Wow, what a great day to be a Nikon shooter! 24-120 f/4 S, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 S, & the updated lens roadmap. Then there's the promise of Z9 features filtering down too. Makes me proud, my team done good. Thanks Nikon.
@@jwebbnature It was mentioned on NikonRumors a few weeks ago, and again over the last few days on many youtube video's and podcasts. However, to set expectation correctly we need to accept the Z9 processor is 10x faster than the Z7ii dual processors, so if we see anything in future firmware, it may be constrained somewhat.
Great video. Great lens. Kudos to Nikon for really showing people that their still strong and will remain that way for years to come. With this lens along with the 400, 200-600, and Z9 they are really letting everyone know what their intentions are concerning the Z mount. Great job Nikon. I'm happy to be on board for the ride.
Thanks for your review. Seems like a great lens to add when it's available. The F-mount 200-500 was tempting but I guess this is a better long term choice but it’s twice the price of the 200-500 so a comparison with the 200-500 would be great
I pre-ordered this lens (+ the Z9, upgrading finally from my D810). For me, I'm ok with "internal cropping" (going into a DX mode) to get more versatility from any lenses I use & thereby keep the aperture range. I'm essentially replacing my Tamron 150-600 G2 with the Z 100-400 (which it'll match in 1.5 DX mode). As you point out, yes I lose MPs, but with the file sizes being so large & editing/enhancing software being so intelligent nowadays, I really don't mind. I'd rather lose some resolution, but keep the true aperture range. I wanted to wait for the 200-600, but Nikon did me a service by pricing this lens the way they did, even for it being a S class lens, I couldn't turn it down. & After seeing this thorough review, I'm excited to get this combo!
Thanks Ricci, I've been waiting for this lens ever since I saw it on the roadmap. What you've just said and shown us, for me at least, has confirmed my patience will be rewarded, most likely with the 1.4 T/C.
Thanks for the review, sounds like an impressively versatile telezoom, hats off to Nikon, Z9 and 100-400mm, what a killer combo! I was disappointed the 200-600mm development project seems to have been deprioritised. But now, the performance of the 100-400mm + TC1.4 is causing quite a dilemma: to wait for the 200-600 or pre-order the 100-400... looks like you have precisely the same thoughts on the issue: a dedicated tele prime lens is likely to be better suited for wildlife photography but the 100-400mm/TC offers flexibility in the field. Probably smarter to keep renting F-mount teles for the time-being? Choices, choices....
At some stage could you compare the 100-400 vs the 70-200 with a TC - already have the 70-200 and feel that the TC would be the smarter investment (accepting that it only gets the 70-200 to the base range of the 100-400.) Totally appreciate its use case based and mine would be the extra reach when 200 is just not enough but maybe not used enough to warrant the price of the dedicated lens. Curious about picture quality between the two scenarios for wildlife
I have the Z70-200 with the 1.4 Tele. It’s just not enough at all for wildlife. I will be selling it and getting the 100 to 400. Way more reach and so much more versatile for my needs. I’m landscapes and wildlife so the other serves me no purpose as I have wider alternatives.
@@MrDaveB123 Thanks that's helpful. I have a 100-400 on order and still deciding whether I will trade the 70-200 in vs keeping them for different scenarios. The fact that the 100-400 weighs about the same as the 70-200 makes me think I could live without that 70-100 range
@@bavorosiers1263 got the 100-400 and kept the 500pf. Use the 100-400 for everything, but use the 500 on D500 for extra reach, and sometimes with a 1.4 teleconverter
After using Nikon exclusively for 35 years I'm proud of what Nikon is doing, very exciting times! Great info as usual Ricci (thanks), really looking forward to seeing you with the Z9 too !
Ricci is the foremost authority when seeking out information on Nikon gear - especially lenses. The no-nonsense delivery of information, coupled with straightforward personal opinions that are well qualified make his videos unique in this space. I have just ordered this lens, after holding out for some time - I think it will be a valuable general purpose tool (especially with the Z1.4TC). Another good application I think, is aviation photography.
Great review Ricci. I've been wanting to get a look at this lens for several months. I would love to see a comparison of Nikon Z 100-400mm, Tamron 100-400mm and Sigma 100-400mm. For me to answer the question is the Nikon Z 100-400mm worth the price? Looking forward to more reviews.
Thank you Ricci, for this video (and all the other videos I watched). Deeply enjoying their wonderful quality and the calmness you bring as well. With regards to this video, like others I am very interested in a comparison of the 100-400m with the 70-200mm + TC 1.4 (at similar focal length) as I happen to own the latter combo.
