Hi, I consider replacing my 500mm PF with this lens. Is it a good move or is the 500 PF better anyway? As a wildlife photographer I suppose I will be using the lens mostly at 400 mm – it’s weakest range and I’d probably use a 1.4 teleconverter all the time.. is it for me ?
It sounds like for your needs, you should just go with the Z 400mm f/4.5 instead. You get 2/3 stop more light, and it pairs better with the Z teleconverters compared to the 100-400mm. (The 100-400mm is already at f/8 with the 1.4x TC, which is not a great maximum aperture for any low-light or even medium-light wildlife photography.)
Between the 400mm f/4.5 versus the F-mount 500mm f/5.6, it’s pretty much a tossup. I would normally suggest the 400mm f/4.5 because it’s such a strong performer at 400mm. But if you’re not exaggerating and you always/nearly always plan to use the 1.4x TC, you could just as well go with the 500mm f/5.6.
All of this assumes that you mainly plan to use the lens at its longest focal length while also using the teleconverter. If you need the 100-399mm range, you know which lens is better :)
Thank you !!! You have touched all the points of concern and clarified them. I’ll stick to my 500 PF and if an opportunity will come , I’ll take it. No need to rush. Thanks.
Jerry Z.
May 23, 2023 11:17 am
In your opinion how does this with the TCs stack up against older lenses like the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary (NOT Sport), especially on the long end? I know they’re made with two very different goals in mind – the Sigma is meant as a budget model and there are also sacrifices to be made when making a superzoom – but with the dropoff in quality presented by the TCs I would guess they might end up having similar levels of image quality around the 600 mark. Comparing the MTF data suggests similar quality but given that they were tested years apart and with different cameras I’m not reading too much into it.
The easier answer here would be to wait for the Z 200-600 to come out but who knows if Nikon will actually release that this year like their roadmap has suggested…
Having not tested the Sigma 150-600mm in the lab myself, all I can give you are my impressions based on our review from years ago. I expect that the Z 100-400mm + 1.4x TC will perform about the same as the Sigma 150-600mm in terms of sharpness at the long end. However, the Sigma has the advantage of maximum aperture, being an f/6.3 on the long end (2/3 stop brighter than the 100-400mm + 1.4x TC on the long end).
Either way, the 200-600mm should be coming out relatively soon – should be this year. I recommend waiting if performance at 600mm is important to you.
Richard Wanbon
April 18, 2023 2:01 am
I absolutely love this lens! For travel, I leave the 70-200 behind and love how this lens gives me macro, the full focal range and a comparable to the 200-500 all in one. The cost was a gulp but it’s quickly become one of my favourite lenses. While I thought most of its usage would be for those landscape peeks and the occasional macro, it does really well with candid portraits too with nice bokeh. Paired with an UWA and a normal zoom, that’s a reasonable travel kit for the versatility it provides.
It’s an awesome lens – very versatile, like you say. Landscapes, macro, portraiture, and of course wildlife photography. It does pretty much everything well.
Richard Rosen
March 31, 2023 3:34 pm
Thank you for the review on this very important Nikon Z class telephoto zoom. My own observation confirms most of your findings. I am very pleased with its performance between 300 and 400mm, but less so at the 100-200 marks. While weighing in at about 3 lbs, this lens is a lightweight compared to my predecessor, the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 Sport. I know I gained focal length, and weight, but had to give up aperture. Using the Z 100-400, with the 1.4x tc may degrade image sharpness slightly…but its not perceptible. The Z 70-200 and the Z 100-400 compliment each other well.
Glad you enjoyed the review! I was a bit the other way, where the wider performance struck me as better than the telephoto performance – but the 100-400mm is so sharp overall that the differences don’t matter much. In any case, anything will look a bit worse than the Z 70-200mm in that range of focal lengths, even most primes! They do complement each other well.
Sharpness is not the issue with me. I think you agreed with another commenter that contrast was an issue. Fortunately, I also own the Z 70 – 200, that covers the areas in question.
The contrast of the 100-400mm is quite good – I just was unsurprised to hear the commenter say that the 400mm f/4.5 was better side-by-side in that respect.
Cal Jackson
March 29, 2023 8:31 am
How would you compare the Nikon z 100-400 to the Sigma 100-400?
