Trade Z 100-400 for Z 70-200?

[karlito]

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.

Thank you for your feedback, Patrick, once again.
How lucky to have been able to go to Svalbard!
Personally, I've never considered renting equipment. I'd be too worried about damaging it.
Like you, I used the Z 70-200 with the 2x TC for a long time until I could get the Z 180-600. Now that I have a 45MP Z8 and the Z 180-600, I'm going to sell the 2x TC.
I'm still considering replacing the 2x TC with the Z 100-400 option.
I'm unsure at this point, but thank you for your feedback once again.

 

[Nimi]

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.

View attachment 91453

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've chosen these lenses to blend work and my passion for photography.
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.


View attachment 91454

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.

In my experience, no zooms come close to the image quality of the 2.8 Holly Trinity. So as other said, you would have to make the call whether the difference in IQ is worth giving up to lighten the load.

I gave the 24-120 a try for similar reasons, and now it collects dust and I still carry the two 2.8s covering the range. If the environment I shoot was more forgiving (dust, sand, ocean mist), I'd be in all primes.

 

[Calson]

When I shot with the D3 the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 was sharper than the Nikon or the Canon 14mm, 18mm, and 24mm prime lenses. Prime lenses may or may not be sharper than the pro zoom lenses. One needs to minimize the zoom range to get the sharpest lenses. Few people appreciate how the introduction of personal computers advance lens designs that prior to that needed to be calculated by hand. This was a particular problem with zoom lens designs.

Minimum focus distance is 1.6 feet with the 70-200mm lens but 2.5 feet with the 100-400mm. With small ground subjects like frogs and snakes either lens is better than the 105mm macro lens.

 

[karlito]

In my experience, no zooms come close to the image quality of the 2.8 Holly Trinity. So as other said, you would have to make the call whether the difference in IQ is worth giving up to lighten the load.

I gave the 24-120 a try for similar reasons, and now it collects dust and I still carry the two 2.8s covering the range. If the environment I shoot was more forgiving (dust, sand, ocean mist), I'd be in all primes.

Thank you for your feedback Nimi.

I think you've said everything and summarized the situation well.

I should keep it simple.

I will undoubtedly continue to use my 2.8 zooms despite the weight.

I also love my primes. I document my children's lives with the 35/50/85 f1.8 lenses.
I couldn't do without them either.

 

[Nimi]

Thank you for your feedback Nimi.

I think you've said everything and summarized the situation well.

I should keep it simple.

I will undoubtedly continue to use my 2.8 zooms despite the weight.

I also love my primes. I document my children's lives with the 35/50/85 f1.8 lenses.
I couldn't do without them either.

Wait until you try the 1.2s...

 

[karlito]

When I shot with the D3 the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 was sharper than the Nikon or the Canon 14mm, 18mm, and 24mm prime lenses. Prime lenses may or may not be sharper than the pro zoom lenses. One needs to minimize the zoom range to get the sharpest lenses. Few people appreciate how the introduction of personal computers advance lens designs that prior to that needed to be calculated by hand. This was a particular problem with zoom lens designs.

Minimum focus distance is 1.6 feet with the 70-200mm lens but 2.5 feet with the 100-400mm. With small ground subjects like frogs and snakes either lens is better than

For small subjects, I use a Marumi DHG +5 diopter on my 70-200 f2.8 or previously with the Z 24-200.

I don't do much macro photography, so it suits me perfectly.

 

[karlito]

Wait until you try the 1.2s...

Mmh, I don't know. They are heavy and bulky, aren't they? Do you have one?

I really enjoy the "small" size of the f1.8 prime lenses that Nikon makes.

Every time I go out with my children, I pick one of my f1.8 primes and document their lives.

f1.8 is a good balance for me in terms of size, price, and ability to isolate my kids.

The f1.2 seems overkill for my needs, haha.

But it's off topic, I'm sorry.

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

 

[jhallettbc]

I would suggest you try out your Z70-200 with the 1.4 TC for landscape (not the 2 TC). If you are not satisfied with it, then you could consider the 100-400. I agree with Patrick that the Z 24-120 is great for landscape; that is my most used lens for other than birds. I compared it to the Z 35 1.8 and at f4 and I couldn't tell any difference, even zooming to 100%. That was the reason I sold my Z 35.

 

[John Navitsky]

i have both and i would consider what focal length you “normally” will run at.

i ran the 70-200 w 1.4 this weekend a fair bit, and i’ll point out that the 100-400 HANDLES better than the 70-200 with the tc due to the increased length and the cantilevering effect

show stopper? no. but something to consider

 

[Patrick M]

…
Personally, I've never considered renting equipment. I'd be too worried about damaging it.
…

The rental includes full insurance… no worries!

 

[Woodpecker]

IMHO - if I understand you right - doing the comparison at 400mm by looking at true 400mm with the 100-400 on FX while for the 70-200 you use the TC14 and then cropping to DX to get the rest is not the right of looking at it. A comparison shoulb be made on the optical level, i.e. 100-400 at 400 naked and 70-200 with a TC 2x, both with the same resolution (FX).

