Z 100-400 or 400 4.5

[BillW]

At the risk of going slightly off topic for just a second, based on your obvious range of experience and you mentioning shooting golf, what do you think about the AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR as a buy for general use including golf and catching the occassional BIF images? I didn't know they even existed until a week ago but it fits a gap in my lens range I am looking to fill.

I had both the original 80-400 and the later 80-400 AFS lenses. The 80-400 AFS was significantly better, both optically and for AF. I used mine mostly on a D500. The AF was faster than the AF with my 200-500 and it was easier to carry around on walks/hikes and use in kayaks and canoes. The 80-400 was probably best from 80-300 or so. A bit softer at 400, but usable. I have many images that I like from it.

I never tried my 80-400 on a Z mirrorless body. Should have. But I wonder whether it might perform better in some ways on a Z body than on a DSLR, since the Z body AFs on the sensor, which is a bit like focus tuning and could help at any focal length. One counter to this is that using the 80-400 on a DX body like the D500 probably uses the best part of the lens — i.e., the center and skips the FX corners.

One other point. The 80-400 AFS has a reputation for copy variance. Mine was pretty good. I was on a trip to Galapagos with it in 2017. 4 or 5 of the participants and one of the leaders had a 80-400 along. The leader looked at each of the 80-400s and felt that a couple were fine as is (including mine), a couple of them needed focus tuning (not so easy to do with a zoom) and felt that one was simply not sharp.

So if you can, you may want to try the 80-400 you are considering before buying it, to see how it performs.

If you do not often need 400 mm, the 70-300 AF-P FX lens is a nice light telephoto that performs well above what its price might suggest. The FX version is better than the DX version. While I no longer have the 80-400 or the 200-500, I’ve kept my 70-300 and use it on a mirrorless body at times, since there is no small, light Z mount telephoto zoom yet.

The 100-400 in Z mount is a very nice lens and I have enjoyed using it a lot. I think it is better optically than the 80-400, but while it will work great on your Z9, it will not work on your D500.

Good luck.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I had the original 80-400mm VR and it was a terrible lens, slow to autofocus and VR was mediocre as this was the first attempt at it by Nikon. The second 80-400mm had faster autofocus and much improved VR. I used it with a 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 and was an essential lens. The 80-400mm worked well with the TC-14 III teleconverter with very usable image quality and AF performance.

Often shooting from a boat is required for wildlife and the 80-400mm and 500mm PF are great lenses for this use. I replaced my 80-400mm with the 100-400mm and I am in the process of replacing my 600mm f/4 with the 800mm PF. Still waiting for a part to arrive at Nikon to fix the 600mm f/4 AF mechanism that shorted out when I attached the FTZ II adapter to it.

Minimizing lens changes, including adding or removing teleconverters, is something I greatly value. With a zoom on one camera and the telephoto prime on the other camera the only changes I might make was to add a teleconverter and with the 800mm PF lens I will be rarely doing that.

Interesting how much things have changed and how our perspective changes with the technology. In its time the original 80-400 was quite the thing. AF was on par at the time(mechanical drive), optics were pretty good, and the VR was amazing. Nowadays it would make a poor boat anchor. The update to AF-S was certainly a leap forward. It was/is a great compliment as a handheld companion to a big prime on a tripod. I've carried it on many shoots and captured thousands of frames with it many of which are some of the best images in my files. But time and tech march on.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

I had both the original 80-400 and the later 80-400 AFS lenses. The 80-400 AFS was significantly better, both optically and for AF. I used mine mostly on a D500. The AF was faster than the AF with my 200-500 and it was easier to carry around on walks/hikes and use in kayaks and canoes. The 80-400 was probably best from 80-300 or so. A bit softer at 400, but usable. I have many images that I like from it.

I never tried my 80-400 on a Z mirrorless body. Should have. But I wonder whether it might perform better in some ways on a Z body than on a DSLR, since the Z body AFs on the sensor, which is a bit like focus tuning and could help at any focal length. One counter to this is that using the 80-400 on a DX body like the D500 probably uses the best part of the lens — i.e., the center and skips the FX corners.

One other point. The 80-400 AFS has a reputation for copy variance. Mine was pretty good. I was on a trip to Galapagos with it in 2017. 4 or 5 of the participants and one of the leaders had a 80-400 along. The leader looked at each of the 80-400s and felt that a couple were fine as is (including mine), a couple of them needed focus tuning (not so easy to do with a zoom) and felt that one was simply not sharp.

So if you can, you may want to try the 80-400 you are considering before buying it, to see how it performs.

If you do not often need 400 mm, the 70-300 AF-P FX lens is a nice light telephoto that performs well above what its price might suggest. The FX version is better than the DX version. While I no longer have the 80-400 or the 200-500, I’ve kept my 70-300 and use it on a mirrorless body at times, since there is no small, light Z mount telephoto zoom yet.

The 100-400 in Z mount is a very nice lens and I have enjoyed using it a lot. I think it is better optically than the 80-400, but while it will work great on your Z9, it will not work on your D500.

Good luck.

Thank you. Great answers. I want it for exactly what you described in the first paragraph. A general lens that I can get a little more range from than the 70-200 that weighs about the same and produced really good images walking around and shooting whatever pops up in front of me. Got that box checked.

I'm thinking like you that anything it does on my D500 will likely be better on a Z9 given the overall processor improvements and of course the frame dif. I am in day two of Z9 ownership and blown away by the difference in noise and everything in general over what the chips in my Z7 do and I love a Z7. I shoot in DX mode plenty regardless of body. I'm thinking that with the computing improvement factor any lens will look better on a the latest processor and based on what you said if the 80-400 was good before it will be outstanding now.

As far as lens variance goes I look at it as nonissue issue. Roger Cicala explains why better than I can in this blog. Based on this article and what you wrote about your trip I would be willing to bet that if you and your freinds would have swapped lens and put them on differnent bodies theres a chance they may have suddenly become perfect. But I know how to fix it if I get one that isn't perfect. Abnother factor in that issue is I believe I read taht the computer in the Z9 does compensation and lens calibration is not an issue with them. But I could be wrong. I'm sure it can vary on different bodies and calibration might be alled for when I change between them. Either way not a big deal

“This Lens Is Soft” and Other Facts

In 2008, I wrote an article This Lens is Soft, and Other Myths that pointed out that lenses and cameras all have tolerance ranges and sometimes a given lens can be sharp on one camera body, and soft on another. At the time, autofocus micro-adjustment was a fairly new feature on camera bodies and...

www.lensrentals.com

As things sit this morning I will probably do a rent to buy from lensrentals. They have one rated like new in every category for a decent price right now.

The 70-300 AF-P FX is the third lens I ever bought. Everything you said is right on. With the right light I have way more fun carrting that thing around than I do with 70-200 and sometimes I think it makes prettier pictures. I still have it and use it all the time for walking around when I don't want to wear out my right arm. I think it's an amazing D500 lens.

And as far as the 100-400 S lens, I've have one someday but for this shopping trip it's too expensive of a buy to only be able to use it on Z.

I have one more question that maybe you can help me with. Like I said earlier, I am on my second day shooting a Z9 and already I can see that the ISO/noise and vr situtation is signicantly better than anything I have ever touched. I never considered buying any telephoto adapters because of the loss of stops it brought into the equation. My thinking is beginning to change about it. Am I correct thast with the improved electronics in the Z9 that whatever stops I would lose on a different body would be more compensated for in the Z9 world. I shot some super fast, super high iso experiment shots yesterday that are so clean I wouldn't have believe it if anyone had told me it was possible. It's making me wonder if in good light that the loss wouldn't even be a factor in final image quality but I am new to a lot of this.

I'd be happy to hear your take and anyone else on adapters in general and with the Z9 in particular.

Thank you.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

Interesting how much things have changed and how our perspective changes with the technology. In its time the original 80-400 was quite the thing. AF was on par at the time(mechanical drive), optics were pretty good, and the VR was amazing. Nowadays it would make a poor boat anchor. The update to AF-S was certainly a leap forward. It was/is a great compliment as a handheld companion to a big prime on a tripod. I've carried it on many shoots and captured thousands of frames with it many of which are some of the best images in my files. But time and tech march on.

Thanks for the response. I sent a reply to what Bill W. wrote and welcome your thoughts on any of it. Especially my teleconverter question. Did you ever used those type of zooms with tc?

 

[Bob Hullinger]

Some answers to recurring questions about Z System Telephotos (Brad Hill's recent presentation is more useful):

Telephoto Questions Abound | Thom Hogan

Great. Thank you.

 

[BillW]

….

I have one more question that maybe you can help me with. Like I said earlier, I am on my second day shooting a Z9 and already I can see that the ISO/noise and vr situtation is signicantly better than anything I have ever touched. I never considered buying any telephoto adapters because of the loss of stops it brought into the equation. My thinking is beginning to change about it. Am I correct thast with the improved electronics in the Z9 that whatever stops I would lose on a different body would be more compensated for in the Z9 world. I shot some super fast, super high iso experiment shots yesterday that are so clean I wouldn't have believe it if anyone had told me it was possible. It's making me wonder if in good light that the loss wouldn't even be a factor in final image quality but I am new to a lot of this.

