Why I'm NOT getting the Nikon 100-400 S Lens

[@markusbolliger1527]

The Z 100-400 S F4.5-5.6 VR is an extremly versatile lens delivering outstanding image quality - regardless if you shoot frogs or butterflies at short distances, or a mountain range fare away. I can recommend it with no reservations!

[@zgw8]

Yup I love mine!!!

[@carlomure]

how is quality and autofocus with the 2x? works good and sharp?​@@LarryMarvin

[@jimowens8105]

First let me congratulate you on your recent family addition! As you pointed out, we as photographers (or just consumers in general) are bombarded with the latest and greatest "stuff" through the media. Most of it we seek out in an attempt to improve our photography. The money I have spent on gear would have been better spent on travel to places that inspire me and give me the opportunity to be with other photographers. I now tend to watch photography channels that have experiential content rather than the technical reviews on equipment I will probably never own. My D850 is still a great camera and still does not limit me in any way.

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Well said Jim - the D850 remains probably the best camera I've ever owned

[@debadri]

Very well said. Once I upgrade my camera, I will stop watching gear review channels and follow more photography channels.

[@MrSimonj1970]

I totally agree, the amount of money people spend on gear is nuts! I've got a used Z6 and 24-120mm and a few old F mount lenses that still work fine. My favourite lens is a 1973 105mm, still going strong!

[@ericerickson6537]

I own the lens and love it. It is my most used lens. I do a lot of wildlife photography.

[@davecleggett9371]

Congratulations Dad! Another great video, down-to-earth comments making sense to all of us 'enthusiasts' who don't have bottom-less pockets. Thanks for the uploads James - and best wishes to your new family!

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Thanks very much Dave

[@nickcarneyphotography]

I would take a long look at the Tamron 70-300 as well if you're looking at native Z mount lenses. By all accounts it's pretty sharp and gives nice telephoto coverage if your focus is more landscape.

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Good advice - I've heard great things about that lens too

[@johnsparkes8963]

I agree with you James, i shoot with z711 with 24-70 the 24-200 and 14-30. I also got that Sigma 100-400. Thought about changing it to the Nikon z 100-400 but as you said i cannot justify the vast price difference and i dont need that range most of the time. I find my 24-200 is nearly always mounted on my Camera body. I am more than happy with the image quality.

[@anoopguruvelli]

+1 to 24-200👍

[@randygerber1565]

I appreciate your dilemma regarding the cost. I did purchase the Z100-400, and it has made my Z70-200 redundant. I love the reach of the longer lens and will be offloading the 70-200 at some point. I have though adapted 2 Sigma lenses. The 135 1.8 and a wonderful 180 2.8 macro. They work wonderfully for what I need them for. Thank you for the video, and all the best with the little one.

[@andybusard6694]

I wrestled with the same decision! And came to the same conclusion. I already had the Sigma 100-400 F mount, but had the ftoz ver 2 adapter, which shaves a little more weight. Thank you for reassuring my decision was a valid one!

[@SuperTramp4223]

I really like that you’re giving honest opinion. Most of the KZbinrs are saying “this is good, and this is good, it’s your choice”, but it is not. When giving honest opinion, and giving real life examples, it’s much easier for the viewer to make a choice. Cheers and keep it up with the good work 🎉

[@EdwardMartinsPhotography]

I am using the Nikkor 70-300 VR with the FTZ II and as it's my only F mount lens I just leave the FTZ on it and it becomes part of the lens. In other words if you only have one F mount lens, the FTZ is a converter and not an adapter. Much less fiddling about with it that way. And the 70-300 is sharp and works great. Especially at $595 USD brand new. If/when Nikon ever comes out with a Z 70-200 F4 or a Z 70-300 I'll consider upgrading, but until then, I'm good.

[@anthonymrbs]

I could never justify paying nearly $3000 for a lens. I think either the Sigma or Tamron 100-400 lenses are great alternatives. After watching your video I bought a used Sigma 100-400 for just $600 and it is like new, and th performance is fantastic. Very sharp with very good IS.

[@mikephotos225]

I rented this lens on four occasions to see if it fit my needs as a sports photographer. One of the areas where sports differs from wildlife photography is that you want as much bokeh as you can get to separate the subject from the background, which translates to lower f-stops. While it's great to have 400mm in sports, the 400mm f/2.8 is a bit out of my range. But I've found that I actually get better sports shots with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and 1.4x teleconverter. This gives me an effective 98mm to 280mm lens so it's virtually the same at the bottom end but 120mm shorter at the top. However, the combination gives me f/4 across the entire range of the lens, while the 100-400 starts at f/4.5 and goes up to 5.6. That makes a difference, especially in the lower lights of many sports venues at night. So while I think the 100-400 is a good lens and I did get some good quality images, I don't think it gives me enough extra, especially for the cost.

[@jango71]

I think that is what I am going to do.

[@andys.9526]

Honestly, the "I cant afford it" argument is not something I find useful. If you say the lens has flaws or it does not fit your needs or you have found better options: yes, okay, get it. But just because of financial restrictions? Why not start making videos about why you are not getting the Bugatti Chiron, a private jet, that one private island etc. So I personally did not find this video helpful or useful in any way.

[@helloyogeshpatel]

Your argument is completely invalid the thing is Nikon 100 to 400 compared to tamron is way more expensive it's not many photographer cannot afford they can because they know what they are into it is just more expensive for what it is

[@wewlad107]

​@@helloyogeshpatelwell Tamron sucks sooooo

[@colintraveller]

There is lenses i won't buy because i simply cannot afford them and furthermore ...I only buy whay i can afford ..no point spending outwith my means ..itsn't feasible or practical ... Can you spend 2 grand upwards on gear ... without a care of your finances . I bet you wouldn't be so dumb n stupid ..

[@ralphwatson7036]

I salute your restraint and common sense.

[@thedarkslide]

5:03 I was about to suggest just that. I use the EF version on my Z7 with the Fringer adapter and it works perfectly. The lens is great. What most people don't realize: at these long focal lengths in landscape photography, image sharpness is more or less a function of weather and atmospheric quality (dirt/dust, haze, heat reflections etc.) rather than the lens itself. I also use the EF 16-35 f4 L on my Z7. The one lens that is mostly glued to my Z7 is the Z 24-120, that is the reason I bought the Z7. Because I wanted to use that lens. My Z7 cost me around USD1,100 in excellent condition. What a steal that was.

[@fmgriffiths7043]

HI James, Well said. It is about time someone actually came out and told the truth about costs - v - value of some of these lens. As you say you only take a few photographs that require a long lens. I have used Sigma lenses in the past and have always been more than satisfied with them - indeed I have won competitions with them. I now use a 400mm lens purely for motorcycle racing that is only because they won't let you get close enough on the racing circuit. For landscape the kit you have at present is adequate. You have shown this because of the beautiful work you show us on your channel. Good luck with the Sigma. Incidentally that was an eye opener about the cracked filter.

[@thanosbistolas6903]

James, I have been in the same dilemma for the last year. I totally agree with you 2.7k for the lens is a long shot for the majority of photographers. The Sigma one is not a bad lens and I have seen a lot of professional landscape photographers using it.

[@BlueBrendan2000]

I'm in the exact same boat, owning the 14-30 and 24-120 for landscape with a desire for an occasional super telephoto but priced out of the native Z 100-400. I ended up getting the recently released Tamron Z 150-500 that is relatively travel friendly and requires no adapter. It hasn't arrived on my doorstep yet, but from what I've seen it fills the need quite nicely (with a small gap from 121mm-149mm) with little compromise for half the price of the Nikon. From online comparisons, the Tamron 150-500 seems to be sharper than the Sigma 100-400m, and as an added bonus the Tamron's tripod foot is arca-swiss compatible (the Z 100-400 is not and requires another $130ish for a sturdy adapter)

[@zantome]

What about the Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens for Nikon F with an adaptor? Do you think it´s a good option?

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Yes I think that is also a good choice

[@scotimages]

Many thanks. Having recently got a used version of your camera body and have been contemplating the latest Nikon F 300 PF lens also used. Now you have given me an extra choice. Thanks again !

[@brianeibisch6025]

Yes!! I couldn’t agree more. The camera companies have a vested interest in getting people to buy the latest and greatest all the time. But, up until just recently the Nikon F mount WAS the greatest. So if the F mount has been great for the last approx 60 years then it should do a pretty good job now. Remember that the D850 is F mount DSLR produced before Nikon went mirrorless and has a 45 MP sensor. This means Nikon thought the F mount lenses were capable of 45 MP rendition so they can’t be too bad, can they. I have a Z6 with a 24-200 Z lens and for telephoto I still use my DSLR with the Nikon 200-500 zoooommmm. The combination works spectacularly well. Cheers

[@EmmanuelTan-r9l]

You can choose the Nikkor ;70-180mm which can be used with both Nikon teleconverters. With the 2x converter it can provide almost 1:1 for macro with ..98 magnification,

[@martinsarre]

I went down a slightly different route to you for my landscape z setup. 14-30, 24-70, and the excellent 70-300 Tamron z mount. I am very happy with this small and super lightweight setup and with 45mp z7, if 300mm is not long enough I crop in post without any noticeable loss in quality.

