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

[GrandNagus50]

i'm very curious about that. i'm wondering if the 400pf will offer advantages over the 100-400

It almost certainly will be a bit sharper, as tends to be the case with high quality single focal-length lenses vs. zooms. The difference in most situations might encourage mostly nitpicking by pixel peepers, but it's very likely reality, and all other things remaining equal (and of course they never are), most people prefer sharper to not quite as sharp.

 

[John Navitsky]

You guys see Brad's initial review of the 100-400? Is the 500PF sharper than the 180-400?

 

[fcotterill]

You guys see Brad's initial review? Is the 500PF sharper than the 180-400?

His blog takes a bit of time to burrow and root through. It is infuriating to try and find older posts - too few links and a shambles of anything resembling a list of contents....rant off/

these links should work

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#Musing4

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Field Tests: The AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR

Field Tests by Brad Hill - Wildlife Photographer. Field test of the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. Nikon Cameras, Nikon Lenses, Nikon Accessories.

www.naturalart.ca

 

[John Navitsky]

between these links:

Natural Art Images: Voice: Brad Hill Blog

The Blog of Brad Hill, wildlife photographer. Cameras, lenses, camera gear, field tests, conservation, photo tours, and other bits of questionable wisdom from a young-at-heart nature photographer!

www.naturalart.ca

Natural Art Images: Voice: Brad Hill Blog

The Blog of Brad Hill, wildlife photographer. Cameras, lenses, camera gear, field tests, conservation, photo tours, and other bits of questionable wisdom from a young-at-heart nature photographer!

www.naturalart.ca

i get the impression (by extrapolation) that the 500pf isn't going to offer any significant optical performance over the 100-400 since it says "parity" with the 180-400. af speed is a bit fuzzier.
it also sounds like the 500pf is in the ballpark with the 100-400 weight wise.
as a result, i'm still scratching my head about the new z400pf.

 

[GrandNagus50]

You guys see Brad's initial review of the 100-400? Is the 500PF sharper than the 180-400?

The 500 PF is really, really sharp; it's sharper than the 100-400 is a@400mm. Unless I got a really bad copy of the latter.

 

[GrandNagus50]

Ok, I did some quick/dirty tests using my backyard White-crowned sparrows as models. I compared the 500pf, 100-400Z, and 200-500. I am not going to upload the photos because I find that they never look as sharp attached to posts as they do natively, so people can take my word for my conclusions or not. The 500pf was easily the sharpest, and the other two lenses (using the 200-500mm at 400mm, of course) were just about the same, really. They were certainly adequately sharp, but not as good as the 500pf, especially for the fine detail around the birds' eyes and faces. The photos were all taken at f5.6.

Interestingly, using DxO PureRaw definitely made the images from the 200-500mm appear superior to those of the 100-400 (there is no correction profile yet within PureRaw for this lens). So really, using this accessory to preprocess RAW files instead of Adobe RAW is maybe the easiest/quickest way to improve the look of your photos. I understand that the difference is more pronounced for photos taken in low light (as these were; hey, it's Winter Solstice week and it's raining).

My overall emergent impression from this exercise is renewed awe at just how sharp the 500pf lens is. I love that lens.

 

[bkp944]

Which camera body did you use?

 

[GrandNagus50]

Which camera body did you use?

Good question to ask, of course. I used my Z7, which means that for two of the lenses I was using an FTZ adapter. I know people can rightfully find flaws in my "scientific method," as I did not control for everything, I'm sure, but I took a lot of photos and looked at them pretty carefully. So yes, my "test" has an impressionistic aspect to it, and also, I will add, we know that every copy of every lens is slightly different. I hate to think my 100-400mm is a bad copy, but actually, it giving results similar to the 200-500mm (which I think is an ok copy) is not surprising, at least not to me. The 200-500 is a good lens.

 

[John Navitsky]

interesting data point, thx

 

[bkp944]

Good question to ask, of course. I used my Z7, which means that for two of the lenses I was using an FTZ adapter.

Thanks. The FTZ shouldn't be a factor in resoultion. It might be a factor in focus acquistion speed due to the extra communication between it and the camera and lens.

