Nikon 400mm Utimate Lens Comparison
2024 ж. 1 Мам.
67 434 Рет қаралды
In this video, I look at all the 400mm lens options from Nikon for wildlife, bird, or any other photography genre.
This review is completely unbiased and I have NO affiliation with Nikon on any of these products. All lenses purchased by me or loaned from B&H Photo.
Interested in any product here and shop with the link below:
Nikon 400mm f/2.8: bhpho.to/3l22X6A
Nikon 400mm f/4.5: bhpho.to/3BJoZzK
Nikon 100-400mm: bhpho.to/3On06By
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8: bhpho.to/4044ec0
Awesome review Scott! Best comparison I’ve seen so far. Appreciate it!
Nice work Scott! A complex subject whittled down to comparisons most understand. Thanks for that extra mile to the finish. Well Done!
Scott, Thank you for taking the time and effort to test the 4 lens and report the results. Very helpful! As others have stated, I'm very happy with my 100-400. I sure looking forward to the 200-600. Hurry Nikon!!
Great comparison review, Scott. On a recent trip to Canada this past autumn, I took my 600G ED VR, 500PF, and the 100-400. We were mostly photographing mammals; Elk, Bighorn, Grizzly's, Black Bear, and we did encounter a few Great Gray Owls (I know how much you love owls), and I found myself all most exclusively using the 100-400, with few exceptions. It's a fantastic lens and has earned a spot in my kitbag.
Nice review/comparison of the 4 lenses! Well done. Can't wait to get my hands on the 400 2.8 for sure.
Appreciate the info! I've got the 100-400, and love the versatility for wildlife, sports, air shows, you name it.
Great review!! I like the concept of picking a focal length to do the comparison. I also liked your “who is this lens for” summary at the end. Would be neat to do another review when the mythical 200-600 arrives, and also a @600mm (560mm) comparison between the four lenses (400 2.8, 4.5, 100-400 + TC; 200-600).
Incredibly valuable information and research - loved the entire thing and appreciate the work that you put into making it.
Perfect timing as I am in the market for a 400mm lens from Nikon. I also love the criteria you used, and the order of importance. Brilliant comparison!!!
Great review! I especially like the fact that you stayed within the Nikon lineup. Many similar reviewers test across brands which, to me, is irrelevant since I’m not going to junk my Nikon gear and switch to Canon/Sony for a single lens. I just bought a 100-400 and have been wondering if I should keep my beloved F mount 70-200. You just gave me the answer: indoor events with the FTZ adapter and the 2.8 light gathering.
Excelent comparison. I have the 100 -400 mm lens and love it. Also with the newer denoise post processing and cameras the higher iso is less of an issue. Thanks for great summary and application recomendations.
Excellent clear and simple explanations and comparisons of these lenses. Thank you.
Really useful, thanks for the hard work you put into this
Thank you for this review, Scott. I have been using the 80-400 lens for several years, starting with the D-300 up through the D-850. It has served me well and won many awards for its birds. It has been extremely versatile for everything from bugs to buzzards. I shoot almost everything on manual exposure and when I go out in the morning my default setting are 1/1000, 5.6, ISO 1600. then I test the exposure and adjust from there. But, it is beginning to rattle a bit and I might need to start thinking about replacing it. My 500mm F 4 G lens is fantastic but weighs 8.6 pounds. I still use it when I'm shooting from a blind or from my mobile blind (Tundra). The 80-400 is used for everything else. So, I was considering the Nikon 100-400 5.6. I think you have helped me make up my mind. Thanks for all the information.
Outstanding work sir! Fantastic! I happen to know that yes, this type of video is a crazy amount of work! Thank you for your service to the photography community!
Thank you Scott for explaining so much with these lenses. I have the 70-200 and Love It!
Thanks Scott! I went from F mount to Z mount early in 2022 with a Z6ii. By July I was able to get a 100-400 Z mount and 1.4X. I liked it so much I sold my 300 F 2.8 VR AFS ED in October along with the 1.4 and 2X converters.. I did notice the 100-400 did not focus quite a quick as the 300 but I can live with it for what I do. I have pre ordered a Z8 and am hoping the AF will be quicker and more accurate than the Z6ii. I feel like I made the right choice for me and am not considering any changes to my lens line up. Thanks again.
Agree with all the comments below about this being the best comparison I've seen on youtube. The consistency of your shots on the tennis balls really helped make the comparison of lens sharpness each easier. I do mostly indoor sports - volleyball - so the 70-200 is my current lens but I was wondering how it stacked up with the other lenses for bird phototgraphy with the 2x teleconverter. This completely answered that question. Also helped me realize it could be used for psuedo-macro in back yard or out in nature with an extension tube so going to give that a shot.
