My fantasy for a medium wildlife lens would be a 300/2.8 with a built in TC 1.4
Trade Z 100-400 for Z 70-200?
- Thread starter jhallettbc
- Start date
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).
TomSavage
New member
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.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
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.
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
Patty
Member
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.
Karen, What flash are you using in The first photo?The 100-400 is better for close focusing of frogs, snakes and other macro photo ops you will encounter in Costa Rica. Are you taking a macro lens?
100-400 @ 340
100-400 @ 400
The one supplied by the tour leader. Sorry....I've never liked doing flash. Guess I'm not a flashy gal.....
I want this lens too! I hope we will hear about it soon
Roy
Well-known member
The 70-200 is a great lens and would compliment the 600mm PF ...
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?
Kjellis
Well-known member
This is an odd thread. If my 600TCis too long for the shot I want, I don’t hesitate to shoot my 100-400 at 400mm wide open! Not once have I thought that I wish this was sharper!
In other words I love my 100-400 and it’s my most used lens second to the 600 TC.
In other words I love my 100-400 and it’s my most used lens second to the 600 TC.
Kjellis
Well-known member
Nope, this is not the case at all.
He took a long Imodium as well. I would love to know how many pictures he has actually taken with it AND kept it.
I borrowed a 100-400 from a friend for 15 minutes.
at 100 its really nice.
300 was nice too.
400, not so much.
But, for photo journalism, its perfect.
at 100 its really nice.
300 was nice too.
400, not so much.
But, for photo journalism, its perfect.
Chris K
Well-known member
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.
fcotterill
Well-known member
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:
fcotterill
Well-known member
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..."
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..."
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.
karlito
New member
Hello BCG community,
This is my first message here (I usually post on Dpreview).
I found this topic because I'm also hesitating between choosing the Z 70-200mm and the Z 100-400mm lenses.
My Google research has led me to this forum.
The Z 70-200mm is indispensable for me as I shoot weddings, especially for portraits in low light.
Additionally, for personal use, I have the Z 180-600mm and a 2x teleconverter TC. Recently, I've also acquired a Nikon Z8 alongside my Z6i.
My landscape photography kit includes:
I carry them all in a Vanguard Alta Sky 53 backpack.
And I have a Kase filter Wolverine kit that fits all my lenses for long exposure.
I would like to lighten my bag for landscape photography.
I don’t need 4 lenses for landscape. It's just a hobby.
I’m considering purchasing the Z 100-400mm to replace both the Z 70-200mm and the Z 180-600mm for landscapes.
I would still use the Z 70-200mm for weddings and the 180-600mm for birding.
But for landscapes, the 100-400mm could be sufficient.
After reading through the entire thread, I’ve learned a lot, and some posts have even made me hesitant about buying the Z 100-400mm, given how comparable the Z 70-200mm + TC x2 is.
I live on the French Riviera by the seaside. The possibilities are endless. From 14mm to 600mm, I always find a different photo every week to contribute to my 52-week project.
Should I get the Z 100-400 despite already having the Z 70-200, Z 180-600, and TC x2?
Until I read this thread, I was convinced to sell my Z TC x2 and get the 100-400 for landscape photography.
Thank you for your advice and for sharing your experiences.
This is my first message here (I usually post on Dpreview).
I found this topic because I'm also hesitating between choosing the Z 70-200mm and the Z 100-400mm lenses.
My Google research has led me to this forum.
The Z 70-200mm is indispensable for me as I shoot weddings, especially for portraits in low light.
Additionally, for personal use, I have the Z 180-600mm and a 2x teleconverter TC. Recently, I've also acquired a Nikon Z8 alongside my Z6i.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
My landscape photography kit includes:
- Z 14-24mm f/2.8
- Z 24-70mm f/2.8
- Z 70-200mm f/2.8
- Z 180-600mm
- Z TC x2
I carry them all in a Vanguard Alta Sky 53 backpack.
And I have a Kase filter Wolverine kit that fits all my lenses for long exposure.
I would like to lighten my bag for landscape photography.
I don’t need 4 lenses for landscape. It's just a hobby.
I’m considering purchasing the Z 100-400mm to replace both the Z 70-200mm and the Z 180-600mm for landscapes.
I would still use the Z 70-200mm for weddings and the 180-600mm for birding.
But for landscapes, the 100-400mm could be sufficient.
