Question re Nikon 100-400 mm Z mount Lens

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).

Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
Hope it’s ok to tag on to original post. I have preordered this lens, hoping that it as good, if not better than the 70-200 2.8 z. I own the 500mm PF and love it. However, I miss the zoom that once I had from the 200-500 and before that the 80-400. I should remember this from owning the 80-400 but its been years and to tell you the truth, I wasn’t as concerned about the aperture range then as I am now. Since there is only a 2/3 stop difference between 4.5 and 5.6, I am a bit curious as to what the focal lengths are when it changes from 4.5 to 5 and then to 5.6. Your opinions and comments are welcome!
Click to expand...
If the 80-400mm G lens had good enough image quality for you then the new 100-400mm Z lens should be an improvement.
I also had the 80-400 G Lens and hated it. (My daughter now uses it)
Although I doubt whether the 100-400mm Z lens will even be in the same class as the new 70-200mm Z lens.
I'm waiting to see the new long Z Nikkors - I'm expecting the 600mm and 800mm to be cheaper PF lenses like the 500mm G PF lens. and the 400mm to be a 5 figure pro lens. 🦘
 
Member's gallery
Roy said:
If the 80-400mm G lens had good enough image quality for you then the new 100-400mm Z lens should be an improvement.
I also had the 80-400 G Lens and hated it. (My daughter now uses it)
Although I doubt whether the 100-400mm Z lens will even be in the same class as the new 70-200mm Z lens.
I'm waiting to see the new long Z Nikkors - I'm expecting the 600mm and 800mm to be cheaper PF lenses like the 500mm G PF lens. and the 400mm to be a 5 figure pro lens. 🦘
Click to expand...
Roy,
The initial reports suggest that the 100-400S is comparable to the faster 200-400 / 180-400mm lenses. If the lens does not approach these venerable F-mount lenses in terms of optical quality, I will like pass the lens off to my wife and repurchase a 200-400VRII. I love this focal length range, and could easily spend a lifetime shooting a 3 lens kit composed of a 24-70, 70-200, 200-400, and 1.4x converter.

regards,
bruce
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
If you peruse the youtube channel “Ricci Talks”, you’ll see he notes the 100-400 stands up in image quality to the 180-400, with and without a TC. if folks aren’t familiar, this lens is likely very similar (but better, i suspect) to the Sony 100-400 which is a lens optimized for performance and image quality. This isn’t your grandfather’s 80-400 ;-)
Click to expand...
Being a Z lens - I would expect it to approach 180-400mm IQ. And many lenses easily surpass the Sony 100-400mm kiddies lens (Sony really needs to ditch that old crop mount). 🦘
 
Member's gallery
Roy said:
Being a Z lens - I would expect it to approach 180-400mm IQ. And many lenses easily surpass the Sony 100-400mm kiddies lens (Sony really needs to ditch that old crop mount). 🦘
Click to expand...
I am curious about what you mean by "kiddies lens" and "crop mount." I don't shoot Sony, but I do know that their 100-400 is a highly regarded, and that while their lens mount has a smaller diameter than the RF or Z mount, it (and the lens) are full frame.
If you are referring to the lens as a "kiddies" lens because it is small relative to a 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4, then a lens like this might not be for you. Not everyone wants to hike and travel with larger optics. Having owned a 200-400mm f/4 for years (smaller than the latter), its size has been a barrier during my travels to Iceland, Costa Rica, and far reaches of BC. On more than one occasion, I needed to pull all of my crap out of my bag, and stuff pockets filled with lenses and batteries to get under weight restrictions.
During one flight on a super-small commuter, I had to actually ship everything but the camera and lens through baggage, I shoved my protectionless 200-400 w/ body attached in a tiny (and open w/netting) overhead bin. A sharp and smaller 100-400 makes such travel gymnastics irrelevant. The cost to the shooters one stop... sometimes a challenge, but rarely a deal breaker.
cheers,
bruce
 
Member's gallery
Roy said:
Being a Z lens - I would expect it to approach 180-400mm IQ. And many lenses easily surpass the Sony 100-400mm kiddies lens (Sony really needs to ditch that old crop mount). 🦘
Click to expand...
The diameter of the lens mount is very unlikely to confer any advantage or disadvantage for a telephoto/supertelephoto lens. The Z100-400 may end up being the best 100-400 we've ever seen but to date the Sony 100-400GM is the best 100-400 I've used and I've owned all of the worthwhile contenders (Canon 100-400, Canon 100-400II, Canon 100-500RF and Sony 100-400). That said the 100-400II and RF 100-500 are right up there and splitting hairs between them and the Sony GM. I hope that Nikon Z100-400 will be even better and it should be seeing that Nikon has had a long time to perfect this category seeing the 80-400 is quite old now.

