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).

Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
if this was my situation, I'd skip the 100-400 and go for the 180-600. 180-600 + 800PF is a dream combo.

just in general, I prefer the 100-400 to the 400 4.5, but greatly prefer the Sony 300GM to both - if you're looking for extra complication in your thought process ;)
Click to expand...
So, I am in the same situation that everyone is talking about in this thread,

Now I have borrowed for 2 weeks the Z 400 f4.5, never had anything as long as this & it is taking me some time to get used to,

I have also made arrangements to borrow the Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 after the 2 weeks with the Z400 Zf4.5, have held it before & feel that it may be too heavy for me to carry, but after reading the reply from nmerc_photos when he said, and I quote "but greatly prefer the Sony 300GM to both" I would really like an explanation as I shoot with a Nikon Z 9, I think nmerc_photos does too, so how does he use a Sony lens on his Z9?

Looking to read what this Sony lens can do on my Z9!!!

Eternal-Camper (Stephen)
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
LOL you sold my favorite lens for my Z6IIl the Z600 f/6.3.

Z100-400 was my first Z mount "long" lens and at the time it was the longest available for my only Z the Z6II it played well with the Z1.4 TC which was on it pretty much all of the time. It is a very good lens.

Later with 2 X9's the Z800 f/6.3, the Z180-600 and the Tamron Zmount 35-150 f/2-2.8 the Z100-400 became the odd lens out.

Then with the Z600 f/6.3 and the Tamron Z mount 150-500 the Z180-600 became the odd lens out. I have really whittled down my lens collection to what works for me, compliments my Z800 f/6.3 and actually gets used now and then :cool:
 
Member's gallery
Eternal Camper said:
So, I am in the same situation that everyone is talking about in this thread,

Now I have borrowed for 2 weeks the Z 400 f4.5, never had anything as long as this & it is taking me some time to get used to,

I have also made arrangements to borrow the Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 after the 2 weeks with the Z400 Zf4.5, have held it before & feel that it may be too heavy for me to carry, but after reading the reply from nmerc_photos when he said, and I quote "but greatly prefer the Sony 300GM to both" I would really like an explanation as I shoot with a Nikon Z 9, I think nmerc_photos does too, so how does he use a Sony lens on his Z9?

Looking to read what this Sony lens can do on my Z9!!!

Eternal-Camper (Stephen)
Click to expand...

One of the best things in my opinion about the Nikon Z ecosystem, is it gets you access to all the Sony E Mount lens options. If you look in my signature, you'll see the vast majority of my lenses are for Sony. I only own 2 Nikon lenses - the 100-400 + 600TC.

You can buy a little Megadap ETZ adapter that allows you to mount the Sony E lenses on the Z system.

Not to detract from this thread, so you can PM me with more questions or read a bunch about the 300GM and Z9 combo by using the search bar on here, or on other forums.

Having owned every Nikon telephoto, I just find the 300GM offers better flexibility and IQ than the 400 4.5 or 600PF. It's one of my favorite, if not favorite lenses I've ever used.
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
Thanks for the info

Do you think a 400mm would be adequate or should I also bring the 800?
Click to expand...
Your 400 should be more than fine at George Refeil with a tele in your pocket just in case you are good to go. That is all I used when I was there. If you miss a shot another bird will literally be along in a moment.
 
Member's gallery
Ben C said:
Glad I came across this thread as it got me thinking. I have the 70-200, but nothing between that and my 800 PF, which I use when birding. (I also have the OM-1 with the 100-400 that I use to bridge the gap for wildlife, but don't want to use that for landscapes due to the smaller sensor.). I have borrowed the 100-400 on a previous landscape trip and really liked it but didn't have a need for one of my own at the time. I don't get to do a lot of landscape shooting but I'm heading to Telluride this weekend, and I have some trips coming to Patagonia and Alaska next year. I won't be brining my 800 on any of those trips and now need a longer telephoto for landscapes. I just purchased the 100-400 for that purpose last week and was going to leave my 70-200 at home. (I have the 14-30 and 24-120 for wide/medium zooms.).