After reading through the entire thread, I’ve learned a lot, and some posts have even made me hesitant about buying the Z 100-400mm, given how comparable the Z 70-200mm + TC x2 is.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I live on the French Riviera by the seaside. The possibilities are endless. From 14mm to 600mm, I always find a different photo every week to contribute to my 52-week project.
Should I get the Z 100-400 despite already having the Z 70-200, Z 180-600, and TC x2?
Until I read this thread, I was convinced to sell my Z TC x2 and get the 100-400 for landscape photography.
Thank you for your advice and for sharing your experiences.
I’d suggest you try, for your hobby, the new z28-400mm as it’s small and compact, great for travel. I have the z180-600 for distance, animals etc, while I love the images of the z70-200 f2.8
i rented the z100-400 but was not impressed at all. The other lens that I really like is the z24-120 f4 which is also great for landscapes. I have the z14-24 but haven’t used it for a year.
karlito
New member
Thank you so much, Patrick, for your answer.
I hadn't yet considered the 28-400mm option. I'll take a look, but it's true that I've been disappointed with superzooms in the past.
In fact, I sold my 24-200mm last month after using it for three years.
Looking back, I spent too much time in Lightroom correcting micro-contrast and found the image quality below my other lenses.
Additionally, I always struggled with managing flare when taking photos with the sun in the frame.
I'm going to need some time before trusting another superzoom again
Calson
Well-known member
The 70-200mm was purchased for landscape photography but is also my primary lens for macro as the 105mm f/2.8 lens is often too short a focal length to provide the camera to subject distance I want.
The 100-400mm with the 1.4x teleconverter is my main combo lens to use with the 800mm PF lens. In places like Yellowstone the 600mm focal length is too short for the bears and too long for the bison and elk in the situations I have encountered. I used the 600mm f/4 with the 1.4x teleconverter along with the 80-400mm zoom lens in Yellowstone and similar locations.
I take two cameras and have one attached to my longest prime and the other attached to a tele zoom lens. With the 70-200mm with wildlife only with the 2x teleconverter for a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens.
The 100-400mm with the 1.4x teleconverter is my main combo lens to use with the 800mm PF lens. In places like Yellowstone the 600mm focal length is too short for the bears and too long for the bison and elk in the situations I have encountered. I used the 600mm f/4 with the 1.4x teleconverter along with the 80-400mm zoom lens in Yellowstone and similar locations.
I take two cameras and have one attached to my longest prime and the other attached to a tele zoom lens. With the 70-200mm with wildlife only with the 2x teleconverter for a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens.
You're going to have to make that call.
The places the 100-400 really stands out are for travel - due to small size - and for subjects you need a short working distance such as insects like butterflies and dragonflies and small jumpy critters. There are better long lens options, but it is very good. There are similar lenses that provide mid-range flexibility - like the 70-200 at a higher price or the 400mm f/4.5 - both a little sharper.
I have not bought either of the 80-400 lenses, or now the 100-400. I have places where I could use a 100-400, but not enough of the time to justify the purchase over alternatives. In a similar manner, I was a late buyer of the 200-500 and chose not to get the 180-600. My kit is the 70-200, 400mm f/4.5, and 800mm PF. For what and where I photograph, that set has things covered nicely.
karlito
New member
Thank you for your detailed feedback, Calson.
Have you ever compared the image quality of your Z 70-200mm with the 2x teleconverter against the 100-400mm?
I know there have been many reviews on this comparison, but I would appreciate hearing your personal experience.
Thank you for your time
karlito
New member
Thank you for your feedback, Eric.
Your experience and insights are helpful.
You are absolutely right about the Z 100-400; it is an excellent lens for travel.
I am actually planning a trip to Iceland in 2025, and I am still undecided on which lenses I already own to bring with me.
The ideal kit would likely be the Z 24-120 and the Z 100-400, but I don't have either of these lenses and I don't know if I can justify the purchase.
I will have to make that call, as you mentioned.
Have you tried renting? I rented the 100-400 for Svalbard last year. I also rented the z400 f4.5 … neither of which suited me As it happens. The zoom extended and that worried me…conditions were very wet. The z70-200 and z180-600 both have internal zooms.
the z70-200 with the 2x TC was my stop gap until tne long awaited zoom emerged. It is an excellent combination… I never found the IQ compromissed, but then i dont do more than show family and friends.