…

I never tried a TC with the 80-400. I did try a 1.4x TCIII with the 200-500 and did not find it that useful on a DSLR. It made the combination an f8 lens and slowed AF on an already slower 200-500. Also, on a DSLR like the D500 or D850, if the combination is f8, you only get a small number of AF points that work and they are largely in the center of the frame. And slower combinations (say f11) generally won’t AF at all.

One advantage of the Z bodies for me over DSLRs has been a better ability to use TCs. I have the 1.4x TCIII, the 1.7x TCII and the 2x TCIII in F mount, which work with F mount lenses and the FTZ/FTZII on a Z body. I also have the 1.4x and 2x Z mount TCs, which work only with Z mount lenses (so they will not work with a an F mount lens, even with an FTZ/FTZII).

In F mount, I have used the F mount TCs I mentioned above extensively with the 500 mm PF (and to a lesser extent the 300 mm PF) on Z bodies — the Z9 and Z7II now. And earlier, the Z7. All the focus points across the frame work (even with the 2x TCIII which makes an f11 combination with the 500 mm PF). There is little or no need to focus tune the combination, something that can be needed with a TC/lens combination even when the bare lens does not need tuning. I found that all of them worked well enough for me with the 500 mm PF and a Z body, if you can deal with the loss of light/aperture. And AF is better on the Z9 than on the other Z bodies. Not surprisingly, I think the optical quality is best with the 1.4x TCIII. And I think high ISO performance is better on the Z9 and other recent Z bodies than the D500, especially if you do not need to crop significantly.

I’d be interested to see how a 1.4x TCIII works with the 80-400 AFS lens. People often say that TCs don’t work as well on zooms as on primes. But I also think that a Z body may help. So this combo might well be better on your Z9 than your D500. Unfortunately, I can’t test that now.

I have used the Z TCs on the 70-200 and 100-400 mm Z zooms. The Z 1.4x TC works great on both lenses, again if you can deal with the loss of a stop of light/aperture. I also find the Z 2x TC works well. Not quite as good optically as the 1.4x. I’m in the process of trying the Z 2x TC with the Z 100-400 for my summer photography from my kayak. Works pretty well when you need more reach and zoom flexibility. Although if all you need is more reach, I think the 500 mm PF plus the 1.4x TCIII is optically better and is f8 rather than f11.

As to high ISOs, I recently took some photos with the Z9 and Z 100-400 with the Z 2x TC. The combination is f11 and at times the light was not bright. I took a number of shots at ISO 25,600. Better than I would have expected. Needs good noise reduction software. I use Topaz DeNoise AI and DxO DeepPrime (with Photo Labs). Not perfect, but very good and the best I have tried.

Check out Thom Hogan’s recent post on noise. And Brad Hill’s posts on using the F mount TCs.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Thank you. Great answers. I want it for exactly what you described in the first paragraph. A general lens that I can get a little more range from than the 70-200 that weighs about the same and produced really good images walking around and shooting whatever pops up in front of me. Got that box checked.

I'm thinking like you that anything it does on my D500 will likely be better on a Z9 given the overall processor improvements and of course the frame dif. I am in day two of Z9 ownership and blown away by the difference in noise and everything in general over what the chips in my Z7 do and I love a Z7. I shoot in DX mode plenty regardless of body. I'm thinking that with the computing improvement factor any lens will look better on a the latest processor and based on what you said if the 80-400 was good before it will be outstanding now.

As far as lens variance goes I look at it as nonissue issue. Roger Cicala explains why better than I can in this blog. Based on this article and what you wrote about your trip I would be willing to bet that if you and your freinds would have swapped lens and put them on differnent bodies theres a chance they may have suddenly become perfect. But I know how to fix it if I get one that isn't perfect. Abnother factor in that issue is I believe I read taht the computer in the Z9 does compensation and lens calibration is not an issue with them. But I could be wrong. I'm sure it can vary on different bodies and calibration might be alled for when I change between them. Either way not a big deal

“This Lens Is Soft” and Other Facts

In 2008, I wrote an article This Lens is Soft, and Other Myths that pointed out that lenses and cameras all have tolerance ranges and sometimes a given lens can be sharp on one camera body, and soft on another. At the time, autofocus micro-adjustment was a fairly new feature on camera bodies and...

www.lensrentals.com

As things sit this morning I will probably do a rent to buy from lensrentals. They have one rated like new in every category for a decent price right now.

The 70-300 AF-P FX is the third lens I ever bought. Everything you said is right on. With the right light I have way more fun carrting that thing around than I do with 70-200 and sometimes I think it makes prettier pictures. I still have it and use it all the time for walking around when I don't want to wear out my right arm. I think it's an amazing D500 lens.

And as far as the 100-400 S lens, I've have one someday but for this shopping trip it's too expensive of a buy to only be able to use it on Z.

