Nikon Z 400/4.5 vs. Z 100-400mm real (wild)life comparison

[ElenaH]

I had the following set up during my last Africa trip: Z9+100-400mm and Z8+180-600mm. I used Z9 also for video. I had D850 as a backup camera. My partner had Z9+800mm and Z8+400/4.5.
Often we shoot the same animals in the same time. I thought it could be interesting to see how the pictures compare to each other.
The images were processed by DXO PureRaw. I also made basic changes in LR like exposure, shadow and highlights but I didn't apply any LR sharpness, texture or clarity. Why I show the processed photos? Because normally we present the processed photos and not the unprocessed and therefore, it is important to know what you can do with what you have.
I also tried to match the WB but it didn't always work...
The time of cameras doesn't match.
The screenshots are made from 4K monitor. I posted also my pictures (not the screenshots) in Wildlife Presentation Sub-Forum.

Is there a difference in bokeh? It is very difficult to tell...

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

zommed:

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.

here the bokeh difference can be seen. Furthermore my partner has much higher shutter speed and lower ISO (also by a male lion photo)

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.

But on the first sight there is almost no difference. Which one would you choose?

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.

 

[ElenaH]

Here also hard to believe that two different persons with a different equipment were taking a photo of the same leopard:

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

but there is different shutter speed and ISO. I again try to lower my ISO and take slower shutter speed.

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

The crop from the other photo

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

Would you believe that there are two different photos? Only if you look at the settings...
That 400/4.5 lets more light inside!! Definitely!!

 

[ajrmd]

Excellent comparison which demonstrates the difference between field use and shooting static targets under controlled lighting. While there are circumstances where the 400 f/4.5 will shine in comparison to the 100-400, the loss of utility and the occasional CA bloom makes it a less desirable choice IMHO.

 

[Jerry Heitschmidt]

From what I can see, I would give the edge to the prime both in sharpness and bokeh. They are close enough, though, that I would also be happy with the 100-400. I recently bought the 400 f/4.5 and am very happy with the lens. It is great to have such excellent choices.

 

[DsD]

From what I can see, I would give the edge to the prime both in sharpness and bokeh. They are close enough, though, that I would also be happy with the 100-400. I recently bought the 400 f/4.5 and am very happy with the lens. It is great to have such excellent choices.

My sentiments exactly! Also based on my usage too.

 

[MatthewK]

So glad you posted these comparison shots, Elena, thank you... saves me from standing outside in the bitter cold and wind (20F/-7C) to shoot side-by-side test shots of my stuffed animal Simba Like you state in your 180-600 vs. 400 4.5 thread, you can definitely see that the 100-400 is less saturated; even without seeing the photo settings, I can instantly tell which shot came from the zoom.

 

[ElenaH]

So glad you posted these comparison shots, Elena, thank you... saves me from standing outside in the bitter cold and wind (20F/-7C) to shoot side-by-side test shots of my stuffed animal Simba Like you state in your 180-600 vs. 400 4.5 thread, you can definitely see that the 100-400 is less saturated; even without seeing the photo settings, I can instantly tell which shot came from the zoom.

great!
I wanted to post the comparison of D850+500PF vs. Z8+400/4.5 but only 5 posts allowed! in 24 hours or less? At least I cannot post anymore I waited even until midnight of central European time but nothing

 

[Larry S.]

Way …..and far above my pay grade….but.. in the last leopard shots I notice the 400 prime shows more contrast given that you did not tinker with this in editing. I have the 400 f/4.5 and love it…. Really amazing comparisons presented here and I hope the forum appreciates the work and “sit-down” time in front of the computer to make this presentation…..

 

[DsD]

YES ElenaH, kudos to you !

 

[Nimi]

To me, the prime wins every time, much better depth rendition (pop).

 

[wotan1]

Long ago when I could not get the 180-600 when it first came out I made a decision to get another lens. At that point I was looking at a choice between the 400mm f4.5 and the 100-400mm.

I chose the 400 4.5. I think the tests you ran confirm that I made the right choice for me. while both lenses take good images, I agree with others that the prime comes out better.

We sometimes look at sharpness comparisons when evaluating lenses. However as your tests show a comparison is about a lot more than sharpening. Bokeh, saturation and overall handling of color for a pleasing result are more subjective and hard to quantify in a test.

Thanks for running this comparison.

 

[seh]

Thank you, Elena. I more or less agree with the comments, but the comparisons are close enough that they highlight the importance of composition as opposed to fine distinctions between lens's.

 

[frdjohns]

Excellent comparison and presentation. These two lenses are so close in IQ as to be virtually indistinguishable. At least in real world use. I believe that if you had not posted the setting data and labeled which shot was taken with which lens, most folks would not be able to consistently identify which was which. It's easy to claim one or the other is better when you are judging with perfect knowledge.

Both are excellent lenses. For me, they are so close that the added advantage of a zoom's flexibility far outweighs any slight difference in contrast or IQ (real or imagined).

 

[Mark Garfinkel]

Thank you for your had work. Mark

 

[RickW]

Not sure I’m seeing the same distinctive + vote for the prime. I see a tad better bokeh with the prime in some of the pics, but I’m not selling my Z100-400. The zoom is far more useful to me than the prime to cause me to “upgrade”.

