Z 100-400 vs 200-400 vrII

[Richard Guijt]

I’m torn in deciding to buy a Z 100-400 to replace a 200-400 VR.

I use the lens only for wildlife safaris in combination with a 500 f4, and 70-200 f2.8 ( 1.4 tc for Z and f) Most of the time I have the 500 in one camera and the 70-200 or 200-400 on another.

Pro for the 100-400 would be portability and probably better performance on the z9 bodies. Especially at the long end, where the 200-400 is somewhat softer.

Main concern would be the the variable aperture vs constant f4 and the weather / dust sealing due to extending lens barrel.

Price wise, selling the 200-400 should pay for the 100-400. Another option would be 180-400, but hard to find second hand.

Does anyone have any experiences with both lenses?

Kind regards,
Richard

 

[Pat Cassity]

I have a good friend that recently decided to purchase the 100-400 to replace his 200-400 f4. his intent was to help finance the purchase of the 100-400 by selling the 200-400. However, he has now decided to keep the 200-400 when needed for low light situations. He (as I) is very happy with the new 100-400 especially with the 1.4x but there are times he shoots in dusk and dawn situations when f5.6 or f8 is just not fast enough. I guess it comes down to affordability. if you can afford to buy one without having to sell the other, then that may be the better choice.

 

[Butlerkid]

I had the 200-400 years ago and now have the 100-400. I think there is significant reduction in focus acquisition speed and improved image quality and maneuverability. Plus my 200-400 didn't take a tele well at all but a tele on the 100-400 almost seems like the tele isn't there. The 100-400 is an excellent lens! The 200-400 is not in high demand....it took a long, long time to sell mine. YMMV...............

 

[BLev65]

I was at a crossroads and made some decisions about the 200-400 in April.
My wife was a shooter, but no longer can work with her cameras. As late as April we had a pair of Z6iis, Z7ii, Z7, and D500 (5 cameras) as well as a 200-400, 100-400, 500PF, 24-200, and 24-70. With my wife no longer taking photos, I decided to build a system around a Z9 + Z6ii. Having used a 200-400 since 2014, I was super familiar with the lens, its strengths, and its weaknesses (the latter being overblown by one Thom Hogan report). The 200-400 has a brilliant build and a zooming action that is second to none. To me, its key limits are size and weight when carrying other lenses. Used in the field w/ one body and one bag, it has been my favorite lens ever. However, when traveling, it required me to take multiple bags to accommodate our other gear.

In the end, I sold off a lot of gear and now have a Z9, Z6ii, 24-70, 100-400, and 500PF. I prioritized portability/hikeability/compatibility over lens aperture. Furthermore, I never liked the way the VR on the 200-400 remained engaged on my mirrorless bodies. While the same occurs w/ the 500PF, it is not as loud. The 200-400 required that I disengage the VR between shoots and that I carry a larger tripod w/ a heavy duty head. With all of that said, I miss the way the 200-400 renders an image at f/4.5. I found this to be the sweet spot when using a D500.

Think about what you want to prioritize, this will help you make a decision.
regards,
Bruce

 

[eaj101]

I'm on the fence on this one. I've only had the 100-400 for a little more than a month, so everything I say is very preliminary. The 100-400 takes the 1.4 TCs better than the 200-400, but they both seem crisp without the TCs. The 100-400 is lighter and more nimble. I somewhat prefer the images from the 200-400, rather in the same way I preferred the images from my 500mm f/4 to those from the 500PF - they were both equally sharp but there was *something* about the f/4. I decided I was imagining it and sold the f/4. I've since regretted it - I wouldn't sell the 500PF because its light weight and nimbleness are so good, but I wish I still had the f/4 as well.

Which is why I'm waiting to decide on the 100-400/200-400. Much the same issues.

 

[Calson]

I used the 200-400mm but always on a monopod or tripod. With the 100-400mm there are no issues with shooting hand held the entire day. Also much easier to manage the smaller lens when shooting from a boat.

With both the 200-400mm and 200-500mm lenses I often found 200mm to be too long a focal length for large subjects like bison in Yellowstone and cropping too much of the subjects surroundings. With both lenses I would often grab the 80-400mm lens instead to have shorter focal lengths for my subjects.

The 180-400mm with the built in teleconverter is another matter with the 180-560mm zoom range. It would still require a monopod or tripod for my use and not something I would use on a boat. Often subjects are best photographed from a small boat and I have done this in Alaska, Brazil, and Costa Rica, as well as California. The 500mm PF and the 100-400mm are the two lenses best for this situation.

 

[John Navitsky]

i don’t have the 200-400, but i wouldn’t sweat the variable aperture or weather sealing on the 100-400

 

[EricBowles]

Have you tested sharpness of the 200-400 on your Z9. I found it was a lot sharper on my Z7ii than on my D850, and worked very well with the Nikon 1.4 TC. The 200-400 does have an advantage of being f/4 which is a good starting point with or without a teleconverter. Of course, the 200-400 is a big lens and an older design.

