Just been out with my 100-400, carrying it in a 13 inch long shoulder camera bag (with my wallet and phone).
I photographed:
– my dog at 100mm
– flowers at 3 feet away
– landscapes at 400mm
– a magpie in flight at 200mm (you can get close to them on our common)
– mating blue tits at 600mm (using my Z8 on crop).
OK, it’s not the very best lens for sitting in a hide with a gimbal head (I’d take the 500/f5.6 or 180-600 for that), but it’s a very fine walk-around lens.
Mike
August 24, 2024 9:00 pm
the obvious lens to compare this to is the 80-400mm G. Why did you leave that out?
We never tested the 80-400mm G on a 45 megapixel sensor. You can see our review of the 80-400mm G, although the test results were from a 36 megapixel sensor instead and a different test chart. One day I’d like to go back and test the 80-400mm G on a comparable sensor, but it’s not my top priority at the moment. photographylife.com/revie…400mm-vr/3
Don’t bother, Spencer. The 100-400 is much better than the 80-400. I’d get the 300/f4 and a 1.4 TC ahead of the 80-400.
Raymond MEISTER
July 9, 2024 5:32 am
Raymond MEISTER 4 July 2024 16h15 I currently own the Z8 + Z24-120 S. I am very happy about it. I would like to complete my equipment with a zoom TV. I like the Z100-400 S very much. I tried it and I get the quality of my 24-120. It would also be an excellent complement. My hesitation comes from the weight and the clutter especially for travel. I’m afraid I won’t take it often. I do reportage photography, landscape photography and sometimes animal photography and a bit of sport. I recently tried the new Z28-400. It is practical and versatile but does not have the quality of 24-120 and 100-400. Especially from 165 where it opens only at f8. In addition it is a bit redundant with my 24-120, which can become in DX a 36-180. I am rather an amateur photographer a little experienced. Thanks for your advice.
Raymond MEISTER
July 4, 2024 4:15 pm
Je possède actuellement le Z8 + le Z24-120 S. J’en suis très content. J’aimerais compléter mon équipement avec un télé zoom. Le Z100-400 S me séduit beaucoup. Je l’ai essayé et je retrouve la qualité de mon 24-120. Ce serait également un excellent complément. Mon hésitation vient du poids et de l’encombrement surtout pour les voyages. Je crains de ne pas l’emporter souvent. Je pratique la photo de reportage, de paysage et occasionnellement de l’animalier et un peu de sport. J’ai essayé récemment le nouveau Z28-400. Il est pratique et polyvalent mais n’a pas la qualité du 24-120 et du 100-400. Surtout à partir de 165 où il n’ouvre qu’à f8. En plus il fait un peu double emploi avec mon 24-120, qui peut devenir en DX un 36-180. Je suis plutôt un photographe amateur un peu expérimenté. Merci de vos conseils.
Gary Swergold
May 11, 2024 8:51 am
Here is a point not covered in the review. Sharpness (and F stop) definitely suffer using this lens with the 1.4TC. But, the lens sharpness declines between 300mm and 400mm. I’ve used the 100-400mm with the 1.4TC and find that sharpness is better if I only zoom to about the 350mm mark. That gives a sharper image at close to 500mm.
QUOTE Our Verdict: The Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S … Cons: • Bokeh quality and sharpness drop meaningfully with the teleconverters, especially the 2.0x TC.
I’d love to see an updated comparison with the Nikon Z 180-600 and the Tamron 150-500 now available. Those are two compelling options at much lower price points.
Peter
December 24, 2023 11:47 am
So, I own the Z 70-200 f2,8 and the Z 100-400 f4,5-5,6 with the Nikon Z f and Z fc instead of the tc‘s and I feel very fine with that option. However, I really would like a test review, taking this combination into account. From my amateur- perspective, the Z fc makes much more sense, than a tc.
Robert John
November 8, 2023 4:55 pm
Interesting. By comparison, my 70-300E and 500/5.6, used, cost me £2,600. That’s quite a bit cheaper than the 100-400 bearing in mind that with a 35mm camera, 400mm doesn’t cut it for wildlife (it’s much smaller in the U.K.) so it really needs a £500 TC. And if one has a mid-range z-mount, it’s only 10mp in dx mode (and Nikon doesn’t make a decent aps-c z-mount camera, nor does it look like it will). I don’t fancy 560mm at f8. The only z-mount that would make sense is a 33mp £2,500 (max) Z6iii. That could take a 24-70/120/200, 70-180/f2.8 and 400/f4.5 and 1.4TC, and give 14mp in dx mode. Looks good. But it’s a whopping £8,200. That’s why I can’t pay attention to Z8/9s. Add in the cost of lenses and it heads north at quite a lick. Over at Sony, they’ve got Samyang making some great budget lenses (like the 135/f1.8) …
Jean-Daniel Pellet
September 19, 2023 2:38 pm
I’m kind of puzzled by the stars in you overall rating chart… :-)
Just been out with my 100-400, carrying it in a 13 inch long shoulder camera bag (with my wallet and phone).