This thread has me thinking maybe I should return the 100-400 and get the 2.0 TC instead to pair with my 70-200, making it a 140-400 f5.6. Also interesting, one of the appeals of the 100-400 is the short MFD of 2.5' and the maximum magnification of 0.38. But my understanding is with the TC on the 70-200, its MFD of 1.64' would remain the same, while its max magnification would double from 0.2 to 0.4, making it slightly better for pseudo-macro work (which I do only occasionally).

If I'm thinking about this correctly, then the only other considerations would be (1) the 70-200+2.0 TC would be up to 1 stop slower than the 100-400 between 200 and 400 mm (the 100-400 doesn't hit 5.6 until 400 mm), and (2) any IQ difference between the 70-200 with the TC and the 100-400. And I guess I'd lose 160mm on the long end compared with keeping the 100-400 since I do have the 1.4TC already, but it would be very rare for me to shoot landscapes at a more than 400mm so I don't think that's a big deal.

Any thoughts on this comparison? Am I missing anything here? Appreciate any feedback from folks more experienced with these lenses.
Click to expand...
With tow Z9's and a Z6III and being an always on the move bird ID photographer I do not have time to put TC's on and off in a split second as one bird replaces another. So I just toggle between FX and DX with a button on the lens.

If you have time to play with TC's the Z70-200 f/2.8 I would go that way over the Z100-400. I owned the Z100-400 and Z70-200 f/2.8 (worked great with the Z1.4 and the Z2.0) but I got to the point with other lenses coming on board I was not using either so both got sold off.

Any rare landscapes I do I use Z24-120 or even Z600 or Z800 f/6.3
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
I have a slightly different approach.

Much of my bird photography out here is long range and I find I need the most reach I can get.

I started my Z system with the 70-200mm f2.8. I tried to extend the reach with the 2,0x tc. My next step was the 400mm f4.5 which I find to be a great performer at 400mm. I later added the 1.4x tc and was able to use it effectively for some but not all birds with cropping/dx and the teleconverter.

I still needed more reach so the next step was the 600mm pf. I eventually decided to add the 800mm pf to the mix and that is now by far my favorite birding lens.

I tried to work all three of those lenses but the 600 ended up not getting used very often. the 400 proved to be the more flexible alternative to the 800 and I would always choose the 800 if it could work. I ended up selling the 600.

Now I use two Z9 camera bodies and carry two lenses on an active shoot. I can manage the 800 and 400 together handheld by using Holdfast straps.

I suspect the 100-400 is not going to contribute materially to what I already have,
Click to expand...
Our only difference with the two Z9 set up on the Holdfast Money Maker is I have the Z800 on my right and the Tamron Zmount 150-500 on the left. All that said my most used set up is Z9 + Z800 on my Holdfast Solo. Holdfast best tip I ever got from you :) Their slip buckle belt is great also.
 
Member's gallery
Ken Miracle said:
With tow Z9's and a Z6III and being an always on the move bird ID photographer I do not have time to put TC's on and off in a split second as one bird replaces another. So I just toggle between FX and DX with a button on the lens.

If you have time to play with TC's the Z70-200 f/2.8 I would go that way over the Z100-400. I owned the Z100-400 and Z70-200 f/2.8 (worked great with the Z1.4 and the Z2.0) but I got to the point with other lenses coming on board I was not using either so both got sold off.

Any rare landscapes I do I use Z24-120 or even Z600 or Z800 f/6.3
Click to expand...
Agree about TC's when shooting birds. I won't mess with them. I use my 800PF and like you, switch to DX mode when needed. I usually have my OM-1 with 100-400 with me as well. It's so light and easy to carry and covers everything shorter than 800 down to 200. But for landscapes I work slower and I don't think I'm opposed to using a TC. In fact I would probably leave it on the 70-200 so I have my 24-120 and a 140-400 ready to go at all times. If conditions permit I could always remove it to get maximum IQ from the 70-200. Seems like a win-win situation for me that also saves about $1,800 so I'm wondering what, if anything I'm missing.
 
