Approaching the Scene 189: Nikon 70-200 S vs 100-400 S + The Z TCs

[@loganhall5580]

Was just typing into Google "Z 70-200 vs Z 100-400" and this video popped up. Posted less than an hour ago. Your content is always incredibly timely and relevant!

[@gosman949]

This helps with the decision I already made. I have the prime 85 1.8 Z lens for portraits and now the 100-400 S for the versatility it offers. One thing you didn't mention on the 100-400 is how insanely close you can focus with it!

[@Jespervangcom]

Moose Peterson does indeed mention that in his video about the 100-400 :-) several times , even :-) ! Looks like a killer lens

[@bobbyprince9800]

Thanks for the great comparison. I have both lenses but have preferred the 70-200 in almost every instance. I also have both the 300 and 500 PF and frankly those two lenses are tops in my book. I just don’t need more than the 70-200 with the 1.4, and I like the versatility of the 70 at the low end. Heading to Africa in July, and my kit is the 500PF, the 24 to 70, and the 70 - 200. Thanks for your review.

[@robertholloway6887]

😊Had the 500 and 1.4 tc for over a year, it spent the first 7 months stuck to my D500, bought the z mount 1.4 tc and it’s spent the last 5 months on my Z9. Waiting for my 100-400 still no sign, I have had the 70-200 since Christmas and I love it. Last day in Malta today 9 days photographing the island awesome should have been diving but due to medical reasons had to cancel diving so as not to waste flight and hotel came as a photographer instead. The 200-500 stayed on my Z9, most of the time I was using the Z6ii with the 24-70 and 14-30 f4s , wish I had the 24-120 could have done with the Extra reach. I will never get rid of my 500 or my 70-200 and am looking to add the 100-400 to my bow.😊😊😊if it ever arrives, I think I was spoilt by getting my Z9 in only the second delivery.

[@brucegreaves3204]

So how did you fit the z mount 1.4tc to the 500pf and the z9 Curious

[@Mr09260]

Thanks Hudson I need to make the decision Get rid of my S 70-200 and get the 100-400 >> African Wild Life >> cant afford to keep both. but I love the 70-200 .. living on a Pension have to cut the nice but unnecessary items

[@craigcarlson4022]

Watching as i’m deciding between the 100-400 and the 400f4.5. Heart wants the pristine sharpness of the 400 prime. But my head says go with the versatility of the zoom.

[@HR-wd6cw]

Personally if you have to choose between a Z 70-200 + a TC or the 100-400, it will come down to what else do you shoot (other than say wildlife or sports). If you shoot portraits or landscapes, then TC + 70-200 I feel is probably the better route, despite the slight image quality loss as it still gives you flexibility . If you're shooting strictly sports or wildlife, then it's pretty obvious the 100-400 is probably the better option, as costs a little less than the 70-200 + TC (by about $300-$400) but you do lose the flexibility of lens speed when you don't need the TC, and probably sharpness too (as the 70-200 is very sharp without a TC). For me, doing mostly landscapes, travel and portraiture, with some wildlife (birding mainly) mixed in, I would opt for the TC + 70-200 for flexibility. The TC's don't take up hardly any space in the bag, but you have basically a dual-purpose lens, where as with the Z 100-400 is probably not the best choice for some landscape or portrait work (not many people shoot portraits beyond 200mm, and they would opt for a faster lens for the shallow DOF, which the 70-200 (without a TC, does give you that as it's 1.3 stops faster, and also a great option for low-light; the 100-400 may struggle a little more all things being equal).

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

I found the 100-400 significantly sharper from 140-400 than the 70-200 was with the 2.0. From 105-280 with the 1.4 it's a closer call. It's true the bokeh at 105-200 is nicer at 2.8 with the smaller lens. If I didn't have the 105 1.4 on the FTZ it would have been tough for me to give up, but I much prefer that big 105 for portraits. For landscape? The 100-400 hands down. It's razor sharp even wide open. Stopped down a little it's crazy sharp right to the corners and way, way more versatile. Working on a tripod with still subjects, there's no need for the wide aperture. The only reasons I'd advise the 70-200 over the 100-400 would be low-light, close-in sports or portraiture. I've owned Nikon's 80-200 AF-S, 70-200 VR, 70-200 VRII, 70-200 FL ED and 70-200 S. After a few months and leading several workshops shooting with the 100-400, I sold the 70-200 S. I just won't ever choose it ever over the 100-400 for landscapes, kitesurfing, or wildlife and I still have that epic 105 for portraits. PS: Having just come back from shooting for 2 weeks in thick Costa Rican rainforest, I can attest that the 100-400 has zero issues focusing in low light on the Z9, even with the 1.4 TC. :-)

[@KnightsandWeekends]

The 500 PF, to me, is the oddball in the comparison because it is insanely amazing. No one would ever consider getting rid of that lens. I did some extensive practical testing with the 70-200 and 2X Z teleconverter, and it is absolutely acceptably sharp at 400mm and still faster than the 100-400. For that sliver of sharpness, I'm willing to carry the 70-200 with the TC handy. I have wall-hanging quality results with that combo. You can always add reach - you can never add aperture.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

They're the same aperture with the 2x on the 70-200 @ 400 f5.6. The 100-400 is also 5.6 at 400.I find the 100-400 significantly sharper at 400. I have both with me on this workshop circuit and the 70-200 has yet to come out of the pelican case into my backpack. The 100-400 has been a joy. We had four of them in death valley. All of us felt the same.

[@KnightsandWeekends]

@@HudsonHenryPhoto Thanks for the head-smack on aperture - my bad. You make a strong case, and have me wondering. But I'm holding out on hopes (which are likely to be dashed) that the 800 PF will be in my budget.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Ha. :) if I shot close range, low light sports, wildlife or people... The 70-200 would be the choice every time.

[@AnujRawlaVRRT]

Currently my 500mm PF is paired to my D850. The Z9 uses the 70-200mm F mount 2.8 in the early hours and late evening. For low light situations. The 100-400 mm Z mount comes out post sunrise and during the day when light is good. I use a Q2 for the wide landscapes. 3 bodies on most of my safari's.

[@charlesdavis6371]

I do love my telephoto lenses. I enjoyed this, and will keep it in mind going forward. I'm also on a limited budget (disability and retired) - so my purchase history has slowed. Since I do have these ranges in f-mount, I'm currently saving for the Z9 by year's end ... hopefully. After the Z9, I had thought the 70-200 would come first, but may lean toward the 100-400 after seeing this. Thank you again for all you do Hudson - I think it really does help a lot of people.

[@hans6304]

Best wishes for your health and your photography.

[@petergordon4666]

Just returned from Baja- whales and birds. Used the Z9/Z6 with 100-400 +/- 1.4 TC.. The versatility of this combo was just great. The long end was very good, but for some shots wished for the incredible 500 PF rendition. Of course I will keep them both,. No 70-200 in my kit, but am waiting for the 24-120. Going to Africa with the 500 + 1.4 TC and F4 24-70. A big gap, but you can’t get every shot, anyway. Thanks for your detailed comparison. Enjoy JT.

[@alnoormeralli]

Thanks for this excellent review of the longer lenses. Very timely as I was looking to complement my 24-120mm with the excellent 100-400mm. This evening I changed my mind, realizing that light gathering capability was more important for my indoor event work where I have traditionally used DSLRs with the 70-200mm. When I do need more reach, say in a theatre, it’s reassuring to see the x1.4 converter maintains image quality.

[@davidmacleman6732]

I've been waiting on this test since the 100-400 was released. I can always rely on Hudson for an honest and accurate review. That 100-400 is clearly an awesome and versatile lens but you've confirmed what I expected, it's not even close to the sharpness of the 500mm PF. To describe the 500 PF as a "special lens" is the understatement of the century :) Keep up the great work Hudson! and Nikon!!

[@gosman949]

The 500 pf is $800 more than the 100-400 and you have to buy the convertor. And you lose all that versatility! No brainer for me-- 100-400 any day.

[@kevinwigmore3417]

Thanks for the review, really straight, honest and helpful! And just confirmed with testing with my new Nikon 100-400 z with and without the TC 1.4 z and against the Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf. My testing at a sign & small writing over about 100+ metres and at different apertures is very similar to yours. The 100-400mm is good and it works good with the TC 1.4 z BUT the Nikon 500mm pf is just in another world! I am just blown away now that I have done these test. What a lens that 500mm is but the 100-400 is good and versatile and I'm looking forward to using it more.

[@chrismacky7548]

Hudson, you make some fantastic and engaging videos for us Nikon shooters and for that I say, thank you. I purchased the Manfrotto AH 500 fluid head, after your video some time back and love it. For video, it’s a fantastic head. I am in a real dilemma, re purchasing the Z 100 - 400 4.5/5.6 or the Z 70 - 200 2.8 S lens. I use a 1st gen Z6, and will upgrade to a Z8 or next gen Z6/7. Would like more mp, and keep my Z 6 as a 2nd body. I don’t shoot bif, wildlife no, but more walk around street/people (not studio), gen travel and landscape. (I have the 24 - 120). I have taken note, of you selling your 70 - 200 2.8 recently. I think for landscapes, the 100 - 400 yes, but what has me thinking a lot now, is for general, street etc, in low light situations, where I want focal length and speed. I do not believe the 100 - 400 is going to be as good as the 70 - 200 2.8. I am referring more to hand hold in these situations. I can add say a 1.4 TC, and mindful of your comment that the 100 - 400 is sharper than the 70 - 200 with a 2.0 TC. Would really appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

I don't think the 100-400 is a great tool for street and low light events or such. The 70-200 2.8 is a great portrait and low light tele zoom. I love the 100-400 for the combination of landscape, sports and wildlife ability and versatility. For the street work though, I feel like the 70-200 is a beast to carry around. I love the 1.8 primes for that sort of thing. Honestly the Z50 or ZFC with the 28 2.8 little Z lens are pretty crazy for that too and way less obtrusive for street work.

[@chrismacky7548]

@@HudsonHenryPhoto thank you for your reply.

[@hans6304]

Hi, I'm planning to get the 500AH, the Z8 and a very first Z lens which I'm still torn between the 70200 f2.8 and 100400. How did you go with your options? Thank you for sharing.

[@chrismacky7548]

@@hans6304 Hi, I went down the route of getting the Z 70 - 200 2.8. Really love it. Suits me for what I do which is mostly travel. (Currently travelling around Italy). Have the 1.4 TC. The Z8 is great. Substantial step up from the Z6 in every way.

[@bobbullethalf]

The Nikon Z 70-200 2.8 S to me is the best lens that you can get. The images are stunning.

[@robgerety]

Great comparison. It is so hard to settle on lenses. You always have the feeling the one you let go will be the one you wish you had the very next day. Right now I love the 70-200 2.8 focal length and speed so much for so many different situations that I could never part with it. It covers most of my general photography needs frankly. And, as you point out, it is a great portrait lens - as a rank amateur I am very satisfied with it for portraits. I do wish Canon could find a way to make a 1.4 TC that would work with it like Nikon has done. I am lucky to also have a 100-500 and a 1.4TC. I use it a lot, and it is a wonderful lens. I'm not giving it up. But, the speed, size, and weight difference is such that I tend to reach for the 70-200 more. The ergonomics are a lot better for my old bones.

[@defcon3694]

late to the party but so glad I stumbled upon this channel! Noobie to photography and loving learning and watching your video's, Hudson. Do you have a class or playlist teaching your photography techniques?

[@dansoto3791]

Nice comparison. I finally pulled the trigger and sold my 80-400 AF-S and am waiting for my 100-400 S with 1.4 teleconverter. I've always liked the versatility of the 80-400 in the past so thought it would be good to keep that going forward.

[@ronboe6325]

When I joined team Nikon I picked up a G2 Tamron 70-200, shortly after that Nikon came out with their 70-300mm 5.6 - at what seemed half the weight. Shooting several hours of dog agility, and the extra reach the 300mm gave me trumped the Tamron. Image quality, if any difference, favored the 70-300mm. Recently I picked up the 100-400mm ('cause, native Z mount!). I'm not sure it can focus as fast as the 70-300 - but weight is not an issue. The 100-400mm is not a porker. Just added the TC1.4 (not needed for dog agility - looking to stave off the 500 PF) - no opinion on it yet - but no obvious defects either. However; at the last trial I did miss the ability to zoom back to 70mm. Did NOT see that coming. Mark Smith et.al. had me convinced to get the 500 PF, but Apple came out with the Mac Studio so the money went there. My M1 Pro laptop was just killing my iMac and something had to be done. Sorting through 1500-1600 shots of dogs, I needed some time back. :^D But dang, that 500mm PF is calling again.Back to saving my pennies. But how has the auto focus speed on the 100-400 worked for you?

[@brianlemke6017]

Full disclosure. I own the 70-200 2.8S and the 500 5.6 PF. I fully agree with you, the 70-200 is, maybe, one of Nikons single best lenses ever. Tack sharp and equally sharp on both the 1.4 and 2.0 TCs. The 100-400 is, for me, a completely redundant lens. The telephoto lens I’m that has my interest is the 400 2.8 TC. For my bird and wildlife passion, it looks like the ultimate lens. But the 70-200? It just can’t be beat.

[@cmichaelhaugh8517]

Interesting analysis. I’ve been tempted to get the Z 70-200 to replace the clunkyness of the F version with FTZ adaptor. I’m now thinking of getting the Z 100-400 and unloading my very unwieldy F 200-500.

[@davidnelson3757]

You don't get the back focusing problems with the Mirrorless cameras , as no two lenses are the same , especially if you go to a third party brand ,the Z system is going to be a godsend . I own the Z 70-200. , had the 200-500. and F Mount 80-400 and borrowed from Nikon the Z 100-400 My findings are the F mount 80-400. even though its an old lens 2013. its brilliant sadly I trashed the F mount 80-400 , it was repaired but the barrel was to stiff , so got rid . I still have the F Mount 2.8 70-200 but the flexibility of the longer zoom range , is a massive advantage (Im a Press Photographer ). For a laugh I took the 200-500. to the Brit awards , using it on a D6 , testing it against a 200 -400 with the built in TC , on a Z9 while the 200-400 did perform better , the real world ISO of the D6 made the 200-500 usable , in a lit for tv environment Now for sheer flexibility the z 100-400 is the way to go , if you want you backgrounds blown out , just shoot at the long end and stand further back from your subject , the loss of light is no issue on modern cameras , The TC's on the Z system have come a long way you are getting the same results , now that you could only get from attaching them to primes . but there is always a trade off , its worth having one in the bag . but I only use them for emergency use

[@boboneill1828]

Helpful info about the teleconverters. I would guess that the reduction in vignetting is because the teleconverter is simply magnifying the centre of the basic image (which has little vignetting) without adding any further vignetting.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Absolutely

[@tc6912]

Thank you for the info. You have a beautiful family. I currently shoot the D500/500PF combo with the 16-80 and Tamron 100-400. I hope to soon switch to a Z7ii or Z6ii with the 24-120 and 100-400. Your videos have convinced me that the 24-120 is worth waiting for. I may end up with either the 24-70 f4 or 24-200 just because that is all that is available. I do like the blown out background on the faster lenses though.

[@randygerber2885]

Thank you Hudson. This was the review I have been hoping for.

[@gbye007]

Thank you for testing and comparing these three lenses. The tests you’ve done are revealing. I have these comments to add that might supplement what you have tested. 1. Lenses can have different behaviours throughout their focusing range. Some lenses are sharper at long distance, while others are better at closer distances (and I’m not talking about macro lenses here - just general purpose). So you tested these 3 lenses on a brick wall, and probably at fairly close distance - certainly not infinity focus. In the final analysis you need to rerun this test at a distance which achieves infinity focus (but not through too much atmosphere), and look for any change in the comparison. 2. The brick wall test is flat field. Most shots in nature don’t resemble anything like a flat field. Again, you need to retest and check for field curvature, and how that impacts any of your shooting style. 3. Some of the small differences you have discovered may (may not) be down to sample variation. Maybe test another sample of each if you have friends with these lenses. The conclusions may be different.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Having just extensively shot the 100-400 alongside about 4 others in my death valley workshop this past week, there's not a complaint with its performance by any of us at any focal length. ;) I haven't taken the 70-200 out of the pelican case yet or missed it in my Nya Evo bag. We had a ton of fun Nikon gear on this one. I even got to shoot stars with the new 58 noct. I am not the guy who builds mtf charts or goes to the level of lens testing you describe. There are plenty of other sources for that. What matters most to me is how it performs in the field. Yes there is sample variation, but not much in any new Z glass I've used. The brick wall test is an easy one that tells me a lot about edge to edge sharpness in the focal plane at various apertures. With focus stacking taking an ever increasing role in what I do, that tells me a lot of what I need to know. :)

[@Interbeing_CDN]

Great comparison, I too am struggling with whether or not to keep both the 70-200 and the 100-400, and I am also quite disappointed in the 2X Tele, but happy with the 1.4X. I will probably keep both for now, at least until I have more time with the 100-400. Thanks Hudson!

