Thanks very much. The Z mount 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 is in a sweet spot for me with price, performance, weight, availability, and rewarding my developing wildlife skills. I married mine to the Z mount 1.4 TC and they're living happily ever after.
Thanks, Sean. I'm a sports photographer and videographer and recently picked up the Z100-400, primarily for video. However, I thought I'd give it a go with track and field tomorrow and based on your evaluation, I feel better about using it.
I own the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 S and love it. It's so versatile and very sharp. Of course it doesn't compare to the new primes but will serve most very well. Thanks for your thoughts Sean.
My goto agility set up was the 70-300 on the D500. That worked well enough so when I got the Z6II the 70-300 got the call. Until I splurged on the 100-400. I found it just ever so much better. I did miss the 70mm range at times though. Recently I picked up the Z9 and coupled with the 100-400 I get a LOT more keepers. Z9 gets the credit there. Did some bird shots recently at Sax Zim Bog in Minnesota and boy did those two perform! I'm now wondering what I can sell to afford the 200-600 when it comes out. My zoom ring is not stiff (at least to the point where I noticed it was any different than my other kit) so I wonder if that particular lense has had some abuse. :shrug:
I was always tempted by the 70-300 but never got around to getting one, they had a really good reputation. I tried a 55-300 the other day, by cripes the focussing is slow, I think we sometimes forget how far technology has come in helping us out.
@@seancameronphotographic3740 the F-Mount 70-300mm VR is a very good light tele and on an APS-C it's a 105-450mm equivalent. In the FX version that is, which is why it's a perennial favourite of avaition photgraphers and spotters, often favored over the 70-200 F2.8 As the 70-200 F2.8 just hasn't got the necessary reach and is heavier. Also cheap as chips. And if we need more reach, well there's the 200-500mm, which on an APS-C is a 300-750mm equivalent. Although as the old adage goes, you'll never have enough focal length in aviation photography.😉😋
Hello Sean, Just got my Nikon Z100-400mm and it dose seem very nice, its a bit heavier than I was thinking, that said it is very image for it are very sharp, close focusing is very useful, and if you add an extension tub it is a almost a 400mm macro?
I've got a few of those extension tubes, I must dig them out, might be a good candidate for "what is it" I was really impressed with the lens, very tempted.
Interesting Video - The 100-400 Z lens seems to be more versatile than I thought. Love the 200-400mm (except for the weight) and it would have been good to compare that too ... 🦘
I'll tell you what Roy, having lugged the 200-400 around Richmond Park all day, I'm knackered. I'm hoping to take it to the Birds of prey place so I can compare the shots with the 100-200 etc.
Do you know something? I've just realised what I didn't say in the video. Thank you for reminding me mate, I knew there was something I'd made a note about and forgotten to say. You are absolutely right
Dear Sean Suppose someone wants to buy a used nikkor 24-70mm f/2.4 or any AF lens to test with its own camera ( let say nikon D800 ) . How to find out the accuracy in focusing of that lens?
I'll tell you what I've done in the past, with new lenses - either taken my camera to a shop and asked to try the lens with it, or hired one for the day. It's the only way to know for sure. It's always a gamble with used, my advice would be use a reputable dealer so you can send it back if necessary. I wouldn't touch somewhere like ebay for decent lenses just in case.
