Zoom versus Prime Telephoto

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).

jhorsch

jhorsch

Active member
Member's gallery
I welcome any advice or comments on something I'm sure many of you have dealt with.

I use a Z7 and have a Z9 on order. For wildlife (birds to large mammals), which is 75% plus of my photography, I have a Z-mount 70-200mm f2.8 and an F-mount 200-500mm f5.6. I want to replace the 200-500 with either the forthcoming Z100-400 or the 500 PF prime but am having difficulty deciding which.

Pros for the 100-400 seem to be 1) native Z mount, 2) 4.5/5.6 aperture, and 3) zoom capability. For the 500 PF its benefits are 1) PF technology, 2) as a prime is more compatible with TCs, and 3) it's proven to be an excellent lens, based on everything I've read. Also, the Z100-400 costs $600 less than the 500 PF.

What I'm having the most difficulty with is deciding on the importance of zoom capability. The gap between 200mm and 500mm is pretty significant but with my 200-500 I find myself at 500mm the great majority of the time. This has me wondering how much benefit I'll get from having a zoom.

Thoughts?
 
Member's gallery
If you find yourself always out at the end of the zoom with the 200-500mm then I would think that the 100-400mm might come up a little short for your needs. It may be that the 200-600mm is more on target if you can bear the wait.

As far as image quality, the 500pf would be a step up and I suspect the Z glass would be too. I've seen some youtube reviews saying they use both Z teleconverters with the 100-400mm and are happy with the results. It's really hard to know just how good is the 100-400mm since we don't have unbiased, detailed reviews yet. Hopefully, time will tell, soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hut
Member's gallery
I would ask if there were any "holes" in your lens coverage right now? I recently asked here about the differences between the 200-500 and the 500pf. Overall consensus it is a better lens and far lighter weight but the differences are not night and day, more subtle. However, there was a hole in my lens kit right in the middle. I have a 11-20 that works well for super wide, and I have macro covered with a Nikkor 105mm F2.8 Micro. I have telephoto covered with Sigma 100-400 and Nikon 200-500. What I was missing was something in the 24-70 range. So, with the Christmas sales, I picked up a Nikon 24-70 at $500usd off.

I looked over the past coupe years of photos (not extensively but enough to get a feel) and about 2/3 of the shots were at 500, but some the shots in my "favorites" folder were shot between 200 and 400. The old advice "zoom with your feet" is not always practical or possible, especially in wildlife and nature photography (narrow trails, steep mountainsides, skittish animals, fragile off-trail ecology, water/ice/mud, etc). The zoom may cost a touch in absolute sharpness and it definitely costs in weight but there are those times when a shot presents itself and the prime just won't work and changing out the lens isn't a realistic option.

In your case, I just cannot answer the question you asked. I would suggest going back through a year or so of photos in your library shot with the 200-500, look at the ones shot at less than 500 and see how many are your keepers and if that shot would have been possible with a fixed focal length lens.

Best wishes with the decision. Let us know which way you go. (someone else already mentioned 200-600 Z mount will be out someday).

Jeff
 
Member's gallery
A tough question to answer and a tough decision to make. I also shoot birds and animals and I have the Z7II and the 500 pf and I also have the Z9 on order. I also have the 70-200 f2.8S and both the Z1.4x TC and Z2x TC and also have the 100-400S on order. It is rare that I am finding I need less than 500mm when shooting birds, many of which are small. If I need a shorter focal length at the moment I can go to the 70-200 f2.8S + 1,4x or 2x TC, which is an option for you also. I think the 100-400 is not really a birding lens as it is generally too short and would need a 1.4x TC to make it more practical and then it is an f8 max aperture lens at the long end which could make it difficult in low light. The 100-400 is more for people, sports or animals - or zoos where you can get closer to birds.

On the Z7/Z7II, the 500 pf is a dream lens, IMO and it is easy to wield around chasing birds and balances well. It is ridiculously sharp wide open, which I shoot at nearly all the time. The AF is fast, but not quite up to the AF speed of my 400 f2.8E FL VR. When I get the Z9, I will be using the 400 f2.8 + TC's more often as that lens will be better balanced on the Z9. The 500 pf is so sharp, you can crop very heavily with little IQ loss, depending on how large you want to display. Here is a shot with the Z7II + 500 pf and is almost a 100% crop as this bird is tiny, just slightly larger than a average mans thumb. Called a Spotted Pardalote.

