Reading mode: Light Dark

Help Me Pick a Super Telephoto

Go to last post
Ricardo00 said:
KamChap said:
Bob A L said:
Just a curiousity question. Do Z7ii and Z8/Z9 owners consider using crop mode as a typical use mode when telephoto use is needed? As a died in the wool DX user, it would seem to me that this would be typical for use where telephoto is the name of the game. But I wondered if this was the case in typical FF users plans.
Click to expand...
What’s the magnification from FX > DX? Is it 1.6?
Click to expand...
Yes
Click to expand...
I believe the magnification is 1.5 for Nikon and 1.6 for Canon. See page 100 of the Z 8 reference guide, under Choose Image Area.

I do have something rather strange. This photo below was taken with a Sigma 150-600 C plus the Sigma TC-1401 and the FTZii adaptor, at 600 mm in DX mode. Notice that the focal length given was 850mm. I would think that should be 840 (600 x 1.4). The 35mm equivalent was 1275 which is correct (850 x 1.5). May be the Sigma TC is actually a bit more than 1.4 (1.4167?), I have no idea.



Notice the FL is 850
Notice the FL is 850





--
Guy
 
Guy M Wong said:
Ricardo00 said:
KamChap said:
Bob A L said:
Just a curiousity question. Do Z7ii and Z8/Z9 owners consider using crop mode as a typical use mode when telephoto use is needed? As a died in the wool DX user, it would seem to me that this would be typical for use where telephoto is the name of the game. But I wondered if this was the case in typical FF users plans.
Click to expand...
What’s the magnification from FX > DX? Is it 1.6?
Click to expand...
Yes
Click to expand...
I believe the magnification is 1.5 for Nikon and 1.6 for Canon. See page 100 of the Z 8 reference guide, under Choose Image Area.
Click to expand...
You are correct, 1.5 for Nikon.
 
KamChap said:
The 400mm f/4.5 prime is sharper and has better bokeh and contrast than the 100-400mm at 400mm but that’s expected.
Click to expand...
Owning both these lenses, yes the 400f/4.5 is ahead but only because it has such a stellar performance. The 100 to 400 is outstandingly good, and certainly gets more use in my setup. In practice unless extreme conditions or heavy cropping or using TCs, the IQ is effectively equivalent. I find I use the 100 to 200 of the 100 to 400 far more than I thought I would..

the big plus with the 400 f/4.5 is its weight, size and speed .. the 100 to 400 is its reach flexibility and MFD… but IQ is at least outstanding on both lenses… at least with my copies. I also find AF speed tracking birds in flight works well on both lenses - using a Z9. They both definitely justify the S lens status.

--
Simon
https://www.flickr.com/people/suffolkimages/
 
Last edited:
batleys said:
KamChap said:
The 400mm f/4.5 prime is sharper and has better bokeh and contrast than the 100-400mm at 400mm but that’s expected.
Click to expand...
Owning both these lenses, yes the 400f/4.5 is ahead but only because it has such a stellar performance. The 100 to 400 is outstandingly good, and certainly gets more use in my setup. In practice unless extreme conditions or heavy cropping or using TCs, the IQ is effectively equivalent. I find I use the 100 to 200 of the 100 to 400 far more than I thought I would..

the big plus with the 400 f/4.5 is its weight, size and speed .. the 100 to 400 is its reach flexibility and MFD… but IQ is at least outstanding on both lenses… at least with my copies. I also find AF speed tracking birds in flight works well on both lenses - using a Z9. They both definitely justify the S lens status.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t my experience. I could immediately see a difference between the 100-400 and the 400 f/4.5. And with the slow nature/f stop of the lens in the 100-200 mm range, backgrounds suffered. So I sold the 100-400 and bought a 70-200 f/2.8.



I don’t miss the mm gap, and I definitely benefit from the faster glass. However, the 100-400 was excellent at quasi macro work. I do miss it for that.
 
I guess the other question is do you have that give you redundancy in that 100-400 range? I have never shot surf so I don't know how much of an advantage having the flexibility of a zoom is in that situation. With that said, I am a prime shooter and am a little bias in choosing the prime.
 
KamChap said:
Ended up renting the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 this weekend to shoot surf and it’s definitely a solid piece of glass.

I’m trying to decide what telephoto I should add to the kit next.

Really two options here: the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S or the prime 400mm f/4.5 VR S.

I know there’s a 200-600mm on the way but I’m not sure I see that lens being optically better than either of the lenses above.

With the 400 prime, you’re getting a lens that’s 1/3 stop faster (and more expensive) than the 100-400, although I’ve read AF is faster and there’s slightly sharper IQ. Or is there.

