Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens

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
Karl Gillard said:
Afternoon fellow members! This has probably been previously discussed in detail, but I don't have time to search right away. I recently sold the last of my Nikon "F" mount lenses and am replacing with "Z" mount. Presently, my Z mount lenses consist of: 24-200 f/4-6.3 (which I'll be replacing with the 24-120 f/4), 105mm Micro f/2.8 S, and 600mmPF f/6.3 S, and Z TC-1.4. I am strongly considering the Nikon Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 S lens, strictly for the versatility of the zoom range covering that mid to long focal length.

The nearest camera outlet that might have a 100-400 is in Houston, TX approximately 3-hours away. There is nothing locally that I could have a "hands on" inspection, therefore, I'll have to rely on many of your experiences. I realize that the Z 400mm f/4.5 S is probably sharper and slightly better color rendition, but it's nothing I can't deal with in post editing, and if I bought it, I'd still have the void in the 300mm focal length area.

I recently watched one of Steve's Costa Rica videos where he quickly discussed using his wife's 100-400. I've watched many other videos and comparisons, but I would love to hear from those of you that have personal experience with the lens, pros and cons. Thank you in advance for your consideration!

Karl
Click to expand...
Although I dont like variable aperture lenses the 180-600 is great value.
The 100-400 is a bit overpriced but if does close up fairly well
I love all your other choices...🦘
 
Member's gallery
Viathelens said:
I shoot with the Nikon 100-400 and the Nikon 600PF, a very nice combo and easy to travel with, plus two Z8s. I've read, and it's stated here, that the lens is somewhat soft at 400mm. I just have not found that to be the case. Maybe it depends on the copy you get. Forgive me for posting a photo in your thread but I think it makes the case, although sometimes what we post here looks soft when it's actually sharp. This cheetah image was shot at 400mm, the focus point was actually on the top of the grass (so might have been even sharper if I'd got the lens pointed at the right spot!), and the distance was 27m or 90 feet. It's quite sharp and very detailed. I think it's a great lens to use on a second camera to get the wider shots. I have no complaints.

View attachment 110884
Click to expand...
Connie, just a hypothetical question: which spot? Hahahaha! Thank you, I’m about 100% sure it’s going to be the 100-400!
 
Member's gallery
Bob Hullinger said:
Happy photography and enjoy your new lens. You know you are going to buy one;) But here goes anyways.

I'll begin with my personal summary of the Z 100-400. It is one the finest lenses ever made. Before I continue, please don't take the technical aspect of what I write as personal. Facts are facts and none of this is meant to hurt feelings. Hopefully, depending upon your skill level and willingness to progress as a photographer, you'll find some value in what I am about to write.

So with that said, allow me to qualify that remark. It is one of the finest lenses ever made when in the hands of a proficient photographer with the pride, knowledge and skill to competently operate any camera or any lenses to its fullest potential. It does not ship with skill included.

It does not ship "soft" or as a "bad copy". Granting that some small percentage of everything created by man can be flawed, there is no recall for these lenses based upon documented manufacturing problems that has ever included any that I have used.

A huge mistake is comparing it to any other lens. Comparing it to a 400mm prime is disconnected logic. It is a zoom lens. A prime is a prime. Nobody who designed any 100-400 zoom lens intended it to be a 400mm prime lens. Nobody who ever designed any prime intended it to be a zoom. You get the idea. One close focuses at inside 2 feet, maybe 19 inches, if my memory is correct, and the other focuses at around 15 feet. Interchangeability was not the designer's objective.

Nobody ever intended the Z100-400 zoom, and any 100-400 zoom, to be suitable substitute for a 400mm prime. Especially a fast 400mm prime. You cannot compare the two without ignoring the fact that they are not designed to perform the same function.

The question seems to be does the 400mm end of it work for you. The answer to that can only be decided by the person operating it and that individuals proficiency level. That's you and only you. Competency is everything.

Personally speaking the Z100-400mm lens has never produced a poor image at 400mm except when I gave it bad instruction during the exposure and composition phase of creating an image. Simply out of building good work habits, I do not use post processing to correct mistakes. My mistakes are called "throw ways". I have never had a lens decide form one image to the next to change its mind about what I told it to do unless I screwed it up.

In the interest of fairness, I also have a Tamron 100-400mm f mount lenses that produces images indistinguishable to the Z100-400 when used properly. But I love Z system lenses and FTZ Tamron just isn't as much fun as a Z lens on a Z body. However, you would never know the difference in the results in comparable images without seeing the data showing which lens was used for which image. What defines the image is how I control light that is presented to the surface of the sensor at the moment I release the shutter.

It is very likely, given that you are asking this question, that your results using the Z100-400 at 400mm would be nowhere close to Steve Perry's results with the same gear under identical circumstances. Neither would mine. It will not be the gear that makes the difference. It will be experience and practice and dedication to the art that Steve Perry has invested that will make him images superior. It is the hands that are holding the gear and the mind making the exposure and composition decisions that are seen when one looks at outstanding images.
There are tons of them posted here on BCGF.


Your remark that you are happy dealing with less than satisfactory results, that you say you can deal with via post processing, does send up a flag from my perspective. It tells me you believe that lenses are responsible for focus when that it is the function of the photographer. We are not talking about a cheap, bargain basement knock-off lens. If you focus it properly it will respond accordingly.

I have exposed thousands of images with the Z100-400. Everything from close up near macro to TC2x and all the things it is designed to do in between. This lens is never "soft" although I can make it soft intentionally or by not paying attention to my focus. I have never had a "bad copy" of any lens I have ever touched. Personally speaking, my Z100-400, or any other lens is use, will take bad images only when I make mistakes in operating it and put bad light onto the sensor.

Usage is everything. You're the sole variable in that part of the equation. The Z100-400mm will create excellent images across the entire gamut of the it's design parameters. It only does what the user tells it they want done.

I am a true believer that before anyone pays big bucks for any piece of camera gear that paying for an education in exposure would be money better spent. Skill is always more important than the cost of a camera or lens if photographic quality is the goal.

When photography is an ego hobby then gear price is a major point of discussion.

When photographic competency and proficiency are the reasons someone loves cameras and taking pictures, then education, knowledge and pride are main talking points instead of gear.

Buying the best hockey stick will not get you into the NHL Hall of Fame if you don't know how to skate and play the game before you one. Camera gear works exactly the same way.

We all get to decide where we fall in assessing who we are and why we take pictures. There's is no right or wrong approach.

My suggestion would be for you to go to Flickr and search the gallery of images shot with the Z100-400. You will find literally thousands of images produced by all levels of photographer using the lens.

www.flickr.com

Flickr Search — “Nikkor Z100-400”

www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
Click to expand...
Hey Bob, thanks for the in-depth answer and i agree with most you’ve said. I have been using Nikon for over 50-years, had a full photography studio for 17-years in the “film” days, and have owned many lenses/cameras during that time including the super primes: 500 f/4, 600 f/4, and just recently sold my 800 f/5.6. At 71 and multiple surgeries in the last year, it’s more about the weight and quality for costs.

I wish I could say that I never had a bad lens, but that’s not the case. Infact, there’s been three that I’ve returned and upon inspection they were found to be flawed and replaced. You mention a good fact: they are man-made. However, when you consider over a +50 year period, that’s not really bad.

I am super happy with the 600PF. I had the 180-600 and while it was good, it wasn’t as good as the PF (just my opinion of course). However, I did get some amazing pics with the 180-600 also, but I used it at 600mm the majority of the time

The 100-400 will work perfectly for my needs, giving me plenty of focal coverage. My final kit will contain a 14-24, 50 (only because I already have it), 105 Micro, 100-400, 600, TC-14, and finally the TC-20. So focal coverage will be from 14 - 1200mm (1200 on very rare occasions, if at all).

So, that’s where I’m headed! The days of $13,000+ lenses are a thing of the past for me. I don’t pixel peep, so if it’s sharp to me, we’re all good! Again, thank you for taking time to respond with some good information!
 
Member's gallery
Although they probably exist, I am not sure I have ever had a bad lens copy. I have had lens that are intermitently bad, but find they get more consistent over time
(Translation, I got better over time. LOL)

The 100-400, with or without the TC-14 is excellent. I know at least three people, including myself, that use that combo with good success. The 560 @ f/6.3 with the close focus adds good value to both far and close operating range.

I also have the TC2... I like it a lot on my large prime, but tend to stay away from it with the 100-400.
 
Member's gallery
I carry both the 600PF and 100-400 on Z9s using Black Rapid duel straps. The balance is very good. I did loose my 100-400 lens hood when I rested on the bridge top rail. Into the drink. I have a Zemlin hood on the 600 so since I was thinking of replacing it before, now I had an excuse. When shooting from the bridge I use the 100-400 mostly for flight shots and close ups of Ducks taking off.I am very pleased with the image quality as seen in the attached image.
Brown Pelican.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Currently - having only one body - I decide depending on the situation and the intended targets whether I use the 100-400 full range or the 180-600 full range for walking around, but compared tov the big stuff it's even possible to have them both with me.
Once I get the chance for a second body and following the thoughts of @wotan1 I'd use the 100-400 on body 1 and the 600 PF on body 2, because
  • the 600 pf
    • is even lighter an smalller than the 180-600 and thus even more agile and
    • at the same time provides superior IQ at 600mm, where the 180-600 takes a slight hit,
    • although I really don't fancy shooting at f9, thanks to the excellent IQ of the 600 pf it still can take a TC-1,4x really well if necessary to have something really long and
  • the 100-400
    • covers the shorter range and
    • still gives opportunity to have close-ups thanks to its really short MFD and eccellent IQ up to app. 350mm
After all it's just a question of money - unless I say goodbye to my good old 500 f4 :) .
 
Member's gallery
All of these discussions trigger the prime vs zoom debate. Flexibility versus maximum IQ. Good enough versus the best possible are some of the terms used in this discussion.

I made my first long focal length Z lens purchase when the 180-600 had just come on the market. I originally tried to order it but they were in short supply and waiting lines were long. I already had the 70-200mm f2.8. I chose the 400mm f4.5 over the 100-400 because I was looking for maximum reach and maximum IQ. I have never regretted getting it and it is still one of my favorite wildlife lenses.

Which brings me to the point, good enough versus best possible.

I am reminded that a 45mp camera with a prime lens is capable of producing way more image detail than is practically needed for the kinds of photographs we are likely to be creating. Unless you are going poster size a printer can't print to the detail possible with a 45mp sensor and a 20mp sensor is good enough. And the computer screens we all use have even less resolution power.

So normally a decent zoom lens is "good enough" so long as you can fill the frame. If you have to enlarge your reach by cropping or teleconverters you will be better off with a 45 mp sensor and a "best possible" prime. I have been very satisfied with how far I could reach with the 400mm f4.5 which is why it continues to be a favorite lens. Although not for everything, which is why I later added the 800mm pf.

If you don't need the extra reach the 100-400mm is a great lens that is going to be "good enough" for whatever you shoot. It will be good enough if you have a longer focal length prime to go to fill the frame for more distant subjects.
 
Member's gallery
I have both the 100-400 and 180-600. Like others, I found that the 100-400 is often a little short for sone wildlife shots, and reason I bought the longer zoom as well. I found that the 100-400 pairs well with the 1.4xTC, but have had less success with the 2.0xTC.

The 100-400 is smaller and lighter than the longer zoom probably because of the external zoom construction. The lower end of the zoom is also much better when I'm out looking for wildlife, but find a landscape shot. Two downsides to the 100-400, though:
1) The extra control ring is easy to move, so I often see a poorly exposed picture as mine is set for exposure compensation. The EV setting isn't in the display, so it is sometimes hard to tell
2) The lens really reduces the battery life on my Z8. I think that this is because the control rings are more sensitive, and wake the camera too often.

The 180-600 is a fair bit heavier, and longer (internal zoom). I don't find that the low end of the zoom is suitable for landscape / forest pictures.

No issues with the image quality on either one. Most of the issues are behind the camera...
 
Member's gallery
Machlott said:
Hello guys,
Excuse me to use this topic Karl but i m also trying to figure out which lenses i should take and it’s related to yours question as well :)
Hope you don’t mind.
Cause currently i want to replace my 200-400 f4 vii with a Z mount and I hesitate beetween the 180-600 and the 100-400 with TC.
Cause currently I only had the Z 24-120 f4 with a Z8 body.
Currently only have the opportunity to shoot deers, fox or flying birds, but planned to do a safari in coming years.
Which one you recommend ?
The 180-600 cause i don’t have the 600PF ?
Click to expand...
If you’re only getting one long tele…I would get the 180-600. The 100-400 and 600PF are IMOmthe perfect combo with the TC. But…if budge is an issue I would prefer the 180-600 over the pair, particularly if you aren’t a 2 body person.
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
All of these discussions trigger the prime vs zoom debate. Flexibility versus maximum IQ. Good enough versus the best possible are some of the terms used in this discussion.

I made my first long focal length Z lens purchase when the 180-600 had just come on the market. I originally tried to order it but they were in short supply and waiting lines were long. I already had the 70-200mm f2.8. I chose the 400mm f4.5 over the 100-400 because I was looking for maximum reach and maximum IQ. I have never regretted getting it and it is still one of my favorite wildlife lenses.

Which brings me to the point, good enough versus best possible.

I am reminded that a 45mp camera with a prime lens is capable of producing way more image detail than is practically needed for the kinds of photographs we are likely to be creating. Unless you are going poster size a printer can't print to the detail possible with a 45mp sensor and a 20mp sensor is good enough. And the computer screens we all use have even less resolution power.

So normally a decent zoom lens is "good enough" so long as you can fill the frame. If you have to enlarge your reach by cropping or teleconverters you will be better off with a 45 mp sensor and a "best possible" prime. I have been very satisfied with how far I could reach with the 400mm f4.5 which is why it continues to be a favorite lens. Although not for everything, which is why I later added the 800mm pf.

If you don't need the extra reach the 100-400mm is a great lens that is going to be "good enough" for whatever you shoot. It will be good enough if you have a longer focal length prime to go to fill the frame for more distant subjects.
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying…but having the 100-400, then buying the 400/4.5 and then the 600PF…the 400 bot zero use after that. Added the 180-600 for single lens kit flexibility…but either the long zoom or the pair are the perfect lens combo for my needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top