Owney
Active member
Now that the 400 4.5 lenses are being delivered I wonder if people who already have the 100-400 will wind up keeping both or choose to keep one? And if they decide to only keep one, which will they choose?
Z 100-400 or 400 4.5
- Thread starter Owney
- 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).
For my style of photography I lean more toward zooms for their flexibility. Your mileage may differ. I am willing to give up a tiny amount in absolute sharpness for the flexibility of a zoom. Today’s zoom lenses are dang good.
Woody Meristem
Well-known member
Other than my macro lenses I haven't used a fixed focal length lens since I switched from film to digital. The versatility of zooms is too important to give up for a marginal improvement in image quality.
Calson
Well-known member
I cannot see a f/4.5 focal length prime for wildlife photography. Great lens for sports shooters with larger subjects but for most wildlife I want more image magnification. A 500mm PF provides an increase in image size of 56% which is important. There is a reason why Nikon product developers prioritized the 500mm PF and 100-400mm and 800mm PF lenses.
A question too is whether the 400 is a better option than the 200-600mm zoom when it arrives.
A question too is whether the 400 is a better option than the 200-600mm zoom when it arrives.
JP Onstwedder
Well-known member
I own the 100-400 and I can't see the 400/4.5 offering a significant advantage, so I'm not changing.
I use the 100-400 as a primary lens for my wildlife photography. I love the versatility. And it does work well with the 1.4X TC. Could also use it with the 2X TC but quality probably not as good as I'd like. So I consider it a great lens for 100-400 and also out to 560 with TC.
I also have the Z 800mm f6.3 which I have found to be quite good, even when hand holding.
Nevertheless, I just received the Z 400mm f4.5. It is so nice and compact. Great for hand holding. I do like the fact that it is a prime lens. And when I need more reach, I plan to use that lens with the 1.4X TC or even the 2X TC which will get me out to 800mm (when I don't have the 800mm with me). I'm going to South Africa next month to do mostly "hide" photography. I have decided not to take the 800mm because it is too much lens for the hides in front of watering holes with the animals 15-20 feet away. But I will also have the 400mm f4.5 with me attached to TCs when needed. So I can travel lightly with 2 Z9s, the Z 24-120, 100-400, TC 1.4X and TC 2X and that will give me all the range that I need.
I believe that some recent reviews said that even thought the 100-400 is quite good, even with 1.4X TC, if you are shooting at 400mm or 400mm + TC then the 400 f4.5 will be better than the 100-400.
I also have the Z 800mm f6.3 which I have found to be quite good, even when hand holding.
Nevertheless, I just received the Z 400mm f4.5. It is so nice and compact. Great for hand holding. I do like the fact that it is a prime lens. And when I need more reach, I plan to use that lens with the 1.4X TC or even the 2X TC which will get me out to 800mm (when I don't have the 800mm with me). I'm going to South Africa next month to do mostly "hide" photography. I have decided not to take the 800mm because it is too much lens for the hides in front of watering holes with the animals 15-20 feet away. But I will also have the 400mm f4.5 with me attached to TCs when needed. So I can travel lightly with 2 Z9s, the Z 24-120, 100-400, TC 1.4X and TC 2X and that will give me all the range that I need.
I believe that some recent reviews said that even thought the 100-400 is quite good, even with 1.4X TC, if you are shooting at 400mm or 400mm + TC then the 400 f4.5 will be better than the 100-400.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
as someone shooting sports, the new 4.5 is intriguing. i currently have, use and love the 100-400, but the new 4.5 sounds incrementally better across the board.... IF i was at 400 all the time.
for the types of sports i shoot currently, i'm not at 400 all the time, but i could see something a bit faster would be nice for certain situations.
that said, the f2/8s would be much better in those situations.
so from my perspective, if i were to get only one, the 100-400 is a lot more flexible, and the f/2.8s would be much better for those cases you're at 400. so the 4.5 lives in a weird place, basically a "poor mans" 400.
that said, when we talk 400 f2.8s money, i AM a poor man, so it remains interesting, but i think i'd have to shoot a lot more things where i didn't need the < 400 range to push me over the edge to purchase.
for the types of sports i shoot currently, i'm not at 400 all the time, but i could see something a bit faster would be nice for certain situations.
that said, the f2/8s would be much better in those situations.
so from my perspective, if i were to get only one, the 100-400 is a lot more flexible, and the f/2.8s would be much better for those cases you're at 400. so the 4.5 lives in a weird place, basically a "poor mans" 400.
that said, when we talk 400 f2.8s money, i AM a poor man, so it remains interesting, but i think i'd have to shoot a lot more things where i didn't need the < 400 range to push me over the edge to purchase.
I have the 100-400 mm Z zoom and a 500 mm PF. Currently my most used lenses for wildlife photography, with and without Z and F mount TCs. Have the 800 mm PF on order.
