Huh?FeedbackJust saw this:
https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/whats-the-best-telephoto.html
Seems relevant.
BasilG wrote:
I guess that if you want a 500 mm lens (or longer), the 500 PF is better, but yes, almost all the reviews so far are very vague on this (e.g. also Thom).
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4681927#forum-post-66623409
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S vs. Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S
Leonard Shepherd
Forum Pro
There is already a thread running on Thom Hogan's recent telephoto lens option comparison https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/whats-the-best-telephoto.html
This includes the chart below, showing that if you want a close to 500mm angle of view the 500mm comes out - by a small margin - as the second best optical option.
The first place option comes in at over £/$15,000.
--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.
Conspicuously absent from Thom's chart is the 200-500mm f/5.6E, which allows a photographer to carry a range of usable wildlife focal lengths in one package.
shuncheung
Veteran Member
Having both the Z-mount 70-200/2.8 S and 100-400 S, I wouldn't say the 100-400 by itself (without any TC) is below "Acceptable" around 300mm. It might not be best possible lens in any part of its zoom range, but it is very good from end to end. By the way, it is f4.5 @ 200mm, not f5.There is already a thread running on Thom Hogan's recent telephoto lens option comparison https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/whats-the-best-telephoto.html
This includes the chart below, showing that if you want a close to 500mm angle of view the 500mm comes out - by a small margin - as the second best optical option.
The first place option comes in at over £/$15,000.
The 70-200/2.8 S is still pretty good with the 1.4x TC on. It is definitely acceptable at 280mm, f4.
Jeff Klofft
Senior Member
IMO the problem with Thom’s chart is he needs 4 categories because 3 is too few to tell the full picture.Having both the Z-mount 70-200/2.8 S and 100-400 S, I wouldn't say the 100-400 by itself (without any TC) is below "Acceptable" around 300mm. It might not be best possible lens in any part of its zoom range, but it is very good from end to end. By the way, it is f4.5 @ 200mm, not f5.There is already a thread running on Thom Hogan's recent telephoto lens option comparison https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/whats-the-best-telephoto.html
This includes the chart below, showing that if you want a close to 500mm angle of view the 500mm comes out - by a small margin - as the second best optical option.
The first place option comes in at over £/$15,000.
The 70-200/2.8 S is still pretty good with the 1.4x TC on. It is definitely acceptable at 280mm, f4.
--
Jeff
Have you read the article?Having both the Z-mount 70-200/2.8 S and 100-400 S, I wouldn't say the 100-400 by itself (without any TC) is below "Acceptable" around 300mm. It might not be best possible lens in any part of its zoom range, but it is very good from end to end. By the way, it is f4.5 @ 200mm, not f5.There is already a thread running on Thom Hogan's recent telephoto lens option comparison https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/whats-the-best-telephoto.html
This includes the chart below, showing that if you want a close to 500mm angle of view the 500mm comes out - by a small margin - as the second best optical option.
The first place option comes in at over £/$15,000.
The 70-200/2.8 S is still pretty good with the 1.4x TC on. It is definitely acceptable at 280mm, f4.
shuncheung
Veteran Member
To me, “worst” should be reserved for really bad lenses. Sticking a 2x TC to either the 70-200 and 100-400 would likely justify that. I have both of those lenses but only the 1.4x TC for that very reason. If one is picky, the 2x TC should only be used on the very best primes, e.g. the 400/2.8 or not used at all.IMO the problem with Thom’s chart is he needs 4 categories because 3 is too few to tell the full picture.Having both the Z-mount 70-200/2.8 S and 100-400 S, I wouldn't say the 100-400 by itself (without any TC) is below "Acceptable" around 300mm. It might not be best possible lens in any part of its zoom range, but it is very good from end to end. By the way, it is f4.5 @ 200mm, not f5.There is already a thread running on Thom Hogan's recent telephoto lens option comparison https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/whats-the-best-telephoto.html
This includes the chart below, showing that if you want a close to 500mm angle of view the 500mm comes out - by a small margin - as the second best optical option.
The first place option comes in at over £/$15,000.
The 70-200/2.8 S is still pretty good with the 1.4x TC on. It is definitely acceptable at 280mm, f4.
The 24-200 is pretty decent on my Z6, at both 24 and 200mm. On the Z9 it isn’t that great any more, but I would use that combo if necessary. The 24-200 maybe below acceptable with a 46MP sensor (Z7 and Z9), but it is still ok IMO. If f6.3 is acceptable, I wouldn’t hesitate to use it on a Z6/Z6ii. Indoors, f6.3 will be problematic.
shuncheung
Veteran Member
Not yet, but the wording and categories is misleading in the chart, which most people will read instead of the fine prints.Have you read the article?Having both the Z-mount 70-200/2.8 S and 100-400 S, I wouldn't say the 100-400 by itself (without any TC) is below "Acceptable" around 300mm. It might not be best possible lens in any part of its zoom range, but it is very good from end to end. By the way, it is f4.5 @ 200mm, not f5.There is already a thread running on Thom Hogan's recent telephoto lens option comparison https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/whats-the-best-telephoto.html
This includes the chart below, showing that if you want a close to 500mm angle of view the 500mm comes out - by a small margin - as the second best optical option.
