New Lens Selection

[MLB01]

Considering next lens to compliment the Nikon 100-400 lens, was considering either the 1.4x teleconveter to extend the distance of the 100-400 or put the money for the cost of the teleconverter( $500.00) toward the Nikon 24-120 f/4 lens to cover more range. My interests is not only mammals and birds but landscapes as well.

 

[MotoPixel]

The 24-120 is a wonderful complement to the 100-400 and an incredibly versatile lens. it's incredibly sharp through the whole range, even wide open. In the overlap range with the 100-400, you can shoot whichever you have on the camera and not be concerned with changing lenses because one is better or worse in terms of IQ...and this applies at the short end as well if you're comparing with the 14-30.

By the way, in response to a thread on another forum a few days ago, I shot some somewhat controlled test shots with the 14-30, 24-120 and 100-400 in the overlap ranges for the 3 lenses, wide open (f4.5 in the case of the 100-400) and at f8. You can view them in full-res on a Flickr album here.

Cheers!

 

[Fred A]

As mentioned above, the 24-120 is a terrific lens. Very sharp throughout its range, and also has good close up capability. I own it and use it for all my non-bird shooting.

 

[Steve W]

The teleconverter isn’t much use if you need something wider than 100 mm and conversely the 24-120 doesn’t get you any more reach.
You really need to figure out which end is important to you or get both.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Do you have a wide or standard zoom lens already? If not then clearly the 24-120 is the smart choice. But if you do and you are just trying to get a wider range than what you already have, it is less clear. If you find 400mm is often not enough reach, then a converter could be a good choice.

 

[Anjin San]

Considering next lens to compliment the Nikon 100-400 lens, was considering either the 1.4x teleconveter to extend the distance of the 100-400 or put the money for the cost of the teleconverter( $500.00) toward the Nikon 24-120 f/4 lens to cover more range. My interests is not only mammals and birds but landscapes as well.

It’s both of those for me along with the 14-30 if I need a 3 lens do everything travel kit…especially for non photo centric trips…and the 10l-400 might get swapped out for the 70-200 if I think I will need the 2.8 and not as much need the extra reach. I’ve got the 24-200 for a single lens only kit and the 24-70 that came with my Z9…but if I like the 24-120 as much as I think I will on our UK trip the 24-70 might get sold as duplicative. I’m going to try and fit in my 24-200 for UK as well for a lighter walking around kit with or without the 14-30…if I end up with sufficient space...and if I don’t maybe in my bride’s carryon…she refuses to be the Sherpa but I can always sneak it in

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Considering next lens to compliment the Nikon 100-400 lens, was considering either the 1.4x teleconveter to extend the distance of the 100-400 or put the money for the cost of the teleconverter( $500.00) toward the Nikon 24-120 f/4 lens to cover more range. My interests is not only mammals and birds but landscapes as well.

These are two entirely different decisions and only the OP can judger how much they would benefit from either choice.