I'm sure that the new 400 mm f4.5 is better at 400 mm than the 100-400 and gives you 2/3's of a stop more light if needed. Even with that, I can't see giving up the zoom. I have recently used the zoom (often with the 1.4x TC) in Yellowstone (February for mammals and waterbirds); the Khutezeymateen (May/June for grizzly bears); and Grimsey Island, Iceland (this month for puffins and other birds). In each of these places subjects were often close and sometimes far away. Not always time to change lenses or sometimes conditions not so good for changing lenses.
The 400 mm f4.5 might be an interesting replacement for my 500 mm PF. It would be native Z. I'd probably mostly end up using it with the 1.4x Z TC. My main question would be how good the 400 mm f4.5 is with the 1.4x Z TC -- 560 mm at f6.3, so 60 mm more of focal length and 1/3 stop less light/aperture. Has anyone done that comparison?
Might also be interesting to compare the 500 mm PF with the 1.4x TCIII (700 mm at f8) with the 400 mm f4.5 with the 2x Z TC (800 mm at f9).
I'm sure that the new 400 mm f4.5 is better at 400 mm than the 100-400 and gives you 2/3's of a stop more light if needed. Even with that, I can't see giving up the zoom. I have recently used the zoom (often with the 1.4x TC) in Yellowstone (February for mammals and waterbirds); the Khutezeymateen (May/June for grizzly bears); and Grimsey Island, Iceland (this month for puffins and other birds). In each of these places subjects were often close and sometimes far away. Not always time to change lenses or sometimes conditions not so good for changing lenses.
The 400 mm f4.5 might be an interesting replacement for my 500 mm PF. It would be native Z. I'd probably mostly end up using it with the 1.4x Z TC. My main question would be how good the 400 mm f4.5 is with the 1.4x Z TC -- 560 mm at f6.3, so 60 mm more of focal length and 1/3 stop less light/aperture. Has anyone done that comparison?
Might also be interesting to compare the 500 mm PF with the 1.4x TCIII (700 mm at f8) with the 400 mm f4.5 with the 2x Z TC (800 mm at f9).
John Navitsky
Well-known member
extrapolation only, but the 100-400 is considered very decent with the 1.4, and the 400 4.5 is reported to be a fair bit sharper, so i can't help think it would fair well
Ricci, a UK Nikon employee and Nikon School member, who makes videos on tube has a recent video comparing 400 f4.5 to the 500mm PF, the Z 100-400 and the Z 800mm.
Here is the link to the video:
When he compares the 400mm f4.5 to the 500mm f5.6 PF, he finds little difference.
Comparing the 400mm to the 100-400mm the background smoother with the 400mm (probably because it is f4.5 instead of 5.6) and the 400mm is slightly sharper.
Comparing the 400mm + 2X TC (800mm at f9) to the 800mm f6.3, the 800 mm is sharper.
There is nothing unexpected with these results. So I guess it comes down to the versatility of the 100-400 zoom vs the somewhat increased quality and wider aperture of the 400mm prime lens.
When it comes to deciding what set of lenses to have, one might also consider the soon (hopefully) to be announced 200-600 and the 600mm. If the 600mm is an f4 lens with a built in 1.4X TC and if it is not too heavy, then it will be a great lens and probably a very expensive lens.
Here is the link to the video:
Comparing the 400mm to the 100-400mm the background smoother with the 400mm (probably because it is f4.5 instead of 5.6) and the 400mm is slightly sharper.
Comparing the 400mm + 2X TC (800mm at f9) to the 800mm f6.3, the 800 mm is sharper.
There is nothing unexpected with these results. So I guess it comes down to the versatility of the 100-400 zoom vs the somewhat increased quality and wider aperture of the 400mm prime lens.
When it comes to deciding what set of lenses to have, one might also consider the soon (hopefully) to be announced 200-600 and the 600mm. If the 600mm is an f4 lens with a built in 1.4X TC and if it is not too heavy, then it will be a great lens and probably a very expensive lens.
lukemeup
Well-known member
For my use case F8 on 100-400 with TC would see a very limited use (if I was living in the sunny Florida or California maybe it would be different), so I built my longer glass with the following setup: 70-200, 400 4.5, 800 6.3 (to come) + TC1.4. I have no budget for the 400 f2.8 or the future 600 f4 & I value portability over the ultimate image quality.
400 4.5 with TC1.4 is a better lens than 500 PF (subjectively). More reach at a cost of 1/3rd stop, better weight distribution and balance on the body & no FTZ.
400 4.5 with TC1.4 is a better lens than 500 PF (subjectively). More reach at a cost of 1/3rd stop, better weight distribution and balance on the body & no FTZ.
