Z100-400mm or 70-300mm AF-P?

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).

abc123brian

abc123brian

Well-known member
Member's gallery
Based on the latest Nikon Rumors post, the Z9 will be released with the new 100-400mm lens. I currently have the 70-300mm AF-P FX lens that I really like, but of course need to use the FTZ adapter. The lens itself is light, reasonably sized, and is sharp. I primarily use this lens for landscapes that require more focal length than my 24-70mm. For wildlife, I have the 500mm PF and still have the 200-500mm which I will likely replace with the new 200-600mm when released hoping it will be lighter and perform well at 600mm giving me little more reach. Replacing the 70-300mm with the 100-400mm would also leave a gap between 70mm and 100mm in coverage, but I don’t think that would be an issue. My main concern would be the extra size and weight over the 70-300 with FTZ which is currently an unknown.

Given the above, what are your opinions of replacing the 70-300mm with the 100-400mm? Does it make any sense at all?
 
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
Given the above, what are your opinions of replacing the 70-300mm with the 100-400mm? Does it make any sense at all?
Click to expand...
I'd say until Nikon releases size, weight and price info on the 100-400mm lens it's too soon to say. IOW, you have good coverage in longer lenses and even zooms that cover the range so it sounds like the main purpose of this new lens is a small and light walk around lens. Whether the new 100-400mm is good for that really depends on size and weight and of course whether it costs a fortune since you already have a lens you like for that purpose.

OTOH, I expect the new Z mount 100-400mm will be a really good lens based on the Z mount lenses released to date so for someone that doesn't have long lens coverage or doesn't have coverage in that range or wants to stay with all native Z mount lenses I suspect it will be a winner. I'd think for the more serious nature and wildlife photographer that wants to stay with native Z glass a 70-200mm Z mount paired with a 200-600mm would make a ton of sense so I wouldn't be surprised if the 100-400mm is focused at a slightly different market segment including those that won't purchase the 200-600mm and want a reasonably long telephoto zoom in a smaller package but time will tell whether that's what this lens looks like or whether it's closer to a 200-400mm f/4 or 180-400mm f/4 replacement (which I doubt at this point based on the rough silhouettes shown in the roadmap charts).

I just don't think we know enough beyond the focal length range at this point to do much planning around this lens.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
joe43 said:
My Canon friends who use their 100-400mm love it. Ignoring weight and other issues, for me a 100-400mm is far more useful than a 70-300mm because of its extra reach to 400m. I would want that and sacrifice the 70-100mm range.
Click to expand...
I have the range covered in the 200-500mm, but that lens is a lot heavier. I wonder how good the 100-400 will be with a 1.4x TC. Maybe I could replace two lenses with one and a TC.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
I'd say until Nikon releases size, weight and price info on the 100-400mm lens it's too soon to say. IOW, you have good coverage in longer lenses and even zooms that covers the range so it sounds like the main purpose of this new lens is a small and light walk around lens. Whether the new 100-400mm is good for that really depends on size and weight and of course whether it costs a fortune since you already have a lens you like for that purpose.

OTOH, I expect the new Z mount 100-400mm will be a really good lens based on the Z mount lenses released to date so for someone that doesn't have long lens coverage or doesn't have coverage in that range or wants to stay with all native Z mount lenses I suspect it will be a winner. I'd think for the more serious nature and wildlife photographer that wants to stay with native Z glass a 70-200mm Z mount paired with a 200-600mm would make a ton of sense so I wouldn't be surprised if the 100-400mm is focused at a slightly different market segment including those that won't purchase the 200-600mm and want a reasonably long telephoto zoom in a smaller package but time will tell whether that's what this lens looks like or whether it's closer to a 200-400mm f/4 or 180-400mm f/4 replacement (which I doubt at this point based on the rough silhouettes shown in the roadmap charts).

I just don't think we know enough beyond the focal length range at this point to do much planning around this lens.
Click to expand...
That’s along the lines I have been thinking. The size and weight are a concern because I do a lot of traveling and hiking. Waiting to see makes the most sense, but I wanted to think about it ahead of time so I could order early to avoid waiting too long to get it.
 
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
That’s along the lines I have been thinking. The size and weight are a concern because I do a lot of traveling and hiking. Waiting to see makes the most sense, but I wanted to think about it ahead of time so I could order early to avoid waiting too long to get it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Some folks are saying we got a preview of the size at least in the Z9 teasers but that's speculation that the lens we got a glimpse of was the 100-400mm.