[@georgedavall9449]

I feel your pain

[@455LT1]

This is the video I've been waiting on! Can't wait to see what your thoughts were...

[@peternavanac9310]

Recently rented the 100-400 and the 400 4.5 and found that I really, really like the way the 100-400 rendered images and dealt with various lighting situation. The 400 4.5 was superior most of the time, but not by much, and some of the time the 100-400 was better. The versatility of the native 100-400 range vs 70-200, with superb image quality for the same money...the 100-400 is a no brainer.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

We're of the same mind. The 400 4.5 is also much better with the teleconverters too though. It's so great, just far less versatile.

[@duncanwallace7760]

I am trying to minimize my kit and decided to try 24-70 and the 100-400, even though on the DSLR the 70-200 was my favorite lens. If I add a 1.4 tele and maybe a 20mm, it should be a pretty light setup to travel with. Great video, very useful.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Don't look past the 24-120. It's redic.

[@dougfriesen]

Fantastic info. I actually just picked up the Z9 and the 20mm f1.8 S, 24-120mm f4 S, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 S and the 100mm f2.8 S Macro. I did struggle with the decision between 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-400, but in the end, for landscape, colour rendition and sharpness are key for me and looking through my social media posts from VERO to INSTA, my landscape settles in at f4.5-f8 anyway. And that 100-400 versatility will be nice. I a few weeks I get a to go to the mountains for some shooting time, so I am hoping this setup will rock. I usually only take 2.8 zooms, but looking at how I shoot them (outside of portraiture, etc), these two zooms appear to be excellent options and you confirm what I was thinking. Excited to run it through its paces. I have shot many brands and models, so this will be interesting as well. I had been looking at the 24-120 instead of 70-200, and finally have decided for what I shoot, it is the way. That 500 PF does look tempting for maybe next year if I can save up some coin. Cheers.

[@stevenmuncy491]

It's tough to choose when all the options are excellent.

[@kenparrent6770]

The challenge will be in locating the 100-400, if it’s anything like getting my hands on the 24-120. Ordered that one six weeks ago. Got an e-mail from B&H today, saying still not in stock, don’t know when it will be available. Expect that will also be the case with the 100-400.

[@gosman949]

It took over 3 months for me to get the 100-400. I almost sent it back while in route because of the cost and lack of reviews out there. I'm glad I kept it!

[@Trish12303]

Thank you Hudson, this was a great comparison review!! It is much appreciated!

[@alsimoncelli7313]

Just the review I was looking for! Got the z70-200mmS 2.8 with the Z6II. Wondering how the TC 2.0 plus the 70-200 compared to the new z100-400s. Thanks Hutson!

[@winwhitmire2387]

I love my Z6 II and its my 10th Nikon since 1972. Do you foresee Nikon offering a 28-300mm Z series size zoom lens? Since I don't do professional photography any more, my current 28-300mm is perfect for what I need. It's biggest problem is WEIGHT! With my old D700, the combination weighed about 6.5 pounds! I climbed to the top of the Acropolis and by the time I got to the top, the decimal point dropped out! Either a 28-300mm would be great or something similar!

[@DrGruffLes]

Really excellent comparison and review; so helpful!

[@ptortora1]

Just the topic I’ve been waiting for. Thanks - very informative and helpful as always.

[@lindakarlin2980]

Thank you so much for a super review.

[@jazinzlaty4823]

I’m waiting for the z500mm pf

[@FLORAMORAITINI]

Thank you very much for the superb comparison. Z8 will be my first Z camera , after I have been shooting with a 5DIV, a D700, D500 ,a D850 and the XH2-S. I have been waiting patiently for the Z brother of my beloved D850 , which now is on the way. Unfortunately I am not sure which lenses of mine to replace for the new Z ones ........I have the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 for Canon and Nikon, the Nikon 20 f/1.8 for astro, the Nikon AF-S 70-200 f/2.8E FL ED VR and the heavy 200-500 with the 1.4x III Teleconverter, plus the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II , the EF 300 f/2.8 LII IS and the 100 f/2.8L IS ). So now I am so puzzled as to which Z lens I should get as I shoot a bit of everything. For the time being, it has to be Just ONE, as I can not afford the trio Z lenses, 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400 . Truth is that I lean towards the 100-400 and the 24-120 , even if I am tempted towards the 10-24 and the 24-70 f/2.8 as I LOVE low light photography, thinking and WONDERING whether I can use my older Canon EF and Nikon AF-S lenses with adaptors. I also have some beautiful Older Nikon , Zeiss and Voight primes but I concluded that I do not like changing lenses and I prefer the versatility of zooming........I will be very grateful for your advise.

[@hans6304]

How did you go with choosing the first Z lens?

[@carlwalker2031]

Super good review! Due to your review, I have purchased the 100-400 for a whale-watching trip to Hawaii (currently scheduled for five boat trips over ten days). What settings would you recommend for that? I was thinking wide open, auto aperture. Thoughts? oh, and I chose the 100-400 over the 400 2.8 as I am concerned about whales being up close and missing a great breach...wise choice?

