Nikon 100-400 and 400 f/2.8 S, teleconverter Reviews - Thom Hogan

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).

Member's gallery
Interesting review. He is the first one I have seen dissing (somewhat) the 400 f:2.8 TC for its ergonomics. It really is fascinating to me that as gear gets exponentially complex, the battle ground seems to be more and more handling rather than imaging performance (which seems stellar on that lens as expected). We see it with the flagship bodies, they do all perform great but there is always one that feels better to handle and easier to operate - and it's really user specific.
 
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
He is the first one I have seen dissing (somewhat) the 400 f:2.8 TC for its ergonomics.
Click to expand...

Well, the problem is that he thinks he is the only person who knows how the ergonomic would be right. I love the ergonomic of the Z 400/2.8 a lot. The weight balance is perfect. Even hand-hold I can easily use both control rings. So I cannot follow this criticism. But as you said ergonomics are personal preferences!
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
the funny thing is if you read between the lines he's saying his rating isn't representative of what he thinks about the lens
Click to expand...

Which then puts in question his rating system. "This lens is awesome optically and technically, the weight reduction is incredible, the included TC is brilliant... but they didn't put the custom buttons where I want to have my fingers so I will knock them down a peg... that'll show them". Reliable ratings can't be based off relative scales.
 
Member's gallery
I find Thom's reviews quite helpful, including this one and the review of the 100-400. But I think the details in the review are far more important than whether he gives a lens or a camera "highly recommended" or "recommended."

I'm not likely to buy the 400 mm lens -- for my bird photography, I have ordered an 800 mm PF and will pair that with my 100-400 and 500 mm PF. But if I was interested in the 400 mm f2.8 TC lens, I'd find this a very favorable review and be anxious to get one.
 
Member's gallery
Thom on the 400mm f/2.8: "I found myself so attached to the lens I didn't even bother with a second camera and lens during the last two weeks of my Botswana trip" - which speaks volumes to me, despite the single line rating of 'only' a "recommended" :)

It does mean he was favoring this lens over the "highly recommended" 100-400mm which he had with him - who could blame him? 🙃

But they are quite different tools imo due to weight, size, etc. If money were no object? I'd take both and choose based on the outing! haha

Cheers!
 
Member's gallery
BillW said:
I find Thom's reviews quite helpful, including this one and the review of the 100-400. But I think the details in the review are far more important than whether he gives a lens or a camera "highly recommended" or "recommended."

I'm not likely to buy the 400 mm lens -- for my bird photography, I have ordered an 800 mm PF and will pair that with my 100-400 and 500 mm PF. But if I was interested in the 400 mm f2.8 TC lens, I'd find this a very favorable review and be anxious to get one.
Click to expand...
The reality is people who truly are candidates for a 400mm f/2.8 don't look to Thom Hogan for a review. It's a lens you either need to you don't. If you need it, the question is whether it is better than the F-mount version you already own on your Z camera - and it clearly is a step up. It's $14,000 and all that goes with that.

On the other hand, the 100-400 is a needed lens that has a number of use cases. It's a nice step up from the 80-400, but not a 180-400. I think with this lens, Thom's comments in his review are going to be very helpful for prospective buyers. Personally, I think the real decisions are around building a kit that includes the 100-400 because you have to consider the alternative kit of the 70-200 and upcoming 200-600. The big value is it's compact size which makes it an excellent safari or travel lens.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
The reality is people who truly are candidates for a 400mm f/2.8 don't look to Thom Hogan for a review. It's a lens you either need to you don't. If you need it, the question is whether it is better than the F-mount version you already own on your Z camera - and it clearly is a step up. It's $14,000 and all that goes with that.

On the other hand, the 100-400 is a needed lens that has a number of use cases. It's a nice step up from the 80-400, but not a 180-400. I think with this lens, Thom's comments in his review are going to be very helpful for prospective buyers. Personally, I think the real decisions are around building a kit that includes the 100-400 because you have to consider the alternative kit of the 70-200 and upcoming 200-600. The big value is it's compact size which makes it an excellent safari or travel lens.
Click to expand...
Over the years I've had most of the big primes at one time or another but this 400/2.8TC is on another level, it's amazing!
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
The reality is people who truly are candidates for a 400mm f/2.8 don't look to Thom Hogan for a review. It's a lens you either need to you don't. If you need it, the question is whether it is better than the F-mount version you already own on your Z camera - and it clearly is a step up. It's $14,000 and all that goes with that.

On the other hand, the 100-400 is a needed lens that has a number of use cases. It's a nice step up from the 80-400, but not a 180-400. I think with this lens, Thom's comments in his review are going to be very helpful for prospective buyers. Personally, I think the real decisions are around building a kit that includes the 100-400 because you have to consider the alternative kit of the 70-200 and upcoming 200-600. The big value is it's compact size which makes it an excellent safari or travel lens.
Click to expand...
I agree with your statement that you either need the 400mm f/2.8 or not. I do not and my ongoing experience with the 100-400mm proves the value and smartness of my purchase each time I use it. I am getting better with it and expect that to continue. While the 400mm f/2.8 is a lens I would like to play with, it is way out of a reasonable price range for what I shOot. I have the 70-200 S, 100-400 S, 500PF and have ordered the 800 PF. I can see a use case for all of them depending on where I will be shooting. I have gifted my 200-500 f/5.6 to my daughter who is already getting good mileage in only 2 days of use.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
To give Thom the benefit of the doubt I think there's no good way to have a single phrase rating system, but he probably needs to be clearer about that.

