joe43
Well-known member
I own the new 100mm-400mm. I have absolutely no interest in a 80-400mm S version. I do have a bigger issue--no Z9 yet to attach it to!!!
Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Nikkor
- Thread starter fcotterill
- Start date
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).
Mike Bull
Active member
Looking at your images makes me glad I've got one on orderMore from the flowering gum out the front.
Rainbow Lorikeets
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S, 400mm, 1/320sec, f5.6 (wide open), ISO640. Cropped about 30%
Z9 + Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S, 400mm, 1/320sec, f5.6 (wide open), ISO720. Cropped about 30%
fcotterill
Well-known member
Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Review: Stellar Optics and Speed
Minor quibbles aside, the image quality is stellar.
petapixel.com
would you expect anything other than Stellar optics. Nikon is really great S lens. New mount has allowed Nikon (and Canon and Sony ...) to improve the optical quality of their lenses.Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Review: Stellar Optics and Speed
Minor quibbles aside, the image quality is stellar.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
no, i expect all the s-line lenses to be steller, and not just in optics. having used and liked the sony 100-400, i find they've also improved the balance and handling as well. and that's not a knock on the sony, it's great, and nikon had the advantage to see the sony before they began
fcotterill
Well-known member
This latest comparison by Brad Hill is also discussed in the very long Official Z9 thread. Centred around 100-400 niche, it's obviously directly relevant here and particularly about choices of these telephoto zooms for Z mount....
There're almost too many choices, also including the 70-200 f2.8E - with TCs - and 180-400 f4E TC14 in addition to what's compared in this article!
www.naturalart.ca
There're almost too many choices, also including the 70-200 f2.8E - with TCs - and 180-400 f4E TC14 in addition to what's compared in this article!
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
Last edited:
Brad‘s post illustrates things the way I do it. I have both the 70-200 and 100-400 along with both TCs and the 24-70. Which longer lens I take depends on whether I want more than 400 and whether I need the f2.8. The 24-70 is my walk about and travel lens although I’m considering upgrading to the 24-120 for a little more versatile single lens carry. I also have the 500PF but it’s getting less use these days since the 100-400 and 1.4 is longer, more versatile, and essentially the same IQ for screen display output. When I get a second Z body I will marry it to the 500…tried using my old D7500 with it as a second body but muscle memory on the D and Z is different enough that it doesn’t work as well…but I’m still trying it for some outings.
Great to read that review @fcotterill and your comment too @Neil Laubenthal .
I got the z 70-200 with the 2xTC as a stop gap while we await the 200-600 and I'm perfectly ok with the wait - time to save some cash!!
For me, the combo is sharp enough, I don't see any discernable worsening of the IQ.
I was looking forward to taking these to the Gala[agos, but I also have the z24-200 which obviously doesn't have the same reach but is way easier to cart around.
Now I'm in a dilemma LOL
I got the z 70-200 with the 2xTC as a stop gap while we await the 200-600 and I'm perfectly ok with the wait - time to save some cash!!
For me, the combo is sharp enough, I don't see any discernable worsening of the IQ.
I was looking forward to taking these to the Gala[agos, but I also have the z24-200 which obviously doesn't have the same reach but is way easier to cart around.
Now I'm in a dilemma LOL
I was in Galapagos for 2 weeks in 2017. I shot the 80-400 mm AFS lens on my D500 for wildlife and the 16-80 on a D7200 for wider scenics. It was good to have 400 mm and the FOV of the D500 DX format in many cases, including birds in flight. It was also good to have the short end of the 80-400 mm available, as you are often quite close to wildlife — many have no fear of humans.
If I went back now, I’d use the 100-400 mm on a Z body. Or the 70-200 Z mount lens with the 2x Z TC. I used the latter combination in Katmai last summer on a Z7II (before I got the 100-400 mm) for brown bears. Good quality and nice to have zoom flexibility. And maybe the 24-70 f4 for scenics.