I photographed:
– my dog at 100mm
– flowers at 3 feet away
– landscapes at 400mm
– a magpie in flight at 200mm (you can get close to them on our common)
– mating blue tits at 600mm (using my Z8 on crop).
OK, it’s not the very best lens for sitting in a hide with a gimbal head (I’d take the 500/f5.6 or 180-600 for that), but it’s a very fine walk-around lens.
the obvious lens to compare this to is the 80-400mm G. Why did you leave that out?
We never tested the 80-400mm G on a 45 megapixel sensor. You can see our review of the 80-400mm G, although the test results were from a 36 megapixel sensor instead and a different test chart. One day I’d like to go back and test the 80-400mm G on a comparable sensor, but it’s not my top priority at the moment. photographylife.com/revie…400mm-vr/3
80-400 is really cheap now.please test it on 45mp camera please
Don’t bother, Spencer. The 100-400 is much better than the 80-400. I’d get the 300/f4 and a 1.4 TC ahead of the 80-400.
Raymond MEISTER
4 July 2024 16h15
I currently own the Z8 + Z24-120 S. I am very happy about it. I would like to complete my equipment with a zoom TV. I like the Z100-400 S very much. I tried it and I get the quality of my 24-120. It would also be an excellent complement. My hesitation comes from the weight and the clutter especially for travel. I’m afraid I won’t take it often. I do reportage photography, landscape photography and sometimes animal photography and a bit of sport. I recently tried the new Z28-400. It is practical and versatile but does not have the quality of 24-120 and 100-400. Especially from 165 where it opens only at f8. In addition it is a bit redundant with my 24-120, which can become in DX a 36-180. I am rather an amateur photographer a little experienced.
Thanks for your advice.
Je possède actuellement le Z8 + le Z24-120 S. J’en suis très content. J’aimerais compléter mon équipement avec un télé zoom. Le Z100-400 S me séduit beaucoup. Je l’ai essayé et je retrouve la qualité de mon 24-120. Ce serait également un excellent complément. Mon hésitation vient du poids et de l’encombrement surtout pour les voyages. Je crains de ne pas l’emporter souvent. Je pratique la photo de reportage, de paysage et occasionnellement de l’animalier et un peu de sport. J’ai essayé récemment le nouveau Z28-400. Il est pratique et polyvalent mais n’a pas la qualité du 24-120 et du 100-400. Surtout à partir de 165 où il n’ouvre qu’à f8. En plus il fait un peu double emploi avec mon 24-120, qui peut devenir en DX un 36-180. Je suis plutôt un photographe amateur un peu expérimenté.
Merci de vos conseils.
Here is a point not covered in the review. Sharpness (and F stop) definitely suffer using this lens with the 1.4TC. But, the lens sharpness declines between 300mm and 400mm. I’ve used the 100-400mm with the 1.4TC and find that sharpness is better if I only zoom to about the 350mm mark. That gives a sharper image at close to 500mm.
QUOTE
Our Verdict: The Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S
…
Cons:
• Bokeh quality and sharpness drop meaningfully with the teleconverters, especially the 2.0x TC.
photographylife.com/revie…5-6-vr-s/4
I read that the teleconvertors available we not compatable with the z 100-400nm.
You read wrong and wrote poorly.
I’d love to see an updated comparison with the Nikon Z 180-600 and the Tamron 150-500 now available. Those are two compelling options at much lower price points.
So, I own the Z 70-200 f2,8 and the Z 100-400 f4,5-5,6 with the Nikon Z f and Z fc instead of the tc‘s and I feel very fine with that option. However, I really would like a test review, taking this combination into account. From my amateur- perspective, the Z fc makes much more sense, than a tc.
Interesting.
By comparison, my 70-300E and 500/5.6, used, cost me £2,600. That’s quite a bit cheaper than the 100-400 bearing in mind that with a 35mm camera, 400mm doesn’t cut it for wildlife (it’s much smaller in the U.K.) so it really needs a £500 TC. And if one has a mid-range z-mount, it’s only 10mp in dx mode (and Nikon doesn’t make a decent aps-c z-mount camera, nor does it look like it will). I don’t fancy 560mm at f8.
The only z-mount that would make sense is a 33mp £2,500 (max) Z6iii. That could take a 24-70/120/200, 70-180/f2.8 and 400/f4.5 and 1.4TC, and give 14mp in dx mode. Looks good. But it’s a whopping £8,200.
That’s why I can’t pay attention to Z8/9s. Add in the cost of lenses and it heads north at quite a lick.
Over at Sony, they’ve got Samyang making some great budget lenses (like the 135/f1.8) …
I’m kind of puzzled by the stars in you overall rating chart… :-)
Strange! Thank you for letting me know. I just fixed it.