Hi, have you used both the 500 pf and z100-400mm on the Z9? I'm curious how they stack up to each other. They both weigh similar with F5.6 at the long end . The pf has extra 100mm sure but not the versatility of the zoom range, nor the close minimum focusing distance and yet costs roughly a $1000 more? Curious if this is because it is sharper or faster at focus acquisition?
Thanks for yet another detailed video. I sometimes ago saw your video of 70-200 f2.8 z lens used with a TC, compared to 200-500 and 500 pf. I’d love to see if a Tc son 70-200 is a better match for this lens or this one is better?
I am really excited about this lens! I love the 200-500mm and one of the reasons is the 5.6 max aperture. This is a big deal, as I like my low light early morning wildlife photography. One of my reasons for not moving over to Canon mirrorless was their equivalent to this lens, while 100mm longer, had an aperture of 7.1. This really matters in low light. I don't even like F6.3. Yes, it matters. Obviously, I love F4 constant aperture, but now we are talking about big trade-offs with weight/ expense. This lens hits a great sweet spot for me. This, with a 1.4 tc and Z9 will finally be able to replace my DSLR's for most wildlife photography. Awesome, and so glad that Nikon did this!
Thanks for putting this out while most of the focus is on Z9. I'm going to put in an order for this lens as soon as I can if the price is not too crazy. I have the 70-200 and the 200-500 f/5.6 and I quite regret not getting the 80-400 instead of the 200-500 because the pair is quite a lot of weight. Here I can sacrifice a bit of reach at both ends and be carrying something like 2-2.5kg less. For my trips to the zoo, I think this lens will a great match.
Your choice of a 70-200 and 200-500 has its advantages. While I do find my 80-400 G enjoyable to use for its portability and quick focus it does take some work to obtain sharp contrasty shots at the long end and forget about teleconverters. This new 100-400 S seems very appealing especially given its promise to pair well with a 1.4x teleconverter but I haven't got my mind around replacing my trusty DSLR gear.
@@ivorgottschalk6432 I think there's a huge difference between older and newer 80-400. The old one was pretty poor. I'll still keep the 200-500 and bring it when I need the reach, but its 2.5kg is a bit much to be carrying if the much lighter 100-400 gets me close enough that I can crop the rest. Seeing how pricey the 100-400 is compared to Canon and Sony similar spec lenses, I think I might wait for a bit and see where the 200-600 lands on price and weight.
Thanks for your video! When I saw the price for the lens I immediately decided to wait for the Z200-600mm, because its not going to be way more expensive. But it will give me that extra range of focal length. I own the Z70-200 and with the Z200-600 I’ll have a seamless range and I’ll cover all needs. Hope Nikon will announce the development very soon.
Maybe I missed it, but can you compare the speed of focussing of this lens at 400mm with other lenses, in particular the 500mm f/5.6? Thanks for your thoughts (still on the fence about buying it or using my 500mm f/5.6 on hopefully my Z9).
Thank you for your video, great as always. I have a 70-200 2.8, so I would like to see the comparison of this lens with teleconverter and the 100-400 please. Thank you 🙂
Thank you Ricci for the work you put into these. It has been two months of anticipation after you first released this video, I must have watched this 10 times, I am very anxious awaiting the next installment with a full production unit and more comparisons. I am really wondering if I should get in line for the 100-400 for get a 70-200 and a tc. I don't use the longer focal length often, and comparison at the overlapping lengths would be extremely helpful, especially from you as I trust you at this point to tell us the truth.
The Nikon 500 PF f/5.6 lens is an excellent LIGHT lens. Can you make a video using Z9 + 500 PF lens + FTZ + 1.4 extender and evaluating its performance. Thank you in advance.
@@RicciTalks In my opinion you made the right call. While the Z9 looks amazing, I'm still too happy with my Z6 to even think about upgrading. The new lenses they announced, on the other hand, have me *very* interested and wanting to hear more about them. And nobody else is talking about them!
a month later and I'm torn on whether to trade in the z 70-200 for this 100-400 BUT I love the image quality of the 70-200/2.8 .... so I'll continue to wait and see what the 200-600 looks like.
I can't wait to hear your analysis of the 100-400 s compared to the 500 mm PF because I'm in the same predicament for small birds. 560 f/8 or 500 f/5.6 ? Thanks and see you soon.
Love my 80-400 - it's a much better lens than people give it credit for. This could be the lens that gets me properly interested in Z mount, although I'm holding out for a 300mm prime
Brilliant vid Ricci and one I've been waiting for. From a use case, price point, image quality, focus speed perspective it makes my old F-mount 80-400 version 2 lens look like (and I'm trying to be nice) a polished turd. Nikon shooters can rejoice with such quality tools at a competitive price point.
Hahaha loved that you're also torn between some wildlife lenses. I totally agree with you there, there is never just the one lens. Sadly not. 😅 The 100-400 looks impressive though! Hope to see a new Z 500 PF at some point in the future.
I bought one and unfortunatley it just doesn't do it for me. It is a great quality lens and a versatile zoom but the IQ just doesn't rock my socks off. I need incredible images so I guess the Z 400 2.8 is the way to go. What's the saying "Buy once cry once " lol But when the swelling and redness eventually clears from my eyes the images from the 2.8 will put a smile on my face and the pain will be a distant memory haha. Thanks for your time Ricci
I think it is not apple to apple to compare it to 500mm PF and 600mm f/4. It is better to compare it to 80-400mm and 200-500mm f/5.6. I have both, and thinking to get this lens.
Thank you for getting this out so quick! I’m very curious how this compares to the z 70-200 from 100-200mm. Been holding off buying the 70-200 until comparison to the 100-400. I guess my question could be put more like, is the IQ of 100-400 in the same league as the stellar 70-200?
I mainly watched this video to get a glimpse of what the 200-600mm might be like. Nikon has been doing great with the lenses that have come out. I don't think I've heard anything bad about any of the z lenses yet. A lot of people get hung up on the cameras and which one is better than the other. They forget that you're buying into a system not just the camera. I'm sure Canon is making good glass but I've heard lots of bad things about some of Sony's. In your opinion, what do you think the 200-600 will be like? Do you think it'll be a faster lens or keep the same apertures on the wide end? I have money now to buy one and will be pre ordering it as soon as they start taking orders.
The biggest challenge with the 200-500 along with the FTZ was that the big lens is slow to focus and exaggerates the autofocus challenges of Z cameras. I love seeing how quickly this one focuses as well as how much lighter it is!
When my daughter was in high school the school competed in crew racing. This would be a great lens for photographing those events as well as field sports. I was looking forward to this lens but now that I’m an old fart I can’t sneak up on the wildlife. This might be a good wildlife for someone who can get close enough. I’ll have to keep using the 200-500 (aww shucks) or maybe get a 500pf that someone sells for the Z400 when it comes out. Thanks for this and all your videos.
Great intro to the 100-400mm S lens Ricci. In your future testing, can you compare the 100-400 S lens with a 1.4 TC fitted, against the 200-500 F mount, I would really like to know what your thoughts are at the long end as I am considering making that particular upgrade. Thanks so much for making these videos.
I really thought about this test but then I was doubtful due to the price difference do you think that people will want to spend more than the cost of a 200-500 on a 100-400
@@RicciTalks Curious as to image quality between the 100-400 vs a 70-200 w/2x TC. Effectively both would be 400mm f5.6. Was this something you compared at all?
@@RicciTalks I was thinking of trading in my D500 & 200-500mm lens against the 100-400mm, (I can't seem to get good results with the 200-500 on the FTZ adapter, so I had kept my D500 for use with that one lens for wildlife) I already have a Z 1.4 TC which works great with the 70-200mm S and I could use it on the 100-400mm. I am kind of stuck in two minds as the Z lens is a little pricey but it would be nice to stick to one system and camera (but only if it is an improvement) so any info or advice on how they compare would be really helpful. Another thought that just struck me. How well would the F 200-500 lens focus if used with the Z 9 ? Would it be better to save the money I would spend on the 100-400 and put it towards a Z 9 instead (If I can get a decent trade in on my my D500 and Z 7II) ? Another question would be, when do you think the 200-600mm will arrive and will it be mega expensive ? Thanks for all your help and advice Ricci, it's invaluable to us photography mortals.
@@RicciTalks Yes, I am considering this. The F200-500 is rather unwieldy. On a Z7 I could crop the Z100-400 to 500 equivalent & still have similar pixels to the F200-500 on my D810. At 400 it sounds like the Z100-400 would be much better than the F200-500 at 400.
The price and weight/size difference vs the 180-400.... Too late to save my wallet or my back (I own the 180-400) but I'm so addicted to the built in 1.4 tc on the 180-400 (use it without thinking constantly when shooting wildlife) that any initial 'ooooh, maybe this new lens might be the better option' evaporates... mostly :) Thanks, as always, for your content, which is simply in the 'best of show' category: so satisfying to get quality gear talk from someone who is also an actual photographer producing great professional and beautiful images.
Same here! Oh ... and I hear it works with the 2x teleconverter as well! 1.5x crop factor AND teleconverter takes you up to 1200mm equivalent?! (at F11). Drool.
I'm glad Nikon has finally released this lens. I already have a 70-200 f/2.8 for my F-mount cameras, but I want something longer for my Z6 and potentially Z9 if I decide to go all in on it.
I'd rather have the 70-200 F/2.8 and the 200-600 when that is released. I feel converters is more a viable option if you got a very high end prime. I see that the 400 f/2.8 has the 1.4x built in, which can be convenient, but it makes me wonder if you can mount the 2x converter or not. When you have paid that kind of premium it would be nice to have 800mm f/5.6 at your fingertips.
Very informative and useful review of this first Nikkor Z- Telezoom surpassing 200mm - presented as always in a very likable and competent manner - thank you so much Ricci! I am still undecided if I need or even want it - all I know is that I need someting longer than 200mm. I do not photograph small birds etc. - if I shoot animals I want to show them together with their habitat, so I do not need very long lenses. Now I have the choice how to complement the upcoming Z 24-120mm and the AF-S 70-200/4 upwards: With the 80-400? the 200-500? The 300 PF? This new 100-400 would cost me 3400 Swiss Francs - which is also a reason I am still wavering ... Best regards from Switzerland.
At first I thought this would replace the 200-500 F mount as it is close in spec but I haven't seen much comparing the two. The future 200-600? Might be the sweet spot. But it is not out yet. Thanks
I'd love to own this lens, but the 70-200 2.8 with the 2x tc really does the same job for the most part. Of course, the 100-400 can go even longer with a TC, so maybe that would make purchasing it worthwhile for me. I might hold out for the 200-600, which I'm hoping will retain the constant 5.6 aperture and TC compatability of its predecessor. Considering the low light performance of the Z9, that lens might be usable with the 2x TC as a 400-1200mm f11.
I would love to see how it performs with sports. I shoot college football from the sidelines and have found that the 200-500 5.6 has worked well on the Z6II but my biggest issue is low light games. When lighting gets low I have to switch up to the 300 2.8 and loose the option to zoom wider for closer shots. Most my shots seem to be at 200-300mm range and I have the 24-70 2.8 S on another Z6II body for closer shots. I currently do not have a Z TC and have considered it for my 70-200 2.8 S, so would this 100-400 be a better option then a 1.4tc on my 70-200 2.8 S?
Great review. But just to review...the 100-400 with a 2x extender, will render the lens a 200-800 and @800 it would be f.11, but, if you bump up the ISO (I have a Z7ii), these new mirrorless cameras can handle that, and if I crop in for printing; I should be able to get a decent image, with good eye contact on a bird, and forgivable resolution so I could make a 16x20's or larger? Like you said, there's no perfect lens. What do you think of my dilemma? I think you are there yourself, and it was a great eye opener for me. Thank you.
On the Z 105 MC the function button on the lens can be programmed to activate focus tracking which is a great feature. My questionis on the Z100-400 there are 2 fuction buttons. I hope one of them can activate Focus tracking. Can you verify this?
i think for me the 200-600 will be the lens. currently the 200-500 has not left my Z6, i really enjoy using it, so always nice to have that little extra reach if it doesn't hinder overall picture quality (i.e with using a x1.4/x2). just hope it comes in lighter that the current 2.3kg 200-500.
I loved the 200-500 for long and I did move on to the 500 pf because of weight I would be reluctant to go back to a “heavy” lens for my small wildlife lens ….. I appreciate I use the much heavier lenses like the 600mm but I don’t always use thouse if I’m out and about travelling
@@RicciTalks well the road map only lasts till March 2022 so hopefully we will see something by then. Cheers for the reply, and looks like you finally got your kingfisher shot with the new Z9 you were after.
I wonder why they can't feed the lens display through to the EVF? personally I'd like to see what focal length I'm using on a zoom lens in the EVF. Cheers Ricci
Thank you again, Ricci, for sharing your beautiful images, which are great examples of what a talented photographer can achieve! We're at the beginning of a whole new family of lenses that will each have it's own reason for being, and it's own "personality, just like the F-mount lenses do. In my opinion, Nikon is making really smart decisions on balancing tech, function, and price. I'm sincerely enjoying it, and am sooooo excited to get my Z9!
I use the 300mm PF lens on the D500 and Z50 for birds and other wildlife. I'm excited about using the Z 100-400 on the Z50. Without the foot, it weighs 48 oz., which is a couple of ounces lighter than the F 80-400. $400 more seems worth it for a lens with Nikon's most advanced optics. The price of the Z9 is also attractive.