Nikon’s roadmap supposedly covers “through 2023,” so I have to think that lens will be among the next few to be announced. But it’s also been years at this point with no new signs…
Hayden
March 26, 2023 12:25 am
How did you find lens Contrast at 400mm? Just watched Chris Frosts review of this Lens on Youtube and he compared the lens to the 400mm 4.5vr and it was a night and day difference in favor of the prime.
It’s worse than at the wider focal lengths, but still within “good” or “great” territory. However, the 400mm f/4.5 is best-in-class based on everything I’ve seen, so it would make sense that Chris saw a clear difference side by side.
Jason Frels
March 25, 2023 3:04 pm
I did a comparison with and without the 2.0x teleconverter with some birds in my front yard. Both were very sharp, even when cropping in close to the bird’s beak and eyes. You do lose 2 stops of light with the teleconverter though and need good light. The focus is more hunty with the teleconverter
This is a link to the 2711 x 1807 crop of a shot without the teleconverter. Nikon Z7ii, Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR S, 400mm, f/7.1, 1/800s, ISO125, hand-held
This is a link to the 2710 x 1807 crop of a shot with the 2.0x teleconverter. Nikon Z7ii, Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR S, TC-2.0x, 800mm, f/11, 1/800s, ISO640, tripod
Beautiful photos, Jason! And thanks for the details about how you took them.
Robert John
March 25, 2023 12:11 pm
Depending on your style of photography I could see the 70-200/2.8 and 2.0 TC being the better bet for 1) f2.8 and 2) greater sharpness at the short end. But perhaps the response to that is that the 100-400 plus a 85/f1.8 is the real winner (bearing in mind the TC isn’t cheap). Nice to see the improvement over the 80-400G. I sold that and kept my 70-200/f4 and 300/f4D in preference and never regretted it.
It’s a dilemma, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 takes teleconverters pretty well, even though the 100-400mm still beats it over 200mm. At the end of the day, I’m glad we have a few options.
bg5931
March 25, 2023 10:12 am
Spencer – on the lens review overview page (photographylife.com/lens-reviews), this review is listed under NiSi, not Nikon Z. Just FYI. ;)
Hi, I consider replacing my 500mm PF with this lens. Is it a good move or is the 500 PF better anyway?
As a wildlife photographer I suppose I will be using the lens mostly at 400 mm – it’s weakest range and I’d probably use a 1.4 teleconverter all the time.. is it for me ?
It sounds like for your needs, you should just go with the Z 400mm f/4.5 instead. You get 2/3 stop more light, and it pairs better with the Z teleconverters compared to the 100-400mm. (The 100-400mm is already at f/8 with the 1.4x TC, which is not a great maximum aperture for any low-light or even medium-light wildlife photography.)
Between the 400mm f/4.5 versus the F-mount 500mm f/5.6, it’s pretty much a tossup. I would normally suggest the 400mm f/4.5 because it’s such a strong performer at 400mm. But if you’re not exaggerating and you always/nearly always plan to use the 1.4x TC, you could just as well go with the 500mm f/5.6.
All of this assumes that you mainly plan to use the lens at its longest focal length while also using the teleconverter. If you need the 100-399mm range, you know which lens is better :)
Thank you !!! You have touched all the points of concern and clarified them.
I’ll stick to my 500 PF and if an opportunity will come , I’ll take it. No need to rush.
Thanks.
In your opinion how does this with the TCs stack up against older lenses like the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary (NOT Sport), especially on the long end? I know they’re made with two very different goals in mind – the Sigma is meant as a budget model and there are also sacrifices to be made when making a superzoom – but with the dropoff in quality presented by the TCs I would guess they might end up having similar levels of image quality around the 600 mark. Comparing the MTF data suggests similar quality but given that they were tested years apart and with different cameras I’m not reading too much into it.
The easier answer here would be to wait for the Z 200-600 to come out but who knows if Nikon will actually release that this year like their roadmap has suggested…
Having not tested the Sigma 150-600mm in the lab myself, all I can give you are my impressions based on our review from years ago. I expect that the Z 100-400mm + 1.4x TC will perform about the same as the Sigma 150-600mm in terms of sharpness at the long end. However, the Sigma has the advantage of maximum aperture, being an f/6.3 on the long end (2/3 stop brighter than the 100-400mm + 1.4x TC on the long end).