The first place option comes in at over £/$15,000.
The 70-200/2.8 S is still pretty good with the 1.4x TC on. It is definitely acceptable at 280mm, f4.
Leonard Shepherd
Forum Pro
I get good results with the 2x - provided I post process with the inevitable loss of contrast in mind.
That's the problem with commenting on things out of context while being also unaware of the context.Not yet, but the wording and categories is misleading in the chart, which most people will read instead of the fine prints.Have you read the article?Having both the Z-mount 70-200/2.8 S and 100-400 S, I wouldn't say the 100-400 by itself (without any TC) is below "Acceptable" around 300mm. It might not be best possible lens in any part of its zoom range, but it is very good from end to end. By the way, it is f4.5 @ 200mm, not f5.There is already a thread running on Thom Hogan's recent telephoto lens option comparison https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/whats-the-best-telephoto.html
This includes the chart below, showing that if you want a close to 500mm angle of view the 500mm comes out - by a small margin - as the second best optical option.
The first place option comes in at over £/$15,000.
The 70-200/2.8 S is still pretty good with the 1.4x TC on. It is definitely acceptable at 280mm, f4.
NeedMorePractice
Senior Member
The last couple of days I was able to compare both lenses. My findings:
The 100-400 is excellent for what it is. For me it is a bit too heavy and I could life with 300mm for my landscapes, but I wasn't pleased with the results of the 70-300 AF-P @ 300mm. The MFD from the 100-400 enables new possibilities.
I think I'll keep the 100-400 and mayby one day, when Nikon decides to release a 70-200z f4 (with teleconverter) or 70-300z, I'll replace it.
As for the 400 4.5 it just has a different usecase. Maybe I'll keep it as well and figure out if wildlife is something for me or not.
- Wide open, both lenes are similiar in image quality, maybe the corners from the 100-400 a tad less so. But the prime is significantly better at f5.6. This continues while stepping down.
- MFD from the 100-400 is something else. Very, very useful and versatile.
- With lens capes and without the hood, the weight differnce is just ~180g. But most of the weight of the prime is near the lensmount. Because of that, the lens feels a lot lighter compared too the zoom.
- The 100-400 has more metal parts and the rings turn a bit smoother
- fn2 and fn are next to each other on the zoom. The prime has fn next to the lensmount, you have to replace your hand, if you want to push both.
- I wouldn't say that I have a bad copy of the zoom, but the upper edge of the frame is a little bit softer then then rest (you can only tell at 100%+). The prime is perfect.
- Close distance (~3m, wide open and f8) at 135mm and 200mm both lenes perform quit similar. The 100-400 has a bit more contrast and I would give it a little bit more sharpness but not much.
- Further away (~500m, wide open and f8) at 300mm, in the center of the frame both lenes are again comparable, but the corners of the 100-400 are way better (wide open and at f8).
The 100-400 is excellent for what it is. For me it is a bit too heavy and I could life with 300mm for my landscapes, but I wasn't pleased with the results of the 70-300 AF-P @ 300mm. The MFD from the 100-400 enables new possibilities.
I think I'll keep the 100-400 and mayby one day, when Nikon decides to release a 70-200z f4 (with teleconverter) or 70-300z, I'll replace it.
As for the 400 4.5 it just has a different usecase. Maybe I'll keep it as well and figure out if wildlife is something for me or not.
anotherMike
Forum Pro
Thanks for the report.
I have the 100-400. Reality = I wish there was a 300mm F/4 option that was NOT phase fresnel that had amazing image quality, and wasn't huge or heavier than the 100-400. Basically a 300mm version of the Z 4.5 I guess one would say.
That actually would be what I'd rather have. A 400 is too long for what I need (I rarely use the 400 end of the 100-400) and a TC on the 70-200 isn't what I'm looking for either.
I have the 100-400. Reality = I wish there was a 300mm F/4 option that was NOT phase fresnel that had amazing image quality, and wasn't huge or heavier than the 100-400. Basically a 300mm version of the Z 4.5 I guess one would say.
That actually would be what I'd rather have. A 400 is too long for what I need (I rarely use the 400 end of the 100-400) and a TC on the 70-200 isn't what I'm looking for either.
Nebido
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,507
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 3,403
Brand new Christopher Frost review of the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S.
Performance at 100mm and 250mm is much better than at 400mm with the Zoom.
At 4:27 min he compares it with the Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S.
Unlike some other reviews, the image quality advantages of the prime at 400mm are very clear visible.
Even at f/4.5 vs f/5.6 the prime is much sharper and richer in contrast, both in the center and in the corners.
At f/8 the differences are not quite as pronounced as wide open, but still considerable with his samples.