If I recall, Ricci's video compared the bare 400 f4.5 to the bare 500 mm PF. I don't recall that he compared the 400 f4.5 with the 1.4x Z TC to the 500 mm PF.
No surprise to see that the 800 mm PF is sharper than the 400 f4.5 with the 2x Z TC. I'd still be interested in comparing the 400 mm f4.5 with the 2x Z TC to the 500 mm PF with the 1.4x TCIII -- for those who aren't going to get the 800 mm PF lens.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
yah, recollection is he focused most on the 2x so it could be compared to the 800. soo many combinations to test.....
Another difference between the lenses is minimum focus difference. The 100-400 mm can focus down to 3.2 feet at 400 mm, for a 0.38x reproduction ratio. The 400 f4.5 can focus down to 8.2 feet, for a 0.16x reproduction ratio. I find the close focus ability of the 100-400 mm quite useful, for example for butterflies and dragonflies and other smaller critters.
I guess I'm counter culture to the posts above. I prefer shooting primes vs zooms. 400mm is an odd size for me but I bought it with a particular project in mind. When that's done I'll likely sell it.
I've got an A1/200-600mm for my zoom needs. I really like it so no plans to get the Nikon 100-400.
I've got an A1/200-600mm for my zoom needs. I really like it so no plans to get the Nikon 100-400.
This is essentially the same kit I'm putting in place - 70-200, 400mm f/4.5, 800mm PF and the 1.4 TC. My 400mm f/4.5 is due to arrive tomorrow. I've got a major event where I'll be using it in late August for professional golf. Since I average 15,000+ steps per day photographing that event, the size of the 400mm lens is small enough I will be carrying it at least two or three days with the 70-200 and 24-70.
The one additional aspect of comparison is the specular highlights in the background. The 500 PF borders on unusable for strong specular highlights. Since the 400mm f/4.5 is not a PF lens, I expect it to be much better. I'm also seeing the 800mm PF much better with specular highlights in the background, so I think the technology and lens design has improved.
The 100-400 minimum focus distance is a big benefit depending on what you photograph. For those subjects, I'm keeping the older 300mm f/4 AFS with the 1.4 TC. The 400mm, 500mm PF, and 800mm PF need extension tubes to increase magnification beyond the 100-400.
lukemeup
Well-known member
There's some more high resolution photos taken with and without TC added here https://www.flickr.com/groups/14855955@N22/pool/ - I think you can judge based on those.
DRM
Well-known member
The arrival of the f/4.5 had me analyze how much I used a 100-400 at various distances throughout the range. I found that I regularly used it between 100 and 300. Given how much I shoot in that range, the only lens that could make me sell off my 100-400 would be a lighter weight Z mount version of the 120-300 f/2.8 if (and why not) it came with an internal TC. Maybe such a lens will be Nikon’s next surprise offering. Haha
Good on you for doing that. I'm amazed at how few people do. Many people talk about how much they need the zoom capability but shoot at max zoom 90 percent of the time. Much depends on how we use a lens. I had a 200-500mm used mainly for shooting birds or as second body for larger subjects. I found that I shot at 500mm 90 percent of the time. On the other hand I have the 80-400mm used mainly for large mammals and/or paired with a DX body for wildlife when traveling. Consequently I shoot a good bit with it in the mid-range. All equipment is fit for purpose. The trick is for the photographer to understand his/her own purpose and decide which lens fits best.
randomwalk
Member
This one is very tough for me. I currently have the 100-400 but it doesn't "spark joy" in the way that my 70-200 F2.8Z does or even the 500mm PF did when I rented it.
90%+ of my shots with the 100-400 thus far have been at 400mm. If the 400mm was an F4, it would be a no brainer. But it seems to be in a bit of no mans land for someone that already owns the 100-400.
I am contemplating selling the 100-400 and switching to the 400mm. But I am not super excited about the prospect of hiking around with 70-200 and the 400mm.
My ideal setup would be a 70-200 and 500mm F5.6. So it's a tough decision of selling the 100-400, buying the 400mm, and then ultimately selling the 400mm if/when the 500mm PF z version comes out (I don't own the 500mm F mount).
An equally attractive option would be the 70-200 and the 400mm F2.8 Z. Putting the weight considerations aside, it sounds like it could be a long time before it becomes available, even for NPS members.
90%+ of my shots with the 100-400 thus far have been at 400mm. If the 400mm was an F4, it would be a no brainer. But it seems to be in a bit of no mans land for someone that already owns the 100-400.
I am contemplating selling the 100-400 and switching to the 400mm. But I am not super excited about the prospect of hiking around with 70-200 and the 400mm.
My ideal setup would be a 70-200 and 500mm F5.6. So it's a tough decision of selling the 100-400, buying the 400mm, and then ultimately selling the 400mm if/when the 500mm PF z version comes out (I don't own the 500mm F mount).
