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).
JamesFarrell
Former Member
Karen: You might want to experiment with changing the 400/4.5 Memory Set button (via custom setting f2) to change FX to DX (and vice versa). On my Z9-400 4.5 just a quick press of that button changes FX>DX quickly without need to press and spin a dial too. Easy to do with your left hand reaching around the base of the lens While holding the camera in your right hand. I leave Video Record to AF Area Modes too Like you. That’s too valuable a button in “prime real estate“ on the Z9 to give up to FX/DX which you will not likely use often. Just a suggestion. >> Jim
I think that is what I will do. Just don't want to get out the cameras and lenses right now to make that change. But I'll do it before June!!!!!
Calson
Well-known member
I have both but use the 100-400mm with the 1.4x TC the most. With DSLR cameras the zoom aspect was important but with my Z9 eye detection it is even more important to have as much image magnification as possible. I have had the AF fail with a subject and a 250mm zoom but succeed with a 350mm zoom where there was more magnification of the head.
I liked to have the 500mm PF and the 80-400mm with my D850 and planned to use the 100-400mm and the 400mm + TC for the Z cameras. With the IQ from the 100-400mm I am much more inclined to use it than the 400mm f/4.5 prime lens.
Something that is seldom considered is the close focus distance for a lens. The 400mm has a close focus distance of 8.2 ft as compared to 2.5 ft for the 100-400mm lens (and this does not change with a teleconverter attached).
I liked to have the 500mm PF and the 80-400mm with my D850 and planned to use the 100-400mm and the 400mm + TC for the Z cameras. With the IQ from the 100-400mm I am much more inclined to use it than the 400mm f/4.5 prime lens.
Something that is seldom considered is the close focus distance for a lens. The 400mm has a close focus distance of 8.2 ft as compared to 2.5 ft for the 100-400mm lens (and this does not change with a teleconverter attached).
Thanks Karen…I’m actually leaning…probably…towards swapping the 500 PF for the 400/4.5…since I want to divest all of my F mount gear…just the lens and D7500 left. My only potential downside is going from 500 to 400…but the tC puts it at 560 an$ 840 with DX on the Z9/7II and pretty much all reviews say the 400 and TC are optically the same or better than the 500…and it is smaller and lighter. My thought was that for wildlife outings the 400/TC on one body and the 100-400 on the other covers most situations I will see. Using DX if you’re going to crop anyway is just fine…and Steve and others have reported that AF is better in DX if it’s struggling in FX. I’ve got the 24-70/4 and the 14-30 for wider needs and the 24-200 for walking around travel needs but I would likely not be carrying the Z9 in that case.
My thoughts exactly on choosing to of w/ the 400 f/4.5 + 1.4TC instead of another 500PF at this time. We'll see how it performs, if it serves well as my primary birding lens, and if not, I'll get another 500PF and call it a day.
As I noted earlier ... I was happier with the Z100-400 without or with the 1.4TC than my 500pf so I sold it. When my Z800 was on the way I sold my 600 f/4 E both sales before the price dropped a bunch.
As I noted earlier my wife uses a Z400 f/4.5 on her Z50 and likes it.
I am a birder and shoot primarily for ID and my Z9 and Z800 are pretty well together all of the time.
I’m having trouble with the Z9 + 800PF autofocus reliability when attempting to focus on small birds in congested, brushy environs, which is causing me to regularly miss what should be easy shots. Never had this problem with the 500PF on the D500 or Z9, and am hoping it won’t be a problem with the 400 4.5 either. Guess I’ll know later this week.
It’s the same issue with every mirrorless camera I’ve tried: if a bird is OOF, you out the focus point over blurry bird blob, attempt to AF, and it gets stuck on the background or anything else it can find that isn’t the bird I’m trying to photograph. Setting the focus distance recall is a work around for this “feature”, but that’s a pathetic crutch that I didn’t have to deal with when shooting DSLRs. Sadly, if it continues being an issue, I’ll revert back to the D500.