[@Batch2103]

Many congratulations on you becoming a dad!!

[@leonardbertaux6897]

I’ve rented it for a trip to South Africa with lots of wildlife shooting, but that’s not what I do very often. It’s a great lens, especially for large animals and sports. For birds you’ll probably want the 600.

[@warrengh5647]

What brilliant timing ! I have been in deep thought over the last weeks regarding just this topic. First problem is I am a bit of a name snob, 'Nikon genuine lens are always better' but as you say very expensive.. I chose a Tamron 24\70mm over genuine and its stunning so will now search for Sigma following your lead. Thank you for an excellent video.

[@Twa-Dags]

The Sigma is a cracking lens.

[@JamesBrewphoto]

The Sigma is good lens - for landscape shooting it is more than sufficient

[@scothowe539]

I took the same approach except I went with a used Tamron rather than the Sigma. I did buy a used tap in console at the same time. Glad I did as a firmware update was needed. I hope to buy the 70-200 F4 if and when it ever comes out for Z mount.

[@marcs7715]

Hello James, You might be interested in the Tamron 50-400, which has just been natively adapted to Z-mount. I was thinking along the same lines as you about the price/use ratio. Marc

[@eefvelthorst4127]

As usual an outstandig vlog. Compliments.

[@davidrcollins64]

James, your video brought a smile to my face. I've just purchased the Sigma 100-400mm for a Canon DSLR and have been wandering around Ramsey & Maughold shooting both hand held and with a tripod. Even got a shot of Snaefell in the clouds from my back garden the other night. I also bought the same 3rd party lens collar, which is a bit of a fudge but still useable. Early days yet but I'm really impressed with the lens and as you say I think it is an excellent alternative to the big brand lenses for landscape photography.

[@peterg.8760]

James, you really influenced my decision with your video. I am also a landscape photographer, but occasionally need a telephoto. The Nikon 100-400 is certainly good, but even for me, whose first child has now finished university and has a job (=no more money from Dad), it's way too expensive. You're right, for the 6.3% that I will use it, it's superfluous. I bought the Tamron 150 -500 for Nikon Z on offer today (for 1050.-€) and it's awesome. Fast, super sharp. That's all I need. Thank you very much !!!

[@Twa-Dags]

Like you I recently bought the Sigma 100-400 for my z6 and I absolutely love it, got the same collar too, which can be used, with a wee bit of fiddling, in portrait as well as the landscape it only appears, at first glance, to be designed for. Word to the wise though, in anything over a bit of breeze, its weight makes tripod shooting fairly difficult but bump up the iso, switch on IBIS and it's a bloody good handheld lens, perfect for mountain sniping!

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Great advice - matches my experiences so far

[@Mr09260]

I use the 70-200 F2.8 S plus 1.4 x TC .. Why not think of the 70-200>> Portraits for Baby as well

[@Mr09260]

I have the Z7 plus 14-30 , 24-70 F2.8 S , 20mm f1.8 S for Milky Way and the 70-200 S and 1.4

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Thats a great lens - cost is the main barrier though

[@Moriningland]

It is expensive but it’s a genuinely amazing lens and the focal length is so much more useful than you might think. 200mm just wasn’t enough reach but the 400 give you so many more shooting opportunities for landscapes. It was so expensive, but for me I knew this is a lens that I will have for 10+ years since mirrorless is here to stay. Just make sure it’s insured with the rest of your gear

[@CymruRJW]

James, I have the 24-120mm and love it, for longer shots the Nikon 70-200mm f4, is hard to beat, small, light and very sharp, a Mint one can be picked up for about £450.

[@rodschweiger4195]

I bought the Signa 100 to 4oo a couple of years ago. It is incredibly sharp even hand held. I use it on a D7500 and the only other lens I need is my nikon 18 to 140 kit lens that came with my camera. I'm not a professional so I really don't need more.

[@bilbobaggins4913]

Hi James - thanks for doing the vid. Did you consider the Nikon 80-400mm af-s g lens? That seems like a good option for landscape too on Z Mount - I was thinking of this for my z7.

[@angelawilkins3624]

The sigma 100-400 is an amazing lens and is very lightweight. You will be very happy

[@ChrisNH2FL]

I did the same thing James with the exception of buying the Tamron 100-400 f4.5-f6.3 with a third party collar for my Z6II. It was brand new off Amazon for less than $800USD. I have shot bird photography with it and the images came out great. Smart move man, sure it's a bit heavier but so is the wallet by saving the extra money.

[@Ben_Stewart]

Maybe the 200-600 is up your ally. I have the 70-200 and 400mm 4.5. I did have an order in for 100-400 but the primes are lighter and sharper and so when the 400 4.5 was announced I backed out. Very happy with my line up and with the 1.4X tele it really makes the 70-200 and 400 shine. Cheers.

[@bobpollack6894]

JAMES, I also know the feeling; the urge to get the latest and greatest is a bottom-line killer. Right now, my most extended length is the 200-500 F5.6. That lens will remain in the inventory even If I should go mirrorless. I will stay with my Nmount lenses. I have too much invested and don't see the need for a g.a.s attack on the Z Mount lenses!

[@markmcdonald8773]

Great video James. Like you I use the Z7, mainly with my 24-120s lens and my Laowa 100 f2.8 macro. I swithered about the Nikon 100-400, again due to social media influence etc. In the end I've traded in my Nikon 24-70 and 10-24 and opted for the Tamron 100-400 with the FTZ which I already have. Again like yourself I'll likely only use the 100-400 on planned trips and not every outing. Thanks for the useful video. 👌

[@gregl.7465]

I think you will be very well-served by the combination of the Sigma + FTZ adapter. I went a similar route--using the e-mount version of the Sigma, which has slightly updated optics, with an Megadap ETZ 21. I've been very happy with this combination. If I'm going on the "photo trip of a lifetime" I'll just rent the 100-400 Z just to have the peace of mind of the native z mount lens.

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Great advice Greg - like the idea of renting for those special occasions

[@nrice3623]

Excellent and relatable video James! And congrats!!

[@NORTRONGAMES]

great video. am getting z5 with 24-120 f4s this week primarily for landscape and nightsky. i really love the 100-400 but its way out of my budget. i hope sigma or tamron comes up with a native z mount telephoto lens so that i can lean towards it. i love the compression effect created by the 100-400 focal range. comes very handy during seascapes and mountain shots.

[@asqures5541]

The Tamron 70-300 for Z mount?

[@ThorsteinBerg]

Good points here. Nothing like giving second hand lenses a chance. Unless one is pressed for seconds to capture a quick fleeting moment like with wildlife or sports, the last 20 years have not presented any improvment in the broad sence to the world of lenses. As you mention, it's minute increments of improvement. Same goes for small format cameras (DX, Micro 3/4, full format 35mm). With the current sensors of 25-45 MP you won't get much more out it. The last camera that improved the small format range in form of resolution was the Nikon D800. Yes, you will have some more pixels for cropping on like say the D850 or the Z7II, but that's all. The only aspect that the newer cameras bring to the table is low light capablities. But unless you mainly shoot concerts or astro photography the switch to a newer camera just for that is not warrented. For all the hype these gear channels push out, unless they're saying that one should ditch the small format and get a medium format camera, most of all a Phase One digital medium format back, just hot air. So it's far more smarter to rather invest one's money wisely into one's photography. Buy some good second hand lenses that will fill the gap with regard to what you want to create and invest the rest in your images in form of travles and workshops. And we need more channels here on KZbin that focus on the photography. Let people learn more of the process behind taking images. How to plan for shoots. How to travel to good locations. Personally I now find it more interesting to watch channels like @BenHorne @nickcarverphoto @oddbjrnnaustevikfoto . 🙂

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Well said 👏

[@rickmagri5076]

Congratulations!!! I completely agree with your priorities. Thanks for a realistic and common sense video.

