Question For Nikon Shooters and/or Experts

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).

johnehrenfeldphotography@gmail

johnehrenfeldphotography@gmail

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I am going to Lake Clark in Alaska and dealing with equipment travel limitations weight limits on small planes as well as my desire to get the best, sharpest photos of bears possible.

I am a dedicated prime lens photographer whose go-to equipment is a Z9 and 800mm PF and previously a 600mm f4. Like many, I don't think zoom lenses are as sharp. especially at the long end.

My specific question is this, "what is your opinion of the 'NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S '. I am considering buying it.

Thanks very much, I appreciate any feedback
 
Member's gallery
I always have preferred zooms over primes. Then I don't shoot BIF and rarely fast action stuff. I rented the z400 f4.5 which confirmed my personal preference, even though is was super sharp. I found composition a struggle. I love the z70-200 f2.8 and get very good IQ from the 2x teleconverter.
I'm not confident that the z100-400 will be for me - I'm waiting for the 200-600 to compete my kit, LOL
However I'm renting the z100-400 next month for a 2 week arctic trip. I suggest anyone considering ANY lens might consider a rental first.
 
Member's gallery
johnehrenfeldphotography@gmail said:
I am going to Lake Clark in Alaska and dealing with equipment travel limitations weight limits on small planes as well as my desire to get the best, sharpest photos of bears possible.

I am a dedicated prime lens photographer whose go-to equipment is a Z9 and 800mm PF and previously a 600mm f4. Like many, I don't think zoom lenses are as sharp. especially at the long end.

My specific question is this, "what is your opinion of the 'NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S '. I am considering buying it.

Thanks very much, I appreciate any feedback
Click to expand...
Look up a photog on youtube names Scott Keys might be under "wildlife inspired" he did a solid comparison of everything nikon offers in the 400mm length and his results might be of value to making a decision.
 
Member's gallery
I have the Z 100-400 and like it a lot on my Z9. Expect to like it on my new Z8 too, but have not tried it yet.

I went to Katmai NP to photograph brown bears during a sockeye run in July/August 2021. At that point, I did not have my Z 100-400, so I used a Z 70-200 with either the Z 1.4x TC or Z 2X TC on a Z7II and a 500 mm PF on either the Z7II or a D850. I thought the Z 70-200 with Z TCs was good and the zoom flexibility was often very useful.

I got the Z 100-400 in December and have used it on a number of photo trips, including two trips focused on bears — the Khutzeymateen (grizzly bears, May 2022) and Hudson Bay (polar bears, November 2022). I think it is a very good lens if you need zoom flexibility or if you need a close minimum focus distance. In both the Khutzeymateen and Hudson Bay, we were often close to bears and there were also times when photographing the bear with its environment was nice. So I appreciated the short end of the zoom. And there were times when I wanted 400 mm or longer (especially in Hudson Bay).

I think the Z 100-400 is better than the Z 70-200 with TCs. It’s also better than either of the versions of the F 80-400 that I had in the past.

If you know you will not need the shorter focal lengths, the the Z telephoto primes are certainly better optically. I also have the Z 400 mm f4.5 and the Z 800 mm PF.

I also think the Z 100-400 works quite well with the Z 1.4x TC, getting you to 560 mm f8 at the long end. If you can live with f8. I also often have two bodies set up with me. At this point, that is often the Z 100-400 on one body and a longer lens, say the 500 mm PF or 800 mm PF, on another body.

One other point, I find that with bears, depending on circumstances, you may want to stop down some to get more of the bear in focus. For example, avoiding sharp eyes with blurry nose and ears.
 
Member's gallery
Great feedback thank you!
BillW said:
I have the Z 100-400 and like it a lot on my Z9. Expect to like it on my new Z8 too, but have not tried it yet.

I went to Katmai NP to photograph brown bears during a sockeye run in July/August 2021. At that point, I did not have my Z 100-400, so I used a Z 70-200 with either the Z 1.4x TC or Z 2X TC on a Z7II and a 500 mm PF on either the Z7II or a D850. I thought the Z 70-200 with Z TCs was good and the zoom flexibility was often very useful.

