold a lens. Other variables include lens balance (which is partly impacted by how heavy of a body is used with the lens), VR performance, user technique, user strength, and more. BUT...my experience in leading photo tours for over a decade (and MOST on those tours are definitely in the target market for this lens) is that a lens in the 8 lb weight range is really on the "cusp" of hand-holdabilty for most users. Yep, some can hand-hold a well-balanced 3500 gm (8 lb) lens all day - others can't even dream of it.

• The importance of "hand-holdability" varies TREMENDOUSLY between users. For some (including me) it's critical. For others - it's irrelevant. But if hand-holdability of a lens IS important to you and you've never shot with a lens in the 3500 gm (8 lb) range...well...I'd recommend finding a way to TRY OUT a lens in this weight range and see how it "feels" and if you CAN hand-hold it (ideally it would be best to try the Nikkor 180-400 itself, but this will be a little tricky to do for awhile).

4. Optical Quality?

OK...repeat after me: "An MTF curve does NOT determine how sharp of a shot YOU will get from a specific lens in a field setting!" I have been testing lenses for years, and the most basic general truth I have learned is that there CAN be a big difference between the maximum theoretical optical quality (usually judged by image sharpness) that a lens can deliver under controlled conditions and what a given user will experience using their OWN shooting techniques in the field. I have seen lenses that test GREAT (and have wonderful MTF curves or score well on some other lab-based metric) but are awful for MOST users in the field. And, I have seen lenses that "test out" only OK (or have "iffy" MTF curves) but perform amazingly well in the field. If I had a dollar for every buyer of the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E VR who has said to me "How can a lens that dxomark.com calls "soft" be so bloody sharp?" I'd be a rich man.

My point? The photographic results YOU get in the field are not determined solely by the MTF curve (or any other single optical "measure") of a lens. They're impacted by everything from autofocus performance, VR performance (especially if you hand-hold the lens), lens balance, user technique, distance-to-subject, the camera the lens is used with, and more. Some lenses (in some user's hands) DO allow you to get close to their maximum theoretical performance. Lenses that really deliver for me while shooting wildlife in the field (i.e., lenses that allow me to squeeze close to their maximum sharpness out of them when using MY techniques in a field setting) include the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E VR (my number one choice for wildlife photography), the Sigma Sport 500mm f4, the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8, and the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E VR. Note that I am NOT saying these lenses will work great for ALL users - I am simply saying they work great for ME.

5. Opportunity to Try Before You Buy?

Quick point here: Of those who have told me they have pre-ordered the lens also told me they did it ONLY because the online retailer they ordered it from would take it back if they didn't like it. I don't know how many brick-and-mortar retailers offer this "money-back-guaranteed" service, but I know of several who do not. My guess (more speculation) is that for at least this lens you'll see a higher proportion than normal seeking out sellers who have "user-friendly" return policies.

6. "I Just KNOW It's Going to be GREAT!"

Remember how I said above that I've received email from folks who seem to be trying to talk themselves into buying this lens? Of those, many are using the excellent optical performance of another "newish" Nikon zoom (the 70-200mm f2.8E VR) to convince themselves that the 180mm-400mm f4E VR will be in the same optical quality category. I'm not sure I'm convinced by this argument. Designing a 70-200mm is very different from designing a 180-400mm (with a built-in teleconverter). Just because Nikon did a very good job on the optics of the 70-200mm f2.8E VR (which is another "very expensive for what it is" lens) doesn't mean it will necessarily happen again on the 180-400mm f4E.

In a similar vein, SOME photographers (not all) were never in love with the optical quality of what many consider the precursor to the 180-400mm - the 200-400mm f4 VRII. And, because of that, are skeptical about the how good the new 180-400mm f4 will be optically. My thinking is that from an optical perspective it's best to consider this a totally new lens (Edition or Version 1!) and wait and assess it on it's own merits (with no preconceived expectations). Of course, I can't disagree with those who have emailed me saying "Well...at that astronomical price it BETTER be great"!