I'm in no way a prospective customer for the 400 f2.8, but only because I wouldn't fork out that amount of cash for ANY lens. I'll wait until it shows up used :)

Be that as it may, one the the problems with his 'Recommended' summary is that it's clear in reading the review that he considers this lens to be another breakthrough product - possibly the best long lens made by anyone, period. He goes so far as to say that it calls into question the utility of 600 f4 lenses (not that Thom is a fan of that focal length anyway). He thinks that the 400 f2.8 with its TC in is at least equal to the 600 f4E, including using an additional TC(!).

I'm looking forward to more reviews.
 
Member's gallery
Well most people I know how have this lens just use it. I can give you my short personal findings especially in comparison to the AF-S 400 E FL I used before.

Sharpness
One word: Outstanding! But that are all primes since the G-version. I used the 200-400/4, 500/4 G and E FL and the 400 E FL as mentioned.
With TCs the Z-version is a bit better but nothing you would find in the final image.

VR
That’s a big improvement and for my style of photography a huge benefit. I would say the VR is 1 to 1 1/3 stop better.

AF
In combination with the Z9 the AF is a bit faster and more accurate. Something else I observed is that the subject recognition is faster.

Handling
For me it is more or less perfect. I can easily use both controllrings and the front FN-buttons during hand holding the lens. I’m 199 cm so maybe this lens is designed for tall people.
The weight saving is great and the balance even better. The weight saving is even higher because the lens hood although is 130 g lighter and you don't need the FTZ adapter anymore. Most of the weight is now in the back. Not in the front and not in the center. For hand holding that is great. And I was already hand holding my old AF-S 400 E FL a lot.

Well and then the outstanding feature par excellence, the built-in converter. Like yesterday evening.

Sadly the bagder come out at the wrong side of the den. I needed the TC. Not the capture I was after.
DSC_9625-X2.jpg

ISO 5600, 1/250 sec, f/4, 560 mm

Suddenly a fox appeared. With a switch of a finger I was back at 400 mm. With an external TC I would have missed that shot.
DSC_9842-X2.jpg

ISO 7200, f/2.8, 1/80 sec, 400 mm

Because the capture looks a bit soft in this forum you find a sharper versin here.

So for me and the way I shot and what I shoot this lens is the best lens I could imaging.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
NaturRosi said:
Well most people I know how have this lens just use it. I can give you my short personal findings especially in comparison to the AF-S 400 E FL I used before.

Sharpness
One word: Outstanding! But that are all primes since the G-version. I used the 200-400/4, 500/4 G and E FL and the 400 E FL as mentioned.
With TCs the Z-version is a bit better but nothing you would find in the final image.

VR
That’s a big improvement and for my style of photography a huge benefit. I would say the VR is 1 to 1 1/3 stop better.

AF
In combination with the Z9 the AF is a bit faster and more accurate. Something else I observed is that the subject recognition is faster.

Handling
For me it is more or less perfect. I can easily use both controllrings and the front FN-buttons during hand holding the lens. I’m 199 cm so maybe this lens is designed for tall people.
The weight saving is great and the balance even better. The weight saving is even higher because the lens hood although is 130 g lighter and you don't need the FTZ adapter anymore. Most of the weight is now in the back. Not in the front and not in the center. For hand holding that is great. And I was already hand holding my old AF-S 400 E FL a lot.

Well and then the outstanding feature par excellence, the built-in converter. Like yesterday evening.

Sadly the bagder come out at the wrong side of the den. I needed the TC. Not the capture I was after.
DSC_9625-X2.jpg

ISO 5600, 1/250 sec, f/4, 560 mm

Suddenly a fox appeared. With a switch of a finger I was back at 400 mm. With an external TC I would have missed that shot.
DSC_9842-X2.jpg

ISO 7200, f/2.8, 1/80 sec, 400 mm

Because the capture looks a bit soft in this forum you find a sharper versin here.

So for me and the way I shot and what I shoot this lens is the best lens I could imaging.
Click to expand...
Two gorgeous shots, even the one you were not after - shows the strength of the 400 f:2.8 with those dreamy oof areas.
 
Member's gallery
NaturRosi said:
Well most people I know how have this lens just use it. I can give you my short personal findings especially in comparison to the AF-S 400 E FL I used before.

Sharpness
One word: Outstanding! But that are all primes since the G-version. I used the 200-400/4, 500/4 G and E FL and the 400 E FL as mentioned.
With TCs the Z-version is a bit better but nothing you would find in the final image.

VR
That’s a big improvement and for my style of photography a huge benefit. I would say the VR is 1 to 1 1/3 stop better.

AF
In combination with the Z9 the AF is a bit faster and more accurate. Something else I observed is that the subject recognition is faster.

Handling
For me it is more or less perfect. I can easily use both controllrings and the front FN-buttons during hand holding the lens. I’m 199 cm so maybe this lens is designed for tall people.
The weight saving is great and the balance even better. The weight saving is even higher because the lens hood although is 130 g lighter and you don't need the FTZ adapter anymore. Most of the weight is now in the back. Not in the front and not in the center. For hand holding that is great. And I was already hand holding my old AF-S 400 E FL a lot.

Well and then the outstanding feature par excellence, the built-in converter. Like yesterday evening.

Sadly the bagder come out at the wrong side of the den. I needed the TC. Not the capture I was after.

ISO 5600, 1/250 sec, f/4, 560 mm

Suddenly a fox appeared. With a switch of a finger I was back at 400 mm. With an external TC I would have missed that shot.

ISO 7200, f/2.8, 1/80 sec, 400 mm

Because the capture looks a bit soft in this forum you find a sharper versin here.

So for me and the way I shot and what I shoot this lens is the best lens I could imaging.
Click to expand...
Terrific examples of where that lens fits. Also a nice report on the Fn buttons fitting your preferred position.

1/80 sec handheld at f/2.8 clearly demonstrates the need for that lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top