Trade Z 100-400 for Z 70-200?

[jhallettbc]

That’s sounds kind of crazy until I explain. I recently got the 600 PF and looking through my thousands of bird photos there are very few taken at 400mm or less. Previously I got the 100-400 last year to use as my main birding lens combined with the Z1.4TC and of course almost all shots were taken at 560mm. Then when I read reviews of the 600 PF I realized I’d be much happier with it than the 100-400. This in fact is true. So it made me think that I don’t really need the range between 300 and 600 and I started looking at the Z 70-200 and thought that would be a better choice because it is faster, super sharp wide open. I could use the 1.4TC and get 280.

I bought a used 70-200 yesterday for a good price and have been testing out today on Bob Atkins chart and some controlled scenes in my back yard. As you would expect, the 70-200 is much shaper at 100; at 200 they are closer but the 70-200 appears sharper because of noticeably better contrast, which is true at any length. At 280 on the 70-200 with the TC, the photos are very similar but again the 70-200 is more pleasing because of better contrast. For 400, I put the 70-200 plus TC on DX and compared it to the 100-400 at 400. This was a shocker. In spite of the difference in the size of the files, the 70-200 shot was clearly sharper. 400mm on the 100-400 is known to be its weakest point. So in summary I have the wrong range of 70-400 covered if necessary and the photos look better because of better contrast.

I haven’t put my 100-400 up for sale yet because I want to get some feedback here and see if there is anything I’m not considering. For close ups, the 100-400 is clearly better but I rarely do close ups.

I look forward to your thoughts.

 

[Lance B]

If you need the money, sell the 100-400 and if not then keep both. I have both as well as the Z180-600, 500 pf and at this stage I have no plans on selling any of them even though the 70-200 f2.8 is my least used lens. I also have both the Z1.4x and Z2x TC. The 70-200 f2.8 is absolutely idiotically sharp especially wide open and at f4 and rivals any prime in that range at those apertures. The 100-400 is almost the perfect lens for a zoo.

 

[Carmel Nikon]

Lance, you are spot-on. I just went to the Zoo last week, and the 100-400 was the ideal lens for it. The short MFD came in super handy, and I found myself shooting along the entire set of focal lengths. I also had a fast prime for the bird house (where they fly as low as a foot above visitors heads!), and between the two, all was covered.

For the OP - unless you are a Zoo regular, you can probably make do with the 70-200 and 600 pair just fine (with TC in a pinch). Might be a luxury to keep the 100-400, but if you can swing it, you won't regret it. If you need the funds, you'll be fine with the other two for most needs, in my opinion.

 

[Lance B]

Lance, you are spot-on. I just went to the Zoo last week, and the 100-400 was the ideal lens for it. The short MFD came in super handy, and I found myself shooting along the entire set of focal lengths. I also had a fast prime for the bird house (where they fly as low as a foot above visitors heads!), and between the two, all was covered.

The MFD is just one of the benefits of the Z100-400 compared to say the 180-600 which is also a good zoo lens but that MFD can come into play of you're in an aviary where you can get close to birds or other areas with animals. Having said that, using a TC on the 70-200 f2.8 allows you to use the MFD of the lens but with the higher magnification of the TC used and is thus similar to the Z100-400 for overall image size. When I go to the zoo, I will vacillate between using the Z100-400 or Z70-200 (and use TC's with the 70-200) and use either with a longer prime for longer shots if necessary, like the 500 pf.

 

[wotan1]

I have to tell my evolution of lenses in this area.

I had the 70-200mm first. According to DXOMARK test results it is the highest IQ zoom in this range made by anyone and it tests out equivalent to some of the best primes.

When I needed something longer I went with the 400mm f4.5 instead of the 100-400. I made this choice because of evaluations that reported this 400 prime was significantly sharper.

I like going on an active shoot with two bodies and two complementary lenses. I get better lens IQ that way.

the 70-200 works fine up to 200mm and if I need something longer I can get it working on the Z8/9 by cropping or going dx. So anything between 200 and 400 works with a crop or dx. At 400mm the 400 f4.5 is by far the best choice of all the lenses being discussed here.

The 400mm 4.5 shooting at 400 crops well and certainly can cover 400 up to 600 quite well.

The 600 in turn can cover 600 and above.

The issue with these lenses is not sharpness but aperture width. The maximum commercially available is f2.8 at 400mm and f4 at 600mm. The 70-200mm shoots at f2.8 and you can maintain that maximum aperture while cropping if you do not use a tc.

The 400mm f4.5 is a little more than one F stop slower than the maximum available at 400 of f2.8. The 600mm pf at f6.3 is more than an F stop slower than the maximum aperture at 600mm of f4. This slower speed means reduced ability to resolve backgrounds favorably.

The problem with these lenses is the decrease of maximum aperture gets greater when you add a tc.

The main advantage of the super primes is that they actually maintain the maximum commercially available apertures when adding teleconverters. The 400mm f2.8 goes to f4 at 580mm with the 1.4x tc and f5.6 at 800mm with the 2x tc. This means the lens functions at maximum commercially available aperture at all of those focal lengths. Similarly the 600mm f4 tc vr becomes f5.6 in the 800mm range.

But when you start more than an f stop slower at the prime's native focal length it means you go even more out of range when you add tc's.

For instance at 600mm the 600mm pf goes to f9 with the 1/4x tc or f13 with the 2x.

The 800mm pf is unique of these lighter weight and less expensive lenses in that it is f6.3 at 800mm. This is only one third stop slower than the maximum commercially available 800mm lens of f5.6. The 600mm works fine with the 1.4x tc in the 800 range but you give up a lot in maximum aperture.

I try to avoid this problem by avoiding having to use a tc.

For me the magical combination of lighter weight and more affordable telephotos is the 400mm f4.5 and the 800mm pf. I can use the cropping ability of the super sharp 400mm f4.5 to cover ranges between 400 and 800mm and when I can shoot at 800 (which happens a lot) I can switch to the 800 pf and I am within a third F stop of the maximum.

Sure we all would love to have the super primes at $14-16k per lens. But even besides the cost we must put up with more substantial size and weight. Flexibility and ease of shooting versus maximum capability. There is no free lunch here.

I am very happy with my decision to go with the 400mm f4.5 instead of the 100-400. That lens works well in tandem with the 70-200mm f2.8 or the 800mm f6.3.

I do plan one day to add a super prime most likely the 400mm f2.8. But that is a lot of money to spend for me right now.

 

[JoelKlein]

I took the 70-200 with both TCs to zoo’s, I always felt that I’m compromising image quality vs. the 100-400
In my brain, One day I want to buy the 100-400 just for zoo’s and Florida preserves.

After reading this thread, I’m confused.
Is the 70-200 with TC’s better from the 100-400?

To my knowledge, 1.4 TC AND DX eat a stop of light, the only difference is, the TC optically magnifies it up to full 45mp, while DX doesn’t, and it stays at the reduced resolution and cut away light.

I am using DX only when I want the flexibility of quickly zooming in for better AF.

 

[Lance B]

I took the 70-200 with both TCs to zoo’s, I always felt that I’m comprising image quality vs. the 100-400
In my brain, One day I want to buy the 100-400 just for zoo’s and Florida preserves.

After reading this thread, I’m confused.
Is the 70-200 with TC’s better from the 100-400?

To my knowledge, 1.4 TC AND DX eat a stop of light, the only difference is, the TC optically magnifies to full 45mp, while DX doesn’t, and it stays at the reduced resolution.

I am using DX only when I want the flexibility of quickly zooming in for better AF.

The Z100-400 is sharper than the Z70-200 f2.8S + Z 2x TC at 400mm. The Z70-200 f2.8S + Z 1.4x TC compared to the Z100-400 is very close in terms of sharpness throughout the same focal range. See a good review here and from my use of the Z 70-200 f2.8S + Z 1.4x TC and Z 2x TC the results seem to bear out my findings.

Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S vs Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S

photographylife.com

 

[JoelKlein]

The Z100-400 is sharper than the Z70-200 f2.8S + Z 2x TC at 400mm. The Z70-200 f2.8S + Z 1.4x TC compared to the Z100-400 is very close in terms of sharpness throughout the same focal range. See a good review here and from my use of the Z 70-200 f2.8S + Z 1.4x TC and Z 2x TC the results seem to bear out my findings.

Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S vs Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S

photographylife.com

How is the sharpness from the 70-200+1.4TC after 280mm in DX compared to the 100-400 @ 280-400mm?

In other words, instead of using a 2X TC, get to 400mm with a 1.4TC + DX

 

[wotan1]

What follows is my understanding. If I a, wrong on this I am sure someone will enlighten us.

The whole point about shooting with a super sharp lens on a 47 mp sensor is that you have a lot more pixels than you would need for a top quality image in anything short of a poster sized print. In practice it means you can significantly crop an image and still maintain the maximum sharpness and resolution you can practically use for most purposes.

it means a sharper lens will allow you to crop further than a lens with lower IQ. In this respect the 400mm f4.5 prime has been tested out as sharper than the 100-400mm. It means I can, shooting at 400mm,, have a significant amount of leeway in cropping with that lens than the 100-400mm shooting at 400.

It is further my understanding that cropping is functionally equivalent to switching to dx or some other crop size. You end up with the same result. The practical difference is a dx crop may give you an advantage in focus because your subject will appear larger in the frame. In both cases however the image uses only a portion of the available sensor space.

Now here is my understanding about the effect of aperture.

Aperture determines the amount of light the camera will let in. Presumably with a well-exposed photograph the light will be sufficient to illuminate the entire active sensor area. So it is my understanding you use the same aperture when cropping or dx you just use less of the sensor.

By contrast adding a teleconverter actually cuts the amount of light that makes it to the sensor. You need to adjust for this by changing the exposure settings. You lose one F stop with the 1.4 and 2 f stops with the 2x.

Now cropping is equivalent as i understand it functionally to shooting at a longer focal length. But you already have the exposure what was rendered or not rendered in the background remains the same, you are just looking at a smaller part of the overall image.

 

[JoelKlein]

With DX you’re cutting away the light photons. Just like stopping down.

Light enters the lens at f/2.8, and illuminates the sensor with 2.8.
With DX, after cutting out the inner circle, you are left with f/4.

Same thing happens if you crop in post. The 2.8 light will only remain 2.8 when it is spread across the entire sensor.

 

[Len Shepherd]

Light enters the lens at f/2.8, and illuminates the sensor with 2.8.
With DX, after cutting out the inner circle, you are left with f/4.

Same thing happens if you crop in post. The 2.8 light will only remain 2.8 when it is spread across the entire sensor.

I cannot quite grasp this.
If you receive f2 .8 light, as you do through the front of the lens, all that is happening is that the area used for exposing the image is being restricted to an f4 equivalent.
If you were left with f4 instead of 2.8 by either in camera with DX or cropping in post - the exposure would change.
If you said instead the depth of field changes, I would agree.
This is because the smaller DX or crop image needs more magnification to produce sufficient sharp detail in the theoretical 10×8 size print used in depth of field assumptions.
Enlarging an image more requires a different circle of confusion to obtain any particular level of image sharpness - and changes the depth of field perception of the contents in the image.

 

[Vincent_VdB]

With DX you’re cutting away the light photons. Just like stopping down.

Light enters the lens at f/2.8, and illuminates the sensor with 2.8.
With DX, after cutting out the inner circle, you are left with f/4.

Same thing happens if you crop in post. The 2.8 light will only remain 2.8 when it is spread across the entire sensor.

Not agree at all. You crop in DX the outsides but will you not miraculously get into f/4 when you have an f/2.8 lens on it while shooting full open. Just curious, how did you got to that conclusion?

 

[fcotterill]

With DX you’re cutting away the light photons. Just like stopping down.

Light enters the lens at f/2.8, and illuminates the sensor with 2.8.
With DX, after cutting out the inner circle, you are left with f/4.

Same thing happens if you crop in post. The 2.8 light will only remain 2.8 when it is spread across the entire sensor.

Ahhh! the dreaded Equivalence rabbit hole.....

According to the Equivalence of FX to DX formats - assuming the same physics of the sensor and same lens - the loss of light in the DX crop = 1.2 stops - given exposure is the Scene Luminance filtered by Shutter Speed filtered by Physical Aperture of the lens.

This schematic in a DPR article on Equivalence illustrates the loss of light due to cropping the image area [click on Full-Frame versus APS-C]

What is equivalence and why should I care?

Equivalence, at its most simple, is a way of comparing different formats (sensor sizes) on a common basis. Sounds straightforward enough, but the concept is still somewhat controversial and not always clearly understood. We thought it was about time we explained - and demonstrated - what...

www.dpreview.com

 

[BLev65]

The obsession with brute image sharpness over all else is an Achilles heal when it comes to make the best decision for one's photography. The level of detail all of these modern Nikkor optics can capture is far beyond anything noticeable in a 30" print or 5K monitor. Rather than focus on the resolution one can obtain using a test chart, think about how you will use the lens. If you plan to shoot at 70-200 between the apertures of f/2.8 to f/4.0, then the 70-200 f/2.8 is the way to go. If you plan on using the lens above 200 mm, then the 100-400 is the better option.
I had the 70-200 f/2.8, 400mm f2.8TC and 1.4x. I sold my 70-200 for the 100-400 because I valued the wider zoom range and felt it paired better with my 24-120. I've used the 100-400 on a kayak to photograph birds and marine mammals, the image quality is amazing and far surpasses my former F-mount lenses that were used for the same task.
What are your image goals?... Buy the lenses that help you to realize this.
cheers,
bruce

 

[JoelKlein]

I cannot quite grasp this.
If you receive f2 .8 light, as you do through the front of the lens, all that is happening is that the area used for exposing the image is being restricted to an f4 equivalent.
If you were left with f4 instead of 2.8 by either in camera with DX or cropping in post - the exposure would change.
If you said instead the depth of field changes, I would agree.
This is because the smaller DX or crop image needs more magnification to produce sufficient sharp detail in the theoretical 10×8 size print used in depth of field assumptions.
Enlarging an image more requires a different circle of confusion to obtain any particular level of image sharpness - and changes the depth of field perception of the contents in the image.

We had this same discussion here on BCG a while ago. I’m not sure how to search for it.
FX and DX/postCropping are changing the FOV (field if view) not the depth of field.

 

[jpgrove]

I sold my 100-400 because I just didn't use it as much as I thought I would, its a useful range for landscapes, but in the end I kept my 70-200 and sold the 100-400. It wasn't about sharpness or anything else people tend to fret over, I just wasn't using it enough. Like any tool, if it sits in a box then you dont need it. But I have covered it with the 180-600 but that is not something I'll use for landscapes. I'll miss the times the 100-400 was handy, but not enough to keep it. Everyones end use case is different, you just need to decided what's yours.

 

[MrFotoFool]

The most obvious advantage of 70-200 is the f2.8 aperture. So I think the main thing you need to decide is if there are times you need a larger aperture due to low light. If the answer is yes it happens fairly often, then that would be a good way to go. A 70-200 f2.8 has always been my favorite and most used lens. The Z version takes teleconverters well, even the 2x (I used this combo frequently until I got my 180-600 a couple months ago).

 

[JoelKlein]

The most obvious advantage of 70-200 is the f2.8 aperture. So I think the main thing you need to decide is if there are times you need a larger aperture due to low light. If the answer is yes it happens fairly often, then that would be a good way to go. A 70-200 f2.8 has always been my favorite and most used lens. The Z version takes teleconverters well, even the 2x (I used this combo frequently until I got my 180-600 a couple months ago).

That’s right.
When the light goes down and I finally found a spoonie I was after, I grabbed the 70-200. Leaving all longer glass in the rolling thing tang case.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[jhallettbc]

I took the 70-200 with both TCs to zoo’s, I always felt that I’m compromising image quality vs. the 100-400
In my brain, One day I want to buy the 100-400 just for zoo’s and Florida preserves.

After reading this thread, I’m confused.
Is the 70-200 with TC’s better from the 100-400?

To my knowledge, 1.4 TC AND DX eat a stop of light, the only difference is, the TC optically magnifies it up to full 45mp, while DX doesn’t, and it stays at the reduced resolution and cut away light.

I am using DX only when I want the flexibility of quickly zooming in for better AF.

All I can tell you is I tried 2 different tests comparing the 70-200 with the 1.4TC using DX to get 420mm and it was noticeably sharper than the 100-400 at 400. I was amazed. If you look at the sharpness test of that lens on Photography Life you will see that 400 is the weak end of the lens.

 

[jhallettbc]

How is the sharpness from the 70-200+1.4TC after 280mm in DX compared to the 100-400 @ 280-400mm?

In other words, instead of using a 2X TC, get to 400mm with a 1.4TC + DX

See what I said above.

 

[jhallettbc]

The obsession with brute image sharpness over all else is an Achilles heal when it comes to make the best decision for one's photography. The level of detail all of these modern Nikkor optics can capture is far beyond anything noticeable in a 30" print or 5K monitor. Rather than focus on the resolution one can obtain using a test chart, think about how you will use the lens. If you plan to shoot at 70-200 between the apertures of f/2.8 to f/4.0, then the 70-200 f/2.8 is the way to go. If you plan on using the lens above 200 mm, then the 100-400 is the better option.
I had the 70-200 f/2.8, 400mm f2.8TC and 1.4x. I sold my 70-200 for the 100-400 because I valued the wider zoom range and felt it paired better with my 24-120. I've used the 100-400 on a kayak to photograph birds and marine mammals, the image quality is amazing and far surpasses my former F-mount lenses that were used for the same task.
What are your image goals?... Buy the lenses that help you to realize this.
cheers,
bruce

You have a valid point about obsession with sharpness. I fall into this too at times. I realize that when I look at photos taken with earlier DSLR'S and F-mount lens and couldn't tell the difference from my mirrorless cameras. Where it makes a difference is in cropping.

 

[jhallettbc]

One thing I don't think has been mentioned about the 70-200 is its ability to make subjects pop when you use 2.8. I take photos of bike races, rodeos and some sports and being able to blur the background really makes a difference. You really can't do that with the 100-400. That is another reason I am choosing to keep the 70-200 and sell the 100-400.

 

[joe43]

I use my 100-400mm S lens on my Z9. I also use my F mount 70-200mm f4 on my Z9 with the FTZii adapter when I need that focal length range. When I got my Z9 I decided to spend my $$ on the 100-400mm and not the 70-200mm f2.8 as I did not think I really needed the f2.8 across all f stops in a 70-200. I also use the 500mm pf with the adapter.

If $$ and weight had not been constraints, I would have bought the 70-200mm f2.8 and the 100-400mm.

My current dilemma is that I really need more reach than 500mm. I will likely get the Z mount 600mm pf one of these days.

 

[JoelKlein]

All I can tell you is I tried 2 different tests comparing the 70-200 with the 1.4TC using DX to get 420mm and it was noticeably sharper than the 100-400 at 400. I was amazed. If you look at the sharpness test of that lens on Photography Life you will see that 400 is the weak end of the lens.

Thank you. Makes me feel better.
Except the part that DX loses resolution.
I’m from those people who like to zoom in enjoying the details.

 

[jhallettbc]

I am thinking of photographing birds. So I thought if I had to crop more using DX to get 420, then it would mean I should be using my 600PF. I think I'm covering all the bases.