It’s the same issue with every mirrorless camera I’ve tried: if a bird is OOF, you out the focus point over blurry bird blob, attempt to AF, and it gets stuck on the background or anything else it can find that isn’t the bird I’m trying to photograph. Setting the focus distance recall is a work around for this “feature”, but that’s a pathetic crutch that I didn’t have to deal with when shooting DSLRs. Sadly, if it continues being an issue, I’ll revert back to the D500.
Try turning the lens focus ring a little bit to get it on focus. Or use 1x1 custom focus point. In very challenging situations, any focus system will struggle. The photographer has to help it as best he can.
Thanks, Karen. That's what I'm using, a custom 1x1 set to my AF on button. I generally have success when the AF plane is already in the vicinity of the bird, but beyond that, this thing struggles mightily. Am curious to see if it's lens related.
That's when you turn the lens focus ring.....
I am a birder who shoot birds for ID and use on Ebird over 95% of the time in all sorts of habitat and with them in and in front of all types of brush and trees. Sitting, flying, hopping around all sorts of bird poses. I have been using my Z800 on my Z9 since 5-1-22. I previously used D500, 850 and D6 and a variety of lenses including 500pf and 600 f/4E. The Z9 Z800 combo out performs all of those prior DSLR combos for me.
I hand hold all of the time and I rest the lens foot (a Hejnar) in the palm of my hand target rifle style. The manual focus ring and control ring and memory button are readily at hand but harder to accidentally activate.
I shoot manual with auto ISO and AF-C. I have a7 focus point persistence on auto to help facilitate hand off from one AF Area mode to another. I have animal subject detection on.
I have my buttons for AF-Area Mode and AF set to:
Shutter half press wide-area AF C1 sized to 5x3.
AF/ON button to AFArea mode 3D + AF-ON
Fn1 button to AFArea mode single point + AF-ON
Fn2 button to AFArea mode to AF Area Mode + AF-ON
I seldom use single point AF anymore except for bird buried deep in the brush and any time if I want precision and animal detection off. I also us manual focus ring to get initial focus on birds deep in the bushes but will if needed.
After FW 3.01 and now with FW 3.1 I now frequently go directly to 3D or AF Area mode directly by pushing the button I have set.
For focus help I make sure I have good exposure and even start to adjust as I bring the camera to my eye if I now I will need to move my ev up (I have my lens control ring set to adjust EV) or change shutter speed.
I also have a button on the lens programmed to toggle between FX and DX and find that can help with AF.
I also have my video record button programmed to toggle subject detection on and off.
I forgot to mention, that's what I've been doing, racking the MF ring back to MFD before every AF attempt, and when it gets stuck on anything else besides what I'm focusing on. I appreciate the snarky response though, thanks.
Anyway, I'm beating this horse to death here and in the 800PF thread, back on the topic at hand.
I hope my thoughts on the Z9 and Z800 above might be of some help. I posted a few shots from yesterday to the forum here: https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/stellers-jay-in-the-trees-z9-and-z800pf.22581/
Nice Stellar's Jay, Ken We pretty much have the same setup, even down to the Hejnar foot. Any shared experiences are always helpful, so I most sincerely appreciate you sharing yours with me, thank you.
Myself, I've been birding for going on 8 years, have shot numerous gear setups in all kinds of environments over the years, but that was mostly DSLR based though. This Z9 is only a recent addition (~6 months), the 800PF only ~2 months, so perhaps the learning curve is giving me more challenges than expected. I've missed a lot of easy shots w/ the Z9, but I've also got a lot of shots that would have been difficult or even impossible w/ the D500, thanks to the Subject Detection alone. I know that if I stick with the Z9 and mirrorless, the future will be bright, but if I revert to the D500 or a D6, while my shooting experience will be more familiar and comfortable, I'll miss out on new tech that will make life better.