This image is 2849 x 1900 pixels which is almost full UHD screen size, but I do have the same image at 3840 x 2160 for full size display on my home UHD TV screen and it is tack sharp.

Click on image to see larger image
1/1000sec, f5.6, ISO 1000
original.jpg
 
Member's gallery
as mentioned, wait for the z 200-600 but note that it's not an S lens. So hopefully it'll be much like the superb F 200-500, but lighter (🙏) and there's an S 600mm on the roadmap which will be $$$$
As a stop-gap, I have the 2x TC with my z 70-200 f2.8 S which I find good enough for my occasional use....reports say its a tad soft, but I can say I don't see that.
 
Member's gallery
You have an excellent medium zoom in the 70-200 f2.8S that also pairs well with ZTC14 (and Z-TC2 if needed). I'm yet another who also relies heavily on both the 400 f2.8E FL with TC14 III and TC2 III and the lighter 500 PF - and I can only endorse what @Lance B sayss above and elsewhere. The 100-400 S will be my next lens but only after I have paid off the Z9 (!), and I will also need the ZTC14. I plan to keep my core F lenses working hard with their TC's.

The 180-400 f4E TC14 is other 'exotic' I often contemplate especially for African mammals. This zoom gets widespread acclaim and they're quite a few seeing action in Africa. I see a glaring gap in Nikon's existing line up - A 300-600 f4/6.3S TC14 is feasible and it could still weigh < 3kg. Ideally it could weigh significantly less using FL and PF elements, but apparently a PF zoom is not feasible to produce in quality (poor bokeh also but this may be mere gossip) but this would be the ideal in Z-mount on a Z9 for wildlife.

Being Z-mount, and reaching to at least 600 with its integral TC14, it will also work when needed with the standard Z-TC14 (even Z-TC2 in a "squeeze"..... The safari and Birders are a major market for such a lens, particularly as the single lens for birding trips overseas. So the single zoom takes along 420-840 f5.6/9 at the drop of the TC-Lever.

This current version of my Nikkor LensChart might be of some help, not least to dwell over what Nikon has pending by mid-2023 with all the implications :) The 800 is at the centre of my radar, but I fear its RRP when it lands eventually.

jhorsch said:
I welcome any advice or comments on something I'm sure many of you have dealt with.

I use a Z7 and have a Z9 on order. For wildlife (birds to large mammals), which is 75% plus of my photography, I have a Z-mount 70-200mm f2.8 and an F-mount 200-500mm f5.6. I want to replace the 200-500 with either the forthcoming Z100-400 or the 500 PF prime but am having difficulty deciding which.

Pros for the 100-400 seem to be 1) native Z mount, 2) 4.5/5.6 aperture, and 3) zoom capability. For the 500 PF its benefits are 1) PF technology, 2) as a prime is more compatible with TCs, and 3) it's proven to be an excellent lens, based on everything I've read. Also, the Z100-400 costs $600 less than the 500 PF.

What I'm having the most difficulty with is deciding on the importance of zoom capability. The gap between 200mm and 500mm is pretty significant but with my 200-500 I find myself at 500mm the great majority of the time. This has me wondering how much benefit I'll get from having a zoom.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
For years I only used prime lenses, back then zooms were terrible but now they're not. You might need/want a length or aperture that's not available in a zoom lens, but if that's not the case I'd personally never go for a prime if a zoom was available. IF there's any difference in IQ you'll never notice the difference and the versatility of a zoom can't be beat.
 
Member's gallery
jhorsch said:
I welcome any advice or comments on something I'm sure many of you have dealt with.

I use a Z7 and have a Z9 on order. For wildlife (birds to large mammals), which is 75% plus of my photography, I have a Z-mount 70-200mm f2.8 and an F-mount 200-500mm f5.6. I want to replace the 200-500 with either the forthcoming Z100-400 or the 500 PF prime but am having difficulty deciding which.

