Shooting with Z9. 100-400mm Z = 2. 0 TC (800mm). With this setup, at low light, within the first five minutes of owning this, I shot 2 of the best Photographs of birds, I have ever taken in the last 10 years. I did that handheld, no tripod at f/11 800mm. I appreciate Perea Photography, but I don't understand what he was doing. I now use the 2.0X TC all the time. The results are mind blowing, considering I am a senior (less strength) and I use it handheld all the time. So for the price this is the deal of the century. Combine it with the TC 1.4x or 2.0x and you don't even come close to the price of those super primes or super zooms. I also don't really know why ISO seems to be a problem. Maybe remove the sun filter many photographers feel they need to put on perfect glass, to "protect their lenses". I experimented with extremely low light shots at ISO 22,600 and the shots were still usable. It maybe the Z9. Now I hate high ISO's but this combo is a joy to own. So these concerns (that were very real in the days of the D4, D5, D6, D850) are moot now as the Z9 processor handles low light so much better, and high ISO's are not to be feared as much as there were in the past. So that is my humble opinion and my personal experience. I also own 5 other S Line lenses, and they all perform faultlessly. 70-200mm (1st place), 24-120mm(2nd place) 100-400mm(3rd place)50mm f1.8(4th place). Only listing the 1-4 places as the others are specialist lenses. Just to also let you know, the first thing I do with any lens is push everything to the extreme limits. HIGH ISO, Low Shutter Speeds like 1/50 sec and lenses closed right down to F/22 etc. As another person has said, the comparisons with 'trinity' lenses is really not a thing anymore. Those 'trinity' lenses from the F-Mount cameras stood out from the crowd back then, but nowadays any of the camera makers like Sony, Nikon, and Cannon make lenses that are so good, even the really really cheap ones are fantastic. The question is no longer quality, but rather budget. with a mix of "what do you really want to do with this Lense". Once you answer those questions, you are good to go. By the way, I also got fantastic photos at 400mm, 300mm, 200mm, 100mm f/7.0-f/16 on my first day of owning this, Lense.
Holy smokes, that's a fantastic comment! Thank you so much for sharing this with us. It's a big help to be able to learn from people who actually own the lens. Thumbs up! 👍🏻
In my eyes the lens is perfect. I used it now for five weeks and i never miss my 80-400. The Z 100-400 is sharper, faster and so well balacing, It's a joy too use it. Best greetz from germany.
I am amazed at how well the 100mm-400mm handles on even small cameras like the Z50. While I have no doubt the upcoming Z 200mm-600mm lens will be less expensive, it will also be heavier, and more of a hassle on long hikes. The 100mm-400mm also pairs well with the 1.4 teleconverter, and to me losing a stop (and needing to use higher ISOs) are not that big of a deal, since the Z cameras handle higher ISOs so well. Bottom line, all of Nikon's Z mount lenses have been very good, and this lens is a welcomed addition to the lineup.
If I knew the upcoming 200-600 was going to be constant f5.6, weather sealed, and internal zoom, I could easily dismiss this lens. The likelihood that it will be none of these three things means the 100-400 + 800pf remains a better option for a 90% bird photographer like myself if I want to cover the full range (which I do). From that point of view, your review especially the comparisons with the 1.4 TC was very valuable and appreciated. Another option would be the 100-400 and the upcoming z 600 prime. Little has been said/speculated about this lens and I wonder what Nikon has up its sleeve to differeniate it from the 400 f2.8 TC.
I have the Sony counterpart to that lens, the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM lens and I love it! Yes, there are times when I wish it had more reach, but I also have the Sony A7Riii and at 42MP, I do have some flexibility to crop. I used to have the Sony A7iii and the 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G lens but found that the 200-600mm lens, although optically superb, was a beast to have in my camera bag "just in case". By cropping, I can get very similar images and resolution with the 100-400 on my A7Riii as I would get on my 200-600mm lens mounted on my A7iii, but in a much smaller, lighter and faster (f/5.6 vs f/6.3 worst case) set up. I also have the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 and the Sony 24-105mm f/4 G lens (in addition to a few assorted primes), so I have coverage from 17mm to 400mm in 3 zoom lenses with no gaps. In many ways, I find the 24-105mm (or in Nikon's case the 24-120mm) paired with a 100-400mm lens to be a "Goldilocks" combination. It may not be perfect, but IMHO, it is the "95% solution".
Very competent field report about this tempting glass. I am still not decided if it's the right choice for me. For wildlife - especially small and shy birds - it is often too short. And in general too slow with only F5.6 at 400mm and F8.0 at 560mm. But as I mainly shoot landscapes it could be a good compromise between nature/wildlife and landscape. For wildlife only the combination of the Z 70-200 F2.8 + TC 1.4 resp.TC 2.0 with the new Z 400 F4.5 or with the forthcoming Z 200-600mm could be the better solution. Best regards from Switzerland.
It was major decision to trade the 80-400 up to the 100-400 and glad I did. Mine has to serve dual purposes; landscapes and walk around wildlife. The Z version handles the 1.4 much better and don’t hesitate like I did on the F mount. Incredible!
It just so happens I’m comparing the 80-400 with the 100-400 this week. Unfortunately I don’t have the 1.4 F Mount teleconverter, but that’s good to know!
@@PereaPhotography The quality of the Z TC and the mirrorless capability to handle it are the real difference so if you can find an F for your comparison it could be relevant. The comparison with my 200-500 for walk around is not close (size & weight), let alone my 500 F4. But everything is a trade-off and I am looking forward to seeing the 200-600. Enjoy your work and looking forward to continued look at this lens.
I've been eyeing up this lens so that I wouldn't need the F to Z adapter, but I just can't justify that price. I have a Tamron 100-400 that I absolutely love and it's sharp as anything. Paired with my Tamron 150-600 and it's a birders delight. By the way, loved that Snowy Egret. My favorite bird to photograph. Thanks!!
I love egrets! I’m so jealous seeing all the birds around around area you get to photograph. We actually have a roseate spoonbill that showed up out here last year. I still haven’t seen it though. Hopefully soon!
@@PereaPhotography looks like you have many of the same birds that we have. But, when the birds fly away, you still have mountains. Here it's flat flat flat! Lol. You and Chris need to visit the Everglades one day!!