A very well reasoned video. I'm a retired press photographer coming up from film and transitioning into digital around 1999. But it wasn't until the Nikon D3 and D700 came out that I felt digital gave us parity (and then some) with film. I mention this because when I took delivery of my D700 I also received the first (I think) Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 zoom. While it wasn't as sharp as my Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 or our staff 300mm f2.8 lenses, the flexibility of the zoom coupled with the low light capability of the D700 allowed me to use the lens for night football with good results at ISO 4,000 and even a bit more. For me the 80-400mm was a game changer, opening up opportunities beyond the reach of my 80-200 f2.8 and allowing me to seamlessly cover football plays all the way from almost the 50-yard-line back to the end zone. I think the low-light capability of modern digital cameras is an often forgotten factor when talking about fast primes vs zoom lenses, especially in full-frame cameras.
Fantastic, unbiased comparison. I appreciate your real world approach vs. specs and pointing lenses at graphs and charts... I eagerly await your thoughts on the soon to be released 180-600.
Thanks!
Great video. Thanks. Have the 100-400 and happy with it!
Excellent and one off review! i have the 100-400 and it is a very versetile lens, for what it can do i think it is a must have for all serious photographers wherever genre they're in.
Great review and summation of these lenses - very education and well presented. -PD
great review, very helpful. Thank you!
Very helpful comparison. Thanks!
Scott, I just loved this video. The lens comparison you made keeping most of the wildlife photographers who may not have enough budget to afford beast like 400f2.8. And you rightly said, the sharpness difference is not much noticeable between 400 f4.5 and 2.8. A stop and half of light, we may increase iso accordingly. And keeping noise reduction softwares like DXO pure raw, Topaz denoise and Adobe Denoise in mind, spending $13k dollars is not an option except for pros. But enthusiastic photographers like me, it's a 400f4.5 go to lens.
Love this video! Great comparison which was extremely helpful. I understand the emphasis is on daytime wildlife photography, but photo examples of low light/night time would be a bonus to those of us that do that.
Glad it was helpful!
Great video! Before I watched this, I had a big plan to buy 400/4.5. Now I'm not so sure which one should I choose. 2.8 is too expensive, but 100-400 in terms of af speed and image quality seems to be the best option. Maybe only the weight can be painful. Thanks for this comparison, well done!
Really helpful this video. I've been wondering about the 100-400. I shoot mostly landscape so the 70-200 is my go-to lens. I've added the 2x converter for wildlife. The 70-200 is exceptionally sharp alone, but I've noticed the 2X converter does soften it a bit. Also, a few weeks ago I made a presentation to about 35 folks at Middle Creek titled Nature Photography 101. I emphasized wildlife photography since I assumed most folks were there to learn more about that. I really talked up your channel as a great resource for learning about technique, gear, and instruction. Hopefully you added a few subscribers after my presentation. Thanks so much for the work you do pulling together your videos.
Sincere gratitude!
Thank you very much for your detailed lens test 👍 I am looking for the 200-600Z Lens. (Sport outdoor) (have already the 70-200 and TC's) I would consider the 400/2.8 with the built in TC and the possibilities for external TC as very versatile, but well out of my range.
Great review, thanks. I was torn but now am going to order the 100-400. I have the 180-600 but I think it will be a bit too much to carry to Panama with 2 bodies and my 24-120. The 100-400 with my 1.4TC will be a lot easier to manage. I had my 500PF in Costa Rica last year & found that I could not back up far enough for some birds and could not easily locate the very close ones which is the reason I got the 180-600 to start with. The 100-400 close focus distance will be a real bonus too!
thanks for the comparison it is exactly what I wanted to know.
Thanks for a very interesting comparison video. You have made me feel even better about my purchase of the 100-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter. That combination has become almost welded to my Z6. One other point in favour of this lens is for landscapes. I’m not much of a landscape shooter but many of the leading YT experts in this genre have recently posted videos promoting the use of 100-400 for landscapes.
I'm thinking of buying one for mostly landscape and occasional birds/animals. I've also heard it can focus quite close as well.
Nice review. I've owned the 400mm f/4.5 S from launch and have been totally blown away by it - such a fantastic lens for the size and weight! Sure, I lust after a 400mm f/2.8 TC for low light, but realistically it would be very hard to justify the bigger lens even if I /could/ afford one! PS. The 400mm f/4.5 S does have one custom programmable function ring (the f/2.8 TC has two)..
This video is great, thank you. All the explanations I have looked for in relation to various lens' you have answered here really well. Thank you. Just a same I have Canon lens'.
They are surprisingly close. As you say it all depends on your need. Very useful information Scott.
Awesome vid! glad I found this channel, thanx!
I love my 100-400 f/5.6. It’s even great with the 1.4TC if you can live with lower light gathering. Thanks for doing this comparison test!
I have the 400 mm f/4.5 and 70-200 mm f/2.8. I'm very happy with both lenses. The 100-400 mm looks impressive as well.
