How good is the Nikon 100-400 Z Lens for birding?

[McStamp]

As said above the 100-400 is a travel lens. Comes in handy when you want to go on a stroll just with one lens. As to wildlife and birding: yes, the aperture can be a problem, especially on the long end (use my 400 2.8 TC for those shots). But then shooting on 1000 ISO with the Z9 is no big hurdle. I am very happy with the outcome of the photos, sharpness and contrast with my lens are top. I was hesitating at first to buy it, I am not particularly fond of zoom lenses which close down the aperture when zooming in. But I am not disappointed with this one. But yes, I have the primes in 400 and 800, but you probably don't go on a sunday stroll through your local forrest with the 800 aroung yr neck ...

 

[MatthewK]

… you probably don't go on a sunday stroll through your local forrest with the 800 aroung yr neck ...

ummm

My first birding lens was a 100-400, used for a couple of years before I made the jump up to the superteles. Definitely a bit short for smaller birds, so I was always using a TC, or on a crop camera.

Now that I have a number of years more experience birding, and have figured out how to get closer to subjects, a 100-400 is starting to make more sense for tight-in shooting or from a blind. At the moment it’s competing w/ the 400 4.5 for a spot in my lineup.

 

[ButlerKid]

ummm

My first birding lens was a 100-400, used for a couple of years before I made the jump up to the superteles. Definitely a bit short for smaller birds, so I was always using a TC, or on a crop camera.

Now that I have a number of years more experience birding, and have figured out how to get closer to subjects, a 100-400 is starting to make more sense for tight-in shooting or from a blind. At the moment it’s competing w/ the 400 4.5 for a spot in my lineup.

Agree. BTW - the release date for the Z 100-400 was October 28, 2021. So it is "only" 16 months old! How time flies! LOL! Hence my complaint about DxO just now getting around to releasing lens profile data for it.

 

[Ken Miracle]

As said above the 100-400 is a travel lens. Comes in handy when you want to go on a stroll just with one lens. As to wildlife and birding: yes, the aperture can be a problem, especially on the long end (use my 400 2.8 TC for those shots). But then shooting on 1000 ISO with the Z9 is no big hurdle. I am very happy with the outcome of the photos, sharpness and contrast with my lens are top. I was hesitating at first to buy it, I am not particularly fond of zoom lenses which close down the aperture when zooming in. But I am not disappointed with this one. But yes, I have the primes in 400 and 800, but you probably don't go on a sunday stroll through your local forrest with the 800 aroung yr neck ...

LOL ... I would hope no one hangs any camera around their neck

If you are talking about the the old DSLR f mount 800 then I probably would not have carried that. I never had one in fact never even saw one.

I had an f mount 600 F/4E and that was cumbersome enough ... I assembled an MrJan Gear long lens carrier and a Think Tank speed racing harness together and that is how I carried that 600 on a D6 or D850 around. I still hand held it to shoot.

Now with the Z800 on the Z9 I carry it on a Black Rapids strap when I need both hands free and the rest of the time it is usually in baby cradle carry and ready to shoot at any moment as I hunt birds in all types of terrain and habitat here in Idaho.

 

[Ken Miracle]

ummm

My first birding lens was a 100-400, used for a couple of years before I made the jump up to the superteles. Definitely a bit short for smaller birds, so I was always using a TC, or on a crop camera.

Now that I have a number of years more experience birding, and have figured out how to get closer to subjects, a 100-400 is starting to make more sense for tight-in shooting or from a blind. At the moment it’s competing w/ the 400 4.5 for a spot in my lineup.

My first birding lens in my DSLR time was a Sigma 50-500, then a Tamron 150-600, then a Sigma 150-600 Sport, then a Tamron 150-600 G2, a Nikon 500pf and Nikon 600 f/4E. All of them left me wanting more focal length.

I hunt birds of all types and sizes in a wide range of habitat and terrain. I was in full camo stalking a Swamp Sparrow on my last outing and was successful but the Z800 I use on my Z9 was not too much focal length. I frequently put the Z9 in DX mode have button programmed on the lens to toggle on and off without moving my eye from the viewfinder so a 1,200 mm field of view.