The big advantages of the 100-400 are small size and close minimum focus. It's a great choice for insects and small critters. It is also quite sharp making it a very good lens for the Z system. The 100-400 is even an easier choice if you don't have or plan to buy the 70-200. For me, most of the 100-400 range is covered by the 70-200 or 70-200 + 1.4 TC, so the use case is limited.

 

[Bubbahotep]

Have you tested sharpness of the 200-400 on your Z9. I found it was a lot sharper on my Z7ii than on my D850, and worked very well with the Nikon 1.4 TC. The 200-400 does have an advantage of being f/4 which is a good starting point with or without a teleconverter. Of course, the 200-400 is a big lens and an older design.

The big advantages of the 100-400 are small size and close minimum focus. It's a great choice for insects and small critters. It is also quite sharp making it a very good lens for the Z system. The 100-400 is even an easier choice if you don't have or plan to buy the 70-200. For me, most of the 100-400 range is covered by the 70-200 or 70-200 + 1.4 TC, so the use case is limited.

Eric, what are your thoughts on some of the older Nikon 70-200mm+1.4TC on the Z system for wildlife? Lenses like the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII?

​

 

[EricBowles]

Eric, what are your thoughts on some of the older Nikon 70-200mm+1.4TC on the Z system for wildlife? Lenses like the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII?

​

I had two copies of the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII - one for me and one for my wife. We both loved the lens. I used it for equestrian work, dogs and dog agility, events, and landscapes. I also found it worked well for infrared photography. The lens was fast focusing, sharp, and a joy to use. The lens is slightly soft wide open, so I used it at f/3.2-3.5 and higher. With the move to the Z system I upgraded to the Z version for my use, but my wife still has her copy and won't let it go. I liked the lens with a teleconverter, but had alternatives. Even with a 1.4 teleconverter, the lens is a bit short for wildlife other than environmental images. I would not recommend it for wildlife as a stand alone lens, but it can work very well paired with a 500 PF or even a 300 f/4. Overall the lens is older so repair may be a problem down the road.

 

[Richard Guijt]

Thanks everyone for the input. I still haven’t made up my mind. I agree that the lens can be cumbersome, but I loved the quality of it on my D4.
Looking back at my past photos of the lens I tend to shoot wide open and also a lot with somewhat higher iso due to early / late lighting conditions.

With the shortage of supply I might end up using the 200-400 my up coming Kenya trip anyway. If the lens performs well I might just keep it and wait for and hopefully Z replacement.

What are your thoughts about the glass filter of the 200-400. Tbh way back I had read that performance is better without and never put it on.

 

[DRwyoming]

What are your thoughts about the glass filter of the 200-400. Tbh way back I had read that performance is better without and never put it on.

I did a bunch of shooting with and without the glass filter on my 200-400mm f/4 VR II and honestly I see no difference and no degradation even when pixel peeping when using the filter so I leave it on. Others have reported different results so I'd probably test your specific lens with and without the front filter under controlled conditions but personally I saw no contrast or sharpness advantage to removing the filter with my copy.

Also as posted above I found the lens useful in some limited situations like shooting at close range from blinds when I shot only DSLRs but the lens seems sharper in a much wider range of situations including longer working distances with my Z6 II which is the main reason its still in my kit.

 

[BLev65]

Thanks everyone for the input. I still haven’t made up my mind. I agree that the lens can be cumbersome, but I loved the quality of it on my D4.
Looking back at my past photos of the lens I tend to shoot wide open and also a lot with somewhat higher iso due to early / late lighting conditions.

With the shortage of supply I might end up using the 200-400 my up coming Kenya trip anyway. If the lens performs well I might just keep it and wait for and hopefully Z replacement.

What are your thoughts about the glass filter of the 200-400. Tbh way back I had read that performance is better without and never put it on.

Your key statement that I might have missed... "I might end up using the 200-400... Kenya trip..."
As a long time user of the 200-400 and one who has traveled to Tanzania and Kenya on separate occasions, I think that the 200-400 is the best choice for a safari. The internal zoom and weather sealing that reduces the potential intake of dust makes this the right lens for the trip. I actually held onto my 200-400 until after my trip to Southeast TX where dust is a real issue. While my wife used the 100-400, I used my older 200-400... The image quality between each was indistinguishable.

As for the protective filter... first, the lens was designed to be shot with the filter... I think the filter might increase flare, but this is questionable. Second, I have read that the filter protects a softer element that is more vulnerable to scratches. I'm not sure I would want to expose a scratch-prone element to the African red clay that is everywhere.

regards,
bruce

 

[Roy]

I’m torn in deciding to buy a Z 100-400 to replace a 200-400 VR.

I use the lens only for wildlife safaris in combination with a 500 f4, and 70-200 f2.8 ( 1.4 tc for Z and f) Most of the time I have the 500 in one camera and the 70-200 or 200-400 on another.

Pro for the 100-400 would be portability and probably better performance on the z9 bodies. Especially at the long end, where the 200-400 is somewhat softer.

Main concern would be the the variable aperture vs constant f4 and the weather / dust sealing due to extending lens barrel.

Price wise, selling the 200-400 should pay for the 100-400. Another option would be 180-400, but hard to find second hand.

Does anyone have any experiences with both lenses?