 

[Venkatesh VT]

I think once Z 200-600 comes out every one would prefer to buy that lens only.I am saying this based on my A1 +200-600 experience.Mirroless seems to render images on apertures which were considered not so good on the DSLRs
I am consistenty getting sharper images with the Sony combo & i am sure Nikons would be no less
Of course i am waiting for my Z8 to pair with my 500 PF
I do like to have my foot in both the platforms

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

 

[Lance B]

Just picked up my Z9 and 100-400 today. One from my first shots with the 100-400 on the Z7II (battery still charging for the Z9). I basically came home, set up the menu for the Z9, put the battery on charge, unpacked the 100-400, put it on my Z7II and went out the back to take a photo of our friendly Magpie.

Z7Ii + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S, 1/500sec, f5 (wide open), 230mm, ISO560

100% crop of above.

Our pet rabbit, Cinnamon Bun.

Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS, 1/100sec, f5.6 (wide open), 400mm ISO800

As well as being very sharp, the lens has very nice colour and bokeh. It AF's super fast and is very sure footed, no hunting or second guessing. It just snaps right into focus whether on the Z7II or the Z9.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Just picked up my Z9 and 100-400 today. One from my first shots with the 100-400 on the Z7II (battery still charging for the Z9). I basically came home, set up the menu for the Z9, put the battery on charge, unpacked the 100-400, put it on my Z7II and went out the back to take a photo of our friendly Magpie.

Z7Ii + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S, 1/500sec, f5 (wide open), 230mm, ISO560

100% crop of above.

Our pet rabbit, Cinnamon Bun.

Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS, 1/100sec, f5.6 (wide open), 400mm ISO800

As well as being very sharp, the lens has very nice colour and bokeh. It AF's super fast and is very sure footed, no hunting or second guessing. It just snaps right into focus whether on the Z7II or the Z9.

You're right. I don't like this (your) review of this lens. These photos are so sharp that they cut the inside of the monitor glass on my iMac. Now what do I do?

In all seriousness, did you do anything special or noteworthy to set up the camera and lens. And what resolution are you posting these as?

 

[O]

Just picked up my Z9 and 100-400 today. One from my first shots with the 100-400 on the Z7II (battery still charging for the Z9). I basically came home, set up the menu for the Z9, put the battery on charge, unpacked the 100-400, put it on my Z7II and went out the back to take a photo of our friendly Magpie.

Z7Ii + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S, 1/500sec, f5 (wide open), 230mm, ISO560

100% crop of above.

Our pet rabbit, Cinnamon Bun.

Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS, 1/100sec, f5.6 (wide open), 400mm ISO800

As well as being very sharp, the lens has very nice colour and bokeh. It AF's super fast and is very sure footed, no hunting or second guessing. It just snaps right into focus whether on the Z7II or the Z9.

Now they are technically excellent testimonial shots, impressive thank you, lot to be said for the Z7 II D850 image files that seem to be held on par with the Z9,
The 100-400 seems very impressive....

 

[O]

Good question to ask, of course. I used my Z7, which means that for two of the lenses I was using an FTZ adapter. I know people can rightfully find flaws in my "scientific method," as I did not control for everything, I'm sure, but I took a lot of photos and looked at them pretty carefully. So yes, my "test" has an impressionistic aspect to it, and also, I will add, we know that every copy of every lens is slightly different. I hate to think my 100-400mm is a bad copy, but actually, it giving results similar to the 200-500mm (which I think is an ok copy) is not surprising, at least not to me. The 200-500 is a good lens.

I have found zooms often vary sample by sample.........less so with high end exotics.
My 200-500 is a good one, my 28-300 is a little off at 100% view compared to my mate, the higher the magnification ratio often the greater the variation between samples etc

 

[John Navitsky]

wouldn’t, theoretically, this be less of an issue with mirrorless?

 

[Lance B]

You're right. I don't like this (your) review of this lens. These photos are so sharp that they cut the inside of the monitor glass on my iMac. Now what do I do?

In all seriousness, did you do anything special or noteworthy to set up the camera and lens. And what resolution are you posting these as?

Thank you very much, Wayne!

No special set up. Just put on camera and select single point AF and away you go. These photos are at 2850 x 1900 pixels, which I find usually is a good size for 4K screens on photo hosting sites as it gives a bit round the edge for the hosting site info etc.

Very impressive!

Thank you very much, David!

Now they are technically excellent testimonial shots, impressive thank you, lot to be said for the Z7 II D850 image files that seem to be held on par with the Z9,
The 100-400 seems very impressive....

Thank you very much, O!

 

[Ralph]

Just picked up my Z9 and 100-400 today. One from my first shots with the 100-400 on the Z7II (battery still charging for the Z9). I basically came home, set up the menu for the Z9, put the battery on charge, unpacked the 100-400, put it on my Z7II and went out the back to take a photo of our friendly Magpie.

