Great comparison review, Scott. On a recent trip to Canada this past autumn, I took my 600G ED VR, 500PF, and the 100-400. We were mostly photographing mammals; Elk, Bighorn, Grizzly's, Black Bear, and we did encounter a few Great Gray Owls (I know how much you love owls), and I found myself all most exclusively using the 100-400, with few exceptions. It's a fantastic lens and has earned a spot in my kitbag.
Great review on the lens and the differences in use! Personally, I can wait for the 500/600Z f4 replacements to come out for the weight savings vs my 500f4G!! It will be interesting to see what the new 200-600Z lens will be like when it’s released and I like the direction Nikon is headed with the new lens in optics!
@@Mark13376 I was referring to budget friendly versions not the $14-$16000. A lens like the z400 5.6, but in 500 or 600mm versions. I have a 500 f4 G that weighs in at 10lbs and having a prime version in the Z line up like the 400 6.6 would appeal to more general Wildlife photographer. I had read on Rumors that drawings had been submitted,so I hope this is true for general photographers vs the pros that are using 400 TC or 600 TC. Yes these two versions are great lens, but out of reach for most.
Great review!! I like the concept of picking a focal length to do the comparison. I also liked your “who is this lens for” summary at the end. Would be neat to do another review when the mythical 200-600 arrives, and also a @600mm (560mm) comparison between the four lenses (400 2.8, 4.5, 100-400 + TC; 200-600).
Don't you think your tests are biased against actual min aperture setting. Your sharpness tests should have been done at 6.3(common denomonator) in your slowest lens. Do I make any sense? Thanks
Hello Scott, thank you so much for putting all that effort into a comparison like this ❤!! Just a quick comment on lens performance at greater distances…in my experience light gathering capability and sharpness become much more important at greater distances, because a „small in the frame“ subject will be all smushed at higher ISO. This effect will be magnified when people start heavy cropping. Therefore, the max aperture of 2.8 at 400 justifies the price 😮😊
I concur with most of your findings except for the Focus Speed of the 100-400. I own both and have found the 400 4.5 is significantly faster than the 100-400 on initial focus (when the bird jumps). I also own the 800 Z 6.3 and I find it to be more on pair with the 100-400. All these lenses are terrific and the differences are negligible. With the Z9 all these lenses focus nice and fast, just the 400 4.5 is consistently a little faster, maybe the extra light allows more contrast to focus better? It is nice to know that we don't have to spend over $10K to obtain Pro quality products anymore.
Great comparison. I purchased the 100-400 a little while ago and love it. Completely agree with you on how sharpe it is. Takes the 1.4 TC really well too.
Have you had any luck with the 2x on it? Nikon and others claim there is little to no image or AF capability loss with the 2x, but i don't like it on the 100-400 or the 70-200. I only keep it for shooting the moon. No complaints with the 1.4
going to my first safari and i am really thinking of getting the 2.8 but size and weight is a problem ,i print and sell my photos so i should really just go for it?
Thanks for a very interesting comparison video. You have made me feel even better about my purchase of the 100-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter. That combination has become almost welded to my Z6. One other point in favour of this lens is for landscapes. I’m not much of a landscape shooter but many of the leading YT experts in this genre have recently posted videos promoting the use of 100-400 for landscapes.
Excellent and one off review! i have the 100-400 and it is a very versetile lens, for what it can do i think it is a must have for all serious photographers wherever genre they're in.
I have been looking at a replacement for my tamron 150-600 . I have tried using thez70- 200 with a 2* converter.since your review the 180+600 z as arrived .my gut feeling is 600 .mm is my would be nice if its sharp. The fact it does not extend is a plus. My gut feeling is also saying 400 4.6 as I have the 70-200 which I did find give me a cleaner image than the tameron150 to 600 give that at 600 it wasn't that great.Also I have been recommending over reviewers take down their wall charts and replace them with 3d images. The chart does not give depth of field accuracy. So thanks for the video I understand the f stop and I understand financial the need as a professional to have the best. You can't relax and complete with a lesser lens, you can only test your skill with even Stevens equipment. Has a none professional I to have all the same standards so have invested in top lenses . .. I find f4 works for me as the sharpness and light conditions often place me in at f 4 and above in lots of situations. I tend find I use 4 and above even with my 1.4 lenses . I use flash at times .But the thing is the 400 s seems to be at f 4.6 given its distance a choice I feel for may work will be better suited.since your review there has been an introduction of the 180 to x600 so a add on up dater to this review would help .I am holding back for now on the 400 + question to investment in the z 8 ....is now my next purchase . I have the 7 .ii .will purchase z 8 this next up coming week. The camera bodies effect the lenses resolution and autofocusing . Big part of great images.i think this may sharpness auto focus wise. .... I know z 9 z8 are Nikon's flag ships . But many use the 7 and 7 2 full frame. IAM keen to stress focus issues here its can be auto focus on the 7 and 7 .2 degrades the photo as they are not a fast as 8-9 z bodies.. you did a great job of ticking all my boxies ... would you recommended the 180 x 400 or 400 prime and crop .....this would make a great up date to good job video ✓ .cheers thanks for reading this .
I struggle for a long time making the decision between the 400mm f4.5 and the 100-400mm. For me as someone who shoots sports and wildlife and mainly at the 400mm or above focal length I chose the 400mm f4.5. In looking at images of the same subject with both of these lenses I felt the 4.5 had a slightly better out of focus backgrounds and subject separation with the extra 2/3 stop of light. So occasionally I may miss a shot because I’m locked in at 400mm the shots I do get would be better. Having said that I still think the 100-400 would be the better choice for many but maybe you can’t go wrong either way!
Great review, thanks. I was torn but now am going to order the 100-400. I have the 180-600 but I think it will be a bit too much to carry to Panama with 2 bodies and my 24-120. The 100-400 with my 1.4TC will be a lot easier to manage. I had my 500PF in Costa Rica last year & found that I could not back up far enough for some birds and could not easily locate the very close ones which is the reason I got the 180-600 to start with. The 100-400 close focus distance will be a real bonus too!
I’d love the 400 f2.8, but money is an issue. I have been using the F mount Nikon 200-400 f4 GII. It’s a huge heavy beast at 7+ pounds but the sharpness is amazing! It works great with my Z9.
Great review! I especially like the fact that you stayed within the Nikon lineup. Many similar reviewers test across brands which, to me, is irrelevant since I’m not going to junk my Nikon gear and switch to Canon/Sony for a single lens. I just bought a 100-400 and have been wondering if I should keep my beloved F mount 70-200. You just gave me the answer: indoor events with the FTZ adapter and the 2.8 light gathering.
Nice review. I've owned the 400mm f/4.5 S from launch and have been totally blown away by it - such a fantastic lens for the size and weight! Sure, I lust after a 400mm f/2.8 TC for low light, but realistically it would be very hard to justify the bigger lens even if I /could/ afford one! PS. The 400mm f/4.5 S does have one custom programmable function ring (the f/2.8 TC has two)..
You're right! Haven't seen anything like this (very fair) comparison of the 400's. For me the 70-200 is a non-issue. Moving from my F mounts with Z9 to Z lenses. What's the first lens to purchase as I make the transition without the use the adapter. I a lot of birding with the 500 pf and it has worked extremely well with the Z9 w/ adapter. Now, where do I go to replace this reach and quality? The 400 Z F4.5 is very appealing -- sharper perhaps and quicker (than 500 pf), but 100mm shorter. I can add a 1.4 teleconverter (now 560mm @F/5.6 -- spend $3,000 to get 60mm) or maybe better to use with the 2.0 teleconverter which allows me to go to 800 mm at F/8.0 (I think). Or skip all of this -- keep the 500 pf and buy the Z 800mm F6.3. For all of these reasons I am little reluctant to go to the 100 - 400 mm -- due to speed of lens, however as you say it is a very versatile and does work well with converters and shoots close. Thanks again. Great review!