Member's gallery
Well, I did own the Sony A1 and 300GM along with 1.4tc & 2xTCs. In no way does the 300GM with either TC outperform the Nikon 600 pf. I ran both side by side for a few weeks before deciding to sell off my Sony kit. The 300GM bare is razor sharp, with perfect AF aquisition, unfortunately too short for work I do. The 1.4tc has negligible impact (very hard to notice any differences from an IQ standpoint, and AF is still flawless) so about as perfect as you can get if 420mm is enough reach for you. That said, once I started to use the 2xTC (for me 90+% of the time ) I could very clearly see very slight degradation in AF, ... But the IQ takes a hit for sure and is much closer to the 200-600G at that point. So, the 300GM with 2xTC at 600mm is less sharp than the 600pf native. That should be expected. Therefore, I would not recommend the 300GM with 2xTC to anyone over the 600pf. The Nikkor is simply better overall if you need 600mm. On the other hand, if your mostly at 300 or 420mm then it's a crazy good setup. Just my thoughts based on hands on experience with these lenses.. later

nmerc_photos said:
One of the best things in my opinion about the Nikon Z ecosystem, is it gets you access to all the Sony E Mount lens options. If you look in my signature, you'll see the vast majority of my lenses are for Sony. I only own 2 Nikon lenses - the 100-400 + 600TC.

You can buy a little Megadap ETZ adapter that allows you to mount the Sony E lenses on the Z system.

Not to detract from this thread, so you can PM me with more questions or read a bunch about the 300GM and Z9 combo by using the search bar on here, or on other forums.

Having owned every Nikon telephoto, I just find the 300GM offers better flexibility and IQ than the 400 4.5 or 600PF. It's one of my favorite, if not favorite lenses I've ever used.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Ben C said:
Glad I came across this thread as it got me thinking. I have the 70-200, but nothing between that and my 800 PF, which I use when birding. (I also have the OM-1 with the 100-400 that I use to bridge the gap for wildlife, but don't want to use that for landscapes due to the smaller sensor.). I have borrowed the 100-400 on a previous landscape trip and really liked it but didn't have a need for one of my own at the time. I don't get to do a lot of landscape shooting but I'm heading to Telluride this weekend, and I have some trips coming to Patagonia and Alaska next year. I won't be brining my 800 on any of those trips and now need a longer telephoto for landscapes. I just purchased the 100-400 for that purpose last week and was going to leave my 70-200 at home. (I have the 14-30 and 24-120 for wide/medium zooms.).

This thread has me thinking maybe I should return the 100-400 and get the 2.0 TC instead to pair with my 70-200, making it a 140-400 f5.6. Also interesting, one of the appeals of the 100-400 is the short MFD of 2.5' and the maximum magnification of 0.38. But my understanding is with the TC on the 70-200, its MFD of 1.64' would remain the same, while its max magnification would double from 0.2 to 0.4, making it slightly better for pseudo-macro work (which I do only occasionally).

If I'm thinking about this correctly, then the only other considerations would be (1) the 70-200+2.0 TC would be up to 1 stop slower than the 100-400 between 200 and 400 mm (the 100-400 doesn't hit 5.6 until 400 mm), and (2) any IQ difference between the 70-200 with the TC and the 100-400. And I guess I'd lose 160mm on the long end compared with keeping the 100-400 since I do have the 1.4TC already, but it would be very rare for me to shoot landscapes at a more than 400mm so I don't think that's a big deal.

Any thoughts on this comparison? Am I missing anything here? Appreciate any feedback from folks more experienced with these lenses.
Click to expand...
IMHO, I wouldn’t get the 2.0TC, to much sacrifice on image sharpness. If I were you, I would return the 100-400 and grab the 400 4.5 - combined with your other lenses, and the 1.4TC, you will be very well covered.

Something I’ve found using the 1.4TC, just stop down 1 stop from wide-open on the 400 or 100-400, and things are pretty sharp then.
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
I think Steve did a detailed comparison test at one point. I don't recall the details but I think he did conclude the 186 was sharper in a lot of areas.
Click to expand...
True…but in defense of the lighter and closer focusing 100-400 (I have both)…he was looking at images at 2:1 in LR…and while there are differences at that zoom level…one should also consider the inevitable downsampling for either print or screen output…and a lot of those differences at 2 1 just disappear at output resolution and the major difference there is bokeh and background separation…which may or may not be a big issue given LR’s lens blur AI capability. I’ve long been a believer in the “better is the enemy of good enough” principle…but this is frequently overlooked by the desire for “best“. But best comes with some costs…price, weight, flexibility loss, etc…and I always suggest considering the entire situation given one’s needs, wants, and physical abilities before just springing the bucks for best.

Fo4 me…if I’m taking 2 bodies I carry the 600PF and 100-400 with the TC in the bag and maybe a shorter lens as well of it seems likely to be handy. Single body it is either the 600PF or the 180-600 depending on whether weight or flexibility for todays outing is more important.

And TBH…I’ve rarely shown anyone a final image and have them say something like “that would be so much better if you had shot it with a 600TC”.
 
Member's gallery
maxxus46 said:
Yes I've seen it.. that said, there are other reviews out there that state the opposite. Could it be copy variation? Idk. For example, I believe photographylife review has MTF charts that show the Z100-400 as better than the 186.
Click to expand...
We are talking about polishing the cannonball here…either will give you excellent results…and for me the difference in IQ between the 2 (I have both) is far less of a factor than the other factors…weight, internal zoom, what length do I need for today, how much space I have in the carryon, etc.

I’ve actually compared them at output resolution and size…and the differences at 2:1 pretty much disappear when you do that outside of the differences due to aperture which may or may not be real important. Either gives perfectly acceptable output and at output resolution I don’t think many people would be able to tell which was used for a shot.

If I had to choose 2 to keep from the 100-400, 180-600, and 600PF…the 180-600 would likely lose out based on overall flexibility…but of if I was forced to keep only the 180-600 I wouldn’t feel like I was forced into an inferior choice. The exotics are out for me based on weight and flexibility for what I do. I took the short zoom and 600PF to both Serengeti and OSA this year and will take them to Botswana next year…but if I had to take the longer zoom instead I wouldn’t feel deprived.
 
Member's gallery
Eternal Camper said:
So, I am in the same situation that everyone is talking about in this thread,

Now I have borrowed for 2 weeks the Z 400 f4.5, never had anything as long as this & it is taking me some time to get used to,

I have also made arrangements to borrow the Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 after the 2 weeks with the Z400 Zf4.5, have held it before & feel that it may be too heavy for me to carry, but after reading the reply from nmerc_photos when he said, and I quote "but greatly prefer the Sony 300GM to both" I would really like an explanation as I shoot with a Nikon Z 9, I think nmerc_photos does too, so how does he use a Sony lens on his Z9?

Looking to read what this Sony lens can do on my Z9!!!

Eternal-Camper (Stephen)
Click to expand...
I sold my 400/4.5 due to limited use…too short for what I do most of the time…but it is excellent overall and really light. If I were forced to keep just a single tele…it would probably be the 600PF with the 180-600 second since 600 and 840 are commonly used by me…despite the fact that I really like the light and flexible 100-400. Everyone has different needs and requirements…so there’s really not a bad choice.
 
Member's gallery
Ben C said:
Agree about TC's when shooting birds. I won't mess with them. I use my 800PF and like you, switch to DX mode when needed. I usually have my OM-1 with 100-400 with me as well. It's so light and easy to carry and covers everything shorter than 800 down to 200. But for landscapes I work slower and I don't think I'm opposed to using a TC. In fact I would probably leave it on the 70-200 so I have my 24-120 and a 140-400 ready to go at all times. If conditions permit I could always remove it to get maximum IQ from the 70-200. Seems like a win-win situation for me that also saves about $1,800 so I'm wondering what, if anything I'm missing.
Click to expand...
Not anything really. My primary non birding photography is people indoor where no supplemental light can be used and people outside for event photography for my church. For that I use Z9 and Tamron Zmount 35-150 f/2-2.8 and Z6III with Z24-120 carry both at once on Holdfast Money Maker harness leather double carry set up.
 
Member's gallery
I have the Z100-400S lens and can honestly say that having used it on both Z5 & Z6ii that it is an amazing piece of glass. I have used it with my 2.0 TC for even more reach with great results, my winning photo for Kentucky State Fair in 2023 was because of that 800mm result.
Here is a photo from this morning in the rain and fog.