Just my 2 cents, knowing the trip to the Galapagos would be a ‘once in a lifetime experience’ for me, I would take the best gear I have. Looking at the photos in a couple of years, I’d hate regretting not having used a sharper lens or having a bit more reach that were in my kit…… at home.
I‘m jealous. I‘m looking forward to seeing some of you photos.
Regards,
Marty
I would probably take the 24-70 or 24-120 along with the 70-200 and TCs over the 24-200…yeah, it's easier to carry the single lens around and no lens swaps needed but the 24-200 while decent isn't in the came class IQ wise as the other two. I'm seriously considering swapping my 24-70 for the 24-120 to get more versatility in the take a single lens on travel when no wildlife is expected scenario and using the and the 100-400 as my primary kit unless I really need the faster aperture of the 70-200. I find myself using my 500P less and less now the I've got the 100-400 and the TCs…using the 1.4 I get 560 reach which is more than the 500PF for the same weight and I really can't see much difference. I'm thinking on my next hiking/birding outing I'll try putting the 500PF back on the D7500 and carrying two bodies…the last couple times out I had the 100-400 on the Z7II and the 500PF hanging lens only off the other side of my double Black Rapid strap and didn't ever use the 500. I hate to say that because it's a great lens…but since IQ is essentially equal to the 100-400 with the 1.4 and only slightly better than the zoom with the 2.0 it's just not getting used on the Z…so tossing it on the D7500 again will give me 750 there and it is sharper than the 100-400 with the 2.0…not significantly but it is noticeable. It's all a matter of trying to get the most versatile mix of reach combinations while minimizing lens/TC swaps and weight carried. I stopped carrying the D7500 along with the Z7II because of the differences in how the DSLRs work over the Zs…there are enough differences that I found myself forgetting which body I had up to my eye and reaching for the controls in the wrong place which was why I stopped carrying both and went to the 500PF lens only carry…but since it's not getting used then I either need to leave that 3 pounds at home or put a body on it and use it. I keep hoping for something between the Z7II and the Z9…don't want or need grip but might have to buy a Z9 anyway to get the improved AF and frame rate if Nikon doesn't get off the dime and come up with something between the two.
Thanks for your input guys! Great feedback. What a terrific forum!
fcotterill
Well-known member
Pretty much concurs with what many of us appreciate in this SwissArmy knife telephoto.
There's one conspicuous Gap in the MTF data in the comparisons... Where's the 400 f4.5S? Hopefully it will be added in due time.
photographylife.com
There's one conspicuous Gap in the MTF data in the comparisons... Where's the 400 f4.5S? Hopefully it will be added in due time.
Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Review
I've been shooting with the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S for just over a year, and I've finally completed all of the extensive lab testing necessary to publish a full review (including testing both TCs). This lens is large, heavy, and optically excellent - built to Nikon's highest standards...
photographylife.com
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
The results largely concur with what Brad Hill has concluded.
http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear2.html#anchor_lenses_100-400
• 21 Dec 2021: The Nikkor 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR S: Early Impressions and Thoughts
• 25 March 2022: Nikkor 100-400mm f4.5-5.6S or 70-200mm f2.8S Plus Teleconverters?
http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear2.html#anchor_lenses_100-400
• 21 Dec 2021: The Nikkor 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR S: Early Impressions and Thoughts
• 25 March 2022: Nikkor 100-400mm f4.5-5.6S or 70-200mm f2.8S Plus Teleconverters?
Been debating these two lenses for a few weeks now, often times pulling my hair out after thinking I’d finally made a choice, only to second guess myself and throw everything back into question. Same old talking point: do I go for the focal versatility and close MFD of the zoom, or better low light aperture and ultimate IQ of the prime?
Well, I ended up going with the 400 4.5, though I can see myself continuing to second guess myself long after the new lens arrives.