[@zantome]

Your video helped me a lot. I've seen several of your videos, including your tone of speech is great for understanding English (I'm from Brazil), a paused and clean speech! I have a Nikon D750, and have been planning to upgrade to a z6II for some time, and buy the following Z lenses: 24-120mm f.4 / 85mm f 1.8 (for portraits) / in addition to the Tamron 70-300mm f 4.5-6.3 But I think I'll stick with the D750 and my 24-120mm f.4 and buy the used sigma 100-400 that you mention in the video, because I shoot occasionally, especially when I travel. In October I'm going to Patagonia, for example. But it's like you said, when watching so many videos on KZbin, that crazy urge to change equipment hits... that's it, congratulations on your son and your work in photography.

[@paulus0109]

James… i was waiting til somebody on youtube was saying the thing you just mensioned about gear! I was nearly a Inferiority complex if i was not buying a fujifilm GFX 100S!!!!!😢 I am glad you stand out for the ridiculous prices and is looking for alternative products, as i am. Thnx. James and cheers.

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Haha totally! I've lost count of the photographers switching to the GFX 100S recently, the same people who probably preach about 'Gear not mattering'

[@Stelios-Photography]

Spot on about the KZbin rabbit hole. Great advice when trying to justify any new up grade to your camera.

[@peterlessey7548]

Very well sai my friend, I have shared this video with a few of my friends I hope it helps them as it has done for me.

[@musiqueetmontagne]

Congratulations on becoming a dad.. It's an amazing experience.... I'm using an f mount AF-P 70-300 f4.5-5.6 E VR on a FTZ. Only that model of the 70-300 is optically very good. Not up to Z glass quality but pretty damn good tbh. It's about 700 grams with the adapter, goes everywhere with me, has excellent vr that works with the IBIS. It often surprises me when I develop the raws.

[@johnforbes4795]

I've had it in my head to buy the Nikon Z 100-400mm f5.6-6.3. I have no doubt it's a superb lens, and honestly with my kids out of college and making a good living, I could probably justify buying it. I shoot some landscape, but mostly movement shots in dog shows where I often use the Z 70-200 f2.8 and even the Z 105mm f2.8 Macro, especially when shooting movement indoors in low light. So, I've preordered the Z 180-600mm for the occasional wildlife outing and I'm keeping my Sigma 100-400mm f5-6.3 Contemporary to fill a supposed gap. I've taken some beautiful landscape images with that Sigma lens. By the way, as an occasional landscape shooter occaionally using a tripod, when I bought the Sigma 100-400mm, I also bought the IShoot SM140 tripod collar via Amazon for it. While the tripod collar fits near the bayonet so the balance isn't perfect, I think it's much better than no collar. I find that it works quite well when using the 100-400 to occasionally capture a shot of the moon and I used it quite a bit a year ago at a trip to Rocky Mountain National Park. I see it on Amazon here in the States for $60. Oh, and I shot some wonderful images this past weekend at local Pinnacles National Park using the Z8 with the Z 24-120mm f4 lens you talk about. It probably is my favorite lens. I traded my Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Art lens as part of my payment for the Z8. I watched your two year old video on the Z 14-30mm f4 and you've convinced me that makes sense as my replacement for that Sigma. I do like your videos!

[@GarryM66]

Complete sense and rationale 👍👍

[@brucesterlowden140]

Well done James Restraint creates plenty!!

[@TechStories79]

I have the Nikon Z mount 70-200mm f/2.8. Its bloody amazing!

[@jessegimbel]

I've been debating between this and the 100-400. Right now the longest I have is a 24-70, so either lens will give me more reach. But hard to decide between the two for landscapes, wildlife, occasional video work, partially professional and partially for hobby/vacations/hiking.

[@TechStories79]

@@jessegimbel both great lenses, however, very heavy lenses if I had to pick a con.

[@joerg_koeln]

Wait for a Z-version of Nikon‘s 28-300 or adapt it.Then you can also leave the 24-120 at home and you can cover 14-300mm which should be fine 99% of the time.

[@WOLFTICKVIDEOS]

Yes, but the Z 24-120 is just soooo nice.

[@Johnmell100]

I've actually had this lens for about 6 months now and I love it. However, I totally get why you are not going to buy it as it's an expensive lens. I hope you enjoy using the Sigma, Im sure you will.