As I said above, dead horse has been beaten, I'm now looking forward to trying out the 400 4.5, and part of me wishes I would have instead tried the 100-400
We pretty much have the same setup, even down to the Hejnar foot. Any shared experiences are always helpful, so I most sincerely appreciate you sharing yours with me, thank you.Myself, I've been birding for going on 8 years, have shot numerous gear setups in all kinds of environments over the years, but that was mostly DSLR based though. This Z9 is only a recent addition (~6 months), the 800PF only ~2 months, so perhaps the learning curve is giving me more challenges than expected. I've missed a lot of easy shots w/ the Z9, but I've also got a lot of shots that would have been difficult or even impossible w/ the D500, thanks to the Subject Detection alone. I know that if I stick with the Z9 and mirrorless, the future will be bright, but if I revert to the D500 or a D6, while my shooting experience will be more familiar and comfortable, I'll miss out on new tech that will make life better.
As I said above, dead horse has been beaten, I'm now looking forward to trying out the 400 4.5, and part of me wishes I would have instead tried the 100-400
I am hoping to get to try my wife's Z400 f/4.5 some dayNice Stellar's Jay, Ken
Myself, I've been birding for going on 8 years, have shot numerous gear setups in all kinds of environments over the years, but that was mostly DSLR based though. This Z9 is only a recent addition (~6 months), the 800PF only ~2 months, so perhaps the learning curve is giving me more challenges than expected. I've missed a lot of easy shots w/ the Z9, but I've also got a lot of shots that would have been difficult or even impossible w/ the D500, thanks to the Subject Detection alone. I know that if I stick with the Z9 and mirrorless, the future will be bright, but if I revert to the D500 or a D6, while my shooting experience will be more familiar and comfortable, I'll miss out on new tech that will make life better.
As I said above, dead horse has been beaten, I'm now looking forward to trying out the 400 4.5, and part of me wishes I would have instead tried the 100-400
So the 400 4.5 arrived today, and I immediately took it out to stretch its legs (along w/ the 1.4 TC, which will be welded to it). After shooting w/ the 800PF for the last two months, mounting up such a light weight, nimble lens was akin to when I first received the 500PF all those years ago after shooting 600 f/4s for so long. I don't know what it is, but being able to have more freedom of movement and get into positions that are difficult when lugging a large super-tele, helps me to better enjoy the experience and make better photos.
For the Song Sparrow, I was laying in the prone position, in the mud along a stream bank, and just had more fun than I've had in a long time. Funny story, while I was laying there in full concentration, someone walking their dogs stopped behind me, and seeing me laying there, asked "Are you ok, do you need help? Sir, are you ok?".. he thought I was unconscious because he couldn't see the camera up to my eye
So, the lighting was decent, partly cloudy. IQ from the combo is pretty good, though noticeably softer than what I got from the 500PF, and a full level down from the 800PF. It's a tradeoff I'm ok with, as they sharpen up just fine in post, I don't have to use the FTZ, I'm at 560mm vs. 500, and I can go wider to 400 if the need arises.
For the Song Sparrow, I was laying in the prone position, in the mud along a stream bank, and just had more fun than I've had in a long time. Funny story, while I was laying there in full concentration, someone walking their dogs stopped behind me, and seeing me laying there, asked "Are you ok, do you need help? Sir, are you ok?".. he thought I was unconscious because he couldn't see the camera up to my eye
So, the lighting was decent, partly cloudy. IQ from the combo is pretty good, though noticeably softer than what I got from the 500PF, and a full level down from the 800PF. It's a tradeoff I'm ok with, as they sharpen up just fine in post, I don't have to use the FTZ, I'm at 560mm vs. 500, and I can go wider to 400 if the need arises.
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.
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
@Len Shepherd to quote as something is awry trying to cite yours.... "
There has been a lot of discussion at dpreview as to whether Nikon's long lens MTF are "optimistic" - in not allowing for diffraction.
Canon updated their MTF basis as originally published in their book EF LENS WORK III - in 2018 https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/...ist/reading-and-understanding-lens-mtf-charts
The updated Canon MTF basis generally reduces Canon long lens MTF scores by about 5%.