Weight is such a big factor for me these days. I have an older 600mm f4 that weighs about as much as my house so I end up not taking it out all that often. What's the point of having great glass if I don't take it out because of weight? This lens looks pretty sweet and not nearly as heavy!
As always some great videos your are producing. I was wondering what were the reason you reviewed the lens from a wildlife perspective when being a landscape photographer? It would really be interesting to hear your comments on long distance subjects like mountains on how it performs :-)
This is the sharpest telephoto lens I have ever owned ! I’m shooting it on my Z9 and seriously it’s my new favorite lens !!! In decent light it is actually sharper than my Nikon 400mm 2.8. Now when the sun stops to drop yes I have to get out the big boy and of course the tripod. However I have shot it in lowlight and was amazed at how well it cleaned up in Denoise. Amazing lens.
I am glad I found this video. Seems like you have the same combination and shooting pattern. I have the 200-500 5.6 and I shoot landscape and wildlife but not into birds that much. I recently moved to Z mount Z7 ii and slowly buying the Z mount lens. Will be looking for a long lens but I can wait a bit. Some thing light to travel with and having a zoom is my preference. I was thinking of getting 100-400 with 1.4 converter bs 180-600. What would be your rwxommendation? Which one will you recommend or should I wait for the 200-600? As that will be ideal reach but not sure about F stop. I have the 24-120 and 70-200. Thanks
I can't get over how close you were to the birds. I spend my time in blinds and rarely have birds that close. I am still using D850's so I watched for the birding. Hahaha!
Very nice review and images! I too, am primarily a landscape photographer who also does small products, macro, and ocassional wildlife. Currently my longest lens is a Nikkor AF-P 70-300 f/4.5-5.6, which is amazingly sharp on my Z7. That said, I'm considering this 100-400 and replacing my excellent 24-70 f/4 with the 24-120 f/4, based on the great reviews of that lens. So, just wondering why you didn't use the lens hood? Was it because of the cloudy and somewhat low light conditions? (Just me, I always use the lens hood, if only to protect the front element.) Thanks again!
You like that it is light and easy to carry, but then complain that it is not f/4. This would make the lens heavier and far more expensive. Of course everyone wants to shoot at f/2.8 for $800. Every lens has a tradeoff. The 180-600 is far better quality than the F mount 200-500. There is still a waiting list for this lens it is so popular. However, the 100-400 is sharper and gives the wider 100mm, and is far easier to carry. The close focus distance is a huge plus. Yes, it is more expensive but is also smaller, lighter and faster. I have the 100-400 and it works well with the TC 1.4, and if I need more I use my Z 800mm which is my new favourite lens. My usual travel gear is the 24-70/2.8, 100-400, and 800mm with both TCs. I normally don't take with me the 14-24/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8, 300/4, and all of my primes. I may sell my 70-200/2.8 now that I use the 100-400 so much.
Superb video. Thank you. I will follow your advise. As Z8 will be the 1st Z mount camera that I will purchase, having the D850 and the 200-500, I would rather wait for the 200-600. By the way what is your opinion of the 24-120? I would appreciate your opinion. Thanks again.
It would be amazing to have a 100-400 f.3.5 or even f/2.8. Cost and weight? There is always a compromise. The relatively compact size doesn't come without some trade-offs.
The comparison with 200-500 would be legit if you already have FTZ, bigger filters, bigger bag etc. As a person that already had only Z equipment, 77mm filters and the exact bags sizes I can tell you that 100-400mm was destined to be with me and it works sooo great without any noise even on ISO 6400, 1/640 in a rainy day outside in the park on the z6ii! And that close focus distance... not only the photos but I get micro orgasms even when looking it standing, lol. Thst lens is premium in every way although I also wish it would be constant f4 😄
This is one of those lenses for which I have zero interest to buy myself but I'm just happy that it exists 😁 It's excellent. Plain and simple. One of those lenses you can point at to show that the Z mount system is awesome. For me it's just too short. So I went with the 180-600.
As a landscape/wildlife photographer on a budget these three lenses (14-30, 24-120 and 100-400) make the perfect combination. Yes the f2.8s and prime telephoto lenses may be better, but I can’t for my photography justify the cost. Especially the $6000 plus cost of the new 800mm. Would I like the better lenses, you bet, but unless I win the lottery I’ll leave them to the professionals or those with money to burn. Carl
@@PereaPhotography yep, they're the three I have, they live in my bag, and I can go anywhere in the world to take photos knowing I've got the focal range covered. (I've also added the 1.4 T/C for the 100-400 just in case I need a little extra reach.)
Hi Mike, it looks after a fantastic landscape photography lens, especially for closeup shots in the mountains. The minimum aperture is not the biggest issue there. I use my Sony 70-200 f2.8 therefore with a 2.0 teleconverter, which also brings me up to f5.6 minimum. But all in all, the Nikon 100-400S seems to be a good lens. A great video as well! Nice greetings, Christian
Hey Mike ! I have that lens and I think its fantastic! I Recognized right away where you"re shooting! Riparian Preserve at Water Ranch? I have gotten some awesome shots there! Rosey, the canadian pelicans that visited us and so much more!
I used to go to that park myself, if it's the one in Gilbert (looks like it), to test out new equipment. I've been kind of on the fence about this lens, it intrigues me, but as a landscape photographer I'm not yet convinced it will give me anything I don't already have (I have the Z 70-200 and the Z 2.0 Tc). Your video has definitely give me food for thought. Thanks. :)
I´m really interested in buying this lens but very different opinions depending on who is rating it. In this video its super sharp and good all over. Watched another video where there is a warning about how unsharp it is at over 300mm. Who should I believe ?
Interesting to see that B&H can loan lenses but can not meet the back order demands for the Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S that have already placed. The video is nice to see and I thank its creator. Would however like to see B&H deliver the lens many others and I have already ordered.
I love this lens even in low light conditions. I know that they're kind of different animals but I find it perform as much better if I'm safe shooting the moon or sunset than the 24-120 F4. I don't know what it is about that lens I enjoy it for a lot of other purposes but I just can't seem to capture the colors the way I want when I use it for sunsets specifically
I think just on the fact you said it's not great on the low light, what's your thoughts on going to the mft side and trying out the lumix 100-400mm with a Lumix GH6?
I'm not a wildlife photographer, instead do sports. However, I like camera and lens reviews from wildlife photogs because we worry about the same things - higher shutter speeds in poor light. Thanks for this review, as I've been considering this lens for daytime sports rather than lugging around my big, heavy 400/2.8. I have a Nikon 200-500/5.6, but I don't think it's particularly sharp - especially in my high-resolution Z9. By the way, I'm guessing we live within 20 miles of each other. I've been to that reserve several times.
Thanks Jack! Yeah now that we hopefully start getting cooler weather, I’ll be visiting the reserve a bit more. The Rosy Spoonbill that makes an appearance there, has eluded me for a few years…
Thanks for sharing your experience with comments... great video & location...lens works well ...This is a lens I would love to buy... cheers from Australia 😀
Yeah it’s pretty tough right now. I’m only able to get this as a loaner because I have a partnership with B&H. They are still on back order, along with the 24-120. I have notifications set for both lenses. Definitely frustrating.
Mike, first time I've seen your work - very nice. I'm a sports photographer but also do a little birding and wildlife. I've been using a combination of my 400 f/2.8 and my old 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 for birding. The weight of the 400 is doable in sports but when it comes to nature it's a bear. My old 80-400 is showing it's age - it was never the sharpest lens in the bag. I have the 100-400 Z mount on order but NPS has yet to part with one, hope it's pretty soon - going to Alaska next month. I thought you covered all the lens issues very nicely (aperture v. ISO, sharpness, weight and reach) - thanks. I've subscribe to your channel and hope to see you again.
Thanks Bob! I’m in the same boat. I’ve got notifications from B&H for this lens, so hopefully they can deliver soon. It’s a beauty of a lens. That new 800mm f6.3 looks great too for the price. Good luck on your trip to Alaska!! It’s on my bucket list. Cheers!
@@PereaPhotography Thank you for your help. We were able to visit the reserve while we were there last week. It is an amazing place and so many different birds. I recently purchased a Sigma 100-400mm lens and was trying it out. I captured some nice shots and some that were not so nice. I need to keep practicing on that. That provided a great experience, and who would have thought that in the middle of the desert there would be such a variety of birds. I enjoy your RUclips videos, and since we live in Utah, most of the landscape adventures you show give me ideas of places and images to take. Thank you both for sharing your insights, talent and skills.
Hey Mike, what can I say? Enjoyed your review of the 100-400mm variable aperture lens. I shoot predominately wildlife and felt your comments were right on wrt the lens and the wildlife. For me very refreshing to hear honesty about both (and accurate at that). I don't own the lens but can appreciate the thoughts. Enjoyed your photos as well. Thanks for taking the time. Last thing: I believe the 200-600mm lens on the road map is a Z mount, but not S designated lens.
Thank you and yes that’s what I understand as well. Hopefully that means it’s a budget lens, similar to the 200-500 f5.6 f Mount! Which would be great!
Overall a nice review and some great images. Good to see the review done on a Z 7ii rather than the 9 - keeps the whole package more affordable. I have this lens and been using it with both my Z9 and Z7ii and think it is an outstanding lens - for what it is. And here is where I take issue with one aspect of your review. You point out the downside of the variable aperture and the effect of the tele-converters in raising the minimum aperture and this comes across in your review as a significant limitation. I accept these points, but feel strongly that the benefits of the small package, handhold ability and affordable price more than make up for these "limitations". If one really wants a 400mm lens with improved aperture for low-light scenarios - it is there with the Z 400 f/2.8, but boy do you pay for it in price and size!!! Wish I could justify such a lens but well out of my reach! Of course, there is also the Z 400 f/4.5 prime as well which, according to many reviews, is sharper than the 100-400, lighter and gives better bokeh. To me the strengths of the 100-400 and the reasons I have this lens rather than either of the other two - FLEXIBILITY, AFFORDABILITY, HANDHOLD-ABILITY. Coupled to the build-quality and the sharpness of the lens for me these make it a perfect match for Z bodies. Thanks for the review.
You’re absolutely right about it definitely making up for the “limitations.” I now own this lens and love it! If I need a “true” wildlife lens I just rent one haha.
@@PereaPhotography I should add, I also have the Z 2xTC. I bought it to extend the range of the Z 70-200 f/2.8 while I was waiting (8 months!!!) for the100-400 to arrive. It gave excellent results with the 70-200 and was surprisingly sharp. Now I have the 100-400 I have also tried the 2xTC on that and again been pleasantly surprised by how well the two work together - even though the minimum aperture is f/11. I have taken several birds in flight at 800mm focal length and they have been perfectly usable.
Good review focused on birds which as you stated the aperture may not be ideal for sunrise/sunset depending on where the light is compared to the subject. I’m hiking distance with it and find it a great option for landscape and the occasional animal. The focal length is versatile and it needed can always switch to DX or crop post with no problem. The 1.4 is on my list. I had the Nikon 100-500 and the Tamron 100-400l (not recommended) last summer in Wyoming. The weight and size of the Nikon lens was prohibitive on trail or when you needed to jump out of the car for a moving animal. Most pics taken with the Tamron which on the long in not as good. I’ve also carried the 80-400 where he weight/size and performance were a challenge. Note the lens could have been a not so good copy. Grateful that Nikon finally produced a Z lens!!!
I do not do wildlife, still I am considering this lens instead of the 70-200 due to extra reach and same weight as the 70-200. I disagree on your recommendation of the F 200-500. I just sold mine because it was too heavy to bring when travelling.
Mike, I'm wondering how you print in Arizona, since the ink must dry out and clog the print head, a lot. Is there a secret to keeping ink from drying out?
My view after using it on two 10 day safari trips in Africa is that it is a mixed bag on the Z6/7ii bodies. For action in early morning or late afternoon light on these bodies, focus is slow and not accurate, I have tested different setting and used the advise from Steve Perry and Them Hogan and still struggled for consistent results. My D810 on the old 80-400 produced fantastic results. This focus system is like going back 10 yrs. The lens handles well but my view is that it is expensive. I think the problem is the Z6/7ii bodies are way behind on focus capabilities. Well not all can invest in 2x Z9 bodies. So unless Nikon gives as a Z6iii or Z7iii with very good AF system on par with the likes of the Sony A9ii and 200-600, it might have to find a better solution. I love the smaller bodies and a big issue is the shutter slapping. Another area where Nikon a way behind.
