The new Nikon 100-400 S lens. Discuss.

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
posting this here because the The 2nd section of this interview discusses the 100-400 f4.5/5.6S.
[in chinese]

The Nikon team emphasize the main design goals and the challenges these presented. This tele zoom is sounding better and better, not least in light of the performance with both Z Teleconverters even at high f Stops. Squeezing the MFD down to only 75-98 cm (max 2 ft 7") is remarkable, and I hope this may prove to be even more useful than the 300 PF, including ZTC14. Coupled with advantages of flexible framing, this lens should be ideal for closeups of flighty insects and herps etc - and also the larger snakes (!) which I like to get 'sittings' of ;) ;) The close up magnification is not yet clear, however. Nevertheless, all the features and factors considered, I'm planning to buy a copy next year....

They are surprisingly forthcoming about the advances in quality since the era of the 80-400 G (which is not that long ago really), but I did not try and count how many answers repeat "There is no answer to future products, but we will listen to customer feedback and plan." :)

Nevertheless, the final answer more than hints a the signature of Nikon's investment in robotics and automated QC "Moreover, the number of lenses in the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm lens is more than that of previous products. This also increases the difficulty of manufacturing. In the post-assembly debugging (though it is not convenient to disclose the details), a number of Nikon exclusive new technologies have been applied. The quality management ensures that any lens you buy can perform stably."
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
posting this here because the The 2nd section of this interview discusses the 100-400 f4.5/5.6S.
[in chinese]

The Nikon team emphasize the main design goals and the challenges these presented. This tele zoom is sounding better and better, not least in light of the performance with both Z Teleconverters even at high f Stops. Squeezing the MFD down to only 75-98 cm (max 2 ft 7") is remarkable, and I hope this may prove to be even more useful than the 300 PF, including ZTC14. Coupled with advantages of flexible framing, this lens should be ideal for closeups of flighty insects and herps etc - and also the larger snakes (!) which I like to get 'sittings' of ;) ;) The close up magnification is not yet clear, however. Nevertheless, all the features and factors considered, I'm planning to buy a copy next year....

They are surprisingly forthcoming about the advances in quality since the era of the 80-400 G (which is not that long ago really), but I did not try and count how many answers repeat "There is no answer to future products, but we will listen to customer feedback and plan." :)

Nevertheless, the final answer more than hints a the signature of Nikon's investment in robotics and automated QC "Moreover, the number of lenses in the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm lens is more than that of previous products. This also increases the difficulty of manufacturing. In the post-assembly debugging (though it is not convenient to disclose the details), a number of Nikon exclusive new technologies have been applied. The quality management ensures that any lens you buy can perform stably."
Click to expand...
Very excited about this lens. Have preordered and am first on my local dealer’s list, but not NPS. Curious if anyone has seen any shipping information.

The close focusing capability will be very useful. I have generally used my 300 mm PF + 1.4x TCIII for dragonflies, butterflies and the like. But this may be better. Certainly more versatile.

I also like to shoot from my kayak with a Z7II (last year a Z7) + 500 mm PF + 1.4x TCIII. Since this can at times be too much lens and I prefer not to change lenses in my kayak, I often put the 70-300 AF-P FX lens on another body, sometimes the D850 or this summer the Z6II. I think the 100-400 will fill this role nicely and hopefully will take the Z TCs with reasonable results.

I sold my 80-400 AF-S lens last year, maybe a bit early. Not perfect, but useful. This summer, I used the 500 mm PF and the 70-200 f2.8S lens with the 1.4x and 2x Z TCs for a trip to photograph Alaskan brown bears in Katmai National Park and Preserve. The zoom plus 2x TC on a Z7II was good for brown bears and tracked them well when they were running or lunging after salmon. Looking forward to the 100-400 being even better.
 
Member's gallery
Ricctalks mentioned the IQ of the 100-400 S is very similar to the 180-400 f4E TC14, which is impressive at its price. The arrival of this new zoom has upturned my carefully planned wildlife system.... Anyway, previously I'd been trying to work out how to save for a Used 180-400 f4E TC14; so this new Z-mount zoom is affordable (in comparison) and it should tick most of my needs, except being slower, especially with a TC, and yes it lacks the Internal TC and zooming.

I'd traded in a 80-400 G in June for a decent price, but I had mixed feelings. It was fickle on DSLRs, yet it filled a key niche in which the 70-200f2.8E + TC14 did not quite fit (this f2.8 is staying firmly at close hand because it's so excellent and fast, and , and...besides being a backup).

On a more strategic note, looking back over the past few years - since August 2018 - Nikon has strengthened its position in leaps and bounds with the supreme status of their Z mount ie 16mm throat and 54 wide, and 94+ F Nikkors and the new system of 26 Z optics (and counting....). It's unlikely coincidental how they rolled out the sequence of 70-200 f2.8E FL, 180-400 f4 TC, then 120-300 f2.8E SR (2017, 2018 then late 2019). All considered, these have overhauled the status of the tele zoom compared to the best primes! Since then we have seen the sequence of Z mount S zooms (late 2018/2019: each is excellent).

Considering the 300 f4 PF (2014) and then 500 f5.6 PF (2018) in analogous context, it will be interesting to see how Nikon design the 400 PF and 800 PF :D (Phase Fresnel is assumed on their relatively shorter silhouettes). Both will be interesting, particularly how the roadmapped 400 S PF relates in IQ to the 100-400 S. Subject to final size, speed and price, I am eyeing the 800 prime with much interest, because I often have the TC2 III on my 400 f2.8E FL.


BillW said:
Very excited about this lens. Have preordered and am first on my local dealer’s list, but not NPS. Curious if anyone has seen any shipping information.

The close focusing capability will be very useful. I have generally used my 300 mm PF + 1.4x TCIII for dragonflies, butterflies and the like. But this may be better. Certainly more versatile.

I also like to shoot from my kayak with a Z7II (last year a Z7) + 500 mm PF + 1.4x TCIII. Since this can at times be too much lens and I prefer not to change lenses in my kayak, I often put the 70-300 AF-P FX lens on another body, sometimes the D850 or this summer the Z6II. I think the 100-400 will fill this role nicely and hopefully will take the Z TCs with reasonable results.

I sold my 80-400 AF-S lens last year, maybe a bit early. Not perfect, but useful. This summer, I used the 500 mm PF and the 70-200 f2.8S lens with the 1.4x and 2x Z TCs for a trip to photograph Alaskan brown bears in Katmai National Park and Preserve. The zoom plus 2x TC on a Z7II was good for brown bears and tracked them well when they were running or lunging after salmon. Looking forward to the 100-400 being even better.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
To compare against the MTFs above pg2 , which are all on the lens pages of Nikon Imaging

AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR

Wide (below)

1637298076953.png


Tele (below)
1637298329516.png


Wide with TC14 (below)

1637298354679.png

Tele with TC14 (below)
1637298400675.png
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Thanks for the charts. If I'm reading them right the 10 lines/mm numbers show the new lens as close, the the 30mm lines less so. Still pretty damned good, though :) The sagital 10mm plots are close to a straight line.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
I find that focal length range very useful for larger mammals especially if I want to include some habitat in the image. It's rarely if ever the only lens I'll carry but as a second lens when I'm already carrying a big prime and especially if I'm expecting to work: Bighorn Sheep, Moose, Deer, Elk, Mtn Goats or other decent sized mammals I'll want something in that focal length range handy. Sometimes I'll just carry the 300mm PF for that use but it's nice to have a zoom covering that range. If I really know I'll be working large mammals from reasonable distances I'll carry Nikon's 200-400mm VR II but if I'll have a longer lens then that's too much to carry and that's where a 100-400mm is very handy.
Click to expand...

I take similar photos of mammals with the habitat too. But I use a 70-200 f2.8 for that. If I am short, a tc 1.4 or a 2x will me to 400 at the same aperture.

The Z 70-200 f2.8 is way sharper than the f mount 70-200. So, a tc won't affect its sharpness much especially for big mammals where the shutter speed won't need to be too high...

A 200-600 release would have been more appropriate...
 
Member's gallery
RichF said:
$2700. I suspect that this lens will be nearly as good as the 70-200 F2.8 A tad less sharp because of the extended focal range. My question - how good will the combination of 100-400 + TC be.
Click to expand...


Ricci on Greys of Westminister confirmed that the 100-400 Nikon Z lens is sharper than the 180-400 f4 fmount Nikon lens. Even Steve was never happy with the 180-400 f4 sharpness.

He also said that the 100-400 z is slightly sharper at 400 than a 70-200 Z f2.8 with a 2x teleconverter.
 
Member's gallery
I just posted an overlapping reply on the 800 S thread. The 180-400 TC gets unprecedented sales. Grays confirm this, and it's been paralleled in S Africa. It is one of Brad Hill's core optics, and well.... his images speak for themselves. He's not the opnmly pro reaping the dividends of the 180-400 TC14. Its gigh cost and also 3.5kg more weight have held me back; this is both to carry with a 500 PF prime or ideally longer reach.... The 400 f2.8E FL with TCs has proven to be my core lens to get out to 800mm but there are days when I feel every ounce of it hiking! Both both exotics would be impossible.

More and more I've reconciled that for my needs 400 and 800 are . The big challenges are the triad of costs - IQ, Fiscal, Weight - to more flexibility. This is either 100 <<< 400 >> 560/600, and 800 >> ~1200 and even more on occasions!
 
Member's gallery
Do you mean the F mount 70-200 VR I or II? or is it the FL? The FL version is an incredible lens and super sharp. Several reviewers have already compared the FL vs Z version 70-200's and mention there is hardly any difference in optics.

The Z mount 100-400 looks like an amazing tech and looking at Nikon's recent pro grade zooms i'd bet the 70-200 Z with 2X wont match the optical quality of 100-400 bare lens.

sid_19911991 said:
I take similar photos of mammals with the habitat too. But I use a 70-200 f2.8 for that. If I am short, a tc 1.4 or a 2x will me to 400 at the same aperture.

The Z 70-200 f2.8 is way sharper than the f mount 70-200. So, a tc won't affect its sharpness much especially for big mammals where the shutter speed won't need to be too high...

A 200-600 release would have been more appropriate...
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
thelordofthelight said:
Do you mean the F mount 70-200 VR I or II? or is it the FL? The FL version is an incredible lens and super sharp. Several reviewers have already compared the FL vs Z version 70-200's and mention there is hardly any difference in optics.

The Z mount 100-400 looks like an amazing tech and looking at Nikon's recent pro grade zooms i'd bet the 70-200 Z with 2X wont match the optical quality of 100-400 bare lens.
Click to expand...


I meant the 70-200 f2.8 FL version.
(It is in my signature!)

These is a significant difference between the F mount lenses & the Z lenses.

Z lenses are much sharper. I have not used many. But that's been my observation.

I feel the pro shooters sometimes may not be the best reviewers as they get great results from any camera & lens.

For example a Canon pro shooter rarely ever complains about the dynamic range of Canon sensors.
All they say is that it is pretty good & it needs little more work in post process.

But in reality they put in a lot of work while editing. For example someone like Jan Wagner who shoots Canon does a multi step post editingb process to make the files look good.

So it depends on from person to person. For me the upcoming Z lenses ...most of them will be significantly superior to f mount lenses in terms of sharpness.

Other factors like rendition etc remains to be seen...

Either way, it is best that one uses them & decide for themselves...
 
Member's gallery
WoW..maybe your sharpness standards are way high...I rent the 70-200 for wildlife safaris to use it alongside my 400 2.8L all the time. The FL version of 70-200 truly blew my mind and its one of the first lenses that convinced me that zooms can be as optically perfect as exotic primes (as good as my 400 2.8 E).

I have owned and/or extensively used several exotics/tele lenses (Nikon 300mm 2.8 VRII, 200-400 VR1, Sigma 500 F4.5, Nikkor 500 F4 G, Nikkor 600 F4 E FL (rented several times), and 400 2.8 E FL). In terms of optical performance there are 2 lenses from this list that stands out from everything else due their magical sharpness and rendition (300 and 400 f 2.8) and i'd rate the 70-200 FL in the same league.

Whereas with the 70-200 VR1 and VR II, its a different story and there is a discernible difference in optics when shot wide open.

sid_19911991 said:
I meant the 70-200 f2.8 FL version.
(It is in my signature!)

These is a significant difference between the F mount lenses & the Z lenses.

Z lenses are much sharper. I have not used many. But that's been my observation.

I feel the pro shooters sometimes may not be the best reviewers as they get great results from any camera & lens.

For example a Canon pro shooter rarely ever complains about the dynamic range of Canon sensors.
All they say is that it is pretty good & it needs little more work in post process.

But in reality they put in a lot of work while editing. For example someone like Jan Wagner who shoots Canon does a multi step post editingb process to make the files look good.

So it depends on from person to person. For me the upcoming Z lenses ...most of them will be significantly superior to f mount lenses in terms of sharpness.

Other factors like rendition etc remains to be seen...

Either way, it is best that one uses them & decide for themselves...
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
thelordofthelight said:
WoW..maybe your sharpness standards are way high...I rent the 70-200 for wildlife safaris to use it alongside my 400 2.8L all the time. The FL version of 70-200 truly blew my mind and its one of the first lenses that convinced me that zooms can be as optically perfect as exotic primes (as good as my 400 2.8 E).

I have owned and/or extensively used several exotics/tele lenses (Nikon 300mm 2.8 VRII, 200-400 VR1, Sigma 500 F4.5, Nikkor 500 F4 G, Nikkor 600 F4 E FL (rented several times), and 400 2.8 E FL). In terms of optical performance there are 2 lenses from this list that stands out from everything else due their magical sharpness and rendition (300 and 400 f 2.8) and i'd rate the 70-200 FL in the same league.

Whereas with the 70-200 VR1 and VR II, its a different story and there is a discernible difference in optics when shot wide open.
Click to expand...

The 70-200 f2.8 fl is optically beautiful like you said. It is sharp too at distances below 30-40 feet. It is the sharpest at 135 mm & around f4.5-f5...

Here is something you can try.

It is not a scientific test...but a practical one...

Shoot a normal bug at a distance of under 20 feet...at the same aperture say f5.6 with a Nikon 200-500 & 70-200 f2.8 fl at f5.6


You will get significantly sharper results with the 200-500

I have found the canon & Sony 100-400 to be sharper for macro type

I know they are not meant for macro work...but yeah that's how I have got the results...
 
Member's gallery
sid_19911991 said:
Ricci on Greys of Westminister confirmed that the 100-400 Nikon Z lens is sharper than the 180-400 f4 fmount Nikon lens. Even Steve was never happy with the 180-400 f4 sharpness.

He also said that the 100-400 z is slightly sharper at 400 than a 70-200 Z f2.8 with a 2x teleconverter.
Click to expand...
Looking forward to the lens (as well as real tests of the lens)
 
Member's gallery
sid_19911991 said:
The 70-200 f2.8 fl is optically beautiful like you said. It is sharp too at distances below 30-40 feet. It is the sharpest at 135 mm & around f4.5-f5...

Here is something you can try.

It is not a scientific test...but a practical one...

Shoot a normal bug at a distance of under 20 feet...at the same aperture say f5.6 with a Nikon 200-500 & 70-200 f2.8 fl at f5.6


You will get significantly sharper results with the 200-500

I have found the canon & Sony 100-400 to be sharper for macro type

I know they are not meant for macro work...but yeah that's how I have got the results...
Click to expand...
good to know
 
Member's gallery
Roy said:
It seems to be a good lens but i'll wait a bit longer for a great lens...🦘
Click to expand...
At this point without having a Z9 ... and only using it on the Z6II it has been quite impressive without and with the 1.4TC very versatile. Not up to the levles of my 600 f/4E when long reach and low light needed but it pushes my 500 pf and is far more versatile.
 
Member's gallery
Honest, level review of the lens. This one solidly meets my needs at an acceptable price point and weight. My initial shots are great in the 100-400 range and, in a few shots I got, shows possibilities with the TC2.0x, though I will need to get it on a tripod for that use. There is less animosity and a more level evaluation sonce he got his Z9. Still a bit showy, but at least balanced in his reviews.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top