Nikon has not done anything similar - and currently for long lens score about 5% higher than Canon.
If Nikon MTF does not take diffraction into account, some of their published MTF could be a little optimistic."
On the subject of technical data published by manufacturers on their lenses, Sigma accounts for diffraction in the charts of their modelled mtf data [emphasis added]. The papers published by Mahajan and Díaz demonstrate that a DMTF provides useful information on how the system images a spatially extended object, although when the amount of aberration in the optical system is relatively large, the GMTF approximates the DMTF reasonably well.
A more detailed explanations
Mahajan, V. N. & J. A. Díaz. 2015. Comparison of geometrical and diffraction optical transfer functions. In Current Developments in Lens Design and Optical Engineering XVI, vol. 9578, pp. 30-41. SPIE.
Has Nikon published anything stating how they generate their mtf's? It's speculation unless they have done so, as to whether their mtf charts are misleading
I only compare mtf data published across the Nikon Imaging lens pages and no further; and/or in parallel I compare the mtf data reported by PL in their reviews. In both these cases, mtf data provide one approximate guide to a purchase decision. Most importantly, neither Nikon nor PL describe their methodology/apparatus, although PL have recently admitted they have changed their apparatus - their older charts are not compatible. I rate actual images as far more important to judge the performance of a lens, particularly zooms (in addition to reliable reviews).
I've tested out dozens of different Nikkors (most Used copies) over the past decade (buying/selling/trading on the Used market ); these were in addition to testing my current optics, which are long term investments. Based on what I've seen (and archived as test images etc) it's now quick to detect a problem, or not. I only buy a Used lens from a shop that offers a return policy, as well as warranty. As importantly, I test on the cameras each lenses is going to be paired.
Teleconverters present more challenges in finding reliable information about their potential quality (even usability). Some of the review data is erratic. This is especially when direct testing has big benefits. It's been the only way to evaluate Contrast and Sharpness is with one's own testing. It can one take some time to complete a full set of replicated images over a range of subject distances etc. It's turned up a few surprises. My ex copy of the 80-400 G is a good example: some copies are decent, but sadly not my copy! Another example, one well known reviewer raved about the image quality in doubling the TC14 III on the 180-400 f4E TC14. I quickly found out the quality is rubbish with my pair of these optics! (For the record, my copy of this zoom is excellent in its standard role, however.)
The consensus is all the Z Telephotos range from Very Good to Excellent in optical quality. The feedback from the likes of Steve and Brad Hill have proved useful, and also PL lab reviews of these lenses; although their 800 PF images are one exception where something(s) have gone wrong. This is similar to the benefits of the E FL telephotos and also PF primes in F Mount. The new Z mounts bring significant advances in haptics (notably lighter weight).
It has always been a challenge to reach a decision, when one is hovering over the choice between 2 or more telephotos with close / overlapping features. (I faced this in being able finally to afford a fast E FL prime....after some months, I bought the 400 f2.8E)
The 100-400 S and 400 f4.5S are the apt example of a tricky choice. However, I find these 2 much more different since using them in the hand, despite having read as much as I could find. I suspect many owners find neither is lacking in contrast nor sharpness, although the prime is clearly the better. So is its bokeh, although there's nothing wrong with the bokeh of the 100-400 S however; the 400 f4.5S pairs better in key respects with the ZTC14, and my very limited tests reveal the quality with ZTC2 is surprisingly good (at least at closer distances). The prime is the lighter in the hand, obviously.
On the contrary, the zoom makes the 100-400 S very extremely versatile for sports and wildlife, and also landscapes. The shorter MFD is another significant advantage, and this includes with Extension Ring (I use the Kenko set). I agree with Thom Hogan that Nikon have got the Fn button layout near perfect on the 100-400 S (less so on the Z Telephoto primes).
