Trade Z 100-400 for Z 70-200?

[John Woodworth]

The way I think about the relationship between FX and DX is:

Assume the FX crop has twice the area as a DX crop.

If I shoot a large gray card, both FX and DX crops will have the same, exciting shade of gray. So, the intensity of light--the photons per mm^2--is the same on each crop. Obviously.

But, the total amount of light in the FX crop is twice that on the DX crop because the FX crop has twice the area.

If, instead of a uniform gray card, an actual object whose image just fills the DX crop is exposed, the image in the FX and DX crops will be the same in size and brightness. Duh.

If I zoom in and shoot again at the same exposure with the image now filling the FX sensor, the image in the FX crop will now look the same as it did before within the DX crop; Just bigger with the same shades and tones. However, overall, there is twice the amount of light--twice the number of photons--in the FX crop because the FX crop has twice the area.

This factor of two in light collection for frame-filling crops, between FX and DX, is the basis for claiming a 1-stop difference in noise performance.

Hope this helps.

 

[Butlerkid]

Personally, I would rarely consider the 70-200 f2.8 for birds over the 100-400. While @ 400mm the 100-400 is not the ultimate in sharpness, it is way more than adequate for me. And the 100-400 takes a 1.4 tele very well. I consider it a great complement to my 600mm TC lens.

I have the 70-200 f2.8, but use it for architectural details - not wildlife. YMMV...... If you want to value ultimate sharpness above all else, that is the right decision for you.

 

[wotan1]

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.

It has been my experience that shooting birds in my area often means I have to get out to the 800mm range. While advertisers and reviewers talk about the ability to go to 1200, 1600 or more the reality is that atmospheric issues make shooting at those long ranges unrealistic. Even shooting at 600 or 800 is hard enough to get really sharp results given atmospheric issues.

I think it is wise to figure out what you want to do at 800mm because you will probably get there.

The choices at that distance are either one of the super primes, the 600mm pf which you already have or the 800mm pf. There are also some used F mount super primes out there as well.

Your 600 with the 1.4x tc will get you out to 840 or 860 I can’t remember which. You will be limited to f9 aperture which will affect your ability to render backgrounds compared to the other choices. You should be able to crop at that level so you can use crop/dx to get a more useful image. If you can live with those limits the 600mm pf is a great choice for a single birding lens.

I would not recommend at that point going with the 400mm f4.5 because those lenses are too close to each other. You might as well stay with the 70-200 and teleconverter for the shorter range stuff. Or possibly go for the 180-600 zoom.

There are better lenses than the 600mm pf at 800 millimeters. These include either of the super Z primes as well as the Z 800mm pf. You can also find some great F mount lenses at significantly decreased prices. The 800mm f5.6 which I think cost north of $16 grand new is reportedly a uniquely superb lens. Similalrly the F mount 600mm f4 is available deeply discounted. Those F mount lenses are really heavy and will pretty much require a tripod and gimbal.

I owned the 600mm pf and was persuaded to add the 800mm pf. I was so impressed with the 800 pf that it became my favorite lens.

At one point I had the 400mm f4.5, the 600mm pf and the 800mm pf. I ended up hardly ever using the 600 pf and i ended up selling it.

Bottom line i would recommend that if you are going to stick with the 600mm pf as your main birding lens then I would either stick with the 70=200 and tc for shorter stuff, or else look at the 180-600 zoom as a second lens,

If you are going to consider another option at 800mm you might be better off with the 400mm f4.5.

Lots of good choices here. Nikon lenses are great that way.

 

[jhallettbc]

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.

My dilemma was the same about the 500 PF so I sold it to get the 600 PF. A lot more money so I sold all the equipment I didn't need in addition to the 500 PF.

Personally, I would rarely consider the 70-200 f2.8 for birds over the 100-400. While @ 400mm the 100-400 is not the ultimate in sharpness, it is way more than adequate for me. And the 100-400 takes a 1.4 tele very well. I consider it a great complement to my 600mm TC lens.

I have the 70-200 f2.8, but use it for architectural details - not wildlife. YMMV...... If you want to value ultimate sharpness above all else, that is the right decision for you.

I have assessed my bird photos and I'm sure that less than 5% have been taken with anything less than 500. I should have main clear in my original post I will mainly be using the 70-200 for subjects other than birds. But I want it to be really good on the occasions I use it for birds, e.g. for hummingbirds on a trip to Costa Rica in the fall.

 

[John Navitsky]

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.

What are your image goals?... Buy the lenses that help you to realize this.

what Bruce said

 

[Butlerkid]

My dilemma was the same about the 500 PF so I sold it to get the 600 PF. A lot more money so I sold all the equipment I didn't need in addition to the 500 PF.

I have assessed my bird photos and I'm sure that less than 5% have been taken with anything less than 500. I should have main clear in my original post I will mainly be using the 70-200 for subjects other than birds. But I want it to be really good on the occasions I use it for birds, e.g. for hummingbirds on a trip to Costa Rica in the fall.

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

 

[jhallettbc]

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

That bat shot is the best I've ever seen of a bat. Excellent. Out of curiosity, were these photos cropped?
As for the 100-400 being better for close ups, I mentioned that as a drawback to just having the 70-200 when I posted originally. I don't have a macro lens but maybe I'll pick a used one up in the fall before I go. I have owned 2 macros and sold both because I rarely used them. On the other hand, I could use my Z24-120 because it can focus very closely.

 

[jhallettbc]

Thanks to all who replied to my post. As always there is a lot of food for thought. People raised good points but to go back to my original question as to whether I am not considering something important for my photography needs, nothing has been said that tells me I shouldn't sell my 100-400. Who knows ,a few years from now I might need one and can get another. Can't afford to have both now and it always bothers me to have a lens sitting around that I am not using.

 

[Butlerkid]

That bat shot is the best I've ever seen of a bat. Excellent. Out of curiosity, were these photos cropped?
As for the 100-400 being better for close ups, I mentioned that as a drawback to just having the 70-200 when I posted originally. I don't have a macro lens but maybe I'll pick a used one up in the fall before I go. I have owned 2 macros and sold both because I rarely used them. On the other hand, I could use my Z24-120 because it can focus very closely.

I don't recall exactly, but the bat shot was cropped quite a bit more than the hummers.

 

[Len Shepherd]

FX and DX/postCropping are changing the FOV (field if view) not the depth of field

Maybe we a discussing different aspects.

From the same focus distance the magnification with the 2 formats changes - requiring different amounts of magnification to produce the theoretical 10x8 inch print used in dof calculations.

Changing the amount of magnification requires a different CoC.

A different CoC changes the depth of field.

 

[JAJohnson]

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.

Joel, shooting with an f/2.8 lens in DX only narrows the effective field of view, or as some like to explain it, simulates shooting with a longer lens. It doesn’t change the aperture.

Shooting with an f/2.8 lens and adding a 1.4TC changes the aperture to f/4.

 

[JAJohnson]

Personally, I would rarely consider the 70-200 f2.8 for birds over the 100-400. While @ 400mm the 100-400 is not the ultimate in sharpness, it is way more than adequate for me. And the 100-400 takes a 1.4 tele very well. I consider it a great complement to my 600mm TC lens.

I have the 70-200 f2.8, but use it for architectural details - not wildlife. YMMV...... If you want to value ultimate sharpness above all else, that is the right decision for you.

I had a 100-400 at one time. I loved it because it could focus closely at 100mm. Great for butterflies, bees, and flower blossoms. It was also excellent for wildlife at moderate distances.

I sold it when I got the 180-600 because I also have a 70–200. The 70-200 performs beautifully with the 1.4TC and acceptably with the 2.0TC. My birding kit now is often my Z9 with 180-600 and my Z8 with 70-200 & 1.4TC. If I know I’m really only going to be shooting longer distances I’ll use my Z9 with 600PF.

 

[JoelKlein]

Joel, shooting with an f/2.8 lens in DX only narrows the effective field of view, or as some like to explain it, simulates shooting with a longer lens. It doesn’t change the aperture.

Shooting with an f/2.8 lens and adding a 1.4TC changes the aperture to f/4.

Exactly.

