Request review of Z 100-400, especially vs 200-500

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).

P

PaulBCT

Active member
Member's gallery
I am very close to replacing my 200-500 with the new Z 100-400, and would appreciate review of the new one, especially vs the old.
Would also like to hear about use with TC’s, too.
Thanks
 
Member's gallery
old one?

for info on the 100-400, take a look at Brad's blog (http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html). it's a great lens, although it's slightly differently positioned than the 200-500. the successor to the 200-500 role would be the 200-600 that's on the Z roadmap.

i think the big question is if 400 is long enough for your purposes. yes, you can use TCs to good effect, but if you really need 500-600, you may be better off waiting for the 200-600.
 
Member's gallery
Just my opinion because of how I use my equipment but I "sort of" wish I had my 200-500 back or spent the money for the Z 100-400 and Z TC-2.0 on a 500 PF and TC-1.4 III. One of my biggest complaints is the Fly By Wire manual focus. I shoot wildlife, landscape, and astrophotography. It is extremely hard to manual focus on stars and get it right and if I have to replace the battery during the night my focus resets to infinity which is not always where it needs to be so then I have to try and readjust. I will say though when I get keepers in all forms of my photography this lens like most of the S series lens kicks butt. I do find myself using higher ISO's and Shutter speeds for day time photos than what I do with my F lens. My hits and misses for day time photos are about the same as the 200-500 and with the 200-500 you have that extra 100mm, but that said my full on shots with the Z TC-2.0 (800mm @ F/11) have all been beyond my expectations. So I'm still torn between keeping or selling. The other day Nikon had refurbished 500 PF for $2499 I had one in the cart but didn't pull the trigger and when I went back a few hours later they were all gone. Maybe that's a sign haha. If I can get some clear nights I will be out and try to come up with some kind of resolve on star focus, I have some ideas that might help, if not I'll just FTZ my F mount 300 and see where I'm at later. HaHa, one idea I have thought about is buying a 12"
Schmidt-Cassegrain scope, but then I get that look from my wife LOL.

Here's my old 200-500 on my EQ mount.
EQ Mount3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
PaulBCT said:
I am very close to replacing my 200-500 with the new Z 100-400, and would appreciate review of the new one, especially vs the old.
Would also like to hear about use with TC’s, too.
Thanks
Click to expand...
Lakeman said:
Just my opinion because of how I use my equipment but I "sort of" wish I had my 200-500 back or spent the money for the Z 100-400 and Z TC-2.0 on a 500 PF and TC-1.4 III. One of my biggest complaints is the Fly By Wire manual focus. I shoot wildlife, landscape, and astrophotography. It is extremely hard to manual focus on stars and get it right and if I have to replace the battery during the night my focus resets to infinity which is not always where it needs to be so then I have to try and readjust. I will say though when I get keepers in all forms of my photography this lens like most of the S series lens kicks butt. I do find myself using higher ISO's and Shutter speeds for day time photos than what I do with my F lens. My hits and misses for day time photos are about the same as the 200-500 and with the 200-500 you have that extra 100mm, but that said my full on shots with the Z TC-2.0 (800mm @ F/11) have all been beyond my expectations. So I'm still torn between keeping or selling. The other day Nikon had refurbished 500 PF for $2499 I had one in the cart but didn't pull the trigger and when I went back a few hours later they were all gone. Maybe that's a sign haha. If I can get some clear nights I will be out and try to come up with some kind of resolve on star focus, I have some ideas that might help, if not I'll just FTZ my F mount 300 and see where I'm at later. HaHa, one idea I have thought about is buying a 12"
Schmidt-Cassegrain scope, but then I get that look from my wife LOL.

Here's my old 200-500 on my EQ mount.
View attachment 36005
Click to expand...
Thanks, Lakeman.
I was planning to get the Z TC 1.4 based on the "traditional wisdom" that images with the 2.0 are inferior, BUT I have been reading reviews saying that the Z 2.0 images are really, really good. Do you agree? Sounds like it. Think the Z 2.0 is the TC to get with that lens for added reach and still great pix?
Your astro rig is impressive. Wave to Jeff Bezos as he flys by.
Thanx!
 
Member's gallery
Yes I shoot from here at times but have to be careful about walking around and yes the wind sometimes causes problems. A lot of time I setup test the shot and set it up to shoot 30 or 40 shots and walk in the house while it shoots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hut
Member's gallery
PaulBCT said:
Thanks, Lakeman.
I was planning to get the Z TC 1.4 based on the "traditional wisdom" that images with the 2.0 are inferior, BUT I have been reading reviews saying that the Z 2.0 images are really, really good. Do you agree? Sounds like it. Think the Z 2.0 is the TC to get with that lens for added reach and still great pix?
Your astro rig is impressive. Wave to Jeff Bezos as he flys by.
Thanx!
Click to expand...

I like what I see so far from the Z TC-2.0 but I'm still testing, one thing to think about is the 2.0 if f/11 and the 1.4 is f/8 I've thought abought trying to rent a 1.4 to do some comparison. When I get some time over the next few days I'll create a flickr page for the Z TC-2.0 and send you the link.
 