I don’t see myself playing around in the 100-200 range very much at all. 300 is nice and 400 is prime, no pun intended. So missing 300 may be a slight hiccup although not really.

The 400 will also probably fare better with a 1.4x TC

Thoughts? :)
Click to expand...
If you haven't already decided, you might check out Steve Perry's recent video on the 180-600mm lens. For me, the most interesting part was a comparison of the focussing speeds. I have posted a snapshot of his slide below if you are interested:

Steve Perry's comparison of focussing speed
Steve Perry's comparison of focussing speed
 
Ricardo00 said:
KamChap said:
Ended up renting the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 this weekend to shoot surf and it’s definitely a solid piece of glass.

I’m trying to decide what telephoto I should add to the kit next.

Really two options here: the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S or the prime 400mm f/4.5 VR S.

I know there’s a 200-600mm on the way but I’m not sure I see that lens being optically better than either of the lenses above.

With the 400 prime, you’re getting a lens that’s 1/3 stop faster (and more expensive) than the 100-400, although I’ve read AF is faster and there’s slightly sharper IQ. Or is there.

I don’t see myself playing around in the 100-200 range very much at all. 300 is nice and 400 is prime, no pun intended. So missing 300 may be a slight hiccup although not really.

The 400 will also probably fare better with a 1.4x TC

Thoughts? :)
Click to expand...
If you haven't already decided, you might check out Steve Perry's recent video on the 180-600mm lens. For me, the most interesting part was a comparison of the focussing speeds. I have posted a snapshot of his slide below if you are interested:

Steve Perry's comparison of focussing speed
Steve Perry's comparison of focussing speed
Click to expand...
Interesting, do you have the number (speed ) for the 800PF?
 
vbuhay said:
Ricardo00 said:
KamChap said:
Ended up renting the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 this weekend to shoot surf and it’s definitely a solid piece of glass.

I’m trying to decide what telephoto I should add to the kit next.

Really two options here: the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S or the prime 400mm f/4.5 VR S.

I know there’s a 200-600mm on the way but I’m not sure I see that lens being optically better than either of the lenses above.

With the 400 prime, you’re getting a lens that’s 1/3 stop faster (and more expensive) than the 100-400, although I’ve read AF is faster and there’s slightly sharper IQ. Or is there.

I don’t see myself playing around in the 100-200 range very much at all. 300 is nice and 400 is prime, no pun intended. So missing 300 may be a slight hiccup although not really.

The 400 will also probably fare better with a 1.4x TC

Thoughts? :)
Click to expand...
If you haven't already decided, you might check out Steve Perry's recent video on the 180-600mm lens. For me, the most interesting part was a comparison of the focussing speeds. I have posted a snapshot of his slide below if you are interested:

Steve Perry's comparison of focussing speed
Steve Perry's comparison of focussing speed
Click to expand...
Interesting, do you have the number (speed ) for the 800PF?
Click to expand...
No he did not test that in this video. You could email him/post a comment on that on his Youtube? He is quite responsive:


PS. It is possible that he has some info in his Youtube review of the 800mm lens. Even without the comparison to the 180-600mm, he may have a comparison with the 600mm.
 
Last edited:
Steve Perry's table of minimum to maximum focus speeds, doesn't mean too much in real life.

The problem is that some lenses like the Z100-400mm have seriously close focusing abilities, where some of the super teles don't at all, so if you were to have all lenses focus from the same MFD to infinity, then that would give you a much more accurate idea of true AF speed.

God bless from Africa,

Friedrich von Hörsten
 
Friedrich von Horsten said:
Steve Perry's table of minimum to maximum focus speeds, doesn't mean too much in real life.

The problem is that some lenses like the Z100-400mm have seriously close focusing abilities, where some of the super teles don't at all, so if you were to have all lenses focus from the same MFD to infinity, then that would give you a much more accurate idea of true AF speed.

God bless from Africa,

Friedrich von Hörsten
Click to expand...
It is a good point and all tests have limitations. On the other hand, a lens that goes to 600mm versus 400mm has further to move the focusing mechanisms? I am not sure how that would be compensated in a test? But your point is valid and people need to test out a lens in their own hands with whatever criteria they feel is most important to them.
 
Last edited:
Ricardo00 said:
vbuhay said:
Ricardo00 said:
KamChap said:
Ended up renting the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 this weekend to shoot surf and it’s definitely a solid piece of glass.

I’m trying to decide what telephoto I should add to the kit next.

Really two options here: the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S or the prime 400mm f/4.5 VR S.

I know there’s a 200-600mm on the way but I’m not sure I see that lens being optically better than either of the lenses above.