As you can see below (I apologize for the German) in terms of resolution the 100-400 has a slight advantage over the 70-200 + TC 2x.

But depending on what you do and how you do it, this might not be relevant to you and the advantages of having a super-sharp and fast 70-200 might be the better way.
At 300mm (resp. 280mm) the two also have a slighlty different characteristics with the 100-400 showing a more even distribution of resolution across the frame.

 

[Jadiehl]

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.

Nice pics, Rick.

 

[Jadiehl]

IMHO - if I understand you right - doing the comparison at 400mm by looking at true 400mm with the 100-400 on FX while for the 70-200 you use the TC14 and then cropping to DX to get the rest is not the right of looking at it. A comparison shoulb be made on the optical level, i.e. 100-400 at 400 naked and 70-200 with a TC 2x, both with the same resolution (FX).

As you can see below (I apologize for the German) in terms of resolution the 100-400 has a slight advantage over the 70-200 + TC 2x.

View attachment 91495

But depending on what you do and how you do it, this might not be relevant to you and the advantages of having a super-sharp and fast 70-200 might be the better way.
At 300mm (resp. 280mm) the two also have a slighlty different characteristics with the 100-400 showing a more even distribution of resolution across the frame.

View attachment 91496

Can you translate the titles to English for us who don’t know German, please?

 

[IngeKJ]

Can you translate the titles to English for us who don’t know German, please?

Sharpness results from imatest
Zentrum - center, Mitten - midframe, Ecken - corners. The numbers are MTF results, numbers of line pairs resolved at a test chart.

 

[Woodpecker]

Sharpness results from imatest
Zentrum - center, Mitten - midframe, Ecken - corners. The numbers are MTF results, numbers of line pairs resolved at a test chart.

Thanks for this one . I simply for got to mention.

BTW: Kudos and big credits to the guys at Photographylife for their splendid and thoroughly executed reviews. I know there are many people who don't like number crunching and I agree that it can never be the sole criteria, but it can help with orientation and putting things into context. And they are also very concious about sample variation.

 

[Calson]

In the field putting on and taking off a teleconverter is awkward even with the camera and lens mounted on a tripod. In actual use I seldom remove an attached teleconverter during an outing. There is a reason why people will pay a substantial premium for the Canon and Nikon lenses that have an internal teleconverter that can be deployed with the flick of a switch.

It is not readily apparent but with shorter focal lengths there is a greater change in view angles provided. I often found the 200-500mm lens on a DX D500 too restrictive in terms of the view angle at 200mm. If one has already made the $1200 investment in the Z teleconverters then the choice of a 70-200mm may be better. But one has to decide whether a 400mm focal length is good enough. I use the 100-400mm primarily with the 1.4x teleconverter to provide me with a 560mm lens and greater image magnification.

The 600mm PF and 800mm PF lenses are also worth considering in terms of best combination zoom lens to use with them in the field (and carry about). On a small boat my zoom needs are different than when on land and I often need shorter focal lengths and am always shooting hand held. On a small boat a 100-400mm is my best option and the 180-600mm would stay on shore.

 

[Jadiehl]

Sharpness results from imatest
Zentrum - center, Mitten - midframe, Ecken - corners. The numbers are MTF results, numbers of line pairs resolved at a test chart.

Thank you.

 

[Wanderer]

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

About macros: Unless you can fully control the situation, the 105MC is often more ackward to use because of its much shorter working distance. I think Nikon should also add a 150-200mm dedicated macro lens. It is a pity it isn't compatible with the TC1.4.
While not as sharp, I've shot quite interesting closeup photos with the 400/4.5 + TC1.4 (MFD ~2.4m). The working distance is much longer compared to MC105 and you can shoot lot of (living) subjects without disturbing them too much.
Personally I'm thinking adding the 100-400 because of its more flexible closeup capabilities.

 

[Woodpecker]

About macros: Unless you can fully control the situation, the 105MC is often more ackward to use because of its much shorter working distance. I think Nikon should also add a 150-200mm dedicated macro lens. It is a pity it isn't compatible with the TC1.4.
While not as sharp, I've shot quite interesting closeup photos with the 400/4.5 + TC1.4 (MFD ~2.4m). The working distance is much longer compared to MC105 and you can shoot lot of (living) subjects without disturbing them too much.
Personally I'm thinking adding the 100-400 because of its more flexible closeup capabilities.

Yup, agree.

I had one of these lovely AF 200mm 1:4 D Micro "tanks" and I loved it - for the same reason you are asking for a longer macro lens.
Unfortunately there was no way to get it working on my Z8 and now it's gone and I got the Z MC 105, which is - no doubt - a marvel of a lens on its own.

Fortunately MFD is one of the advantages that zooms usually have against primes and I quickly pulled something out - coming from the lens reviews of Photographylife (Kudos to them for their reviews !).