Kind regards,
Richard

The 200-400mm AFS is one of my favourite lenses.
I looked at the 100-400mm but it reminded me of my 80-400mm too much.
The 100-400mm is sharp but because I mostly work in a studio - I strongly dislike variable aperture lenses.
The big advantage of the 100-400mm is the weight - the 200-400mm is heavy - much more than my 200-500mm...

 

[Calson]

I owned the 200-400mm and used it primarily for motorsports where mobility was not a concern and I could control the camera to subject distances. With the weight of the 200-400mm lens I needed to use a monopod or a tripod. I also found the view angle at 200mm too narrow for large animals like bison or large birds like pelicans or egrets where I wanted more space around the animal and my ability to change my position was limited. I favored the 80-400mm much of the time in place of this lens and the 200-500mm zoom. I now use the 100-400mm lens which is sharper and has better VR than the 80-400mm and the S lens can be used effectively with teleconverters.

I had been using the 80-400mm, 500mm PF, and the 600mm f/4 (usually with the TC-14 for 840mm f/5.6) and now with the Z9 I have the 100-400mm, 500mm PF, and the 800mm PF. I will be selling the 600mm f/4 lens whenever it returns from Nikon where it has been waiting for a new AF servo motor for months. My new kit is 4lbs lighter and easier to manage with air travel. Having the 800mm lens instead of the 600mm and TC-14 also is a 4 lbs lighter weight to carry around and to lift up onto a gimbal head.

With the 100-400mm, 500mm PF, and the 800mm PF, I cannot see a real need for the 200-600mm zoom lens when it does appear. I nice zoom range but it is also going to be a heavy lens. It is however a good upgrade for others who are using the 200-500mm + FTZ on their Z cameras.

 

[O]

I’m torn in deciding to buy a Z 100-400 to replace a 200-400 VR.

I use the lens only for wildlife safaris in combination with a 500 f4, and 70-200 f2.8 ( 1.4 tc for Z and f) Most of the time I have the 500 in one camera and the 70-200 or 200-400 on another.

Pro for the 100-400 would be portability and probably better performance on the z9 bodies. Especially at the long end, where the 200-400 is somewhat softer.

Main concern would be the the variable aperture vs constant f4 and the weather / dust sealing due to extending lens barrel.

Price wise, selling the 200-400 should pay for the 100-400. Another option would be 180-400, but hard to find second hand.

Does anyone have any experiences with both lenses?

Kind regards,
Richard

Its a very simple choice.......
Hire what you what ever to satisfy your needs.

I look at a lens for its image quality and respect the magnification ratio.
100-400 has 4 to 1 magnification, 200-400 has 1 times magnification.
Modern technology delivers great benefits in the Z range however I do believe the 100-400 is a little overrated.
As to the 200-400 with older technology what it dose to your iso needs is a measuring point.
If size and weight is an issue you have answered your own question.

For myself Bokah or smooth quality back ground blur is critical to have,

It isolates the subject and doesn't confuse auto tracking as much if the subject passes a challenging back ground, hence I love the 300 2.8 vr II at 2.8 or 600 f4 at F4 or F5.6.

Its your style of shooting that needs to be considered......

Again rent what you don't have and see for your self.

Weight is an issue for many of us, which will tolerate a TC better is up to you to find out......

There isn't a simple answer as everyone shoots differently.

I have heard bad and good about both lenses

My choice would be neither to begin with.

 

[fredheidepriem]

Thanks everyone for the input. I still haven’t made up my mind. I agree that the lens can be cumbersome, but I loved the quality of it on my D4.
Looking back at my past photos of the lens I tend to shoot wide open and also a lot with somewhat higher iso due to early / late lighting conditions.

With the shortage of supply I might end up using the 200-400 my up coming Kenya trip anyway. If the lens performs well I might just keep it and wait for and hopefully Z replacement.

What are your thoughts about the glass filter of the 200-400. Tbh way back I had read that performance is better without and never put it on.

I used my 200-400 VRii on my D4 and had my 70-200 VRii on my D500, for animals at close range, which happened quite often in Kenya. Most of my best shots were not that far out, and the 200-400 is very sharp in that instance. I still can’t bring myself to get rid of it. Haven’t owned mirrorless yet, other than the old tiny Nikon 1 system. Silent shooting though…

 

[O]

I used my 200-400 VRii on my D4 and had my 70-200 VRii on my D500, for animals at close range, which happened quite often in Kenya. Most of my best shots were not that far out, and the 200-400 is very sharp in that instance. I still can’t bring myself to get rid of it. Haven’t owned mirrorless yet, other than the old tiny Nikon 1 system. Silent shooting though…

Rent before you buy mirror less, could have huge benafits

 

[Wes Peterson]

Im really curious about the 200-400 and the Z cameras. Ive long suspected the "soft at distant subjects" was due to AF inaccuracies or fine tune issues. Can anyone report that a 200-400 that may have had the softness issue on dslr doesnt suffer from it on a z body?

 

[Roy]

I didn't have the problem on my D5 or D850 bodies - Although heavy It is a great lens - fast AF and sharp...