With the 400 prime, you’re getting a lens that’s 1/3 stop faster (and more expensive) than the 100-400, although I’ve read AF is faster and there’s slightly sharper IQ. Or is there.

I don’t see myself playing around in the 100-200 range very much at all. 300 is nice and 400 is prime, no pun intended. So missing 300 may be a slight hiccup although not really.

The 400 will also probably fare better with a 1.4x TC

Thoughts? :)
Click to expand...
If you haven't already decided, you might check out Steve Perry's recent video on the 180-600mm lens. For me, the most interesting part was a comparison of the focussing speeds. I have posted a snapshot of his slide below if you are interested:

Steve Perry's comparison of focussing speed
Steve Perry's comparison of focussing speed
Click to expand...
Interesting, do you have the number (speed ) for the 800PF?
Click to expand...
No he did not test that in this video. You could email him/post a comment on that on his Youtube? He is quite responsive:


PS. It is possible that he has some info in his Youtube review of the 800mm lens. Even without the comparison to the 180-600mm, he may have a comparison with the 600mm.
Click to expand...
Rewatching Steve's review of the 800mm lens, he said the speed of focus was comparable to his 600mm f/4 lens though he did not provide any actual test results. And in answer to someone else's question, he forgot to run the tests on the 800mm PF to compare it with the 180-600mm.
 
Last edited:
batleys said:
KamChap said:
The 400mm f/4.5 prime is sharper and has better bokeh and contrast than the 100-400mm at 400mm but that’s expected.
Click to expand...
Owning both these lenses, yes the 400f/4.5 is ahead but only because it has such a stellar performance. The 100 to 400 is outstandingly good, and certainly gets more use in my setup. In practice unless extreme conditions or heavy cropping or using TCs, the IQ is effectively equivalent. I find I use the 100 to 200 of the 100 to 400 far more than I thought I would..

the big plus with the 400 f/4.5 is its weight, size and speed .. the 100 to 400 is its reach flexibility and MFD… but IQ is at least outstanding on both lenses… at least with my copies. I also find AF speed tracking birds in flight works well on both lenses - using a Z9. They both definitely justify the S lens status.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for sharing, I am sure you won’t be disappointed and you will create many great images with the 100 to 400.. it really is a very versatile lens capable of producing superb IQ. Out of interest have you borrowed the 400 f/4.5 for a week.. perhaps with a 1.4 TC?
 
KamChap said:
batleys said:
KamChap said:
The 400mm f/4.5 prime is sharper and has better bokeh and contrast than the 100-400mm at 400mm but that’s expected.
Click to expand...
Owning both these lenses, yes the 400f/4.5 is ahead but only because it has such a stellar performance. The 100 to 400 is outstandingly good, and certainly gets more use in my setup. In practice unless extreme conditions or heavy cropping or using TCs, the IQ is effectively equivalent. I find I use the 100 to 200 of the 100 to 400 far more than I thought I would..

the big plus with the 400 f/4.5 is its weight, size and speed .. the 100 to 400 is its reach flexibility and MFD… but IQ is at least outstanding on both lenses… at least with my copies. I also find AF speed tracking birds in flight works well on both lenses - using a Z9. They both definitely justify the S lens status.
Click to expand...
I’ve sat on this decision for a few weeks now and have read and watched dozens of reviews and user analysis and comparisons on both lenses. I had the 100-400 for a week last week and it was nothing short of spectacular. While certain edge cases will render the 400mm f/4.5 to be the slightly “better” lens, it’s the 100-400mm for me at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
I would've thought the 180-600 would be a no-brainer for your application.
 
batleys said:
Thanks for sharing, I am sure you won’t be disappointed and you will create many great images with the 100 to 400.. it really is a very versatile lens capable of producing superb IQ. Out of interest have you borrowed the 400 f/4.5 for a week.. perhaps with a 1.4 TC?
Click to expand...
 
Be warned, there is something addictive about the Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S.

It is an absolute pleasure due to the super low weight and the excellent weight balance for such a lens.
Even with the added weight of a Z TC 1.4x, you save a whopping 800 grams compared to a Z 180-600.

Using it at 400mm f/4.5, it's already the weight of a Z8 body it saves, around 1 kg and it is in addition significant more compact.
For me there is no more turning back, flyweight for the win.

____

Small appetizer, including some surfing action.
 
Nebido said:
Be warned, there is something addictive about the Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S.

It is an absolute pleasure due to the super low weight and the excellent weight balance for such a lens.
Even with the added weight of a Z TC 1.4x, you save a whopping 800 grams compared to a Z 180-600.

Using it at 400mm f/4.5, it's already the weight of a Z8 body it saves, around 1 kg and it is in addition significant more compact.
For me there is no more turning back, flyweight for the win.
Click to expand...
Sucks that it’s made in China, not to say it’s not an excellent optic, but spiritually, tough to digest a $3000 Chinese lens when everything else is Thailand or Japan in the case of the 100-400.
 
In my eyes, it is completely irrelevant for the quality of the product whether the Nikon factory is located in Thailand, Japan or China.
The standards set by Nikon should be the same everywhere.
Some of the best Z lenses, such as the Z 85mm f/1.2 S or the Z 400m f/4.5 VR S and the Z 800mm f/6.3 VR PF S, come from Nikon's Chinese factories.
I don't see any negative influence on the manufacturing quality there, certainly not on the optical quality, nor on resale.
Apart from politically influenced purchase decisions, this is an absolutely bogus argument for me.
 
Last edited:
Nebido said:
Be warned, there is something addictive about the Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S.

It is an absolute pleasure due to the super low weight and the excellent weight balance for such a lens.
Even with the added weight of a Z TC 1.4x, you save a whopping 800 grams compared to a Z 180-600.

Using it at 400mm f/4.5, it's already the weight of a Z8 body it saves, around 1 kg and it is in addition significant more compact.
For me there is no more turning back, flyweight for the win.

____

Small appetizer, including some surfing action.
Click to expand...
Other advantages of the Z 400mm f/4.5 is the speed of focus (much faster than either the 100-400mm or 180-600mm) as well as the ability to use the Z 2.0TC. But if one needs 300mm, then the 400mm f/4.5 is not the lens for you.
 
Ricardo00 said:
Nebido said:
Be warned, there is something addictive about the Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S.

It is an absolute pleasure due to the super low weight and the excellent weight balance for such a lens.
Even with the added weight of a Z TC 1.4x, you save a whopping 800 grams compared to a Z 180-600.

Using it at 400mm f/4.5, it's already the weight of a Z8 body it saves, around 1 kg and it is in addition significant more compact.
For me there is no more turning back, flyweight for the win.

____

Small appetizer, including some surfing action.
Click to expand...
Other advantages of the Z 400mm f/4.5 is the speed of focus (much faster than either the 100-400mm or 180-600mm) as well as the ability to use the Z 2.0TC. But if one needs 300mm, then the 400mm f/4.5 is not the lens for you.
Click to expand...
We really need a 200-500mm f/4 Nikon. Even variable 4.5-5.6 would be killer :)

I’m picking up a 400mm f/4.5 tomorrow to play with regardless.

“Much faster” is an arbitrary term; it may be faster but much faster vs. the 100-400mm doesn’t necessarily ring true. I’ve begrudgingly watched all of the YouTube nonsense reviews with the color checker boys and their tests.

And faster for what? Birds in flight? F1? Air show? All depends on the subject matter.

Sure, it might be 1/4 of a second faster but doubtful real world cases will experience these differences. The 180-600mm OTOH is slower than both, but again, depends what you’re shooting. Totally fine for some or most.

It’s like the various YouTube reviewers that sit around and take pictures of color checker cards to determine what’s a “better” lens - absolute rubbish all these reviews. I cannot understand why anyone (including myself) watches this crap.

It’s always about real world use, not taking pictures of color checker cards and quantifying that one lens is “sharper” than another because the line of the letter “T” is 1 pixel sharper as viewed by someone else’s eyes and post processing work on a YouTube uploaded video.

A great lens takes into account a ton of factors: quality of the glass, coatings, backlit subject performance, CA, vignetting, corners, speed, you name it.

Nobody can sit here and tell me a $3k lens (the 100-400mm) is better than a $1600 lens (180-600mm) if we solely look at price:performance. Same goes for the 400mm f/2.8 - it smokes every lens in the lineup. And not only because it’s fast but for a variety of other reasons. Photography and optics aren’t only about sharpness and color checkers :)

End rant here but the YouTube reviews with the color checker nonsense and half the forum saying “OMG the 180-600mm” is the best lens Nikon’s made ever is just amateur talk. Need to stop watching this crap.

I’ll give it to Thom Hogan though, his reviews are always complete and take into account all of the important factors that go into a great body or lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Shots are not sharp when shooting at a long focal length with the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
661
ajr images
A
P
What to buy: 180-600 vs 100-400 + TC Z 1.4x or 2.0x
2 3
Replies
52
Views
207
Leonard Shepherd
L
A
Too Many Telephotos
2 3
Replies
41
Views
63
Terrible Photographer
Terrible Photographer
Satyaa
Opinions on 400mm zooms for Z7ii ??
2
Replies
21
Views
181
olyflyer
olyflyer
studio460
Nikon Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S:
Replies
16
Views
41
studio460
studio460

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top