I truly hope the new AF-S Nikkor 180-400mm F4E TC1.4 FL ED VR is a GREAT lens and meets the needs of a great number of wildlife shooters. But it will be quite some time before we know for sure.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#Nikon180-400More

09 Jan 2018: A Few Thoughts on the New AF-S Nikkor 180-400mm F4E TC1.4 FL ED VR

Yesterday Nikon announced a new full-frame super-telephoto zoom lens targeted at serious sports and wildlife photographers - the AF-S Nikkor 180-400mm F4E TC1.4 FL ED VR. This lens has been expected for quite some time - partly to replace the dated AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f4 VRII and partly because of the initial sales success of Canon's 200-400mm zoom. Like the Canon zoom, the new Nikkor features a built-in 1.4x teleconverter which, when engaged, converts the lens to an f5.6 252-560mm zoom.

The new zoom features all of the "latest" features seen on other recent Nikkor lens revamps, including a fluorite front lens element, a dust-and-gunk shedding fluorine coating, an electronic diaphragm, 4-stop VR (with Normal and Sport Modes), AF activation buttons on the lens, and more. At 3500 gm (7.72 lb) the lens comes in at about 120 gm (or about .25 lb) lighter than its Canon counterpart. The lens is expected to ship in March (read "after the Olympics"). In Canada first dibs is being given to NPS members through a Priority Purchase program (my notice arrived via email yesterday). Those looking for a FULL spec spew can find one right here on dpreview.com's website.

Did I miss anything? Oh right, the price. Are you sitting down? It's absolutely stratospheric, with a MSRP of $12,399 USD ($15,549.95 CAD). I am guessing the street price will be a "mere" $11,999 in the US and $14,999 in Canada. Apparently Nikon is looking to return to profitability if they sell even one copy of this lens (and we know they'll sell a whole lot more than one of them!).

Here are a few candid thoughts and opinions about the new lens, as well as some answers to questions I will likely see in the next few days...

1. Jack - or Master - of All Trades? It could easily be argued that if a serious wildlife photographer could have only ONE lens then this would be the lens to have. Great focal range (especially when the teleconverter is factored in) and with all the latest "skookum" features. But whether this lens is a MASTER Of All Trades or a JACK Of All Trades (and Master of NONE!) will come down to a few things, including optical quality (over all focal lengths including at the long end with teleconverter engaged and over all distances-to-subject), how well the VR works on this lens (anyone recall the 300mm f4 PF vibration reduction fiasco?), how well the lens is balanced, et cetera. At 3500 gm (7.72 lb) the lens isn't svelte, and VR performance and balance may well be critical in determining if the majority of shooters can effectively hand-hold this lens. Based on my own experience of watching hundreds and hundreds of pretty serious enthusiast wildlife photographers attempt to hand-hold big lenses (from over a decade of leading photo tours), I would suggest that MANY of the photographers in Nikon's most lucrative target market for this lens won't be able to effectively hand-hold it. If past experience is any indication, it would not surprise me if this lens will initially sell well into the market that "travels the world to photograph wildlife" but once a lot of these shooters find the lens is just too heavy for them to effectively hand-hold it there will a lot of them available on the used lens market (starting about 18 months after the lens begins to get into the hands of users).

One final comment on this point: Anyone who has shot Nikon's latest 70-200mm f2.8E VR knows that it is possible to build a zoom lens with ALMOST the optical quality of a number of pro-level prime lenses (that the zoom range overlaps). If Nikon can pull off this trick again with the 180-400mm f4E (and at the price of this lens they sure the heck better do it) it COULD become a coveted lens. But note that at the price of this lens you could buy a whole collection of pro-level prime lenses (along with some darned good zooms!).

2. About the Built-in Teleconverter: The concept of building in a teleconverter is interesting. There's obviously some value in "speed of engaging" the teleconverter on this lens versus one where you have to manually place the teleconverter between lens and camera (and in some situations this CAN make the difference between capturing the shot and missing it). And, according at least to Nikon, they've designed this new lens (and positioned the switch) to allow you to engage the teleconverter while looking through the viewfinder which, if true, is great. But...my own experience is that teleconverters almost always perform better on prime lenses than on zoom lenses (and perform the best only on a FEW "best of the best" primes, like the 400mm f2.8E VR). So...I am more than a little curious how strong this lens will be in edge-to-edge sharpness at 400mm with the teleconverter engaged (so at 560mm). If you have to stop down to f8 or f9 to get acceptable sharp shots at 560mm...well...this feature (and the lens) would be of questionable use for me.

3. About the Price and Product Positioning: So...now Nikon has a 200-500mm f5.6 VR lens that sells for $1399 USD (or $1799 CAD) that is built in China and NOT environmentally sealed AND a 180-400mm f4 VR lens that sells for almost 9 times as much (but is built in Japan and is environmentally sealed). Do you think that just MAYBE there's room somewhere in the middle for a high-quality f4 super-telephoto zoom? Note to Sigma and Tamron - I think I see a gaping and unserviced hole in the middle of the market for you to jump into (and perhaps some photographers should consider waiting a bit to see if Sigma or Tamron makes the move into this market space?).

4. Am I Going to Buy One? Nope. Why? Three main reasons. First, I have a great collection of lenses that collectively cover the entire focal range that the new Nikkor zoom covers (and one of them - the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5.6-6.3 covers MORE than the entire range by itself). And several of these lenses are speciality lenses that offer unique attributes not found on the new Nikkor 180-400mm (e.g., the extreme portability of the 300mm f4 PF, the dreamy saftness of the out-of-focus zones when shot with the 400mm f2.8E VR at f2.8, etc.).

Second, when I owned the Nikkor 200-400mm f4 VR I found that a huge majority of the time (if I recall it was around 90% of the time) I shot it at between 380mm and 400mm. I already own a 400mm f2.8E VR - and I dare say the 180-400mm @ 400mm just won't match that lens in image quality.

Third...sorry Nikon...but the price is just ludicrous. At up to about $9499 CAD I might have considered this lens for those situations where I CAN only take one lens with me and I may need a wide focal range. But at $14,999 CAD - not a hope! While we all know that wildlife photography is an amazingly lucrative profession (tongue in cheek!), for me forking out $15K has to make business sense...and buying this lens would make ZERO business sense for me.

5. Am I Going To Test One? Likely not (but never say never, right Oprah?). To do an in-depth test I would need a copy for longer than Nikon would be likely be willing to loan one to me. Based on past experience I don't get the feeling that Nikon is as keen as some other lens makers to have me (or someone like me!) do an objective in-depth field-based test on their lenses (clever readers should read this to mean "be VERY leery about what the early "testers" - particularly those that Nikon uses in their promotional literature - say about this lens"). But don't get me wrong - I would LOVE to field test this lens. Anyone wishing to buy one and loan it to me for a few months is encouraged to contact me at their earliest convenience! ;-)

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

Link directly to this blog post: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#Nikon180-400Thoughts



Blog Archive - not so fresh but still very readable and relevant...

2023 - The Whole Ball of Wax
2022 - It's ALL here!
2021 - All the Painful Details!
2020 - With ALL the Meat!
2019 - ALL the Gory Details
2018 - The Whole Enchilada
2017 - The Full Meal Deal
2016 - The Whole Shebang
2015 - The Whole Shebang
2014 - The Whole Shebang
2013 - The Whole Shebang
2012 - Almost The Whole Shebang
2011 - The Whole Shebang
2009 - October to December2009 - July to September2009 - April to June
2009 - January to March 2008 - October to December 2008 - July to September
2008 - April to June 2008 - January to March 2007 - October to December
2007 - July to September 2007 - April to June 2007 - January to March