Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Nikkor

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
abc123brian said:
I am surprised how well balanced this lens feels. I didn’t notice any shift in weight towards the front when zooming. This lens is very tempting but I’m waiting to see how the 200-600mm turns out.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that the 200-600 will be more like that 200-500 than like the 100-400mm lens.
The 200-500 has been the "gateway drug" into longer and more expensive F-mount lenses. It is a lens that enticed nature enthusiasts to buy into Nikon, and is probably more than enough lens for 90% of the nature shooters out there. Those wanting a more refined experience, or look to be professional, looked towards the more expensive glass. However, their remains a small army of 200-500 shooters who probably would never had entered the bird photography arena had Nikon not made an "affordable" $1200-$1500 super tele lens. It would not surprise me if the 200-600 has the same ethos.
Rather than going the Sony route, it is possible that they will produce a $1300-$1600 lens with more plastics in construction, less flair resistant coatings, and only moderate weather sealing. The lens would be less expensive than the Sony and pair well with the inexpensive Z5/Z50, etc...
Like the 200-500 and D7200... a gateway drug that may eventually lead to significant purchases in the future.

bruce
 
Member's gallery
It might be, but I hope it is closer to the Sony 200-600 than the 200-500. I like the 200-500mm, but it is heavy, slow to zoom, and the AF isn’t as fast as the more expensive options.
 
Member's gallery
For those who do not frequent FredMiranda.com, this is what I posted yesterday afternoon.
Note, the size and resolution of the files have been downsized compared to FM, as I can't seem to find the optimal image upload dimensions that work best on bcg.com
bruce

Hello,
The following is the first of what will likely be many field reports about the 100-400S lens. I'd like to begin with (1) Background info (2) Lens Info, & close with (3) In the field thoughts.

(1)Background: I am a wildlife and landscape nature photographer. Some years I focus on landscapes more than wildlife, in other years it is the reverse. The focus is often situational. If I have travel that is landscape heavy, or the local light and weather conditions support landscapes, then I do this more than wildlife. The reverse, of course, is true as well. My last two years have been more focused on wildlife.
I began with film in the 1980's and adopted digital late (2004 or so). I am late to embracing a mirrorless only system, but have recently sold my last DSLR, and now have only 2 F-mount lenses remaining. I will not get a Z9 unless I find a way to leverage gear sales to buy one. My wife and I both shoot (me way more than she), and we have a gripped Z7II, gripped Z6II (mine), Z7, and Z6II (hers).
I spent 2014-2021 shooting primarily with the 200-400VR on a D500, Z6, & Z6II and have used the 500PF since its introduction acquiring it in October 2018 via NPS.
I leveraged my NPS membership to pre-order that lens, and did the same for the current 100-400S.

(2)Lens Info: I received notification from NPS that my lens was shipped on Wednesday and picked up my lens from West Photo on Saturday 12/18. They told me that they received 6 lenses. This suggests that Nikon was prepared to send out more than a few, as MN has a relatively small population with 2 brick and mortar stores.
I own the 70-200S w/ ZTC14 and use these two regularly on my Z6II. The 100-400S was purchased to replace my prior 200-400, as well as the 70-200 + 1.4x, as the latter was used as the tweener between my 24-70s and 500PF. I will probably mate the 100-400 to the Z6II and it will do about 50% of my wildlife and landscape photography.
The lens build is outstanding with really nice construction that reminds me of my 70-200S. It has the same fit and finish, and the zoom ring is very smooth. However, you need to apply more pressure to move than zoom ring than with the 70-200S or my now sold 200-400. Unless I am working from a tripod, I will not be able to use one finger to move the zoom. When zooming, the lens does not extend much, and I cannot feel a shift in balance. This is an amazing feature. While the lens feels solid, it does not feel as massive as the 70-200S... it actually has a bit of a hollow feel. My wife commented that it felt light to her.

(3) In the field: Today is Sunday and I picked up the lens on Saturday following a call from West. The morning was pure ugly with cold overcast skies. It was 12 degrees F with a cold wind, and I really did not want to shoot, as I recognized that the conditions were bleak. Despite my hesitancy, I went to a regular spot where I knew I'd find trumpeter swans.
I used the Z6II and wide area AF with animal recognition. I found that the AF was snappy on my Z6II, and follow focus was better than I expected. I found the AF to be better than when using my 500PF on my Z7II. I shot the two side-by-side in similar situations. The Z7II + 500PF took longer to lock onto subjects and almost never recognized the animal (that is.. no box within the wide area af rectangle). In contrast, the 100-400 used the second box and even eye-AF from time to time. This was not expected, but as I think about it,... this makes sense. The lens was designed for the mirrorless platform and probably has hardware and software that allows it to communicate with the cameras more efficiently.
Optically, the lens seems to be excellent, but I will reserve my judgement on this for now.
Below are two images from the frigid shoot.

bruce
TrumpeterSwanL62_6332-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
TrumpeterSwanL62_6393-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
I have a feeling that the 200-600 will be more like that 200-500 than like the 100-400mm lens.
The 200-500 has been the "gateway drug" into longer and more expensive F-mount lenses. It is a lens that enticed nature enthusiasts to buy into Nikon, and is probably more than enough lens for 90% of the nature shooters out there. Those wanting a more refined experience, or look to be professional, looked towards the more expensive glass. However, their remains a small army of 200-500 shooters who probably would never had entered the bird photography arena had Nikon not made an "affordable" $1200-$1500 super tele lens. It would not surprise me if the 200-600 has the same ethos.
Rather than going the Sony route, it is possible that they will produce a $1300-$1600 lens with more plastics in construction, less flair resistant coatings, and only moderate weather sealing. The lens would be less expensive than the Sony and pair well with the inexpensive Z5/Z50, etc...
Like the 200-500 and D7200... a gateway drug that may eventually lead to significant purchases in the future.

bruce
Click to expand...

Nikon must match the Sony 200-600 & not go the 200-500 way. Those looking for an affordable option already have the 200-500.

There is room for lens between the entry level & the pro level, that's the Sony 200-600. Nikon must match that.
 
Member's gallery
Thank you Bruce for priotizing your report!
It is already clear this telephoto is a another winner. I'm having to be patient until new year but I foresee it will definitely become one of core lenses

enjoy :)

BLev65 said:
For those who do not frequent FredMiranda.com, this is what I posted yesterday afternoon.
Note, the size and resolution of the files have been downsized compared to FM, as I can't seem to find the optimal image upload dimensions that works best on bcg.com
bruce

Hello,
The following is the first of what will likely be many field reports about the 100-400S lens. I'd like to begin with (1) Background info (2) Lens Info, & close with (3) In the field thoughts.

(1)Background: I am a wildlife and landscape nature photographer. Some years I focus on landscapes more than wildlife, in other years it is the reverse. The focus is often situational. If I have travel that is landscape heavy, or the local light and weather conditions support landscapes, then I do this more than wildlife. The reverse, of course, is true as well. My last two years have been more focused on wildlife.
I began with film in the 1980's and adopted digital late (2004 or so). I am late to embracing a mirrorless only system, but have recently sold my last DSLR, and now have only 2 F-mount lenses remaining. I will not get a Z9 unless I find a way to leverage gear sales to buy one. My wife and I both shoot (me way more than she), and we have a gripped Z7II, gripped Z6II (mine), Z7, and Z6II (hers).
I spent 2014-2021 shooting primarily with the 200-400VR on a D500, Z6, & Z6II and have used the 500PF since its introduction acquiring it in October 2018 via NPS.
I leveraged my NPS membership to pre-order that lens, and did the same for the current 100-400S.

(2)Lens Info: I received notification from NPS that my lens was shipped on Wednesday and picked up my lens from West Photo on Saturday 12/18. They told me that they received 6 lenses. This suggests that Nikon was prepared to send out more than a few, as MN has a relatively small population with 2 brick and mortar stores.
I own the 70-200S w/ ZTC14 and use these two regularly on my Z6II. The 100-400S was purchased to replace my prior 200-400, as well as the 70-200 + 1.4x, as the latter was used as the tweener between my 24-70s and 500PF. I will probably mate the 100-400 to the Z6II and it will do about 50% of my wildlife and landscape photography.
The lens build is outstanding with really nice construction that reminds me of my 70-200S. It has the same fit and finish, and the zoom ring is very smooth. However, you need to apply more pressure to move than zoom ring than with the 70-200S or my now sold 200-400. Unless I am working from a tripod, I will not be able to use one finger to move the zoom. When zooming, the lens does not extent much, and I cannot feel a shift in balance. This is an amazing feature. While the lens feels solid, it does not feel as massive as the 70-200S... it actually has a bit of a hollow feel. My wife commented that it felt light to her.