Pros for the 100-400 seem to be 1) native Z mount, 2) 4.5/5.6 aperture, and 3) zoom capability. For the 500 PF its benefits are 1) PF technology, 2) as a prime is more compatible with TCs, and 3) it's proven to be an excellent lens, based on everything I've read. Also, the Z100-400 costs $600 less than the 500 PF.

What I'm having the most difficulty with is deciding on the importance of zoom capability. The gap between 200mm and 500mm is pretty significant but with my 200-500 I find myself at 500mm the great majority of the time. This has me wondering how much benefit I'll get from having a zoom.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
After shooting with A1 + 200-600 I am floored by the image quality of the combo apart from the flexibility of the zoom & am sure Nikon 200-600 would be no slouch( though I myself plan to use 500 PF with a back up body from Nikon ( Z8 ) when ever it is released matching A1 / Z9 capabilities)
 
Member's gallery
I have Z6ii with Z70-200S (and both TC's) and also 500 PF. I prefer zooms because they allow me to change my distance immediately where a prime like the 500 PF would take time to adjust with my feet. Sometimes, that is not always possible, such as a deer to0 close with the 500 PF. By the time I could slowly back away the animal gets nervous and takes off and the shot is missed. If I am shooting hummingbirds and need all the reach I can get, then the 500 PF is fine. My real passion is high school sports and zoom lenses are what I use., so I preordered the 100-400. I think the OP should continue to use the 200-500 with an FTZ until the 200-600 becomes available.
 
Member's gallery
If you use LR you can filter on focal length and take the guess work out of how often you shoot between 200 and 500mm. That's how I decided to sell my 200-500 after seeing that I shot it over 90 percent of the time at max zoom. The 70-200 2.8 takes a TC well which gives you more coverage in the gap if/when you really need it. In my own experience I find that shooting a prime also forces you to be more creative and explore compositions etc that you might never consider with the option of zooming out. IMO you can never have too much lens. You just have to capture different views of the subject than you may have in mind. Sometimes that's a good thing.
 
Member's gallery
jhorsch said:
I welcome any advice or comments on something I'm sure many of you have dealt with.

I use a Z7 and have a Z9 on order. For wildlife (birds to large mammals), which is 75% plus of my photography, I have a Z-mount 70-200mm f2.8 and an F-mount 200-500mm f5.6. I want to replace the 200-500 with either the forthcoming Z100-400 or the 500 PF prime but am having difficulty deciding which.

Pros for the 100-400 seem to be 1) native Z mount, 2) 4.5/5.6 aperture, and 3) zoom capability. For the 500 PF its benefits are 1) PF technology, 2) as a prime is more compatible with TCs, and 3) it's proven to be an excellent lens, based on everything I've read. Also, the Z100-400 costs $600 less than the 500 PF.

What I'm having the most difficulty with is deciding on the importance of zoom capability. The gap between 200mm and 500mm is pretty significant but with my 200-500 I find myself at 500mm the great majority of the time. This has me wondering how much benefit I'll get from having a zoom.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I have a Z9 on order along with the new 100-400mm S zoom lens. I already own the 500mm f5.6 pf lens. I believe I will need both for my nature/bird photography. If I were in your situation, I would add the 500mm f5.6 pf lens to your system. Use the 200-500mm on one body and the 500mm on the other.
 
Member's gallery
Hey, thanks everyone for your helpul responses - lots of good info.

Haven't bought them yet but rather than getting the Z100-400 I'm going with the Z 2xTC to pair with the Z70-200 and the 500 PF. The reviews of the Z TCs have been good and it seems everyone who uses the the 500 PF raves about it. (Lance B, your Pardalote photo is impressive!)

All the best.
 
Member's gallery
jhorsch said:
Hey, thanks everyone for your helpul responses - lots of good info.

Haven't bought them yet but rather than getting the Z100-400 I'm going with the Z 2xTC to pair with the Z70-200 and the 500 PF. The reviews of the Z TCs have been good and it seems everyone who uses the the 500 PF raves about it. (Lance B, your Pardalote photo is impressive!)

All the best.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for your kind comment on my photo, JHorsch!

Look forward to seeing your phtos from the 500 PF once you get it.
 