Interesting comments. 12 months ago I was using the Z 70-200 with a 2xTC and the 200-500 with the F-mount 1.4xTC. When I look back on the images I got from both these combinations I am very pleased with them, however, I do recall the 200-500 was a little slow to focus and I was keen to move away from the FTZ. My Z 100-400 finally arrived in July 2022 (I ordered it on the day it was announced along with the Z9). In May, with no sign of the 100-400 arriving any time soon, I also bought a 500PF and was very impressed by its performance. However, that was a temporary purchase as I also had the Z 800 PF on order. Today I have the 100-400 and the 800 and sold back the 200-500 and the 500PF. If I am really honest, I now wish I had hung onto the 500 rather than getting the 800. Obviously there are times when the 800 reach is essential but the quality of the images I got from the 500PF, even with the 1.4 TC, was better - in my opinion, and weighed substantially less and was, therefore, easier to travel with.
@@SwanSycorax Thanks for the comments and perspective. I would not sell the 500 pf until I had another lens given your experience. Rather than the Z400 f/4.5 prime, maybe the Z 100-400mm F/5.6 would be a better option and keep the 500 pf.
Scott, this is an excellent comparison. Without a doubt the money no object king is the 400 mm f2.8. In my mind it actually scores a good B for versatility as it changes to a 560 mm f4 by the flip of a switch and if you add a 2x converter to it you either have an amazing 800 mm f5.6, which is insane and even faster than the Nikkor 800 mm f6.3 prime, but flip that switch again and you have an 1120 mm lens at f8. Sharpness of the lens at this focal length is of course never a limiting factor due to heat diffraction of air between you and the subject.
Maybe. The "number" in "f/number" represents the entry pupil diameter of a lens as fraction of the focal length. This is measured with the lens set at focusing distance "infinity". So the f/number is merely a geometric relation between pupil and focal length. This has a couple problems. When you focus closer by and the lens is shifted away from the film/sensor plane, then the de facto focal length gets longer - this effect is sometimes described as "focus breathing". The corollary of this is that with the longer focal length the de facto or apparent number in f/number needs to increase. For f=200mm and an entry pupil of f/2, the pupil has a diameter of 200mm/2=100mm. When that lens becomes a 220mm lens because you focus closer by, then the real number in f/number must be 220mm/2.2=100mm as the entry pupil has not changed. My Nikon Z 105/2.8S macro lens actually displays this effect in the lens's LCD display. I call the aperture effect from focus breathing "aperture breathing" and that may be more annoying to a cinematographer than the actual change of angle of view in focus breathing (we shoot about everything in "Manual" exposure). The aperture breathing of the macro lens is 1 EV or more between infinity and 1:1. As today we have "cine" lenses that compensate the focus breathing, this may actually also compensate the aperture breathing. Some of the Nikon Z "S" class lenses suppress the focus breathing very well. The biggest problem, though, is that the f/number ignores completely how much light the glass of your lens actually allows to pass through that f/number. This is why cinematographic lenses also display the so-called T-stop with the T for "transmission". Just check a few examples in the DxOMark website. Take, say, a 1.2L lens, say 85mm, of one brand and compare to the also 85mm 1.4G of another brand. You may see that both have a T-stop of 1.5 that defines how "fast" these lenses really are. Photographers who justify their 1.2L purchase because these lenses are so fast talk [male bovine excrement]. When you inform them of why that is the case, they may say, but they have such shallow Depth of Field (DoF) and that would be total [male bovine excrement] too. Why? Because DoF depends on the Circle of Confusion (CoC), not just distance, aperture, focal length. Any indication of DoF on a lens is just an extremely coarse approximation that does not define the underlying assumptions. The CoC combines several factors into one parameter that really seriously influences DoF a lot and that your DoF calculator likely ignores too. Film/sensor resolution - higher resolution gives shallower DoF because a smaller CoC. Presence of a "fuzzy filter" [1] over the sensor or not - absence improves contour sharpness and hence reduces CoC and consequently makes DoF shallower. Lens resolution - same. Processing and its process (both valid in digital and film) - better processing may reduce the CoC and make DoF shallower. Distance at which you view your image's rendition - shorter distance reduces CoC and hence makes DoF shallower. Image rendition size - larger makes the CoC relatively smaller and hence DoF shallower. And your rendition's resolution has a similar effect. A 4K monitor versus a 1080p at the same size. A photographic print versus a magazine print. As your excursion to the DxOMark now may have informed you that the 1.2L is much less sharp than the 1.4G, you might deduce that the 1.2L may have the same DoF at 1.2 as the 1.4G at 1.4 and yes, they are equally "fast". So the 1.2L is softer. At this point the 1.2L "pro" will tell you that they really bought it for its softness and that it has such beautiful bokeh. To which a wedding photographer would reply that surely a bride would see that when she looks at her wedding photos to see that she looks like a super model in them. When she does not like her images, do you say, "but look at the background blur"? Like in quantum physics it's all relative with these photons and our mathematics. If you could replace one lens element in your "fast" lens by a similar element but now ND-filtering down by 10EV, then still the f/number on the les is valid. But 10EV slower means 2^10=1,024 times slower. Without knowing the T-stop we cannot say that one lens is "faster" than another. In the professional photography school we learnt to deal with the importance of "focus breathing" relative to exposure and to apply a "bellows extension factor". Through The Lens (TTL) light measurement was available long time ago in SLR cameras. Today a mirrorless camera uses its sensor as light meter (which it actually is). When large format camera manufacturer issued their Sinarsix light meter (adapted from Gossen's Lunasix meter IIRC), then "we" had TTL metering in large format too. "Bellows extension factor" became anachronistic. But the T-stop remains valid and relevant. Especially w.r.t handheld light meters and cameras without TTL metering (where the bellows extension factor would still be needed). [1] What I call "fuzzy filter" was added to the Bayer architecture of digital colour photography as an in-camera hardware help to make image processing easier. It's generally called an anti-aliasing (AA) or low-pass filter. It disperses a bit of the light travelling to photosite [x,y] in the sensor to its immediate neighbours. This helps against jagged edges, a bit of banding, and makes colour guessing a bit easier. The Bayer architecture starts with a colour-blind sensor with its photodiodes (AKA photosites) arranged in a perfectly regular grid of squares. That colour-blind grid of tiny sensors is then masked by a grid of colour filters arranged in 2*2 squares that filter (either clockwise or counter) red, green, blue, green (R,B,G,B). This gives monochrome (mono=single, chrome=colour) data elements in the raw file. That raw file looks like 100% colour noise and 100% luminance noise to our eyes. If you could see it,then your eyes would start tom compete with Niagara Falls. So raw processing software like Adobe Camera Raw (ACR - does the job in both Ps and LrC) needs to make wild-assed guesses about the missing colours: from the R,G,B,G quartet of data elements (this is where you have your 14 bits) we need to get RGB, RGB, RGB, RGB or else no application dares to show the image on your computer display for fear you would throw it out, or through, the window. The Fujifilm Xtrans sensor makes for a fundamentally different architecture that impacts how raw processing best can be done, but bottom line we still have the same problem and we can have a debate how a single T-green with a red and blue filler photosite count in the MP number of these cameras. It still needs raw processing. As DxOMark suggests that the best "sensors" have 27 bits colour space, this is again [male bovine excrement]. It means that they cannot do better than reverse engineering 27 bits RGB from your 14 raw monochrome bits, with their best raw processing algorithm - or a theoretical simplified algorithm as they indicate that these numbers are "before demosaicking" (where mosaicking is the generation of digital artefacts by raw processing like a very recognisable Moiré, or a subtle noise in blurry darker image zones that are clearly in the camera's contrast envelope - the contrast envelope is the usable dynamic). The AA filter was needed when processing power needed to process the lower resolution images of the time would still be big, heavy, expensive, slow. The low resolution may have suppressed digital artefacts initially, but became more and more apparent with increasing resolution. As the fuzzy filter reduces the contour sharpness of our lenses, it also reduces low light sensitivity, reduces colour space, reduces contrast envelope, and increases vignetting. We could argue that higher resolution reduces uncertainty in potential creation of digital artefacts (note here that the sensor is actually analogue and analogue exposure data a reread from the sensor while applying analogue-to-digital (AD) conversion.) What makes a digital camera more than a sensor is (a) the specification of the cut-off wavelengths and cut-off slopes in the Bayer filter grid for each of the primary colours, and (b) the maths underlying the AD conversion.
Timely video, as I'm debating the same question myself at this time, and have the 400 4.5 and 100-400 in-hand to test. I also am a bird photographer, with my main lens the 800PF; that being said, if I'm going birding, the 800 is on the Z9/Z8, but where I need coverage is when a bird flies under that 16' minimum focus distance, and that's where the 400 option comes in. Thought the 400 4.5 was the easy answer, but even 8' is often times too much MFD, so enter the 100-400 and its 3' MFD. Yes, the prime has slightly better sharpness, contrast and bokeh, but a lot of that can be made up in post. Along w/ pinch hitting for birds (w/ the 1.4TC), the 100-400 will get me shots that those other lenses cannot, so I think at this point it's in the lead.
Great Video >> I am saving for the 400 f4.5 to go with my 70-200 S plus 1.4 Z convertor for African Wild Life on my Z7 which will be upgraded to either Z7III ir Z9 depending on the Future finances
Hi Scott - Ive got three of the lenses on test and pretty much agree with your findings. I watched the whole video wishing you had put a rear lens cap on the 400mm F2.8 ......
You were the first to mention this lol, I was waiting. I started recording when I noticed it and then just said oh well, Im not stopping and going back.
thanks for the vid! i have a tamron 150-600 G2 and thinking to upgrade. I have z6 and d750 bodies so i thought about 500 PF lens ( i usually shoot at 600 mm with tamron) but now i'm thinking maybe to get one of the 400's with the teleconverter. Have you compared these 400's with 500 pf and if so what's your thoughts? thanks!
Hi Scott. This is a terrific comparison. I own the 100-400 lens and I’m amazed at its sharpness. What I’m less pleased with is its bokeh. I’d rate it as good but not great. I’d expect bokeh quality on the 400 f/2.8 to be superb. When Nikon’s mythical 200-600 lens becomes available it’d be great to add it to a test like this. Great content and very enlightening, too. Thank you!
Ill compare the 200-600 when it comes out, but unfortunately my channel isnt big enough to get early product from Nikon. Maybe I will reach out and see if I can get a better relationship.
@@WildlifeInspired It’s been on the roadmap a long time. Many amateur wildlife photographers are looking for a more affordable telephoto option and this might be it. We’ll see. I hope Nikon USA will share a pre-production unit with you!
Excellent video! I like your practical down to earth , honest comparison approach. The 100-400 looks like it will fit my needs, I can replace the dinosaur 80-400. I can’t wait till the 200-600 is available. But if I win the lottery I’ll get the 400 2/8. Thanks for taking the time for all these great informative videos.
Very interesting comparison Scott ! However, as a wildlife shooter, I am more interested with 500/560 mm lenses. Because there is no 500mm lens in Z mount yet, a comparison between the 500/560mm solutions would be extremely usefull. Thanks !!
Great video! Before I watched this, I had a big plan to buy 400/4.5. Now I'm not so sure which one should I choose. 2.8 is too expensive, but 100-400 in terms of af speed and image quality seems to be the best option. Maybe only the weight can be painful. Thanks for this comparison, well done!
Scott, I just loved this video. The lens comparison you made keeping most of the wildlife photographers who may not have enough budget to afford beast like 400f2.8. And you rightly said, the sharpness difference is not much noticeable between 400 f4.5 and 2.8. A stop and half of light, we may increase iso accordingly. And keeping noise reduction softwares like DXO pure raw, Topaz denoise and Adobe Denoise in mind, spending $13k dollars is not an option except for pros. But enthusiastic photographers like me, it's a 400f4.5 go to lens.
Honestly I have the 100-400 lens on my buy list. I currently use the Tamron 150-600G2 for my wildlife work on the Z9. I haven’t been able to use any Z glass yet so the 100-400 looks so appealing for the price. I like the versatility of zoom lenses so I can’t wait to see the 200-600 on the Nikon roadmap, although it will most likely be out of my price range. Great video!
I have the Nikon z 100-400 lens. It’s sharp but the bokeh is so-so. I’m going to try the Z 400 f/4.5. Since the Z 200-600 won’t be an S lens, it should be quite affordable.
Like Jay Blue said, the 200-600 is not a designated S line lens. There are rumors it might be 180-600 and not 200-600. but given that it's not S line, and would compete with Sony's 200-600 (which is around 2k USD), my guess is it would be cheaper than the 100-400
Thanks for your explanations in a difficult comparaison Scott. I't'y very helpfull to me. I own a 100-400 et ask me for a 400 2.8. What do you think about the in-converter 1.4X of the 400 2.8 and that you can add a 2X teleconverter too ? Of course it's so no more a 400mm ( your comparison test) but the fact that the 100-400 is more flexible use the argument that It could be a 100mm. So ...
I would be interested to see a comparison between the 200-500 and the 400 f4.5, 100-400 and 70-200 with teleconverter. Is losing 100mm that a big of a deal?
Scott, thanks for taking your time and energy to do this side by side review. I do not own any of these lenses (except the f-mount 70-200mm) and it's hard to argue with the 400mm f/4.5 prime and 100-400mm f/5.6 for the price point and flexibility they give you in the field (handholdable, transportable, etc.). These lenses are a wonderful addition to the Nikon Z lineup. That said, your intial test, while looking at image quality wide-open, doesn't really compensate for DOF differences (if they are there) - i.e. the 400mm f/2.8 vs 400mm f/4.5. It would have been nice to see both lenses stopped down to f/5.6 as well or the 400mm f/2.8 vs the 400mm f/4.5 both at f/4.5 (or close). We also didn't hear the ISO on each tennis ball shot or next bird photo. I also would argue (I know where you were going with this - but) that the 400mm primes are versatile, just not in the same way as zooms. The 400mm f/2.8 gives you the versatility to shoot early morning/late evening - low light. The 400mm f/4.5 gives you the versatility of traveling long distances and long hand holding (for composition or tracking in flight). I know that's not where you were going in your process, but it's all relative - right? ;-) Obviously, no test is going to be a perfect comparison, but it's nice to see the differences require a deep dive into pixels or corners at times - if you are looking at the corners of the photo, I'd have to ask why ;-) Thanks again. Nicely done. As always, love your time, effort, and energy put into this format.
@@WildlifeInspired Scott, you do a great job. When I comment, it's just an FYI. That said, I would be very interested to share current (after over a year) settings of the main AF area modes/important button assignments with you as I think that would be interesting. I've changed mine several times over the year - especially with the newer firmware updates. I now have a much better feel for how/when/where to change things. Keep posting your experiences. Hope to talk to you soon.
Great comparison. I bought an AF-S Nikon 200-500 a year ago to use with my D5 and D850. I have since replaced my D5 with a Z9 and am looking for an equivalent Z mount lens. It would be interesting to see a comparison between the 200-500 with ZFCII adapter, the Z 100-400 + 1.4 TC and the new Z 180-600. I like the fact that the new Z 180-600 has internal zoom but the Z 100-400 seems more flexible.
By the way, not convinced yet about the 400… ½ stop, and significantly $$ than the 100-400… almost as sharp, as fast? But yes… i also hate the « piston type » zoom…
errata the z70-200 does have a control / function ring. Nice review. The 400/2.8 is so out of my reach. I own the 70-200 and the 2x and I've rented both the 400/4.5 and the 100-400. I'm going to wait for the z200-600.
2.8 clearly sharper... Not by much, but still. The rest the same. Top class always costed unreasonably more, no matter what you buy, a lens or a shovel.
For film, I would say its a great option, usually (I think) video would be shot at a slower frame rate and the extra stop of light might not be an issue unless its night time?
Great comparison. I’m in the market for either the 400mm prime or the 100-400mm zoom paired with the 1.4 tele when required. Light is very important for me because I shoot birds often in shaded areas. I’m also looking at the 180-600mm zoom that completes the lenses of interest to me. I’m leaning towards the prime because of the light
A doozie of a review,I own both the 4.5 and 70-200mm 2.8 z.also have a 1.4 z teleconverter but now I'll get a 2x tele as the benefits are good and the performance on that 2x seems to be amazing.eventually I'll sell a kidney and get the 400mm 2.8 z.
