Z8 + 100-400 + 1.4 TC vs F-200-500

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).

M

Marsha Jane

Active member
Member's gallery
I am travelling to Texas to photograph whooping cranes. Weight is an issue. Will I get just as good IQ with the TC option? Also, I could rent the Tamron 150-500 mirrorless. Your thoughts?
Thank you.
 
Member's gallery
I find the 100-400 w/ TC14 to be an outstanding combination. It is a bit smaller and lighter weight and provides excellent image quality. I am biased in that I also often shoot smaller critters and plants/flowers that may be present where I am shooting and the closer focusing distance and wider FOV for the 100-400 is what I really appreciate. Plus that same short focus distance is maintained with the TC14. If you only shoot on the long end, then maybe the 180-600. If you mix it up, then the 100-400 w/ TC. My opinion. Enjoy your trip!
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Marsha Jane said:
I am travelling to Texas to photograph whooping cranes. Weight is an issue. Will I get just as good IQ with the TC option?
Click to expand...

I only got to shoot once with a 100-400 + 1.4x TC on a Z7 II, shooting bee-eaters in poor light.

The combo was inferior to my Sigma 150-600C on a D500 from an image quality point of view and the best 200-500mm f5.6 I've used is better than my Sigma 150-600mm C.

Now, that's a sample of 1 but based on that experience, I'd got with the 200-500mm f5.6.

Especially as it's a f5.6 at the long end vs f8 and that can make the difference in the field between 1/2000s that freezes motion and 1/1000s that doesn't freeze motion.
 
Member's gallery
Marsha Jane said:
I am travelling to Texas to photograph whooping cranes. Weight is an issue. Will I get just as good IQ with the TC option? Also, I could rent the Tamron 150-500 mirrorless. Your thoughts?
Thank you.
Click to expand...
I’ve shot the Z 100-400 mm both bare and with the Z 1.4x . I thought the lens worked well with the 1.4x TC, with good IQ, although you lose a stop of aperture/light putting you at f8 at the long end. If I recall correctly, Thom Hogan was pretty positive on the Z 100-400 mm plus the Z 1.4x TC. The bare lens is quite good too.

Brad Hill has had some very positive things to say about the Tamron Z 150-500 mm. Indeed, according to a recent post on his website, after testing it, he bought a personal copy of the lens and sold his Z 100-400 mm lens.

I was at my local dealer recently to pick up a copy of the Z 600 mm PF lens. They had a copy of the Tamron 150-500 mm in the Sony mount, but did not have the Z mount version yet. I was impressed with how compact it was, but it was a bit heavier than the Z 100-400 mm.

I have the Z 180-600 mm lens too (yes, I probably have too much gear). Still getting to know it. Favorably impressed so for. But again, it is bigger and heavier (although less heavy than the F mount 200–500 mm).

As to weight:

Z 100-400 mm = 47.8 oz (w/o the tripod collar, according to the Nikon USA website)

Z 100-400 mm plus Z 1.4x TC = 47.8 oz + 7.8 oz = 55.6 oz

Tamron 150-500 mm = 60.7 oz (w/o the tripod collar, according to the Tamron website)

Z 180-600 mm = 69 oz (w/o the tripod collar, according to the Nikon USA website)

F 200-500 mm = 81.2 oz (from the Nikon USA website, not sure if it included the tripod collar) plus a few ounces for an FTZ or FTZII

As to speed — without the TC, the Z 100-400 is 1/2 stop faster than the Tamron at the long end (5.6 vs 6.7). With the TC, the Z 100-400 is a 1/2 stop slower (8 vs. 6.7). That could matter a bit. I was photographing sandhills and other birds at Bosque del Apache in December 2021. I did not have the Z 100-400 at that point. I used the F mount 500 mm PF with and without the 1.4x TCIII and the Z 70-200 with the Z 2x TC. In the very early morning and late in the evening, I generally took to the TC off the 500 mm PF to avoid losing the stop of light in low light conditions.

Good luck with your choice and have a fun trip.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
JAS said:
I find the 100-400 w/ TC14 to be an outstanding combination. It is a bit smaller and lighter weight and provides excellent image quality. I am biased in that I also often shoot smaller critters and plants/flowers that may be present where I am shooting and the closer focusing distance and wider FOV for the 100-400 is what I really appreciate. Plus that same short focus distance is maintained with the TC14. If you only shoot on the long end, then maybe the 180-600. If you mix it upo, then the 100-400 w/ TC. My opinion. Enjoy your trip!
Click to expand...
Me too. I was a bit mystified when I saw Brad Hill’s recent evaluation of the various ways to get to 800ish when he rated the 100-400 as sucks…until I realized that (a) he’s a pro who has all the exotics and naturally the more $ the better the lens and (b) my old standby that better is the enemy of good enough. I admit that at 1:1 it’s not as good as either my 400/4.5 or 600PF…but the only person that sees them at 1:1 is me, everybody else sees them at 1024 or so wide and the downsampling from 45MP to 1024 pixels erases a great deal of the ‘better’. I continue to be quite happy with the 100-400 as well. I’m also weight conscious since we hike and with a Z8, Zo, and 2 lenses that’s an important consideration.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
Me too. I was a bit mystified when I saw Brad Hill’s recent evaluation of the various ways to get to 800ish when he rated the 100-400 as sucks…until I realized that (a) he’s a pro who has all the exotics and naturally the more $ the better the lens and (b) my old standby that better is the enemy of good enough. I admit that at 1:1 it’s not as good as either my 400/4.5 or 600PF…but the only person that sees them at 1:1 is me, everybody else sees them at 1024 or so wide and the downsampling from 45MP to 1024 pixels erases a great deal of the ‘better’. I continue to be quite happy with the 100-400 as well. I’m also weight conscious since we hike and with a Z8, Zo, and 2 lenses that’s an important consideration.
Click to expand...
I think Brad made that comment about the Z 100-400 mm with a Z 2x TC, which leaves you at f11 for 800 mm. I assume he would find the Z 100-400 better with the Z 1.4x TC and better yet as a bare lens. I believe Brad owned the Z 100-400 for the last year or two, but recently sold it in favor of the Tamron 150-500 in Z mount.