I'm sure it's lovely, but having owned the Nikon 200-500, and the 80-400, and now the Sigma 100-400 which is AT LEAST the equal of the aforementioned Nikons - probably a little sharper, if I'm being honest, as well as smaller and lighter - I just can't wrap my head around why this thing costs three times what the Sigma does (even if you buy a dedicated FTZ adapter for the Sigma).
I have to agree with you Mike even here in Canada the Canada Goose is not too friendly eh 🤪😂 I'm just happy that the Canada Goose doesn't have Canadian Citizenship 🤣👍
I think calling a variable aperture lens, and at 5.6 on the long end (so neither 2.8 or 4) a part of “trinity lenses”, is abusing the concept of the desirable trinity lenses, as intended - normally trinity lenses also refer to f2.8 lenses up to 200 mm, and possibly f4 beyond that…
You are just assigning your own definition to the trinity of lenses. Nowhere and nobody has ever said what the aperture should be in those lenses. It has to do with the range of focal lengths it covers.
@@jaybleu6169 actually, I've rented the Sigma and it will be here in a couple of days. I've also used the Tamron one. I'm comparing them, but really respect Mike's opinion.
Muito bacana a Nikon 100-400, suas fotos ficaram legais, eu me aventuro a clicar umas aves aqui no Parque Estadual Lagoa do Açu(PELAG-INEA), perto de minha casa, mas as minhas fotos não se comparam com as belas fotos feitas por voce, eu tenho uma camara Canon T4i e uma lente 55-250 efs, apenas um hobby, passei a assistir fotografos profissionais como voce aqui no RUclips para pegar as tecnicas de quem sabe, e tambem ficar por dentro das novidades, quero trocar meu equipamento por um mais novo, mas os preços assustam, tudo em dollar fica 5x mais caro para mim que moro no Brasil e ganha em media $250 por mes tendo familia com filhas adolescentes para cuidar. Abraços, Sucesso e Deus abençoe.
It is a rather meh lens at least to me. Too many trade offs. Short on focal length for wildlife, slow, lens extends as you zoom in (moisture and dust already loves it). Could be a decent lens for landscape and sports photography (if you have enough light). I would use this money to buy a Z 70-200 instead.
@@PereaPhotography would be interested in knowing if you would rather have the 70-200 or the 100-400 for landscape if you could only bring 1 telephoto....
@@ceezfotography I’ll definitely talk about that soon, but short answer, I’ll take the 100-400 every time over the 70-200 for landscape photography. In fact, I just bought the lens, and I’ll be selling the 70-200!
The lense costs more than the Z9 ..... Christ you have to have ethier a very well paid job .. to afford to buy both .. even at that you're paying the same amount for a small car .. or even a Motorbike .. Buying Mirrorless gear is like being part of an Exclusive Golf Club because it's soo bloody expensive .. Isn't the whole point of the video is to upsell the Lense and show the viewer's it's plus and negatives of the Lense .. .... why even use Teleconverter .. completely detracts the whole point of the bloody of the review ... tbh .... it becomes a fraudulent review ..
Shooting with Z9. 100-400mm Z = 2. 0 TC (800mm). With this setup, at low light, within the first five minutes of owning this, I shot 2 of the best Photographs of birds, I have ever taken in the last 10 years. I did that handheld, no tripod at f/11 800mm. I appreciate Perea Photography, but I don't understand what he was doing. I now use the 2.0X TC all the time. The results are mind blowing, considering I am a senior (less strength) and I use it handheld all the time. So for the price this is the deal of the century. Combine it with the TC 1.4x or 2.0x and you don't even come close to the price of those super primes or super zooms. I also don't really know why ISO seems to be a problem. Maybe remove the sun filter many photographers feel they need to put on perfect glass, to "protect their lenses". I experimented with extremely low light shots at ISO 22,600 and the shots were still usable. It maybe the Z9. Now I hate high ISO's but this combo is a joy to own. So these concerns (that were very real in the days of the D4, D5, D6, D850) are moot now as the Z9 processor handles low light so much better, and high ISO's are not to be feared as much as there were in the past. So that is my humble opinion and my personal experience. I also own 5 other S Line lenses, and they all perform faultlessly. 70-200mm (1st place), 24-120mm(2nd place) 100-400mm(3rd place)50mm f1.8(4th place). Only listing the 1-4 places as the others are specialist lenses. Just to also let you know, the first thing I do with any lens is push everything to the extreme limits. HIGH ISO, Low Shutter Speeds like 1/50 sec and lenses closed right down to F/22 etc. As another person has said, the comparisons with 'trinity' lenses is really not a thing anymore. Those 'trinity' lenses from the F-Mount cameras stood out from the crowd back then, but nowadays any of the camera makers like Sony, Nikon, and Cannon make lenses that are so good, even the really really cheap ones are fantastic. The question is no longer quality, but rather budget. with a mix of "what do you really want to do with this Lense". Once you answer those questions, you are good to go. By the way, I also got fantastic photos at 400mm, 300mm, 200mm, 100mm f/7.0-f/16 on my first day of owning this, Lense.
Holy smokes, that's a fantastic comment! Thank you so much for sharing this with us. It's a big help to be able to learn from people who actually own the lens. Thumbs up! 👍🏻
Honestly I consider the 100-400 part of the Z trinity over the 70-200.
In my eyes the lens is perfect. I used it now for five weeks and i never miss my 80-400.
The Z 100-400 is sharper, faster and so well balacing, It's a joy too use it.
Best greetz from germany.
It’s a beauty for sure!
I am amazed at how well the 100mm-400mm handles on even small cameras like the Z50. While I have no doubt the upcoming Z 200mm-600mm lens will be less expensive, it will also be heavier, and more of a hassle on long hikes. The 100mm-400mm also pairs well with the 1.4 teleconverter, and to me losing a stop (and needing to use higher ISOs) are not that big of a deal, since the Z cameras handle higher ISOs so well. Bottom line, all of Nikon's Z mount lenses have been very good, and this lens is a welcomed addition to the lineup.