There has been a lot of discussion at dpreview as to whether Nikon's long lens MTF are "optimistic" - in not allowing for diffraction.
Canon updated their MTF basis as originally published in their book EF LENS WORK III - in 2018 https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/...ist/reading-and-understanding-lens-mtf-charts
The updated Canon MTF basis generally reduces Canon long lens MTF scores by about 5%.
Nikon has not done anything similar - and currently for long lens score about 5% higher than Canon.
If Nikon MTF does not take diffraction into account, some of their published MTF could be a little optimistic."
On the subject of technical data published by manufacturers on their lenses, Sigma accounts for diffraction in the charts of their modelled mtf data [emphasis added]. The papers published by Mahajan and Díaz demonstrate that a DMTF provides useful information on how the system images a spatially extended object, although when the amount of aberration in the optical system is relatively large, the GMTF approximates the DMTF reasonably well.
Geometric and Diffraction MTF Charts: A Clearer Picture for Photographers | SIGMA Blog
Our technical product information has been expanded to now include both Geometric and Diffraction MTF charts for Sigma lenses to offer a clearer picture.
blog.sigmaphoto.com
A more detailed explanations
Introduction to Modulation Transfer Function
Want to know more about the Modular Transfer Function? Learn about the components, understanding, importance, and characterization of MTF at Edmund Optics.
www.edmundoptics.com
Mahajan, V. N. & J. A. Díaz. 2015. Comparison of geometrical and diffraction optical transfer functions. In Current Developments in Lens Design and Optical Engineering XVI, vol. 9578, pp. 30-41. SPIE.
Has Nikon published anything stating how they generate their mtf's? It's speculation unless they have done so, as to whether their mtf charts are misleading
I only compare mtf data published across the Nikon Imaging lens pages and no further; and/or in parallel I compare the mtf data reported by PL in their reviews. In both these cases, mtf data provide one approximate guide to a purchase decision. Most importantly, neither Nikon nor PL describe their methodology/apparatus, although PL have recently admitted they have changed their apparatus - their older charts are not compatible. I rate actual images as far more important to judge the performance of a lens, particularly zooms (in addition to reliable reviews).
I've tested out dozens of different Nikkors (most Used copies) over the past decade (buying/selling/trading on the Used market ); these were in addition to testing my current optics, which are long term investments. Based on what I've seen (and archived as test images etc) it's now quick to detect a problem, or not. I only buy a Used lens from a shop that offers a return policy, as well as warranty. As importantly, I test on the cameras each lenses is going to be paired.
Teleconverters present more challenges in finding reliable information about their potential quality (even usability). Some of the review data is erratic. This is especially when direct testing has big benefits. It's been the only way to evaluate Contrast and Sharpness is with one's own testing. It can one take some time to complete a full set of replicated images over a range of subject distances etc. It's turned up a few surprises. My ex copy of the 80-400 G is a good example: some copies are decent, but sadly not my copy! Another example, one well known reviewer raved about the image quality in doubling the TC14 III on the 180-400 f4E TC14. I quickly found out the quality is rubbish with my pair of these optics! (For the record, my copy of this zoom is excellent in its standard role, however.)
The consensus is all the Z Telephotos range from Very Good to Excellent in optical quality. The feedback from the likes of Steve and Brad Hill have proved useful, and also PL lab reviews of these lenses; although their 800 PF images are one exception where something(s) have gone wrong. This is similar to the benefits of the E FL telephotos and also PF primes in F Mount. The new Z mounts bring significant advances in haptics (notably lighter weight).
It has always been a challenge to reach a decision, when one is hovering over the choice between 2 or more telephotos with close / overlapping features. (I faced this in being able finally to afford a fast E FL prime....after some months, I bought the 400 f2.8E)
The 100-400 S and 400 f4.5S are the apt example of a tricky choice. However, I find these 2 much more different since using them in the hand, despite having read as much as I could find. I suspect many owners find neither is lacking in contrast nor sharpness, although the prime is clearly the better. So is its bokeh, although there's nothing wrong with the bokeh of the 100-400 S however; the 400 f4.5S pairs better in key respects with the ZTC14, and my very limited tests reveal the quality with ZTC2 is surprisingly good (at least at closer distances). The prime is the lighter in the hand, obviously.