Excellent and thorough analysis! One of the few ~30 mins videos that are worth watching full length. I'm a pro needing only up to 200 mm, but ever since I got the x2 TC for the 70-200 I'm getting drawn to the 400 mm use in my spare time. The result that surprised me the most is how useable the 70-200 x2 was in the tests you did. The difference was very noticable, but I expected it to be larger. Nevertheless, I'm conviced now to get the 400/4.5 for even sharper images and the option to turn it into an 800/9. Thanks for this excellent video!
Thanks for very impressed comparisons.
Great review! Thanks
Thanks Scott, well done. Great information.
Brilliant review, well explained, many thanks for doing this, I still cannot decide between the middle 2 though...... 🙃🙂🙃
Great review on the lens and the differences in use! Personally, I can wait for the 500/600Z f4 replacements to come out for the weight savings vs my 500f4G!! It will be interesting to see what the new 200-600Z lens will be like when it’s released and I like the direction Nikon is headed with the new lens in optics!
600G already exists in the 600/4TC, and I'm not sure if a 500 is going to happen anytime soon considering the 400/2.8TC exists
@@Mark13376 I was referring to budget friendly versions not the $14-$16000. A lens like the z400 5.6, but in 500 or 600mm versions. I have a 500 f4 G that weighs in at 10lbs and having a prime version in the Z line up like the 400 6.6 would appeal to more general Wildlife photographer. I had read on Rumors that drawings had been submitted,so I hope this is true for general photographers vs the pros that are using 400 TC or 600 TC. Yes these two versions are great lens, but out of reach for most.
I really appreciated the detailed comparisons between the Nikon 400mm lens options. It is obvious that a great deal of time and effort was invested in the video. I’m personally torn between the 100-400 and the 400 f4.5. I’m probably going to choose the zoom because I already own the 500mm PF and the adapter. I would love to see a future video that compares various combinations of lenses to round out a wildlife kit for various budgets and subjects. Keep up the great work!
This is so good. Wanted to compare 500 pf with 400 mm. I got some answers! Thank you!
oh man I am so stoked about this.. I am absolutely dying to upgrade my 200-500 lens. I am so glad you made this because it helps me figure out which one would be worth it for me, I will say the 500PF is in the mix as well for me. Hey Scott, I am a wildlife enthusiast and I was wondering investing in better glass > better than upgrading the body from z6ii to z8? what do you reckon. as I said I only have a 200-500 and while I love it I would like to upgrade to something lighter and weather sealed. Unfortunately cant upgrade body and glass. so.. thanks for any input you could provide cheers!
Great video. Your enthusiasm shows through. I'm still using my F mount 500 PF and holding out for the 200-600 Z mount.
That will be a neat lens
I definitely Love this review and it has resolved my confusion on which 400ml lens I need. Am an outside shooter landscape and seascape mostly hence from your review am well suited with the 100 -400 lens. Thank you and found this review very helpful, useful and highly educative
glad it was helpful!
Awesome content and very helpful - thanks
Great comparison. I purchased the 100-400 a little while ago and love it. Completely agree with you on how sharpe it is. Takes the 1.4 TC really well too.
Have you had any luck with the 2x on it? Nikon and others claim there is little to no image or AF capability loss with the 2x, but i don't like it on the 100-400 or the 70-200. I only keep it for shooting the moon. No complaints with the 1.4
@@uhoh7541 I don’t own the 2x so I can’t speak to how good or bad it is.
@@dah7772 Thanks for reply none the less!
excellent review, thank you!
Excellent video!! Because of this video I just bought the 100-400. Thanks so much for sharing this information!! Greg Roberts, Bham, AL
awsome enjoy!
Just came across your channel. Great content. Great comparison. Thank you. Liked and subscribed,.
Hi Scott, I appreciate the side-by-side(-by-side-by-side). I have the 70-200mm and TC 2X, and this was a very useful comparison for me. Just like your “who’s it for” section, I’m not primarily doing birds, sports, or wildlife, but I really enjoy being able to use the lens for those things now and then. It really is a nice combo, and I’ve been quite happy with the image quality. Your sample photos suggest to me that while I might be able to get slightly higher quality results with the other lenses, the main gain for me would be extra reach when combined with the TC. Thanks for the video!
Welcome !
I struggle for a long time making the decision between the 400mm f4.5 and the 100-400mm. For me as someone who shoots sports and wildlife and mainly at the 400mm or above focal length I chose the 400mm f4.5. In looking at images of the same subject with both of these lenses I felt the 4.5 had a slightly better out of focus backgrounds and subject separation with the extra 2/3 stop of light. So occasionally I may miss a shot because I’m locked in at 400mm the shots I do get would be better. Having said that I still think the 100-400 would be the better choice for many but maybe you can’t go wrong either way!