[@craigthompson2547]

Excellent and timely review for me, thanks. Have the 70-200mm S, and waiting...waiting...waiting..(since November) for the 100-400mm S. Have taken the 500mm PF on trips but tended not to use it as preferring the versatility of the zooms. As some mentioned below, waiting for the Nikon 200-600mm to, hopefully, replace a Tamron 150-600mm G2, even though not being an "S" version. Good information on the teleconverters as wanting to extend reach a bit without paying too much of a price. Appreciate all your work on these videos, definitely helpful to the community. Suggestion for topic, seeing more on switching back to shutter focus from BBF, especially on the Z9. Not seeing as much on shutter focus on the Z6-Z7 series (I don't have a Z9). Some clarification and information on that I would find helpful.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

On the 6 and 7s I still advise auto area on the back button with subject tracking override on a function button. The new 3d tracking on the Z9 is a huge step forward. It's different than the dslr 3d. It has face, eye, and torso detect built in abs moves all over the frame. It's like dynamic area on steroids. The reason for the hybrid shutter mode on the Z9 is to catch a quick subject with wide area using the shutter, then convert it to 3d tracking with the back button. That doesn't exist on the previous Z cameras. Auto area and subject tracking work well on them, but it's more complicated. The new tracking will bleed down to the 6 and 7s next Gen replacements too I'm sure.

[@markusbolliger1527]

Very helpful review Hudson - thank you very much! It's a real dilemma indeed, because every lens has it's advantages in specific situations. I got the opportunity to test the Z 70-200 F2.8 S and I was excited by the image quality, the way it renders the background, and the lucent colors it produces even on rainy days! The best lens in this range I have ever hold in my hands! But for wildlife it is too short in most situations ... Because I am not yet decided which of the three lenses ( 70-200 / 100-400 / 500 PF) I really need most, I bought the AF-P 70-300 F4.5-5.6 to gain time for the definite decision ... It cost me 560 Swiss Francs, and it is very light (700 grams), ideal for hiking tours in the Alps, and a no brainer for this price. The image quality of this consumer zoom is much better than many may think, although not on the same level as the Z 70-200 F2.8 of course.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

The Z50 with the 50-250 DX VR is shocking in the same way. Light, small and the perfect hiking companion with image quality it really has no business creating. The full frame equivalence is 75-375. It's a fun new world. :-)

[@yonishperling1531]

Great review!! Thank you! Portraits are great around 100mm isn’t better to have 85mm and 100-400mm instead of 70-200mm?

[@ottokruse7472]

Thank you! Super valuable topic for me as I consider which lens I will add for wildlife reach.

[@MikeJamesMedia]

Thanks Hudson, for your objective comparisons. I think the day I received my 70-200 Z-mount lens, I decided it would not be leaving, regardless of other lenses. (love the 2.8 aperture for certain things) But, the choice for larger focal lengths is a tough one! I bought the (Z) 2X teleconverter after seeing some results from other photographers, and am getting good results on my Z6II. I'll keep it until I receive my Z9, and then decide whether to keep it or trade it for a 1.4 TC. The 500mm PF is undeniably great, so like you, I'm thinking hard about those choices, including the 100-400. Thanks again.

[@skyrunr]

Very helpful video! This hobbyist is sticking with the 50-250DXVR and 300PF (and others) for now. I'll see what the 200-600 has to offer. These new Nikon lenses are very hard to get right now too. ;)

[@MrRudyc]

Very well done 👍. I learned a lot from this video. Thanks for your time and effort

[@cbphoto87]

Still waiting on the 200-600. 100-400 seems too short for most wildlife without a TC and like you pointed out the 500 pf is awesome but not versatile enough for anything but birds to justify the cost for me

[@patrickmolloy6994]

THIS is the review I wanted! Thanks Hudson, Updated: I've an order in with a couple off shops for the 100-400. But I need them for a trip in May - I doubt it'll be here by then, I'm not NPS. I use the 70-200 on a Z6 and with the 2xTC I'm ok with the images. Still hoping for that z 200-600!

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Fingers crossed

[@jamesjin8839]

my experience is mostly same as yours. my 100-400 is sharper. Surprisingly light or ergonomical to hold. I ended up kept the 100-400 and sold the 70-200 2.8

[@filetdelumiere5037]

Very useful test !

[@kais.6113]

Thank you so much for your comparison. It helps a lot. You can't go wrong with eigther of these lenses.

[@luismoroni-radio7986]

I have the Nikon Z8 and the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II which I use with the FTZ II mount adapter. Would it be better to keep this 70 - 200 AF-S and buy the 100 - 400 Z + Z TC-1.4 x than to buy the 70 - 200mm Z and sell the one I have?

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

@luismoroni-radio7986in I believe that if you buy the 100-400, you will eventually sell the old VR2 because you will find yourself no longer using it . The 70-200 FLED was a massive Improvement over the VR2, the 70-200 S was a minor improvement over the FLED. I owned all three lenses in addition to the original VR, but sold the S after using the 100-400. That's the only long zoom lens I carry anymore.

[@bartromanowski1262]

I've always been incredibly happy with the 200-500, beautifully sharp wide open across the zoom range. I'm a little bothered with it's weight, but I think I'll hold off till 200-600 is released.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

It's the image quality step down and slow focusing that made me send it back in a week. I made the mistake of using the 500PF first. ;-) If you're happy with it, rock it.

