Close up/Macro comparison.....F mount 105mm vs Z 100-400

[Butlerkid]

How does the Z 100-400mm compare to the F mount 105mm micro for dart frogs, small critters and poisonous snakes? The F 105 micro has a minimum focus distance of 1.03 ft. The Z 100-400's minimum focus distance is 2.46 ft. Can you get comparable images from the 100-400 while also getting more working distance? Trade off's?

What is your experience? Photos comparing the two? Thanks!

 

[pomkiwi]

I've not used the F 105 micro but have used the 100-400 with and without a 1.4 TC on my Z90 (and previously on my Z6ii). I am happy with the images I have got which are certainly comparable to those using my Sigma 150 macro lens. This is a ruddy darter dragonfly, the only editing is tocrop, run it through the auto settings in LR classic and add a little on the texture slider.:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Overall I'm pretty happy with the output.

 

[Butlerkid]

I'm a total newbie when it comes to close up. I know a 1.4 tele looses 1 stop of light. How does a tele affect DOF? Will you get less DOF with a tele since the effective focal length is longer? How does the 1.4 tele effect minimum focusing distance?

 

[DsD]

@pomkiwi, have you used the Sigma 150 on the Z9? If so I presume it has to be manual focus only? I love that lens but it won't auto focus on my Z9.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

I'm a total newbie when it comes to close up. I know a 1.4 tele looses 1 stop of light. How does a tele affect DOF? Will you get less DOF with a tele since the effective focal length is longer? How does the 1.4 tele effect minimum focusing distance?

"Does a teleconverter affect depth of field? No, it does not. A teleconverter does not change the physical size of aperture of the primary lens – it only magnifies the projected image. A 300mm f/2.8 lens with a 2x teleconverter will have the same depth of field as a 600mm f/5.6 lens, at the same focusing distance".

When you use a teleconverter, you keep your lens's shortest focus distance. -- NO impact on minimum focusing distance. As measured from the sensor plane.

Try using z-mount extension tubes/rings -- with electronic pass through -- extension rings do reduce minimum focus distance AND I have tried and successfully used them on many Z-mount lenses.

Remember extension tubes/rings increase the magnification of a lens as follows:

New magnification = Native lens magnification + (extension amount/focal length)

Using extension tubes/rings reduces the minimum focussing distance AND also reduce light transmission - effectively aperture.

Extension tubes also can severely impact the furthest focussing distance -- some find this can be too short. The come in various lengths/depths and this it is important to work out what works best with each lens AND each subject.

 

[BillW]

I'm a total newbie when it comes to close up. I know a 1.4 tele looses 1 stop of light. How does a tele affect DOF? Will you get less DOF with a tele since the effective focal length is longer? How does the 1.4 tele effect minimum focusing distance?

I think the TC does affect DOF as it changes the focal length. But it does not change the lens’s minimum focus distance. So a TC can be useful in macro situations, allowing larger magnification.

I’ve liked the Z 100-400 for butterflies, dragonflies and the like, creatures that are small, but not as small as many macro photographers photograph. I often use the Z 1.4x TC with it. And have tried the Z 2x TC, which is good, but not as good. You may find that stopping down a bit with the Z 100-400 is a good thing, as it may be a bit weaker at shorter distances (bit still good) than at moderate to longer ones.

I have the Z 105 MC lens, but have not done any organized comparison of it to the Z 100-400. I do like the long working distance with the Z 100-400 mm lens. Very useful for skittish creatures.

 

[bleirer]

Here is a useful calculator. Macro dof runs with magnification and this takes that into account (so does regular dof but that is another topic). Sadly we can't shoot from farther away and crop in hopes of getting more dof.

Macro Depth of Field (DoF) Calculator | PhotoPills

Use this calculator to get more accurate depth of field values when shooting macro and close-up shots.

www.photopills.com

 

[Butlerkid]

"Does a teleconverter affect depth of field? No, it does not. A teleconverter does not change the physical size of aperture of the primary lens – it only magnifies the projected image. A 300mm f/2.8 lens with a 2x teleconverter will have the same depth of field as a 600mm f/5.6 lens, at the same focusing distance".

When you use a teleconverter, you keep your lens's shortest focus distance. -- NO impact on minimum focusing distance. As measured from the sensor plane.

Try using z-mount extension tubes/rings -- with electronic pass through -- extension rings do reduce minimum focus distance AND I have tried and successfully used them on many Z-mount lenses.

Remember extension tubes/rings increase the magnification of a lens as follows:

New magnification = Native lens magnification + (extension amount/focal length)

Using extension tubes/rings reduces the minimum focussing distance AND also reduce light transmission - effectively aperture.

Extension tubes also can severely impact the furthest focussing distance -- some find this can be too short. The come in various lengths/depths and this it is important to work out what works best with each lens AND each subject.

View attachment 44918

If I have it correctly, the 100-400 @ 400mm f8 using 62mm of extension tubes would result in approx 1/2 life size whereas the 105/f2.8 would be 1:1. Using the 100-400 at 100mm with no extension tube.....the max magnification is .38

I just played with the 100-400 @ 400mm and 200mm @ f8. The ceramic subject was about 4" long and 1" tall. If it had been the head of an eyelash pit viper I would have had plenty of working distance yet still been able to fill the frame.

GOAL: I will be going to Costa Rica and doing the usual close up stuff.....dart frogs, vipers, etc. I own both the 100-400 and the F mount 105 micro. I need to decide if I take BOTH the 100-400 AND the F mount 105 micro or can make do with just the 100-400 lens.

Here are shots I took before using the 105 micro....(except for the bats and sloths)

 

[BillW]

If I have it correctly, the 100-400 @ 400mm f8 using 62mm of extension tubes would result in approx 1/2 life size whereas the 105/f2.8 would be 1:1. Using the 100-400 at 100mm with no extension tube.....the max magnification is .38

I just played with the 100-400 @ 400mm and 200mm @ f8. The ceramic subject was about 4" long and 1" tall. If it had been the head of an eyelash pit viper I would have had plenty of working distance yet still been able to fill the frame.

GOAL: I will be going to Costa Rica and doing the usual macro stuff.....dart frogs, vipers, etc. I need to decide if I take BOTH the 100-400 AND the F mount 105 micro or can make do with just the 100-400 lens.

Here are shots I took before using the 105 micro....(except for the bats and sloths)

I think for skittish creatures (or creatures you do not want to get too close to, say snakes for me anyway), working distance is very important. The Z 100-400 does well here.

When I was in Costa Rica a few years ago, I used the 70-180 micro Nikkor and the 300 mm PF (which has a nice MFD) lenses for frogs, butterflies, small lizards and the like. On a D500. Going now, I would likely choose the Z 100-400 and have the Z 1.4x TC along.

It’s also the case that the Z 24-70 f4 and Z 24-120 f4 have good close focus ability if you have them along, but shorter working distances.

Here is Thom Hogan’s calculation of minimum working distances for some Z lenses.

Macro Magnifications & Working Distances | Thom Hogan

maximum magnification and minimum working distance for Nikon Z-mount lenses

www.zsystemuser.com

 

[Butlerkid]

I just found this thread here on BCG

This thread makes a great point about maneuverability when hand holding. The 100-400 @ 3.2 lbs seems quite heavy to mean..... And if using flash, the 105 @1.6 lbs will be less problematic. Just need to figure out how to get it all there.....!

 

[JAS]

Full height 4x5 crop (37.9mp). Exif info provided with the photo.
I did a one lens day shoot (Z9, 100-400Z with TC2.8Z. Great day for birds, bugs, small animals, bgs and flowere. This is one of the shots. I believe min focus at this zoom is just over 1m. Not "macro" but definitely close-up and good working distance from many critters. I also added a bee closeup - uncropped.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[pomkiwi]

@pomkiwi, have you used the Sigma 150 on the Z9? If so I presume it has to be manual focus only? I love that lens but it won't auto focus on my Z9.

Yes I have used the Sigma 150 (the most recent version) on the Z9 without any issues.

 

[bleirer]

I think the TC does affect DOF as it changes the focal length. But it does not change the lens’s minimum focus distance. So a TC can be useful in macro situations, allowing larger magnification.

I’ve liked the Z 100-400 for butterflies, dragonflies and the like, creatures that are small, but not as small as many macro photographers photograph. I often use the Z 1.4x TC with it. And have tried the Z 2x TC, which is good, but not as good. You may find that stopping down a bit with the Z 100-400 is a good thing, as it may be a bit weaker at shorter distances (bit still good) than at moderate to longer ones.

I have the Z 105 MC lens, but have not done any organized comparison of it to the Z 100-400. I do like the long working distance with the Z 100-400 mm lens. Very useful for skittish creatures.

As I understand it at the same distance putting a 2x tc on a 400 f5.6 is functionally the same as a 800 at f11 as far as dof is concerned. Plug those values into a dof calculator and the DoF does not show up as being the same, because dof calculators make an assumption about viewing size and viewing distance. If they didn't make that assumption there would be no difference. However i think they are correct in doing that.

 

[aolander]

@pomkiwi, have you used the Sigma 150 on the Z9? If so I presume it has to be manual focus only? I love that lens but it won't auto focus on my Z9.

The last version of the Sigma 150mm macro (the one with VR/OS) autofocuses fine on Z cameras.

 

[BillW]

As I understand it at the same distance putting a 2x tc on a 400 f5.6 is functionally the same as a 800 at f11 as far as dof is concerned. Plug those values into a dof calculator and the DoF does not show up as being the same, because dof calculators make an assumption about viewing size and viewing distance. If they didn't make that assumption there would be no difference. However i think they are correct in doing that.

I said that I thought a TC would affect DOF because I thought that a 2x TC on a 400 f4.5 would be the same as an 800 mm f11 lens and that both would therefore have the DOF of an 800mm f11 lens. Which would be less than the DOF of a bare 400 f4.5 at f11.

 

[DsD]

Yes I have used the Sigma 150 (the most recent version) on the Z9 without any issues.

Thank you.

My version is 14 years old, so according to Sigma it won't auto focus on the Z9 due to change in contact architecture. Haven't tried it in manual only as it did freeze up the camera when I mounted prior and tried to auto focus.

I believe they discontinued the 150 macro now (according to rep).

 

[DRM]

Believe what you want, but Nikon states their teleconverters reduce depth of field by 30% for the 1.4x TC and 50% for the 2x TC.

Nikon | Shop & Explore Cameras, Lenses, and Accessories

Shop the latest mirrorless & DSLR cameras and NIKKOR lenses from the official Nikon eCommerce site. Explore our innovations and photo equipment!

www.nikonusa.com

 

[bleirer]

Believe what you want, but Nikon states their teleconverters reduce depth of field by 30% for the 1.4x TC and 50% for the 2x TC.

Nikon | Shop & Explore Cameras, Lenses, and Accessories

Shop the latest mirrorless & DSLR cameras and NIKKOR lenses from the official Nikon eCommerce site. Explore our innovations and photo equipment!

www.nikonusa.com

That's like math! The depth if field for a 1.4 is 1/1.4 of the main lens. Cool how that works out.

 

[DRwyoming]

... How does the 1.4 tele effect minimum focusing distance?

The beauty of a TC is that it doesn't change the minimum focusing distance of the lens so you retain whatever MFD you had without the TC attached but now have a longer focal length lens. That can be very handy for closeup and macro work. It's one reason I really like my 300mm PF with either a 1.4x or 2x TC attached, it's already a close focusing 300mm lens but it becomes an amazingly close focusing 420mm or 600mm lens with the 1.4x or 2x TC attached but of course the wide open aperture drops as well.

 

[BillW]

I just found this thread here on BCG

This thread makes a great point about maneuverability when hand holding. The 100-400 @ 3.2 lbs seems quite heavy to mean..... And if using flash, the 105 @1.6 lbs will be less problematic. Just need to figure out how to get it all there.....!

You might consider the 300 mm PF if you have one. It’s quite light weight. It has a nice close focus distance, good working distance, and takes the 1.4x TCIII quite well if you want more magnification. I used mine in Costa Rica. It was also nice at f4 for some portrait-like shots of birds, monkeys and reptiles that were closer.

I know I sound like a broken record on working distance, but I have found you often scare small critters if you have to get too close. That would be my main concern with my Z 105 MC.

 

[Butlerkid]

You might consider the 300 mm PF if you have one. It’s quite light weight. It has a nice close focus distance, good working distance, and takes the 1.4x TCIII quite well if you want more magnification. I used mine in Costa Rica. It was also nice at f4 for some portrait-like shots of birds, monkeys and reptiles that were closer.