I got the Z 100-400 in December and have used it on a number of photo trips, including two trips focused on bears — the Khutzeymateen (grizzly bears, May 2022) and Hudson Bay (polar bears, November 2022). I think it is a very good lens if you need zoom flexibility or if you need a close minimum focus distance. In both the Khutzeymateen and Hudson Bay, we were often close to bears and there were also times when photographing the bear with its environment was nice. So I appreciated the short end of the zoom. And there were times when I wanted 400 mm or longer (especially in Hudson Bay).

I think the Z 100-400 is better than the Z 70-200 with TCs. It’s also better than either of the versions of the F 80-400 that I had in the past.

If you know you will not need the shorter focal lengths, the the Z telephoto primes are certainly better optically. I also have the Z 400 mm f4.5 and the Z 800 mm PF.

I also think the Z 100-400 works quite well with the Z 1.4x TC, getting you to 560 mm f8 at the long end. If you can live with f8. I also often have two bodies set up with me. At this point, that is often the Z 100-400 on one body and a longer lens, say the 500 mm PF or 800 mm PF, on another body.

One other point, I find that with bears, depending on circumstances, you may want to stop down some to get more of the bear in focus. For example, avoiding sharp eyes with blurry nose and ears.Grea
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
Last September, I was on the Katmai coast for 8 days. My equipment consisted of the Z9 and as a replacement the D500, which was never used.
The most used lens was the Z100-400, next to the 500 PF. We were so incredibly close to the bears that the 500 filled the frame too tightly. And I was satisfied with the quality at the long end. Unfortunately I didn't have a TC1.4 at that time.
A photo colleague shot with the 600/4 E. And of course his pictures were sharper. But there is also a significant price difference and it wouldn't be fair if the cheaper lens were better. I could still accept the price for the new 600. But because of the weight, at my age, I probably won't buy a 600.
 
Member's gallery
I have both the 100-400 and 400/4.5 and have used both with the TCs on my Z9 and Z7II…and next time out with the Z8 as well. I’ve done some testing with pretty much all possible combos and looked at the charts showing numbers.

I don’t think anyone will argue that from a numbers and absolute optical quality perspective the primes are better…but like Patrick I find the flexibility of the zoom an essential hing to have…especially if I am only taking one long lens (as I will do this month in the UK). That said though…there re other considerations. The Z zooms are generally much better than the F zooms as are the Z primes better than the F ones…but the zooms have arguably improved relatively more than the primes…but which to use depends on your goals. At pixel peeping magnification in LR…thee is a very slight difference in the shots (for me) between the two lenses…but to my eye at 1:1 it’s more of a different a bit rather than better or worse…but that is at 1:1. At display output resolution or in magnifications that simulate what a print would look like…again I find little to no difference. I would gladly use the 1.4 TC on either but the 2.0 only on the 400/4.5 and in reality I would use DX or plan on crop in post and only use the 2.0 in really distant situations. My current wildlife in SW FL is the 400 with the TC and the zoom giving me coverage at shorter lengths and at 560…and for me that’s about perfect. If I was going for bears…I would take both lenses of weight allowed for closer situations…but if I had to choose just 1 then it would be 55/45 in favor of the zoom and TC because of the flexibility…unless discussions with people who have been to that particular place indicate that the shorter range opportunities just don’t exist…in which case I might go the other route. If you’re taking 2 bodies I would recommend both of these lenses as well.
 
Member's gallery
johnehrenfeldphotography@gmail said:
I am going to Lake Clark in Alaska and dealing with equipment travel limitations weight limits on small planes as well as my desire to get the best, sharpest photos of bears possible.

I am a dedicated prime lens photographer whose go-to equipment is a Z9 and 800mm PF and previously a 600mm f4. Like many, I don't think zoom lenses are as sharp. especially at the long end.

My specific question is this, "what is your opinion of the 'NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S '. I am considering buying it.

