Check out Hudson Henrys web site and he does a comparison of the two. (he's keeping the 100-400 and returning the 400)
Nikkor Z 100-400 vs the Z 400mm F/4.5 VR for wildlife photography
- Thread starter ClaireH105
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
crjPO
New member
Yes and his reasoning is (even though is not quite as sharp) that it's more versatile for his type of shooting and he has the 800 for long telephoto shots.
fcotterill
Well-known member
For the record, by Christopher Frost.
He mostly he discusses the 100-400 S but emphasizes the advantage to the 400 f4.5S
He mostly he discusses the 100-400 S but emphasizes the advantage to the 400 f4.5S
BillW…you’re right and if I was willing to spend the bucks I would have the 800 and 400/2.8 in addition to the 100-400 and use whatever made sense for this outing. I’ve read both of Thom’s tele options posts…and he rates the 500PF as green and the 100-40p with Tc as the least good of the group…and I suppose he’s looking at lines per inch and more objective tests. However…I’ve done some of my own with those two options using my Z9…and while one can see some minor differences at 1:1 pixel peeping…if your output is to the screen or even say 1yx20 prints…then the output is pretty much the same due to down sampling for output..and especially for screen output if you can’t see the difference then essentially there is no difference. Bokeh and DoF might vary a bit…but sharpness of subject is the same at screen res outputs…at least IMO.
I’m still debating myself…currently using the 100-400 and 500PF and trying to determine if I need more reach and if so how often and what the best option is. Might be that the 400 and TC for 560 or 840 in DX and the 100-400 on second body (or maybe my 70-200 if 2.8 is important that day) is the way to go. Would personally love the 400/2.8 option…but weight would mean it’s likely the only tele I have and that would likely be limiting for me…and add in the cost makes it unlikely to be in my kit. Also an F 1.4 TCIII with the 500PF is still under consideration if more reach ends up being something I want to keep…but that’s a lot of extra length and 2 extra mounts if I go that way.
Hard choices…
I’m still debating myself…currently using the 100-400 and 500PF and trying to determine if I need more reach and if so how often and what the best option is. Might be that the 400 and TC for 560 or 840 in DX and the 100-400 on second body (or maybe my 70-200 if 2.8 is important that day) is the way to go. Would personally love the 400/2.8 option…but weight would mean it’s likely the only tele I have and that would likely be limiting for me…and add in the cost makes it unlikely to be in my kit. Also an F 1.4 TCIII with the 500PF is still under consideration if more reach ends up being something I want to keep…but that’s a lot of extra length and 2 extra mounts if I go that way.
Hard choices…
Alistair
Well-known member
Christopher Frost just posted his review of the 100-400 where he briefly compares it's performance at 400mm to the 400/4.5
Like any review, this should not be construed as the definitive proclamation. Rather, merely another data point to be considered and itself critiqued for relevance and merit
Like any review, this should not be construed as the definitive proclamation. Rather, merely another data point to be considered and itself critiqued for relevance and merit
Anjin,
I'm in the same boat as you are, owning a 100-400 and 500pf...and like you, I find any IQ difference inconsequential. With either lens, whether an image will hold up for printing at larger sizes or support reasonable cropping for viewing on a large, 4K display, is up to me getting close enough to a subject to put enough pixels on it.
My only complaint about the 500pf is that the focus system is noisier than the newer Z lenses and when shooting video, you can hear it unless using an off-camera mic...and I'd say that in AF-F mode for video, the focus tracking is a little less smooth. All that said, I intend to keep it until we see if a 600pf arrives on the scene...that would be my direction and suit my needs better than the 800pf...which I had on order when it first came out, but later cancelled.