I seldom use my Z100-400 just not enough focal length for my run and gun bird ID photography style and the 800 lets me stay farther away from the subject to lessen the impact on it and it's activity.

 

[MatthewK]

My first birding lens in my DSLR time was a Sigma 50-500, then a Tamron 150-600, then a Sigma 150-600 Sport, then a Tamron 150-600 G2, a Nikon 500pf and Nikon 600 f/4E. All of them left me wanting more focal length.

I hunt birds of all types and sizes in a wide range of habitat and terrain. I was in full camo stalking a Swamp Sparrow on my last outing and was successful but the Z800 I use on my Z9 was not too much focal length. I frequently put the Z9 in DX mode have button programmed on the lens to toggle on and off without moving my eye from the viewfinder so a 1,200 mm field of view.

I seldom use my Z100-400 just not enough focal length for my run and gun bird ID photography style and the 800 lets me stay farther away from the subject to lessen the impact on it and it's activity.

Yeah, I’ve climbed the focal length ladder from 100-400, 400DOII, 500 and 600 f/4, FF & APSC bodies + teleconverters, and after all that trial and error finally settled on the 500PF on D500 (effectively 750mm FOV, 10’ MFD) Thus, the switch to 800mm on FF should be natural, but for some reason I’m obsessing over the increased MFD causing me to miss more closeup shots.

Then again, it’s still dead as a graveyard here in the tundra of Wisconsin, and I haven’t really had anything to shoot in the field since I got the 800PF, so I just need to chill out and wait for things to pick up, get more time in the field, and see how the 800PF does with Spring migration before I make any rash decisions. It’ll probably be fine though.

Was out the other day practicing on some tame feeder Chickadees, and those little dynamos will come in real close, are very jittery, and I was having a tough time capturing shots due to them being under MFD, and rapidly jumping out of frame, and a 100-400 would have been ideal in that situation, as would the 400 4.5.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Yeah, I’ve climbed the focal length ladder from 100-400, 400DOII, 500 and 600 f/4, FF & APSC bodies + teleconverters, and after all that trial and error finally settled on the 500PF on D500 (effectively 750mm FOV, 10’ MFD) Thus, the switch to 800mm on FF should be natural, but for some reason I’m obsessing over the increased MFD causing me to miss more closeup shots.

Then again, it’s still dead as a graveyard here in the tundra of Wisconsin, and I haven’t really had anything to shoot in the field since I got the 800PF, so I just need to chill out and wait for thing to pick up, get more time in the field, and see how things evolve with Spring migration before I make any rash decisions. It’ll probably be fine though.

Was out the other day practicing on some tame feeder Chickadees, and those little dynamos will come in real close, are very jittery, and I was having a tough time capturing shots due to them being under MFD. 100-400 would have been ideal in that situation, as would the 400 4.5.

Great shots on flickr ... I have mostly been leading or participating in birding trips recently. city birds, marsh birds, out in the boonies birds ... I very seldom run into having MFD issues with the 800pf out here in the winter ... latest was a Swamp Sparrow hunt with a bonus Northern Shrike.

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.

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.

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.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Interbeing]

As with @ricardo00, I was not thrilled with the 100-400 on the Z9. I have posted before that my experience differs from almost everyone else. I find IQ inconsistent in contrast to the 500 PF on the Z9, which was much better. I just picked up the 400 f/4.5 yesterday, and already love that lens. Of course, the 400 doesn't have the flexibility of the 100-400, but wow.... I'll keep the 100-400 for now as I can use it on my Z6ii for more 'static' wildlife but I doubt it gets much use, at least in the near future.

I first purchased the Z 100-400mm at the time I bought my Z9, and while I found it to be quite sharp, it did not seem to handle low light situations quite as well as the AF-S 500mm PF. I later purchased the Z 400mm and was blown away by the difference, especially with the 1.4x TC. I found that my Z 100-400mm just didn’t get used as much after getting the Z 400mm and eventually sold it as I found that I preferred the Z 70-200mm, Z 400mm and 1.4x combo as it worked better for my use, especially in lower light. The Z 14-30mm, Z 24-120mm and Z 100-400mm trío is a great combo for landscape though.