[@davidhatton2321]

James, thanks so much for a refreshing response to the GAS syndrome that is ubiquitous throughout the KZbin Community. I have a setup very much like yourself with the Z7 as my primary body, only with the S 2.8s, 14-24 and 24-70 as my primary landscape lenses. I have been tempted by the the 100-400 myself but have gotten by with my F Mount 2.8 70-200 with the Z adapter and the F mount 2.0 teleconverter, which have also worked brilliantly. My shots beyond 70M are very limited, like yours, but I can get to rare longer distances. As you have mentioned, we are at point in this industry that spending more will give one better image quality but at severe diminishing returns relative to price. Get ready for the the next round propaganda of the Z7ii replacement this year with wither the Z8 or Z7iii, which will also exert more peer pressure as "must haves" to stay relevant. Sadly, there are too many vloggers that have sacrificed improving their craft at the expense of losing focus by jumping to the latest new gear. Congrats on becoming a father and setting your new priorities!

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Thanks very much David - well said

[@tonyhayes9827]

Same reason I won't buy a Z9. I mean I can't, I don't have enough money - haha! But even if I did.......? I agree equipment is job dependent. Wildlife and photojournalism, sure, the Z9 AF would swing me to it. But I'm like you; landscapes, portraits (not professional - Z6 eye AF is fine). I kinda want to stick with Nikon just so the gear plays together nicely. Agree about the price of a 400 Z mount lens so I am thinking of the 80-400 F mount as the option for me. It will also work on my D850. I have no issues with the FTZ adapter.

[@davewalker5706]

I have thought about the 100-400. I also use z14-30 and 24-120 with my Z6 (to be joined this year possibly by a Z8). I love a telephoto for landscapes and currently use my 16yr old 70-300 VR G which works and balances great on the FTZ. But quite apart from the cost the 100-400 is very big and heavy and certainly no good for travel. What I really want is a genuine Nikkor Z S-line 70-300 with VR and 5.6 long end with the IQ and features of the 24-120. The Tamron one doesn’t cut it for me (no VR, f6.3). Of course if I had got the Z100-400, and then got a Z70-300, I couldn’t see me using the former. So no, the 100-400 isn’t the right solution for me.

[@chrisguli2865]

I'm in a similar boat with the Z 100-400...great lens, legendary Nikon optics, but at a cost. Nikon does have the secret sauce for making great lenses, particularly with glass formulation, but it will zing you in the wallet. I can splurge on a new Z 100-400, but I have mental blocks spending more than $2k on a single lens. Recently I picked up a 70-200/2.8 G VR lens (the 2003 vintage with the brass plate, made in Japan) and a more recent model 300/4 PF N coat lens, for a combo price of $1,700. The 70-200/2.8 is an absolute beast of a lens! I got them from KEH in the US, both in EX condition, squeaky clean, with cases. The 300mm PF is a much lighter and smaller lens, an it's prime too! Yep, I'm a firm believer in not spending a lot to take million dollar photos! I will consider the Sigma and Tamron lenses....I'm just getting started in Z world coming from the DSLR D7200 + an array of F lenses all of which I sold lasty year.

[@anoopguruvelli]

Exactly the info that i was looking for... Thanks for sharing, very helpful!

[@Gr1ff1D0]

Finances can definitely shape our views of the value of a lens. I am not going to get the 100-400 either. I have 2nd hand telephoto F mount lenses which I use successfully for wildlife and birding. (New ones are way past my financial options). They are not zooms, so I lack the flexibility zooms offer, but the 100 -400 is a lot of money for marginal benefits. I think I would rather spend money on wide angles. I have realised that I need to look much more closely at lenses wider than my current Z 24-70, so I am interested in the two Z mount lenses on offer. The issue is also finances. I know the lenses would open up new areas for me. They are both expensive and although I can probably afford to get one, the real issue is whether the number of times I could use one can be seen as justifying the expense. Maybe next year.

[@robroyig-robroyphotography9225]

Great video James! I couldn’t agree more. I have the Z7 I and actually purchased the 100-400 as I do shoot both landscape and wildlife. And the images were great, not going to lie. But I returned it 😮. Yep, in the end, I just couldn’t justify it either. With the aperture range being what it is, by the time I put an extender on there, my min aperture went to F11 at max range. So, I think I will look at Tamron, or Sigma as well. Thanks for the video again and congrats on your new edition!!! Awesome

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Thanks Rob - much appreciated

[@christopherbaadenfotografi2304]

Out of curiosity, were there any other tele zooms under consideration, such as the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III RXD which costs a bit less, is lighter in weight, and is Z mount? Or adapting a different F mount lens such as the also smaller/lighter Nikon 70-300mm VR AFP FX f/4.5-5.6E ED? If there were others under consideration, what was it that sold you on the Sigma 100-400 you decided on? Overall better IQ, that extra 100mm of reach, etc. I'm making that same decision for a tele zoom to augment the Z 14-30 and 24-120 and am having a bit of a hard time making a decision. Size and weight (and Z mount in the case of the Tamron) advantages of the 70-300 vs. VR, longer reach, and perhaps better overall IQ and build quality of the 100-400 options. Supposedly Tamron is going to release more Z mount lenses this year, so I may wait a bit to see how that shakes out. Maybe like the F mount, Tamron will come out with their updated version of the 100-400 for the Z mount.