This is a spur of the moment hand-held shot I took with the 500pf on my Z9 earlier this week as I was leaving my house. Shot in DX mode, 1/2000 @f8, ISO 900. Said hawk was about 200' away and I'd guess about 12-14" tall...not a big bird, as hawks go. Shot from the fence line along the road, so no way to get closer and no cover to conceal myself. DX image cropped to 2048x2048 pixels. Image posted here is 1400x1400...Flickr image is full 2048x2048, if you want to view full resolution. I'd say this is about the limit for what I'd try with this lens hand-held. If I'd had the 100-400 on the camera, I might have taken a shot, but I know from experience that I'd likely find it unacceptable due to not enough pixels on the bird...even with a TC14, not sure it would have achieved the same level of quality as the 500pf.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Cool bird a Red-shouldered Hawk not one we see very often here in Idaho. As you probably know there is not 600pf on the road map only the Z200-600.
I found the Z100-400 with 1.4 TC to be far more versatile than my 500PF on my Z9 so sold it shortly after getting the Z100-400. Both did not have enough focal length for my run and gun all hand held bird ID photography and the z100-400 has gotten almost no use since I got the Z800 PF 5-1-22 so getting close to a year. I have a button on the Z800 progammed to toggle FX/DX and use it often. I seldom have prints larger than 16x20 done and I can only print up to 13x19.
Often I found the OOF areas of the 500 PF unpleasing to my eye. I tried the 1.4 tele on it and did not like the IQ. So...... I sold the 500 PF and now have the 400 f4.5 in addition to my 100-400. According to Brad Hill, this will be a great combo for shooting in the Khutzeymateen in June where we expect somewhat low light, rain, and will be shooting hand held from a zodiac.
I plan to use the 24-70 f2.8 for scenics, the 100-400 for mid-range and the 400 f4.5 with or without my 1.4 tele. I really need to consider using DX mode so that I don't suffer an f stop hit on light in addition to improving the odds of better focusing! A double bonus.
Good luck with your decision making...!
Which button did you use for FX/DX switching? Thanks....!
Not Ken, but in my case, I've assigned it to the "Record" button...most convenient location I could come up with...don't know how I got along without it! Instant D500 on steroids!
Khutzeymateen Looks amazing!
I use the memory set button because it is ergonomically in the best place for me to access it without having to use my left hand that has the lens foot resting in the palm and it is very easy to access with my longest finger while continuing to focus with my index finger on the shutter button if desired.
Thanks, Ken. Sorry to be a dunce. I'm not sure which button is the Memory Set button. Does it have another name?
I wish there were two buttons there! Right now I have that set up to quickly change AF area modes! LOL!Not Ken, but in my case, I've assigned it to the "Record" button...most convenient location I could come up with...don't know how I got along without it! Instant D500 on steroids!
No that is the name on the lens it is on the top right side at the very back of the lens
Hope so. Those who have gone there, rave about the experience!
Just as a reminder as I noted that is on my Z800 that is the only lens I have that has that particular button.
Ahhhh.....I was looking on the body!
That begs the next question, how do you then set a focus point for focus recall?
I have not used that function in a long time. But I have it set to L-Fn to save focus position and to L-Fn2 to recall focus position. Same as on my Z100-400. I use my imenu for switching between dx and fx when any other lens besides the Z800pf is on. And that is fairly fast and again can be done with the camera in shooting position but then I am using my thumb.
Ken, this was the first time I recall seeing one of these birds, though I understand they're fairly common in most of the southern US, preferring woodlands, which are common here in the southern foothills of the Blue Ridge mountains. Cooper's and Red Tail very common here.
Yes Red-tailed, Cooper's, Sharp-shinned most common here. Then Rough-legged in the winter, Ferruginous year round and Swainson's will be returning at the end of the month.
My principal telephotos for wildlife photography are now the Z 100-400, 500 mm PF and Z 800 mm PF, with or without Z and F mount TCs. On a Z9 and Z7II.
I do a lot of bird photography, so reach longer than 400 mm is often very desirable. I often used my 500 mm PF with a 1.4x TCIII on a Z body (initially a Z7/Z7II and later a Z9). Now, at least where space and weight considerations allow, I am generally using the Z 800 mm PF rather than the 500 mm PF and TC.