[@bartromanowski1262]

​@@HudsonHenryPhoto I just got the Z9 to replace the d850, and I'm not as happy with it on the new system as I was on the d850. Spent 3 hours hiking through the woods today, got deer and gray cranes, but focusing was a struggle (even using the hybrid handoff method you recommended). Reviewing the images now looks like I missed focus about half of the time. I'm thinking of a 500 or 600mm alternative, but it's hard right now. I wish the 400 Z lens was a 500 instead. Ideally I'd want my go-to wildlife lens to not be adapted. Maybe the 800 6.3? I saw your video on it, that would be really something!

[@daviddowling9830]

‘’ALL IN ALL ITS JUST ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL’’

[@christianbernhardt9803]

Really appreciate your posts. They're informative and data based - a wonderful combination. I've rationalized my kit to just the 100-400 and 24-120 for landscape photography. Thinking about the 14-24 f2.8 to complete the landscape bag. Which would you recommend for portraits - the 50 f1.8 or 85 f1.8 for portraits?

[@zgw8]

Hey Brother - I am on same page with 24-120 and 100-400. I love my 14-30 f4 for wide landscape. It is an epic lens. I took it to Iceland and it really performed. Never wished I had 2.8 and saved a whole lotta $$$. Also just got the 50mm f1.8 and really enjoying it. It’s unbelievable really. I didn’t get it for portraits so much as fun street stuff.

[@rolandrick]

Amazing test, exactly what I needed, thank you so much, will watch twice 🙌. That after market handles on the lenses, Arca Swiss already included, where can I get them?

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

In my links right next to the lens. :) www.hudsonhenry.com/atslinks

[@lucapucci9566]

When it comes to the nikon D850 F mount lens what would you say works best for travel ? 70-200 + 2x teleconverter or 80-400mm

[@e1evn1ee]

that's why the 800 pf will be a real game changer😁

[@mickd894]

I was divided between these two lenses but now I’m pretty sure I’ll go with the 100-400. It will mostly be used for agricultural aviation where 200 mm might not have the reach I’d need. Thanks for the comparo, very timely.

[@arunakalu]

Thanks, I am waiting for my Z 100-400. I already own the Sigma 60-600 which I am going to sell.

[@BoatZone]

We need a 100-300 2.8 tc internal, $10500

[@sebastianh.8212]

Thanks for this incredible review Hudson! This doesn’t make it easier… 😉 As I own the 70-200Z with the Z6II, I am looking for a lens to shoot wildlife closer. With the upcoming 400/4.5 it’s even harder to take a decision. 100-400? Is 70-200+TC1.4 close enough? Is 400 not versatile enough? Is 500PF too close? The worst thing: no shop around where to rent or test these combos…

[@m.maclean8911]

I own the F mount 70-200/2.8 FL and decided that I will keep it for my Z9 (it is incredibly sharp) instead of upgrading to the Z 70-200/2.8 which would likely cost me about $2k. Instead I bought the Z 100-400.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

smart choice.

[@bradkincaid9166]

Very interesting comparison. I have the 500PF and am wondering which 1.4 TC to get for the FTZ - the F mount TC or the Z TC? Seems that either could work, but maybe one of them might not fit with the FTZ.

[@craftysaberchee2491]

Only the F mount version will work with the FTZ

[@dahlpix]

Thank you very much, I am closer to making up my mind, being near retirement and looking to lighten my kit. I think the Sigma 150-600 Sport will be retired for the 100-400 and the 1.4 tele converter just may fill the gap and lighten the load. I will keep an eye on your future comments.

[@pierrevellay3967]

i donnot know if it is pertinent to replace my 80-400 (on my D850) by the Z100--400 for my Z9 (plus the 1.4 tele converter). Thank you for your Z9 menu settings

[@summitbid]

I'm actually having a similar debate with the 70-200 and 100-400... but I also have the 120-300 in mix! Right now, I am planning on letting the 70-200 go...

[@robguyatt9602]

You mentioned Reikan Focal. How have you found it? I've done many tests using several lenses of both F mount and Z on the D850 and Z9. I find it somewhat variable in its results for aperture sharpness. I don't think it is very good. Have you done say 4 identical tests in a row? Variation is excessive in my opinion.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Many times I did multiple tests. Never once experienced that on any of the dozen or so bodies I used. You may find variability in the test results from one body to another of course, but I never did with the same body and lens. Nope. I don't use it much now with the Z bodies and S lenses now. They're just too accurate. I really only test aperture sharpness. Again, zero variability in studio conditions with the same lens and body. You're the first I've heard with that compliant.

[@robguyatt9602]

@@HudsonHenryPhoto The last time I tested was the 800mm on the Z9 with target outside of a cloudless day. It's a bit hard to do that focal length in studio. :)

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Ha! I know my 800 is sharp wide open. Never felt a need to test that guy.

[@robguyatt9602]

@@HudsonHenryPhoto LOL I Like your style. :)

[@AntonyBartlett]

Great video. Thank you.

[@intrinsicimagery]

I'm second shooting a wedding in NYC in a couple off weeks. I plan to take the skinniest kit ever; a pair of Z6 II bodies, the 24-120mm F4, the 70-200mm 2.8, and the 50mm MC 2.8. I'll report back.

[@jeffreyneville9769]

Just curious if you ever used the "F" mount 70-200mm f2.8 FL ED VR with the FTZ II on the Z7 or Z9, I'm thinking of keeping the F mount version to save a few bucks. Have the Z9: Z 100-400: Z 24-120 and Z 1.4x tele on B/O and am keeping my 500PF as well. If the Z Mount significantly better on the 70-200 to ditch the F mount version? Enjoyed your evaluation very much, great job.

