Nikkor Z 100-400 vs the Z 400mm F/4.5 VR for wildlife photography

[Patrick M]

I'm a zoom person as I find I prefer the composition options suit me better. That's an interesting video review and it matches to a large degree, my own thoughts. I own and love the z70-200 and I have the 2x tele with it. It's my temp long lens "solution" until we see the 200-600. However, I'll never afford the 400/2.8, but I did rent the 400/4.5 for a couple of weeks. Loved its lightness and sharp images, but it proved to me that I prefer zooms. I'm renting the 100-400 next month, so this was a timely review.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I can't count the number of threads I've seen over the years on the topic of zoom vs prime. Summary of one thing they all have in common:
- people who like zoom lenses swear they are just as sharp as primes
- people who like prime lenses swear they are sharper than zooms
- people swear that the lens they chose/bought is sharper than every other

 

[EricBowles]

Having shot side-by-side for a few weeks now, in general the 400 4.5 is slightly sharper, a tiny bit more clarity/contrast, and with 2/3 stop more OOF rendering than the 100-400. It’s not as big of a difference as one would be led to believe though; aside from the bokeh/blur, shots from the zoom can nearly be made to resemble the prime in PP. Things being almost equal, I’d choose the zoom over the prime for the versatility.

With the 1.4 TC, they’re pretty much equal, which I was surprised /wrt to the 400. As I mentioned a few posts back, it falls well short of the 500PF, which in my eye had better IQ in every regard. This was slated to be my 500PF replacement, but if given the choice, I’d easily take the F-mount lens.

Other thing with the prime: if you’re shooting wide open near MFD: amazing blur and sharpness, but not enough DOF to even cover a small songbird (eyes in focus, maybe the front foot, barely anything else), a shot which for me will go right in the bin. So, best stop down, in which case the 100-400 makes more sense, again.

I don’t know, part of me says to sell the 400 4.5, but another part actually really likes the lens. I think if I were a mammal or large bird shooter, it’d make more sense, but I mostly feel the zoom does 90% of what the prime does. Maybe as a 1-lens travel solution, but doesn’t a zoom make a ton more sense in that regard?

They’re all great pieces of glass, I’d love to have them all Might keep the 400 a bit longer and see how often it gets the nod over the 800 and 100-400, though I feel it’ll be more a case of “you know, let’s take the 400 out instead, just to change things up”.

Have you tried the bare 400mm f/4.5 at f/5.6? And the 400mm + TC at f/7.1 or f/8? Sometimes you see something different stopping down. Also the 500mm PF is at f/5.6 wide open so this is a reasonable comparison.

I don't have a problem with the shallow DOF wide open, but it depends on the bird and composition. I'm looking for poses where the near eye is sharp and the further eye is near the same plane. At minimum focus distance I may be focusing on a catchlight or the near corner of the eye as DOF is less than the width of a bluebird or finch. But you make a good distinction that applies to all subjects at close distances.

My experience with the f/4.5 is it is remarkably sharp at close range where I am seriously testing. But there is variation in technique with any combination, so you need enough repeat volume to truly assess performance. I do this testing at a bird feeder where I have lots of chances at the same subject and can use a precise AF area like Dynamic Small, Single, or even Pinpoint. Not only am I trying to test the lens for normal use, but I want to understand where we are stronger and where it is weaker. I need a baseline for the best that the lens (with my technique) can produce under ideal circumstances and see how that compares to field work or other situations.

 

[fcotterill]

[EDITED ] I think 2019 was the year the prime vs zoom debate levelled off, if not swung in the other direction after Nikon released 2 of their best F-mount Nikkors ever.....

For me, it was a series of reviews by Brad Hill in 2018/9, which tipped the scales for modern Nikkor zooms versus primes. First the 180-400 TC, then the 120-300 f2.8E SR was launched in 2020 and is even better.