An equally attractive option would be the 70-200 and the 400mm F2.8 Z. Putting the weight considerations aside, it sounds like it could be a long time before it becomes available, even for NPS members.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
i think if the question is f/4 vs f/4.5, it's still a nobrainer
i suspect you might like the 24-120 to replace the 70-200. yah, it's not as long, but my guess is it will work better than one might suspect.
randomwalk
Member
I think the best way to describe my position is I’ve decided to sell the 100-400 but now need to decide on the 400mm f4.5 or the 500mm f5.6
You said you're shooting 90 percent of the time at 400mm. How often are you cropping on top of that? I've now got both but don't plan on keeping both. Time will tell which one stays. But I have a hard time even imagining parting with the 500PF.
I've read through the progression of this thread since it first posted, and I thought I'd wait before I weighed in. I was curious about how people might approach the question, and if the thread would descend into yet another p!$$ing match. Bravo for the quality dialog... but I really think that the wrong question is being asked.
I've watched a few of these comparison videos, including the one posted by ajm057, and it is clear that the 400 f4.5 is sharper at maximum resolution than the 100-400 S. With this clearly stated, I am curious if this is a surprise to anyone? I am certainly not surprised, as the 400mm f4.5S was designed for one focal length as opposed to the continuous range from 100 to 400mm. In many ways, the question of "total sharpness" is one that rivals the endless debate about the 200-500 VR vs the 500PF. While many express their dying conviction that the 200-500 @ 500mm is the equal to the 500PF, it simply is not true. Having owned and tested three 200-500's against my 500PF with tripod and cable release, the zoom was NEVER the equal to the prime... In fact, I'd be profoundly disappointed if a $1500 lens was as sharp at equal apertures as a prime that costs more than twice the zoom. The logic and observations that applied to the 200-500 v 500PF should apply to the 100-400 S v 400 f4.5 S.
So, what is the better to question to ask?...
How does the 400 f4.5 (w/ and without converter) compare to the adapted 500mm f5.6 PF? This is an near apples to apples comparison (Granny Smith ve Honey Crisp).
How does the 70-200S (w/ and without converters) compare to the 100-400 S? Once again, a question that compares similarly priced and similar " use" optics.
What do you think might be the most useful two lens combination and why? A bag w/ the 70-200S + 400 f4.5S + converter(s) OR a bag with a 100-400S + FTZ adapted 500PF?
There will be strong opinions related to these options, but they will tackle the critical "best use" scenarios. In the end, all of these options will produce sharper images at a lower price than was imaginable ten years ago. To debate about "sharpness and contrast" is a bit trivial, as they are all sharp lenses that can easily be influenced by post-processing.
As for me, I know what I have and use... in my case, the decision was based on the best possible combination at my time of purchase. The alternate option is very compelling, and I might have followed a different path if I were entering the market today.
cheers,
bruce
I've watched a few of these comparison videos, including the one posted by ajm057, and it is clear that the 400 f4.5 is sharper at maximum resolution than the 100-400 S. With this clearly stated, I am curious if this is a surprise to anyone? I am certainly not surprised, as the 400mm f4.5S was designed for one focal length as opposed to the continuous range from 100 to 400mm. In many ways, the question of "total sharpness" is one that rivals the endless debate about the 200-500 VR vs the 500PF. While many express their dying conviction that the 200-500 @ 500mm is the equal to the 500PF, it simply is not true. Having owned and tested three 200-500's against my 500PF with tripod and cable release, the zoom was NEVER the equal to the prime... In fact, I'd be profoundly disappointed if a $1500 lens was as sharp at equal apertures as a prime that costs more than twice the zoom. The logic and observations that applied to the 200-500 v 500PF should apply to the 100-400 S v 400 f4.5 S.
So, what is the better to question to ask?...
How does the 400 f4.5 (w/ and without converter) compare to the adapted 500mm f5.6 PF? This is an near apples to apples comparison (Granny Smith ve Honey Crisp).
How does the 70-200S (w/ and without converters) compare to the 100-400 S? Once again, a question that compares similarly priced and similar " use" optics.
What do you think might be the most useful two lens combination and why? A bag w/ the 70-200S + 400 f4.5S + converter(s) OR a bag with a 100-400S + FTZ adapted 500PF?
There will be strong opinions related to these options, but they will tackle the critical "best use" scenarios. In the end, all of these options will produce sharper images at a lower price than was imaginable ten years ago. To debate about "sharpness and contrast" is a bit trivial, as they are all sharp lenses that can easily be influenced by post-processing.
As for me, I know what I have and use... in my case, the decision was based on the best possible combination at my time of purchase. The alternate option is very compelling, and I might have followed a different path if I were entering the market today.
cheers,
bruce
Last edited: