Trade Z 100-400 for Z 70-200?

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
fcotterill said:
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]

www.dpreview.com

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 www.dpreview.com
Click to expand...
Everybody needs to read the first comment on the linked equivalence article. The author of the article seems to not understand that some of the total light comes from part of the scene that the sensor doesn't see. Yes the total light hitting the sensor is smaller but the amount of light per unit area of the sensor is the same. The problem is that for the same number of total pixels a crop sensor has smaller receptors and will require more amplification resulting in more noise.
 
Member's gallery
I'm shaking my head about the trashing the Z100-400 lens is getting in this thread. For times when I do not have my 400/2.8 (with or without my 1.4TC), I find the 100-400 to be an excellent lens. Does it match the sharpness of the naked 70-200/2.8 or the long fast primes? Of course not, but to me, the difference is a lot less than one might imagine and I use that 100-400 whenever it is not convenient to carry the long primes and it is way easier to handhold. I also own a Z70-200/2.8 which I find to be the sharpest lens I have ever owned - and not just measured against zooms - but I have never tried it with a 2X TC.

I get excellent results at 400 all day long and I don't obsess about the slower max aperture since it is so easy to mitigate hi iso noise with modern software. The one weakness that is inherent to the slow 100-400 is the inability to obtain the pleasings shallow depth of field I can obtain with the 70-200 at 2.8. Of course with the 2X and the 2 stop loss of light, the "fast" advantage of the 70-200 is deeply mitigated. I love the 100-400 and use it quite often, as I do my 70-200/2.8. I don't find the 2 lenses redundant at all - the 70-200/2.8 is my go to lens for event photography and non studio portraits and the 100-400 is my wildlife lens if I can't carry big primes and/or monopod.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_6695 8x10.jpg
    DSC_6695 8x10.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 15
  • DSC_7009.jpg
    DSC_7009.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 18
Member's gallery
jhallettbc said:
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.
Click to expand...
The 70-200mm f/2.8 is one of my go to lenses for pet photography. The other is the 24-70mm f/2.8. Those are the two lenses needed for pet/family portrait photography. I can't say enough good things about that 70-200mm lens. It's fantastic.
 
Member's gallery
jhallettbc said:
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.
Click to expand...
The 70-200 is a great lens and would compliment the 600mm PF ...🦘
 
Member's gallery
Chris K said:
The poor 100-400 gets beat up from all angles:

(snipped)
The 100-400’s virtue is that it can do everything in one lens (plus a 1.4x TC). If you have more specialized lenses and are willing to carry them, then there’s not much point to the 100-400.

If your dollar or weight budget doesn’t allow carrying a 70-200, 105MC, and super tele, the 100-400 is usually “good enough”.
Click to expand...
While a lens like the 180-600 might or might not be approaching 5% more current extremely high current image resolution ability at 400mm; in a laboratory test bench than the 100-400 - in the real photographs world the difference might be reduced to 2.5%.
This can be minuscule compared to other often more important factors such as shooting conditions or photographic expertise.

Good though my 180-600 is it goes back a generation in high flare situations by not having nano, whereas the 100-400 has Arneo taking it forward in the flare control arena.

The 100-400 magnification ability at 2-3 feet make it easy to determine the condition of a butterfly or dragonfly without needing time to stalk close.

In many situations that you refer to I find the 100-400 distinctly better than good enough.

Which telephoto zoom did Steve recently take to Africa?
 
Member's gallery
Len Shepherd said:
While a lens like the 180-600 might or might not be approaching 5% more current extremely high current image resolution ability at 400mm; in a laboratory test bench than the 100-400 - in the real photographs world the difference might be reduced to 2.5%.
This can be minuscule compared to other often more important factors such as shooting conditions or photographic expertise.

Good though my 180-600 is it goes back a generation in high flare situations by not having nano, whereas the 100-400 has Arneo taking it forward in the flare control arena.

The 100-400 magnification ability at 2-3 feet make it easy to determine the condition of a butterfly or dragonfly without needing time to stalk close.

In many situations that you refer to I find the 100-400 distinctly better than good enough.

Which telephoto zoom did Steve recently take to Africa?
Click to expand...
He took a long Imodium as well. I would love to know how many pictures he has actually taken with it AND kept it.
 
Member's gallery
JoelKlein said:
Can you elaborate on this:
“best landscape lens in the Z system“
Click to expand...

Its optical performance is excellent by any measure. It’s considerably longer than the 70-200, and better than other options (24-200, 28-400). It’s good enough that using an teleprime is a waste of weight for landscape use. And (at least in my opinion) its focal range the most useful for landscape photography, allowing me to travel with just a 24-70 for wide shots.

Maybe someday we’ll get a compact, high-quality 70-300. Until then, the 100-400 is our best landscape option.
 
Member's gallery
Chris K said:
The poor 100-400 gets beat up from all angles:

  • Its reach+sharpness is shorter than similarly-sized telephotos (500/5.6, 400/4.5, 600/6.3)
  • It’s not as sharp as the 70-200/2.8
  • It’s a little awkward for macro compared to the 105MC
  • And now, it’s bigger than the 28-400
The 100-400’s virtue is that it can do everything in one lens (plus a 1.4x TC). If you have more specialized lenses and are willing to carry them, then there’s not much point to the 100-400.

If your dollar or weight budget doesn’t allow carrying a 70-200, 105MC, and super tele, the 100-400 is usually “good enough”.

For me, the 100-400 earns its keep primarily as the best landscape lens in the Z system, and I give it bonus points because it is IR-friendly.
Click to expand...
Succinct summary, Thanks.

It's a Swiss army Knife in the Z System. Versatile embodies compromises, which are negligible minuses compared to my real world needs.

It's likely Versatility is a big factor why Nikon sold over 300 000 copies of their F-mount 80-400 zooms. The Z-mount S line zoom is significantly improved as described in this thread and reviews.

Covering 70-560 at f2.8/f4/5.6 costs much more in money and weight to pair the 70-200 f2.8 with the 180-400 f4E TC14. It must be very challenging - if ever possible - to engineer a 4 X - let alone 8 X - fast Zoom to replace this pair in their entirety of optical quality and features at matching cost.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I ordered my copy of the 100-400 S after reading the first tests, including @Steve 's and Brad Hill's

21 Dec 2021: The Nikkor 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR S: Early Impressions and Thoughts

25 March 2022: Nikkor 100-400mm f4.5-5.6S or 70-200mm f2.8S Plus Teleconverters?

"...call a spade a spade, the 70-200mm f2.8S works amazingly well with BOTH of the Z-teleconverters. For the first time (at least in my opinion), a zoom lens with external teleconverters IS worth considering as a "high-quality" option, even for discerning photographers. On the other hand, the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6S is an EXCELLENT lens. My testing has convinced me that the difference in the optical performance of the Nikkor 100-400mm f4.5-5.6S and the 70-200mm f2.8S plus the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters IS subtle but it's real - with the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 edging out the 70-200mm f2.8S (plus TC's) in overall optical performance. For shooters that only rarely need to go beyond 200mm (which would exclude almost all wildlife shooters) - or for shooters that already own the 70-200mm and that don't want to fork out the bucks for the 100-400 - going down the 70-200mm plus TC's road may make good sense. Different strokes for different folks!

Even though a 70-200mm f2.8 lens has been long-considered a "staple" part of most wildlife photographer's kit, it's my view that the majority of wildlife shooters would be better served overall with the 100-400mm rather than relying on a 70-200mm plus TC's. In fact, as an owner of the 100-400mm and the excellent 24-120mm f4S, I am actually beginning to wonder how a 70-200mm f2.8 legitimately fits into my wildlife kit. And, recently I've had a number of other wildlife photographers contact me asking the same question: "If I own the 24-120mm AND the 100-400mm why do I need a 70-200?" The pat answer is (of course)...for those low-light situations OR when I want the background-blurring "power" of a f2.8 aperture. And for some shooters that answer may be valid. But in my case (and as an owner of the superb 120-300mm f2.8E that has even BETTER subject-isolation power than any 70-200mm f2.8)...the presence of the 70-200mm f2.8S in my wildlife kit may end up being very time-limited..."
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
I ordered my copy of the 100-400 S after reading the first tests, including @Steve 's and Brad Hill's

21 Dec 2021: The Nikkor 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR S: Early Impressions and Thoughts

25 March 2022: Nikkor 100-400mm f4.5-5.6S or 70-200mm f2.8S Plus Teleconverters?

"...call a spade a spade, the 70-200mm f2.8S works amazingly well with BOTH of the Z-teleconverters. For the first time (at least in my opinion), a zoom lens with external teleconverters IS worth considering as a "high-quality" option, even for discerning photographers. On the other hand, the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6S is an EXCELLENT lens. My testing has convinced me that the difference in the optical performance of the Nikkor 100-400mm f4.5-5.6S and the 70-200mm f2.8S plus the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters IS subtle but it's real - with the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 edging out the 70-200mm f2.8S (plus TC's) in overall optical performance. For shooters that only rarely need to go beyond 200mm (which would exclude almost all wildlife shooters) - or for shooters that already own the 70-200mm and that don't want to fork out the bucks for the 100-400 - going down the 70-200mm plus TC's road may make good sense. Different strokes for different folks!

Even though a 70-200mm f2.8 lens has been long-considered a "staple" part of most wildlife photographer's kit, it's my view that the majority of wildlife shooters would be better served overall with the 100-400mm rather than relying on a 70-200mm plus TC's. In fact, as an owner of the 100-400mm and the excellent 24-120mm f4S, I am actually beginning to wonder how a 70-200mm f2.8 legitimately fits into my wildlife kit. And, recently I've had a number of other wildlife photographers contact me asking the same question: "If I own the 24-120mm AND the 100-400mm why do I need a 70-200?" The pat answer is (of course)...for those low-light situations OR when I want the background-blurring "power" of a f2.8 aperture. And for some shooters that answer may be valid. But in my case (and as an owner of the superb 120-300mm f2.8E that has even BETTER subject-isolation power than any 70-200mm f2.8)...the presence of the 70-200mm f2.8S in my wildlife kit may end up being very time-limited..."
Click to expand...
I love your analysis.
I guess I would not mind to own a 100-400, but can’t justify it when I have the 70-200 and covered a number of Zoo’s with it. Messing around with TC’s on and off was annoying though.

In Florida walking a boardwalk, the 70-200 was perfect. All though, I also used the 600 & 800 for BIF.

One day I want to own the 100-400. Botanical gardens is a great place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top