Performance at 100mm and 250mm is much better than at 400mm with the Zoom.
At 4:27 min he compares it with the Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S.
Unlike some other reviews, the image quality advantages of the prime at 400mm are very clear visible.
Even at f/4.5 vs f/5.6 the prime is much sharper and richer in contrast, both in the center and in the corners.
At f/8 the differences are not quite as pronounced as wide open, but still considerable with his samples.
Last edited:
Nebido
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,507
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 3,403
Of course, one can never completely rule out the possibility, but he receives his test samples directly from Nikon, which would be negligent on Nikon's part.
There's a reason a lot of manufacturers supply Christopher Frost and others with lenses for his/their reviews, because he has many viewers and a corresponding reach among potential customers.
Knowing this, it's hard for me to believe Nikon is sending out a bad sample.
In the shorter focal length range, below 400mm, it looks excellent and even at 400mm it's stiil good, it just falls off visibly in comparison to the shorter focal lengths and in direct comparison to the Z 400/4.5, which was at least to be expected.
As good as zoom lenses have become in the meantime, a prime lens in the identical price category, in the case of the Z 400/4.5 even slightly more, will always have advantages in terms of image quality.
You can optimize it for the focal length, where you have to make compromises with a 4x zoom, so the performance will never be identical across all focal lengths.
In return, of course, you get a lot more flexibility and versatility with the Z 100-400.
If it is primarily about the long end, the Z 400/4.5 is certainly the higher-quality solution.
There's a reason a lot of manufacturers supply Christopher Frost and others with lenses for his/their reviews, because he has many viewers and a corresponding reach among potential customers.
Knowing this, it's hard for me to believe Nikon is sending out a bad sample.
In the shorter focal length range, below 400mm, it looks excellent and even at 400mm it's stiil good, it just falls off visibly in comparison to the shorter focal lengths and in direct comparison to the Z 400/4.5, which was at least to be expected.
As good as zoom lenses have become in the meantime, a prime lens in the identical price category, in the case of the Z 400/4.5 even slightly more, will always have advantages in terms of image quality.
You can optimize it for the focal length, where you have to make compromises with a 4x zoom, so the performance will never be identical across all focal lengths.
In return, of course, you get a lot more flexibility and versatility with the Z 100-400.
If it is primarily about the long end, the Z 400/4.5 is certainly the higher-quality solution.
Last edited:
chambeshi
Senior Member
The 100-400 S is a very good zoom but it is still a zoom. Excellent investment as one's Swiss Army knife telephoto.
The 400 f4.5S is a prime and more importantly one of Nikon's best. No other company gets anywhere close to prize delivery when their engineers line up the spec's and deliver consistently well across the design, haptics as well as optics.
No wonders Brad Hill, Steve Perry and Thom Hogan rate these two Nikkors accordingly. Brad H rates the image quality of his 400 f4.5S as very close to the new 400 f2.8S TC.
One noticeable advantage of the 100-400 is its LensFn buttons are optimally positioned
The 400 f4.5S is a prime and more importantly one of Nikon's best. No other company gets anywhere close to prize delivery when their engineers line up the spec's and deliver consistently well across the design, haptics as well as optics.
No wonders Brad Hill, Steve Perry and Thom Hogan rate these two Nikkors accordingly. Brad H rates the image quality of his 400 f4.5S as very close to the new 400 f2.8S TC.
One noticeable advantage of the 100-400 is its LensFn buttons are optimally positioned
Last edited:
I think we need a reliable MTF test of the two involved lenses to get a better idea of how different they are. I have not compared them head-to-head, but the 400/4.5 really is very, very good, and I have not felt any issues with the sharpness of the 100-400 in real-world use (but that can be deceiving, I guess).
Meanwhile having both. No scientific comparison. My findings, looking at 100% with Z7, just center, not corners, same sun lit target outside, aprox. 30m distance:
- Prime @ 4.5 & Zoom @ 5.6, not really a difference. maybe a hair for the prime
- Prime @ 5.0 & Zoom @ 5.6, Prime gets noticeably better
- stepping down the zoom to match the prime, it‘s always a little softer
- @ f8.0 they start to meet again
- Prime @ 4.5 & Zoom @ 5.6, not really a difference. maybe a hair for the prime
- Prime @ 5.0 & Zoom @ 5.6, Prime gets noticeably better
- stepping down the zoom to match the prime, it‘s always a little softer
- @ f8.0 they start to meet again
Leonard Shepherd
Forum Pro
What is not clear is whether or not focus distance was changed between the 100 and 400mm comparisons, and whether the testing was based on AF or zoomed in manual focus.
If the test subject is 3 foot wide (unclear) a significant focus distance is required to fill the frame at 400mm.
If the detail in the central target area was reproduced too small in the viewfinder for reliable AF - and AF was used - then due to "user error" focus might not be accurate.
This aside, I get significantly sharper images at 400mm with my 100-400 - only slightly behind my 400 f4.5 at 100% on a 5k monitor.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum