should I consider the z 100-400

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).

wotan1

wotan1

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I am headed out for a trip next week and am considering renting an extra lens for evaluation.

One lens I am considering is the z 100-400.

However I already am pretty well-served in that range with the following lenses:

105mm macro
135mm Plena
70-200mm f2.8
400mm f4.5

Of course I could consider selling one of those lenses to replace with the 100-400. About the only lens I might consider moving is the 70-200. The 105 Macro and 135mm Plena are definitely staying and I also really like the 400mm f4.5.

I understand the 100-400's special attraction is its short MFD and its ability to reach smaller wildlife targets.

Am I wasting my time and energy on this idea?
 
Member's gallery
I love your question, as it's exactly my lens situation. I've quashed my second guessing about adding a 100-400 by realizing the MFD of the 70-200 is 3.3 feet vs 100-400's 2.5 feet. Is that extra 8 inches of MFD critical? You do get more reach, but at the expense of lens speed, and as Dan said, there's always a TC option with the 70-200.

Don't get me wrong- the 100-400 is a fabulous lens, but the incremental benefit vs what you have may be limited. If the rental isn't expensive, it might be a fun way to try out the 100-400, but my gut says it's overkill.

Karen's advice is excellent - use what you have...and have a wonderful trip!
 
Member's gallery
I've owned the 100-400 or equivalent several times between Canon and Nikon. I have a love hate relationship with it.

There are only three situations I find that focal length and aperture lens valuable:

#1 - if it's a vacation trip with family and wildlife isn't a priority, but I still want something small and light to attempt to get a pic of wildlife
#2 - as an auxiliary lens when traveling with one of the big primes (400TC or 600TC, I suppose 800PF for you)
#3 - as a quasi macro lens since I don't have a dedicated macro rig

I don't enjoy the lens, and I would never choose to use it unless I had to. But when you do need it, there usually isn't a good substitute to be had.

With your current lens setup, I'd probably need to know more about your intended use case. I find the 70-200 and 100-400 to be lenses that are so similar they compete with eachother. I'd own one or the other, not both. and I've found that I prefer the images from the 70-200 + 2x, over the 100-400. I don't use TC's with the 100-400 because I find the resulting IQ unacceptable.

That all being said - I know I'm in the minority with how I feel about that lens. You can take one look at the "what are you most used lenses" thread, and you'll see tons of wildlife photographers who say 400TC/600TC/800PF as #1, and 100-400 as #2.
 
Member's gallery
When I was shooting DSLR's and out and about in my beloved African bush was that with a 500mm f/4 prime and a 70-200mm f/2.8 (the latest was the E FL version), each on his own body. I still have the AF-S 80-400mm but never too impressed with that lens hence using the 70-200.

Now, in my mirrorless setup did I went without hesitation for the 100-400mm S and not yet own the 70-200mm f.8 S. I was tempted on getting that lens but that will still leave me on safari shoots with a big gap as the 500mm is replaced with a 600mm f/4.
That is my motivation to be in favour of the 100-400mm but with having the 400mm f/4.5 is that indeed a difficult choice. I have no experience with that prime lens but for wildlife do I like that zoom range below the 600mm and thus my better option.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
... That all being said - I know I'm in the minority with how I feel about that lens. You can take one look at the "what are you most used lenses" thread, and you'll see tons of wildlife photographers who say 400TC/600TC/800PF as #1, and 100-400 as #2.
Click to expand...
I chose not to get the 100-400 but did own the 80-400 G version. It was never my favorite lens but traveled well and was always affixed to a second body when shooting a big prime. Consequently when I review my portfolio in LR the 80-400 is my most used lens. Ever. And despite its less than stellar reputation for IQ some of my best/most printed wildlife photos were made with that lens. I think many of us tend to dwell too much on these decisions.

Which brings the thread back around to the advice from @ButlerKid above. :)
 
Member's gallery
Don’t buy it!
Do what I did and RENT it! I took it to Svalbard. What I really didn’t like was the way the lens barrel extended when zooming out. In the wet weather I worried way too much about water ingress. It never happened. I BOUGHT the z180-600 when I saw the comparison images vs the 100-400. The long zoom compared really well considering it’s not an S.
 
Member's gallery
Just to be clear I plan to do a LOT of shooting while on my trip starting next week. We are starting with a stop at the Reifel bird sanctuary in Vancouver and then we will be staying on a nature preserve on Vancouver Island which is a very scenic location with plenty of birds to shoot. When I was there last year I had not yet gotten my 800 so I am looking forward to what I will be able to do with the extra reach.