Really helpful this video. I've been wondering about the 100-400. I shoot mostly landscape so the 70-200 is my go-to lens. I've added the 2x converter for wildlife. The 70-200 is exceptionally sharp alone, but I've noticed the 2X converter does soften it a bit. Also, a few weeks ago I made a presentation to about 35 folks at Middle Creek titled Nature Photography 101. I emphasized wildlife photography since I assumed most folks were there to learn more about that. I really talked up your channel as a great resource for learning about technique, gear, and instruction. Hopefully you added a few subscribers after my presentation. Thanks so much for the work you do pulling together your videos.
Great review, Scott. I have a Z9 but cannot recall if you can mount the FTZ adapter to an f/mount TC (either 1.4x or 2.0x) + f/2.8 70-200 mm? I found on the last trip I made to Africa that I liked the 500 mm f/5.6 but at times, it was getting me too close and a 400 mm would be better or maybe switching from FX to DX with the 70-200 mm may give me a better perspective.
I am mostly a prime guy and shoot in low light a lot . That being said I I’m probably getting the Nikon Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 . My reason is because I’ll use it for video mostly and closeup nature . It’s a versatile lens . I wish the aperture did open up one more stop. But then it would be bigger. I myself wouldn’t mind .
Thank you very much for your detailed lens test 👍 I am looking for the 200-600Z Lens. (Sport outdoor) (have already the 70-200 and TC's) I would consider the 400/2.8 with the built in TC and the possibilities for external TC as very versatile, but well out of my range.
I finally got my 400 2.8 tc 3 weeks ago and already planned a trip to the Kenai Peninsula Alaska in July!I tested my z 70-200 with the 2x tc in Wyoming in Feb and it was great. I am selling my 100-400 to a friend.
we only need a crop sensor Z9 eqiv + the z100-400 f5.6 and the m4/3s will be in big trouble. btw i am life long olympus fangirl but i really like that lens with the very crippled z50.
Agree with all the comments below about this being the best comparison I've seen on youtube. The consistency of your shots on the tennis balls really helped make the comparison of lens sharpness each easier. I do mostly indoor sports - volleyball - so the 70-200 is my current lens but I was wondering how it stacked up with the other lenses for bird phototgraphy with the 2x teleconverter. This completely answered that question. Also helped me realize it could be used for psuedo-macro in back yard or out in nature with an extension tube so going to give that a shot.
I sold the 200-500mm and bought the Z 100-400 for my Z9, as well as the Z 800mm. I love the close focus and versatility if the 100-400mm ... I may not need the 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8, or 300/f4 any more ...
I have the 100-400 and the Z 70-200. The size of both lenses is nearly indistinguishable, they look almost the same. Speed hugely affects sharpness. I shot some war reenactments one with my 70-200, the other with my 100-400. The 100-400 shots were a little softer because it is a much slower lens. I could have used a much higher ISO, but I was not looking to pickup a lot of grain for doing so.
Outstanding work sir! Fantastic! I happen to know that yes, this type of video is a crazy amount of work! Thank you for your service to the photography community!
1st time viewing your channel. While not a wildlife photographer I enjoyed your approach and comparison. I did a quick mathematical comparison based on your grading and found the the 400 2.8 slightly beat out the 100-400. The two reasons for this were light and build quality. Light..no question. But when you discussed the build quality and had an issue with potential problems with the 100-400 barrel when zooming....I decided to look up Nikon's reasons for designating the 'S' for the Z-line lenses. They are very specific here....'Dust and Drip Resistance-Extensively sealed to keep dust and moisture out, especially around all moving parts of the lens barrel, for worry-free durability.' Now, if your experience with the Z-line S lenses indicates a real issue here..and not a potential issue; then Nikon should be made aware of this and not make this representation for the zoom S lenses. But if Nikon is right and will back up this claim; then I think the C+ rating should be modified. I thought purchasing S designated lenses offered equal durability and build quality. So,...maybe a shot at the Z100-400 S lens taking over 1st place! Thanks again.
I bought the 400mm f/4.5 to use for sports. I typically shoot daylight baseball and soccer so the f/4.5 isn’t a big deal. I considered the 100-400mm but there was too much overlap with my 70-200mm f/2.8. The 70-200mm with a 1.4x is great for softball. Someday I’ll own the 400mm f/2.8 but I really don’t have a NEED for it.
This video is great, thank you. All the explanations I have looked for in relation to various lens' you have answered here really well. Thank you. Just a same I have Canon lens'.
Meu amigo, voce simplesmente fez um excelente trabalho neste review, meu coração bateu mais forte com essas lentes, pequenas fortunas para quem vive no Brasil e ganha $ 265,00 /mensal. A lente 100-400mm custa aqui (R$ 13.390 mil reais), ou seja, são 10 meses de trabalho. Fui do ceu ao inferno com o preço das lentes, fora a camara, mas minha paixão não deixo por nada, e vivo dentro de minha realidade, tenho uma Lente 55-250mm EF-S e me viro como posso, parabens por suas dicas e ainda compro uma lente 70-200mm com um adaptador. Abraços, Sucesso, Deus abençoe.
don't watch this vid at 480p, you wont see any difference, lol.
Exactly what happened to me! Makes the 70-200 w/telecom better look way better than it is.
Great comparison review, Scott. On a recent trip to Canada this past autumn, I took my 600G ED VR, 500PF, and the 100-400. We were mostly photographing mammals; Elk, Bighorn, Grizzly's, Black Bear, and we did encounter a few Great Gray Owls (I know how much you love owls), and I found myself all most exclusively using the 100-400, with few exceptions. It's a fantastic lens and has earned a spot in my kitbag.
Great review on the lens and the differences in use! Personally, I can wait for the 500/600Z f4 replacements to come out for the weight savings vs my 500f4G!! It will be interesting to see what the new 200-600Z lens will be like when it’s released and I like the direction Nikon is headed with the new lens in optics!
600G already exists in the 600/4TC, and I'm not sure if a 500 is going to happen anytime soon considering the 400/2.8TC exists
@@Mark13376 I was referring to budget friendly versions not the $14-$16000. A lens like the z400 5.6, but in 500 or 600mm versions. I have a 500 f4 G that weighs in at 10lbs and having a prime version in the Z line up like the 400 6.6 would appeal to more general Wildlife photographer. I had read on Rumors that drawings had been submitted,so I hope this is true for general photographers vs the pros that are using 400 TC or 600 TC. Yes these two versions are great lens, but out of reach for most.
Great review!! I like the concept of picking a focal length to do the comparison. I also liked your “who is this lens for” summary at the end.
Would be neat to do another review when the mythical 200-600 arrives, and also a @600mm (560mm) comparison between the four lenses (400 2.8, 4.5, 100-400 + TC; 200-600).
Don't you think your tests are biased against actual min aperture setting. Your sharpness tests should have been done at 6.3(common denomonator) in your slowest lens. Do I make any sense? Thanks
Hello Scott, thank you so much for putting all that effort into a comparison like this ❤!! Just a quick comment on lens performance at greater distances…in my experience light gathering capability and sharpness become much more important at greater distances, because a „small in the frame“ subject will be all smushed at higher ISO. This effect will be magnified when people start heavy cropping. Therefore, the max aperture of 2.8 at 400 justifies the price 😮😊
This is very true.
"justifies the price", really depends on personal needs.
The weight is not correctly converted for the 100-400... should be about 1.44 kg not 3kg... but corrected in the summary
I concur with most of your findings except for the Focus Speed of the 100-400. I own both and have found the 400 4.5 is significantly faster than the 100-400 on initial focus (when the bird jumps). I also own the 800 Z 6.3 and I find it to be more on pair with the 100-400. All these lenses are terrific and the differences are negligible. With the Z9 all these lenses focus nice and fast, just the 400 4.5 is consistently a little faster, maybe the extra light allows more contrast to focus better? It is nice to know that we don't have to spend over $10K to obtain Pro quality products anymore.
Good observations, when i tested focus speed, I had good available light and all 3 lenses seemed zippy. All 3 much faster than the 200-500 F mount.
Great comparison. I purchased the 100-400 a little while ago and love it. Completely agree with you on how sharpe it is. Takes the 1.4 TC really well too.
Have you had any luck with the 2x on it? Nikon and others claim there is little to no image or AF capability loss with the 2x, but i don't like it on the 100-400 or the 70-200. I only keep it for shooting the moon. No complaints with the 1.4
@@uhoh7541 I don’t own the 2x so I can’t speak to how good or bad it is.