Hi, love your reviews. I would love to see one of your detailed reviews of image quality between the Nikon F 200-500 f/5.6 and the new Nikon Z 100-400 S.
As a 70-200 owner the 100-400 feels a bit redundant vs getting a 2x tele for simialr results. I am super excited for the 200-600 though, especially if its a f/5.6 and can also take the 2x converter. A 1200mm f/11 would be stellar for my kind of work. I just wonder what kind of quality we are going to get from it, if it'll be prograde or just an entry level wildlife lens. In which case I'll look at one of the upcoming big primes, the 400 2.8 is out of my price range but that other mysterious 400 might be an f4 and affordable. I actually use an old, manual 400mm f/3.5 a lot, and adore the quality, but its not really a wildlife lens of course ha.
I'm very excited as I should receive my copy today or tomorrow from the pre-order in the U.S. I have the 24-120 f4 on pre-order as well, but was wondering whether to consider the z 70-200 f2.8 as an option as well? Not sure if there is more redundant overlap with this set or would there be enough use cases to for the 2.8 on the 70-200. Not an inexpensive item for sure. Once again, thanks for your reviews and great shots!
Thanks for the review. As has been mentioned, I'd like to see it up against the 200-500. I just cant get used to variable aperture lenses but despite this l, the weight difference is an attractive option. Weight is the bugbear so might stick with 200-500 and crop mode to get to 750 as the drop in megapixels isnt a factor for me until I need giant prints. Now a 100 -500 5.6 might tempt me!
Thank you I’m new to Nikon, i own the 180-600 and am considering the 100-400 because it will fit in my camera bag much easier. What did you end up deciding?
Thank you so much for all your video ! What about a comparaison with the afs 300mm f4e pf which is certainly too short but extremly transportable? I am (was) travelling a lot !!!
I’m loving all this Nikon RU-vid saturation! Requested questions...Nikon U.K. has the Z9 max iso at 102k DPreview has 25k, which is correct and has the expeed 7 produced a better low light performance than the Z7ii please? Previously you reviewed the 2x teleconverter as excellent, especially on the 70-200, but has this lens changed this view. Is the 2x, merely better than the F mounts version? Thx.
The variable aperture keeps the price in the range of hobbyists as well. It fits the line well. Now, if they'll get on with releasing pro grade super teles they'll be covered.
Thanks for the info I have the same dilemma, I have the budget to get one lens, ether the 500pf or the new 100-400 ??? what todo , I am off to Namibia in may (fingers crossed) I think the 100-400 would be good there.
Thanks Ricci for another detailed video. I love your channel since the first videos from the Z6 and Z7 and I hope, that you will be a very long time in the game ;). Your my first choice for Nikon Z content. For me, I think, the 200-600mm will be the better choice. Even the non-S-lenses with Z Mount are pretty well in overall quality. Hopefully the pricepoint of this wont be higher than 2k. All my money is gone now for the Z9 preorder :D.
I have 200-500 lens, and looking for a lighter setup, with faster AF speed. How does the 100-400 perform with TC2.0, in terms of Image Quality and the AF speed, as compared to 200-500? For me, TC1.4 will be too short for birding, so not interested in that.
It’s a fantastic piece of engineering. Well done Nikon! I’m an NPU 😊 Ricci, any news on the new Z 24-120 S as for availability and price? That’s the lens love been waiting for.
Following up... (05/19/22) I got my copy of the 100-400 on May 10th, and have barely removed it from my Z9. I'm a "serious enthusiast" (not making my living in photography) and this lens is outstanding for what I shoot most. (landscapes, wildlife, and airshows) Aside from the obvious sharpness and contrast, fast focus, etc., the thing that's so different for me is how the 400mm end of the range separates subjects so well from the background, like a much more expensive large prime or f/4 zoom. Now, I can shoot images that look more professional, with a lens that's barely larger than my 700-200, and still not weigh me down or cost me a fortune. I couldn't be happier! :)
I am very interested in the results here. It seems if you already have the 70-200 adding even the 1.4 gives you the same focal length and I would be surprised if there is much difference in quality
@@RicciTalks made tests with the 70-200S, 100-400S and 500PF… for me, up to 200mm, the 70-200 and the 100-400 are almost on par! 70-200 with the 2X is good, but not as good than the 100-400… i was hoping better results with the 100-400S + 2X… the 500PF with the 1.4 is really better, and with a lower ISO. I try the return the 2X… Also… the the 100-400S at 5.6 is higher ISO than the 500PF at 5.6 (grab more light!). I also believe that the stabilisation is better with the 100-400S… must be test more on the field.