Excellent content and perfect timing. I have been shooting with a D850 and D500 and, more recently, added a Z6ll. At present, my only Z lenses are the 24-70mm F4 and the 40mm F2. However, I have the Z8 preordered and am now committed to continuing with only the Z6ll and Z8. I primarily shoot birds, other wildlife, and woodland landscapes all in natural light for myself; and as much of my 11 grandchildren and their activities and families as I can in any available light for all of them (and myself of course). My point is that I will now start converting my collection of F-mount class to Z. I have been looking at all the options and have determined that I will be able to reduce the number of lenses in total and the weight of my total kit considerably. Your comparisons in this video has solidified a spot for the 100-400mm lens and both Z teleconverters on my "must have" list. Thank you! Thank you!
Those grandkids will be playing sports and running around the 100-400 is really flexible to shoot. 400 can be a little long at times for some sports
That was the coolest and most helpful video I've seen on the subject and I've seen a lot of them. Now I am confident with my decision. Thank you very much Scott
Awesome! Thank you!
Great comparison. I bought an AF-S Nikon 200-500 a year ago to use with my D5 and D850. I have since replaced my D5 with a Z9 and am looking for an equivalent Z mount lens. It would be interesting to see a comparison between the 200-500 with ZFCII adapter, the Z 100-400 + 1.4 TC and the new Z 180-600. I like the fact that the new Z 180-600 has internal zoom but the Z 100-400 seems more flexible.
Awesome comparison sir!! I’m leaning towards the Nikkor Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 S for the Z8…should be spectacular, I hope!
Hello, I liked this review, it actually helped me to decide which lens I would probably buy. Thanks for doing that
Glad it was helpful!
Great comparison. I’m in the market for either the 400mm prime or the 100-400mm zoom paired with the 1.4 tele when required. Light is very important for me because I shoot birds often in shaded areas. I’m also looking at the 180-600mm zoom that completes the lenses of interest to me. I’m leaning towards the prime because of the light
Very interesting comparison Scott ! However, as a wildlife shooter, I am more interested with 500/560 mm lenses. Because there is no 500mm lens in Z mount yet, a comparison between the 500/560mm solutions would be extremely usefull. Thanks !!
Well done Scott. I think we all get an f/2.8 or larger for reasons other than light. I to achieve a bokeh that's important for the types of images captured with a specific focal length lens. With my 400mm f/4.5, I'm happy since the background is always in the distance. My 70-200 with 1.4TC is just right.
Thanks Scott. I'm still hanging out/on for the long-promised Z 200-600mm. The plus side is my bank balance has grown with the wait period - so now I want it to be an internal zoom S line lens. Hopefully f4.5/5.6. Cheers.
We’ll done, this narrows down my choice. Wish you had mentioned the body you we’re testing the lens with as it may have influenced the focusing speed. I’m looking forward to seeing more content from your channel.
Great info, thank you. It would be nice to see how the adapted 500PF fits in this comparison.
Ill see what I can do
I have been looking at a replacement for my tamron 150-600 . I have tried using thez70- 200 with a 2* converter.since your review the 180+600 z as arrived .my gut feeling is 600 .mm is my would be nice if its sharp. The fact it does not extend is a plus. My gut feeling is also saying 400 4.6 as I have the 70-200 which I did find give me a cleaner image than the tameron150 to 600 give that at 600 it wasn't that great.Also I have been recommending over reviewers take down their wall charts and replace them with 3d images. The chart does not give depth of field accuracy. So thanks for the video I understand the f stop and I understand financial the need as a professional to have the best. You can't relax and complete with a lesser lens, you can only test your skill with even Stevens equipment. Has a none professional I to have all the same standards so have invested in top lenses . .. I find f4 works for me as the sharpness and light conditions often place me in at f 4 and above in lots of situations. I tend find I use 4 and above even with my 1.4 lenses . I use flash at times .But the thing is the 400 s seems to be at f 4.6 given its distance a choice I feel for may work will be better suited.since your review there has been an introduction of the 180 to x600 so a add on up dater to this review would help .I am holding back for now on the 400 + question to investment in the z 8 ....is now my next purchase . I have the 7 .ii .will purchase z 8 this next up coming week. The camera bodies effect the lenses resolution and autofocusing . Big part of great images.i think this may sharpness auto focus wise. .... I know z 9 z8 are Nikon's flag ships . But many use the 7 and 7 2 full frame. IAM keen to stress focus issues here its can be auto focus on the 7 and 7 .2 degrades the photo as they are not a fast as 8-9 z bodies.. you did a great job of ticking all my boxies ... would you recommended the 180 x 400 or 400 prime and crop .....this would make a great up date to good job video ✓ .cheers thanks for reading this .
Hello Scott, thank you so much for putting all that effort into a comparison like this ❤!! Just a quick comment on lens performance at greater distances…in my experience light gathering capability and sharpness become much more important at greater distances, because a „small in the frame“ subject will be all smushed at higher ISO. This effect will be magnified when people start heavy cropping. Therefore, the max aperture of 2.8 at 400 justifies the price 😮😊
This is very true.