However, released in October 2016, the 70-200 f2.8E FL was the first zoom to match, and even outperform, almost all the primes in its range...Thom Hogan was most complementary about this 70-200.

Oh well, now we have all these new S Line Nikkors. Compared to the F-mount "Exotic Zooms" , apart from the 70-200 f2.8 models, the 100-400 S is far less expensive

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#180-400_comment1_AIS

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2019_all.html#Musing3

Brad Hill covered the salient points of the Z System long lenses in this lecture last year, and in his updated summary recently http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear2.html

 

[John Navitsky]

A series of reviews by Brad Hill in 2019 tipped the scales on modern Nikkor zooms versus primes for me. The 70-200 f2.8E was the first that outperformed the primes, then the 180-400 TC, then the 120-300 f2.8E SR was launched in 2020.

the “E” lenses were truly remarkable. it’s completely crazy the s-line lenses are unilaterally better across the board

 

[Calson]

I have often been in situations where my prime lens provided too narrow a view angle and too much cropping of the subject and any zoom was better than the prime lens. This is still true with the 100-400mm versus the 400mm although less so than with longer prime telephoto lenses.

I was photographing a turkey vulture on a low branch that was in sun with outstretched wings and I had the 100-400mm lens. At 400mm the cropping was much too tight but at 300mm the Z9 had trouble with the eye detect for focusing. I ended up focusing at 400mm and then zooming back to 300mm to take the shots. I would have been out of luck with a 400mm prime lens.

 

[maverick777]

Flexibility vs extra light and image quality. Some would argue the extra light and image quality difference is marginal, but I'd say for wildlife during golden hour or in the shade it is a decent difference. However, I chose flexibility since wildlife isn't the only reason I got the 100-400.

 

[DRM]

I like when threads get revived and I can check my earlier answers to see if my thoughts stayed the same. They didn’t.

I had the 100-400 back in August of 2022 and generally liked it. But instances kept coming up when I would have been better served using a 70-200 f/2.8 rather than the 100-400. So I tried the 400 f/4.5 and immediately saw a difference at 400. I then sold the 100-400 and bought a 70-200 f/2.8. For versatility as well as quality, I now much prefer the two lens combo of a 70-200 f/2.8 paired with the 400 f/4.5. I usually know when one of the two lenses will be used, so I don’t have to carry both lenses anyhow.

 

[Garfield]

Yup, seems to be a classic zoom/prime debate between two really excellent (best in class???) lenses. Of course I'd generally prefer the prime's speed, sharpness and lower weight, everything else being equal, but the functionality of the zoom trumps all for me. I shoot a lot of video at 4k120p in DX (2.3x) crop, which when using the 1.4x TC yields 1288mm equivalent focal length. No way I could find a warbler bouncing through the bushes at that focal length...the ability to instantly pull back to a wider FOV, pick out the subject then zoom in tight is essential for me.

But what I find most remarkable about the 100-400 is how relatively sharp it is, even with the 1.4TC. It's no prime, but it doesn't leave much to be desired IMO.

 

[ricardo00]

I do wonder how much of the debate is due to lens to lens variability. The 100-400mm I tried was definitely inferior to my 400mm, especially when I used a 1.4TC on it.

 

[mdirvin]

I had the 100-400 back in August of 2022 and generally liked it. But instances kept coming up when I would have been better served using a 70-200 f/2.8 rather than the 100-400. So I tried the 400 f/4.5 and immediately saw a difference at 400. I then sold the 100-400 and bought a 70-200 f/2.8. For versatility as well as quality, I now much prefer the two lens combo of a 70-200 f/2.8 paired with the 400 f/4.5. I usually know when one of the two lenses will be used, so I don’t have to carry both lenses anyhow.

I do the same. Typically with the 400 f4.5 on one camera body. If I feel there may be a need for a shorter lens I carry the Z 70-200 f2.8 /w TC 1.4 on a second body. I did purchase the 100-400 3 months ago, but have yet to use it. I purchased it for the MFD, I intend to use it for hummingbirds in the 300-350 mm range. Hopefully I'll be able to start using it in a few weeks....

