Nikon 400mm Utimate Lens Comparison

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

[@BudBetz]

Nice work Scott! A complex subject whittled down to comparisons most understand. Thanks for that extra mile to the finish. Well Done!

[@edwtg59]

Awesome review Scott! Best comparison I’ve seen so far. Appreciate it!

[@gunny2044]

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.

[@joebecker3107]

Nice review/comparison of the 4 lenses! Well done. Can't wait to get my hands on the 400 2.8 for sure.

[@rcgrant9310]

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!!

[@dropin324]

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).

[@TCRONIN002]

Incredibly valuable information and research - loved the entire thing and appreciate the work that you put into making it.

[@MegaBriarpatch]

Appreciate the info! I've got the 100-400, and love the versatility for wildlife, sports, air shows, you name it.

[@cmichaelhaugh8517]

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.

[@jimbolic0809]

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!!!

[@peterlebengood7160]

Fantastic review! Incredibly helpful and informative.

[@CaptRod]

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!

[@mikedavis1110]

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!

[@Mark13376]

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

[@mikedavis1110]

@@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.

[@petersymes8467]

Excellent clear and simple explanations and comparisons of these lenses. Thank you.

[@briandurell]

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.

[@ravinchandra]

I'm thinking of buying one for mostly landscape and occasional birds/animals. I've also heard it can focus quite close as well.

[@cherylpereira7259]

Thank you Scott for explaining so much with these lenses. I have the 70-200 and Love It!

[@edbritelight7683]

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 😮😊

[@WildlifeInspired]

This is very true.

[@timothyduvernet2711]

"justifies the price", really depends on personal needs.

[@cliftonwhittaker260]

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.

[@ericaceous1652]

Really useful, thanks for the hard work you put into this

[@dah7772]

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.

[@uhoh7541]

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

[@dah7772]

@@uhoh7541 I don’t own the 2x so I can’t speak to how good or bad it is.

[@uhoh7541]

@@dah7772 Thanks for reply none the less!

[@SolamenteVees]

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.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Thanks!

[@donaldstarkey8177]

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.

[@jimcastanzo8736]

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.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Sincere gratitude!

[@brucegraner5901]

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.

[@buckturgidson9666]

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!

[@patrickbhirdo2869]

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.

[@michaeldreese4979]

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!

[@DusToDeath]

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.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Glad it was helpful!

[@GeoffCooper]

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)..

[@jamesp7762]

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!

[@WildlifeInspired]

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

[@mywildlifestories3793]

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.

[@kghareeb]

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.

[@kareemtejumola5443]

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

[@WildlifeInspired]

glad it was helpful!

[@librasulus]

great review, very helpful. Thank you!

[@user-tr7vm5dp9k]

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

[@WildlifeInspired]

Awesome! Thank you!

[@michaelcirillo5306]

Very helpful comparison. Thanks!

[@raziel7997]

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!

[@Lets-Take-Pictures]

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!

[@WildlifeInspired]

Welcome !

[@stevethompson8154]

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.

[@michelebelotti2022]

Hello, I liked this review, it actually helped me to decide which lens I would probably buy. Thanks for doing that

[@WildlifeInspired]

Glad it was helpful!

[@photographydiscourse1185]

Great review and summation of these lenses - very education and well presented. -PD

[@2Bad.]

I just discovered your channel... subscribed. I'm new to the Nikon Z system and am looking forward to following your your photographic journey. 🍻

[@WildlifeInspired]

awesome thanks!

[@elaboy320]

Awesome vid! glad I found this channel, thanx!

[@MuratKilci]

Just came across your channel. Great content. Great comparison. Thank you. Liked and subscribed,.

[@gregroberts875]

Excellent video!! Because of this video I just bought the 100-400. Thanks so much for sharing this information!! Greg Roberts, Bham, AL

[@WildlifeInspired]

awsome enjoy!

Great video. Thanks. Have the 100-400 and happy with it!

[@Krongchai21725]

Thanks for very impressed comparisons.

[@Walkinginthewoods]

They are surprisingly close. As you say it all depends on your need. Very useful information Scott.

[@paulstephenson9539]

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'.

[@saopaulosoul8714]

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!

[@gordonmcintosh3159]

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!

[@keithwalls6316]

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!

[@waynejones1054]

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.👍

[@save_the_night]

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)

[@suzannegmirek1520]

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 :-)

[@WildlifeInspired]

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

[@scottheppel8847]

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.

[@WildlifeInspired]

8 feet is almost always enough min but when the 600 has 13 foot minimum range, thats not close enough!

[@terrykellyphotography6171]

excellent review, thank you!

[@criegel42]

Awesome content and very helpful - thanks

[@JayBlue2U]

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!

[@WildlifeInspired]

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.

[@JayBlue2U]

@@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!

[@saopaulosoul8714]

@@WildlifeInspired your channel isn't big enough YET!. 😊I am sure you will get there I enjoy your content!

[@craigwallace166]

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.

[@TheStephenHaley]

Great video. Your enthusiasm shows through. I'm still using my F mount 500 PF and holding out for the 200-600 Z mount.

[@WildlifeInspired]

That will be a neat lens

[@martincarran4294]

Brilliant review, well explained, many thanks for doing this, I still cannot decide between the middle 2 though...... 🙃🙂🙃

[@rudolfappel7236]

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.

[@jpdj2715]

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.

[@HellBatDC]

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.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Glad it was helpful!

[@TomasBodin]

I really liked this review! Thank you.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Glad it was helpful!

[@stevelink3]

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!

[@zygmuntziokowski7877]

Nice comparison! You did a great job.

[@Hrishi1970]

This is so good. Wanted to compare 500 pf with 400 mm. I got some answers! Thank you!

[@louiscerrato3142]

Thanks Scott, well done. Great information.

[@19Photographer76]

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.

[@romanhar4151]

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.

[@JamesWilson9777]

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.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@JovicaNedeljkovic-nf2ur]

great suggestion, thanks and well done.

[@Gualdo007]

Great review! Thanks

[@stevenwei5511]

thanks for the comparison it is exactly what I wanted to know.

[@tc6912]

Great info, thank you. It would be nice to see how the adapted 500PF fits in this comparison.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Ill see what I can do

[@jackjericho]

Timely video, as I'm debating the same question myself at this time, and have the 400 4.5 and 100-400 in-hand to test. I also am a bird photographer, with my main lens the 800PF; that being said, if I'm going birding, the 800 is on the Z9/Z8, but where I need coverage is when a bird flies under that 16' minimum focus distance, and that's where the 400 option comes in. Thought the 400 4.5 was the easy answer, but even 8' is often times too much MFD, so enter the 100-400 and its 3' MFD. Yes, the prime has slightly better sharpness, contrast and bokeh, but a lot of that can be made up in post. Along w/ pinch hitting for birds (w/ the 1.4TC), the 100-400 will get me shots that those other lenses cannot, so I think at this point it's in the lead.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Nice to have options, honestly I dont think you can go wrong!

[@ThePinoyAggie]

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.

[@hugaukulele]

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.

[@henryamdur8004]

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.

[@frankcruz8068]

I concur with most of your findings except for the Focus Speed of the 100-400. I own both and have found the 400 4.5 is significantly faster than the 100-400 on initial focus (when the bird jumps). I also own the 800 Z 6.3 and I find it to be more on pair with the 100-400. All these lenses are terrific and the differences are negligible. With the Z9 all these lenses focus nice and fast, just the 400 4.5 is consistently a little faster, maybe the extra light allows more contrast to focus better? It is nice to know that we don't have to spend over $10K to obtain Pro quality products anymore.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Good observations, when i tested focus speed, I had good available light and all 3 lenses seemed zippy. All 3 much faster than the 200-500 F mount.

[@davearchbell9921]

Great review!!! I bought the 400 4.5 and love it!!

[@WildlifeInspired]

Great lens and super light. Was definitely impressed with sharpness!

[@davearchbell9921]

@@WildlifeInspired I love the lightness. I can bird all day with it.

[@user-ly8jd4jn8m]

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 !!

[@dennisdewildt6898]

Yes just the review I was looking for. Thanks for clearly explaining it on (my) no-400mm-experience level.

[@sunking9050]

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

[@lizards821]

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!

[@WildlifeInspired]

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)

[@lizards821]

@@WildlifeInspired thats the plan!!