@@dah7772 Thanks for reply none the less!
going to my first safari and i am really thinking of getting the 2.8 but size and weight is a problem ,i print and sell my photos so i should really just go for it?
The Nikon 100-400 doesn't weight 3kilos, it's just 1.4 kg.
It was stressing me out seeing the 400 f/2.8 sitting there without the rear cap.
lol I noticed afterwards too..... I get so busy around here sometimes mistakes are made!
If you have a 600mm f/4 TC lens and going for safari. Which one you choose as 2nd lens ? 400 f/4.5 or 100-400 ?
100-400 almost no doubt
Thanks for a very interesting comparison video. You have made me feel even better about my purchase of the 100-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter. That combination has become almost welded to my Z6. One other point in favour of this lens is for landscapes. I’m not much of a landscape shooter but many of the leading YT experts in this genre have recently posted videos promoting the use of 100-400 for landscapes.
I'm thinking of buying one for mostly landscape and occasional birds/animals. I've also heard it can focus quite close as well.
I just got the 400mm 2.8 TC Z lens...is that the same as yours? Yours have the TC on it? The one I have is awesome!!!
That's what I use and it's fantastic
Excellent and one off review! i have the 100-400 and it is a very versetile lens, for what it can do i think it is a must have for all serious photographers wherever genre they're in.
I have been looking at a replacement for my tamron 150-600 . I have tried using thez70- 200 with a 2* converter.since your review the 180+600 z as arrived .my gut feeling is 600 .mm is my would be nice if its sharp. The fact it does not extend is a plus. My gut feeling is also saying 400 4.6 as I have the 70-200 which I did find give me a cleaner image than the tameron150 to 600 give that at 600 it wasn't that great.Also I have been recommending over reviewers take down their wall charts and replace them with 3d images. The chart does not give depth of field accuracy. So thanks for the video I understand the f stop and I understand financial the need as a professional to have the best. You can't relax and complete with a lesser lens, you can only test your skill with even Stevens equipment. Has a none professional I to have all the same standards so have invested in top lenses . .. I find f4 works for me as the sharpness and light conditions often place me in at f 4 and above in lots of situations. I tend find I use 4 and above even with my 1.4 lenses . I use flash at times .But the thing is the 400 s seems to be at f 4.6 given its distance a choice I feel for may work will be better suited.since your review there has been an introduction of the 180 to x600 so a add on up dater to this review would help .I am holding back for now on the 400 + question to investment in the z 8 ....is now my next purchase . I have the 7 .ii .will purchase z 8 this next up coming week. The camera bodies effect the lenses resolution and autofocusing . Big part of great images.i think this may sharpness auto focus wise. .... I know z 9 z8 are Nikon's flag ships . But many use the 7 and 7 2 full frame. IAM keen to stress focus issues here its can be auto focus on the 7 and 7 .2 degrades the photo as they are not a fast as 8-9 z bodies.. you did a great job of ticking all my boxies ... would you recommended the 180 x 400 or 400 prime and crop .....this would make a great up date to good job video ✓ .cheers thanks for reading this .
I struggle for a long time making the decision between the 400mm f4.5 and the 100-400mm. For me as someone who shoots sports and wildlife and mainly at the 400mm or above focal length I chose the 400mm f4.5. In looking at images of the same subject with both of these lenses I felt the 4.5 had a slightly better out of focus backgrounds and subject separation with the extra 2/3 stop of light. So occasionally I may miss a shot because I’m locked in at 400mm the shots I do get would be better. Having said that I still think the 100-400 would be the better choice for many but maybe you can’t go wrong either way!
Appreciate the info! I've got the 100-400, and love the versatility for wildlife, sports, air shows, you name it.
I cannot se any difference in sharpness between 2.8 and 4.5 I'm sorry😮
Great review, thanks. I was torn but now am going to order the 100-400. I have the 180-600 but I think it will be a bit too much to carry to Panama with 2 bodies and my 24-120. The 100-400 with my 1.4TC will be a lot easier to manage. I had my 500PF in Costa Rica last year & found that I could not back up far enough for some birds and could not easily locate the very close ones which is the reason I got the 180-600 to start with. The 100-400 close focus distance will be a real bonus too!
I’d love the 400 f2.8, but money is an issue. I have been using the F mount Nikon 200-400 f4 GII. It’s a huge heavy beast at 7+ pounds but the sharpness is amazing! It works great with my Z9.
That's a super versatile lens!
So impressed by the 100-400 that I sold my 500PF and bought the TC1.4… that I can also use with my 70-200 (light gear)…
Fantastic review! Incredibly helpful and informative.
Great review! I especially like the fact that you stayed within the Nikon lineup. Many similar reviewers test across brands which, to me, is irrelevant since I’m not going to junk my Nikon gear and switch to Canon/Sony for a single lens. I just bought a 100-400 and have been wondering if I should keep my beloved F mount 70-200. You just gave me the answer: indoor events with the FTZ adapter and the 2.8 light gathering.
Nice review. I've owned the 400mm f/4.5 S from launch and have been totally blown away by it - such a fantastic lens for the size and weight! Sure, I lust after a 400mm f/2.8 TC for low light, but realistically it would be very hard to justify the bigger lens even if I /could/ afford one!
PS. The 400mm f/4.5 S does have one custom programmable function ring (the f/2.8 TC has two)..
You're right! Haven't seen anything like this (very fair) comparison of the 400's. For me the 70-200 is a non-issue. Moving from my F mounts with Z9 to Z lenses. What's the first lens to purchase as I make the transition without the use the adapter. I a lot of birding with the 500 pf and it has worked extremely well with the Z9 w/ adapter. Now, where do I go to replace this reach and quality? The 400 Z F4.5 is very appealing -- sharper perhaps and quicker (than 500 pf), but 100mm shorter. I can add a 1.4 teleconverter (now 560mm @F/5.6 -- spend $3,000 to get 60mm) or maybe better to use with the 2.0 teleconverter which allows me to go to 800 mm at F/8.0 (I think). Or skip all of this -- keep the 500 pf and buy the Z 800mm F6.3.
For all of these reasons I am little reluctant to go to the 100 - 400 mm -- due to speed of lens, however as you say it is a very versatile and does work well with converters and shoots close.
Thanks again. Great review!
Interesting comments. 12 months ago I was using the Z 70-200 with a 2xTC and the 200-500 with the F-mount 1.4xTC. When I look back on the images I got from both these combinations I am very pleased with them, however, I do recall the 200-500 was a little slow to focus and I was keen to move away from the FTZ. My Z 100-400 finally arrived in July 2022 (I ordered it on the day it was announced along with the Z9). In May, with no sign of the 100-400 arriving any time soon, I also bought a 500PF and was very impressed by its performance. However, that was a temporary purchase as I also had the Z 800 PF on order. Today I have the 100-400 and the 800 and sold back the 200-500 and the 500PF. If I am really honest, I now wish I had hung onto the 500 rather than getting the 800. Obviously there are times when the 800 reach is essential but the quality of the images I got from the 500PF, even with the 1.4 TC, was better - in my opinion, and weighed substantially less and was, therefore, easier to travel with.
@@SwanSycorax Thanks for the comments and perspective. I would not sell the 500 pf until I had another lens given your experience. Rather than the Z400 f/4.5 prime, maybe the Z 100-400mm F/5.6 would be a better option and keep the 500 pf.
Scott, this is an excellent comparison. Without a doubt the money no object king is the 400 mm f2.8. In my mind it actually scores a good B for versatility as it changes to a 560 mm f4 by the flip of a switch and if you add a 2x converter to it you either have an amazing 800 mm f5.6, which is insane and even faster than the Nikkor 800 mm f6.3 prime, but flip that switch again and you have an 1120 mm lens at f8. Sharpness of the lens at this focal length is of course never a limiting factor due to heat diffraction of air between you and the subject.
Maybe. The "number" in "f/number" represents the entry pupil diameter of a lens as fraction of the focal length. This is measured with the lens set at focusing distance "infinity". So the f/number is merely a geometric relation between pupil and focal length.