Thanks very much, I appreciate any feedback
Click to expand...
As you are taking long primes the question is what to use when your subjects are closer or you want to shoot wider. I took 3 bodies the 24-120/4, 100-400, 40-/2.8tc and 600/4.0tc to Kenya and it worked for me.
 
Member's gallery
i have the nikon 100-400 is quite sharp and quite versatile and makes a great lens for flexibility. i also have the 400 4.5 and it's a bit better lens and i am kind of in love with it, but if 400mm is too long, it doesn't help you.

also, both the 100-400 and 400 4.5 get along nicely with the 1.4 tc

i think right now, the 100-400 is one of the better choices for flexibility, at least until the 200-600 comes out
 
Member's gallery
One of the big advantages of the 100-400 is for close ups. It replaces the 70-200 and a 1.4 TC as a zoom, and it's a very good zoom lens. But the 100-400 is unique in the ability to provide 1:3 magnification. Most Nikon long lenses are around 1:6-6.5.

As far as sharpness is concerned, it is very good to excellent.

I've never owner the 80-400 or 100-400. I've always preferred the 70-200 and it is one of my most used lenses. But that's different than your situation.
 
Member's gallery
I just added the 100-400 to my bag, alongside the 400 4.5 and 800PF. My eventual goal is to keep just one of the 400mm solutions that best compliment the 800. Since I had the 400 4.5 first, my bias was towards that lens, but the 100-400 has really surprised me with how excellent it performs, I won't hesitate to choose it over the prime for my birding. The comparisons are always "the prime is just a bit better at everything", but when you get both side-by-side, it's so close as to be almost negligible. With that being said, I much prefer the zoom's versatility to the 2/3 aperture of the prime and slight IQ advantage that can be made up in post.

There's a thread going regarding "Long Lens Strategy", and as you'd expect, it's a very personal choice as to how one chooses their gear. Personally, I think the 100-400 makes more sense to pair w/ the 800. If the 800 is my primary lens that is mounted when I head out, the only time I need anything else is if something comes in under the 16' MFD. The 400 4.5 is better at 8', but if I can get down to 3' and still maintain nearly equal IQ, that makes a ton more sense. Disregard if 400mm is your preferred FL, in which case the prime is the absolute best choice.

For your trip to photograph bears... not knowing what to expect, I'd probably take a zoom so as to cover as many possibilities as possible. Later on in life, if you decide to go back, you'll know better what to take, and can then choose the best prime for the task. Perhaps renting is a good way to go as well?
 
Member's gallery
I went to Lake Clark NP last August to photograph bears. The lens I used 90% of the time was the 180-400 TC. I also took a 24-120, 70-200 f2.8, and a 500 pf. I only used the 24-120 when we were out doing landscapes (sunrise photos, etc.). The 500 pf was used for a side trip photographing puffins. Two bodies, the Z9 and D850. It is a really tough call, because they are serious about the weight limits.

You will get closer to the bears than you think; in my opinion the 800pf will be too long. I own one and would not take it there if I return.

Lake Clark is an amazing place and experience. You'll love it. I'm happy to discuss more if you want.
 
Member's gallery
frdjohns said:
I went to Lake Clark NP last August to photograph bears. The lens I used 90% of the time was the 180-400 TC. I also took a 24-120, 70-200 f2.8, and a 500 pf. I only used the 24-120 when we were out doing landscapes (sunrise photos, etc.). The 500 pf was used for a side trip photographing puffins. Two bodies, the Z9 and D850. It is a really tough call, because they are serious about the weight limits.

You will get closer to the bears than you think; in my opinion the 800pf will be too long. I own one and would not take it there if I return.

Lake Clark is an amazing place and experience. You'll love it. I'm happy to discuss more if you want.
Click to expand...
Fred thanks great feedback. I too have the 500PF and am going to shoot Puffins. Was that the right lens?
 
Member's gallery
A 100-400mm with the 1.4x TC will be much more useful than the 800mm PF lens in nearly all situations. Even 600mm is too much lens for large wildlife at fairly short distances. For birds I use the 1.4x on the 100-400mm lens most of the time. For bears and moose and similar subjects in Alaska I would leave the TC off the lens. On boats and inflatables I have used the 500mm PF in the past but today would be using the 100-400mm with a teleconverter.

