Detailed comparisons of Nikkor Telephotos

[fcotterill]

For Z system, including a few F Nikkors - synopsis of Thom Hogan's detailed testing to identify the 'Best Telephoto Options in the Z Mount' :

Best Telephoto Options in the Z Mount | Thom Hogan

What's the best telephoto option for a Z camera at 200-800mm?

www.zsystemuser.com

Table added:

 

[Ivan Rothman]

For Z system, including a few F Nikkors - Thom Hogan's testing

Best Telephoto Options in the Z Mount | Thom Hogan

What's the best telephoto option for a Z camera at 200-800mm?

www.zsystemuser.com

Thanks for posting this. Interesting read.
The conclusions that struck me relative to the lenses that I use: the Z 400mm f4.5 is an excellent lens working well with both 1.4X and 2X TCs and superior to the 100-400mm with TCs. Although the 100-400mm still good with the 1.4X TC, less good with the 2X TC.
I'm also happy with his report of the 800mm PF being quite good, although I'll soon be selling my 800 when I get the new 600mm f4.
Although I don't have the lens, he reports impressive results with the f-mount 500mm PF alone or with 1.4X TC.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I wouldn't exactly call that article a detailed comparison. Interesting read non the less.

 

[RichF]

Interesting read.l Good comments and overview. I would call the article "food for thought"

 

[Patrick M]

Good read. I’ve got a z400mm f4.5 rental arriving in a week for a quick trip to Spain by car. While a telephoto prime doesn’t really suit my generalist style, as poor as it is, I can’t help GAS and this should at least confirm, at low cost, what I know. Looking forward to it!

 

[fcotterill]

And as he emphasizes yet again: “Nikon has upped their optical standards with the Z System, and has done so fairly dramatically…” So, “….any of the F-mount exotics I mentioned in the last paragraph work fine on the Z System and provide top-level image quality….. every one of the Z-friendly options in the bulleted list above work acceptably well. Actually: typically better than acceptably well...."
TH states he's included all Z-mount options available as of now + 2 F-mount telephoto options that are also smaller and lighter - "...thus consistent with the move to mirrorless." So in some respects, I read this report as ideally suited to decide how to build a travel-hiking friendly system aka Commando Kit [cf Brad Hill's talk, and in a blog post], particularly if one singles out the best at the lighter end of the range. On the subject of ranking these Z Lenses (and 500 PF), TH scores are close to Brad Hill's (in same July 2022 talk, as summarized by @BLev65 )

This table is a useful way of summarizing the comparisons, based on detailed tests on his target(s); it will useful if he persists with this graphic, adding new candidates. It is a pity Thom doesn’t also use the 200-500mm f5.6E as well as the 80-400mm f4-5.6G as the F-mount benchmarks.

 

[fcotterill]

Overview of Brad Hill's lenses, and philosophy etc. His upgraded 3 part Gear Section also collates links to earlier posts, which some readers may find useful.

A pile of information....

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Stuff I Use Part II: Lenses

Camera gear and related accessories regularly used by Brad Hill in the field. Part II - Lenses I currently use or have used.

www.naturalart.ca

 

[thelordofthelight]

This is an interesting read. As expected it's a very tough decision to make when it comes to wildlife photography, particularly the 400 vs 600 choice. This'll get crazy if Nikon adds a 500 F4 TC too.

What was interesting was Brad tried comparing the IQ with the internal 1.4 TC stacked with an external 1.4 TC vs using a 2X TC. He got the opposite results with 400 and 600. With the 400 he says the IQ is slightly better using a 2X TC. Whereas with the 600 he got better results stacking 1.4TCs.

Overview of Brad Hill's lenses, and philosophy etc. His upgraded 3 part Gear Section also collates links to earlier posts, which some readers may find useful.

A pile of information....

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Stuff I Use Part II: Lenses

Camera gear and related accessories regularly used by Brad Hill in the field. Part II - Lenses I currently use or have used.

www.naturalart.ca

 

[NorthernFocus]

This lens is VERY sharp - it rivals the Z 400mm f2.8S in both central region and edge sharpness at all overlapping apertures and at all distances. This lens is also very sharp when paired with both Z teleconverters. Bokeh is only very slightly less "buttery and smooth" than that of the Z 400mm f2.8S.

I find Brad's assessment of the 400 4.5 rather interesting. Particularly when Hogan only rates it as "acceptable".

 

[BLev65]

I find Brad's assessment of the 400 4.5 rather interesting. Particularly when Hogan only rates it as "acceptable".

