should I consider the z 100-400

[Eternal Camper]

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

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)

 

[Ken Miracle]

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.

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

 

[nmerc_photos]

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)

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.

 

[lancej]

Thanks for the info

Do you think a 400mm would be adequate or should I also bring the 800?

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.

 

[Ken Miracle]

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.

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

 

[Ken Miracle]

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,

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.

 

[Ben C]

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

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.

 

[maxxus46]

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 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

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.

 

[Anjin San]

Anyome have links to tests indicating that the 180-600 is better than the 100-400 @400mm? I am sceptical of this, as copies of the 100-400 I have seen are sharper with better contrast than the 186. Thanks

Steve did a video on this…as well as several others.

 

[maxxus46]

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.

Steve did a video on this…as well as several others.

 

[beano]

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.

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.

 

[Anjin San]

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.

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”.