I know I sound like a broken record on working distance, but I have found you often scare small critters if you have to get too close. That would be my main concern with my Z 105 MC.

Thanks, Bill. I used the 105mm pretty successfully in CR in 2018. Unfortunately I didn't use the 300 PF very much and sold it. I believe I will have to take the F mount 105 since it is half the weight of the 100-400. I have the FTZ II and 1.4 teles for both F and Z mount lenses. An option would be to put the 100-400 on a monopod for prolonged sessions - or switch back and forth between the 105 and the 100-400.

 

[joe43]

I have the Z9 and the 100-400mm f5.6 S lens and tc. And I have the last version of the Nikon F mount Nikon 105mm f2.8.

My comments do not deal with depth of field issue, but other issues.

If you like to use your Z9 or other body with the 100-400mm lens, I would use it on a tripod for macro type shots. For me macro and hand holding with the 100-400mm is not ideal. If you prefer handholding for macro shots, then use the 105 macro lens. But if you get too close, you can scare critters away.

My favorite Nikon macro lens is the Nikon 200mm f4 AF-D macro lens. I plan to use it on my Z9 soon in manual focus mode with focus peaking set on the Z9.

I also use two other lenses for "macro" type shots, my Nikon 300mm f4 pf F mount lens sometimes with an extension tube and my Nikon 500mm f6.6 pf lens also sometimes with an extension tube. The 300mm f4 is about the same weight as the 105mm f2.8; the 500mm f5.6 pf is about the same weight of the 100-400mm S.

When I went to Costa Rica I used my 300mm f4 pf with ext tubes for frogs and other macro shots. I often use my 500mm pf fpr chasing butterflies when getting close is hard to do.

Also note that the minimum focus distance for the 100-400mm S lens varies with focal length: (from Nikon site)

100mm zoom position: 2.46 ft (0.75m)
135mm zoom position: 2.56 ft (0.78m)
200mm zoom position: 2.63 ft (0.8m)
300mm zoom position: 2.86 ft (0.87m)
400mm zoom position: 3.22 ft (0.98m)

 

[Rodamu]

I have used the 105 macro lens and the 80-400 lens. The 105 takes great photos but it is limited in reach. The 80-400 is also very sharp but its limited by it's
5.74 ft. ( 1.75m) minimum focus distance; plus of course it is heavy. But the new Z mount 100-400 lens with a minimum focus distance at the 100mm zoom position: 2.46 ft (0.75m) and 400mm zoom position: 3.22 ft (0.98m) is extremely versitile and if you own it and seldom take macro photos, you probably wouldn't want to spend the money for a 105 macro lens. At 105 mm the two lenses will each give comparable photos. So, I would suggest you leave the 105 behind as you may not always get close enough to to fill the frame while the 100k-400 is on the camera, ready to long shorts too.
(As far as I know from reviews, the only different for users between the 80-400 and 100-400 lens its that the former has a much closer minimum focal distance.)

 

[Roy]

How does the Z 100-400mm compare to the F mount 105mm micro for dart frogs, small critters and poisonous snakes? The F 105 micro has a minimum focus distance of 1.03 ft. The Z 100-400's minimum focus distance is 2.46 ft. Can you get comparable images from the 100-400 while also getting more working distance? Trade off's?

What is your experience? Photos comparing the two? Thanks!

I'm only a product photographer so I may be biased.
The 100-400mm will grab reasonable close ups but if you need to get to 1:1 only a macro/micro lens will do it easily.
A small extension tube on the 100-400 will lose a little light but will help focus smaller.
Also a speedlight will freeze small wildlife and allow a larger depth of field...

 

[JAS]

I'm only a product photographer so I may be biased.
The 100-400mm will grab reasonable close ups but if you need to get to 1:1 only a macro/micro lens will do it easily.
A small extension tube on the 100-400 will lose a little light but will help focus smaller.
Also a speedlight will freeze small wildlife and allow a larger depth of field...

Fully agree that the 100-400 is not a true 1:1 macro lens but is great for closeup work and for keeping a liitle distance from bees and other sensitive subjects. It also allows easier access to subjects where you cannot get closer - Botanical Gardens do not approve of walking in their flowerbeds for those rose closeups.