If I knew the upcoming 200-600 was going to be constant f5.6, weather sealed, and internal zoom, I could easily dismiss this lens. The likelihood that it will be none of these three things means the 100-400 + 800pf remains a better option for a 90% bird photographer like myself if I want to cover the full range (which I do). From that point of view, your review especially the comparisons with the 1.4 TC was very valuable and appreciated.
Another option would be the 100-400 and the upcoming z 600 prime. Little has been said/speculated about this lens and I wonder what Nikon has up its sleeve to differeniate it from the 400 f2.8 TC.
I have exact this Z combo you said - 14-30, 24-120 and 100-400.. will add 1.4 later this year for extra reach if needed.. :)
I have the Sony counterpart to that lens, the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM lens and I love it! Yes, there are times when I wish it had more reach, but I also have the Sony A7Riii and at 42MP, I do have some flexibility to crop. I used to have the Sony A7iii and the 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G lens but found that the 200-600mm lens, although optically superb, was a beast to have in my camera bag "just in case". By cropping, I can get very similar images and resolution with the 100-400 on my A7Riii as I would get on my 200-600mm lens mounted on my A7iii, but in a much smaller, lighter and faster (f/5.6 vs f/6.3 worst case) set up.
I also have the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 and the Sony 24-105mm f/4 G lens (in addition to a few assorted primes), so I have coverage from 17mm to 400mm in 3 zoom lenses with no gaps.
In many ways, I find the 24-105mm (or in Nikon's case the 24-120mm) paired with a 100-400mm lens to be a "Goldilocks" combination. It may not be perfect, but IMHO, it is the "95% solution".
Yeah that lens combo is amazing! And for a landscape/wildlife combo, the size and weight of the 100-400 is amazing.
Very smart solution - what speaks for the Z 100-400 S in combination with a high megapixel camera like the Z7 II or the Z9.
Very competent field report about this tempting glass. I am still not decided if it's the right choice for me. For wildlife - especially small and shy birds - it is often too short. And in general too slow with only F5.6 at 400mm and F8.0 at 560mm. But as I mainly shoot landscapes it could be a good compromise between nature/wildlife and landscape. For wildlife only the combination of the Z 70-200 F2.8 + TC 1.4 resp.TC 2.0 with the new Z 400 F4.5 or with the forthcoming Z 200-600mm could be the better solution.
Best regards from Switzerland.
It was major decision to trade the 80-400 up to the 100-400 and glad I did. Mine has to serve dual purposes; landscapes and walk around wildlife. The Z version handles the 1.4 much better and don’t hesitate like I did on the F mount. Incredible!
It just so happens I’m comparing the 80-400 with the 100-400 this week. Unfortunately I don’t have the 1.4 F Mount teleconverter, but that’s good to know!
@@PereaPhotography The quality of the Z TC and the mirrorless capability to handle it are the real difference so if you can find an F for your comparison it could be relevant. The comparison with my 200-500 for walk around is not close (size & weight), let alone my 500 F4. But everything is a trade-off and I am looking forward to seeing the 200-600. Enjoy your work and looking forward to continued look at this lens.
I've been eyeing up this lens so that I wouldn't need the F to Z adapter, but I just can't justify that price. I have a Tamron 100-400 that I absolutely love and it's sharp as anything. Paired with my Tamron 150-600 and it's a birders delight.
By the way, loved that Snowy Egret. My favorite bird to photograph.
Thanks!!
I love egrets! I’m so jealous seeing all the birds around around area you get to photograph. We actually have a roseate spoonbill that showed up out here last year. I still haven’t seen it though. Hopefully soon!
@@PereaPhotography looks like you have many of the same birds that we have. But, when the birds fly away, you still have mountains. Here it's flat flat flat! Lol. You and Chris need to visit the Everglades one day!!
I have one. I love mine. It works good with the 1.4 teleconverter. I have the 14-30 f4 and still waiting on the 24-120.
Awesome! I have notifications from B&H for both the 24-120 and this 100-400. Maybe I should just steal this one! Haha. And I love the 14-30 f4.
Weight is such a big factor for me these days. I have an older 600mm f4 that weighs about as much as my house so I end up not taking it out all that often.
What's the point of having great glass if I don't take it out because of weight?
This lens looks pretty sweet and not nearly as heavy!
As always some great videos your are producing. I was wondering what were the reason you reviewed the lens from a wildlife perspective when being a landscape photographer? It would really be interesting to hear your comments on long distance subjects like mountains on how it performs :-)
This is the sharpest telephoto lens I have ever owned ! I’m shooting it on my Z9 and seriously it’s my new favorite lens !!! In decent light it is actually sharper than my Nikon 400mm 2.8. Now when the sun stops to drop yes I have to get out the big boy and of course the tripod. However I have shot it in lowlight and was amazed at how well it cleaned up in Denoise. Amazing lens.
I am glad I found this video. Seems like you have the same combination and shooting pattern. I have the 200-500 5.6 and I shoot landscape and wildlife but not into birds that much. I recently moved to Z mount Z7 ii and slowly buying the Z mount lens. Will be looking for a long lens but I can wait a bit. Some thing light to travel with and having a zoom is my preference. I was thinking of getting 100-400 with 1.4 converter bs 180-600. What would be your rwxommendation? Which one will you recommend or should I wait for the 200-600? As that will be ideal reach but not sure about F stop. I have the 24-120 and 70-200. Thanks
Great video bro. Yes, this 100-400 may effect sales of its sister 70-200? Thing is, you could pop in filters too
I can't get over how close you were to the birds. I spend my time in blinds and rarely have birds that close. I am still using D850's so I watched for the birding. Hahaha!
You captured some great photos. I think your analysis here is spot on.
Very nice review and images! I too, am primarily a landscape photographer who also does small products, macro, and ocassional wildlife. Currently my longest lens is a Nikkor AF-P 70-300 f/4.5-5.6, which is amazingly sharp on my Z7. That said, I'm considering this 100-400 and replacing my excellent 24-70 f/4 with the 24-120 f/4, based on the great reviews of that lens. So, just wondering why you didn't use the lens hood? Was it because of the cloudy and somewhat low light conditions? (Just me, I always use the lens hood, if only to protect the front element.) Thanks again!