This has a couple problems. When you focus closer by and the lens is shifted away from the film/sensor plane, then the de facto focal length gets longer - this effect is sometimes described as "focus breathing". The corollary of this is that with the longer focal length the de facto or apparent number in f/number needs to increase. For f=200mm and an entry pupil of f/2, the pupil has a diameter of 200mm/2=100mm. When that lens becomes a 220mm lens because you focus closer by, then the real number in f/number must be 220mm/2.2=100mm as the entry pupil has not changed. My Nikon Z 105/2.8S macro lens actually displays this effect in the lens's LCD display. I call the aperture effect from focus breathing "aperture breathing" and that may be more annoying to a cinematographer than the actual change of angle of view in focus breathing (we shoot about everything in "Manual" exposure). The aperture breathing of the macro lens is 1 EV or more between infinity and 1:1.
As today we have "cine" lenses that compensate the focus breathing, this may actually also compensate the aperture breathing. Some of the Nikon Z "S" class lenses suppress the focus breathing very well.
The biggest problem, though, is that the f/number ignores completely how much light the glass of your lens actually allows to pass through that f/number. This is why cinematographic lenses also display the so-called T-stop with the T for "transmission". Just check a few examples in the DxOMark website. Take, say, a 1.2L lens, say 85mm, of one brand and compare to the also 85mm 1.4G of another brand. You may see that both have a T-stop of 1.5 that defines how "fast" these lenses really are. Photographers who justify their 1.2L purchase because these lenses are so fast talk [male bovine excrement].
When you inform them of why that is the case, they may say, but they have such shallow Depth of Field (DoF) and that would be total [male bovine excrement] too. Why? Because DoF depends on the Circle of Confusion (CoC), not just distance, aperture, focal length. Any indication of DoF on a lens is just an extremely coarse approximation that does not define the underlying assumptions. The CoC combines several factors into one parameter that really seriously influences DoF a lot and that your DoF calculator likely ignores too. Film/sensor resolution - higher resolution gives shallower DoF because a smaller CoC. Presence of a "fuzzy filter" [1] over the sensor or not - absence improves contour sharpness and hence reduces CoC and consequently makes DoF shallower. Lens resolution - same. Processing and its process (both valid in digital and film) - better processing may reduce the CoC and make DoF shallower. Distance at which you view your image's rendition - shorter distance reduces CoC and hence makes DoF shallower. Image rendition size - larger makes the CoC relatively smaller and hence DoF shallower. And your rendition's resolution has a similar effect. A 4K monitor versus a 1080p at the same size. A photographic print versus a magazine print. As your excursion to the DxOMark now may have informed you that the 1.2L is much less sharp than the 1.4G, you might deduce that the 1.2L may have the same DoF at 1.2 as the 1.4G at 1.4 and yes, they are equally "fast". So the 1.2L is softer. At this point the 1.2L "pro" will tell you that they really bought it for its softness and that it has such beautiful bokeh. To which a wedding photographer would reply that surely a bride would see that when she looks at her wedding photos to see that she looks like a super model in them. When she does not like her images, do you say, "but look at the background blur"?
Like in quantum physics it's all relative with these photons and our mathematics. If you could replace one lens element in your "fast" lens by a similar element but now ND-filtering down by 10EV, then still the f/number on the les is valid. But 10EV slower means 2^10=1,024 times slower.
Without knowing the T-stop we cannot say that one lens is "faster" than another. In the professional photography school we learnt to deal with the importance of "focus breathing" relative to exposure and to apply a "bellows extension factor". Through The Lens (TTL) light measurement was available long time ago in SLR cameras. Today a mirrorless camera uses its sensor as light meter (which it actually is). When large format camera manufacturer issued their Sinarsix light meter (adapted from Gossen's Lunasix meter IIRC), then "we" had TTL metering in large format too. "Bellows extension factor" became anachronistic. But the T-stop remains valid and relevant. Especially w.r.t handheld light meters and cameras without TTL metering (where the bellows extension factor would still be needed).
[1] What I call "fuzzy filter" was added to the Bayer architecture of digital colour photography as an in-camera hardware help to make image processing easier. It's generally called an anti-aliasing (AA) or low-pass filter. It disperses a bit of the light travelling to photosite [x,y] in the sensor to its immediate neighbours. This helps against jagged edges, a bit of banding, and makes colour guessing a bit easier. The Bayer architecture starts with a colour-blind sensor with its photodiodes (AKA photosites) arranged in a perfectly regular grid of squares. That colour-blind grid of tiny sensors is then masked by a grid of colour filters arranged in 2*2 squares that filter (either clockwise or counter) red, green, blue, green (R,B,G,B). This gives monochrome (mono=single, chrome=colour) data elements in the raw file. That raw file looks like 100% colour noise and 100% luminance noise to our eyes. If you could see it,then your eyes would start tom compete with Niagara Falls.
So raw processing software like Adobe Camera Raw (ACR - does the job in both Ps and LrC) needs to make wild-assed guesses about the missing colours: from the R,G,B,G quartet of data elements (this is where you have your 14 bits) we need to get RGB, RGB, RGB, RGB or else no application dares to show the image on your computer display for fear you would throw it out, or through, the window. The Fujifilm Xtrans sensor makes for a fundamentally different architecture that impacts how raw processing best can be done, but bottom line we still have the same problem and we can have a debate how a single T-green with a red and blue filler photosite count in the MP number of these cameras. It still needs raw processing.
As DxOMark suggests that the best "sensors" have 27 bits colour space, this is again [male bovine excrement]. It means that they cannot do better than reverse engineering 27 bits RGB from your 14 raw monochrome bits, with their best raw processing algorithm - or a theoretical simplified algorithm as they indicate that these numbers are "before demosaicking" (where mosaicking is the generation of digital artefacts by raw processing like a very recognisable Moiré, or a subtle noise in blurry darker image zones that are clearly in the camera's contrast envelope - the contrast envelope is the usable dynamic).
The AA filter was needed when processing power needed to process the lower resolution images of the time would still be big, heavy, expensive, slow. The low resolution may have suppressed digital artefacts initially, but became more and more apparent with increasing resolution. As the fuzzy filter reduces the contour sharpness of our lenses, it also reduces low light sensitivity, reduces colour space, reduces contrast envelope, and increases vignetting. We could argue that higher resolution reduces uncertainty in potential creation of digital artefacts (note here that the sensor is actually analogue and analogue exposure data a reread from the sensor while applying analogue-to-digital (AD) conversion.) What makes a digital camera more than a sensor is (a) the specification of the cut-off wavelengths and cut-off slopes in the Bayer filter grid for each of the primary colours, and (b) the maths underlying the AD conversion.
3.2bls = 1.4 kgs not 3 kgs as you have said for the 100-400! I was worried I had ordered a heavy lens so rechecked the wt. 😁
Timely video, as I'm debating the same question myself at this time, and have the 400 4.5 and 100-400 in-hand to test. I also am a bird photographer, with my main lens the 800PF; that being said, if I'm going birding, the 800 is on the Z9/Z8, but where I need coverage is when a bird flies under that 16' minimum focus distance, and that's where the 400 option comes in. Thought the 400 4.5 was the easy answer, but even 8' is often times too much MFD, so enter the 100-400 and its 3' MFD. Yes, the prime has slightly better sharpness, contrast and bokeh, but a lot of that can be made up in post. Along w/ pinch hitting for birds (w/ the 1.4TC), the 100-400 will get me shots that those other lenses cannot, so I think at this point it's in the lead.
Nice to have options, honestly I dont think you can go wrong!
Nice comparison! You did a great job.
Great Video >> I am saving for the 400 f4.5 to go with my 70-200 S plus 1.4 Z convertor for African Wild Life on my Z7 which will be upgraded to either Z7III ir Z9 depending on the Future finances
NICE!
I have the 400 mm f/4.5 and 70-200 mm f/2.8. I'm very happy with both lenses. The 100-400 mm looks impressive as well.
Hi Scott - Ive got three of the lenses on test and pretty much agree with your findings. I watched the whole video wishing you had put a rear lens cap on the 400mm F2.8 ......
You were the first to mention this lol, I was waiting. I started recording when I noticed it and then just said oh well, Im not stopping and going back.
@@WildlifeInspired I dont blame you - you put a lot of work into your creations and its appreciated.