[@OkwyUgonweze]

I have the new 70-200 2.8 S and I can tell you that your fl version is an excellent lens. The new one is marginally better but you are likely to never notice. My advice keep your lens and invest in other focal lengths.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

I loved my FL ED. It was great on the FTZ. The S is a smidgen better, but not nearly as much better as the FL ED was than the VRII before it. :)

[@philipharborne1434]

great video as always, i am debating between 100-400 + 1.4 or the 500pf. Question with the 500pf do you need the old style 1.4 tciii or can you use the newer z 1.4? So i guess it would go body, tc1.4, ftz, lens.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

No. The Z 1.4.only works on Z lenses. I love the versatility of the 100-400, but if birds are your main thing, then the 500 is hard to beat, at least until they make an S version.

[@philipharborne1434]

@@HudsonHenryPhoto thanks, yer I am tired of waiting for the 200-600 and need something for an upcoming trip. Wanted to go purely z mount glass but 500pf just looks too good and your video twisted my arm away from the 100-400 towards it.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

It's an amazing lens. I'm not letting it or the 105 1.4 go any time soon. I've got links to it right here if you shop online: www.hudsonhenry.com/atslinks thanks in advance if you use them. :)

[@dab7963]

Love your videos always so educational but I'm not a fan of that 500 mm PF lens only because it's F mount. Yes it looks amazing but I would prefer to wait for them to release a Z mount version

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

That's the 600PF. This video is years old. :)

[@dab7963]

@@HudsonHenryPhoto thank you

[@davidhatton2321]

Thanks for the review, Hudson. I'm still on the F mount 70-200 2.8 with the FTZii adapter which still has wonderful results. Is the Z mount worth the trade? I am guessing the trade-in is about 800, which nets about a $1800 cost. I'm sure the Z mount will have better performance with the newer technology (like everything else), but still question the cost vs. benefit. I do like the control ring on the S lenses(exposure comp. per your recommendation is great) and the reduced weight and length would be convenient.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Is it the FL ED? That's an amazing f mount lens. :) the S is better, but not a lot.

[@RussandLoz]

180-600 is the new kid on the block changing things...

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

I'm not keeping the one I'm testing. I much prefer the 100-400 S still, but it's a great budget lens the 180-600. Lots of folks are going to love it

[@jeffselfphotography3066]

I wasn’t really interested in this lens since I have the 70-200mm and the 500mm PF, but I’ve been shooting some high school baseball and softball and I’m thinking I could really use the focal length between 300-400mm. So I may wind up getting it now.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

It's great!

[@annjessup1670]

Curious what you think of the 105 1.4 on the Z9 with FTZ adapter. Thanks!

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

I've yet to use that combo, but I adore it on the Z6 and Z7ii I've used it with. I prowled Havana in low light with that combo right before covid. Perfect for street shooting in low light. I'm sure it's even more fun with the Z9 AF.

[@annjessup1670]

@@HudsonHenryPhoto I used it on my D850s and it was amazing. Wondering if it’s worth a repurchase with the ftz? It was my favorite on the d850.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

I adore it too. It's hard to consider selling. I got to play the last couple of weeks with the new 50 1.2 and the 58 .95 noct. The 1.2 is astounding. Fast with epic IQ and pinpoint AF. The noct was insane for milky way work on my star tracker, but would be hard to manually focus on anything moving wide open. Insane but really niche. The 1.2 was super usable and cool. Really impressive lens. Rumor has an 85 1.2 S coming soon...

[@theresaelliott1784]

Thank you for this! I just got my Z9 a few weeks ago and I bought the Z 70-200 f2.8 and the Z 85 1.8, I was looking at the 100 to 400 also. After your review I might just try the 1.4 tele and see if it gives me the extra reach I want for staying in ninja mode during a wedding day.

[@hans6304]

How did you go with ninja mode? How was the lighting at the wedding? Thank you for sharing.

[@t.k.1448]

While the 100-400 may be sharper at the edges than the 70-200 with and without the 2x teleconverter, I wouldn't call the results of the 70-200 "bad". A few years ago we'd be doing back flips to have a lens perform this well without a TC let alone with a 2x strapped on. And there is that 2.8. What's that saying? "Great is the enemy of good." Really tough to decide but decide I must since budget and space do not allow me to own both. Besides, I would always be struggling to choose which one to take with me and being a travel minimalist. Right now I am leaning 70-200 with tele but knowing me, tomorrow I'll be waffling again. Luckily the really long delivery times here in Germany means I have plenty of time to decide. Thanks for the very useful and informative video BTW. Keep them coming, please.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Agree on all points. Here in Costa Rica and last month in the Palouse, I have been really happy with the 100-400 choice. I sold the 70-200 a couple weeks ago. I love it, but I'll just never choose it over the 100-400 when packing a bag. Someone should use it.