(3) In the field: Today is Sunday and I picked up the lens on Saturday following a call from West. The morning was pure ugly with cold overcast skies. It was 12 degrees F with a cold wind, and I really did not want to shoot, as I recognized that the conditions were bleak. Despite my hesitancy, I went to e regular spot where I knew I'd find trumpeter swans.
I used the Z6II and wide area AF with animal recognition. I found that the AF was snappy on my Z6II, and follow focus was better than I expected. I found the AF to be better than when using my 500PF on my Z7II. I shot the two side-by-side in similar situations. The Z7II + 500PF took longer to lock onto subjects and almost never recognized the animal (that is.. no box within the wide area af rectangle). In contrast, the 100-400 used the second box and even eye-AF from time to time. This was not expected, but as I think about it,... this makes sense. The lens was designed for the mirrorless platform and probably has hardware and software that allows it to communicate with the cameras more efficiently.
Optically, the lens seems to be excellent, but I will reserve my judgement on this for now.
Below are two images from the frigid shoot.

bruce
View attachment 28999View attachment 29000
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
sid_19911991 said:
Nikon must match the Sony 200-600 & not go the 200-500 way. Those looking for an affordable option already have the 200-500.

There is room for lens between the entry level & the pro level, that's the Sony 200-600. Nikon must match that.
Click to expand...
Nikon needs to do what they can to maximize profitability and recruitment into the Z-system. This does not necessarily translate in matching one manufacturer's offerings item for item. While I would prefer an upscale 200-600mm lens with internal zoom in the $2600-$3000 range, I also see the logic of making a $1200-$1500 lens as a gateway drug into the the Z-system.
When you think about all of the D7XXX series owners who bought the 200-500 because it was affordable, to then upgrade to D500s, 500PFs, and so on, you understand the value of undercutting the competition.
At this point, the Z-system continues to produce premium products below competitive price points or equal to them.
As someone who now owns both a 70-200 f/2.8S and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6S, I can understand why they are so expensive. If Nikon only makes $2000 (+) telephoto optics, they will never recruit people to take the Z50/Z5 seriously.
Until the lens is released, the 200-600 will remain a mystery... however, I would not be surprised if it was co-manufactured with Tamron and costs $500 less than the Sony.
bruce
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
Thank you Bruce for priotizing your report!
It is already clear this telephoto is a another winner. I'm having to be patient until new year but I foresee it will definitely become on of core lenses

enjoy :)
Click to expand...
You are welcome Woody...
It is another optical winner. Nikon continues to produce some amazing optics that innovate.
The mix of lens quality (build/optics), useful zoom range, versatility, and dearth of native Z-telephotos will cause this lens to be a huge seller.
It's been a longtime coming, but I think it will be worth the wait.
bruce
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
Nikon needs to do what they can to maximize profitability and recruitment into the Z-system. This does not necessarily translate in matching one manufacturer's offerings item for item. While I would prefer an upscale 200-600mm lens with internal zoom in the $2600-$3000 range, I also seen the logic of making a $1200-$1500 lens as a gateway drug into the the Z-system.
When you think about all of the D7XXX series owners who bought the 200-500 because it was affordable, to then upgrade to D500s, 500PFs, and so on, you understand the value of undercutting the competition.
At this point, the Z-system continues to produce premium products below competitive price points or equal to them.
As someone who now owns both a 70-200 f/2.8S and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6S, I can understand why they are so expensive. If Nikon only makes $2000 (+) telephoto optics, they will never recruit people to take the Z50/Z5 seriously.
Until the lens is released, the 200-600 will remain a mystery... however, I would not be surprised if it was co-manufactured with Tamron and costs $500 less than the Sony.
bruce
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I think people wanting to buy an affordable 1000 usd lens, would most likely choose to buy a Nikon DSLR for the Z50's price as that can offer them better AF & no lag. Also, Z50 & Z5 with the expeed 6 processor & the mirrorless lag won't be great for wildlife. They are not advertised for wildlife either.

I would prefer Nikon making a 200-600 to match the Sony 200-600 as it is a winner. Nikon can always make a 1000 usd Z lens later on.

