Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S vs Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S

If you’re considering a long lens for the Z system, I’m sure that the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S and Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S have caught your eye. These are two of the best lenses Nikon has ever made, and (taking teleconverters into account) both are capable of reaching 400mm at an aperture of f/5.6. But which of these two lenses is better? That’s what I’ll answer today!

Focal Length and Aperture

Obviously, the focal length and maximum aperture values of the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 are very different. However, they can become extremely similar if you add a 2x teleconverter to the 70-200mm f/2.8, turning it into a 140-400mm f/5.6.

If your photography only requires focal lengths up to 200mm, the winner of this comparison is pretty straightforward. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is the preferable lens up to 200mm, in part because of its performance (more on that in a moment) but mainly because of the f/2.8 maximum aperture.

The problem with the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 is if you need focal lengths longer than 200mm. It’s still not bad – you can attach the Z 1.4x TC to turn the lens into a 100-280mm f/4, or you can attach the Z 2.0x TC to turn it into a 140-400mm f/5.6. But in both cases, you’re losing some image quality, not to mention the time it takes to swap teleconverters in the field.

I would sum it up like this:

• 200mm and under: The Z 70-200mm f/2.8 has the advantage, largely due to the f/2.8 maximum aperture, but also due to some slight image quality benefits.
• 201-280mm: This is when you’re using the 1.4x TC with the Z 70-200mm f/2.8, turning it into a 100-280mm f/4. It has the advantage in terms of maximum aperture (by about 2/3 of a stop), but the Z 100-400mm has the advantage of ease-of-use since you don’t need to be swapping teleconverters. The 100-400mm also has a slight image quality advantage. So, the “winner” at these focal lengths is up to you.
• 281-400mm: The Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is preferable. It has better image quality in this range and the advantage of not dealing with teleconverters.

Construction

The Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and Z 70-200mm f/2.8 both use Nikon’s highest-end design philosophy and have excellent ergonomics. The two lenses are built to professional standards and will withstand years of constant use.

As for portability, both of these lenses are extremely similar to one another. Case in point – the 70-200mm weighs 1440 grams, while the 100-400mm weighs 1435 grams! (That’s 3.17 and 3.16 pounds respectively.) In terms of size, the 100-400mm has a slightly larger diameter barrel, but the two are otherwise the same size.

As you can see from my product photos below, if you had both of these lenses in your bag at the same time, it could be hard to tell them apart!

There is one big difference between these two lenses in build quality, and that’s the fact that the Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S is an externally zooming lens. This isn’t ideal when shooting in rainy or dusty conditions, since it’s easier for grit to get into the barrel of the lens. Granted, the extensive weather sealing on the Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 makes this a non-issue in all but the most extreme environments. But I’d still prefer an internally zooming lens like the 70-200mm if I were shooting in a monsoon or a sandstorm!

Focusing

Both of these lenses have speedy autofocus, although the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 has the benefit of the f/2.8 maximum aperture to help it focus more quickly in low light. The real reason that I mention focusing, however, is because of a major advantage of the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6: It’s practically a macro lens!

Technically speaking, “macro photography” is photography at any magnification of 1.0× (1:1) or higher. The Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 can’t focus quite that close, but it still reaches a very impressive magnification of 0.38× (1:2.6). That’s enough to fill the frame with a subject that’s only 3.7 inches / 9.3 cm wide. Add a teleconverter, and your magnification increases even further. With Nikon’s 2x TC, you’ll be at 0.76x magnification, which is in the territory of a dedicated macro lens.

That’s a huge reason to pick the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, especially if you plan to photograph smaller creatures like hummingbirds, lizards, butterflies, or dragonflies. By comparison, the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S maxes out at 0.2× (1:5) magnification, which isn’t terrible but is pretty pedestrian.

Image Quality

1. Distortion

For a lot of photographers, distortion isn’t very important with a telephoto lens, since you’re more likely to be shooting sports or wildlife photos rather than architectural work. At the same time, most telephoto lenses have very little distortion anyway! But I still wanted to test it in the lab in case it matters to your photography. Here are the distortion results from both lenses:

Both lenses have very similar, low levels of distortion throughout the zoom range. The highest distortion levels are about 2% pincushion distortion around 200mm on both lenses. (Note that the 560mm and 800mm measurements for the 100-400mm are my results from Nikon’s two teleconverters.)

2. Lateral Chromatic Aberration

Although low levels of chromatic aberration are easy to fix in post-processing, high levels can lead to annoying halos and blur that is difficult to correct. The Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 both perform well in this regard, although the levels are a bit higher on the 100-400mm.

Ignoring the results with the teleconverters, the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 maxes out at 1.88 pixels of chromatic aberration, which occurs at 400mm and f/5.6. In the shared zoom range from 100-200mm, the performance is very comparable, with both lenses hovering around the 1-pixel mark at worst. Either way, this is nothing to be concerned about, although the 70-200mm f/2.8 does have a minor advantage.

3. Vignetting

Vignetting is not an issue with either of these lenses. The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 has negligible vignetting at any setting, while the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 only has noticeable vignetting wide open at f/2.8 (and even then, it’s not bad). Stop the 70-200mm down to f/4, and especially f/5.6, and vignetting disappears.

4. Sharpness

Now the moment you’ve been waiting for – sharpness! So far, the two lenses have performed on essentially the same level, so it all comes down to this. Let’s start by looking at their sharpness numbers on the wider end. Here are the lenses at 100mm and 105mm respectively:

Although the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 hits higher numbers, part of that is because it reaches its best performance at f/2.8 and f/4! The 100-400mm can’t even reach those apertures, although it gets close with f/4.5. Once you look at the shared aperture range of f/5.6 and beyond, the two lenses have extremely similar performance. But the nod still goes to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S overall because of the f/2.8 to f/4 range.

Here’s 200mm:

The story is similar here. The highest performance is found on the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 due to its performance at f/2.8 and f/4, but it’s extremely close in the shared aperture range. I’m very impressed by how well the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 does here, since the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 is the sharpest zoom lens I’ve ever measured.

But now let’s make things interesting. Which lens wins once you add the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters to the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S, to go beyond 200mm? Teleconverters always decrease a lens’s performance, but then again, the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 also gets a bit weaker in the 300-400mm range.

We’ll start with the shorter of Nikon’s two Z-series teleconverters. Here’s the comparison between the 100-400mm lens at 300mm (no TC), and the 70-200mm lens at 280mm (1.4x TC):

The performance is still high from both lenses, but not the sky-high performance we saw at 100mm and 200mm. One benefit to the 70-200mm f/2.8 is that the maximum aperture with the 1.4x TC is still f/4. (By comparison, the 100-400mm is at f/5.3 already, which is almost a full stop darker.)

Even though the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S puts up a good fight, the 100-400mm wins in this comparison. Corner performance, in particular, is higher on the 100-400mm throughout the range of apertures. Midframes also favor the 100-400mm. It goes to show you that a naked lens will almost always beat a lens with a teleconverter.

That said, central performance is neck-and-neck in this comparison – and that’s arguably the most important portion of the frame anyway at 300mm, at least for something like wildlife photography. So, the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S plus the 1.4x TC is hardly a bad option if you need a lens around 300mm.

What about a comparison at 400mm? Here’s the 100-400mm compared to the 70-200mm with the 2.0x teleconverter:

At this point, both lenses have a maximum aperture of f/5.6, and the focal length of 400mm is also the same. So, it’s very straightforward to see that the winner of this comparison is the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S. That’s especially true in the center wide-open. It’s not that the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S is bad with the 2x teleconverter – it puts up a better fight than I expected. Photographers who already have the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S can probably get away with buying the 2x TC instead of a whole new lens.

Conclusion

It’s probably clear from this comparison that you can pick either lens and expect it to be a high performer for your photography. Both lenses cost $2700, and even though that’s expensive for a single lens, the 70-200mm f/2.8 and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 are professional-calibre pieces of glass. I don’t think they’re overpriced for what you get. If you’re on a budget, though, you should consider the Nikon Z 70-180mm f/2.8 or Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 as alternatives.

Overall, I find it hard to pick a winner between the Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S and the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S! Both are fantastic lenses – among the best telephotos that Nikon has ever made (and that’s saying something, as Nikon has been known for their excellent telephotos for decades). Considering that both lenses are such strong performers, I recommend making your decision based on focal length and maximum aperture rather than something like sharpness numbers. Trust me, if you’re getting blurry photos with either of these lenses, it’s probably not the lens!

Purchase

Depending on sales, one lens will sometimes be a few hundred dollars cheaper than the other. You can check the current prices, and support my testing efforts at Photography Life, at the following affiliate links:

• Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S at B&H – Check price and sales
• Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S at B&H – Check price and sales
• Used: Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S at KEH
• Used: Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S at KEH

If you buy anything (not just these two lenses) through the links above, Photography Life can receive a small percentage of the purchase price at no extra cost to you. It goes a long way toward helping me test more lenses. Thank you for supporting my ad-free website!

Let me know in the comment section if you have any questions about these two lenses. I’ve used them both extensively and would be happy to help.