Member's gallery
jhorsch said:
I welcome any advice or comments on something I'm sure many of you have dealt with.

I use a Z7 and have a Z9 on order. For wildlife (birds to large mammals), which is 75% plus of my photography, I have a Z-mount 70-200mm f2.8 and an F-mount 200-500mm f5.6. I want to replace the 200-500 with either the forthcoming Z100-400 or the 500 PF prime but am having difficulty deciding which.

Pros for the 100-400 seem to be 1) native Z mount, 2) 4.5/5.6 aperture, and 3) zoom capability. For the 500 PF its benefits are 1) PF technology, 2) as a prime is more compatible with TCs, and 3) it's proven to be an excellent lens, based on everything I've read. Also, the Z100-400 costs $600 less than the 500 PF.

What I'm having the most difficulty with is deciding on the importance of zoom capability. The gap between 200mm and 500mm is pretty significant but with my 200-500 I find myself at 500mm the great majority of the time. This has me wondering how much benefit I'll get from having a zoom.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of variable aperture lenses like the 100-400mm Z.
I would stick with the 200-500mm until the new lenses come out .
The 200-600mm Z should be a stunning replacement for the 200-500mm.
The 600mm and 800mm Z lenses look like they are going to be pf. 🦘
 
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
Out of curiosity what is so intrinsically bad about variable aperture zooms? Newer camera even offer the option to keep constant exposure as you zoom and the aperture changes.
Click to expand...
For most people there isnt a problem with variable aperture lenses apart from the fact that they tend to be the cheaper lenses in a lineup.
But I shoot product and if a lens is changing its aperture all the time its going to constantly throw all my lighting out - amongst all the other problems.
I guess that over the years I've just avoided variable aperture lenses, plastic mounts and cheap lighting. 🦘
 
Member's gallery
Roy said:
For most people there isnt a problem with variable aperture lenses apart from the fact that they tend to be the cheaper lenses in a lineup.
But I shoot product and if a lens is changing its aperture all the time its going to constantly throw all my lighting out - amongst all the other problems.
I guess that over the years I've just avoided variable aperture lenses, plastic mounts and cheap lighting. 🦘
Click to expand...

I get your point. I think things are changing a bit with the Sony 100-400, 200-600, the Canon 100-500 and the upcoming Nikon 100-400 - they are neither cheap nor cheaply built and the optical quality challenges primes and constant aperture zooms of the previous generation. The new Tampon 35-150 f:2-2.8 seems to be a beast optically and a very interesting range for event photographers.

For natural light, newer cameras actually offset aperture change to keep exposure constant (or at least it's an option that can be activated) but with strobes it might be more tricky as you mentioned, especially if you shoot all manual which I would assume for product shoots with artificial light.

I also have stayed away from variable aperture zooms in the past, for all the reasons you listed, but I have to admit, not so much anymore. Those newer generations are truly impressive. I still favor the constant f:2.8 for a 24-70 because it seems to be a range where the constant f:2.8 options still dominate but otherwise, I am changing my tune in light of the new zooms being released.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy
Member's gallery
I have had a lot of success with variable focal length lenses and still have a 150-600 Tamron G2 and a Tamron 100-400 but since I am so often shooting small birds deep in brush for ID along with BIF etc. I was always using the 100-600 at 600 or if just putzing around the 100-400 is faster focusing, compact and gives great results. All that said 90% of the time I have 600 f/4 E on when after birds and the rest split between the 100-400 and 500 pf.
 
Member's gallery
Steve W said:
If there is a gap between 200 and 500 you’re worried abit, and being you don’t shoot too much in that range anyway, you could consider using the 1.4 tc on the 70-200.
Click to expand...
Yup I would expect the Nikon 70-200 and 1.4 TC to play well together but have not direct experience.

My Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2 with the Tamron 1.4 TC is exceptional on the gripped D850 and when static and field tested against my Nikon 300pf after I got the 500pf it was as good or better for IQ as the 300pf and more versatile and someone was wanting to buy a 300 pf so it went to a happy new home.

I actually expect the 20-200 f/2.8 and TC to be a major player for the Z9 with its focusing point advantages, dust protection cover for the sensor etc. making it much more attractive to change lenses in the field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top