Видео

If you know you shoot small subjects, 600mm, it's the 600/6.3. If you shoot mostly larger subjects, 400/4.5. I see people buying the 70-200/2.8 with a 2xTC thinking it's a two for one/like a 400/4.5, and that's just not the case. Buy a 400mm if you shoot at 400. I would really like to use the 400/4.5 (fits into any bag, so light) with the 1.4TC as a 600-ish lens, like the 600/6.3, but that's just not the case either. If you're mostly shooting small subjects/birds, it's the 600/6.3

The absolute swiss army knife that 100-400! I've used it for close up nature shots (near macro), sports, wildlife, distant landscape shots and even portraits. The aperture difference is not a big difference and the sharpness difference is only meaningful when zooming right in. My only gripe is the cost. Still, for outdoor sports the 100-400 and the 400 f2.8 are a magical combination.

Pass me my 180-600 for wild life

You should get a Kirk Replacent Foot for your 400mm

I have this lens, and 50 and 85 mm 1.4 Nikkor F-mount lens.

Still hilarious how Nikon broke so many brains with one affordable lens ;)

I owned the Z 100-400 but as I preferred to use my Z 70-200 I felt that the 100-400 became unnecessary for me. Maybe one day in the future I intend to buy either the Z 600mm f/6.3 or the Z 180-600. But am more interested in the fixed lens.

Hi Russ, do you still have this lens as of july 24 .. if not what did you get to do a similar role / why did you change?

For decades, the 35mm focal length lens has been my favorite for one-lens shooting on a full-frame camera. I have used the f/2 version and the f/1.4 version. Both work well.

"Meanwhile, the [viewer] got bored and went home." [1:20]

The 1.4 has a STM motor as well

It makes sense to go with a variable aperture lens if said lens is not a focal length(s) you use all the time. It sounds like your 70-200 is a go to lens, so the constant 2.8 aperture is perfect.

Beautiful lenses, I got my 400 4.5 about 2 years ago, and my 100-400 about 4 months ago and they are both wonderful to use and the results are, from my point of view, undistinguishable between the two. But I don‘t pixel-peep… every day, just sometimes :)

I have the Z 100-400 as well, Loz (Like you, I also own the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 S lens.). The 100-400mm is a wonderful lens and I believe that you will enjoy it. I just finished a big five day shoot over 64,000 frames) last month. It was an indoor shoot, and while I shot with 4 different Z lenses during 5 days of shooting (24-120 f4; 70-200mm f2.8; 105mm f2.8 Macro, and 180-600mm f5.6-6.3), my close friend shot 3 days using both the Z 24-120 f4 and his Z 100-400mm f4.5-5.6. He's a very talented photographer and was very happy using the 100-400mm. My Z 100-400mm would have been a better choice than my 180-600mm (over 2800 frames with this lens alone) given the use-case of shooting lots of movement shots indoors, I was very happy with the performance of all my Z lenses.

The 100-400 is not inferior to the 70-200 in IQ. The 180-600 is the star of the show, but not for Loz's use. Good choice Loz, it will get a lot of use I suspect.

Excellent choice. The 100-400 is my most used lens, especially for landscape. Sadly, my 70-200 rarely gets used anymore.

I am saving up for that 100-400 and a Nikon Z8. Will be great for landscape and some minor wildlife photography.

I bought the 400mm f4.5 as I used to have a 200-500 and mostly used it at 500mm. The 400 with TC 1.4 gives me 560mm which is great. Fantastic lens.

Did Russ just ask Loz, "Why do you need a new lens?" Isn't he the expert on answering that question? 😂

Prime vs Zoom war going on here.

I don’t have an interest in either of these lenses but yall are so wonderful to watch I watched it through to the end!

180-600 didn't temp you? I know smaller apature and not S, but range fits perfectly

Welcome to the 100-400 club. This is such a wonderful and versatile lens, it's my absolute favourite.

Brilliant pick up for outdoor daytime events, add a 24-70 and your covered. Saves the wear and tear on the 70-200 2.8, which I think is one of the best l've ever used.

Enjoy the lens. I’ve had mine for a a year plus. It does feel heavy to hike with and pack along for landscape. (Still considering getting the Tamron 70-300 for these uses). A friend got the 400f4.5 and i still lust for that gem. But love the flexibility and very close minimum focal distance.

