Nikon Z lens 100-400mm experience

[Griffym]

On my tour in South Africa the 180-600 was fine for the wildlife especially on the special reserve areas where wildlife was often close. The bird life however really was my main focus on this year’s trip, and the 600 length was really invaluable, especially when I could take advantage of the close focusing distance the 180-600 has. I have owned a 70-200 F2.8 and given the weight and limited reach I would not take one for a safari trip. I have not yet bought a Zseries 70-200 but I am thinking about it. For my lens choice on the second camera body on international and local birding trips I prefer a 14-30 F4S. It is the best lens for the weight for those dramatic landscape shots.
Lens choices are about personal preferences after all.

 

[jcgamble]

I have moved from a 500 F4G* in the DSLR world to a delightful 180-600 F5.6/6.3 with the Z9 as my go to travel lens. Looking at the 100-400 comments and tests, I think that for wildlife and birding safari travel, I can see a strong case for the 600 Pf plus the 100-400.
My budget doesn’t stretch that far, so I will live with the 180-600 as my first choice if I had to choose a single lens to take. I remain undecided about lenses for less than 180.
* I still have the 500. One day I may find a way to replace it with a 600PF.

My travel kit is a Z9, Z6III with grip, 600 f6.3 pf, 100-400 f4.5-5.6, and 24-70 f4. It is great for birds and large mammals. It has been to Africa, and Western US. It is a wonderful combination that handles everything I want to do. The 600 replace my 500 f5.6 pf.

 

[Griffym]

My travel kit is a Z9, Z6III with grip, 600 f6.3 pf, 100-400 f4.5-5.6, and 24-70 f4. It is great for birds and large mammals. It has been to Africa, and Western US. It is a wonderful combination that handles everything I want to do. The 600 replace my 500 f5.6 pf.

That sounds like a superb kit. How is the weight for carry on luggage? I assume the 600 is on the Z9 and the 100-400 is on the Z6iii most of the time. The 600PF looks like a wonderful replacement for the 500 Pf. I like the 24-70 F4 a lot.

 

[Anjin San]

My travel kit is a Z9, Z6III with grip, 600 f6.3 pf, 100-400 f4.5-5.6, and 24-70 f4. It is great for birds and large mammals. It has been to Africa, and Western US. It is a wonderful combination that handles everything I want to do. The 600 replace my 500 f5.6 pf.

Thats what I’m taking to Botswana…used to be the 24-120 but weight is an issue. I carry 2x Z8s and don’t plan on changing lenses in the field much.

 

[BRKpics]

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.

Wonderful footage, well done.

 

[Roy]

I have moved from a 500 F4G* in the DSLR world to a delightful 180-600 F5.6/6.3 with the Z9 as my go to travel lens. Looking at the 100-400 comments and tests, I think that for wildlife and birding safari travel, I can see a strong case for the 600 Pf plus the 100-400.
My budget doesn’t stretch that far, so I will live with the 180-600 as my first choice if I had to choose a single lens to take. I remain undecided about lenses for less than 180.
* I still have the 500. One day I may find a way to replace it with a 600PF.

The real advantage of the 100-400 is the one metre close focusing.
Although its a bit overpriced.
I'd also consider the 70-200 f2.8 ...

 

[Mark Hauser]

I took the z180-600 on 8 truck safaris last April in SA. 25% images at 600mm and 25% at under 200mm. I’d probably have done as well with the z70-200 to be honest, as most of the wildlife wast that far away.
Changing lenses was impossible due to trail dust.

Hi Patrick, thanks for your insight.

Can you tell us quickly how many % of the pictures were over 400 mm?
And how many pictures there were in total?
To be able to put the percentages in better perspective.

If you jumped straight from 400 to 600, then
75% of your pictures would have been possible with a 100-400
Possibly even more due to the smaller focal length.

 

[Patrick M]

Hi Patrick, thanks for your insight.

Can you tell us quickly how many % of the pictures were over 400 mm?
And how many pictures there were in total?
To be able to put the percentages in better perspective.

If you jumped straight from 400 to 600, then
75% of your pictures would have been possible with a 100-400
Possibly even more due to the smaller focal length.

The numbers originally came from a much earlier post. Unfortunately I purged most of the 4000 or so images I'd taken. From the ~900 I still have on my computer
up to and including 200mm 37%
over 200 up to including 400mm 12%
over 400mm up to, but not including 600mm 11%
at 600 41%

I'm not a very good photographer, so the numbers of "keepers" probably reflects my inability rather than the lens. My gut feeling was that the z70-200mm f2.8 would have served as well - because we were in those safari vehicles all the time and a great deal of wildlife were thus quite close. The z100-400 would have got about 1/2 the keepers. I didn't carry a 2nd camera ( I had an iPhone ) and while I had a 2x TC conditions were too dusty to even think about taking the lens off.

 

[Mark Hauser]

The numbers originally came from a much earlier post. Unfortunately I purged most of the 4000 or so images I'd taken. From the ~900 I still have on my computer

up to and including 200mm 37%
over 200 up to including 400mm 12%
over 400mm up to, but not including 600mm 11%
at 600 41%

I'm not a very good photographer, so the numbers of "keepers" probably reflects my inability rather than the lens. My gut feeling was that the z70-200mm f2.8 would have served as well - because we were in those safari vehicles all the time and a great deal of wildlife were thus quite close. The z100-400 would have got about 1/2 the keepers. I didn't carry a 2nd camera ( I had an iPhone ) and while I had a 2x TC conditions were too dusty to even think about taking the lens off.

many thanks for the details.
Based on your %,
I can image 64% with my 180-600 but less than 39% with the 100-400
Maybe this will help me one day when I go on a safari to decide which lenses are best to take with me.
Everything speaks in favour of a 2 body with e.g. the 35-150.
If I take into account that I don't change lenses outside or install and remove a TC

Have a great weekend