180 -600 would like to join the chat 😂😂😂
This is so good. Wanted to compare 500 pf with 400 mm. I got some answers! Thank you!
thanks for the vid! i have a tamron 150-600 G2 and thinking to upgrade. I have z6 and d750 bodies so i thought about 500 PF lens ( i usually shoot at 600 mm with tamron) but now i'm thinking maybe to get one of the 400's with the teleconverter. Have you compared these 400's with 500 pf and if so what's your thoughts? thanks!
I have not. Maybe Ill see if I can get a review of that and maybe compare it to the 400 2.8 and TC
Great review .But 400mm f/2.8 tc outshines all of these other lenses. Its simply a spectacular piece of glass.
Totally agree I'd argue its the best wildlife lens ever made!
Can you do a 600mm comparison similar to your 400mm comparison, which I thought was great.
One day....... I just need to quit htis full time job
Hi Scott. This is a terrific comparison. I own the 100-400 lens and I’m amazed at its sharpness. What I’m less pleased with is its bokeh. I’d rate it as good but not great. I’d expect bokeh quality on the 400 f/2.8 to be superb. When Nikon’s mythical 200-600 lens becomes available it’d be great to add it to a test like this.
Great content and very enlightening, too. Thank you!
Ill compare the 200-600 when it comes out, but unfortunately my channel isnt big enough to get early product from Nikon. Maybe I will reach out and see if I can get a better relationship.
@@WildlifeInspired It’s been on the roadmap a long time. Many amateur wildlife photographers are looking for a more affordable telephoto option and this might be it. We’ll see. I hope Nikon USA will share a pre-production unit with you!
@@WildlifeInspired your channel isn't big enough YET!. 😊I am sure you will get there I enjoy your content!
Excellent video! I like your practical down to earth , honest comparison approach. The 100-400 looks like it will fit my needs, I can replace the dinosaur 80-400. I can’t wait till the 200-600 is available. But if I win the lottery I’ll get the 400 2/8. Thanks for taking the time for all these great informative videos.
I ended up getting the 400mm and the 100-400mm
Great video. I am surprised that the 100-400 was marginally sharper then then 400/4.5
on the birds the 400 may have had a slight edge. I think its fair to say they are really close to each other!
The tennis ball @12.25 showed big differences in contrast, and much less difference in sharpness
valid point. I need assistants to help me with this stuff before I make and post. lol Maybe I can pull a Kramer and get one for free
Very interesting comparison Scott ! However, as a wildlife shooter, I am more interested with 500/560 mm lenses.
Because there is no 500mm lens in Z mount yet, a comparison between the 500/560mm solutions would be extremely usefull. Thanks !!
Great video! Before I watched this, I had a big plan to buy 400/4.5. Now I'm not so sure which one should I choose. 2.8 is too expensive, but 100-400 in terms of af speed and image quality seems to be the best option. Maybe only the weight can be painful. Thanks for this comparison, well done!
Scott, I just loved this video. The lens comparison you made keeping most of the wildlife photographers who may not have enough budget to afford beast like 400f2.8. And you rightly said, the sharpness difference is not much noticeable between 400 f4.5 and 2.8. A stop and half of light, we may increase iso accordingly. And keeping noise reduction softwares like DXO pure raw, Topaz denoise and Adobe Denoise in mind, spending $13k dollars is not an option except for pros. But enthusiastic photographers like me, it's a 400f4.5 go to lens.
Scott, you may want to brush up on your imperial to metric (lbs to kg, inch to cm) conversions 😎
Oh no.... what did I do???? usually i just talk into the iphone to get the conversion
How is the sharpness of the 70-200 TC2.0 combo at longer distances?
usable not great about 40-50 feet
Awesome comparison sir!! I’m leaning towards the Nikkor Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 S for the Z8…should be spectacular, I hope!
I love my 100-400 f/5.6. It’s even great with the 1.4TC if you can live with lower light gathering. Thanks for doing this comparison test!
My dream lens is 400mm f2.8 with 1.4TC...hopefully I can have it 2 years time
It's the best lol
Can you do the same for super zoom, 800mm?
Enjoyed the video
I have it on a list bascially compare 800mm vs 400 with 2x TC (400 2.8 and 400 4.5)
And now we have the Z 28-400
Nice and educative video ❤
Honestly I have the 100-400 lens on my buy list. I currently use the Tamron 150-600G2 for my wildlife work on the Z9. I haven’t been able to use any Z glass yet so the 100-400 looks so appealing for the price. I like the versatility of zoom lenses so I can’t wait to see the 200-600 on the Nikon roadmap, although it will most likely be out of my price range. Great video!
I have the Nikon z 100-400 lens. It’s sharp but the bokeh is so-so. I’m going to try the Z 400 f/4.5.
Since the Z 200-600 won’t be an S lens, it should be quite affordable.
The best feature of z100-400 is the macro abilities alongside the telephoto. It's overall amazing lens!
Like Jay Blue said, the 200-600 is not a designated S line lens. There are rumors it might be 180-600 and not 200-600. but given that it's not S line, and would compete with Sony's 200-600 (which is around 2k USD), my guess is it would be cheaper than the 100-400
@@loitruong4821 I’m guessing it’s a reengineered Tamron 150-600 lens and it will retail for $1,500 to $2,000. We’ll see.
Thanks for your explanations in a difficult comparaison Scott. I't'y very helpfull to me. I own a 100-400 et ask me for a 400 2.8.
What do you think about the in-converter 1.4X of the 400 2.8 and that you can add a 2X teleconverter too ?
Of course it's so no more a 400mm ( your comparison test) but the fact that the 100-400 is more flexible use the argument that It could be a 100mm. So ...
Nice work Scott! A complex subject whittled down to comparisons most understand. Thanks for that extra mile to the finish. Well Done!
I wonder how the 200-500mm would have compared at 400mm.
Id expect sharpness to be close the primes but focus speed is much slower in my experience.
I would be interested to see a comparison between the 200-500 and the 400 f4.5, 100-400 and 70-200 with teleconverter. Is losing 100mm that a big of a deal?
I had the 200 - 500 and can only say it was not as sharp as the 500 pf and I suspect it is not as sharp as the new 400 f/4.5
100mm is 20% less so its a bit. but the 400 takes a TC to get to 560 so now its actually longer than the 200-500 AND its only 1/3 stop less light.
Scott, thanks for taking your time and energy to do this side by side review. I do not own any of these lenses (except the f-mount 70-200mm) and it's hard to argue with the 400mm f/4.5 prime and 100-400mm f/5.6 for the price point and flexibility they give you in the field (handholdable, transportable, etc.). These lenses are a wonderful addition to the Nikon Z lineup. That said, your intial test, while looking at image quality wide-open, doesn't really compensate for DOF differences (if they are there) - i.e. the 400mm f/2.8 vs 400mm f/4.5. It would have been nice to see both lenses stopped down to f/5.6 as well or the 400mm f/2.8 vs the 400mm f/4.5 both at f/4.5 (or close). We also didn't hear the ISO on each tennis ball shot or next bird photo. I also would argue (I know where you were going with this - but) that the 400mm primes are versatile, just not in the same way as zooms. The 400mm f/2.8 gives you the versatility to shoot early morning/late evening - low light. The 400mm f/4.5 gives you the versatility of traveling long distances and long hand holding (for composition or tracking in flight). I know that's not where you were going in your process, but it's all relative - right? ;-) Obviously, no test is going to be a perfect comparison, but it's nice to see the differences require a deep dive into pixels or corners at times - if you are looking at the corners of the photo, I'd have to ask why ;-) Thanks again. Nicely done. As always, love your time, effort, and energy put into this format.
im kicking myself a littel for not showing bokeh in this. I will do something in the future.
@@WildlifeInspired Scott, you do a great job. When I comment, it's just an FYI. That said, I would be very interested to share current (after over a year) settings of the main AF area modes/important button assignments with you as I think that would be interesting. I've changed mine several times over the year - especially with the newer firmware updates. I now have a much better feel for how/when/where to change things. Keep posting your experiences. Hope to talk to you soon.
Nice review/comparison of the 4 lenses! Well done.
Can't wait to get my hands on the 400 2.8 for sure.
Great suggestion, thanks and well done. The only problem is the lack of information about the functioning of the stabilizer?