 

[nmerc_photos]

the 100-400 vs 70-200 argument is one that comes up a lot. I've personally owned the Z versions of both lenses at least 2 times each.

for me, neither lens gets used in my day to day. they only have a place in my kit when traveling via air and I need something small to compliment my 400TC

I've never found the IQ of the 100-400 to be anything special. It gets soft at the long end (300-400mm) which is where I would use it most. and it gets noticeably worse when using a 1.4x. I find it humorous that the 100-400 got the S line accommodation instead of the 180-600, when it seems the 180-600 is the better lens from 300mm onward, if not throughout the entire range. meanwhile the 70-200 IQ has always been great, even with the 1.4x or 2x.

I just purchased a Tamron 35-150 f2-f2.8 which I will be trying out as a cheaper, lighter, smaller alternative to the 70-200. I currently own both the 100-400 and 180-600, but expect I will sell the 100-400.

I think the 100-400 excels more as a "jack of all trades, master of none" where it can be a good landscape lens, quasi-macro lens, etc. but is often too short or slow for wildlife. if you don't plan to take advantage of the small MFD or telephoto landscape use - it really leaves a lot to be desired in terms of a wildlife only lens.

 

[Anjin San]

I was just in Tanzania…and had the 600PF and 100-400…both got extensive use and about 60%of the 600PF shots were with the 1.4TC. In FL for the birds…the same combos are used…although now that I also have the 180-600 which of the zooms I take will depend on location and how far I’m hiking…and I can see myself easily taking just the longer zoom and TC for a single body/lens lighter kit.

 

[Kemble Widmer]

the 100-400 vs 70-200 argument is one that comes up a lot. I've personally owned the Z versions of both lenses at least 2 times each.

for me, neither lens gets used in my day to day. they only have a place in my kit when traveling via air and I need something small to compliment my 400TC

I've never found the IQ of the 100-400 to be anything special. It gets soft at the long end (300-400mm) which is where I would use it most. and it gets noticeably worse when using a 1.4x. I find it humorous that the 100-400 got the S line accommodation instead of the 180-600, when it seems the 180-600 is the better lens from 300mm onward, if not throughout the entire range. meanwhile the 70-200 IQ has always been great, even with the 1.4x or 2x.

I just purchased a Tamron 35-150 f2-f2.8 which I will be trying out as a cheaper, lighter, smaller alternative to the 70-200. I currently own both the 100-400 and 180-600, but expect I will sell the 100-400.

I think the 100-400 excels more as a "jack of all trades, master of none" where it can be a good landscape lens, quasi-macro lens, etc. but is often too short or slow for wildlife. if you don't plan to take advantage of the small MFD or telephoto landscape use - it really leaves a lot to be desired in terms of a wildlife only lens.

Interested in your experience with the Tamron 35-150 f2-f2.8

 

[JoelKlein]

the 100-400 vs 70-200 argument is one that comes up a lot. I've personally owned the Z versions of both lenses at least 2 times each.

for me, neither lens gets used in my day to day. they only have a place in my kit when traveling via air and I need something small to compliment my 400TC

I've never found the IQ of the 100-400 to be anything special. It gets soft at the long end (300-400mm) which is where I would use it most. and it gets noticeably worse when using a 1.4x. I find it humorous that the 100-400 got the S line accommodation instead of the 180-600, when it seems the 180-600 is the better lens from 300mm onward, if not throughout the entire range. meanwhile the 70-200 IQ has always been great, even with the 1.4x or 2x.

I just purchased a Tamron 35-150 f2-f2.8 which I will be trying out as a cheaper, lighter, smaller alternative to the 70-200. I currently own both the 100-400 and 180-600, but expect I will sell the 100-400.

I think the 100-400 excels more as a "jack of all trades, master of none" where it can be a good landscape lens, quasi-macro lens, etc. but is often too short or slow for wildlife. if you don't plan to take advantage of the small MFD or telephoto landscape use - it really leaves a lot to be desired in terms of a wildlife only lens.

Wow!
You’re coming with concrete R&D,
I love it. You just spared me dishing over 2K for the 100-400.

I’m learning from your words that the 70-200 even with the 2X TC is has better IQ compared to the 100-400.
With the 2XTC I does get soft at 400mm, (it gets softer at bare 200mm as well) But maybe it can be sharpened up in post.

What does surprise me, is your assessment of the 180-600 which is clearly not up to par past the center. And its way heavier. Are you saying that the 100-400 underperformance the 180-600? Including edge to edge?