"justifies the price", really depends on personal needs.
Excellent review, thank you. I'm trying to make my mind up between the Z400mm prime and the Z100 - 400 zoom, so this has been really informative and helpful. Historically I've tended to go for zooms because of the versatility you mention, but having bought a used 300mm prime to go with my D850, I've been very, very impressed with the results and has brought the Z400mm more to mind as the mirrorless option. Decisions, decisions.😄. Thanks again.👍
exactly my situation. I would have easily opted for the 100-400mm,but the bokeh of the 400 / 4,5 is so much more pleasing (at least for me)
Thanks for this Scott. I'm currently using the 70-200 2.8 with TC's and will be picking up a 400mm lens in some form in the future. The 2.8 is beyond my means and needs, so I've been leaning to the 400 4.5 since I feel it will probably pair better with the TCs than the 100-400 due to the lower aperture at 400mm, and my 70-200 with TC's gives me the intermediate zoom coverage. (Admittedly with the additional hassle of adding/removing the TC's.) For the close-up work, I have both the 50 and 105 macros in the bag, so the closer focusing of the 100-400 is less valuable to me. It was helpful for me to see the samples side-by-side like you presented. Thanks so much. Drew.
Glad it was helpful!
Best video I've seen comparing these lenses. Exactly what I needed. I was surprised that the 70-200 was not as sharp as the 400 f/4 or the 100-400. I have the old 70-200 (not Z) and thought it was a sharp lens. Things surely have changed. I thought my lenses would be great forever. Well, it's still great...just not like these. I also loved seeing the results with the f/2.8...the obvious winner (except for weight and price and well, now you've shown us, versatility. Thanks for truly the best comparison I've seen. I'm off to check out some of your other videos :-)
without a TC it is VERY sharp With a 1.4tc, its still very sharp. The 2x is a little softer, still usable but not as sharp as the others at 400mm
Very interesting comparison. After switching from DSLR to a Z9 mirrorless, the 100-400 was the first Z Lens I purchased. Versatility and weight were important to me. I take this kit on long walks searching for birds. I just returned from Magee Marsh where we had the chance to photograph over 2 dozen warbler species. At times on the boardwalk, birds perched less than 6 feet away, so the close-focusing capability was an issue that I could handle. It also came in handy for butterflies and other insects. I frequently switched back and forth between full-frame and DX mode to help with focus on more distant birds.
8 feet is almost always enough min but when the 600 has 13 foot minimum range, thats not close enough!
You're right! Haven't seen anything like this (very fair) comparison of the 400's. For me the 70-200 is a non-issue. Moving from my F mounts with Z9 to Z lenses. What's the first lens to purchase as I make the transition without the use the adapter. I a lot of birding with the 500 pf and it has worked extremely well with the Z9 w/ adapter. Now, where do I go to replace this reach and quality? The 400 Z F4.5 is very appealing -- sharper perhaps and quicker (than 500 pf), but 100mm shorter. I can add a 1.4 teleconverter (now 560mm @F/5.6 -- spend $3,000 to get 60mm) or maybe better to use with the 2.0 teleconverter which allows me to go to 800 mm at F/8.0 (I think). Or skip all of this -- keep the 500 pf and buy the Z 800mm F6.3. For all of these reasons I am little reluctant to go to the 100 - 400 mm -- due to speed of lens, however as you say it is a very versatile and does work well with converters and shoots close. Thanks again. Great review!
Interesting comments. 12 months ago I was using the Z 70-200 with a 2xTC and the 200-500 with the F-mount 1.4xTC. When I look back on the images I got from both these combinations I am very pleased with them, however, I do recall the 200-500 was a little slow to focus and I was keen to move away from the FTZ. My Z 100-400 finally arrived in July 2022 (I ordered it on the day it was announced along with the Z9). In May, with no sign of the 100-400 arriving any time soon, I also bought a 500PF and was very impressed by its performance. However, that was a temporary purchase as I also had the Z 800 PF on order. Today I have the 100-400 and the 800 and sold back the 200-500 and the 500PF. If I am really honest, I now wish I had hung onto the 500 rather than getting the 800. Obviously there are times when the 800 reach is essential but the quality of the images I got from the 500PF, even with the 1.4 TC, was better - in my opinion, and weighed substantially less and was, therefore, easier to travel with.
@@SwanSycorax Thanks for the comments and perspective. I would not sell the 500 pf until I had another lens given your experience. Rather than the Z400 f/4.5 prime, maybe the Z 100-400mm F/5.6 would be a better option and keep the 500 pf.
I really liked this review! Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Yes just the review I was looking for. Thanks for clearly explaining it on (my) no-400mm-experience level.