Either way, the 200-600mm should be coming out relatively soon – should be this year. I recommend waiting if performance at 600mm is important to you.
I absolutely love this lens! For travel, I leave the 70-200 behind and love how this lens gives me macro, the full focal range and a comparable to the 200-500 all in one. The cost was a gulp but it’s quickly become one of my favourite lenses. While I thought most of its usage would be for those landscape peeks and the occasional macro, it does really well with candid portraits too with nice bokeh. Paired with an UWA and a normal zoom, that’s a reasonable travel kit for the versatility it provides.
It’s an awesome lens – very versatile, like you say. Landscapes, macro, portraiture, and of course wildlife photography. It does pretty much everything well.
Thank you for the review on this very important Nikon Z class telephoto zoom. My own observation confirms most of your findings. I am very pleased with its performance between 300 and 400mm, but less so at the 100-200 marks. While weighing in at about 3 lbs, this lens is a lightweight compared to my predecessor, the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 Sport. I know I gained focal length, and weight, but had to give up aperture. Using the Z 100-400, with the 1.4x tc may degrade image sharpness slightly…but its not perceptible.
The Z 70-200 and the Z 100-400 compliment each other well.
Glad you enjoyed the review! I was a bit the other way, where the wider performance struck me as better than the telephoto performance – but the 100-400mm is so sharp overall that the differences don’t matter much. In any case, anything will look a bit worse than the Z 70-200mm in that range of focal lengths, even most primes! They do complement each other well.
Sharpness is not the issue with me. I think you agreed with another commenter that contrast was an issue. Fortunately, I also own the Z 70 – 200, that covers the areas in question.
The contrast of the 100-400mm is quite good – I just was unsurprised to hear the commenter say that the 400mm f/4.5 was better side-by-side in that respect.
How would you compare the Nikon z 100-400 to the Sigma 100-400?
I’m afraid I haven’t tried the Sigma 100-400mm yet. It’s one of several on my list.
Overall I’m interested in the lens but I keep thinking about the 200-600 lens that might get released sometime this century.
Nikon’s roadmap supposedly covers “through 2023,” so I have to think that lens will be among the next few to be announced. But it’s also been years at this point with no new signs…
How did you find lens Contrast at 400mm? Just watched Chris Frosts review of this Lens on Youtube and he compared the lens to the 400mm 4.5vr and it was a night and day difference in favor of the prime.
It’s worse than at the wider focal lengths, but still within “good” or “great” territory. However, the 400mm f/4.5 is best-in-class based on everything I’ve seen, so it would make sense that Chris saw a clear difference side by side.
I did a comparison with and without the 2.0x teleconverter with some birds in my front yard. Both were very sharp, even when cropping in close to the bird’s beak and eyes. You do lose 2 stops of light with the teleconverter though and need good light. The focus is more hunty with the teleconverter
This is a link to the 2711 x 1807 crop of a shot without the teleconverter. Nikon Z7ii, Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR S, 400mm, f/7.1, 1/800s, ISO125, hand-held
This is a link to the 2710 x 1807 crop of a shot with the 2.0x teleconverter. Nikon Z7ii, Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR S, TC-2.0x, 800mm, f/11, 1/800s, ISO640, tripod
I didn’t apply any sharpening.
Beautiful photos, Jason! And thanks for the details about how you took them.
Depending on your style of photography I could see the 70-200/2.8 and 2.0 TC being the better bet for 1) f2.8 and 2) greater sharpness at the short end.
But perhaps the response to that is that the 100-400 plus a 85/f1.8 is the real winner (bearing in mind the TC isn’t cheap).
Nice to see the improvement over the 80-400G. I sold that and kept my 70-200/f4 and 300/f4D in preference and never regretted it.
It’s a dilemma, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 takes teleconverters pretty well, even though the 100-400mm still beats it over 200mm. At the end of the day, I’m glad we have a few options.
Spencer – on the lens review overview page (photographylife.com/lens-reviews), this review is listed under NiSi, not Nikon Z. Just FYI. ;)
Did I accidentally click the wrong category, or does NiSi secretly make this lens? The world may never know…
(Good catch – fixed :)