Nikon Z lens 100-400mm experience

[ButlerKid]

I turned down a delivery of the Z 400/f4.5! SHOCK! Silly me, I supposed. But I was "rewarded" with a Z 600mm. Coupled with the 100-400, I am happy with my decision. Even if I move away from wildlife photography, the 100-400 will serve me very well.

 

[Chris K]

I'll have to slightly disagree. I don't have an F TC but do have both lenses and the Z TCs…and while I can see very slight differences between the 500PF and the 100-400 at 560…I guess I should have tried it at whatever adds up to 500 with the TC but I didn't…those differences, to me at least…are not better or worse but just slightly different. And the differences are *only* visible when pixel peeping at 1:1, when zoomed out to screen output display size there's no difference at all that I can see. There is a slight difference in bokeh wide open…but then it's a different aperture so that's expected and it's again not better or worse just slightly different…and at the same aperture I again can't see anything at non pixel peeping sizes.

My experience is that the 500PF has somewhat better overall contrast, a small sharpness improvement (mostly visible at 100% crop as you said), and the 100-400 has a tiny bit of CA with the TC, if you shoot with branches against a bright sky. All that little stuff combined with slightly less reach makes me reach for the 500PF if I'm shooting far/small stuff.

I won't say the 100-400 is anything but great, though. It's extremely versatile, and it's great in the hand thanks to its rear balance and mode ring (which I use for EC).

I turned down a delivery of the Z 400/f4.5! SHOCK! Silly me, I supposed. But I was "rewarded" with a Z 600mm. Coupled with the 100-400, I am happy with my decision. Even if I move away from wildlife photography, the 100-400 will serve me very well.

The 100-400--while large--is a great landscape lens. I've also done a bit of soccer with it, and it did very well. It's not a 400/2.8, but a 400/2.8 also isn't a 200/4.5.

 

[mrt]

Mostly I use a 500 F/4e (with tc 1.4) with adapter on a Z9 for shooting birds, which is what I mostly do, but use the 100-400 (with tc 1.4) when I'm in tight quarters, like in a kayak; when I need to handhold for an extended perod, like on a pelagic trip where mono/tripods are not permitted; where I need flexibility for near and far shooting; and when I'm shooting fast moving and sometimes smaller birds in order to get them in my field of view (and then zoom out). Probably other circumstances too. The 100-400 is fast focusing and is plenty sharp. A 600mm is on order and will replace the 500 when it gets here.

 

[RichF]

I turned down a delivery of the Z 400/f4.5! SHOCK! Silly me, I supposed. But I was "rewarded" with a Z 600mm. Coupled with the 100-400, I am happy with my decision. Even if I move away from wildlife photography, the 100-400 will serve me very well.

Have yet to receive my 600 TC. When did you order yours (2 minutes after orders opened??)

 

[RichF]

I turned down a delivery of the Z 400/f4.5! SHOCK! Silly me, I supposed. But I was "rewarded" with a Z 600mm. Coupled with the 100-400, I am happy with my decision. Even if I move away from wildlife photography, the 100-400 will serve me very well.

BTW I have a 400 F/4.5 and find it is very light and sharp. Hope nikon makes a 600 F/5.6 counterpart

 

[Griffym]

I used this lens during my three week trip to Alaska in August. It is my go to travel lens for wildlife, and you can get some landscape shots as well. I shot sunsets, whales, Kodiak bears, and birds in flight. I don't use the teleconverter, I just shoot in DX mode 19.5 mp for magnification and smaller raw files when I need the 600 mm equivalent reach. It is not as sharp as my 500 f5.6, but pretty darn close. It is good enough that I'll be leaving my 500 at home when I go to Australia/New Zealand this February.

It depends whee you go in Australia and what sort of birds. Our birds can be quite tricky some need 750 odd others are fine with 400 plus DX. Small parrots and finches etc. are best with longer focal lengths. A longer focal length Prime and the 100-400 would make an ideal combination here in Oz

 

[Roy]

Hi

I am considering getting a 100-400 mm lens to go with my Z9. I intend using this on safaris that I go to often in India where the Tigers/Lions etc come fairly close to the vehicles and I have often found the 600mm/400mm with TC to be too much focal length. Has anybody used this lens and what is your opinion of the lens ? Thank you.