 

[dasm]

Taken photos of this Blue Jay with Z9 and Z 100-400mm with TC 1.4X. So far, I am liking the lens.

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.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[McStamp]

LOL ... I would hope no one hangs any camera around their neck

If you are talking about the the old DSLR f mount 800 then I probably would not have carried that. I never had one in fact never even saw one.

I had an f mount 600 F/4E and that was cumbersome enough ... I assembled an MrJan Gear long lens carrier and a Think Tank speed racing harness together and that is how I carried that 600 on a D6 or D850 around. I still hand held it to shoot.

Now with the Z800 on the Z9 I carry it on a Black Rapids strap when I need both hands free and the rest of the time it is usually in baby cradle carry and ready to shoot at any moment as I hunt birds in all types of terrain and habitat here in Idaho.

agree on that. The 800 PF is really nice when it comes to weight. I either use Black Rapid or the Cotton Carrier. But that's when I go with the aim to look for animals. Just taking the camera with me with no particular purpose in mind except being ready, the 100-400 does an excellent job.

 

[O]

I can also get a mint Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR II for about the same price of the lens. Its not a Z lens but I have all the TCs.

I have the 300 2.8 VR II now for over 12 years, its optically 100%, just a beautiful lens in every way sharp fast accurate with stunning bokah, its sharp but has feeling naturalness emotion reality in what it delivers, used properly, its not bleedingly clinical sharp and disconnected, its micro contrast, colour detail is superb above all believable, on anything, even small birds.
It is stunning on the Z9 with adapter, especially the D6 D850, D4s D3x Df D7100 D3s D700 D300. Z7II Z6II.

Its formulae has been pivotal, the Ferrari formulae one model in building Nikon lens designs for decades and decades.
At 2.9 kg its still very usable hand held but i use it with a light small mono pod, its brilliant with a 1.4 TC III.
I use it 99% of the time at F2.8 or F4 when everyone else goes home.
On the D6 at 25,000 iso you would be gob smacked.

Yes i am bias and for very good reason.

Club members like the 100-400 lens for being light and versatile, optically they prefer the 500 pf and the 400 F4.5, even the 200-500 currently being dumped by box shifters for under $1600 AUD from $2350 to make room for the 200-600 announcement coming i assume in March.

There are some lenses a whisker sharper in the Z line up than the 300 2.8 vr II but you would need to sell the sheep station to get one of those lenses.

Its all a matter of at F2.8 its in a league of its own once you get to F8 F11 most lenses are much the same so to speak except the 300 2.8 vr II is sharp at all apitures is what i mean.

The 100-400 is a very convenient walk around lens, light and very useful, again from the birders there wanting a little more performance at 400mm

I mean a Z9 with a 50mm 1.8s lens is 1.85 kgs already.

Only an opinion

 

[EricBowles]

Yeah, I’ve climbed the focal length ladder from 100-400, 400DOII, 500 and 600 f/4, FF & APSC bodies + teleconverters, and after all that trial and error finally settled on the 500PF on D500 (effectively 750mm FOV, 10’ MFD) Thus, the switch to 800mm on FF should be natural, but for some reason I’m obsessing over the increased MFD causing me to miss more closeup shots.

Then again, it’s still dead as a graveyard here in the tundra of Wisconsin, and I haven’t really had anything to shoot in the field since I got the 800PF, so I just need to chill out and wait for thing to pick up, get more time in the field, and see how things evolve with Spring migration before I make any rash decisions. It’ll probably be fine though.

Was out the other day practicing on some tame feeder Chickadees, and those little dynamos will come in real close, are very jittery, and I was having a tough time capturing shots due to them being under MFD. 100-400 would have been ideal in that situation, as would the 400 4.5.