[@sramabadran]

so in your opinion 100-400 with a TC or a 150-600 without ? I have the 150-600 from Tamron and its got wonderful reach.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

100-400 every day. Reach is one thing. Image quality is another. :)

[@DK-ys2cw]

A crazy request. How does the Z 50-250 DX compare to the 100-400? Obviously there is a difference, but what is the difference exactly? If a person doesn’t need shallow depth of field, is shooting outside, and viewing images on a monitor only, does the 50-250 follow the 80/20 rule of quite good results for much less money? I have a Z50 and Z6ll, I would like the 100-400, but for the number of times I would need it for something beyond what my 70-200 delivers, I wonder if the little 50-250 would do the trick? A genuine comparison that shows the difference might also show new photographers that they can get great shots with less expensive equipment and show people what the extra money of the 100-400 will give them. Thanks in advance for considering the comparison.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

The 100-400 is a sharper lens capable of covering full frame. It's a bit apples to oranges since you're dealing with a 1.5 crop factor. 250 and 400 are very different physical optics. The 100-400 handles the nearly 50MP full frame sensors of the Z9 and Z7ii with ease, while it's impossible to test the 50-250 at more than 20MP of the Z50 and Z9 crop modes. It's really more like Apples to Cherries. Both are great, but very very different. I truly believe that for 80% of full frame shooters the 100-400 is a more versatile lens and a better choice than the 70-200. The exception is dark close in action (basketball or night sideline sports) and portraiture. The high ISO performance of even the bigger megapixel latest FF cameras makes 2.8 a luxury, not a necessity. For a small, light carry option the DX sensor on the Z50 is incredible with the 50-250. You can see a lot of images from it right here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKu6kqVoq7Obitk I use it a ton when I don't want to pack the Z9 and 100-400. :-)

[@Capcity44]

Hudosn, I'm sorry if you covered this already, but do you lose AF focus points when using TC's on the Z system?

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Nope. :)

[@morgankarno7335]

Hello Hudson how did the 24-120 work out and did it create any desirable sun stars?

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

It's just amazing. I used it like a workhorse the past few weeks and it delivered so well. The sunstar is second only to my old 20 1.8 S. It is nice at f16, very controllable and clean. Image quality is way better than the old 20, but the star isn't quite as gorgeous. :)

[@stevenball9277]

How fast and sharp will a PF lens be when Nikon finally release one.

[@petersuvara]

So you got rid of the 70-200 then? Did you do video of why and when?

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Several videos. The 100-400 is insanely sharp and versatile. The 70-200 S is a spectacular lens that indoor and night sports sideline shooters need, but as a landscape and wildlife shooter, the 100-400 is a far better fit for me, particularly with the high iso performance of our modern sensors combined with software like DxO Pureraw. I had both lenses 3 months and never once chose the 70-200 S or the 500 PF over the 100-400 to put in the bag. Selling both of them went a long way toward the price of my new 800PF which opens up all kinds of new possibilities. I also have the 105 1.4 (my last f glass) so I don't miss the portrait performance of the 70-200. I hope to swap that lens for an 85 1.2 S if they ever release it...

[@NetvoTV]

How about Tamron 50-400 vs Nikon 100-400?

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Every Tamron I've used for Nikon has been good. Not as great as Nikon's glass, but much cheaper. Accross the board they've suffered in extereme backlit situations (which I love to work in) where the newer Nikon S glass is just mind bendingly good. Also, huge compromises have to be made to bring an objective that kind of zoom coverage. 50-400 is a HUGE spread. It's been awe-inspiring how great a job first Canon, then Sony and finally Nikon did with the 100-400 format. Nikon's may well be the best yet. It's fully replaced the 70-200 2.8 for me. To add another factor of 100% zoom to that though from 50-400? I have to wonder where the compromises show the most. Usually it's at the long end... I'm not curious enough to test it to be honest. I think in the full frame world cutting corners with more budget oriented aftermarket glass makes less sense than with smaller sensor systems. The APS-C and MFT formats yeild incredible quality these days for those on a budget. Smaller, lighter, cheaper and still awesome optical quality.

[@zZola_Photography]

Could the 85/1.2 thats coming potentially push u to pull the trigger on selling the 70-200 since it seems like your primary reason for keeping the 70-200 is portraiture?

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Yes!

[@davblec]

For me 70-200 is better quality image and useful lens.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

Cool. Enjoy! I loved it till the 100-400 came out. I sold it after nine months of just never choosing to take it off the shelf instead, and I haven't missed it a bit. Not once. Is the 70-200 a wee bit sharper if you pixel peep? Sure. Can you pull a slider on post to level em out? Pretty much. If I shot indoor or night sports, I'd have kept it for the lower iso capability at 2.8. But for what I do, it's one or the other in my backpack and the 100-400 is so much more versatile for landscape, adventure sports and remote wildlife. No contest.

[@ianmearsphoto]

My personal view is that sharpness is much over rated as the vast majority of people never print full size images and then look at them with their nose right up to them. From the look of it all the lenses are more than adequate for almost any type of usage. from a quality perspective. So it comes down to more about the type of situations you shoot in such as low light or needing nice bokeh for portraits.

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

I am one of those rare large printers, so for me it does still matter a great deal. That's driven my passion for panoramic capture. Landscape being my true love, sharpness is quite key. I do also love shallow depth of field and gorgeous bokeh as well. That's one reason I sill love the 70-200 2.8 S and can't imagine giving up my 105 1.4 F mount, despite the fact that it doesn't compete with these new lenses for center sharpness wide open. It's special in a different way. That's the beauty of photography, lots of different folks have lots of different motivations and personal views. :-) Nice to hear your input Ian.

[@ianmearsphoto]

@@HudsonHenryPhoto You definitely are rare, so few people print their photos these days. But I bet you still don’t sit 2 inches away from your print 😉

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

No, but I have done prints comissioned for the SEMA auto show that were 20x90 feet at ground level and looked great. :) 50 frame d850 / Zeiss prime multirow panos of trucks in the Alvord desert backlit at dawn.

[@DarrenLloydPDX]

Okaaaaaaaay I guess I know with some of this tax return is going once the 100-400 is back in stock. Ticks the boxes for my sports shooting.

[@francisgarofalo3434]

Now throw in the Nikon 180-600mm

[@HudsonHenryPhoto]

I did that weeks ago.