Although I may have been using a bad lens - I found the 100-400 Z lens a little soft.
I ended up getting the 400mm f4.5 which may be still a little long for your uses and the 70-200 Z with TCs.
The 70-200 focal length seems ideal for a safari shoot and with a TC would be very flexible...

 

[Highbow]

The Z100-400 has proven to be very much a go to lens for my Z6ii. Sharp results and versatility are what I have seen.

 

[scosmi51]

I ordered one on Thursday from Hunts and got it Friday. It makes the perfect companion to the 24-120 mm for a 2 lens travel kit based on a Z6 II. So, I've found it to be very handy, not very heavy, and sharp. And so my mirrorless journey continues.

 

[Patrick M]

I’ve had z400 f4.5 for a couple of weeks rental to satisfy my curiosity (And GAS )
However, it doesn’t suit my generalistic shooting…I do much prefer the zoom lenses.
Having said that, wow what an impressive lens. Super sharp and light enough to carry for hours! With the z 2x converter I found the IQ still pretty good.
so I’ll stay with the z70-200 and for that 200-600 one day

 

[dasm]

Picked up the Z 100-400 a few days back. We're going through a frigid cold snap in Alberta (day-time high is around minus 25C). Hence, I haven't got a chance to try out the lens outside. What a difference between this one and 200-500 in terms of size and weight!! Here's a shot of our backyard taken handheld from inside with Z9. EXIF Data: 400mm in FX; 1/640; f/5.6; ISO 250.

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

 

[Lance B]

I used this lens during my three week trip to Alaska in August. It is my go to travel lens for wildlife, and you can get some landscape shots as well. I shot sunsets, whales, Kodiak bears, and birds in flight. I don't use the teleconverter, I just shoot in DX mode 19.5 mp for magnification and smaller raw files when I need the 600 mm equivalent reach. It is not as sharp as my 500 f5.6, but pretty darn close. It is good enough that I'll be leaving my 500 at home when I go to Australia/New Zealand this February.

Where are you going in Oz, and what do you hope to photograph? If you are coming to Sydney, I would be happy to show you round if I can manage it.

As Griffym states in his reply to you here:

Nikon Z lens 100-400mm experience

I turned down a delivery of the Z 400/f4.5! SHOCK! Silly me, I supposed. But I was "rewarded" with a Z 600mm. Coupled with the 100-400, I am happy with my decision. Even if I move away from wildlife photography, the 100-400 will serve me very well.

bcgforums.com

If you are going to shoot birds, I would be inclined to bring along the 500 PF (and the 1.4x TCIII if you have it) as well as the 100-400. I also live in Australia and many birds are small and many of the larger versions can be a long way off. I have been using the 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII quite a lot lately.

 

[Lance B]

Hi

I am considering getting a 100-400 mm lens to go with my Z9. I intend using this on safaris that I go to often in India where the Tigers/Lions etc come fairly close to the vehicles and I have often found the 600mm/400mm with TC to be too much focal length. Has anybody used this lens and what is your opinion of the lens ? Thank you.

I think it is a fabulous lens and would be perfect for Tigers and Lions. I think it is sharp as a tack and has great overall IQ.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I've got 100-400mm primarely for filming and I must say it was great! Especially becasue I was able to zoom smoothly from 100mm to 400mm during the filmiing! You can see it in this video from 0:50 where I zoom from the whole "buffalo-scene" to the lion hanging on buffalo neck. I was pleasantly surprised that it worked! Normally if you zoom and film it looks jerky.

The other good point (beside the sharpness) what I realised is that you can shoot with 1/80s on 400mm and it is sharp. So, the vibration reduction of the lens is really very good!! Wenn the animal was steady I went from 1/400s to 1/80s, started with 1/400s and higher ISO for security shot and then slow down the shutter speed to reduce the ISO.
I tried it also with 1.4xTC but the combo got quite heavy.
So, I can recommend this lens. Especially taking in account that tiger is a big animal and if you can be close to it.

Great video ... someday I may end up giving video a try beyond a 15 second clip shot in a class

 

[Ken Miracle]

Being a birder I use my Z800pf on my Z9 95% of the time. I had not had my Z100-400 on the Z9 for a while and took it our for a short spin the other day on some geese and had fun shooting a wide range of BIF images from small flocks coming in to wide and tight images of single geese banking in etc.. got some cool images. The Z100-400 is very good all the way around. I have used it on Z9 and Z6II with an without a 1.4 TC and it did very well with all combinations. More than good enough that I sold my 500PF and have not missed it.