I've found the magnification at minimum focus distance is pretty close to the same for all of Nikon's long prime lenses at around 1:6 (even including the shorter primes). With a teleconverter you get a bit more magnification. The 100-400 is the exception with much higher magnification at 1:2.6 (and maybe the 24-200 at 1:3.5) because of the reduced minimum focus distance - but that only matters if you can get close to the subject (inside 3 feet for these magnification ratios).

Nikon Lenses

 

[Chiguy]

Check out Matt Irwin on You Tube he just did a video on this lens and raved about how good and sharp it was

 

[Anjin San]

I find the 100-400 preferable because of the zoom…sometimes foot zooming isn’t an option and sometimes the bird is too close for a 400…but it really depends on what birds ypu shoot and where. If your situation is that you would almost always be at 400 I would go that way…but if only sometimes then I would get the zoom. It is slightly heavier and 1?3 of a stop slower (I think anyway)…but for me neither of those is a show stopper.

 

[Anthony]

Depends on where the birds are. Up
to them. Sometimes close, sometimes not.

But if they decide to pose in range, the lens will deliver superb results.

 

[sinewsworn]

I shoot primes mostly but luv my Z 100-400! Times when I am able to get in close the 100-400 is really helpful. I do not change lenses in the field so zooms offer choices especially in tight quarters-animal pens for instance.

 

[Activert]

I have the reach as I have 600mm F4 but I need to cover the 200-600 range. So that's my struggle I can get the Nikon 100-400Z or a mint 300 2.8 VRII for the same price. I have all TCS so that would help with the 300.

If you can wait for the 200-600 mm to be announced, maybe then you make your decision. I am in the same situation as you and I have to fill the gap between 200 and 600mm. I have the 70- 200 f2.8 and I don’t like to use tc1.4 with it. I like when the Tc is integrated like with my z 600. So i am going to wait for the 200-600 mm and if it is sharp and has good review then I will get it. If not I will look for another option.

 

[Bruce]

I have this lens coupled with my Z9. Used it on recent trip to SanDiego where most abundant birds were gulls and pelicans. Was still experimenting with various AF area focus modes, but got some very nice photos of flying birds using the Wide area mode. I really love the versatility of the zoom.

 

[Calson]

I only have the larger teles so Im looking for something to cover 200-500. SO thinking about picking up a 100-400 Z and just be done with it. Just don't know how good this lens is. If anyone has used this for birding it would help to get a review.

Thanks

I like it with the 1.4x teleconverter to have 140-560mm focal lengths at f/8. The advantage of the zoom lens is both in being able to alter the view angle for a subject and also to adjust the amount of image magnification for the autofocus eye detect to work.

 

[Mike Delgado]

I did try it out at my local track and I think it will be a winner. Sorry no birds....

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I did try it out at my local track and I think it will be a winner. Sorry no birds....View attachment 56673View attachment 56673View attachment 56674View attachment 56674View attachment 56675View attachment 56675

Looks like it is working great

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

The 100-400 zoom has worked well for me shooting larger birds, herons, egrets and such, but the aperture limits its use in low light situations. I already had the 70-200 mm f/2.8 for studio and portrait work and eventually added a TC14 to give me a short telephoto lens for wildlife. I recently added the 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6. I planned to sell the 70-200 following the old adage that you should not have too much focal length overlap in your kit but now I am finding that each one has advantages in different situations. The 400 has the reach advantage. The 400 is a little sharper at 280 mm but the 200 +TC is at f/4.0 compared to f/5.3. The lower ISO and better subject isolation favors the 200 + TC at 280 mm. Leaving off the TC, the 200 mm is f/2.8 at 200 mm compared to the 400 zoom f/5 at 200 mm. I often shoot both mountain landscapes and ocean waves around 100 mm, The 200 bare lens is visibly sharper than the 400 at the shorter end but the 400 is certainly acceptable. The 400 seems a little better for close up or not quite marco work with a closer minimum focal distance. There is no real difference in size, weight or focus speed. For outings that include some landscape images and when the lighting is reasonable I prefer the 400 zoom. When lighting is more limiting or if I want the wider perspective, the 200 zoom + TC comes along.