Nikon 100-400 Alternatives (Page 2): I use the 200-500 and my wife has the 80-400. I'd keep what you have until the Z 200-600 is released and you can read some 'real world' tests of it.

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

I use the 200-500 and my wife has the 80-400. I'd keep what you have until the Z 200-600 is released and you can read some 'real world' tests of it.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

ggttc wrote:

Nikons f mount bodies are some of the best cameras in the world. I see no reason to go out and chase mirrorless.

The silly comment offers nothing useful on the topic. The writer is apparently unable to get this is about lenses; not your fanboy cameras.

I know half of humans are below-average intelligence. Or sadly it could be worse: early dementia.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Paul Diamond wrote:

I use the 200-500 and my wife has the 80-400. I'd keep what you have until the Z 200-600 is released and you can read some 'real world' tests of it.

I am sure it will measure up to the 200-500 in image quality.

My decision on that will be determined by price. As noted above, Tamron and Sigma lens prices tend to be about 1/3 of Nikon. I suspect they will be coming out with Z mounts in the near future. Once they do it should be easy for them to proliferate across their offerings. Perhaps Nikon will recognize their competition. They seem to have done so on the 200-500, but so far not on many of the Z lenses.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Paul Diamond wrote:

I use the 200-500 and my wife has the 80-400. I'd keep what you have until the Z 200-600 is released and you can read some 'real world' tests of it.

Do you have an image quality comparison?

The 80-400 is too expensive for my taste.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

IDguy wrote:

I am sure it will measure up to the 200-500 in image quality.

My decision on that will be determined by price. As noted above, Tamron and Sigma lens prices tend to be about 1/3 of Nikon. I suspect they will be coming out with Z mounts in the near future. Once they do it should be easy for them to proliferate across their offerings. Perhaps Nikon will recognize their competition. They seem to have done so on the 200-500, but so far not on many of the Z lenses.

And 1/3 the quality of a Nikon lens. IMHO

IDguy Loc: Idaho

billnikon wrote:

And 1/3 the quality of a Nikon lens. IMHO

I’m not interested in unsupported assertions. Any data?

IDguy Loc: Idaho

I might have a new plan for the time being. I have two Nikon 70-300s: FX and DX. The FX is a little sharper so I used it on the Z50 for this. The DX one is grey market and cost me a whopping $200. It is a little smaller and lighter than the FX so I might need to do some comparisons. I also have the DX Z 50-250.

Below is a guy that has been feeding on our birds in the yard. He comes every year about this time. Never got him flying before so tried the FX and it worked!

So now I'm thinking about just a TC for the mean time. The NIkon Z ones are very pricey and if I'm using F mount lenses I can get by with one for them. Tamron or Nikon?

(Download)