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
BLev65 said:
Two from yesterday morning...
Both were taken with the Z6II and 100-400. I am still learning how to make the most of the Z system when photographing flight images.
The difference in af performance between the 100-400 and 500PF is striking. I really wish that the prime Z 400S PF, 800S PF, or even 200-600 were available. I am not loving how the 500PF and Z7II are playing together.
regards,
bruce

View attachment 29404

View attachment 29405
Click to expand...
Great images. Do you find that the 100-400 works better with the Z AF system than the 500 mm PF, assuming the same AF settings? I think the 100-400 may have two separate AF motors, moving separate groups of lens elements, which might make a difference. Or better synched to the Z AF algorithms. Perhaps that makes it quicker to acquire focus or track focus or perhaps it allows more accurate focus. But would it make a difference on whether the AF system grabs the bird’s body versus its head?

I was photographing gulls earlier in the year for practice at the Minnesota Valley National Wildlfe Refuge with my Z7II and 500 mm PF. One thing I noticed is that I had more AF issues as the gulls got closer and took up more of the frame. Of course they are also closer then and the angular motion is faster. But I also wondered if it was partly because the gulls were mostly white and there were fewer contrast differences to focus on the more the body filled the frame? So I wondered if you would find the same results photographing bald eagles, great blue herons or other birds that are largely not white.

I haven’t had a chance to test my new 100-400 mm lens yet. My wife wrapped it up for Christmas and then we had family around through yesterday. Looking forward to trying it soon.
 
Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
Great shots! You mention that the difference between the 100-400 and the 500mm PF is striking. What do you consider those striking differences to be?
Click to expand...
By striking, I mean noticeable. The speed in which the lens locks on seems different than an FTZ mounted lenses. I would love to know if this difference would be as noticeable when using a Z9.
regards,
bruce
 
Member's gallery
BillW said:
Great images. Do you find that the 100-400 works better with the Z AF system than the 500 mm PF, assuming the same AF settings? I think the 100-400 may have two separate AF motors, moving separate groups of lens elements, which might make a difference. Or better synched to the Z AF algorithms. Perhaps that makes it quicker to acquire focus or track focus or perhaps it allows more accurate focus. But would it make a difference on whether the AF system grabs the bird’s body versus its head?

I was photographing gulls earlier in the year for practice at the Minnesota Valley National Wildlfe Refuge with my Z7II and 500 mm PF. One thing I noticed is that I had more AF issues as the gulls got closer and took up more of the frame. Of course they are also closer then and the angular motion is faster. But I also wondered if it was partly because the gulls were mostly white and there were fewer contrast differences to focus on the more the body filled the frame? So I wondered if you would find the same results photographing bald eagles, great blue herons or other birds that are largely not white.

I haven’t had a chance to test my new 100-400 mm lens yet. My wife wrapped it up for Christmas and then we had family around through yesterday. Looking forward to trying it soon.
Click to expand...
The answer to your question is yes... the time it takes the 100-400 to lock on to a moving target seems faster than when using my 500PF. The lens & camera combination just seem to be more in sync w/ each other. I found this to be true w/ the 70-200S as well. The D500 and 500PF play well together... as if made for each other; I'd describe the behavior of the 100-400S + Z ii bodies to pair in a similar way.
What a great holiday gift!... enjoy.
I'm heading to Duluth and then to the bog... I'm hoping to give it all a work out while up north.
regards,
Bruce
 
Member's gallery
Just staring to experiment with my 100-400 mm lens on my Z7II. It feels solid and well balanced on the Z7II. It seems to focus fast. Unfortunately it is quite cold here today, starting below zero and only recently getting to the mid-single digits Fahrenheit.

A couple of items. The RRS lens foot for the 70-200 mm f2.8 S lens fits the 100-400 mm lens. I believe that someone else may have mentioned that before.

I was also hoping that the lens hoods for the 14-24 mm f2.8 S lens (whether the Nikon or Nisi version) would fit the 100-400 mm lens, since the 100-400 mm lens takes 77 mm filters like the 70-200 mm f2.8 S lens. But it does not. The Nikon and Nisi lens hoods fit on the 14-24 mm f2.8 S lens; the 14-30 mm f4 S lens; the 24-70 f2.8 S lens; and the 70-200 mm f2.8 S lens. This allows you to use a 112 mm filter (Nikon, Nisi and perhaps others) on the lens hood and bayonet the hood and filter onto any of these four lenses. But the 14-24 hoods do not fit the 100-400 mm lens (at least my Nisi version does not), as the 100-400 mm lens hood has a slightly larger diameter. Too bad, as I have found sharing a 112 mm ND filter and 112 mm polarizer on my 14-30, 24-70 and 70-200 mm lenses using a Nisi lens hood to be convenient. It is also quicker to mount it by bayonetting the hood and filter on to a lens rather than screwing in a filter to the lens.
 
Member's gallery
@BillW thats annoying. I use the Kase 112mm circular magnetic filters … and love that they fit the trinity of Z S f2.8 lenses. I also use them on the z24-70f4 with a step up ring adaptor costing under $5 from kase.
 
Member's gallery
I have a D850 and Z6 with the 200-500mm f/5.6; the 500mm f/5.6 PF and the TC14EIII and the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 with the Z TC1.4. I am looking at the Z TC 2.0 and the 100-400 along with a Z camera upgrade (maybe Z9). I love all of them and use them in different settings/scenarios. That said, if I get a new Z camera, something may have to go to another family member - probably the 200-500.

I find slightly different use scenarios for each combination though things may merge as I learn the best uses for each and see the overlaps. Hard to choose when you want it all because there are so many good options. With my F-mount 14-24 and 24-120, this suite will cover me from 14-800mm which should work out pretty good. It is nice to have so many choices available with many wonderful lenses. In a very hazy pipe dream, the Z 800mm PF resides. We shall see.

As always, the limiting factor in my photography will continue to be the part sitting 4 inches behind the eyepiece. Make your choices people - they all look so good!
 
Member's gallery
Patrick M said:
@BillW thats annoying. I use the Kase 112mm circular magnetic filters … and love that they fit the trinity of Z S f2.8 lenses. I also use them on the z24-70f4 with a step up ring adaptor costing under $5 from kase.
Click to expand...
Do the magnetic filters need the Nikon or Nisi hood or do they attach to the lens itself? And perhaps Kase could do an adapter.
 
Member's gallery
BillW said:
Do the magnetic filters need the Nikon or Nisi hood or do they attach to the lens itself? And perhaps Kase could do an adapter.
Click to expand...
The Kase magnetic ring screws onto the Nikon hood, but they work on Nisi hoods too. When you need a filter, just put it on the magnetic ring. You can of course stack filters, and to remove, just pull them off. No messing around screwing filters in. The kase magnetic filters also come with very nice cases to hold them in. Step up rings can be used for smaller lens diameters.
 
Member's gallery
Lardo said:
Anyone had time to experiment using a Z TC14 on their 100-400 yet?
Initial thoughts on AF performance & image quality?
Click to expand...

No one else has replied, so I will offer my anecdotal and non-scientific response, which is that the AF is fine, though I did not test it in really low light. Image quality is also good, though in my limited experience (limited to one short experiment) resolution seems to increase when the lens/teleconverter combo is stopped down a bit, i.e., from f9 to f10. Here is one example of the combination taken wide open.
Anna'sN140560Z.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
The zoom lens I would like to see is a 100-500mm like the one from Canon. With the 200-500mm lens I would often grab the 80-400mm zoom instead as the 200mm minimum focal length provided too narrow a view angle and subjects were much too tightly cropped. The 80-400mm along with the 500mm PF or 600mm f/4 are great combos with two cameras in use.
 
Member's gallery
Highly Recommended from Cameralabs:
Useful that this review compares both TC + 100-400 combinations against key options (including 70-200 f2.8S with Z-TC2):

"....the Z 100-400 + TC-1.4x performs astonishingly well....At 400mm focal length the Nikon Z 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR S and F-Nikkor again are very close while the combo of Z 100-400 + TC-1.4x loses a bit of definition outside the center and the Z 70-200 + TC-2.0x is clearly the softest. Even after cranking up sharpening the Z 70-200 + TC-2.0x still shows some softness... The Z 100-400 delivers good results on Nikon’s TC-1.4x wide open (f8.0) even at 560mm focal length. "

".... All-in-all the new Nikon Z 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR S zoom lens is sharper than it’s predecessor and also the better alternative to using the Z 70-200mm f2.8 VR S with TC-2.0x. Evidence to its superior performance are the results on a TC-1.4x which are only a tad softer although the teleconverter magnifies any fault of the lens attached to it by 1.4x. "

and the latest, including MTF data: " a pricey lens, but a superb one that delivers the goods and operates utterly slickly in every respect. The range is also really useful, reaching the magic 400mm in a compact optic that offers weather sealing and very close focusing...." :

www.ephotozine.com

Nikon Nikkor Z 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6 S Lens Review

John Riley has been putting the Nikon Nikkor Z 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6 S telephoto lens through its paces, capturing portraits and more, to find out how it performs.
www.ephotozine.com www.ephotozine.com
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
After receiving and using the 1.4 TC on my 100-400mm Z lens for a couple of weeks, I returned it today. I was looking forward to how it would compare to my 500PF. I was initially disappointed in its sharpness at 400mm (560mm). I originally felt as if I just need to get used to it a bit more since I had only had the 100-400 for a short period of time. But I decided to return it when I discovered that it might actually be defective. The rubberband type of material that protects the lens housing was torn in places which resulted in it not fitting tightly around the housing. I don't think this in itself was causing the softness. However, when I began to remove the TC from the 100-400 lens, I noticed that the piece of rubber was actually slightly sticking up over the top of the housing, I was able to re-fit it to the housing and reinstall to the lens. However, when I removed the TC, the rubber protector was again coming off the housing. I felt like it might possibly be interfering with the glass. So, I have returned and am waiting on a replacement. Hopefully, this is an isolated incident. I will update once I receive its replacement.
599C42D7-9CAE-496A-BC15-235E29BC4A05.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I have literally had the Z100-400 and ZTC1.4 for two days, so not much chance to play yet. That said, my initial impression is that the lens and ZTC1.4 play nicely with the Z6ii. The two images are of the same house finch, but obviously different positions. (These are clearly not award winners, but I could get them from my front door.) One is cropped to 100%.