Member's gallery
Lakeman said:
Just my opinion because of how I use my equipment but I "sort of" wish I had my 200-500 back or spent the money for the Z 100-400 and Z TC-2.0 on a 500 PF and TC-1.4 III. One of my biggest complaints is the Fly By Wire manual focus. I shoot wildlife, landscape, and astrophotography. It is extremely hard to manual focus on stars and get it right and if I have to replace the battery during the night my focus resets to infinity which is not always where it needs to be so then I have to try and readjust. I will say though when I get keepers in all forms of my photography this lens like most of the S series lens kicks butt. I do find myself using higher ISO's and Shutter speeds for day time photos than what I do with my F lens. My hits and misses for day time photos are about the same as the 200-500 and with the 200-500 you have that extra 100mm, but that said my full on shots with the Z TC-2.0 (800mm @ F/11) have all been beyond my expectations. So I'm still torn between keeping or selling. The other day Nikon had refurbished 500 PF for $2499 I had one in the cart but didn't pull the trigger and when I went back a few hours later they were all gone. Maybe that's a sign haha. If I can get some clear nights I will be out and try to come up with some kind of resolve on star focus, I have some ideas that might help, if not I'll just FTZ my F mount 300 and see where I'm at later. HaHa, one idea I have thought about is buying a 12"
Schmidt-Cassegrain scope, but then I get that look from my wife LOL.

Here's my old 200-500 on my EQ mount.
View attachment 36005
Click to expand...
I missed out also on the 500 PF for $2499, 30 minutes later they were gone.
 
Member's gallery
I have used the 100-400 with the 1.4x TC only a couple of times and the results were great. I would need to do more testing but so far it is a very good combo. I haven't used it more as I don't see the point when I have a 500 f5.6 pf in my bag as well and using the 100-400 + 1.4x TC means f8 wide open at the long end. However, here are some photos using the Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S + 1.4x TC:
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S + 1.4x TC, 1/400s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso220
original.jpg


Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S + 1.4x TC, 1/400s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso400
original.jpg


Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S + 1.4x TC, 1/800s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso320
original.jpf


Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S + 1.4x TC, 1/3200s f/9.0 at 310.0mm iso2000
original.jpg


Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S + 1.4x TC, 1/3200s f/9.0 at 290.0mm iso1000
original.jpg


Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S + 1.4x TC, 1/400s f/9.0 at 330.0mm iso320
original.jpg


Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S + 1.4x TC, 1/400s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso320
original.jpg


Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S + 1.4x TC, 1/640s f/9.0 at 560.0mm iso360
original.jpg
 
Member's gallery
PaulBCT said:
Thanks, Lakeman.
I was planning to get the Z TC 1.4 based on the "traditional wisdom" that images with the 2.0 are inferior, BUT I have been reading reviews saying that the Z 2.0 images are really, really good. Do you agree? Sounds like it. Think the Z 2.0 is the TC to get with that lens for added reach and still great pix?
Your astro rig is impressive. Wave to Jeff Bezos as he flys by.
Thanx!
Click to expand...

PaulBCT here is a link to some shots I took this morning with Z6-100-400mm-TC2.0, handheld photos off my deck, straight out of camera except for some with light editing and crop, I named photos as to which had edits. Edits were highlights, shadows, blacks, whites and some had noise adjustments all in Lightroom. I'll take more and add later. Orchids were @ about 3'
flic.kr

Nikon Z TC-2.0 800mm f/11

Explore this photo album by Rodney Humble on Flickr!
flic.kr flic.kr
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
You did not mention the camera you plan to use. It may matter with the 2x t.c. Most of the reviews I have seen pair the 2x with the Z9 and love it. I purchased a 2x to use with the 100 to 400 on my Z6ii. To test it out I shot about 100 images of various types the first day . I was underwhelmed, many of the more taxing images were soft. I returned the 2x the next day and replaced it with the 1.4. I am very happy with the 1.4 as it shows only minimal negative impact on the images.
 
Member's gallery
Mdf123 said:
You did not mention the camera you plan to use. It may matter with the 2x t.c. Most of the reviews I have seen pair the 2x with the Z9 and love it. I purchased a 2x to use with the 100 to 400 on my Z6ii. To test it out I shot about 100 images of various types the first day . I was underwhelmed, many of the more taxing images were soft. I returned the 2x the next day and replaced it with the 1.4. I am very happy with the 1.4 as it shows only minimal negative impact on the images.
Click to expand...
Will use Z7.
Thanks. Sounds like 2.0 not quite as spectacular as 1.4.
 
Member's gallery
Thank you so much to all, and especially Lakeman, for thoughtful advice, posting pix, and even making a bunch. The friendliness and great knowledge resources on this website are teriffic and unmatched.
 
Member's gallery
Don’t have a 200-500…but used to have a Tamron G2…the 100-400 is as good as the 500PF to my eye and far better than the Tamron. No IQ drop at all with the 1.4 and just a little with the 2.0…but the f11 with the latter does cause some high ISO issues early in the morning or late in the evening. That’s the only issue I have with the 2.0 though…very good otherwise lbeit not quite as good as the 1,4 which is indistinguishable from the bare lens to me. I ordered the 800…and despite having the 500PF I can easily see that the 800, 10l-400, both TCs, and the 24-70 for landscapes being a pretty complete kit. Also have the 70-200 but my wife doesn’t want either it or the 500 so if they don’t get used I will probably end up selling both unless keeping the 2.8 lens for low light turns out to be advisable. As it is, the 70-200 gets little use but it was the only real and/or affordable tele option in the Z mount 15 months ago.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top