[@timryan894]

I’m in the exact same dilemma at the moment. Another thought, since I started using DXO Pure Raw 2 (& 3) for my RAW files, It corrects distortions, vignetting, noise and resolves detail so much in post processing that I am increasingly with you on a 3rd party or DSLR Nikon zoom lens instead vs the new Z lens. So much can be done in post nowadays with ai software it almost makes the hunt for perfect optics irrelevant.

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Very good point

[@SanoyNimbus]

I bought the Z 24-200 instead of the 24-120 ... (I already had the 24-70 F4 that came with my camera so I thought I did not need the 24-120 ...) The 24-200 is quite good for the price, and might be a lightweight solution for you? Keep it in the bag if the weather is bad though! :) Ia use it for video and as a travel lens. For birds, wildlife and airplanes I use my (expensive) 400 F4.5 + the TC1.4 ... :) I have sold all my F-mount lenses except some that I use for my vintage film camera ...

[@JamesBrewphoto]

The 24-200 is a really nice choice too - a nice compromise lens that fits a lot of focal range into one

[@photozen8398]

Do you miss your d850?

[@ryanlawrence8479]

Good vid I like the overall message about new gear. I, like u wanted that lens as well but last year decided to grab the similar Tamron version of the 100-400. Not the kind of lens I wanna carry everywhere w me but gets the job done when u need it. Even adapted to the z6 it does a decent job. I use it more for wildlife, I think these are stronger for landscape but still decent for wildlife. Autofocus could be more accurate, like on a Native Nikon lens. But for just landscape no question the Tamron Z 70-300 would be the ideal choice.. much lighter and 300mm is long enough for 95% of the shots ud being using the lens for.. and not stupidly priced..Cheers

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Cheers Ryan - thanks for watching

[@artvinartvin6070]

What about the Nikon Z 28-400mm f/4-8 VR lens?...It's not that expensive and I think it's not bad..

[@gemstyxwalls1419]

Look at the Tamron 100-400mm F4.5-6.3 ?

[@kenhassman4322]

Great advice and congrats on new fatherhood!

[@MatsAcane]

maybe the newer Z 70-180 2.8 could be an option combined with the TC 1.4x or TC 2x.

[@shot2death876]

When you compare the cost of modern cameras and lenses with the cost of a mortorbike or car the question arises are we mugs?

[@JamesBrewphoto]

haha

[@peterenevoldsen7199]

Get the af-p 70-300 with ftz adapter.

[@ukreal1london]

does the adapter make it so you cannot have a wider aperture?

[@davidlear9597]

Sometimes things happen in life and you think I can’t take my money with me but the Government will if I end up in a care home. Z9 purchased and Nikon 300mm pf f4. Love the two but can be a bit restrictive with what I shoot so looking at 100-400 Z mount. My mate produces similar quality photos with a Nikon D500 and Nikon 70-300mm DX lens at a cost of £230 new. Like you say if money is no issue but just shows you can get great results from cheaper gear. My purchase once I’ve made my decision will be in lieu of no holidays overseas since covid came in.

[@keithsandercock1412]

Excellent perspective.

[@koenpijpersphotography]

Great insights in your decision making. I will do the same, and I willl check all my lightroom photos for focal length and weigh if the 100-400 is worth it for me. It will remain a lot of money and as you say there is virtually no second hand market for this lens, which for me is also an indicator it is quite good :). I want to refrain from picking up an FTZ adapter again, as I've sold mine since I don't own any F-mount glass anymore. But yeah, it is the cheapest option. Decisions, decisions, decisions. Congratulations on becoming a parent!

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Thank you very much - good luck with your lenses

[@koenpijpersphotography]

@@JamesBrewphoto I opted to take the same route as you. I got the Sigma 100-400. Only difference I got the FTZ II adapter. FTZ(I) I think is too bulky. Only negative is yes the zoom ring rotates the other way, but i can live with that.