 

[Len Shepherd]

Thanks for the comparison.
Most would be very happy with the results from either lens - especially as finding a "cooperative enough" for comparison shots leopard is not easy

As each lens is used wide open and the maximum apertures are different the out of focus blur is more diffused at f4 .5.
In my opinion this makes assessments of Boker differences difficult.

The weight difference is small with the zoom with hood and lens caps 3 lb 8 oz and the prime 3 lb 4 oz – discounting that the prime has a 66% wider maximum aperture.

Sometimes overlooked is that resolution is distinctly higher using a 1000: 1 test target than in real world photography.
This helps part explain why the results between the two lenses are difficult to detect - at forum image reproduction size.

 

[Kjellis]

I had both these lenses at the same time and sold the 400/4.5 to help finance my 600TC. I have often regretted selling the 400/4.5, but I have never regretted keeping the 100-400.
Thank you for shareing this @ElenaH and for making sure that I made the right move

 

[ElenaH]

Way …..and far above my pay grade….but.. in the last leopard shots I notice the 400 prime shows more contrast given that you did not tinker with this in editing. I have the 400 f/4.5 and love it…. Really amazing comparisons presented here and I hope the forum appreciates the work and “sit-down” time in front of the computer to make this presentation…

Oh! Thank you, Larry! I am flattered
It encourage me to make more such presentations because I often try different equipment and being in Africa with my partner gives even better comparison-opportunities!

 

[ElenaH]

To me, the prime wins every time, much better depth rendition (pop).

exactly! depth rendition it was the first what I noticed during processing of photos!!

 

[ElenaH]

I chose the 400 4.5. I think the tests you ran confirm that I made the right choice for me. while both lenses take good images, I agree with others that the prime comes out better.

We sometimes look at sharpness comparisons when evaluating lenses. However as your tests show a comparison is about a lot more than sharpening. Bokeh, saturation and overall handling of color for a pleasing result are more subjective and hard to quantify in a test.

Thank you very much, Wotan. yes, solely for photography I would choose 400/4.5 but I personally needed a zoom to be able to zoom for a video. And I do. I even zoom during recording!

 

[ElenaH]

Excellent comparison and presentation. These two lenses are so close in IQ as to be virtually indistinguishable. At least in real world use. I believe that if you had not posted the setting data and labeled which shot was taken with which lens, most folks would not be able to consistently identify which was which. It's easy to claim one or the other is better when you are judging with perfect knowledge.

Both are excellent lenses. For me, they are so close that the added advantage of a zoom's flexibility far outweighs any slight difference in contrast or IQ (real or imagined).

Yes, exactly!! What I wanted to show is that the most important aspect os behind the lens . Even a small change of light or animal position can favour one or the other picture. And last but not least a big role plays the processing! With possibilities we have now can make an excellent picture taken by consumer lens. Sure, there are some boundaries but that is also a factor we need to consider.

 

[ElenaH]

I had both these lenses at the same time and sold the 400/4.5 to help finance my 600TC. I have often regretted selling the 400/4.5, but I have never regretted keeping the 100-400.
Thank you for shareing this @ElenaH and for making sure that I made the right move

Nice!! Everybody has her or his right move! And it can be different! And this is what I like!

 

[Nimi]

exactly! depth rendition it was the first what I noticed during processing of photos!!

There are a lot of theories about what causes the image the pop, and in my research, the lower number and ratio of ED to non-ED elements, the better the depth rendition is. The prime here has 3 elements, the zoom has 6. So while all those elements help correcting abbarations, especially CA, they hurt the rendition of depth. If you're interested, there is an obscure channel on YouTube called Dirty Photography Club that goes through the math.

 

[ElenaH]

There are a lot of theories about what causes the image the pop, and in my research, the lower number and ratio of ED to non-ED elements, the better the depth rendition is. The prime here has 3 elements, the zoom has 6. So while all those elements help correcting abbarations, especially CA, they hurt the rendition of depth. If you're interested, there is an obscure channel on YouTube called Dirty Photography Club that goes through the math.

yes, higher number of elements definitely influence the colour rendition - for example Sigmas vs. Voigtländer.
But I think, it is also important what for glass is used. Zeiss, for example, has Pb (lead) in their glass and some have even radioactive Thorium. I have one such Takumar. I called the company to measure the radiation so that I know how many hours/days per year I can work with it without any health damage. Even some Nikkors and Voigtländer have it. The old ones, of course. They are goooood ... they produce the light, so to say and have special colours

 

[Nimi]

yes, higher number of elements definitely influence the colour rendition - for example Sigmas vs. Voigtländer.
But I think, it is also important what for glass is used. Zeiss, for example, has Pb (lead) in their glass and some have even radioactive Thorium. I have one such Takumar. I called the company to measure the radiation so that I know how many hours/days per year I can work with it without any health damage. Even some Nikkors and Voigtländer have it. The old ones, of course. They are goooood ... they produce the light, so to say and have special colours

Lead glass is the way to go... The refracting index is much higher, allowing for smaller lenses with fewer elements. That's why, in general, rangefinder lenses like Leica, Zeiss, Voigtländer etc are so small, sharp and poppy. For the most part, the world moved away from those towards aberration-free, super-sharp, 10+ elements, ED glass and unfortunately flat optics.