For some of us it hits a specific need or use in our photography. For me it balances reach, quality and weight. This makes it a good addition to my kit. Each of us must decide.
The new Nikon 100-400 S lens. Discuss.
- Thread starter Jamie Baker
- 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).
eaj101
Well-known member
Actually, it's exceptional for a zoom lens, variable aperture or not. And most long zooms these days, including from Sony and Canon, are variable aperture. I don't know if that's a trend, but off the top of my head only the Nikon 200-500 is a lower cost fixed aperture long zoom. While I no longer have my 200-500 to compare with directly, there's no question tome that the 100-400 is sharper.
I don't know if we're going to see lower priced fixed-aperture zooms much anymore. For Nikon, the 120-300 f/2.8 and the 180-400 f/4 cost as much as a small used car. The Canon 200-400 f/4 isn't far behind, nor the Olympus 150-400 f/4.5. I don't think Sony makes one.
Whether that's a loss or not is up to you. I've only had my Z 100-400 for a couple of weeks and I'm not ready to really call against the 200-400 f/4 yet. Which says something...
YMMV.
I don't know if we're going to see lower priced fixed-aperture zooms much anymore. For Nikon, the 120-300 f/2.8 and the 180-400 f/4 cost as much as a small used car. The Canon 200-400 f/4 isn't far behind, nor the Olympus 150-400 f/4.5. I don't think Sony makes one.
Whether that's a loss or not is up to you. I've only had my Z 100-400 for a couple of weeks and I'm not ready to really call against the 200-400 f/4 yet. Which says something...
YMMV.
Nikon NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Lens
$2,696.95 Allenscamera.com
$2,696.95 Allenscamera.com
I had a Nikon 200-500 and Nikon had it 2 times for warranty and 1 time for recall and then it worked well and took some great shots in Africa .... but I sold it because I actually liked the Sigma 150-600 Sport and the Tamron 150-600 G2 (my copy at least) better ironically the Sigma and Tamron copies I had were sharpest at 600 not backed off a bit. Others did not have the same experience. I can say that for whatever reason subjectively that the Z100-400 is at this point the best all around variable focal length lens I have used.
ccirelli
Well-known member
I was hoping the price point would be a little lower as well, given the variable aperture. $2200 maybe?I've tried the lens - its good but a bit expensive for a variable aperture lens...
For my needs / $, I'll likely opt for the amazing 70-200 2.8, since I know I'll want the 200-600 whenever that gets released. Like many others, my longer glass is F for the time being and I'm not in a giant rush to replace them (no choice at the moment anyway
). The 70-300 4.5-5.6 AF-P and the 200-500 both perform really well on my Z6II.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
fwiw, variable aperture isn't an indication of quality these days with s-line lenses like it might have been in past times.
it's really more of an issue of what aperture you need and are willing to pay for.
ie, is it worth and additional $10,000 and 4.5lbs to me to go from f5.6 to f4?
other than aperture, the 100-400 compares favorably to the 180-400 which is saying a lot.
if you look at it that way, the 100-400 isn't an expensive lens at all.
and if i need that f4, or f2.8, this lens doesn't match my requirements.
it's really more of an issue of what aperture you need and are willing to pay for.
ie, is it worth and additional $10,000 and 4.5lbs to me to go from f5.6 to f4?
other than aperture, the 100-400 compares favorably to the 180-400 which is saying a lot.
if you look at it that way, the 100-400 isn't an expensive lens at all.
and if i need that f4, or f2.8, this lens doesn't match my requirements.
John…absolutely spot on thoughts. I’ve got one and with the 1.4 on it it’s longer than my 500PF, the same IQ for screen output, and more versatile. While I could afford the extra 10,000…for the vast majority of non professionals it simply isn’t worth spending that much more. The extra weight makes the expensive lens a hard no for me anyway…I want something both hand holdable and hikeable…and a 600/f4 meets neither of those criteria. For a pro…different calculation because different needs. I can put this or the 70-200 together with the TC and a single body and have a lightweight, easily carryable kit that meets my needs for almost any situation.
abc123brian
Well-known member
Neil, do you mean it is longer or isn’t longer than your 500mm PF? My 100-400mm is on the way so I should be able to compare soon enough, but am curious. I also cannot see a 600mm F/4 working for my use cases, but the upcoming 200-600mm is something I’m interested in. It may not be 600mm F/4 quality, but hopefully it will be small enough I can fit it in my backpack when needed and light enough to take on a long hike or bike ride. The key is to get something you can and will use.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
i think he meant with the 1.4 TC it's effectively 560mm, ie, longer than 500mm
abc123brian
Well-known member
That makes sense, thanks. I’d have a difficult time going to F8 for that focal length, but have thought about the 1.4x TC. For now, I think if I need to get to 500mm, I’ll stick with the 500mm PF.
As noted still waiting for Z9 to arrive so using Z6I I have used the Z100-400 several times now with the Z1.4TC, in fact I just got home from playing around with it and some birds again and have not even taken the card out of the camera yet. 500pf at f/5.6 does have better bokeh at the same distance from a subject as would be expected. I have also used the 1.4III TC with the 500. At this point I am more likely to grab the Z100-400 with or without the 1.4 TC over the 500 without the TC because of the versatility. Anxious to get the Z9 to try my 600 f/4E out on it ... still my go to birding lens on the D850 at this point.
ccirelli
Well-known member
Still bothers me a little, probably something that shouldn't but maybe it is a carry-over mentality from older tech. But believe me I'd still LOVE to have this lens someday.