 

[Garfield]

I do wonder how much of the debate is due to lens to lens variability. The 100-400mm I tried was definitely inferior to my 400mm, especially when I used a 1.4TC on it.

I've never used the prime but I have no doubt you're correct -- by all accounts the prime is sharper and adding the TC won't change that. All I was attempting to say is that the zoom is remarkably sharp...for a zoom, and that it may be "good enough" for those like me that value the functionality of a zoom.

 

[Kjellis]

I had both the 100-400 and the 400/4.5 for about 8 months or so along with the 800 PF. Having the 800 PF a my primary long lens during the the late autumn and winter months here in Norway I really missed the f/4 aperature my old 500mm had, so I decided to go all in and buy the new 600/4 TC. I knew I had to sell the 800 PF to finance the 600mm, but I also wanted to sell one of the «400mm lenses» and I sold the 400/4.5. I really loved both the 100-400 and 400/4.5 and it was not an easy decision. I do believe the 400/4.5 is a little sharper, but not by much, at least the copies I had. My main reasons for keeping the 100-400 is that it is sharp and versatile as it is a zoom and has that really close focus distance. With the 600mm as my main lens a telephoto zoom as a second lens is really handy.
As I am a prime guy my self, this 100-400 is warming up on me, and that says a lot I think

 

[arbitrage]

For me, zoom vs prime has nothing to do with sharpness and IQ these days.

I mostly use primes for one thing and one thing only....wider apertures.

 

[Garfield]

I had both the 100-400 and the 400/4.5 for about 8 months or so along with the 800 PF. Having the 800 PF a my primary long lens during the the late autumn and winter months here in Norway I really missed the f/4 aperature my old 500mm had, so I decided to go all in and buy the new 600/4 TC. I knew I had to sell the 800 PF to finance the 600mm, but I also wanted to sell one of the «400mm lenses» and I sold the 400/4.5. I really loved both the 100-400 and 400/4.5 and it was not an easy decision. I do believe the 400/4.5 is a little sharper, but not by much, at least the copies I had. My main reasons for keeping the 100-400 is that it is sharp and versatile as it is a zoom and has that really close focus distance. With the 600mm as my main lens a telephoto zoom as a second lens is really handy.
As I am a prime guy my self, this 100-400 is warming up on me, and that says a lot I think

Indeed, I'm getting more comfortable with the idea of the 100-400 and 600TC combo myself. I will always have the 100-400 for general purpose/hand held shooting and garden critters so don't see myself using a 400/4.5 that much, and I still consider the 800PF a one-trick pony. Justifying the cost of the 600TC is a challenge, but if I DON'T buy the 400/4.5, 800PF and Z8, then I just "saved" enough money for the 600TC!

 

[MatthewK]

As a working-class stiff with kids, the sad reality is I read more about photography/gear than actually using it, and it’s hard not to let what you read about the gear influence your perceptions. It’s universally accepted here that the 400 4.5 being a prime is sharper with better OOF characteristics than the 100-400; you see that over and over again on forums and YouTube, and admittedly it causes me to inwardly to believe that the 100-400 is just so-so: "yeah, it's good... for a zoom.". Even having both lenses, shot side by side and seeing actual results first-hand, it's hard to overcome those biases, and as soon as I’ve reached the conclusion that this zoom is perfectly fine for my needs, that small nagging voice will say “but your pics will be that much better with the prime, are you sure?”. So, simple solution to that mental bickering is to keep both for the time being

I took the 100-400 out yesterday as my only lens, spent time trying to photograph a Pine Warbler in the shade of the woods on a harsh, hot sunny day. It did well, especially with the 1.4TC. Yep, ISOs were high thanks to the deep shadows and crazy highlights, but overall I think the setup did well. It's a great optic, you'll get fine detail and crisp photos out of it, and be totally happy (for anyone from the EF Canon days: it's not like shooting the old EF 50L and having to pretend it's sharp )

Not the greatest pose: I waited a looong time for the PW to land on this exact spot, but he never struck the perfect broadside pose I was hoping for, and instead just sat there for a few seconds and looked at me.