While Thom describes "acceptable" as more than the word implies, I found his rating of the 400 f4.5 to be surprising as well. Having just looked at this chart again, I find it interesting that the 800PF and 400 f2.8S + 2x to be both excellent. If his rating schema was consistent, only one would be "acceptable," and this would likely be a lens with a 2x converter. In contrast, if both are rated excellent, as they are, then one would expect the 400 f4.5 and 400 f2.8S to be excellent... I have found the 400 f4.5S to be the sharpest long telephoto lens I've owned. While my list of prior lenses is not as extensive as others, it does include the AFSII Nikon 300 f2.8 and 500PF, both of which were best in class lenses.

bruce

 

[robertrear]

Interesting read that's for sure, just not sure how they were all tested relates to real world results in the field. Thankfully Steve does that for all of us.

 

[Griffym]

It is a limited list. “Best” is a misleading term here. The lens you own is a good place to start with any list and there quite a few very impressive F mount lenses that should be on the list especially on the Z9: 300 F2.8, 500 F4 (G, E) 600 F4 (G,E). Even with TC especially the 1.4. (II,III).
It depends what “best” really means. The optical benefits of the Z mount are apparently more obvious at focal lengths less than 200mm (or somewhere between 100 and 200 says Brad Hill).
For those keen to upgrade their longer lenses the new Z telephotos released by Nikon look very impressive indeed. So are the prices for the TC versions. The PF versions have a lot to offer for the price (and weight benefits).
For those content to use any the existing F mount telephotos, the list is just a list. Feel free to use the lenses from the F mount series that are optically brilliant as well.

 

[Charles Loy]

I seldom read anything he writes. I found one vid of him and another person in YouTube, he is rather boring to listen to.
I guess I need to stand tall and get into his groove. Or not. (edit, found a couple more vids).

 

[NorthernFocus]

I seldom read anything he writes. I found one vid of him and another person in YouTube, he is rather boring to listen to.
I guess I need to stand tall and get into his groove. Or not. (edit, found a couple more vids).

Which he, Thom or Brad. I take it you don't enjoy watching paint dry

 

[fcotterill]

He's positive in his review

Nikon 400mm f/4.5 Lens Review | Thom Hogan

Review of the Nikon 400mm f/4.5 S lens for Nikon Z mirrorless cameras

www.zsystemuser.com

IMHO the 400 f4.5S is one of Nikon's best quality telephotos

While Thom describes "acceptable" as more than the word implies, I found his rating of the 400 f4.5 to be surprising as well. Having just looked at this chart again, I find it interesting that the 800PF and 400 f2.8S + 2x to be both excellent. If his rating schema was consistent, only one would be "acceptable," and this would likely be a lens with a 2x converter. In contrast, if both are rated excellent, as they are, then one would expect the 400 f4.5 and 400 f2.8S to be excellent... I have found the 400 f4.5S to be the sharpest long telephoto lens I've owned. While my list of prior lenses is not as extensive, it does include the AFSII Nikon 300 f2.8 and 500PF, both of which were best in class lenses.

bruce

 

[Charles Loy]

Which he, Thom or Brad. I take it you don't enjoy watching paint dry

Thom, or is it actually Thomas? No matter, I see him mentioned often but I am not involved.

 

[Dave Stargazer]

I look at camera gear reviews similarly to how I view movie reviewers - they see the same thing, but through their own lens of uses, tests, and experiences, which means having a different reaction - and with most camera/lenses, they actually *don't* see the same thing since each lens is different, and they only have one to test (cameras differ, but to a lesser degree [I think!]).

I like to collect and collate as much high quality info as I can, so I follow a number of folk that do that (not the paid youtubers in general - you know who I mean - not high quality data) - but people that use the equipment in differing ways.

So with each reviewer, I have to get enough of a sample to understand what their terminology actually means wrt my own (potential) uses - to understand their biases in terminologies, and try and bring all the info from the various sources into some sort of level playing field.

E.g. Thom has a very particular set of (high) standards, and vocabulary that is atypical among mainstream reviewers, which can be confusing if you're expecting his reviews to be similar to those.

E.i. in his terminology, "acceptable" means "I would use this in my professional gigs without hesitation" - not "this is middling-good" which is what a mainstream review would mean by using the word "acceptable."

When he rates something "Highly Recommended" - that is his top rating - but a rating based on all the factors of *his* usage for that lens, which he details in the review.

Specifically here, he rated the Z 400mm f/4.5 as "Highly Recommended" - he *really* likes that lens. But he doesn't use it much - he uses the Z 400mm f/2.8 all the time. Yet he rated the Z 400mm f/2.8 as only "Recommended" - why?!? Because for *his* usages, the f/2.8 does some things that block his normal use cases (that the F 400mm f/2.8 allowed) - so he downrated that lens based on that.

