Did not see a dedicated thread for this, now that the lens is announced we need a place for pointless speculation and gripes as we await shipment on our preorders
I put in my preorder with B&H this morning. My initial impressions are
1) Worried about the foot design. Are we in for another 80-400 style fiasco? Seems like a very high profile design with lots of opportunities for mechanical instability
2) Lens is actually longer than the 80-400 but 200g lighter. However once you factor in the size and weight of the FTZ it is slightly shorter and meaningfully lighter. So I kinda get one of my two physics defying asks. The substantial size and weight difference of the WA lenses had me hoping for more, though the size and weight of the Sony and Cannon equivalents were a clear indicator that physics is getting in the way of my wishes.
I don't shoot that range too much and the 70-300 has been mostly meeting my needs. Will let the order sit in the queue for a bit while I decide if I am going to use this enough to be worth the $2600
The foot is the same as the one on the new 70-200/2.8S. So, any aftermarket foot replacement for the 70-200S will work here as well.
Have my pre-order in as well ... this, the 14-30 and the new 24-120 should make a killer outdoor/landscape/nature setup. Add in the 105MC and it's a package that's affordable and should rock. Good job Nikon!
I ordered through NPS, and should have one as soon as they start shipping throughout the US.
I currently use the 70-200 f/2.8S w/ the Z TC14x on my Z6II. That lens is built like a tank. I previously owned 70-200FLE, and I think that the build of the Z lens is as good if not better.
If the 100-400 uses the same collar and foot as the 70-200S (as pictures imply), this this will not be anything like the current 80-400G AFS VR that requires a RRS or Kirk replacement collar.
The 100-400S will be my "tweener" lens that will bridge the gap between my 500PF w/D500. I am still hoping that Nikon releases a Z-mount D500 camera. I am more than happy to shoot a 20MP DX camera will BSI and Stacked sensor... this will keep me from buying a Z9. If a "Z900" does not appear in the next 12 months, then I will eventually suck it up and buy a Z9.
I am looking forward to the 100-400S and am curious if it will be as good (or better) than my 70-200 w/ converter.
It looks great, and it's certainly tempting -- but it's hard to justify for my casual use of long slow zooms. I'd rather have a <$1000 native Z-mount version of the already excellent 70-300, which is 1/5 the price and less than half the weight for a fairly minor difference in focal length. I think a lot of people using it in its native range would agree (including those who see it as a tweener used alongside a 500mm prime). If the 100-400 is actually usable with a 1.4x TC -- with tolerable AF speed and decent optical quality -- it becomes more compelling.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
It looks great, and it's certainly tempting -- but it's hard to justify for my casual use of long slow zooms. I'd rather have a <$1000 native Z-mount version of the already excellent 70-300, which is 1/5 the price and less than half the weight for a fairly minor difference in focal length. I think a lot of people using it in its native range would agree (including those who see it as a tweener used alongside a 500mm prime). If the 100-400 is actually usable with a 1.4x TC -- with tolerable AF speed and decent optical quality -- it becomes more compelling....Show more →
I'm rather in the same boat. I owned an 80-400mm for quite a while but it saw less and less use compared to my PF primes and the 70-300mm. It was a good lens for certain purposes, but too heavy to take on long hikes, and too short for a real birding lens. Since I spent most of my time at the long end anyway, the 300mm PF + TC delivered similar image quality in a smaller package.
Sometimes, it's the ideal lens, and I was really happy with it on safari where the significant range was good for capturing a variety of wildlife. But I eventually sold it because it just wasn't getting enough use.
I'd probably feel differently if I spent less time hiking with my camera - the weight would not be such a burden.
While I usually avoid watching the myriad of videos that get linked on these forums as most of them are.a waste of time, I did watch this one and found Ricci’s (sp?) run-through of the Z 100-400 S to be very useful and informative. It answered all of my questions. Was particularly impressed with the limited barrel extension compared to other zooms and small amount of twist needed to go through the full extension. Thanks for posting the link.
100-400 is just so versatile and the specs on this new S version are very good, especially the max magnification of nearly 0.4x at 400mm due to crazy close mfd of 0.75m. Also I think it's even lighter than the Sony. Great for landscape, close-ups especially floral portraits, butterflies, dragonflies, wildlife, birding (usually with the 1.4x).
The short throw and (looks like) smooth easy movement have me interested. I love the Sony 100-400 image, but it’s at odds with the handling. I look forward to being able to try it out to see how well it takes the TCs.
The MTF is now posted on NR, and the charts are surprisingly good. Better than the 80-400G, Z 70-200 w/2x, and surprisingly close to the 200-400mm f/4 VRII.
I will use this lens on my Z6II and retain my 500PF w/D500 until I see what happens w/ the Z6/Z7 II firmware or future Z models. I just don't see myself parting with my 500PF...
Those sample images at the end surprised me. The background is SIGNIFICANTLY less busy and more pleasant than the 80-400 AFS. Not great but still... I am now sold. The 80-400 AFS is all packaged up and on its way to mpb
Thanx GG for starting this thread.
As I wrote months ago, I was/am interested in the 100-400 Z. 15-16 years ago I used my D100 with AF-D 18-35, AF-D 60/2.8 and AF ED 80-400/4.5-5.6D VR. That lens set was quite versatile and could produces files suitable for A3+ prints.