You like that it is light and easy to carry, but then complain that it is not f/4. This would make the lens heavier and far more expensive. Of course everyone wants to shoot at f/2.8 for $800. Every lens has a tradeoff. The 180-600 is far better quality than the F mount 200-500. There is still a waiting list for this lens it is so popular. However, the 100-400 is sharper and gives the wider 100mm, and is far easier to carry. The close focus distance is a huge plus. Yes, it is more expensive but is also smaller, lighter and faster. I have the 100-400 and it works well with the TC 1.4, and if I need more I use my Z 800mm which is my new favourite lens. My usual travel gear is the 24-70/2.8, 100-400, and 800mm with both TCs. I normally don't take with me the 14-24/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8, 300/4, and all of my primes. I may sell my 70-200/2.8 now that I use the 100-400 so much.
Great video, the Cloud reflections in the Water are superb. Not a Nikon Shooter but really interesting hearing your review. Keep Well & Stay safe 👍🇬🇧
Superb video. Thank you. I will follow your advise. As Z8 will be the 1st Z mount camera that I will purchase, having the D850 and the 200-500, I would rather wait for the 200-600. By the way what is your opinion of the 24-120? I would appreciate your opinion. Thanks again.
Great review, thank you......helped with my decision between this and the 400mm f4.5, think the zoom is more versatile.....
It would be amazing to have a 100-400 f.3.5 or even f/2.8. Cost and weight? There is always a compromise. The relatively compact size doesn't come without some trade-offs.
The comparison with 200-500 would be legit if you already have FTZ, bigger filters, bigger bag etc. As a person that already had only Z equipment, 77mm filters and the exact bags sizes I can tell you that 100-400mm was destined to be with me and it works sooo great without any noise even on ISO 6400, 1/640 in a rainy day outside in the park on the z6ii! And that close focus distance... not only the photos but I get micro orgasms even when looking it standing, lol. Thst lens is premium in every way although I also wish it would be constant f4 😄
That close focus distance is so good! Absolutely amazing that they could accomplish this!
It was a very helpful comparison for me that I have the 200-500 and D850 and Z8 will be my 1st Z camera.
This is one of those lenses for which I have zero interest to buy myself but I'm just happy that it exists 😁
It's excellent. Plain and simple. One of those lenses you can point at to show that the Z mount system is awesome.
For me it's just too short. So I went with the 180-600.
Great video - thanks for sharing. How would you rate the Z7ii and this lens for birds in flight and AFC? Does the AF track and pick them up OK? Thanks
As a landscape/wildlife photographer on a budget these three lenses (14-30, 24-120 and 100-400) make the perfect combination. Yes the f2.8s and prime telephoto lenses may be better, but I can’t for my photography justify the cost. Especially the $6000 plus cost of the new 800mm. Would I like the better lenses, you bet, but unless I win the lottery I’ll leave them to the professionals or those with money to burn.
Carl
I agree completely! That lens trio is hard to beat!
@@PereaPhotography yep, they're the three I have, they live in my bag, and I can go anywhere in the world to take photos knowing I've got the focal range covered. (I've also added the 1.4 T/C for the 100-400 just in case I need a little extra reach.)
Hi Mike, it looks after a fantastic landscape photography lens, especially for closeup shots in the mountains. The minimum aperture is not the biggest issue there. I use my Sony 70-200 f2.8 therefore with a 2.0 teleconverter, which also brings me up to f5.6 minimum.
But all in all, the Nikon 100-400S seems to be a good lens. A great video as well!
Nice greetings,
Christian
Thanks Christian!
Hi there I really appreciate your show and I
Learned lots of technique from you I have Nikon 810 body can I use 100-400 S lens. Thanks 🙏
Hey Mike ! I have that lens and I think its fantastic! I Recognized right away where you"re
shooting! Riparian Preserve at Water Ranch? I have gotten some awesome shots there! Rosey, the canadian pelicans that visited us and so much more!
I used to go to that park myself, if it's the one in Gilbert (looks like it), to test out new equipment. I've been kind of on the fence about this lens, it intrigues me, but as a landscape photographer I'm not yet convinced it will give me anything I don't already have (I have the Z 70-200 and the Z 2.0 Tc). Your video has definitely give me food for thought. Thanks. :)
I´m really interested in buying this lens but very different opinions depending on who is rating it. In this video its super sharp and good all over. Watched another video where there is a warning about how unsharp it is at over 300mm. Who should I believe ?
Interesting to see that B&H can loan lenses but can not meet the back order demands for the Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S that have already placed. The video is nice to see and I thank its creator. Would however like to see B&H deliver the lens many others and I have already ordered.
Great review buddy, I like how hands on it is and not just all in the studio! Hope you and Chris are well
Thanks buddy! Doing great! Hope all is well with you man 🙏🏼
Thanks for the review, it was very helpful!!
I love this lens even in low light conditions. I know that they're kind of different animals but I find it perform as much better if I'm safe shooting the moon or sunset than the 24-120 F4. I don't know what it is about that lens I enjoy it for a lot of other purposes but I just can't seem to capture the colors the way I want when I use it for sunsets specifically
One of my favorite places in the Riparian Preserve. I go there at least twice a week! Great pics son!!
Thank you! Yeah it’s a pretty cool place. Hopefully I can find that Roseate Spoonbill that keeps showing up.
I put some miles on that area when I lived there. Getting there just before sunrise is the best.
Yeah sunrise is definitely best. Especially during the weekdays!
@@PereaPhotography No matter how early I drove out there from N Scottsdale on a Sunday morning, it was fairly crowded. 😂
I think just on the fact you said it's not great on the low light, what's your thoughts on going to the mft side and trying out the lumix 100-400mm with a Lumix GH6?
I'm not a wildlife photographer, instead do sports. However, I like camera and lens reviews from wildlife photogs because we worry about the same things - higher shutter speeds in poor light. Thanks for this review, as I've been considering this lens for daytime sports rather than lugging around my big, heavy 400/2.8. I have a Nikon 200-500/5.6, but I don't think it's particularly sharp - especially in my high-resolution Z9. By the way, I'm guessing we live within 20 miles of each other. I've been to that reserve several times.
Thanks Jack! Yeah now that we hopefully start getting cooler weather, I’ll be visiting the reserve a bit more. The Rosy Spoonbill that makes an appearance there, has eluded me for a few years…
Thanks for sharing your experience with comments... great video & location...lens works well ...This is a lens I would love to buy... cheers from Australia 😀
Thanks Robert!
The question is how do you get it? I've ordered it weeks ago but it's consistently out of stock.
Yeah it’s pretty tough right now. I’m only able to get this as a loaner because I have a partnership with B&H. They are still on back order, along with the 24-120. I have notifications set for both lenses. Definitely frustrating.
Mike, first time I've seen your work - very nice. I'm a sports photographer but also do a little birding and wildlife. I've been using a combination of my 400 f/2.8 and my old 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 for birding. The weight of the 400 is doable in sports but when it comes to nature it's a bear. My old 80-400 is showing it's age - it was never the sharpest lens in the bag. I have the 100-400 Z mount on order but NPS has yet to part with one, hope it's pretty soon - going to Alaska next month. I thought you covered all the lens issues very nicely (aperture v. ISO, sharpness, weight and reach) - thanks. I've subscribe to your channel and hope to see you again.
Thanks Bob! I’m in the same boat. I’ve got notifications from B&H for this lens, so hopefully they can deliver soon. It’s a beauty of a lens. That new 800mm f6.3 looks great too for the price. Good luck on your trip to Alaska!! It’s on my bucket list. Cheers!
I own it and love it. A bit big but great optics.
Looks like you needed a bigger lens. Looking to rent this (possibly) for Africa trip this fall. Maybe the600/800 would be a better choice
Mike, thanks for sharing this review. I am traveling to Arizona the week of 18 April and would be interested in visiting this place. Where is it?
Awesome! It’s called the Gilbert Riparian Reserve.
@@PereaPhotography Thank you for your help. We were able to visit the reserve while we were there last week. It is an amazing place and so many different birds. I recently purchased a Sigma 100-400mm lens and was trying it out. I captured some nice shots and some that were not so nice. I need to keep practicing on that. That provided a great experience, and who would have thought that in the middle of the desert there would be such a variety of birds.
I enjoy your RUclips videos, and since we live in Utah, most of the landscape adventures you show give me ideas of places and images to take. Thank you both for sharing your insights, talent and skills.
Hey Mike, what can I say? Enjoyed your review of the 100-400mm variable aperture lens. I shoot predominately wildlife and felt your comments were right on wrt the lens and the wildlife. For me very refreshing to hear honesty about both (and accurate at that). I don't own the lens but can appreciate the thoughts. Enjoyed your photos as well. Thanks for taking the time. Last thing: I believe the 200-600mm lens on the road map is a Z mount, but not S designated lens.
Thank you and yes that’s what I understand as well. Hopefully that means it’s a budget lens, similar to the 200-500 f5.6 f Mount! Which would be great!
Overall a nice review and some great images. Good to see the review done on a Z 7ii rather than the 9 - keeps the whole package more affordable. I have this lens and been using it with both my Z9 and Z7ii and think it is an outstanding lens - for what it is. And here is where I take issue with one aspect of your review. You point out the downside of the variable aperture and the effect of the tele-converters in raising the minimum aperture and this comes across in your review as a significant limitation. I accept these points, but feel strongly that the benefits of the small package, handhold ability and affordable price more than make up for these "limitations". If one really wants a 400mm lens with improved aperture for low-light scenarios - it is there with the Z 400 f/2.8, but boy do you pay for it in price and size!!! Wish I could justify such a lens but well out of my reach! Of course, there is also the Z 400 f/4.5 prime as well which, according to many reviews, is sharper than the 100-400, lighter and gives better bokeh. To me the strengths of the 100-400 and the reasons I have this lens rather than either of the other two - FLEXIBILITY, AFFORDABILITY, HANDHOLD-ABILITY. Coupled to the build-quality and the sharpness of the lens for me these make it a perfect match for Z bodies. Thanks for the review.
You’re absolutely right about it definitely making up for the “limitations.” I now own this lens and love it! If I need a “true” wildlife lens I just rent one haha.
@@PereaPhotography I should add, I also have the Z 2xTC. I bought it to extend the range of the Z 70-200 f/2.8 while I was waiting (8 months!!!) for the100-400 to arrive. It gave excellent results with the 70-200 and was surprisingly sharp. Now I have the 100-400 I have also tried the 2xTC on that and again been pleasantly surprised by how well the two work together - even though the minimum aperture is f/11. I have taken several birds in flight at 800mm focal length and they have been perfectly usable.
Good review focused on birds which as you stated the aperture may not be ideal for sunrise/sunset depending on where the light is compared to the subject.
I’m hiking distance with it and find it a great option for landscape and the occasional animal. The focal length is versatile and it needed can always switch to DX or crop post with no problem. The 1.4 is on my list.
I had the Nikon 100-500 and the Tamron 100-400l (not recommended) last summer in Wyoming. The weight and size of the Nikon lens was prohibitive on trail or when you needed to jump out of the car for a moving animal. Most pics taken with the Tamron which on the long in not as good.
I’ve also carried the 80-400 where he weight/size and performance were a challenge. Note the lens could have been a not so good copy.
Grateful that Nikon finally produced a Z lens!!!
Yeah I’m happy they’re finally giving us some options!
I do not do wildlife, still I am considering this lens instead of the 70-200 due to extra reach and same weight as the 70-200. I disagree on your recommendation of the F 200-500. I just sold mine because it was too heavy to bring when travelling.
Where did Perea Photogaphy go? Looks like no activity in over a year.
400 6.3 ! wow, trinity is a quadrilogy with the 200-400 f4 vr2 !
how is the autofocus speed compared to the 200-500?
Enjoy your work, Nice video - Canadian Geese "The Jerks of the Bird World" had me LMAO
🤣
Love your content. Would you please tell me where is this place it looks awesome
Hey Felix! Thank you. This is in Gilbert. The Riparian Reserve.
Mike, I'm wondering how you print in Arizona, since the ink must dry out and clog the print head, a lot. Is there a secret to keeping ink from drying out?
I’ve never had a problem here with that, however, I’ve been using a few different print shops instead of doing it myself now.
@@PereaPhotography Thanks. I just retired to Mesa, and don't print many photos. Enjoy your videos. Good work!
For African Wild Life this lens is FINE .. think Elephants , Lion , Buffalo , Giraffe >> Plenty but so is my 70-200 plus 1.4 = 280 F4 or 420 f4 in DX
The Canada Geese may be offended and leave messages on your vehicle. 😲🤣
🤣
Informative video.
My view after using it on two 10 day safari trips in Africa is that it is a mixed bag on the Z6/7ii bodies. For action in early morning or late afternoon light on these bodies, focus is slow and not accurate, I have tested different setting and used the advise from Steve Perry and Them Hogan and still struggled for consistent results. My D810 on the old 80-400 produced fantastic results. This focus system is like going back 10 yrs. The lens handles well but my view is that it is expensive. I think the problem is the Z6/7ii bodies are way behind on focus capabilities. Well not all can invest in 2x Z9 bodies. So unless Nikon gives as a Z6iii or Z7iii with very good AF system on par with the likes of the Sony A9ii and 200-600, it might have to find a better solution. I love the smaller bodies and a big issue is the shutter slapping. Another area where Nikon a way behind.
I'm sure it's lovely, but having owned the Nikon 200-500, and the 80-400, and now the Sigma 100-400 which is AT LEAST the equal of the aforementioned Nikons - probably a little sharper, if I'm being honest, as well as smaller and lighter - I just can't wrap my head around why this thing costs three times what the Sigma does (even if you buy a dedicated FTZ adapter for the Sigma).
Yeah the price is a hard pill to swallow for sure. I would think it would be around the price of the 80-400.
Mirorless is mirorless. If you want to use Sigma stay DSLR and you're set but that lens worth the money when using Z camera, I can assure you 😌
I have to agree with you Mike even here in Canada the Canada Goose is not too friendly eh 🤪😂 I'm just happy that the Canada Goose doesn't have Canadian Citizenship 🤣👍
🤣🤣🤣
6:48 🥺 perfect shot
Thank you!
Sadly on a Pensioners income I will have to use the 70-200 S plus 1.4 x which I have for my Z7 may have to get the 2 x to get to 400 f5.6
I have the 14-30 , 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 all S and 20mm f1.8 s for Milky Way
I think calling a variable aperture lens, and at 5.6 on the long end (so neither 2.8 or 4) a part of “trinity lenses”, is abusing the concept of the desirable trinity lenses, as intended - normally trinity lenses also refer to f2.8 lenses up to 200 mm, and possibly f4 beyond that…
You are just assigning your own definition to the trinity of lenses. Nowhere and nobody has ever said what the aperture should be in those lenses. It has to do with the range of focal lengths it covers.
While I would love one of these lenses, the price is prohibitive. So, I'm interested to see your comparison with the 80-400mm.
Working on it this week!
Check out the Sigma 100-400 (with the FTZ adapter). Great lens. Lighter, and a third the cost.
@@jaybleu6169 actually, I've rented the Sigma and it will be here in a couple of days. I've also used the Tamron one. I'm comparing them, but really respect Mike's opinion.
Great review Mike - comprehensive and clear
Muito bacana a Nikon 100-400, suas fotos ficaram legais, eu me aventuro a clicar umas aves aqui no Parque Estadual Lagoa do Açu(PELAG-INEA), perto de minha casa, mas as minhas fotos não se comparam com as belas fotos feitas por voce, eu tenho uma camara Canon T4i e uma lente 55-250 efs, apenas um hobby, passei a assistir fotografos profissionais como voce aqui no RUclips para pegar as tecnicas de quem sabe, e tambem ficar por dentro das novidades, quero trocar meu equipamento por um mais novo, mas os preços assustam, tudo em dollar fica 5x mais caro para mim que moro no Brasil e ganha em media $250 por mes tendo familia com filhas adolescentes para cuidar. Abraços, Sucesso e Deus abençoe.
"Canadian geese the only thing I don't like about Canada" +1 LoL!!
It is a rather meh lens at least to me. Too many trade offs. Short on focal length for wildlife, slow, lens extends as you zoom in (moisture and dust already loves it).
Could be a decent lens for landscape and sports photography (if you have enough light).
I would use this money to buy a Z 70-200 instead.
I have a friend who calls Canada Geese (not "Canadian Geese") "Cobra necked death chickens".
Haha fitting name for those evil birds.
No testing as a landscape lens?
Not yet…
@@PereaPhotography would be interested in knowing if you would rather have the 70-200 or the 100-400 for landscape if you could only bring 1 telephoto....
@@ceezfotography I’ll definitely talk about that soon, but short answer, I’ll take the 100-400 every time over the 70-200 for landscape photography. In fact, I just bought the lens, and I’ll be selling the 70-200!
I'd like to see what the lens and 1.4X could do using focus stacking on the yellow flower
I seems your review is from the perspective of a bird photographer vs. a sports photographer.
We hate the geese too. - from Canada
Canada geese
you have trump we have geese !!!!!!!
Overpriced
Doesn't know how to say 'Nikon".
That’s ok if you don’t. I’ll teach you. It’s pronounced “Nikon.” Not “Nikon” but rather, “Nikon.” There. Now you know.
@@AviViljoen don’t go away mad, just go away…
The lense costs more than the Z9 .....
Christ you have to have ethier a very well paid job .. to afford to buy both .. even at that you're paying the same amount for a small car .. or even a Motorbike ..
Buying Mirrorless gear is like being part of an Exclusive Golf Club because it's soo bloody expensive ..
Isn't the whole point of the video is to upsell the Lense and show the viewer's it's plus and negatives of the Lense .. .... why even use Teleconverter .. completely detracts the whole point of the bloody of the review ... tbh .... it becomes a fraudulent review ..
What are you talking about ? This Lens does not cosy more than the Z9
@@MrDaveB123 It does .... in this Country