P.S. Could we try and keep the fanboy crap "kiddies lens" off of this forum....pretty please.
 
Member's gallery
There is rather a bewildering number of options with Nikon lenses to get a 400mm focal length. Although image quality of each solution varies a fair amount. Using a TC14 on a 300mm has some penalties, and this penalties are higher using a TC2 to double up a 70-200 or the 200 f2G to 400. I experimented with both the latter, which are excellent optics in their own right. The 70-200 f2.8E FL runs close to 200 f2G in image quality, but I found the IQ of both Nikkors with TC2 not good enough, especially the zoom.
The other 3 'Exotic" options are excellent optics: at increasing prices: 200-400 f4G, 180-400 f2.8E FL and 400 f2.8G and last 2 are heavy and as Bruce says each can be challenge to fly with.
I had a recently manufactured 80-400 G and it captured some great images but it was fickle on DSLRs and this copy was useless with a TC14 IME. The 300 PF + TC14 III is very good by comparison, and so is the much heavier 300 f2.8G but a 80/100-400 zoom is very useful for African mammals etc.
I'm quietly hoping the 100-400 S solves these problems of not only weight & image quality, but hopefully we can also rely on the IQ still being decent with TC's to get to 140-560mm f5.6/8 (and when critical even a 400-800 f8/11). Okay it is only Z mount so unavailable to DSLR owners but the reliable AF at f8 and f11 are big positives. Nikon's mtf data and the early views have sharpened our anticipation.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
The diameter of the lens mount is very unlikely to confer any advantage or disadvantage for a telephoto/supertelephoto lens. The Z100-400 may end up being the best 100-400 we've ever seen but to date the Sony 100-400GM is the best 100-400 I've used and I've owned all of the worthwhile contenders (Canon 100-400, Canon 100-400II, Canon 100-500RF and Sony 100-400). That said the 100-400II and RF 100-500 are right up there and splitting hairs between them and the Sony GM. I hope that Nikon Z100-400 will be even better and it should be seeing that Nikon has had a long time to perfect this category seeing the 80-400 is quite old now.

P.S. Could we try and keep the fanboy crap "kiddies lens" off of this forum....pretty please.
Click to expand...
You may be right - Maybe I just find the 100-400mm size lens a bit too short for wildlife and not as good as the 70-200...
🦘
 
Member's gallery
the 100-200 will be every bit as good as the 70-200. being an awkward focal length for wildlife is a more valid observation, especially considering that’s probably not it’s (primary) target audience
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
the 100-200 will be every bit as good as the 70-200. being an awkward focal length for wildlife is a more valid observation, especially considering that’s probably not it’s (primary) target audience
Click to expand...
How is 100-400mm not enough for wildlife photography?
I spent 1986 to 2014 with nothing longer than 300mm. Sure I used a 1.4x converter on 300mm f/4 lenses and a 2x on my former 300mm f/2.8, but this was used with film and low resolution DSLR cameras (12MP or less). In fact, the longest lens I had with my 1DSII/7D combo was the original 100-400mm lens &/or 400mm f/5.6. I considered myself a wildlife and landscape photographer then, as these were my primary subjects.
For some "wildlife photography" = chickadees and cardinals, for others, it is a broad genre of images that can be captured with anything from 16mm to 1200mm.
To this day, i continue to wonder if I need the 500mm lens that I own. I love the images out of it, but I was happiest with my 200-400mm VR optic. I liked that lens for wildlife photography so much that I have been browsing my local shop for a pair they currently have on sale... this is in spite of my ownership of a 70-200S, 300PF, 500PF, and NPS pre-ordered 100-400S.
To me, 400mm is the sweet spot for 85% of my wildlife subjects.
cheers,
bruce
 
Member's gallery
I'm not saying it'll be bad, just that it appears a lot of folks would like something longer than 400. FWIW, I've been waiting for a premium 100-400 in Nikon for a long time and have been frustrated I couldn't get one for f-mount, and am *really* anticipating this lens (i've pre-ordered one). This lens is perfect for dog sports where the 70-200 is a bit short.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top