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
I plan to use the 100-400 S more for larger mammals and video work, and also it's much lighter to carry hiking than the 180-400 TC14.
The 400 f4.5S is ideal for birding and more paired with the 800 PF.
Yet another explanation is it's wise to have Redundancy especially on a trip if a lens breaks.
The 100-400 is the SwissArmy knife lens

MatthewK said:
Bumpity, because I just got a 100-400, which I'm using alongside the 400 4.5 for the next few weeks to make the determination which one works best for me. I love the 400 4.5, it's all you could ask for in a lens, but it isn't really bringing anything to the table because for my birding, 99% of the time I'm using the 800PF. One weakness of the 800PF is when I'm working w/ birds that approach under that 16' MFD. Yes, the 400 4.5 and it's ~8' MFD give some more flexibility, but often times even that isn't enough, and that's where the short MFD of the 100-400 comes into play. This lens will allow me to get shots that I am not able to get w/ either the 400 4.5 of 800PF, and not just for birding: I think it'll open up other types of photography as well.

One hesitation about selling the 400 4.5 is the idea of using it as a minimal travel/birding kit w/ the 1.4 TC, especially w/ the Z8 coming sometime in the near future. Yet, the 100-400 isn't that far off weight/size wise, and having a zoom for that purpose seems like common sense.

So yeah: 400 isn't my primary focal length, so it makes more sense to cover that range w/ a zoom, while also gaining a ton of versatility. Having owned and immensely enjoyed the Canon EF 100-400 II in the past, I think this is the right move for me.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
I bought the z70-200 with the 2x converter as my stop gap until the 200-600 arrives. I fully expected it this year (2023] but I’d not be surprised if it’s 2024. annoyed, yes. I’m actually renting a z100-400 soon, which maybe I’ll end up buying.
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
I plan to use the 100-400 S more for larger mammals and video work, and also it's much lighter to carry hiking than the 180-400 TC14.
The 400 f4.5S is ideal for birding and more paired with the 800 PF.
Yet another explanation is it's wise to have Redundancy especially on a trip if a lens breaks.
The 100-400 is the SwissArmy knife lens
Click to expand...
I seriously can see keeping both as well, they're all so dang good! Yet, my rational brain will win out, over the course of the next few weeks I'll evaluate how often I'd use each, and if it's financially justifiable keeping one I'm not using as often. Getting the Z8 in hand (hopefully I'm in the first wave) and being able to shoot two cameras at once will make this a lot easier, but also be a big push towards keeping the 400 4.5 in the name of ultimate weight savings.

Where the 100-400 adds tremendous potential is if I'm hidden in foliage or my blind, and don't have room to back up to stage shots w/ the 800, with birds coming in super close. This Spring, I've already had numerous Palm and Yellow Warblers come within arm's reach, to the point where I thought they were going to land on me (I tried putting my hand out to see if the Palmie would hop on, but alas he didn't :sneaky: ). So close, I used Portrait mode on my iPhone to snap photos!

As for ultimate IQ b/w the two, from my initial tests the 400 4.5 has more "bite" right out of camera, with better contrast, sharpness. The zoom can be made nearly equal by bumping those in post, so the differences aren't all that great. Bokeh is nicer on the prime, but that advantage is only at equal distances... if I shoot the zoom at 400mm, f/5.6 with a target 3-5' away, that background is going to mush anyway.