400mm w TC for 560mm FOV
f/8
1/1000s
ISO 800
1 EV push in camera

I'm quite impressed, and just need to work on "user error".

Anxiously awaiting my Z9, but using the Z6ii as the transition from my D500 and D850 to mirrorless.

Z62_1686.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z6_2-1695-crop-0204-IMG_00001.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
M R Opp said:
I have literally had the Z100-400 and ZTC1.4 for two days, so not much chance to play yet. That said, my initial impression is that the lens and ZTC1.4 play nicely with the Z6ii. The two images are of the same house finch, but obviously different positions. (These are clearly not award winners, but I could get them from my front door.) One is cropped to 100%.

400mm w TC for 560mm FOV
f/8
1/1000s
ISO 800
1 EV push in camera

I'm quite impressed, and just need to work on "user error".

Anxiously awaiting my Z9, but using the Z6ii as the transition from my D500 and D850 to mirrorless.

View attachment 32041View attachment 32042
Click to expand...
MR, great shots. Have you an an opportunity to inspect the rubber protector on your 1.4 TC as I described above?
 
Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
MR, great shots. Have you an an opportunity to inspect the rubber protector on your 1.4 TC as I described above?
Click to expand...
Pat, after I read your post, I looked at the gasket. I took the TC off the lens and put it back on several times. On one of those "tests" the gasket rolled up slightly in one spot. I simply nudged it back into place with my finger. Because of your post, I will inspect the gasket to make sure it is in place before I put the TC on a lens.
 
Member's gallery
M R Opp said:
Pat, after I read your post, I looked at the gasket. I took the TC off the lens and put it back on several times. On one of those "tests" the gasket rolled up slightly in one spot. I simply nudged it back into place with my finger. Because of your post, I will inspect the gasket to make sure it is in place before I put the TC on a lens.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I have returned my TC and waiting on its replacement. I have also contacted Nikon and notified them of the issue. I suspect the rubber is coming in contact with a part in the 100-400 lens since you have experienced it 'rolling up', as well. It would be interesting to know if anyone using it with the 70-200mm has experienced the same issue. Also, if someone with the 2.0 has experienced it.
 
Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
Thanks! I have returned my TC and waiting on its replacement. I have also contacted Nikon and notified them of the issue. I suspect the rubber is coming in contact with a part in the 100-400 lens since you have experienced it 'rolling up', as well. It would be interesting to know if anyone using it with the 70-200mm has experienced the same issue. Also, if someone with the 2.0 has experienced it.
Click to expand...
I am not sure this issue would cause soft focus, but it most definitely would breach the weather sealing. It will be interesting to see what Nikon says. Keep us posted, please.
 
Member's gallery
I continue to find this lens very impressive.
I do not know if the camera is relying on internal software to optimize image quality, but the images from the lens are both sharp and contrasty throughout its range.
regards,
bruce

LEOL62_6960-Small.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

SwanL62_7666-Small.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
GrandNagus50 said:
I will insert here that in another forum (Facebook, sigh) I got into a short argument (of course, it was FACEBOOK!) over whether Nikon screwed up by releasing a 100-400mm instead of another 80-400mm. To me, the inclusion or not of the 80-100mm range is not particularly important, but to this other guy the lack of those focal lengths was a deal breaker. I offered that if Nikon were to expand the focal range my own preference would have been for the lens to be 100-500 (like Canon's), but since Nikon already has a 200-500mm and an upcoming 200-600mm Z I hardly found it surprising that they made a 100-400mm instead. The Canon zoom is also slower at the telephoto end (f4.5-7.1, with the aperture being 6.3 at 400mm). The guy I was "discussing" this with then played the "I'm a professional and you're not" card to discredit my viewpoint, and for me, that was the end of the discussion :mad:
Click to expand...
John Navitsky said:
yah, i’ve gotten the “you’re not a pro” before, lol. well, clearly he knows better than nikon as well. it must be a frustrating world that just doesn’t listen to his wisdom 😂
Click to expand...
I once had a neighbor who was a know it all; he constantly let everyone he talked to know he was in MENSA. And he also once informed me that the best time to take a photo was in the middle of the day when the sun was out. It sounds as though you may have been conversing with him on FB. You need to beware of those online professionals! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top