I think the question should be why the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S (in the NY, NY superstore: US$ 2,500 excluding sales tax) and not the Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR (US$ 1,700)? Alternatively, why not use the brilliantly excellent 70-200 with a 1.4 TC? I'm a fan of the "S" class lenses and they're the only ones I have, a bunch actually, but some of the non-S lenses are actually really good. They may have a quirk here or there, but if you know how to work with, or around that, they are great value for money.

Loz is Mister Zoom like me. Congratulations, fantastic combo with the Z8.

Love my 100-400, shame the 180 to 600 is a little sharper, but the 100-400 being an s-lens with better seals and it's close focus ability makes it great for close up shots with insects and butterflies etc. Better for events / Low light too

Love these guy's and the banter.

I have an idea - how about a x2 teleconverter on the 70-200 vs the 100-400mm? That would be a good watch! I also wonder why Loz didn't went with the teleconverter in the first place.

The image quality on the 100-400 is amazing! I almost never use my 70-200mm f/2.8 anymore unless I’m shooting in a low-light situation (e.g. concert). And I often add the 1.4x TC if I need additional reach (560mm @ f/8).

Nice purchase but for Airshows wouldn't the 180 to 600 along with your 70 to 200 have been a better match? 🤔😊

I’ve got the 100-400, it’s brilliant. I’m amazed by how much I use it and for what. I bought it because I found my 500pf too restrictive and missed so many shots because I was too close so being able to zoom in to 100 is very useful.

At 3:44 you have put the lighting device very close to the 14-30, but no such thing with the 20mm. This is ruining the comparison, isn't it? If you instead had put the light close to the 20mm, and not done the same on the 14-30 image, then the conclusion from that comparison would be the other way around. At 6:35 the light has changed, and the 14-30 again has better lighting conditions. If you look at the areas where the 20mm has sufficient light, you will see that it is actually sharper, not softer.

Look at the Viltrox 28mm1.8. I use it for weddings and events.

This comparison is flawed on a few levels. The dollar value comparison of a used 1.8 vs a new 1.4 doesn't make sense. Compare the new pricing for both. Secondly, they haven't tested the 1.4 but they consider it inferior to the 4 year old 1.8 that they don't like on many levels. A brand new Z lens will undoubtedly be a better product than the first Z lens made. Finally, 1.2 Z lenses are heavy and expensive, not practical for many photographers. This 1.4 isn't heavy or expensive but offers sharpness, great bokeh and a compact size. I'm getting my 1.4 next week and it fits the bill as an inexpensive street lens or portrait or travel lens. I will be taking it to Eastern Turkey in a few months to photograph Kurdish villagers and ancient sites. Along with the 85mm ƒ1.8, 24-120mm, 40mm ƒ2, 100-400 and 14-30 I have a group of relatively light lenses that will deal with any situation. BTW, my wife and I both shoot, so its 2 bodies and 2 backpacks for 2 photographers with Z8 and Z9.

my Z8 and Zfc for street and traveling i got a Viltrox 56 1.7 for my zfc and even for my Z8 (DX)

I have a Nikon Z6ii and Z30. I like to use my Z30 as my webcam for meetings with the Nikkor DX 24mm f/1.7. So no plans on selling the Z30 as I really like having a nice webcam. And can always use it for other things if I want.

D780 overpriced. Just buy a D850 •Sigma Art 40mm is much better than 50mm & 35mm in tests & good go-between

You saved me 600 bucks! That was the best review thanks keep it up

In regards to the used market, z6 at around $700 or z6ii at $1100. Using it for Milky Way, seascapes, dont think I am doing wildlife, at least I dont want to yet. Give up USB power and longer shutter speed of 30" for extra money for lenses?

I say why not. If You use Older Nikon F Mount lenses and if it is faster in lower light. I see no problem with it. Cheers!

Crazy for a lens hood, do you know anybody with a 3D printer? Got to admit at that price I'd rather go down to B&Q, get a piece of plastic pipe and a roll of duct tape!

I bought the 200-500mm 5.6 lens for $800. It works great for me and that’s all that I care about. Great video. Thanks for sharing your experience with us. ❤❤❤

I'm not a pro photographer anymore and mainly shoot video. So the lenses I want for video I'm moving to Z mount. But I still have some F mount lenses I do use for my personal stuff, mainly the dogs and as they were good enough for pro work a few years ago, I can't really justify splashing the cash for that little bit extra (sharpness or convenience). To be fair I don't really see a difference in IQ between my new Zf and my old D750, apart from the ZF just nails focus on my dogs eyes with a greater hit rate than I can on my D750.