[@psoon04286]

Hello Scott. Ive been discerning on a longish lens for general bird and the occasional mammal photography and was hoping that someone will compile exactly what you’ve just done. I’m so glad to now know that the 400 f4.5 and the 100-400 are neck to neck at 400. Not only didn’t I know that the 100-400 is compatible with the teleconverter, but that its a great combination👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼😄

[@ganainm5113]

Definitely worth considering the F5.6 200-500 in my opinion. It's a little bit bulky and heavy, put produces some some really great shape images and is very reasonably priced.

[@psoon04286]

@@ganainm5113 thanks for the suggestion. I’ve rented the 200-500 in a number of occasions but somehow didn’t think of it as a permanent addition to my kit. Now I’m more invested into the Z system and weaning off my F gear🙂

[@dance2jam]

Scott, thanks for taking your time and energy to do this side by side review. I do not own any of these lenses (except the f-mount 70-200mm) and it's hard to argue with the 400mm f/4.5 prime and 100-400mm f/5.6 for the price point and flexibility they give you in the field (handholdable, transportable, etc.). These lenses are a wonderful addition to the Nikon Z lineup. That said, your intial test, while looking at image quality wide-open, doesn't really compensate for DOF differences (if they are there) - i.e. the 400mm f/2.8 vs 400mm f/4.5. It would have been nice to see both lenses stopped down to f/5.6 as well or the 400mm f/2.8 vs the 400mm f/4.5 both at f/4.5 (or close). We also didn't hear the ISO on each tennis ball shot or next bird photo. I also would argue (I know where you were going with this - but) that the 400mm primes are versatile, just not in the same way as zooms. The 400mm f/2.8 gives you the versatility to shoot early morning/late evening - low light. The 400mm f/4.5 gives you the versatility of traveling long distances and long hand holding (for composition or tracking in flight). I know that's not where you were going in your process, but it's all relative - right? ;-) Obviously, no test is going to be a perfect comparison, but it's nice to see the differences require a deep dive into pixels or corners at times - if you are looking at the corners of the photo, I'd have to ask why ;-) Thanks again. Nicely done. As always, love your time, effort, and energy put into this format.

[@WildlifeInspired]

im kicking myself a littel for not showing bokeh in this. I will do something in the future.

[@dance2jam]

@@WildlifeInspired Scott, you do a great job. When I comment, it's just an FYI. That said, I would be very interested to share current (after over a year) settings of the main AF area modes/important button assignments with you as I think that would be interesting. I've changed mine several times over the year - especially with the newer firmware updates. I now have a much better feel for how/when/where to change things. Keep posting your experiences. Hope to talk to you soon.

[@BowlesImages]

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.

[@WildlifeInspired]

good point about testing at equivalent aperatures, but soooo many variables. Appreciate the insight!

[@DavidLewis-uh1hj]

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.

[@WildlifeInspired]

the difficulty for me is getting hands on new glass. My channel isn't big enough to get first looks from Nikon......

[@JzFire007]

Honestly I have the 100-400 lens on my buy list. I currently use the Tamron 150-600G2 for my wildlife work on the Z9. I haven’t been able to use any Z glass yet so the 100-400 looks so appealing for the price. I like the versatility of zoom lenses so I can’t wait to see the 200-600 on the Nikon roadmap, although it will most likely be out of my price range. Great video!

[@JayBlue2U]

I have the Nikon z 100-400 lens. It’s sharp but the bokeh is so-so. I’m going to try the Z 400 f/4.5. Since the Z 200-600 won’t be an S lens, it should be quite affordable.

[@dicekolev5360]

The best feature of z100-400 is the macro abilities alongside the telephoto. It's overall amazing lens!

[@loitruong4821]

Like Jay Blue said, the 200-600 is not a designated S line lens. There are rumors it might be 180-600 and not 200-600. but given that it's not S line, and would compete with Sony's 200-600 (which is around 2k USD), my guess is it would be cheaper than the 100-400

[@JayBlue2U]

@@loitruong4821 I’m guessing it’s a reengineered Tamron 150-600 lens and it will retail for $1,500 to $2,000. We’ll see.

[@danb821]

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!

[@jerseyreddevil3139]

Very helpful, thanks!

[@WildlifeInspired]

Glad it was helpful!