Great comparison. I bought an AF-S Nikon 200-500 a year ago to use with my D5 and D850. I have since replaced my D5 with a Z9 and am looking for an equivalent Z mount lens. It would be interesting to see a comparison between the 200-500 with ZFCII adapter, the Z 100-400 + 1.4 TC and the new Z 180-600. I like the fact that the new Z 180-600 has internal zoom but the Z 100-400 seems more flexible.
By the way, not convinced yet about the 400… ½ stop, and significantly $$ than the 100-400… almost as sharp, as fast? But yes… i also hate the « piston type » zoom…
errata the z70-200 does have a control / function ring. Nice review. The 400/2.8 is so out of my reach. I own the 70-200 and the 2x and I've rented both the 400/4.5 and the 100-400. I'm going to wait for the z200-600.
2.8 clearly sharper... Not by much, but still. The rest the same. Top class always costed unreasonably more, no matter what you buy, a lens or a shovel.
Really helpful Scott, thanks for taking the time to do it right!
Many thanks, picking up the 400 4.5 for documentary film work and photography. The 400 2.8 is just way out of our price range.
For film, I would say its a great option, usually (I think) video would be shot at a slower frame rate and the extra stop of light might not be an issue unless its night time?
Great comparison. I’m in the market for either the 400mm prime or the 100-400mm zoom paired with the 1.4 tele when required. Light is very important for me because I shoot birds often in shaded areas. I’m also looking at the 180-600mm zoom that completes the lenses of interest to me. I’m leaning towards the prime because of the light
A doozie of a review,I own both the 4.5 and 70-200mm 2.8 z.also have a 1.4 z teleconverter but now I'll get a 2x tele as the benefits are good and the performance on that 2x seems to be amazing.eventually I'll sell a kidney and get the 400mm 2.8 z.
Thats why you have 2
Really helpful this video. I've been wondering about the 100-400. I shoot mostly landscape so the 70-200 is my go-to lens. I've added the 2x converter for wildlife. The 70-200 is exceptionally sharp alone, but I've noticed the 2X converter does soften it a bit. Also, a few weeks ago I made a presentation to about 35 folks at Middle Creek titled Nature Photography 101. I emphasized wildlife photography since I assumed most folks were there to learn more about that. I really talked up your channel as a great resource for learning about technique, gear, and instruction. Hopefully you added a few subscribers after my presentation. Thanks so much for the work you do pulling together your videos.
Sincere gratitude!
Bokeh, not mentioned should be 4th or 5th on the list??
agree
Yes just the review I was looking for. Thanks for clearly explaining it on (my) no-400mm-experience level.
Great review, Scott. I have a Z9 but cannot recall if you can mount the FTZ adapter to an f/mount TC (either 1.4x or 2.0x) + f/2.8 70-200 mm? I found on the last trip I made to Africa that I liked the 500 mm f/5.6 but at times, it was getting me too close and a 400 mm would be better or maybe switching from FX to DX with the 70-200 mm may give me a better perspective.
wish the MFD on the 400/4.5 was lower.
agree~!
I am mostly a prime guy and shoot in low light a lot . That being said I I’m probably getting the Nikon Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 . My reason is because I’ll use it for video mostly and closeup nature . It’s a versatile lens . I wish the aperture did open up one more stop. But then it would be bigger. I myself wouldn’t mind .
400 f4.5 is 1.1Kg
Awesome review Scott! Best comparison I’ve seen so far. Appreciate it!
Thank you very much for your detailed lens test 👍
I am looking for the 200-600Z Lens. (Sport outdoor) (have already the 70-200 and TC's)
I would consider the 400/2.8 with the built in TC and the possibilities for external TC as very versatile, but well out of my range.
Good video topic!
Also legit Nikon video; with critical focus on the keyboard ^^
I am contemplating this very purchase for a trip at the end of the year. Thank you for the great review.
I finally got my 400 2.8 tc 3 weeks ago and already planned a trip to the Kenai Peninsula Alaska in July!I tested my z 70-200 with the 2x tc in Wyoming in Feb and it was great. I am selling my 100-400 to a friend.
we only need a crop sensor Z9 eqiv + the z100-400 f5.6 and the m4/3s will be in big trouble.
btw i am life long olympus fangirl but i really like that lens with the very crippled z50.
Was pretty excited until you said Z mount. I'd love a bit on DSLR lenses like this. Don't push me to have to go mirrorless until I'm pushed.
Sorry Kathy. I was reluctant at first and there's no rush to get there.
@@WildlifeInspired IKR?
Agree with all the comments below about this being the best comparison I've seen on youtube. The consistency of your shots on the tennis balls really helped make the comparison of lens sharpness each easier. I do mostly indoor sports - volleyball - so the 70-200 is my current lens but I was wondering how it stacked up with the other lenses for bird phototgraphy with the 2x teleconverter. This completely answered that question. Also helped me realize it could be used for psuedo-macro in back yard or out in nature with an extension tube so going to give that a shot.
I sold the 200-500mm and bought the Z 100-400 for my Z9, as well as the Z 800mm. I love the close focus and versatility if the 100-400mm ... I may not need the 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8, or 300/f4 any more ...
thanks!!
I have the 100-400 and the Z 70-200. The size of both lenses is nearly indistinguishable, they look almost the same. Speed hugely affects sharpness. I shot some war reenactments one with my 70-200, the other with my 100-400. The 100-400 shots were a little softer because it is a much slower lens. I could have used a much higher ISO, but I was not looking to pickup a lot of grain for doing so.
Tks!👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
For sharpness between all the lens the answer is easy.. The $10,000 difference in price does NOT warrant the sharpness difference.
Thanks!
Outstanding work sir! Fantastic! I happen to know that yes, this type of video is a crazy amount of work! Thank you for your service to the photography community!
Great comparison video. Thanks. New subscriber here.👍🏻
Just came across your channel. Great content. Great comparison. Thank you. Liked and subscribed,.
Great video but there's a mistake when you talk about the weight of the 100-400, it's actually 1,435kgs with the collar and 1,355kgs without.
1st time viewing your channel. While not a wildlife photographer I enjoyed your approach and comparison. I did a quick mathematical comparison based on your grading and found the the 400 2.8 slightly beat out the 100-400. The two reasons for this were light and build quality. Light..no question. But when you discussed the build quality and had an issue with potential problems with the 100-400 barrel when zooming....I decided to look up Nikon's reasons for designating the 'S' for the Z-line lenses. They are very specific here....'Dust and Drip Resistance-Extensively sealed to keep dust and moisture out, especially around all moving parts of the lens barrel, for worry-free durability.' Now, if your experience with the Z-line S lenses indicates a real issue here..and not a potential issue; then Nikon should be made aware of this and not make this representation for the zoom S lenses. But if Nikon is right and will back up this claim; then I think the C+ rating should be modified. I thought purchasing S designated lenses offered equal durability and build quality. So,...maybe a shot at the Z100-400 S lens taking over 1st place! Thanks again.
WOW‼️Great job. I enjoy all your you tube vids❗️Thank you.
I bought the 400mm f/4.5 to use for sports. I typically shoot daylight baseball and soccer so the f/4.5 isn’t a big deal. I considered the 100-400mm but there was too much overlap with my 70-200mm f/2.8. The 70-200mm with a 1.4x is great for softball. Someday I’ll own the 400mm f/2.8 but I really don’t have a NEED for it.
I think if you have the 70-200, it makes sense to go prime. A nice combo~!
This video is great, thank you. All the explanations I have looked for in relation to various lens' you have answered here really well. Thank you. Just a same I have Canon lens'.
Meu amigo, voce simplesmente fez um excelente trabalho neste review, meu coração bateu mais forte com essas lentes, pequenas fortunas para quem vive no Brasil e ganha $ 265,00 /mensal. A lente 100-400mm custa aqui (R$ 13.390 mil reais), ou seja, são 10 meses de trabalho. Fui do ceu ao inferno com o preço das lentes, fora a camara, mas minha paixão não deixo por nada, e vivo dentro de minha realidade, tenho uma Lente 55-250mm EF-S e me viro como posso, parabens por suas dicas e ainda compro uma lente 70-200mm com um adaptador. Abraços, Sucesso, Deus abençoe.