I think that as long as we don't have a few more in depth explorations of this lens and a side by side comparison with an adapted 35mm Sigma 1.4 art, we won't have a full understanding of what this lens can do. Maybe the character and Bokeh will make it the "portrait" 35mm lens while the 1.8 and 1.2 will work better with Architecture. It is too early to judge, but, personally, I will try to borrow one to test alongside my beautiful old sigma, which, adapted, is heavier than a dead horse.

I found one second hand this weekend, never seen one in the wild. I have a Leica Q with a 28mm 1.7 which I love, and my favourite lens on my Nikon D850 is my 85mm 1.4. So I decided to jump at the chance to add the 28mm 1.4 in to my collection to shoot with, looking forward to the experience. Watching this video 6 months ago when I was looking at a 35mm 1.4 and 24mm 1.4 second hand, gave me the patience to wait to find a 28mm 1.4 one day. Thank you.

Russ - I see where you are coming from, and also I feel that you might be missing some of the point here. First, keep in mind that the old 35mm 1.8 G F mount lens was almost $500 - so now for like $100 more we are getting a MUCH better lens in terms of IQ and a 1.4 to boot. This is by far the best 35mm 1.4 on the market for under $1000 - with the possible exception of the Tamron 35 1.4 SP lens - but that is a DSLR lens that needs to be adapted and it is bigger and much heavier - although it is really amazing. If you want a Canon 35mm 1.4 RF lens, you are looking at $1500 - nearly 3 times the price of this Nikon lens and it is bigger and heavier as well. Is the Canon better - yes - it is a more 'pro' lens in that it has more coatings etc, but it is NOT 3 times better - it may be 5-10% better (at most) for three times the price. If aberrations matter than much to someone there is still the 35mm 1.8 S lens that will fully compete in IQ with the Canon lens for half the price (maybe less now) just at 1.8. Ultimately, Nikon will release the 35 1.2 S, which I expect to be one of the best 35mm lenses made of all time by any manufacturer - but yes it will be expensive, large and heavy - Nikon has made it pretty clear that the 1.2 S line is a 'no compromise' line of lenses. I think this is why they are offering this new 1.4 non S line as a concession to those who feel as you do - that would prefer lighter and less expensive lenses but still need low light capability (and creamier bokeh). Lets be honest, you can shoot professional event/wedding work with the 40mm f/2 lens - the quality is there, and I know wedding photographers that use it and have awesome results. I expect the same is true (if not better) for the new 35mm 1.4. Also, it has a metal mount (unlike the 40mm f/2). Between that and 1.4 it should be more than the 40 f/2 - I think the price being 2 times that lens makes perfect sense and is still a great buy. this 35mm 1.4 would be an incredible lens for weddings - and no client will ever say "look at those aberrations" guaranteed. I think Nikon is changing the paradigm here by offering very affordable 1.4's to the mass market - these lenses in spite of not have the coatings are still as good or better IQ than the pro F mount lenses that we were all happy with only 4-5 years ago - but at a third the price of those F mount lenses - this is a massive bargain. If you are just of the mind that your use case is for 1.4's and thus you wish you could have the best in that category then I do understand. My advise is to wait for Sigma to release their Z mount FF line - coming soon. They have a 50 1.2 lens that is very small and light - not as good as the Nikon 50 1.2 S, but very close for $800 less and about half the size and weight so it remains very impressive. Sigma makes even smaller, lighter and cheaper 1.4's as well - all of these will be coming to Z mount and of course can already be adapted perfectly from Sony E mount. As far as native Nikon selection - a line of fully professional 1.8 S lenses for those that care about IQ more than low light/bokeh, a line of 1.2 S lenses for those that want no compromise and don't care about price, weight or size, and the goldilocks middle ground of relatively inexpensive light weight small 1.4's that still have excellent IQ - and top of class compared to only 5 years ago, and that travel really well - provides everyone something that really works for any use case. My tough decision now is whether I get all lenses in all three categories as I have use cases for each of the above, but I have to control my impulses if possible lol. Anyway, this is my take on the situation... -PD

The initial price of tech is sometimes defined to "milk" those that waited for the product which pay the price without hesitation and then the price goes down (this is a common pricing strategy).

There are a number of Chinese suppliers making ceap primes with fast apereture and even autofocus. So it is all about a marketing decsion to check if the chosen recent strategie will work to keep the new cheap suppliers out of the business. Time will tell. There will be always people available to pay for a "S" only.