I turned down a delivery of the Z 400/f4.5! SHOCK! Silly me, I supposed. But I was "rewarded" with a Z 600mm. Coupled with the 100-400, I am happy with my decision. Even if I move away from wildlife photography, the 100-400 will serve me very well.
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).
I'll have to slightly disagree. I don't have an F TC but do have both lenses and the Z TCs…and while I can see very slight differences between the 500PF and the 100-400 at 560…I guess I should have tried it at whatever adds up to 500 with the TC but I didn't…those differences, to me at least…are not better or worse but just slightly different. And the differences are *only* visible when pixel peeping at 1:1, when zoomed out to screen output display size there's no difference at all that I can see. There is a slight difference in bokeh wide open…but then it's a different aperture so that's expected and it's again not better or worse just slightly different…and at the same aperture I again can't see anything at non pixel peeping sizes.
I turned down a delivery of the Z 400/f4.5! SHOCK! Silly me, I supposed. But I was "rewarded" with a Z 600mm. Coupled with the 100-400, I am happy with my decision. Even if I move away from wildlife photography, the 100-400 will serve me very well.
Have yet to receive my 600 TC. When did you order yours (2 minutes after orders opened??)I turned down a delivery of the Z 400/f4.5! SHOCK! Silly me, I supposed. But I was "rewarded" with a Z 600mm. Coupled with the 100-400, I am happy with my decision. Even if I move away from wildlife photography, the 100-400 will serve me very well.
BTW I have a 400 F/4.5 and find it is very light and sharp. Hope nikon makes a 600 F/5.6 counterpartI turned down a delivery of the Z 400/f4.5! SHOCK! Silly me, I supposed. But I was "rewarded" with a Z 600mm. Coupled with the 100-400, I am happy with my decision. Even if I move away from wildlife photography, the 100-400 will serve me very well.
It depends whee you go in Australia and what sort of birds. Our birds can be quite tricky some need 750 odd others are fine with 400 plus DX. Small parrots and finches etc. are best with longer focal lengths. A longer focal length Prime and the 100-400 would make an ideal combination here in OzI used this lens during my three week trip to Alaska in August. It is my go to travel lens for wildlife, and you can get some landscape shots as well. I shot sunsets, whales, Kodiak bears, and birds in flight. I don't use the teleconverter, I just shoot in DX mode 19.5 mp for magnification and smaller raw files when I need the 600 mm equivalent reach. It is not as sharp as my 500 f5.6, but pretty darn close. It is good enough that I'll be leaving my 500 at home when I go to Australia/New Zealand this February.
Although I may have been using a bad lens - I found the 100-400 Z lens a little soft.Hi
I am considering getting a 100-400 mm lens to go with my Z9. I intend using this on safaris that I go to often in India where the Tigers/Lions etc come fairly close to the vehicles and I have often found the 600mm/400mm with TC to be too much focal length. Has anybody used this lens and what is your opinion of the lens ? Thank you.
I used this lens during my three week trip to Alaska in August. It is my go to travel lens for wildlife, and you can get some landscape shots as well. I shot sunsets, whales, Kodiak bears, and birds in flight. I don't use the teleconverter, I just shoot in DX mode 19.5 mp for magnification and smaller raw files when I need the 600 mm equivalent reach. It is not as sharp as my 500 f5.6, but pretty darn close. It is good enough that I'll be leaving my 500 at home when I go to Australia/New Zealand this February.
I think it is a fabulous lens and would be perfect for Tigers and Lions. I think it is sharp as a tack and has great overall IQ.Hi
I am considering getting a 100-400 mm lens to go with my Z9. I intend using this on safaris that I go to often in India where the Tigers/Lions etc come fairly close to the vehicles and I have often found the 600mm/400mm with TC to be too much focal length. Has anybody used this lens and what is your opinion of the lens ? Thank you.
Great video ... someday I may end up giving video a try beyond a 15 second clip shot in a classI've got 100-400mm primarely for filming and I must say it was great! Especially becasue I was able to zoom smoothly from 100mm to 400mm during the filmiing! You can see it in this video from 0:50 where I zoom from the whole "buffalo-scene" to the lion hanging on buffalo neck. I was pleasantly surprised that it worked! Normally if you zoom and film it looks jerky.
The other good point (beside the sharpness) what I realised is that you can shoot with 1/80s on 400mm and it is sharp. So, the vibration reduction of the lens is really very good!! Wenn the animal was steady I went from 1/400s to 1/80s, started with 1/400s and higher ISO for security shot and then slow down the shutter speed to reduce the ISO.
I tried it also with 1.4xTC but the combo got quite heavy.
So, I can recommend this lens. Especially taking in account that tiger is a big animal and if you can be close to it.
Yeah..My experience is that the 500PF has somewhat better overall contrast, a small sharpness improvement (mostly visible at 100% crop as you said), and the 100-400 has a tiny bit of CA with the TC, if you shoot with branches against a bright sky. All that little stuff combined with slightly less reach makes me reach for the 500PF if I'm shooting far/small stuff.
I won't say the 100-400 is anything but great, though. It's extremely versatile, and it's great in the hand thanks to its rear balance and mode ring (which I use for EC).
The 100-400--while large--is a great landscape lens. I've also done a bit of soccer with it, and it did very well. It's not a 400/2.8, but a 400/2.8 also isn't a 200/4.5.
That’s sort of my idea as well…assuming I ever went on a Safari or something where I was shooting from a boat or vehicle. 100-400/1.4TC on the Z9 and the 70-200 on the Z7II or more likely the second Z9 I would rent for the trip so the setup would be the same…and either the 24-70 or my wife’s Z50 with the 16-50 for anything really close or in camp candid shots. While I would love the reach of either of the longer lenses…the weight, expense, and loss of flexibility with those super teles mounted makes them non starters for me.The 70-200 focal length seems ideal for a safari shoot and with a TC would be very flexible...
I have only done 1 safari and that was back in my DSLR days. Traveled with a pro photog, tour organizer, camera store owner who does Africa at least twice a year and he stressed versatility weight limits on small planes etc. so had a leg up with his advice before I left. D500 with Nikon 200-500 and D4S with Nikon 28-300 was used for everything around camp to BIF and leopards, wild dogs, white and black rhino, lion, buffalo, elephants, honey badgers, myriads of antelope, sunsets and more. By the way my wife shot the whole trip with a Nikon bridge camera a P900 and had a second for back up which was needed when she accidentally dumped the camera on the floor of a safari vehicle and it came rolling up under my feet in the seat in front of her with LCD flashing as it rolled. I still worked but the Zoom lens was kaput for zooming.That’s sort of my idea as well…assuming I ever went on a Safari or something where I was shooting from a boat or vehicle. 100-400/1.4TC on the Z9 and the 70-200 on the Z7II or more likely the second Z9 I would rent for the trip so the setup would be the same…and either the 24-70 or my wife’s Z50 with the 16-50 for anything really close or in camp candid shots. While I would love the reach of either of the longer lenses…the weight, expense, and loss of flexibility with those super teles mounted makes them non starters for me.