In the end, here's hoping one of them comes out as the clear winner so that it's easier to pick. May the best lens win!
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
It has been more than a year and a half since you posted this. Are you still waiting for a 200-600? (In the meantime I bought the Sony 200-600 which is stellar).
Click to expand...
Some things have changed since then, but I do still have an interest in the upcoming 200-600mm, just less so. I had an opportunity to try the 100-400mm at the Z9 preview and that was my only experience with it when I had posted that originally. A few months later I ended up thinking a lot on the potential of the 24-120mm and 100-400mm as a small, two lens kit that would work for most things and within a few weeks I decided to go that route and added the 1.4x TC. I also had the 500mm PF as a long telephoto but was still convinced that I’d get the 200-600mm. Towards the end of last year, there were a lot of comments here on how great the 400mm 4.5 S was including with the 1.4x TC and I figured I could order it and replace my 500mm PF. I really like the 400mm and using it with and without the TC so that has made the 200-600mm less relevant. If they release a lighter, smaller 600mm to complement the 400mm I think I’d go for it as long as the aperture made it worthwhile and forget about the 200-600mm.
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
Bumpity, because I just got a 100-400, which I'm using alongside the 400 4.5 for the next few weeks to make the determination which one works best for me. I love the 400 4.5, it's all you could ask for in a lens, but it isn't really bringing anything to the table because for my birding, 99% of the time I'm using the 800PF. One weakness of the 800PF is when I'm working w/ birds that approach under that 16' MFD. Yes, the 400 4.5 and it's ~8' MFD give some more flexibility, but often times even that isn't enough, and that's where the short MFD of the 100-400 comes into play. This lens will allow me to get shots that I am not able to get w/ either the 400 4.5 of 800PF, and not just for birding: I think it'll open up other types of photography as well.

One hesitation about selling the 400 4.5 is the idea of using it as a minimal travel/birding kit w/ the 1.4 TC, especially w/ the Z8 coming sometime in the near future. Yet, the 100-400 isn't that far off weight/size wise, and having a zoom for that purpose seems like common sense.

So yeah: 400 isn't my primary focal length, so it makes more sense to cover that range w/ a zoom, while also gaining a ton of versatility. Having owned and immensely enjoyed the Canon EF 100-400 II in the past, I think this is the right move for me.
Click to expand...
I went the 400/4.5 and TC route for my primary birding lens…decided that…so far…the 800 is just too long and more size/weight than I want to schlep around with and that 560 is just fine. And I have the 100-400 for shorter needs on the other side of the double BR strap. I've been keeping track this season on whether 800 is too much and for the majority of my outings so far it's either too much lens or the 560 is good enough and a lot lighter.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
The weight is a major consideration, for sure! Carving off ~1lb when the Z8 arrives will be a major boon, but it'll still be a hefty chunker to employ. Nothing beats the feeling of nimbleness when dropping down to the lighter lenses, outings become more fun again when you're not dealing with achy arms and back. That's the #1 reason I gave up the 600 f/4 for the 500PF, that lighter lens just made shooting so much more enjoyable despite the perceived loss of bokeh and subject isolation (neither of which ever bothered me). Thing is though, I've really started to gel with the 800PF, it's turning in some impressive results this season so far, and I'm finding the weight to be worth the trouble. Even in great light, the results are a notch above the 400 4.5 (with or w/o TC). I'd thought the 400 4.5 would be the more used setup for birding, but that's not turning out to be the case.

Not sure if you shared your impressions on this, but how are finding the results compared b/w the 400 4.5 and 100-400? Is the zoom that much softer than the prime?
 
Member's gallery
I enjoyed Scott's video on the lens comparisons. As an owner of thr 100-400mm S lens I second what he says about its versatility starting with close focusing distance and ability to work well with Z mount tcs.

I have not used any Z mount extension tubes yet and would welcome any recommendations regarding a third party tube to use as I do not think makes any Z mount extension tubes.
 
Member's gallery
joe43 said:
I enjoyed Scott's video on the lens comparisons. As an owner of thr 100-400mm S lens I second what he says about its versatility starting with close focusing distance and ability to work well with Z mount tcs.

I have not used any Z mount extension tubes yet and would welcome any recommendations regarding a third party tube to use as I do not think makes any Z mount extension tubes.
Click to expand...

I have a set of Meike tubes that work fine and don't have a lot of slop. Note that you CANNOT mount them in front of a TC due to a special flange on the TC. Big bummer if you're trying to get >1:1 with a 105/2.8.
 
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
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.
Click to expand...
I hear members in our club complain about zoom and how far you have to scroll etc making zooming slow on the 200-500, to me its never been an issue, after modification internally its easy to use the 200-500 as a push pull lens making it lighting fast to zoom, i can hold the hammer down at 10 or 20 fps and just push or pull and keep the subject full in the frame ie: No real cropping required, easy, i did the same with my Sigma, dialing the ring in a conventional manner to zoom is something for myself completely a thing of the past.
Not possible to d this obviously with new lenses.

To modify the lens take it to your trusted technicians.

I am guessing the pending 200-600 Z will be a refined version of the 200-500, new coatings, lighter lens smaller, edge to edge performance meeting video needs.

Price who knows.

Only an opinion
 
Member's gallery
Steve's new Z8 video, he waves around the Z8 + 400 4.5 combo, it looks sooooo svelte and compact. Great, now I don't think I can part with this lens because I knew this would be the ultimate setup.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Patrick M said:
I bought the z70-200 with the 2x converter as my stop gap until the 200-600 arrives. I fully expected it this year (2023] but I’d not be surprised if it’s 2024. annoyed, yes. I’m actually renting a z100-400 soon, which maybe I’ll end up buying.
Click to expand...
My experience and observations compared to the 70-200 2.8 with and without the TC14 and 2.0
At 100 mm, the 70-200 has sharper corners but the 100-400 corners are good to very good. f/2.8 compared to f/4.5
At 200 mm the 70-200 is slightly sharper but both are excellent to very good. f/2.8 compared to f/5.0
At 280 mm the 100-400 may be slightly sharper than the 70-200 + TC14 but both are very good. f/4.0 compared to f/5.3
At 400 mm the 100-400 is noticeably sharper while the 70-200 +TC20 is good but not great. Both at f/5.6

From 100-200 mm I prefer the bare 70-200 mm, sharper & wider aperture
From 200-280 mm No strong preference. One is slightly sharper, the other has wider aperture.
From 280-400 mm I prefer the 100-400. Noticeably sharper at same max. aperture.

Is the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 a better lens. As a famous wildlife photographer often says.......It depends.
 
Member's gallery
CoyoteCreationsNW said:
My experience and observations compared to the 70-200 2.8 with and without the TC14 and 2.0
At 100 mm, the 70-200 has sharper corners but the 100-400 corners are good to very good. f/2.8 compared to f/4.5
At 200 mm the 70-200 is slightly sharper but both are excellent to very good. f/2.8 compared to f/5.0
At 280 mm the 100-400 may be slightly sharper than the 70-200 + TC14 but both are very good. f/4.0 compared to f/5.3
At 400 mm the 100-400 is noticeably sharper while the 70-200 +TC20 is good but not great. Both at f/5.6

From 100-200 mm I prefer the bare 70-200 mm, sharper & wider aperture
From 200-280 mm No strong preference. One is slightly sharper, the other has wider aperture.
From 280-400 mm I prefer the 100-400. Noticeably sharper at same max. aperture.

Is the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 a better lens. As a famous wildlife photographer often says.......It depends.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Always good to see user experience.
 
Member's gallery
CoyoteCreationsNW said:
My experience and observations compared to the 70-200 2.8 with and without the TC14 and 2.0
At 100 mm, the 70-200 has sharper corners but the 100-400 corners are good to very good. f/2.8 compared to f/4.5
At 200 mm the 70-200 is slightly sharper but both are excellent to very good. f/2.8 compared to f/5.0
At 280 mm the 100-400 may be slightly sharper than the 70-200 + TC14 but both are very good. f/4.0 compared to f/5.3
At 400 mm the 100-400 is noticeably sharper while the 70-200 +TC20 is good but not great. Both at f/5.6

From 100-200 mm I prefer the bare 70-200 mm, sharper & wider aperture
From 200-280 mm No strong preference. One is slightly sharper, the other has wider aperture.
From 280-400 mm I prefer the 100-400. Noticeably sharper at same max. aperture.

Is the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 a better lens. As a famous wildlife photographer often says.......It depends.
Click to expand...
Excellent summary…I admit I have the 70-200 and the 100-400 and the former gets little to zero use because down here in SW FL I'm using the 100-400 mostly at 250 or greater and most of those were at 400 or with the 1.4 added on. Haven't been out enough since I got the 400/4.5 which is usually at 560 to really tell if the usage of the 100-400 will change but I doubt it will much down here. All good to know info though…and the 70-200 is faster if one needs that but typically when I would need the faster lens I also want the reach so it's a can't have both situation…and carrying both zooms plus the 400/4.5 puts me into the carrying too much category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top