Whether you need more reach depends a lot on what you like to photograph and where. As you note, you might consider getting a 1.4x TCIII to use with your 500 mm PF — giving you 700 mm at f8 in addition to the bare lens. On a Z body, that combination should work quite well. It would also give you an idea of whether you want or need more focal length. Given the amount of time I used my 500 mm PF with a TC (1.4x, 1.7x and 2x), I was sure that I would like and use the Z 800 mm PF.
I have also liked the Z 100-400 mm with the Z 1.4x TC, at least in situations where you can live with f8 at the long end and 560 mm. Zoom flexibility is often quite important to me, although usually more so with mammals than birds.
I was in Alaska earlier this month. Used the Z 100-400 and 500 mm PF with a 1.4x TCIII (eagles, sea otters, sea birds, mountain goats). Did not bring the Z 800 mm PF, as there were weight constraints on airplanes and the trip leader recommended against it.
I was on Vancouver Island last week for another photo trip. Used the Z 100-400 and the Z 800 mm PF. A wide variety of wildlife ranging in size from whales to small sea birds. Both lenses were quite useful, but, apart from whales, I used the Z 800 mm PF more often. The 500 mm PF plus a 1.4x TCIII would have worked well too. I had the 500 mm PF along for the trip, but did not end up using it.
I am quite tempted by the Z 400 f4.5, but have resisted so far. I would likely most often use it with the Z 1.4x TC, giving me 560 mm @ f6.3. My own guess is that either this combination or the 500 mm PF is sharp enough for me, so that optical sharpness would not be the deciding factor.
My wife hogs the Z400 f/4.5 on her Z50 the plus for her is weight and compact size over the Z100-400 or the 500pf that she tried and did not like the weight and lens hood. Since I preferred the Z100-400 with or without TC for it's versatility I sold the 500pf while the used price was still quite good.
DsD
Well-known member
This is a cross post from the Z100-400 thread. This is my house bunny about 40’ away shot with the Z100-400 w/ Z 1.4 TC at 560mm. Handheld at 1/80 sec. Just got the TC on Thursday and was eager to be disappointed with it at 400mm.
Deeply deeply cropped to be about a 3 Mb file from the Z9. Very light global sharpening done in DxO and nothing else. I believe it holds up quite well seeing this is the weakest end of the len’s focal length. I can’t imagine how much better the Z400 4.5 would be.
Seems like I have a good copy of lens and TC. Highly usable if one can fill the frame enough, as many have affirmed here.
Deeply deeply cropped to be about a 3 Mb file from the Z9. Very light global sharpening done in DxO and nothing else. I believe it holds up quite well seeing this is the weakest end of the len’s focal length. I can’t imagine how much better the Z400 4.5 would be.
Seems like I have a good copy of lens and TC. Highly usable if one can fill the frame enough, as many have affirmed here.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I don’t do video…and am trying a new combo for me tomorrow…500PF on the Z9 and 100-400 on the Z7II up at Fort DeSoto and then Corkscrew on Thursday. Since the 400/4.5 works so well as a 560/6.3 with the TC or an 840/.3 in DX mode…and since I’m trying to get away from F mount stuff…I’m wondering if selling the 500PF and replacing it with the 400/4.5 and my existing TCs might be a better option than keeping the slightly longer 500PF which gives me 750/5.6 in DX. In either case…I would pretty much always have the Z7II as well with either the 100-400 or 70-200 if light was low for an all Z lens kit. Selling the 500PF covers a lot of the cost of the 400 and it’s smaller and lighter and Z mount…alternatively I could get the F TC 1.4 but t this point investing in any more F mount seems counter productive and since the 40p and TC is an almost equivalent Z replacement for the 500 moving on might be better. The 400/2.8, 600 and 800 aren’t in my roadmap due to size and weight mostly and also bang for the buck reasons although I can basically afford whatever I’m willing to buy but it has to be worth it to me…budget isn’t the main driver.