Anyway, as you said, we have to wait & watch.
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
Nikon needs to do what they can to maximize profitability and recruitment into the Z-system. This does not necessarily translate in matching one manufacturer's offerings item for item. While I would prefer an upscale 200-600mm lens with internal zoom in the $2600-$3000 range, I also seen the logic of making a $1200-$1500 lens as a gateway drug into the the Z-system.
When you think about all of the D7XXX series owners who bought the 200-500 because it was affordable, to then upgrade to D500s, 500PFs, and so on, you understand the value of undercutting the competition.
At this point, the Z-system continues to produce premium products below competitive price points or equal to them.
As someone who now owns both a 70-200 f/2.8S and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6S, I can understand why they are so expensive. If Nikon only makes $2000 (+) telephoto optics, they will never recruit people to take the Z50/Z5 seriously.
Until the lens is released, the 200-600 will remain a mystery... however, I would not be surprised if it was co-manufactured with Tamron and costs $500 less than the Sony.
bruce
Click to expand...
I agree with your assessment they need something in the price range as the 200-500mm as it is a fantastic bargain and very good for the money. I also agree with @sid_19911991 they need to match the Sony 200-600mm because for $2000, $1800 on sale, this lens is very good and provides a good balance of performance for the money. The Sony lens has been very successful and I think Nikon is going to match it. For example, I don’t want to carry a 600mm F/4 or 400mm F/2.8. The 100-400mm is too short without a TC to fill the gap. Nikon needs a Z option. There are many hoping the 200-600mm matches or beats the Sony and I think the price is reasonable enough to entice people into buying it. Maybe they will release a cheaper lens in the future, maybe based on a Tamron design. Unless something changes, I’ll be ordering the 200-600mm regardless of whether is is the match to the Sony or 200-500 replacement. It’s a focal range I need.
 
Member's gallery
I've received mine, unfortunately I won't have much time to test it out until after Christmas or even New Years. I will mention, as already reported by others, that the lens does balance really well even when zoomed to 400. It also fits perfectly with my Z6 attached in a Think Tank Digital Holster 30 bag.
 
Member's gallery
Jamie Baker said:
I've received mine, unfortunately I won't have much time to test it out until after Christmas or even New Years. I will mention, as already reported by others, that the lens does balance really well even when zoomed to 400. It also fits perfectly with my Z6 attached in a Think Tank Digital Holster 30 bag.
Click to expand...
Congrats. Are you NPS? Curious to see if there are any non-NPS recipients.
 
Member's gallery
I have no special insights into Nikon’s strategy but the 200-600 is NOT an S lens which makes it hard to imagine it will be a top tier zoom around $3k. But the question remains whether it will be around $2k and with the Sony qualities, or below $1500, closer to the Tamron, Sony or EF 200-500. I believe the latter, as a lens like the Sony would come too close to deserving the S badge (it is a G lens in Sony line, not G master but not base either).

i just hope for Nikon users that they don’t get tempted by the trend of making lenses with smaller apertures, f:6.3 is ok, f:7.1 is workable but they could be tempted to go after those canon f:11 primes with an f:8 or heaven forbid an f:11 zoom… i mean, canon is proving that those f:11 primes are better starter drugs than any of us believed so why not? We know the z6/z7ii handles f:8 lenses better than any DSLR ever has, but not sure about f;11. The good news is that so far Nikon is batting 100% on Z lenses, so there is no reason why it should change.
 
Member's gallery
Even better approach would be to do what Sigma does with their 150-600. Have an S line model with better correction, coatings and faster AF motor and a budget non S version that's more like the 200-500 f mount, just 100mm more.

abc123brian said:
I agree with your assessment they need something in the price range as the 200-500mm as it is a fantastic bargain and very good for the money. I also agree with @sid_19911991 they need to match the Sony 200-600mm because for $2000, $1800 on sale, this lens is very good and provides a good balance of performance for the money. The Sony lens has been very successful and I think Nikon is going to match it. For example, I don’t want to carry a 600mm F/4 or 400mm F/2.8. The 100-400mm is too short without a TC to fill the gap. Nikon needs a Z option. There are many hoping the 200-600mm matches or beats the Sony and I think the price is reasonable enough to entice people into buying it. Maybe they will release a cheaper lens in the future, maybe based on a Tamron design. Unless something changes, I’ll be ordering the 200-600mm regardless of whether is is the match to the Sony or 200-500 replacement. It’s a focal range I need.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
I looked at the manual and noticed item 8--Control Ring. It looks like I may be able to use this ring to change the lens' aperture. This loks like something "new" to me. I am still all DSLR so I do not have any experiene with a mirrorless body.