I’ve generally liked the Z 100-400 bare and with the Z 1.4x TC. Much less so with the Z 2x TC.
 
Member's gallery
BillW said:
I think Brad made that comment about the Z 100-400 mm with a Z 2x TC, which leaves you at f11 for 800 mm. I assume he would find the Z 100-400 better with the Z 1.4x TC and better yet as a bare lens. I believe Brad owned the Z 100-400 for the last year or two, but recently sold it in favor of the Tamron 150-500 in Z mount.

I’ve generally liked the Z 100-400 bare and with the Z 1.4x TC. Much less so with the Z 2x TC.
Click to expand...
Yeah…it is just fine bare and with the 1.4…and he’s right, the 2x is really poorer at the edges, center isn’t so bad…but when it was the on
y way to get to 800 I had it was acceptable…whereas the 2.0 on the 600PF is really still very good to me and using the 1.4 is a no brainer, but it’s a pr8me and not a zoom.
 
Member's gallery
Interesting that the Tamron people chose to make a 150-500mm lens for the Z cameras. Many stated that the 150-600mm f-mount lens was good up to 500mm and IQ dropped dramatically with longer focal lengths. A more conservative zoom ratio makes it easier for the optical engineers to maximize IQ throughout the zoom range.

What is overlooked is that the lens manufacturers are trying to target a specific segment of the hobbyist market and must meet a price. The 200-500mm was a very big deal as much for its low price as for its performance. The same can be said for the Nikon 180-600mm lens which sells for $2,000 or a fraction of the price of its pro telephoto lenses.
 
Member's gallery
BillW said:
I’ve shot the Z 100-400 mm both bare and with the Z 1.4x . I thought the lens worked well with the 1.4x TC, with good IQ, although you lose a stop of aperture/light putting you at f8 at the long end. If I recall correctly, Thom Hogan was pretty positive on the Z 100-400 mm plus the Z 1.4x TC. The bare lens is quite good too.

Brad Hill has had some very positive things to say about the Tamron Z 150-500 mm. Indeed, according to a recent post on his website, after testing it, he bought a personal copy of the lens and sold his Z 100-400 mm lens.

I was at my local dealer recently to pick up a copy of the Z 600 mm PF lens. They had a copy of the Tamron 150-500 mm in the Sony mount, but did not have the Z mount version yet. I was impressed with how compact it was, but it was a bit heavier than the Z 100-400 mm.

I have the Z 180-600 mm lens too (yes, I probably have too much gear). Still getting to know it. Favorably impressed so for. But again, it is bigger and heavier (although less heavy than the F mount 200–500 mm).

As to weight:

Z 100-400 mm = 47.8 oz (w/o the tripod collar, according to the Nikon USA website)

Z 100-400 mm plus Z 1.4x TC = 47.8 oz + 7.8 oz = 55.6 oz

Tamron 150-500 mm = 60.7 oz (w/o the tripod collar, according to the Tamron website)

Z 180-600 mm = 69 oz (w/o the tripod collar, according to the Nikon USA website)

F 200-500 mm = 81.2 oz (from the Nikon USA website, not sure if it included the tripod collar) plus a few ounces for an FTZ or FTZII

As to speed — without the TC, the Z 100-400 is 1/2 stop faster than the Tamron at the long end (5.6 vs 6.7). With the TC, the Z 100-400 is a 1/2 stop slower (8 vs. 6.7). That could matter a bit. I was photographing sandhills and other birds at Bosque del Apache in December 2021. I did not have the Z 100-400 at that point. I used the F mount 500 mm PF with and without the 1.4x TCIII and the Z 70-200 with the Z 2x TC. In the very early morning and late in the evening, I generally took to the TC off the 500 mm PF to avoid losing the stop of light in low light conditions.

Good luck with your choice and have a fun trip.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all of your details!
 
Member's gallery
StefanSC said:
I only got to shoot once with a 100-400 + 1.4x TC on a Z7 II, shooting bee-eaters in poor light.

The combo was inferior to my Sigma 150-600C on a D500 from an image quality point of view and the best 200-500mm f5.6 I've used is better than my Sigma 150-600mm C.

Now, that's a sample of 1 but based on that experience, I'd got with the 200-500mm f5.6.

Especially as it's a f5.6 at the long end vs f8 and that can make the difference in the field between 1/2000s that freezes motion and 1/1000s that doesn't freeze motion.
Click to expand...
Very helpful!
 
Member's gallery
JAS said:
What is disappointing you? I know we each have different needs and expectations. I love my unit for birds, flowers, close-up work, with and without the TC14Z. Just interested in your perspective.
Click to expand...
Maybe there are lens to lens differences, but the 100-400mm I tested with the 1.4 TC was clearly not as sharp at 560mm as my 500mm PF or 200-500mm. When I posted pics comparing them, people would say, you got a bad copy of the 100-400mm. Maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top