On the contrary, the zoom makes the 100-400 S very extremely versatile for sports and wildlife, and also landscapes. The shorter MFD is another significant advantage, and this includes with Extension Ring (I use the Kenko set). I agree with Thom Hogan that Nikon have got the Fn button layout near perfect on the 100-400 S (less so on the Z Telephoto primes).
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
While appreciating recent additions to Brad Hill's portfolio, his field notes under this portrait of a Dusky Grouse explained the choice of the 400 f4.5S for the sharpness and rendering
www.naturalart.ca
Natural Art Images: Galleries: Latest Images
Gallery of Latest Additions - Brad Hill, Natural Art Images
www.naturalart.ca
Maljo
Well-known member
The Z 400 f4.5 with the Z1.4 teleconverter makes a great wildlife combo.
arbitrage
Well-known member
Just perceived on my part but I believe the 400/4.5 w/1.4 converter is sharper than the 100-400 @ 400mm native. I’m very pleased with the 400/4.5 @ 560mm. Of course all relative to how much one can fill the frame.
Having shot side-by-side for a few weeks now, in general the 400 4.5 is slightly sharper, a tiny bit more clarity/contrast, and with 2/3 stop more OOF rendering than the 100-400. It’s not as big of a difference as one would be led to believe though; aside from the bokeh/blur, shots from the zoom can nearly be made to resemble the prime in PP. Things being almost equal, I’d choose the zoom over the prime for the versatility.
With the 1.4 TC, they’re pretty much equal, which I was surprised /wrt to the 400. As I mentioned a few posts back, it falls well short of the 500PF, which in my eye had better IQ in every regard. This was slated to be my 500PF replacement, but if given the choice, I’d easily take the F-mount lens.
Other thing with the prime: if you’re shooting wide open near MFD: amazing blur and sharpness, but not enough DOF to even cover a small songbird (eyes in focus, maybe the front foot, barely anything else), a shot which for me will go right in the bin. So, best stop down, in which case the 100-400 makes more sense, again.
I don’t know, part of me says to sell the 400 4.5, but another part actually really likes the lens. I think if I were a mammal or large bird shooter, it’d make more sense, but I mostly feel the zoom does 90% of what the prime does. Maybe as a 1-lens travel solution, but doesn’t a zoom make a ton more sense in that regard?
They’re all great pieces of glass, I’d love to have them all Might keep the 400 a bit longer and see how often it gets the nod over the 800 and 100-400, though I feel it’ll be more a case of “you know, let’s take the 400 out instead, just to change things up”.
With the 1.4 TC, they’re pretty much equal, which I was surprised /wrt to the 400. As I mentioned a few posts back, it falls well short of the 500PF, which in my eye had better IQ in every regard. This was slated to be my 500PF replacement, but if given the choice, I’d easily take the F-mount lens.
Other thing with the prime: if you’re shooting wide open near MFD: amazing blur and sharpness, but not enough DOF to even cover a small songbird (eyes in focus, maybe the front foot, barely anything else), a shot which for me will go right in the bin. So, best stop down, in which case the 100-400 makes more sense, again.
I don’t know, part of me says to sell the 400 4.5, but another part actually really likes the lens. I think if I were a mammal or large bird shooter, it’d make more sense, but I mostly feel the zoom does 90% of what the prime does. Maybe as a 1-lens travel solution, but doesn’t a zoom make a ton more sense in that regard?
They’re all great pieces of glass, I’d love to have them all
Might keep the 400 a bit longer and see how often it gets the nod over the 800 and 100-400, though I feel it’ll be more a case of “you know, let’s take the 400 out instead, just to change things up”.Yep…and the 100-400 along with it to cover shorter range opportunities.