I have one more question that maybe you can help me with. Like I said earlier, I am on my second day shooting a Z9 and already I can see that the ISO/noise and vr situtation is signicantly better than anything I have ever touched. I never considered buying any telephoto adapters because of the loss of stops it brought into the equation. My thinking is beginning to change about it. Am I correct thast with the improved electronics in the Z9 that whatever stops I would lose on a different body would be more compensated for in the Z9 world. I shot some super fast, super high iso experiment shots yesterday that are so clean I wouldn't have believe it if anyone had told me it was possible. It's making me wonder if in good light that the loss wouldn't even be a factor in final image quality but I am new to a lot of this.

I'd be happy to hear your take and anyone else on adapters in general and with the Z9 in particular.

Thank you.

You are starting to discover a lot of what I did when I got the Z9 and Z6II ... when ignored all the subject tracking stuff and thought of it in terms of what D850, D6, D500 did for my shooting I realized that the Z9 was as good or better in almost every way than they were (especially with the firmware updates). Then adding in the now greatly improved subject tracking features on the Z9 I went all in on mirrorless. I had 2 D500's and D850 and a D6 and a lot of f mount glass that is now all sold off (except for 50mm f/1.8). The Zmount glass is great and I like not having to deal with the FTZ adapter (it adds length) having all the lens control features etc.. The Z800pf was the "straw that broke the camels back" for me and got me to sell off my beloved Tamron G2's and my 600 f/4E before their value dropped a bunch.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

You are starting to discover a lot of what I did when I got the Z9 and Z6II ... when ignored all the subject tracking stuff and thought of it in terms of what D850, D6, D500 did for my shooting I realized that the Z9 was as good or better in almost every way than they were (especially with the firmware updates). Then adding in the now greatly improved subject tracking features on the Z9 I went all in on mirrorless. I had 2 D500's and D850 and a D6 and a lot of f mount glass that is now all sold off (except for 50mm f/1.8). The Zmount glass is great and I like not having to deal with the FTZ adapter (it adds length) having all the lens control features etc.. The Z800pf was the "straw that broke the camels back" for me and got me to sell off my beloved Tamron G2's and my 600 f/4E before their value dropped a bunch.

I got my Z7 about this time of year 2 years ago and used it everyday. And I loved everything about how it worked. In a couple of hours with a Z9 it was a "holey s..." experience when I looked at the images. The Z9 is very nice camera.

I never complained using my Z7 when I could get away using native Z. I love using the smaller cheaper lenses and the Z DX zooms. Today is the 24-70, 105, 70-200 first time on the new body.

I still love the experience of using the D500. I like the Z9 already but I see plenty of Z7 and D500 days left.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

You are starting to discover a lot of what I did when I got the Z9 and Z6II ... when ignored all the subject tracking stuff and thought of it in terms of what D850, D6, D500 did for my shooting I realized that the Z9 was as good or better in almost every way than they were (especially with the firmware updates). Then adding in the now greatly improved subject tracking features on the Z9 I went all in on mirrorless. I had 2 D500's and D850 and a D6 and a lot of f mount glass that is now all sold off (except for 50mm f/1.8). The Zmount glass is great and I like not having to deal with the FTZ adapter (it adds length) having all the lens control features etc.. The Z800pf was the "straw that broke the camels back" for me and got me to sell off my beloved Tamron G2's and my 600 f/4E before their value dropped a bunch.

I just came back from the edge of going over myself I think. Adorama had a used 100-400 S for about $400 off retail. I took a hour or two to think about it. Do I have to tell you the rest? It was gone, gone, gone, gone when I came back to place the order. Kind of a duh moment considering the new ones are all still on backorder on the same website. Maybe it saved me from myself.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I just came back from the edge of going over myself I think. Adorama had a used 100-400 S for about $400 off retail. I took a hour or two to think about it. Do I have to tell you the rest? It was gone, gone, gone, gone when I came back to place the order. Kind of a duh moment considering the new ones are all still on backorder on the same website. Maybe it saved me from myself.

Been there done that

 

[fcotterill]

Yet another review of the 400 f4.5S, a video by Christopher Frost

A Review of the Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Lens

400mm is a tremendously popular focal length for things like wildlife and landscape photography, and you can spend anywhere from under $1,000 to well over $10,000 for such a lens, depending on the image quality and your needs. In the middle of that range is the Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S...

fstoppers.com

In addition to this long thread of photos with 400 f4.5S, links to a report and detailed review

Nikon Z 400mm F4.5 First Impressions

The Nikon Z 400mm f4.5 S lens is bound to amaze the wildlife photographers who pick it up to photograph birds.

www.thephoblographer.com

Nikon Z 400mm f4.5 VR S review | Cameralabs

www.cameralabs.com