As others have noted the Z70-200 is a great lens and it has been a workhorse on my Z9 along with my Z24-120 on my Z6II shooting indoor events at church with wide ranges of lighting and not able to use flash.

My wife loves her Z400 f/4.5 on her Z50 for birds. She uses the new Tamron Zmount 70-300 on my, well now our, Z611 when she wants light versatile focal length. I still have never had the chance to use her Z400 f/4.5

 

[Anjin San]

My experience is that the 500PF has somewhat better overall contrast, a small sharpness improvement (mostly visible at 100% crop as you said), and the 100-400 has a tiny bit of CA with the TC, if you shoot with branches against a bright sky. All that little stuff combined with slightly less reach makes me reach for the 500PF if I'm shooting far/small stuff.

I won't say the 100-400 is anything but great, though. It's extremely versatile, and it's great in the hand thanks to its rear balance and mode ring (which I use for EC).



The 100-400--while large--is a great landscape lens. I've also done a bit of soccer with it, and it did very well. It's not a 400/2.8, but a 400/2.8 also isn't a 200/4.5.

Yeah..
they’re both excellent lenses but one has to consider the output destination and not pixel peeping unless you’re printing big enough that peeping helps the output. And also what’s the definition of a user for better worse vs just a little different. I had a Tamron 150-600G2 before getting the 500PF…and it was definItaly not as good…but I did miss the flexibility the zoom provided. Got the 70-200 when I got the Z7II and again liked the flexibility..but too short for birds. Got the 100-400 and TCs and love ‘em. Then after using them awhile I did some tripod mounted tests against the 500PF which is how I decided that the two lenses were essentially the same IQ at screen display sizes…in some cases I liked the zoom shot better and in others the 500PF…but that could have been slight exposure or AF differences or whatever…all tests were done with the Z9 but I wasn’t tempting a scientific test so didn’t bother locking down the exposure although it was the same AF mode for all of the shots and I matched aperture for the tests at multiple apertures. Since I came to the conclusion that for me the differences were negligible and not always in favor of the same lens…the zoom flexibility wins, particularly as I’m not always at the long end And foot zooming isn’t always available.

One can’t really go wrong with either lens though…

 

[Anjin San]

The 70-200 focal length seems ideal for a safari shoot and with a TC would be very flexible...

That’s sort of my idea as well…assuming I ever went on a Safari or something where I was shooting from a boat or vehicle. 100-400/1.4TC on the Z9 and the 70-200 on the Z7II or more likely the second Z9 I would rent for the trip so the setup would be the same…and either the 24-70 or my wife’s Z50 with the 16-50 for anything really close or in camp candid shots. While I would love the reach of either of the longer lenses…the weight, expense, and loss of flexibility with those super teles mounted makes them non starters for me.

 

[Ken Miracle]

That’s sort of my idea as well…assuming I ever went on a Safari or something where I was shooting from a boat or vehicle. 100-400/1.4TC on the Z9 and the 70-200 on the Z7II or more likely the second Z9 I would rent for the trip so the setup would be the same…and either the 24-70 or my wife’s Z50 with the 16-50 for anything really close or in camp candid shots. While I would love the reach of either of the longer lenses…the weight, expense, and loss of flexibility with those super teles mounted makes them non starters for me.

I have only done 1 safari and that was back in my DSLR days. Traveled with a pro photog, tour organizer, camera store owner who does Africa at least twice a year and he stressed versatility weight limits on small planes etc. so had a leg up with his advice before I left. D500 with Nikon 200-500 and D4S with Nikon 28-300 was used for everything around camp to BIF and leopards, wild dogs, white and black rhino, lion, buffalo, elephants, honey badgers, myriads of antelope, sunsets and more. By the way my wife shot the whole trip with a Nikon bridge camera a P900 and had a second for back up which was needed when she accidentally dumped the camera on the floor of a safari vehicle and it came rolling up under my feet in the seat in front of her with LCD flashing as it rolled. I still worked but the Zoom lens was kaput for zooming.