Why would he do that? He assumes you will read the review in its entirety and make your own assessment (and to try and spur Nikon to 'fix it' haha [they do read his writings, despite him often being critical of them]). Clearly the Z 400mm f/2.8 is one of the best lenses of that class ever made (if not the best) - but he wants you to know it's not perfect, and to make a fully informed decision - not just look at the bottom line rating and make a decision.

The chart above - this is first of all a "all in one place" comparison of how he ranks these lenses, and it is also a shorthand version for the people that won't take the time to read and digest the full review - but you have to understand what his terms mean to make sense of it). Even "Worst" isn't bad - it's just relatively "worse" than the other choices for that focal length. My 200-500mm doesn't even make his chart, but I think I've gotten some pretty spectacular captures with it. "Worser than Worst" indeed! haha

Cheers!

...Dave...

 

[Griffym]

I didn’t want to start a conversation about Thom. I do think the list is flawed. I do read Thom. Commentary without actual data, photos or some kind of thorough explanation runs the risk of trying to sound like some sort of oracle whose word alone is enough. In this case it is a list.

I have always accepted the idea that for something to qualify as useful it needs to:
a) be complete [i.e. not leave clearly relevant stuff out]
b) be timely [recent and not out of date]
c) be transparent and clear about the methodology and assumptions used to compile it
d) free from bias (conscious or otherwise)

All of the above need to be in place. In the case of the list of lenses the value of the list falls short on completeness. (a) - see below

Some widely criticised YouTube presenters fall short on more than one of the above. Others make a pretty good fist of it. I always use the list (my summary of guidelines I was given for reviewing research papers etc.) as a way to decide how seriously to take the contributions of people attempting to influence me.

That doesn’t mean I don’t watch them if they manage to be entertaining, especially if they make a reasonable attempt. I do however place considerable weight on what their actual photography looks like.

P.S.
Thom does state:
”Why am I not including other F-mount lenses, such as the 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, 600mm f/4, 800mm f/5.6, 120-300mm f/2.8, and 180-400mm f/4 TC?” and outlines his reasons.

The list it seems is therefore about weight and should probably be titled appropriately.

 

[ButlerKid]

FWIW......Brad Hill is a wildlife shooter in the rain forests of British Columbia. He values portability very highly. He seldom uses a tripod. And he values lenses that gather a lot of light equally highly due to the often low light situations in which he photographs. Thus, for Brad's style and subjects, the weight of the lens and the aperture are extremely important. For these reasons, he rates the 400 f4.5 much higher than the 500 PF.

I'll let you know later this year. I'm going with Brad in June to the Khutzeymateen....with a Z 400 f4.5! There are members here who have made this trip and have much more knowledge than I!

 

[Dave Stargazer]

Hi Griffym - sorry, I neglected to include the link to his full review (since fcotterill linked it a couple of posts above mine) which has most of what you ask:
https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount...lens-reviews/nikon-400mm-f45-lens-review.html

I find his chart to be quite useful because it puts his own comparative info in one place, and I've read (or can go read) his full reviews (he should have them linked from that page - I'll drop him a note).

I do have to note that your d) above, is an impossible reach Everyone, and all measurements have bias - however, we can strive for being as neutral as possible! Cheers!

...Dave...

 

[Griffym]

Oh yeah (d) is pretty tough. That is the point. Can you dig in and discuss them? Perfection is impossible but what efforts have you made to get close?

 

[Thom Hogan]

For Z system, including a few F Nikkors - synopsis of Thom Hogan's detailed testing to identify the 'Best Telephoto Options in the Z Mount' :

Best Telephoto Options in the Z Mount | Thom Hogan

What's the best telephoto option for a Z camera at 200-800mm?

www.zsystemuser.com

Table added:
View attachment 49331

People seem to be just trying to read this chart without reading the article that described what the chart meant. "Acceptable" in this chart doesn't mean what you think it does. Perhaps I should have used another word, but the point of the chart was to show off where the various choices at a focal length fell against one another. Green is the best choice. Yellow are perfectly acceptable choices. Red is a worst choice, which often is still quite usable.
I have long done things differently. My star ratings confuse people, too, because even a really good lens might only have three stars for something (out of five). But read the explanations. They're important to understand what I'm trying to convey.
FWIW, I had all the above lenses. I recently sold my two F-mount PFs because I want to avoid the extra mount adapter. You'll note that they do well with the TC, but that's an F-mount TC, so you end up with two things mounted between lens and camera, and given the things I do, that starts to get risky with mount security.
If you actually read the article that went with this chart, you'd understand that I believe we're in a pretty darned good place with our choices at the moment, and they're only going to get better.