Z7Ii + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S, 1/500sec, f5 (wide open), 230mm, ISO560

100% crop of above.

Our pet rabbit, Cinnamon Bun.

Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS, 1/100sec, f5.6 (wide open), 400mm ISO800

As well as being very sharp, the lens has very nice colour and bokeh. It AF's super fast and is very sure footed, no hunting or second guessing. It just snaps right into focus whether on the Z7II or the Z9.

Wow, what clarity, color and sharpness. Impressive!

 

[O]

wouldn’t, theoretically, this be less of an issue with mirrorless?

May i ask Why ?

 

[O]

I think once Z 200-600 comes out every one would prefer to buy that lens only.I am saying this based on my A1 +200-600 experience.Mirroless seems to render images on apertures which were considered not so good on the DSLRs
I am consistenty getting sharper images with the Sony combo & i am sure Nikons would be no less
Of course i am waiting for my Z8 to pair with my 500 PF
I do like to have my foot in both the platforms
View attachment 29218

I think the new lenses coming will see a lot of 500 PF's hit the used market, Why ? if you strat to get better performance clearly from a zoom and as long as the zoom is relatively light or small it is the preferred option. Zooms will be on par or better that many primes, we will then rush to buy them all, only to see more expensive ultra great primes follow some time later.............and so the wheel spins.

When ever the Pros fly into Oz for an event many all want to borrow or rent a 500 PF..........for their D5 or D6.

Now manufacturers always want to resell you something, so what they do is sell us change................which we love.

Is the 100-400 as good or better than the 500 pf..........well why not buy both ...........they are clever companies.
If a 200-600 comes out in a PF and its lighter and smaller everyone who has a 200-500 will recycle.

One of the most common by volume lens for resale is the 14-24 Nikon 2.8

 

[RichF]

Hoping my arrives safely this coming week. Had the camera hold the lens versus it sitting somewhere in a UPS depot.

 

[RichF]

Just picked up my Z9 and 100-400 today. One from my first shots with the 100-400 on the Z7II (battery still charging for the Z9). I basically came home, set up the menu for the Z9, put the battery on charge, unpacked the 100-400, put it on my Z7II and went out the back to take a photo of our friendly Magpie.

Z7Ii + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S, 1/500sec, f5 (wide open), 230mm, ISO560

100% crop of above.

Our pet rabbit, Cinnamon Bun.

Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VRS, 1/100sec, f5.6 (wide open), 400mm ISO800

As well as being very sharp, the lens has very nice colour and bokeh. It AF's super fast and is very sure footed, no hunting or second guessing. It just snaps right into focus whether on the Z7II or the Z9.

You have a great lens. Hope mine is equall sharp. of course the photographer may have a bit to do about IQ

 

[Lance B]

Wow, what clarity, color and sharpness. Impressive!

Thank you very much, Ralph!

 

[Anjin San]

I think once Z 200-600 comes out every one would prefer to buy that lens only.I am saying this based on my A1 +200-600 experience.Mirroless seems to render images on apertures which were considered not so good on the DSLRs
I am consistenty getting sharper images with the Sony combo & i am sure Nikons would be no less
Of course i am waiting for my Z8 to pair with my 500 PF
I do like to have my foot in both the platforms
View attachment 29218

I’m just afraid that the 200-600 will be a ’budget’ telephoto and not up to the slightly higher S glass in IQ…not to mention the weight factor…which is a serious consideration for a lot of us older folk. My brain thinks it’s still 12…unfortunately my 67 year old body isn’t holding up it’s end of the deal. I’m in a lot better shape and health than most 67 year olds…but I can clearly tell I’m not 40 anymore.

 

[BLev65]

I am shooting the 500PF on my Z7II and 100-400 on my Z6II... I find the AF performance on the Z lens more snappy than the 500PF, but I will not be giving up my 500mm lens any time soon. The images from my 500mm lens are crisp and contrasty. On a Z7II, I have a 700mm FOV if I crop to 24MP. Having both lenses offers me lots of options. If Nikon produced a Z 500mmPF, I'd replace my lens... if the forthcoming 400PF is f/4 or f/4.5, I might sell the PF, but those lenses are mystery optics for now.
As for the new Z100-400... well it's a great lens. No regrets on the purchase whatsoever... swan in flight... Z6II 400mm f/5.6

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