I just discovered your channel... subscribed. I'm new to the Nikon Z system and am looking forward to following your your photographic journey. 🍻
awesome thanks!
I finally got my 400 2.8 tc 3 weeks ago and already planned a trip to the Kenai Peninsula Alaska in July!I tested my z 70-200 with the 2x tc in Wyoming in Feb and it was great. I am selling my 100-400 to a friend.
Scott, this is an excellent comparison. Without a doubt the money no object king is the 400 mm f2.8. In my mind it actually scores a good B for versatility as it changes to a 560 mm f4 by the flip of a switch and if you add a 2x converter to it you either have an amazing 800 mm f5.6, which is insane and even faster than the Nikkor 800 mm f6.3 prime, but flip that switch again and you have an 1120 mm lens at f8. Sharpness of the lens at this focal length is of course never a limiting factor due to heat diffraction of air between you and the subject.
Maybe. The "number" in "f/number" represents the entry pupil diameter of a lens as fraction of the focal length. This is measured with the lens set at focusing distance "infinity". So the f/number is merely a geometric relation between pupil and focal length. This has a couple problems. When you focus closer by and the lens is shifted away from the film/sensor plane, then the de facto focal length gets longer - this effect is sometimes described as "focus breathing". The corollary of this is that with the longer focal length the de facto or apparent number in f/number needs to increase. For f=200mm and an entry pupil of f/2, the pupil has a diameter of 200mm/2=100mm. When that lens becomes a 220mm lens because you focus closer by, then the real number in f/number must be 220mm/2.2=100mm as the entry pupil has not changed. My Nikon Z 105/2.8S macro lens actually displays this effect in the lens's LCD display. I call the aperture effect from focus breathing "aperture breathing" and that may be more annoying to a cinematographer than the actual change of angle of view in focus breathing (we shoot about everything in "Manual" exposure). The aperture breathing of the macro lens is 1 EV or more between infinity and 1:1. As today we have "cine" lenses that compensate the focus breathing, this may actually also compensate the aperture breathing. Some of the Nikon Z "S" class lenses suppress the focus breathing very well. The biggest problem, though, is that the f/number ignores completely how much light the glass of your lens actually allows to pass through that f/number. This is why cinematographic lenses also display the so-called T-stop with the T for "transmission". Just check a few examples in the DxOMark website. Take, say, a 1.2L lens, say 85mm, of one brand and compare to the also 85mm 1.4G of another brand. You may see that both have a T-stop of 1.5 that defines how "fast" these lenses really are. Photographers who justify their 1.2L purchase because these lenses are so fast talk [male bovine excrement]. When you inform them of why that is the case, they may say, but they have such shallow Depth of Field (DoF) and that would be total [male bovine excrement] too. Why? Because DoF depends on the Circle of Confusion (CoC), not just distance, aperture, focal length. Any indication of DoF on a lens is just an extremely coarse approximation that does not define the underlying assumptions. The CoC combines several factors into one parameter that really seriously influences DoF a lot and that your DoF calculator likely ignores too. Film/sensor resolution - higher resolution gives shallower DoF because a smaller CoC. Presence of a "fuzzy filter" [1] over the sensor or not - absence improves contour sharpness and hence reduces CoC and consequently makes DoF shallower. Lens resolution - same. Processing and its process (both valid in digital and film) - better processing may reduce the CoC and make DoF shallower. Distance at which you view your image's rendition - shorter distance reduces CoC and hence makes DoF shallower. Image rendition size - larger makes the CoC relatively smaller and hence DoF shallower. And your rendition's resolution has a similar effect. A 4K monitor versus a 1080p at the same size. A photographic print versus a magazine print. As your excursion to the DxOMark now may have informed you that the 1.2L is much less sharp than the 1.4G, you might deduce that the 1.2L may have the same DoF at 1.2 as the 1.4G at 1.4 and yes, they are equally "fast". So the 1.2L is softer. At this point the 1.2L "pro" will tell you that they really bought it for its softness and that it has such beautiful bokeh. To which a wedding photographer would reply that surely a bride would see that when she looks at her wedding photos to see that she looks like a super model in them. When she does not like her images, do you say, "but look at the background blur"? Like in quantum physics it's all relative with these photons and our mathematics. If you could replace one lens element in your "fast" lens by a similar element but now ND-filtering down by 10EV, then still the f/number on the les is valid. But 10EV slower means 2^10=1,024 times slower. Without knowing the T-stop we cannot say that one lens is "faster" than another. In the professional photography school we learnt to deal with the importance of "focus breathing" relative to exposure and to apply a "bellows extension factor". Through The Lens (TTL) light measurement was available long time ago in SLR cameras. Today a mirrorless camera uses its sensor as light meter (which it actually is). When large format camera manufacturer issued their Sinarsix light meter (adapted from Gossen's Lunasix meter IIRC), then "we" had TTL metering in large format too. "Bellows extension factor" became anachronistic. But the