Brilliant pick up for outdoor daytime events, add a 24-70 and your covered. Saves the wear and tear on the 70-200 2.8, which I think is one of the best l've ever used.
The absolute swiss army knife that 100-400! I've used it for close up nature shots (near macro), sports, wildlife, distant landscape shots and even portraits. The aperture difference is not a big difference and the sharpness difference is only meaningful when zooming right in. My only gripe is the cost. Still, for outdoor sports the 100-400 and the 400 f2.8 are a magical combination.
The image quality on the 100-400 is amazing! I almost never use my 70-200mm f/2.8 anymore unless I’m shooting in a low-light situation (e.g. concert). And I often add the 1.4x TC if I need additional reach (560mm @ f/8).
It makes sense to go with a variable aperture lens if said lens is not a focal length(s) you use all the time. It sounds like your 70-200 is a go to lens, so the constant 2.8 aperture is perfect.
Love my 100-400, shame the 180 to 600 is a little sharper, but the 100-400 being an s-lens with better seals and it's close focus ability makes it great for close up shots with insects and butterflies etc. Better for events / Low light too
I have the Z 100-400 as well, Loz (Like you, I also own the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 S lens.). The 100-400mm is a wonderful lens and I believe that you will enjoy it. I just finished a big five day shoot over 64,000 frames) last month. It was an indoor shoot, and while I shot with 4 different Z lenses during 5 days of shooting (24-120 f4; 70-200mm f2.8; 105mm f2.8 Macro, and 180-600mm f5.6-6.3), my close friend shot 3 days using both the Z 24-120 f4 and his Z 100-400mm f4.5-5.6. He's a very talented photographer and was very happy using the 100-400mm. My Z 100-400mm would have been a better choice than my 180-600mm (over 2800 frames with this lens alone) given the use-case of shooting lots of movement shots indoors, I was very happy with the performance of all my Z lenses.
Enjoy the lens. I’ve had mine for a a year plus. It does feel heavy to hike with and pack along for landscape. (Still considering getting the Tamron 70-300 for these uses). A friend got the 400f4.5 and i still lust for that gem. But love the flexibility and very close minimum focal distance.
I’ve got the 100-400, it’s brilliant. I’m amazed by how much I use it and for what. I bought it because I found my 500pf too restrictive and missed so many shots because I was too close so being able to zoom in to 100 is very useful.
I owned the Z 100-400 but as I preferred to use my Z 70-200 I felt that the 100-400 became unnecessary for me. Maybe one day in the future I intend to buy either the Z 600mm f/6.3 or the Z 180-600. But am more interested in the fixed lens.
The 100-400 is not inferior to the 70-200 in IQ. The 180-600 is the star of the show, but not for Loz's use. Good choice Loz, it will get a lot of use I suspect.
I think the question should be why the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S (in the NY, NY superstore: US$ 2,500 excluding sales tax) and not the Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR (US$ 1,700)? Alternatively, why not use the brilliantly excellent 70-200 with a 1.4 TC? I'm a fan of the "S" class lenses and they're the only ones I have, a bunch actually, but some of the non-S lenses are actually really good. They may have a quirk here or there, but if you know how to work with, or around that, they are great value for money.
I have an idea - how about a x2 teleconverter on the 70-200 vs the 100-400mm? That would be a good watch! I also wonder why Loz didn't went with the teleconverter in the first place.
My response would be (Russ) that the 180-600 is a lot heavier and maybe not wide enough if only using one lens. But sure the 180-600 is better for things like birding
Beautiful lenses, I got my 400 4.5 about 2 years ago, and my 100-400 about 4 months ago and they are both wonderful to use and the results are, from my point of view, undistinguishable between the two. But I don‘t pixel-peep… every day, just sometimes :)
Welcome to the 100-400 club. This is such a wonderful and versatile lens, it's my absolute favourite.
Brilliant pick up for outdoor daytime events, add a 24-70 and your covered. Saves the wear and tear on the 70-200 2.8, which I think is one of the best l've ever used.
The absolute swiss army knife that 100-400! I've used it for close up nature shots (near macro), sports, wildlife, distant landscape shots and even portraits. The aperture difference is not a big difference and the sharpness difference is only meaningful when zooming right in. My only gripe is the cost. Still, for outdoor sports the 100-400 and the 400 f2.8 are a magical combination.
The image quality on the 100-400 is amazing! I almost never use my 70-200mm f/2.8 anymore unless I’m shooting in a low-light situation (e.g. concert). And I often add the 1.4x TC if I need additional reach (560mm @ f/8).
I don’t have an interest in either of these lenses but yall are so wonderful to watch I watched it through to the end!
@@mikedfurman Thanks Mike
It makes sense to go with a variable aperture lens if said lens is not a focal length(s) you use all the time. It sounds like your 70-200 is a go to lens, so the constant 2.8 aperture is perfect.
Loz is Mister Zoom like me. Congratulations, fantastic combo with the Z8.
Thanks !
Love my 100-400, shame the 180 to 600 is a little sharper, but the 100-400 being an s-lens with better seals and it's close focus ability makes it great for close up shots with insects and butterflies etc. Better for events / Low light too
Yeah I would suggest the 180-600 is for birds and wildlife, where as the 100--400 is much lighter and suited to other things.
I have the Z 100-400 as well, Loz (Like you, I also own the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 S lens.). The 100-400mm is a wonderful lens and I believe that you will enjoy it. I just finished a big five day shoot over 64,000 frames) last month. It was an indoor shoot, and while I shot with 4 different Z lenses during 5 days of shooting (24-120 f4; 70-200mm f2.8; 105mm f2.8 Macro, and 180-600mm f5.6-6.3), my close friend shot 3 days using both the Z 24-120 f4 and his Z 100-400mm f4.5-5.6. He's a very talented photographer and was very happy using the 100-400mm. My Z 100-400mm would have been a better choice than my 180-600mm (over 2800 frames with this lens alone) given the use-case of shooting lots of movement shots indoors, I was very happy with the performance of all my Z lenses.
Excellent choice. The 100-400 is my most used lens, especially for landscape. Sadly, my 70-200 rarely gets used anymore.
I bought the 400mm f4.5 as I used to have a 200-500 and mostly used it at 500mm. The 400 with TC 1.4 gives me 560mm which is great. Fantastic lens.
Enjoy the lens. I’ve had mine for a a year plus. It does feel heavy to hike with and pack along for landscape. (Still considering getting the Tamron 70-300 for these uses). A friend got the 400f4.5 and i still lust for that gem. But love the flexibility and very close minimum focal distance.
I’ve got the 100-400, it’s brilliant. I’m amazed by how much I use it and for what. I bought it because I found my 500pf too restrictive and missed so many shots because I was too close so being able to zoom in to 100 is very useful.
Love these guy's and the banter.
Thanks Steve!
I am saving up for that 100-400 and a Nikon Z8. Will be great for landscape and some minor wildlife photography.
@@koenpijpersphotography look out for used deals to save!
I owned the Z 100-400 but as I preferred to use my Z 70-200 I felt that the 100-400 became unnecessary for me. Maybe one day in the future I intend to buy either the Z 600mm f/6.3 or the Z 180-600. But am more interested in the fixed lens.
The 100-400 is not inferior to the 70-200 in IQ. The 180-600 is the star of the show, but not for Loz's use. Good choice Loz, it will get a lot of use I suspect.
I think the question should be why the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S (in the NY, NY superstore: US$ 2,500 excluding sales tax) and not the Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR (US$ 1,700)?
Alternatively, why not use the brilliantly excellent 70-200 with a 1.4 TC?
I'm a fan of the "S" class lenses and they're the only ones I have, a bunch actually, but some of the non-S lenses are actually really good. They may have a quirk here or there, but if you know how to work with, or around that, they are great value for money.
Yeah I would suggest the 180-600 is for birds and wildlife, where as the 100--400 is much lighter and suited to other things.
Yep - the 180-600 is bigger and heavier; I’ve tried the TC 1.4 with my 70-200 and didn’t find any benefit to be honest 😬
Did Russ just ask Loz, "Why do you need a new lens?" Isn't he the expert on answering that question? 😂
@@UnconventionalReasoning It was nice to ask it for a change lol
@@russandloz True. Though you should have avoided mentioning that you now have two 400mm prime lenses. 😂
Indeed he is ! 😂
I have an idea - how about a x2 teleconverter on the 70-200 vs the 100-400mm? That would be a good watch! I also wonder why Loz didn't went with the teleconverter in the first place.
@@PavelGramatikov We tested the 2x in a previous video and the image quality wasn’t very good. Loz doesn’t like teleconverters as he sees no benefit
Prime vs Zoom war going on here.
@@Ben_Stewart As usual lol. But really it’s a case of purpose. 100-400 has a different use to the 400 prime really
You should get a Kirk Replacent Foot for your 400mm
@@Mr09260 What does it do? Easy detachment?
180-600 didn't temp you? I know smaller apature and not S, but range fits perfectly
Yep just thought it would be too heavy and big 🤷♂️but was tempted !
@@lozzom I've just watched a whole load of comparison videos and I've got to say, I think you've made the right decision. Enjoy
@@exert2020 cheers - will do !
Nice purchase but for Airshows wouldn't the 180 to 600 along with your 70 to 200 have been a better match? 🤔😊
My response would be (Russ) that the 180-600 is a lot heavier and maybe not wide enough if only using one lens. But sure the 180-600 is better for things like birding
@@russandlozyes - what Russ said!
Pass me my 180-600 for wild life
Beautiful lenses, I got my 400 4.5 about 2 years ago, and my 100-400 about 4 months ago and they are both wonderful to use and the results are, from my point of view, undistinguishable between the two. But I don‘t pixel-peep… every day, just sometimes :)
Looks like the prime has advantage when cropping in, which is needed for those small far away birds. But sure, they are both good