[@Peter_Reed_Photography]

Bit late in watching this, having only recently come across and subscribed to your channel, but this video was very timely given the number of videos released last week for the new Nikon Z8.

[@jimnasr9529]

You could get a second hand nikkor afs 80-400 for far below 1k.

[@chrisguli2865]

I just recently ordered an F mount 80-400 AF-S lens from KEH in EX condition with case and caps - can't wait to get it - it was only $891 so it's much less $$$ than a Z 100-400 - I know I would prefer a Z lens but at $2600+ new....

[@pauka13]

I'm still waiting for Nikon to release the essential 70-300 f4.5-5-6 Z mount version for an affordable price. I still use the old f mount lens adapted... These new Nikon telephoto lenses are absolutely superb but how the hell can a hobby photographer like me afford one?? I'll take a look at this Sigma as well!

[@attilaborviz7311]

It is my dream lens too, but it is very expensive yet.

[@psfphotography]

What about the 80-400 5 6?

[@diuco17]

How is it going?

[@derekgillan7314]

I still think you should have got a replacement D850, I prefer a DSLR than mirrorless. Lenses are easier to buy, I still think mirrorless is a dust bunny home.

[@JamesBrewphoto]

I do miss my old D850 - RIP. Hope you are keeping well Derek

[@filetdelumiere5037]

It seems that the new Nikon 100-400 is a game changer with an incredible quality and versatility, completly unusal for a zoom in this range. For me, the quality and the sharpness of a lens is very important. You change camera bodies but keep the lenses you have a very long time. Nevertheless, buying a zoom for landscape photography is risky. Landscapes in general need crispy lenses.

[@franciscojimenezberral5013]

EXCELENTE VIDEO JAMES !!! GRACIAS POR LA INFORMACIÓN . YO TAMBIÉN LO TENGO . LO COMPRÉ AQUÍ EN BARCELONA ; DONDE VIVO . NUEVO , ME COSTÓ 929 EUROS . AUNQUE AHORA ESTÁ MAS BARATO Y SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR NUEVO POR 799 EUROS . YO TENGO LA CÁMARA NIKON D850 . RECUERDO QUE TU TAMBIÉN LA TUVISTE , Y LAS EXCELENTES FOTOS QUE HAS HECHO CON ÉSTA CÁMARA . SIGMA TAMBIÉN TIENE CON LA MISMA LUMINOSIDAD , f/5-6.3 EL TELEOBJETIVO 150-600 mm. POR 999 EUROS . AUNQUE ALGO MÁS PESADO . GRACIAS POR EL VIDEO JAMES Y FELICIDADES POR TU RECIENTE PATERNIDAD .UN ABRAZO

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Gracias Francisco

[@cesarm8811]

James congrats to you and your wife in becoming parents. Excellent advise for saving money in buying second hand camera gear.

[@JamesBrewphoto]

Thank you Cesar

[@fleemwings207]

Hi James, I agree that Nikon Z mount lenses are in a higher price bracket when compared to their F mount cousins. The 100-400mm is daylight robbery! Nikon will probably tell you to buy the 28-400mm if you can't afford their 100-400. Like you, I passed on the Nikon because I already have the F mount Sigma C 100-400mm and I decided to continue using it with my Z6 II. Besides I have already jumped on a Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 Z mount lens instead of the Nkon 14-30mm f/4 as I do not use ultra wides very often and do not want to pay double the price for it. I think I will wait for Sigma to come out with Z mount versions of their lenses in due course and will reevaluate when that time comes.

[@rigbyphoto]

Thanks for this video. It has, at least for the foreseeable future, severly reduced my GAS.

[@marcelcarey1818]

Although heavy, the 200-500 with the Z adapter would be quite a bargain and would deliver top quality.

[@emroesler]

What about a mount adapter?

[@JamesBrewphoto]

I have considered getting the sony adapter but mainly for their fast wide primes which at the moment are more extensive than the z mount options. Maybe in the future

[@gosman949]

The lens is expensive. I have it along with a 85 1.8 and the 24-120. I hardly use the 100-400. Mostly the 24-120. At this point in my life (over 70), I have the resources to procure. But when I do use the 100-400, it knocks it out of the park as we say here in the US!

[@steventhomas231]

The Tamron 70 - 300 would be a good option.

[@jfphotography69]

Smart move.

[@arunca190]

I thought this gonna be a hater video. It’s a saver video and I’m loving it.