With a shorter than ideal focal length you do have the option of cropping. With a longer than ideal focal length (as with many shooting the eagles around Haines) results in cropped images and body parts and no context in terms of showing the subject in its surrounding.
 
Member's gallery
frdjohns said:
I went to Lake Clark NP last August to photograph bears. The lens I used 90% of the time was the 180-400 TC. I also took a 24-120, 70-200 f2.8, and a 500 pf. I only used the 24-120 when we were out doing landscapes (sunrise photos, etc.). The 500 pf was used for a side trip photographing puffins. Two bodies, the Z9 and D850. It is a really tough call, because they are serious about the weight limits.

You will get closer to the bears than you think; in my opinion the 800pf will be too long. I own one and would not take it there if I return.

Lake Clark is an amazing place and experience. You'll love it. I'm happy to discuss more if you want.
Click to expand...

It's an F mount, not light but might be an option as a single lens to carry; I love the 180-400 f4 TC with the adapter on my Z 9.
 
Member's gallery
This is a difficult set of trade-offs. I have a trip planned to the Great Bear Rainforest in August. Primary camera will be a Z9. My 100-400 4.5-5.6 is more than sharp enough our to 300 - 350 mm at the long end, the corners get softer but for bears and other wildlife that is not too important. The concern is max aperture of 5.3 - 5.6 as you get beyond 250 mm. My 70-200 2.8 is sharper but when I add the 1.4 TC it is actually not quite as good as the 100-400 but it is a constant f/4 or f/2.8 without the TC. I expect some lower light conditions. So do I value the the wider aperture of the sharper image more. I think either will be fine but I lean toward the 100-400 and let the ISO go higher.
 
Member's gallery
Wes Peterson said:
Look up a photog on youtube names Scott Keys might be under "wildlife inspired" he did a solid comparison of everything nikon offers in the 400mm length and his results might be of value to making a decision.
Click to expand...
I thought Scott’s comparison was quite thorough. He also provides informative answers to questions posted in the comments section.
 
Member's gallery
johnehrenfeldphotography@gmail said:
I am going to Lake Clark in Alaska and dealing with equipment travel limitations weight limits on small planes as well as my desire to get the best, sharpest photos of bears possible.

I am a dedicated prime lens photographer whose go-to equipment is a Z9 and 800mm PF and previously a 600mm f4. Like many, I don't think zoom lenses are as sharp. especially at the long end.

My specific question is this, "what is your opinion of the 'NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S '. I am considering buying it.

Thanks very much, I appreciate any feedback
Click to expand...
I tried the 100-400 Z lens and was tempted by its versatility and agility to focus down to one metre.
But I chose the 400 f4.5 instead because its AF is faster and its a little sharper.
And best of all its much lighter than my 600mm f4 ... 🦘
 
Member's gallery
Scott's comparison is quite good. Of course, the 400mm f/2.8 is the gold standard for how good a lens can be. It's terrific. I would not expect him to do more testing, but the additional tests are:
  • Test all at f/5.6 for the bare lens and f/8 with the 1.4 TC. This is related to sharpness. Many lenses are sharper slightly stopped down, and the 400mm f/4.5 sharpness improves
  • Test backgrounds - particularly out of focus specular highlights. Backgrounds are more important to me than ultimate sharpness. This is where the 500mm PF and 200-500 fall short.
  • Test all with 1.4 and 2.0 TC. All are very good with the 1.4 TC, but there are better and worse alternatives. This is related to flexibility.
 
Member's gallery
I encourage you to review Brad Hill's review of lenses. He lives in British Columbia and near the Khutzeymateen. He is a wildlife photographer specializing in bears. He tests the lenses extensively in the field before publishing his findings. I am going with him to the Khutzeymateen this June. He strongly recommended I replace my 500 PF with the 400 f4.5 and bring my 100-400. I will be shooting a Z9 and Z8. I am leaving my 600mm TC at home.......since ALL our shooting will be hand held from a Zodiac.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top