I personally find the 100-400mm focal length useful and carry a Tamron 100-400mm when I'm primarily shooting with a longer lens but working farther from the road and trying to keep my pack light. I find it useful for larger wildlife like Moose and Bighorn Sheep that I can get reasonably close to but a bit short at 400mm for smaller subjects or those I can't get very close to.

I could see the Z mount 100-400mm filling a similar role if the size and weight is reasonable but I probably won't spend a ton on that lens as it's pretty much a backup in my lineup and rarely my primary lens. For general walk around use I'll still lean towards the 500mm PF or sometimes the 300mm PF with a TC handy.
 
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
That is probably what I’d prefer. It’s not on the roadmap so it might be a ways out.
Click to expand...

Nikon has previously indicated that the Road Map covers lenses through the end of this fiscal year - March 2022. So a 70-300 for the Z mount could be released next year. It historically has been a staple in the Nikon kit.
 
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
Based on the latest Nikon Rumors post, the Z9 will be released with the new 100-400mm lens. I currently have the 70-300mm AF-P FX lens that I really like, but of course need to use the FTZ adapter. The lens itself is light, reasonably sized, and is sharp. I primarily use this lens for landscapes that require more focal length than my 24-70mm. For wildlife, I have the 500mm PF and still have the 200-500mm which I will likely replace with the new 200-600mm when released hoping it will be lighter and perform well at 600mm giving me little more reach. Replacing the 70-300mm with the 100-400mm would also leave a gap between 70mm and 100mm in coverage, but I don’t think that would be an issue. My main concern would be the extra size and weight over the 70-300 with FTZ which is currently an unknown.

Given the above, what are your opinions of replacing the 70-300mm with the 100-400mm? Does it make any sense at all?
Click to expand...


As you intend to use it for landcapes, why don't you try a Z 70-200 f 2.8. It is exceptionally sharp. If budget is a concern, you can always buy a used f mount 70-200 f2.8. Use a teleconverter for the extra reach.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
Fair enough. Some folks are saying we got a preview of the size at least in the Z9 teasers but that's speculation that the lens we got a glimpse of was the 100-400mm.

I personally find the 100-400mm focal length useful and carry a Tamron 100-400mm when I'm primarily shooting with a longer lens but working farther from the road and trying to keep my pack light. I find it useful for larger wildlife like Moose and Bighorn Sheep that I can get reasonably close to but a bit short at 400mm for smaller subjects or those I can't get very close to.

I could see the Z mount 100-400mm filling a similar role if the size and weight is reasonable but I probably won't spend a ton on that lens as it's pretty much a backup in my lineup and rarely my primary lens. For general walk around use I'll still lean towards the 500mm PF or sometimes the 300mm PF with a TC handy.
Click to expand...
Thats where my hesitation comes from. My primary wildlife lens is the 500mm PF so this lens wouldn‘t be used as often. I would find it useful, just not sure how much value I’d get from it over the 70-300. I like the idea of not having to use the FTZ. I’ll see what the details are when officially announced. Maybe something will make it stand out.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
Nikon has previously indicated that the Road Map covers lenses through the end of this fiscal year - March 2022. So a 70-300 for the Z mount could be released next year. It historically has been a staple in the Nikon kit.
Click to expand...
Good point. They have also released a few not on the roadmap. I don’t want too much redundancy in focal length and want to keep gear reduced to what is used.
 
Member's gallery
sid_19911991 said:
As you intend to use it for landcapes, why don't you try a Z 70-200 f 2.8. It is exceptionally sharp. If budget is a concern, you can always buy a used f mount 70-200 f2.8. Use a teleconverter for the extra reach.
Click to expand...
I like the 70-200mm F/2.8 but when I had one In the past from Canon I always felt like it was too big for the reach for my use cases. It has a purpose for many, but I didn’t use it enough to justify bringing along for travel. I have 14-30, 24-70, 70-300, and 500 PF that is with on most trips. The idea of the 100-400 would be it might allow me a little more flexibility. If I am on a hike, I might take the 24-70 and 500 or the 24-70 and 70-300 and substituting the 100-400 in might make more sense.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I've never found much use for a 70-300 - I find it's too heavy to be nimble and too short in reach to be an effective long lens. I also find focal lengths between @35mm to @120mm or so to generally be kind of meh. I have at times walked around with just a 20 or 24mm prime and the 300PF. Sometimes a short prime and the 200-400 f4.I've had several 70-300s (at least three over the years) and sold every one. I wonder why I keep trying them... So obviously I'm watching the 100-400 with interest.

Working from a vehicle, I would usually have one long prime (500 or 600) either a zoom in the 100-400 range or the 300PF. I really don't think you need complete coverage of all focal lengths in a range, or at least I don't :)

Just my .02c, and others obviously have different strategies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top