One of primary drivers of my choice isn’t listed though: this 400 + TC takes the place of the 500PF that I regrettably sold when I got the 800PF, and it might end up supplanting the 800 as my primary birding lens. The 800 is turning out to be a bit more challenging to use than anticipated, for reasons I won’t get into here.
Well, I ended up going with the 400 4.5, though I can see myself continuing to second guess myself long after the new lens arrives.
One of primary drivers of my choice isn’t listed though: this 400 + TC takes the place of the 500PF that I regrettably sold when I got the 800PF, and it might end up supplanting the 800 as my primary birding lens. The 800 is turning out to be a bit more challenging to use than anticipated, for reasons I won’t get into here.
Matthew, I originally purchased the 100-400 and the 1.4 to take the place of my 500PF + 1.4. I wasn’t happy with the combination and purchased the 400 4.5 when it became available. At the same time I had a NPS order in for the 800PF. The 400 + 1.4 was everything the 500PF was and more. So, I thought I would get the 2.0 to pair with my 400 4.5 with the plan to cancel the 800PF. Although the 400 + 2.0 is usuable it wasnt quite as good as the 400 with the 1.4. Then I was notified that the 800 was available so I went ahead and got it too. However, I have found limited use for it. Mainly in my backyard on a tripod. I am finding that even though it is significantly lighter than the 800 f version, it’s turning out that it may be too be too heavy for my 70 year old body. The recent DXO module update to include the 100-400 is like getting a new lense! I can’t wait for them to release the 400 4.5 module. If it turns out to be as good as the 100-400 update, I may have the 800 for sale and use the 2.0 on the 400 4.5. So, I understand your comment about it being more challenging than anticipated.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
the photographylife review was nice. i like how they covered subjective things like handling, actually measurement of performance, used multiple copies, and put in some time behind the lens and they demonstrated skill with the lens in their samples. nicely done.
DsD
Well-known member
For those wondering as I certainly was.
Just received the Z 1.4 TC yesterday and wanted to see what I was giving up at 560mm on the Z 100-400.
Here is my backyard bunny (see what I did there). Was a quick and dirty for evaluation in DxO. @ 100% the raw photo is very sharp with reflections and crisp eye colorations. Is this sharp enough?
I’m certainly NO threat to most all of you on this forum but shot handheld at 1/80 second. Comments appreciated.
Just received the Z 1.4 TC yesterday and wanted to see what I was giving up at 560mm on the Z 100-400.
Here is my backyard bunny (see what I did there). Was a quick and dirty for evaluation in DxO. @ 100% the raw photo is very sharp with reflections and crisp eye colorations. Is this sharp enough?
I’m certainly NO threat to most all of you on this forum but shot handheld at 1/80 second. Comments appreciated.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
I have the same issue…but the opinion I have more days than not is that the 100-400 and 500PF are optimum for me. The 500 is 750 in DX or 700/1050 with the F 1.4 TCIII…and I keep thinking that for my needs of a lens that long it makes more bang for the buck sense than the other options…
100% agree, the 500PF was perfect for me, and I shouldn’t have sold it. So versatile on the Z9, and the 1.4TC works perfectly (unlike it did on F Mount bodies). I heavily debated picking up another one before deciding to stay with all Z mount. If I do come back to the 500PF, the 100-400 would also get added.
DsD
Well-known member
Me being a dumb bunny I didn’t include a tight portrait so you could actually assess the eye sharpness. I correct that now.
Do you folk think I have a good copy of the Z100-400 and 1.4 TC? Me thinks so if one can fill the frame enough.
Do you folk think I have a good copy of the Z100-400 and 1.4 TC? Me thinks so if one can fill the frame enough.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Richie_28
Member
I was waiting for Nikon to release this lens and was lucky enough to get one a month or two after it was released. Overall I am pleased by the size and handling of this lens, even on a small camera like the Z 50. as well as its flexibility. I don't see too much if any loss in IQ when using the 1.4 teleconverter.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
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.
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.