I have ordered this lens along with the Z9. No call yet from my retailer. I am not NPS.
 
Member's gallery
My 100-400mm is scheduled to be delivered "by the end of the day" today :). I am confident that it's a great lens. Having already shelled out for a third party lens foot (Kirk) and the 1.4x Z tele-extender, I am wondering whether it would be a good investment (ha ha) to buy the 2x tele-extender, as well. The reviews so far indicate that the lens performs remarkably well at 800mm f11. Versatility! But hey, I already own the 500mm PF and I use it with my F mount tele-extenders with excellent results. Maybe $500 for the Z doubler is not a great way to spend my money.

Do other people plan on getting the 2X (those who don't already have it for the 70-200?) It will be a while before there is another lens on which to use that optic.
 
Member's gallery
I am planning to buy the 2x for my 70-200 with the hope of adding the 100-400 later this year. Those combos will coer most of my needs at a more "reasonable" cost than waiting for the 800 PF or other longer, heavier lenses. Having recently passed 70 and with some medical issues, time to use my gear is a valuable commodity these days and the heavier, longer native lenses may be more than I can handle by the time they are available.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
I have no special insights into Nikon’s strategy but the 200-600 is NOT an S lens which makes it hard to imagine it will be a top tier zoom around $3k. But the question remains whether it will be around $2k and with the Sony qualities, or below $1500, closer to the Tamron, Sony or EF 200-500. I believe the latter, as a lens like the Sony would come too close to deserving the S badge (it is a G lens in Sony line, not G master but not base either).

i just hope for Nikon users that they don’t get tempted by the trend of making lenses with smaller apertures, f:6.3 is ok, f:7.1 is workable but they could be tempted to go after those canon f:11 primes with an f:8 or heaven forbid an f:11 zoom… i mean, canon is proving that those f:11 primes are better starter drugs than any of us believed so why not? We know the z6/z7ii handles f:8 lenses better than any DSLR ever has, but not sure about f;11. The good news is that so far Nikon is batting 100% on Z lenses, so there is no reason why it should change.
Click to expand...


Omg those Canons F11 lenses. Yikes. No matter sharp or optically good they are, the aperture is shocking. F11! I don't mind them in the Sahara dessert, what about when the weather is dull which is half of the time in the tropics. :D

I hope the 200-600 is great. It will perhaps be Nikon's most important telephoto lens.
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
I have a feeling that the 200-600 will be more like that 200-500 than like the 100-400mm lens.
The 200-500 has been the "gateway drug" into longer and more expensive F-mount lenses. It is a lens that enticed nature enthusiasts to buy into Nikon, and is probably more than enough lens for 90% of the nature shooters out there. Those wanting a more refined experience, or look to be professional, looked towards the more expensive glass. However, their remains a small army of 200-500 shooters who probably would never had entered the bird photography arena had Nikon not made an "affordable" $1200-$1500 super tele lens. It would not surprise me if the 200-600 has the same ethos.
Rather than going the Sony route, it is possible that they will produce a $1300-$1600 lens with more plastics in construction, less flair resistant coatings, and only moderate weather sealing. The lens would be less expensive than the Sony and pair well with the inexpensive Z5/Z50, etc...
Like the 200-500 and D7200... a gateway drug that may eventually lead to significant purchases in the future.

bruce
Click to expand...
I doubt people will be happy with an inexpensive Nikon Z 200-600 mm 1300-1600 lens compared to Sony's 200-600 specially when it is giving outstanding results & not being pricey at all.
Lot of water has flown since 200-500 days under the Mirrorless bridge 😁
 
Member's gallery
Venkatesh VT said:
I doubt people will be happy with an inexpensive Nikon Z 200-600 mm 1300-1600 lens compared to Sony's 200-600 specially when it is giving outstanding results & not being pricey at all.
Lot of water has flown since 200-500 days under the Mirrorless bridge 😁
Click to expand...

Yeah the sharpness on the 200-600 is more than that of the 3500 USD 500 pf lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top