Roy
Well-known member
I mostly shoot product/commercial and only wildlife only as a hobby.
So I'm used to variable apertures messing up my exposure.
I guess i'm too used to writing off gear on tax...
John Navitsky
Well-known member
Roy
Well-known member
If your shooting with lighting then a lens that varies aperture means that exposure has to be adjusted every time you zoom...
John Navitsky
Well-known member
I did not take up photography until I was retired. Ended getting into selling prints, mostly wildlife, retail at 3 places around Boise, Idaho and got so busy my wife reminded me we were retired. Now I still have to compete as a pro in the 2 or 3 contests that I enter. Most of my "work" is for non profits, web pages, blogs, e mails, fund raising mailings etc.. I have never done product and commercial stuff but have friends who do and they are the same as you and had trouble wrapping their heads around the focal lengths, shutter speeds etc. that I shoot birds in flight withI mostly shoot product/commercial and only wildlife only as a hobby.
So I'm used to variable apertures messing up my exposure.
I guess i'm too used to writing off gear on tax...
Since it was mentioned, here’s a shot from last week at Brazos Bend State Park in Texas with the z9, 100-400z + 1.4 teleconverter. It’s an absolutely outstanding lens, even at f8.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Roy
Well-known member
I've never had trouble with aperture shutter or ASA/ISO.I did not take up photography until I was retired. Ended getting into selling prints, mostly wildlife, retail at 3 places around Boise, Idaho and got so busy my wife reminded me we were retired. Now I still have to compete as a pro in the 2 or 3 contests that I enter. Most of my "work" is for non profits, web pages, blogs, e mails, fund raising mailings etc.. I have never done product and commercial stuff but have friends who do and they are the same as you and had trouble wrapping their heads around the focal lengths, shutter speeds etc. that I shoot birds in flight with
My problem is that i'm probably spoilt by the gear I use. And get a bit arrogant about the lenses I use.
Plastic mounts, external focusing and variable apertures are things i've always tried to avoid...
I get it. After all my favorite birding lens is the 600 f/4E and my best f mount variable focal length lens is internal focusing and fixed aperture ... Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2 it is an amazing lens but even with 1.4TC still used little since my preferred wildlife lenses tend to start with at least 400mmI've never had trouble with aperture shutter or ASA/ISO.
My problem is that i'm probably spoilt by the gear I use. And get a bit arrogant about the lenses I use.
Plastic mounts, external focusing and variable apertures are things i've always tried to avoid...
That said my 8 foot long eagle and fish image that hangs in our Idaho State Capitol building was shot with a Tamron 150-600 G2 LOLMy product/commercial pro friends struggled with why I would use 1/3200 to 1/8000 of a second shutter speed on a sitting bird ... my answer because it will not be sitting forever
Here is my favorite shot from my experiments today with the Z6II and Z100-400 with the 1.4 TC. At Eagle Island State park accross the highway from where I had just ordered computer glasses. Was shooting birds and ran into a domestic Rooster guarding the entrance to an old abandoned barn. F/8, 1/2500 sec, +1/3 ev, ISO 2200
One of the wild birds a Bewick's Wren Z6II Z100-400 1.4TC f/8, 1/1250 sec ISO 450
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
One of the wild birds a Bewick's Wren Z6II Z100-400 1.4TC f/8, 1/1250 sec ISO 450
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
It’s almost the same length as the 500PF at 100mm. Anything bigger or heavier than that just doesn’t work for me hiking as does the heavier Z9 body. I carry the Z7II and am going to try taking the D7500 with 500PF again as a second body…have been carrying just the lens and planned to move the Z7II to itt if needed but with the 1.4 TC I’m just not using the 500. Now that I’ve got more muscle memory with the 7II I hint putting the D7500 in Group should be pretty close to Wide Small but with 750mm reach on the crop body. Waiting on a Z with some of the better 9 features but not the grip…and I’m willing to lose a few FPS in the various modes to get that. Even if say a Z7III only got 300 shots per battery carrying extras is easier than a bigger body.
The other comment was right…I was referring to the reach but it’s also a bit physically longer with the TC on…but it doesn’t creep out when hanging from the strap like a lot of zoom lenses do.
abc123brian
Well-known member
Thanks for the response. My 100-400mm finally arrived this week after UPS took it on a tour of the US, lol. When I was shooting the Z7ii along with the D500, I didn’t really have much issue going back and forth. You probably won’t have any issues either, especially if the D7500 use is limited to certain situations. I only used the D500 for fast action wildlife so didn’t need to know where every setting was or make a lot of changes on the fly like someone who used it as a general purpose camera. I am looking forward to a smaller camera with many of the features of the Z9 to replace my Z7ii. I bought a Z9 and really enjoy it. I was really interested in some of the features it has, including the video capabilities, so having everything in one body made it worth it for me. The weight doesn’t bother me, but the size is a little too big for a do it all camera. I still use the Z7ii when I want the smaller size.