T-stop remains valid and relevant. Especially w.r.t handheld light meters and cameras without TTL metering (where the bellows extension factor would still be needed). [1] What I call "fuzzy filter" was added to the Bayer architecture of digital colour photography as an in-camera hardware help to make image processing easier. It's generally called an anti-aliasing (AA) or low-pass filter. It disperses a bit of the light travelling to photosite [x,y] in the sensor to its immediate neighbours. This helps against jagged edges, a bit of banding, and makes colour guessing a bit easier. The Bayer architecture starts with a colour-blind sensor with its photodiodes (AKA photosites) arranged in a perfectly regular grid of squares. That colour-blind grid of tiny sensors is then masked by a grid of colour filters arranged in 2*2 squares that filter (either clockwise or counter) red, green, blue, green (R,B,G,B). This gives monochrome (mono=single, chrome=colour) data elements in the raw file. That raw file looks like 100% colour noise and 100% luminance noise to our eyes. If you could see it,then your eyes would start tom compete with Niagara Falls. So raw processing software like Adobe Camera Raw (ACR - does the job in both Ps and LrC) needs to make wild-assed guesses about the missing colours: from the R,G,B,G quartet of data elements (this is where you have your 14 bits) we need to get RGB, RGB, RGB, RGB or else no application dares to show the image on your computer display for fear you would throw it out, or through, the window. The Fujifilm Xtrans sensor makes for a fundamentally different architecture that impacts how raw processing best can be done, but bottom line we still have the same problem and we can have a debate how a single T-green with a red and blue filler photosite count in the MP number of these cameras. It still needs raw processing. As DxOMark suggests that the best "sensors" have 27 bits colour space, this is again [male bovine excrement]. It means that they cannot do better than reverse engineering 27 bits RGB from your 14 raw monochrome bits, with their best raw processing algorithm - or a theoretical simplified algorithm as they indicate that these numbers are "before demosaicking" (where mosaicking is the generation of digital artefacts by raw processing like a very recognisable Moiré, or a subtle noise in blurry darker image zones that are clearly in the camera's contrast envelope - the contrast envelope is the usable dynamic). The AA filter was needed when processing power needed to process the lower resolution images of the time would still be big, heavy, expensive, slow. The low resolution may have suppressed digital artefacts initially, but became more and more apparent with increasing resolution. As the fuzzy filter reduces the contour sharpness of our lenses, it also reduces low light sensitivity, reduces colour space, reduces contrast envelope, and increases vignetting. We could argue that higher resolution reduces uncertainty in potential creation of digital artefacts (note here that the sensor is actually analogue and analogue exposure data a reread from the sensor while applying analogue-to-digital (AD) conversion.) What makes a digital camera more than a sensor is (a) the specification of the cut-off wavelengths and cut-off slopes in the Bayer filter grid for each of the primary colours, and (b) the maths underlying the AD conversion.
1st time viewing your channel. While not a wildlife photographer I enjoyed your approach and comparison. I did a quick mathematical comparison based on your grading and found the the 400 2.8 slightly beat out the 100-400. The two reasons for this were light and build quality. Light..no question. But when you discussed the build quality and had an issue with potential problems with the 100-400 barrel when zooming....I decided to look up Nikon's reasons for designating the 'S' for the Z-line lenses. They are very specific here....'Dust and Drip Resistance-Extensively sealed to keep dust and moisture out, especially around all moving parts of the lens barrel, for worry-free durability.' Now, if your experience with the Z-line S lenses indicates a real issue here..and not a potential issue; then Nikon should be made aware of this and not make this representation for the zoom S lenses. But if Nikon is right and will back up this claim; then I think the C+ rating should be modified. I thought purchasing S designated lenses offered equal durability and build quality. So,...maybe a shot at the Z100-400 S lens taking over 1st place! Thanks again.
I am mostly a prime guy and shoot in low light a lot . That being said I I’m probably getting the Nikon Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 . My reason is because I’ll use it for video mostly and closeup nature . It’s a versatile lens . I wish the aperture did open up one more stop. But then it would be bigger. I myself wouldn’t mind .
very helpful , i was sitting on fence which to get , i ready like the z400/4.5.
great
Fantastic review!
Glad you liked it!
I really enjoyed this video and found myself wanting the entire thing instead of skipping through it. Thank you! I still have no idea which lens I should get though because I am a lens hoarder.
Glad you enjoyed it!
So impressed by the 100-400 that I sold my 500PF and bought the TC1.4… that I can also use with my 70-200 (light gear)…
Hi Scott. This is a terrific comparison. I own the 100-400 lens and I’m amazed at its sharpness. What I’m less pleased with is its bokeh. I’d rate it as good but not great. I’d expect bokeh quality on the 400 f/2.8 to be superb. When Nikon’s mythical 200-600 lens becomes available it’d be great to add it to a test like this. Great content and very enlightening, too. Thank you!