[@kurtkemnitzer]

Great review Scott.

[@WildlifeInspired]

THanks!

[@Samanthaohlsenphotography]

Definitely the best review of the available Z series 400mm options. I really appreciate you breaking down the features and explaining who each of the lenses were designed for. As someone who is still a Nikon DSLR shooter and is considering switching over to the Z series, I would have loved to see how the old 400mm f2.8 F mount lens works, when adapted with the FTZ onto a Z8 or Z9? When I have invested so seriously into the old F-mount lenses I want to know if I can upgrade to the Z series camera body without losing the performance from some of the excellent F mount lenses.

[@WildlifeInspired]

i did a video that discussed my choice to change the biggest thing was i HATED the TC + FTZ. not a huge difference in speed or sharpness, but the solid connection and built in TC was really great! poke around for the other vid if you never saw it.

[@Samanthaohlsenphotography]

@@WildlifeInspired I watched this video and it was great. I guess I was looking for a comparison of the old 400m f2.8 on a D5/6 vs that lens on a Z8/9. In other words, can I change to the mirrorless system (body) and still make good use of my old lenses on a Z8/9 with a FTZ until I can start to afford to change over the lenses or should I wait a few years till I can afford to buy the mirrorless lenses at the same time? I do agree however with your point of failure in having to add an adapter onto the system. After watching the video you recommended I don't think I could ever justify the price upgrade of going from the old 400mm f2.8 to the newer version. I only recently came across your channel and I really appreciate the way you give truely practical gear reviews. To be honest I have never come across such good content on KZbin before in this area!

[@RussellDossett]

Great video one question on the F2.8 did it not have a lens cap on the end were you not worried about dust etc going in to the lens? I’m thinking of getting the 1.4 tc Z mount as I’ve got it for the F mount and I’m happy with it I can use the D6 mode in the Z9 To get an extra 40%.

[@WildlifeInspired]

I literally just took it off the cam body and noticed with I started recording. I cringed watching a little (I did clean it after lol)

[@Youyouber1]

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!

[@loihpatli]

thanks for the vid! i have a tamron 150-600 G2 and thinking to upgrade. I have z6 and d750 bodies so i thought about 500 PF lens ( i usually shoot at 600 mm with tamron) but now i'm thinking maybe to get one of the 400's with the teleconverter. Have you compared these 400's with 500 pf and if so what's your thoughts? thanks!

[@WildlifeInspired]

I have not. Maybe Ill see if I can get a review of that and maybe compare it to the 400 2.8 and TC

[@JovicaNedeljkovic-nf2ur]

Great suggestion, thanks and well done. The only problem is the lack of information about the functioning of the stabilizer?

[@jaideepahuja9655]

Thank you Scott for this great review. I use a Nikon 55-300mm lens, and after seeing this video I am looking to buy a 2x TC for my upcoming trip to the Serengeti. How can I ensure that the teleconverter I buy is suitable for my lens?

[@WildlifeInspired]

Im not sure that set up will work well, it will not focus well and I dont think the 55-300 will even take a teleconverter.

[@jonerikrolf2029]

Great review of the practical similarities and differences among these lenses. (One wonders when or if Nikon will make internally zooming non-extending lenses such as the OM-1’s close focusing 150-400mm f/4.5 lens with built in 1.25x.) On my safaris in Africa in past years, the F-mount 80-100 zoom was so much more versatile than the 200-400mm or the 500mm lenses. When the animal came near the safari trucks, those persons with the 500 and 600 mm lenses had to stop photographing. The down side to the 80-400mm lens (as possibly with the Z 100-400) was that it did suck in dust, and it became very soft with the 1.4x.

[@WildlifeInspired]

the 100-400 is claimed to be very well sealed time will tell

[@dontruesdell2013]

Hello Scott, thank you so much for this video. This actually was a topic that I’ve been debating in my head recently. One question, I have the 70-200 2.8 DSLR lens. If you were to use that with the FTZ adapter, would you expect your conclusion to be the same? Or is the sharpness, speed, etc. drastically different as compared to the Z version. Thanks very much for doing this video!

[@WildlifeInspired]

the main difference would likely be that the 2x converter for the F mount lenses isn't as sharp and I would expect a little less than the z 2x.