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.

 

[Alistair]

I personally don't consider slight differences in sharpness between these types of lenses to be important at all. Because most of the time sharpness advantages are not realized. Shooting action, BIF, sports etc shutter speeds are high and so generally are ISO's, the subject is moving quickly and so too is the camera. It is only in ideal conditions that ultimate sharpness is achieved and such conditions seldom present in day to day use. Far more important is handling and max aperture and having the correct focal length.

 

[ricardo00]

I personally don't consider slight differences in sharpness between these types of lenses to be important at all. Because most of the time sharpness advantages are not realized. Shooting action, BIF, sports etc shutter speeds are high and so generally are ISO's, the subject is moving quickly and so too is the camera. It is only in ideal conditions that ultimate sharpness is achieved and such conditions seldom present in day to day use. Far more important is handling and max aperture and having the correct focal length.

I definitely agree with this. Maybe this is under what you call "handling", but the ability to grab focus quickly is to me one of most important criteria.

 

[BorderBirder]

I definitely agree with this. Maybe this is under what you call "handling", but the ability to grab focus quickly is to me one of most important criteria.

And that reminds me of my happiest handling lens .... the 420mm PF f5.6

 

[ricardo00]

And that reminds me of my happiest handling lens .... the 420mm PF f5.6

Did you mean the 500mm PF f/5.6 lens? Yep love mine, my wife is now using it.

 

[Alistair]

And that reminds me of my happiest handling lens .... the 420mm PF f5.6

Ahh, 300pf with 1.4x. Oh for a z mount version....

 

[Garfield]

Not sure how this will will present on BCF but here's an example that might be of interest.

This is a frame grab from a 4k video captured with the Z9+100-400+1.4xTC.

The image itself isn't particularly special, but the interesting thing IMO is that this was captured using NRaw NLog 4k120p DX 2.3x crop. That is to say, this is a 1:1 pixel capture with an FX equivalent focal length of 1288mm hand held. The video was processed (sharpening and noise reduction applied) using Davinci Resolve. What I'm intending to demonstrate is the optics of the 100-400 even with TC attached is really quite excellent (IMO), especially considering this was captured at 1:1 with no oversampling (i.e. only using the center 18.3% of the sensor). I fully expect the 400/4.5 would have been sharper, but just wanted to demonstrate the optics of this zoom can hold its own even when using a TC.

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

 

[BorderBirder]

Did you mean the 500mm PF f/5.6 lens? Yep love mine, my wife is now using it.

No actually I meant the wee legend 300 PF with the 1.4 TC. Such a nifty little operator. Very sharp too.

 

[BorderBirder]

Ahh, 300pf with 1.4x. Oh for a z mount version....

Yes that’s the one, although I currently use the 500 PF more - second hand bargain

 

[Anjin San]

So …serious question. On our trip this month to the UK…I’m taking the Z8 and Z7II. Lenses will be the 14-30, 24-120, the Z TCs…and I was thinking bout the 100-400…but this isn’t a wildlife oriented trip and the 70-200 is a better optical lens and gives me to 280 easily and 400 in a pinch…and it is 2.8. Weight is about the same for either…so which would be your recommendation. I am doing London during the day while wife is rehearsing for her choral concerts…but then going to Lakes and Yorkshire Dales for 2.5 weeks. I realize I’m second guessing myself a bit…but the need for long telephoto seems low and 280 along with possible DX or crop in post might be plenty.
Ya know…I hate it when I keep rethinking…or more accurately…overthinking things. So…whaddya think?