Ben C
Well-known member
Posting this as a new thread so this will be easier to find for folks searching in the future. You can look at this thread for background of the discussion if interested: https://bcgforums.com/threads/should-i-consider-the-z-100-400.39067/page-3
In short, I had just purchased the 100-400 as a landscape telephoto lens for an upcoming trip to Telluride, as my longest lens (other than my 800PF) was the 70-200 f2.8. It then occurred to me that it would be a lot cheaper to add the TC2.0 to my 70-200 than to buy a new $2500 lens, but I wasn't sure how the shorter, faster lens with the TC would compare. So I ordered the TC and took both lenses with me for the weekend with the idea of doing some real world testing.
I ended up only testing on one scene because I had limited time and lens testing really isn't my thing. I took these at a scenic overlook in midday light under bluebird skies so probably not ideal lighting for a comparison, and maybe not the best scene for a comparison, but like I said I'm not a professional lens tester. Anyway, here are a couple comparison shots. These are jpegs direct from the RAW files with no processing except Adobe Landscape color profile applied on import.
First at 310 mm (tried to make it 300 but close enough):
And now at 400 mm:
I can see virtually no difference between the two. When I view them at 100% on my 30" monitor I can maybe detect a very slight difference with a little more detail from the 100-400, but it's so slight you almost have to know what you're looking for, and be doing a side by side comparison. (I probably should post 100% crops but I'm not really sure how to do that - sorry!). IMO, the difference is meaningless and would vanish with good noise reduction and minor sharpening in post.
Based on this very limited and unscientific test I am going to keep the 2.0 TC and return the 100-400. I really like the lens, but $2300 is just too much for a "nice to have". When I think about what lenses would fit in my travel/hiking backpack along with my Z8 and Z9 bodies, it is my 14-30 f4, 24-120 f4, and one telephoto. I realize there's a lot of overlap with the 24-120 and 70-200, but I already own the 70-200 and it's far more cost-effective to just add the TC2.0 for $500 than the 100-400 for almost $2K more. Theoretically I could sell the 70-200 in favor of the 100-400, but the 70-200 is faster and sharper when used without the TC, and I found it incredibly useful in Africa when shooting at dusk and dawn with large animals at fairly close range.
I'm sure not everyone will agree with my process or my analysis, but hopefully this very brief and unscientific comparison at least proves helpful to others who may be pondering the same choice.
In short, I had just purchased the 100-400 as a landscape telephoto lens for an upcoming trip to Telluride, as my longest lens (other than my 800PF) was the 70-200 f2.8. It then occurred to me that it would be a lot cheaper to add the TC2.0 to my 70-200 than to buy a new $2500 lens, but I wasn't sure how the shorter, faster lens with the TC would compare. So I ordered the TC and took both lenses with me for the weekend with the idea of doing some real world testing.
I ended up only testing on one scene because I had limited time and lens testing really isn't my thing. I took these at a scenic overlook in midday light under bluebird skies so probably not ideal lighting for a comparison, and maybe not the best scene for a comparison, but like I said I'm not a professional lens tester. Anyway, here are a couple comparison shots. These are jpegs direct from the RAW files with no processing except Adobe Landscape color profile applied on import.
First at 310 mm (tried to make it 300 but close enough):
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
And now at 400 mm:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I can see virtually no difference between the two. When I view them at 100% on my 30" monitor I can maybe detect a very slight difference with a little more detail from the 100-400, but it's so slight you almost have to know what you're looking for, and be doing a side by side comparison. (I probably should post 100% crops but I'm not really sure how to do that - sorry!). IMO, the difference is meaningless and would vanish with good noise reduction and minor sharpening in post.
Based on this very limited and unscientific test I am going to keep the 2.0 TC and return the 100-400. I really like the lens, but $2300 is just too much for a "nice to have". When I think about what lenses would fit in my travel/hiking backpack along with my Z8 and Z9 bodies, it is my 14-30 f4, 24-120 f4, and one telephoto. I realize there's a lot of overlap with the 24-120 and 70-200, but I already own the 70-200 and it's far more cost-effective to just add the TC2.0 for $500 than the 100-400 for almost $2K more. Theoretically I could sell the 70-200 in favor of the 100-400, but the 70-200 is faster and sharper when used without the TC, and I found it incredibly useful in Africa when shooting at dusk and dawn with large animals at fairly close range.
I'm sure not everyone will agree with my process or my analysis, but hopefully this very brief and unscientific comparison at least proves helpful to others who may be pondering the same choice.