My Z6 with 14-30, 24-70/4 and 100-400 could be even more versatile with better quality of the files.
GroovyGeek wrote:
My initial impressions are
1) Worried about the foot design. Are we in for another 80-400 style fiasco? Seems like a very high profile design with lots of opportunities for mechanical instability
Agree with Todd and Bruce: any aftermarket foot replacement for the 70-200S will work fine and will most likely be stiffer (to not mention the Arca Swiss compatibility, that Nikon still insists on not using )
GroovyGeek wrote:
2) Lens is actually longer than the 80-400 but 200g lighter. However once you factor in the size and weight of the FTZ it is slightly shorter and meaningfully lighter. So I kinda get one of my two physics defying asks. The substantial size and weight difference of the WA lenses had me hoping for more, though the size and weight of the Sony and Cannon equivalents were a clear indicator that physics is getting in the way of my wishes.
I don't shoot that range too much and the 70-300 has been mostly meeting my needs. Will let the order sit in the queue for a bit while I decide if I am going to use this enough to be worth the $2600...Show more →
I currently use the 70-200/4 and 300 PF. Their overall weight is 850 + 755 = 1605 g (without tripod collar). With TC 14 E, overall weight increases by 190 g. Not much more than 100-400 Z weight. The 100-400 is slightly slower (in the 100-300 range) but much more versatile.
Before buying it, however, I'll wait for comprehensive reviews and full res sample pictures.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
100-400 is just so versatile and the specs on this new S version are very good, especially the max magnification of nearly 0.4x at 400mm due to crazy close mfd of 0.75m. Also I think it's even lighter than the Sony. Great for landscape, close-ups especially floral portraits, butterflies, dragonflies, wildlife, birding (usually with the 1.4x).
The old AF 80-400/4.5-5.6D I owned 10+ years ago worked fine with the Canon 500D close-up attachment lens.
With the lens set at the long end (400 mm) and focused at infinity, magnification is 400/500 = 0.8 X. At closer focus distances, magnification increases a bit.
The main advantage of such 80(100)-400+500D combo is the significantly longer working distance (WD) compared to a 100-105 macro lens. Actually, WD is equal to the close-up focal length (500 mm for Canon 500D) when the zoom is focused at infinity. Larger working distances allow both shooting shy animals and better isolation of the subject from the background.
Borders/corners quality won't be as good, but for nature macro pictures this is not an issue.
cvrle59 wrote:
It's interesting how Nikon designed it without zoom lock.
BTW, when it gonna be available, did they mention it anyway, I haven't seen it?
I have to quote myself, I found the answer about Zoom Lock.
One of the reasons I hated Fuji 100-400, the Zoom Lock.
So short extension with great tip balance, in 80deg turn, from 100-400mm.
I think, I finally found my piece, this is going to be an amazing lens, not cheap, but who cares, life is too short.
cvrle59 wrote:
It's interesting how Nikon designed it without zoom lock.
BTW, when it gonna be available, did they mention it anyway, I haven't seen it?
GroovyGeek wrote:
Any experience with the Leofoto replacement feet? The NF-05 looks far more reasonably priced and they have a good reputation for good quality tripods.
GroovyGeek wrote:
Any experience with the Leofoto replacement feet? The NF-05 looks far more reasonably priced and they have a good reputation for good quality tripods.
Don't buy it!!!
I just sent the Leofoto foot that I bought for my Nikkor Z 70-200mm f2.8S back via Amazon return. The foot would not lock tight. There was a "wiggle" even when I cranked the knob to lock the foot in place. What's more, when I pressed the release on the "tightened" foot, the foot would slide off.
I will be buying a Hejnar foot that is a bit more permanent. The foot is screwed into the tripod socket. I use a foot like this with my 500mm PF lens, and it has been trouble free thus far. Unless you need/want to remove the foot, I suggest you buy one of Hejnar products.
I normally use whatever foot I need from RRS, but when I needed a foot for the 70-200/S they were out. So I grabbed a Kirk foot for it, and am completely happy with it. I pre-ordered the 100-400/S and have a Kirk foot on the way for it.
Todd Warnke wrote:
I normally use whatever foot I need from RRS, but when I needed a foot for the 70-200/S they were out. So I grabbed a Kirk foot for it, and am completely happy with it. I pre-ordered the 100-400/S and have a Kirk foot on the way for it.
I read about issues with 500PF foot, I'm wondering if Nikon addressed it on 70-200s foot.
Some people reported, 500pf dropped from tripod, I think, Steve Perry too.
cvrle59 wrote:
I read about issues with 500PF foot, I'm wondering if Nikon addressed it on 70-200s foot.
Some people reported, 500pf dropped from tripod, I think, Steve Perry too.
Perry reported the lens falling when carrying from the foot. This is also what a few others have experienced. As the lens is carried from the foot it can wiggle loose from it and fall accidentally. IMO the purpose of the foot is to support it when the lens is used on a monopod or tripod, and it was not designed to work as a carrying handle.
There are many reports of people dropping various setups from straps mounted on lens feet. It's not a safe way to transport gear. I put the lens in my backpack for transport.
)