Ill compare the 200-600 when it comes out, but unfortunately my channel isnt big enough to get early product from Nikon. Maybe I will reach out and see if I can get a better relationship.
@@WildlifeInspired It’s been on the roadmap a long time. Many amateur wildlife photographers are looking for a more affordable telephoto option and this might be it. We’ll see. I hope Nikon USA will share a pre-production unit with you!
@@WildlifeInspired your channel isn't big enough YET!. 😊I am sure you will get there I enjoy your content!
Excellent video! I like your practical down to earth , honest comparison approach. The 100-400 looks like it will fit my needs, I can replace the dinosaur 80-400. I can’t wait till the 200-600 is available. But if I win the lottery I’ll get the 400 2/8. Thanks for taking the time for all these great informative videos.
Hey mate. This was the best comparison video ever seen, Scott. Very honest and precise. Great. Thank you very much. I got the 70-200 lens for events. The best lens I ever owned - perfect for this kind of purpose. And I also use the 2.0 teleconverter on this lens. But there are limitations when it comes to sharpness. I think I will try the 400 or the 100-400. Maybe a better setup ist the 400 with the 1.4 TC to get more mm. I missed the 180-600 lens. Do you got a review on that? Greetings from Germany.
no review on the 180-600 as there are so many on already out there.
Great comparison video. Thanks. New subscriber here.👍🏻
Great review!!! I bought the 400 4.5 and love it!!
Great lens and super light. Was definitely impressed with sharpness!
@@WildlifeInspired I love the lightness. I can bird all day with it.
Thank you for your wonderful analysis. I recently purchased the 100 - 400 mm. Fantistic images have been generated. However, the 180 - 600 mm was announced 2 months after at significantly lower price. I would be grateful to see a similar analysis involving the 180 - 600 mm.
the difficulty for me is getting hands on new glass. My channel isn't big enough to get first looks from Nikon......
Great review Scott, but some folks get anxious seeing that metal mount without a cap on it 😰
Great review Scott.
THanks!
Hey Scott this was super helpful! I think I am going to go with the 400 4.5 now. By the way, nice shot of that loon!
I have a client using that and getting good results. Maybe pick up a 1.4 converter which gets you to 560 f6.3 for when there is more available light (still super sharp)
@@WildlifeInspired thats the plan!!
Thanks for your explanations in a difficult comparaison Scott. I't'y very helpfull to me. I own a 100-400 et ask me for a 400 2.8. What do you think about the in-converter 1.4X of the 400 2.8 and that you can add a 2X teleconverter too ? Of course it's so no more a 400mm ( your comparison test) but the fact that the 100-400 is more flexible use the argument that It could be a 100mm. So ...
Excellent review. Excellent testing methodology and examples. I have the 400mm f/4.5 and the 70-200 and would agree completely with your thoughts. There are three other variations on the testing - and I certainly would not expect you to add these tests. Since most lenses are slightly sharper stopped down slightly, I would test all four lenses at f/5.6. It would only be relevant for the 400mm f/4.5 which becomes a bit sharper and moves ahead of the 100-400 and 70-200/2x. The second variation is testing at an effective 560mm and/or 800mm. When it comes to versatility, the 400mm f/2.8 does very well with the internal TC, but the 400mm f/4.5 is remarkably good with the 1.4 TC and also holds up with the 2x. My testing of the 400mm f/4.5 with the 1.4 TC showed me it could resolve the small feathers that make up the eyering of a bluebird (feathers around 0.05 inches in width with detail less than 0.01 inches) - a level of detail and sharpness not possible with most lenses. The third variation of testing is looking at out of focus backgrounds - particularly those that include specular highlights. I found the 400mm f/4.5 to have very smooth, clean out of focus areas including the specular highlights, and that's the biggest advantage of these options over the F-mount 500mm PF. I find the 70-200 and 400 f/4.5 make a great pair of lenses - around the same size so they are swapped out in a single bag while in the field. I use the 400mm f/4.5 + 1.4 TC in DX mode for birding - and it's good enough that I no longer carry binoculars when birding.
good point about testing at equivalent aperatures, but soooo many variables. Appreciate the insight!
Really liked you taking us through how the different apertures play out in terms of equivalent iso! The sharpness comparison was really great too. Never owned a 400mm so I don't know how the fixed prime would be practically vs the extending 1-400 but nice thinking about the weather proofing point!
Very helpful, thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
Another great review Scott. I suspect the main factor is price as sharpness is pretty much equal. Weight, if you have to lug it around in the field or hand hold it. All great lens!!! It comes down to your subjects, lighting conditions and your budget.
I certainly hope you get to review the Z8 soon! Although I suspect it'll be identical to z9 based on AF at least
me too!