I have been feeling starved of bird action in the past month or so. According to what I have been reading the birds become dormant in late August/September as their feathers change for the winter and migration. Lately some migrating birds have begun to arrive and the birds are going nuts at the bird feeder as they bulk up for travel and winter.

This is also the opportunity to rent a lens I don't own to have some fun. I was originally going to rent one of the super primes for a week but I got sticker shock when I saw the rental rate. I will wait and do that for a long weekend since I only have to pay a single day's rate. There is a particularly photogenic weekend coming up. Last year they had two and a half days of major sailboat racing plus a lot of people were kite surfing. On top of that there is a nice bird hangout. I rented the 800 for that weekend and had a lot of fun.

I have been adverse to zooms in the super telephoto range preferring primes. When I was looking to go longer I was originally going to try the 180-600 but it was hard to get and I considered both the 100-400 and the 400mm f4.5. I chose the prime 400 and I am happy with that decision but I always wondered what I was missing.

For the most part I am pretty happy with what I have. I already sold one lens, the 600mm pf and I have a few others I plan to let go so I am not so much into acquiring as fine tuning.

My last acquisiiton was the 135mm Plena and that was fueled by a need to explore shallow depth of field and background separation. I saw what the lens could do and I took the plunge. I am very glad I did.
 
Member's gallery
When I bought my Z9, I got the 100-400mm instead of the 70-200mm f2.8. Since you have the 70-200mm f2.8 and the 400mm I would skip buying it. You may want to rent it and see if it could replace something you have like the 70-200mm. I do not think it could ever replace your 400mm prime.

If I were to get a shorter zoom, I would likely get the 70-180mm f2.8. as its cost is much less than the 70-200mm f2.8.

I have since added the 600mm f6.3 pf as 400mm is not long enough for my kind of shooting.
 
Member's gallery
The 100-400 is a very versatile lens. If you have weight limitations (eg airline) then it will serve you in a variety of situations, from near macro to quite far out. If you are in a situation (where I was recently) where seabirds are worth shooting both far out and close up, there is no better lens.

The 400 f4 is better at 400 mm but infinitely worse at 100 mm and at faux macro.

There is no other lens which can act as a stand-in for the 105 macro, the 70-200, the 400 and (with the 1.4 tc) the 600. If you can carry all of those, great. If not....

Best will be to rent it and see if it works for you.
 
Member's gallery
For wildlife:

My 400 f4.5 + 1.4 tele is my hand hold lens. If I can use a tripod, the 600mm TC is always my first choice.
The 100-400 (with or w/o 1.4 tele) goes on a second body to complement the 600mm TC perfectly and is - for me - hand holdable.

The 70-200 f2.8 is used for architectural and landscape photography in addition to the 14-24 and 24-70 f2.8's! And the 15mm fish I love!

My 105m f2.8 is my macro lens.

With those lenses, I can shoot just about anything I want, including night skies, landscapes, BIF's, wildlife, macro, etc.
 
Member's gallery
For wildlife until recently lenses of choice and mounted were 80-400(replaced by 100-400) 500pf, and 600 F4. However currently down to 2 Z9’s most likely the 600 will be on one and kinda undecided which one of the two will become my preferred, 100-400 of 500pf. Guess that will be decided next week in Yellowstone. Very seldom do I use the 70-200 for wildlife, just not someone that likes to use a teleconverter even though I own them. Just prefer to shoot with virgin glass. But sometimes it is still about enjoying the moment and not pressing the shutter.
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
I am headed out for a trip next week and am considering renting an extra lens for evaluation.

One lens I am considering is the z 100-400.

However I already am pretty well-served in that range with the following lenses:

105mm macro
135mm Plena
70-200mm f2.8
400mm f4.5

Of course I could consider selling one of those lenses to replace with the 100-400. About the only lens I might consider moving is the 70-200. The 105 Macro and 135mm Plena are definitely staying and I also really like the 400mm f4.5.

I understand the 100-400's special attraction is its short MFD and its ability to reach smaller wildlife targets.

Am I wasting my time and energy on this idea?
Click to expand...
I own the last three on your list as well as the 100-400. To me the 135, 70-200, and 400 are exceptional lenses, love to use them. I don't quite feel the same about the 100-400, but it's a very versatile lens, so I use it a lot. Great telephoto option on a two-lens kit, great for a lot of things. Different lenses for different uses. Rent the 100-400, I think you'll like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top