This is the values of the Z MC 105 against the Z 100-400 at 100mm ...

... and this against it at 200mm (the focal length of my beloved macro dinosaur that has been traded in the meantime)

This in combination with the MFD of the Z 100-400 from 0,75m at 100mm to 0,8m at 200mm really gives you quite something for closeup's, including the flexibility of a zoom which is really nice if you don't have the room to maneuver.
Yes, the MFD of the Z MC105 is much better with 0,29m, but it doesn't really help if you deal with subjects that have the option to "walk away from you" .

P.S. The slighlty different layout compared to the other images above don't change the measured data, I just adapted the formatting a bit. But I translated the headlines

 

[Wanderer]

Yup, agree.

I had one of these lovely AF 200mm 1:4 D Micro "tanks" and I loved it - for the same reason you are asking for a longer macro lens.
Unfortunately there was no way to get it working on my Z8 and now it's gone and I got the Z MC 105, which is - no doubt - a marvel of a lens on its own.

Fortunately MFD is one of the advantages that zooms usually have against primes and I quickly pulled something out - coming from the lens reviews of Photographylife (Kudos to them for their reviews !).

This is the values of the Z MC 105 against the Z 100-400 at 100mm ...

View attachment 92376

... and this against it at 200mm (the focal length of my beloved macro dinosaur that has been traded in the meantime)

View attachment 92377

This in combination with the MFD of the Z 100-400 from 0,75m at 100mm to 0,8m at 200mm really gives you quite something for closeup's, including the flexibility of a zoom which is really nice if you don't have the room to maneuver.
Yes, the MFD of the Z MC105 is much better with 0,29m, but it doesn't really help if you deal with subjects that have the option to "walk away from you" .

P.S. The slighlty different layout compared to the other images above don't change the measured data, I just adapted the formatting a bit. But I translated the headlines

Thanks for the data. I have too checked Photography Life's reviews, and the Z 100-400 got very good results in their test. Another option is the 180-600, but it may not as flexible for other use cases like sports. The 180-600 had somewhat lower resolution numbers in their review.

 

[Woodpecker]

Thanks for the data. I have too checked Photography Life's reviews, and the Z 100-400 got very good results in their test. Another option is the 180-600, but it may not as flexible for other use cases like sports. The 180-600 had somewhat lower resolution numbers in their review.

Yes, that's right, but as also @Steve 's tests showed this is nothing to worry about too much.
Here's how I deal with it, if I want to prioritize IQ and forget about carrying an additional lens:

From 100mm to app. 300-350mm I use the 100-400, because it it way better than the 180-600, above that I use the 180-600.
This is because the 100-400 takes a resolution dip at the long end and at 400mm the 180-600 has an edge over the 100-400.

Where the 100-400 also has an advantage is the MFD, although the 180-600 is also much better here compared wtíth the big primes - one of the reasons why @Steve likes the 180-600 BTW.

That said whenever carrying more stuff is not an issue, I prefer my big old prime at the long end, because a 500 f4 is simply a different story in terms of light, AF, IQ. And - as discussed in the TC thread - the TC's have their space to live. In my case this means getting up to 850mm 1:6,7 with resolution and contrast being much better than the 180-600 at 600mm naked. But it comes at a price measured not only in € or $, but also in kg

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

I am not surprised by the varying opinions. I believe they reflect the subject and shooting conditions more than differences in the lenses. I have owned and shoot extensively with both. I find the 300 mm length useful for hummingbirds, lizards and some other small mammals. I found the zoom range useful for large mammals. Unfortunately Nikon does not have a wide aperture, 300 mm Z mount lens. The 100-400 is quite sharp with good corners at 300 mm but you give up a lot of subject isolation and ISO is higher in low light. The 70-200 + TC14 lets me shoot at f/4 and 280 mm. The center is still more than sharp enough but the corners are noticeably soft and close focus distance is not as useful as the 100-400. This is not a hugh problem for most wildlife shooters. I eventually sold the 100-400. For a recent trip to Panama I brought a used 300 PF f mount and dusted off my FTZ. 300 mm at f/4 worked well for early morning hummingbirds. The 70-200 2.8 worked well in the close, dark rainforest. You could not see anything that was not close anyway. I did not carry the 70-200 with the TC1.4 attached because the 98 to 200 mm range loses sharpness with the TC compared to the bare lens. I would love to see a 300 mm f/4 Z mount lens. Until then there are good choices but all come with some compromise.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Start at the 6:48 mark: "We compared the Nikkor 70-200 against it's Canon, Panasonic, and Sony counterparts. ...it was also the sharpest; it stood head and shoulders above the other lenses."

 

[John Navitsky]

Start at the 6:48 mark: "We compared the Nikkor 70-200 against it's Canon, Panasonic, and Sony counterparts. ...it was also the sharpest; it stood head and shoulders above the other lenses."

yah, i caught that too