Z62_6230.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
One thing to consider when you add the 2xTC to the 70-200 2.8, would be an IQ hit, especially mid frame and into the corners, along with any vignetting or chromatic aberrations. I'd research any tests or reviews that have covered the 70-200 2.8 S with TCs before making a decision. For landscape work, edge to edge sharpness is critical. From what I've seen of the 100-400 Z, it seems fairly consistent out to the edges which is ideal for landscapes . Good luck


Ben C said:
Glad I came across this thread as it got me thinking. I have the 70-200, but nothing between that and my 800 PF, which I use when birding. (I also have the OM-1 with the 100-400 that I use to bridge the gap for wildlife, but don't want to use that for landscapes due to the smaller sensor.). I have borrowed the 100-400 on a previous landscape trip and really liked it but didn't have a need for one of my own at the time. I don't get to do a lot of landscape shooting but I'm heading to Telluride this weekend, and I have some trips coming to Patagonia and Alaska next year. I won't be brining my 800 on any of those trips and now need a longer telephoto for landscapes. I just purchased the 100-400 for that purpose last week and was going to leave my 70-200 at home. (I have the 14-30 and 24-120 for wide/medium zooms.).

This thread has me thinking maybe I should return the 100-400 and get the 2.0 TC instead to pair with my 70-200, making it a 140-400 f5.6. Also interesting, one of the appeals of the 100-400 is the short MFD of 2.5' and the maximum magnification of 0.38. But my understanding is with the TC on the 70-200, its MFD of 1.64' would remain the same, while its max magnification would double from 0.2 to 0.4, making it slightly better for pseudo-macro work (which I do only occasionally).

If I'm thinking about this correctly, then the only other considerations would be (1) the 70-200+2.0 TC would be up to 1 stop slower than the 100-400 between 200 and 400 mm (the 100-400 doesn't hit 5.6 until 400 mm), and (2) any IQ difference between the 70-200 with the TC and the 100-400. And I guess I'd lose 160mm on the long end compared with keeping the 100-400 since I do have the 1.4TC already, but it would be very rare for me to shoot landscapes at a more than 400mm so I don't think that's a big deal.

Any thoughts on this comparison? Am I missing anything here? Appreciate any feedback from folks more experienced with these lenses.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
maxxus46 said:
Yes I've seen it.. that said, there are other reviews out there that state the opposite. Could it be copy variation? Idk. For example, I believe photographylife review has MTF charts that show the Z100-400 as better than the 186.
Click to expand...
As I have said elsewhere I do not shoot charts and never hang any on a wall, send to my non profit clients or put in Ebird. MTF charts are shared by Tamron etc. on their web pages ... the real world differences ... except for significantly inferior lenses ... is not noticeable for what I photograph. An architectural photographer could be different. I have sold both of those lenses and both had very good image IQ and no slouches with AF. Yes my 600 and 800 f/6.3 are better but less versatile. So when I need variable focal length for birding I use a Tamron z mount 150-500.
 
Member's gallery
Interesting feedback - thanks for the input everyone. I ordered the 2.0 TC from Amazon so I'll get it in time for my trip. I am going to bring it, my 1.4 TC, the 70-200 and the 100-400 to Telluride this weekend and I'll do my own tests, shooting the same scene with both setups. No substitute for hands on trials in the field, and it will be interesting to see which I enjoy using more, and whether I can detect a meaningful difference in IQ. Will try to post my results here if folks are interested, though it may take a few weeks after I get back to do so.
 
Member's gallery
Nice... Will be interesting to hear how the AF and IQ of the 70-200 2.8 with 2xTC compares to the Z 100-400 bare @400mm. I suspect the 100-400 will edge it out... Look forward to your feedback. Take care

Ben C said:
Interesting feedback - thanks for the input everyone. I ordered the 2.0 TC from Amazon so I'll get it in time for my trip. I am going to bring it, my 1.4 TC, the 70-200 and the 100-400 to Telluride this weekend and I'll do my own tests, shooting the same scene with both setups. No substitute for hands on trials in the field, and it will be interesting to see which I enjoy using more, and whether I can detect a meaningful difference in IQ. Will try to post my results here if folks are interested, though it may take a few weeks after I get back to do so.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
I think you're pretty well covered in that range. If anything, I'd sell the 135 Plena (unless you have a niche need / want for it). The 70-200 2.8 S for me, it's too amazing to ditch.

But if you're looking for a more portable zoom, when you don't want to carry as much - I'd definitely suggest Tamron's 50-400 for Z mount. I'd definitely get the Tamron over Nikon's 100-400, considering all factors (and my use case & budget of course).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top