Edit:
I always want my lenses to be edge to edge sharp, for landscape opportunities. All though, For those shots I stop it down to f/8

 

[Chris K]

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.

 

[JoelKlein]

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.

Can you elaborate on this:
“best landscape lens in the Z system“

 

[jhallettbc]

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.

The most important word in your last sentence is "for me". Many others would have different opinions. Like Joel, I'd like to know why it's the best landscape lens for you. I never would have considered using mine for that. Always something wider.

 

[Vincent_VdB]

answered in the wrong post.

 

[nmerc_photos]

Wow!
You’re coming with concrete R&D,
I love it. You just spared me dishing over 2K for the 100-400.

I’m learning from your words that the 70-200 even with the 2X TC is has better IQ compared to the 100-400.
With the 2XTC I does get soft at 400mm, (it gets softer at bare 200mm as well) But maybe it can be sharpened up in post.

What does surprise me, is your assessment of the 180-600 which is clearly not up to par past the center. And its way heavier. Are you saying that the 100-400 underperformance the 180-600? Including edge to edge?

Edit:
I always want my lenses to be edge to edge sharp, for landscape opportunities. All though, For those shots I stop it down to f/8

I don't know if I would say the 70-200 + 2x is better than the naked 100-400, but it's certainly close enough that it's worth a discussion.

Also not sure where you find the 180-600 is "clearly not up to par past the center". Yes, I am saying the 100-400 underperforms the 180-600 even edge to edge. Having owned multiple copies (to rule out copy variation), I would take the 180-600 over the 100-400 every single time where possible. (IE when weight/size is not a significant concern)

"way heavier" is subjective. on paper, yes - it's 58% heavier. (4.72lbs vs 2.99lbs). but for me that difference is significantly less noticeable than say the difference of the 800PF to 400TC, which is "only" 23% heavier. I think weight is often negligible to a certain point, and then it starts to matter a lot. in my case, 5.5lbs is about the sweet spot. any lens under 5.5lbs, paired with my Z9, is a breeze to shoot/carry handheld. so both the 180-600 and 800PF fall in that category. once you get past 5.5lbs, the 400TC/600TC are a lot less fun to shoot with, and more challenging to utilize.

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.

^this is a more succinct way of what I was trying to get across

the 100-400 is a great all arounder (thus jack of all trades, master of none). it can do a bunch of different stuff well, but it isn't especially impressive in any single regard.

 

[jhallettbc]

I had nothing to criticize about my 100-400 and never thought about getting rid of it until I got the 600 PF. I did an estimate of the most used focal lengths in my photos and the vast majority were at 600 or higher. Not many at all between 100 and 400. That's what got me thinking of the 70-200, being sharper and considerably faster. But with the 70-200 and 1.4 TC I have almost up to 300 and using DX for the odd time I might want 400, everything is covered.

 

[JoelKlein]

I had nothing to criticize about my 100-400 and never thought about getting rid of it until I got the 600 PF. I did an estimate of the most used focal lengths in my photos and the vast majority were at 600 or higher. Not many at all between 100 and 400. That's what got me thinking of the 70-200, being sharper and considerably faster. But with the 70-200 and 1.4 TC I have almost up to 300 and using DX for the odd time I might want 400, everything is covered.

Understood.
Thank you for saving me from buying it. Going forward when I go on a boardwalk, or a zoo, I won’t hasitate to use the 70-200 with TC’s and feeling I’m compromising image quality.

You know that feeling?
One one hand I invested all the money and skill to get the best quality possible, while I’m taking a shotcut using TCs which degrades image quality.

Basically Nikon is missing a quality midrange zoom. Interesting and disappointing. Unless this is the true for other brands in the 100-400 range.

 

[Calson]

The 70-200mm f/2.8 was indispensable for wedding photography and it also works well for macro (with its 1.6 ft MFD) and landscape photography. For general wildlife photography I use the 100-400mm lens, usually with the 1.4x TC attached.

Not having the option of using the Nikon 200mm f/4 micro lens with my Z cameras, the 70-200mm becomes necessary despite it being larger and quite a bit heavier. Photographing frogs and vipers in Costa Rica for example, this would be my best option with the Z camera.