Nikon z 100-400 v 70-200 2.8 @ 100-200mm?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Harris20 New Member • Posts: 2
Nikon z 100-400 v 70-200 2.8 @ 100-200mm?

I've sold some lenses and have put some money aside to pick up either the new z 100-400 or 70-200 2.8. I am predominantly a landscape shooter.

Having recently used the Canon 70-300L with finger adapter I enjoyed having the extra reach and found I was getting shots between 200-300mm I may have missed otherwise. As a side note, I am moving to all Z mount as I found the extra weight and bulk of the adapter and less reliable autofocus at distance/ low light (albeit, not bad) to be enough to make me hunger for the native offerings, which aren't much heavier than the above combination and offer superior weather sealing, autofocus, etc.

The new 100-400 interests me as I have (and love) the new 24-120 f4 to cover the crucial gap from 70-100.

However, the reviews of the 70-200 2.8 are so overwhelmingly good that it is difficult to overlook, especially as I could pick it up with the 1.4 teleconverter for a fair bit less than the new 100-400.

I can also see benefit in having the option to alternate between a lighter set up with the 24-70 f4 and 70-200 2.8 or longer range 24-120 f4 and 70-200 2.8 with 1.4 TC.

I have now seen a few comparisons of the 70-200 with 2x teleconverter and 100-400 with the latter coming out on top. However I haven't seen any comparisons of the 2 lenses (without teleconverters) between 100-200mm. As this would likely be my most used range, it would be interesting to know how they compare. Also, I'd be interested in the 200-280/300mm range comparison (70-200 with 1.4tc).

I wonder if anyone with both lenses has made this comparison. Any input would be very much appreciated.

Thank you in advance!

ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow