IDguy Loc: Idaho

Addressing range of 100-400. Most of you know Nikon has a nice new Z lens of this range. But the price is beyond what I am willing to spend on a lens I won’t use that much.

I have the AFS F mount 200-500. It is an excellent lens and I can use it on Z7 with FTZ (which I have several). I hope to replace it with the Z 200-600 if that ever happens and the price is reasonable (doubtful). So I’m looking for something less massive for Z7 for the interim.

I mostly use the 200-500 for wildlife and therefore mostly use it on my Z50. If Nikon does the Z 200-600 it will also work on the Z50.

I have two AF 70-300s: FX and DX. I also have an F mount 1.4 TC. It works with the 200-500 but not with the 70-300s.

So here are some options I’m considering:

1. Get over GAS: do nothing. Includes waiting to see how Nikon prices the Z 200-600.
2. Get a Tamron or Sigma F mount 100-400.
3. Check if the (also very expensive) Z TC works with the 70-300 on FTZ.
4. Wait for Tamron (most likely) or Sigma to get out their Z mount 100-400.

I’m probably getting rid of the FX 70-300 in all cases as I use the DX one on the Z50. Both have VR. Hopefully can trade it on a replacement for the Z7.

Thoughts?

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

im using the 150/500 sigma lens with my z9 and FTZ does pretty good and focus fast enough to shoot birds in flight I have no complaints. I know you didnt ask about that lens but its just my 2 cents....

IDguy Loc: Idaho

I had that lens before my Nikon 200-500. I agree it is a good lens but I find the Nikon 200-500 better on VR and image quality. That Sigma isn’t a candidate here but is one of several reasons I have positive feelings towards Sigma. Well after warranty Sigma upgraded the firmware for my D5300 at no charge. They even covered shipping,p.

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

Did you consider the F-mount Nikon 80-400? Also usable with the FTZ and with Nikon's F-mount (not Z-mount) TCs. Used prices are coming down. For lighter weight, the Tamron 100-400 G2 is also a nice lens.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

If you aren't going to use the range much why not just use a monopod to make things easier for what you already have, the 200-500?

IDguy Loc: Idaho

You still need to lug it. I have a nice tripod and a monopod. I rarely use either. But I do have a F mount 1.4 TC, and it does work with the 200-500. I recently acquired a gimbal head for the combo with Z50 bit have yet to try out.

This thread is for handheld.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Thanks. I’ll check it out. Likely refurbs available. It might do better than the Tamron or Sigma F mount options.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

If you don't want to lug around and handhold the 200-500 only you can determine if the 0.8kg weight advantage of the 80-400 is beneficial with respect to cost and handling for something you are not going to use often.

As for the 80-400 I'm using one with the Z series along with the 1.4 TC at times and it's not a bad combination.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Good to know the TC works with it. 2# is good. Is that net of FTZ?

I’ll compare it to the Z 100-400,

gwilliams6

Option #1, use what you have and wait to see how Nikon prices the coming 200-600mm.

Sony was the first major brand to offer a 200-600mm with excellent image quality, superb sharpness, INTERNAL ZOOMING, great quick autofocusing, short zoom rotation, superb balance (hand hold-able),OSS and more . I absolutely love it for sports, action and wildlife and it is reasonably priced at $2000 vs the amazing Sony 600mm f4 GM which is $13K USD and out of most photo budgets. .

I am sure Nikon will do likewise and aim to match that for its loyal Nikon users. The Sony 200-600mm lens has been a smash hit and huge seller for Sony, and likewise the Nikon version should be a winner also.

Hang tight and wait for that lens and its pricing, IMHO.

Cheers and best to you. FYI, I was a Pro Nikon and Canon user for four decades, both brands.

Sony A1, Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 lens. A Great White Egret bends it neck to clean its feathers on the Caribbean Island of Sint Maarten/St. Martin. 600mm, ISO 1600, f6.3 ,1/2000 sec. handheld. First the full frame , then a tight crop from the same shot.

Sony A1, Sony 200-600mm lens. A Snowy Egret takes off from its watery perch in Sint Maarten/St. Martin. 391mm, ISO 1600, f6.3, 1/4000 sec.

Wild Iguanas getting cozy together in Sint Maarten/St. Martin. Sony A1, Sony 200-600mm lens, 400mm, ISO 800, f6.3, 1/2000 sec.

At a Wild Elephant Seal Rookery along the Pacific Ocean, California. A young pup squeals as it tries not to get crushed by a 5000 pound amorous bull going after one of its cows. This time this pup survived, they dont always. Sony A7RIV, Sony 200-600mm , 600mm, ISO 400, f6.3, 1/1000 sec, handheld.

Brookings Lake, Manistee National Forest, Michigan. Kids get pulled by fast speedboat. Sony A1, Sony 200-600mm lens, 600mm, ISO 800, f8, 1/2000 sec. This is about a 30% crop. I own and use my 1.4X and 2X Sony TCs and they work well with this lens, but in this instance I wanted to save the light. Frames are frames one and two of a 30fps burst.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Grahame Loc: Fiji

I'm using the 80-400 G (F mount) with 1.4 TC111 along with the FTZ on the Z6 primarily for cricket.

Here's an example of the combination. 560mm (max FL), ISO 1800, 1/1600s, no PP, std camera profile, with crop not reduced in size. As with everything it depends upon final use required, this example would have minor PP undertaken and reduced down to about 1800 to 2048px wide for social media sharing. The Z version is most likely to be better with respect to image quality and AF response.

(Download)


(Download)

ksmmike

Tamron came with out with a 70-300 F4.5-6.3 for the Z system. I ordered one that is supposed to be delivered today. I don't intend to use it too much for wildlife but mostly for outdoor sports. Since it's made for the Z system, I would assume it will work with the tc's if you want the extra reach.

Tamron made this lens with a Sony mount already and has gotten pretty good reviews. Fingers crossed. I opted for the new Z Tamron lens rather than the Nikon 100-400 because of the cost of the Nikon. The Tamron is 40% of cost of the Nikon. I'm not expecting to be as good as the Nikon, however since I'm really only getting it for my grandson's soccer games, it really doesn't have to be.

Mike

HRBIEL Loc: Rapid City, SD

2 lenses I didn’t see mentioned that will work flawlessly on the Z bodies are the f-mount 300pf and the 500pf. Both will work with the f-mount 1.4 teleconverter. Both lenses have been out long enough to find them on the used market at reduced costs.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

1. If you are doing MOVING subjects AF will matter and if AF matters, stick with Nikon lens.
2. Stay away from TC's if at all possible.......consider cropping with pixel enlargement.
3. KEEP the FX 70-300 and loose the DX version !
4. Be happy with 200-500 !
.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

While I agree that the Tamron is a nice lens, just to clarify... there is no "100-400mm G2". There has only been the one, original version of that lens, so far.

That said, yes it would be a bit lighter weight option... Lighter than the Nikkor 80-400mm and a lot lighter than the Nikkor 200-500mm!

Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD weighs approx. 2.5 lb. That's a full lb. lighter than the Nikkor 80-400mm (3.5 lb.)

I like that the Tamron 100-400mm can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. That's sold separately for an additional $129 and, of course, will add a little weight, but is something I'd want on a lens that reaches 400mm.

The Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM weighs the same 2.5 lb. and costs the same $799 as the Tamron lens. HOWEVER, the Sigma does not have the same option of fitting a tripod ring AND the Sigma is a "dimmer" lens.

While the Sigma is only 1/3 stop dimmer f/5 at 100mm, it drops to f/5.6 very quickly, at 112mm, and further to f/6.3 at 234mm and beyond.

For comparison the Tamron starts out 1/3 stop brighter at f/4.5, drops to f/5 at 137mm, drops further to f/5.6 at 181mm and finally to f/6.3 at 281mm and beyond.

The Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR is also f/4.5 up to 134mm, but it maintains f/5 from 135mm to 249mm and is f/5.6 the rest of the way from 250mm to 400mm. (Tripod ring included.)

Canon's EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM zoom weighs approx. 3.5 lb. and is f/4.5 from 100mm to 134mm, f/5 from 135mm to 311mm, and f.5.6 at 312mm to 400mm. (Tripod ring included.)

In comparison, the Nikkor 200-500mm that the original poster already has weighs about 5 lb. and is f/5.6 through it's entire zoom range. (Tripod ring included.)

A final comparison, for their mirrorless R-series Canon has recently announced as light and affordable as possible RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM that weighs under 1.5 lb., sells for $500 and doesn't have option for a tripod ring.

Personally I have 1.4X and 2X teleconverters, but only use them with select lenses and really don't see the OP's need for them. Unless they have some other problems, it seems to me they are pretty well set with 70-300mm and 200-500mm lenses, as well as both full frame and APS-C (DX) cameras to use them upon. The DX is effectively a "free 1.5X teleconverter", where "free" means no loss of light... as with the one stop a 1.4X "costs" and the two stops lost to a 2X. Between the various combinations of lenses and cameras, they have telephoto coverage equivalent to everything from 70mm to 750mm on full frame (FX). Might just want to get a little closer. Or wait for that upcoming Nikkor 200-600mm. Or get the Tamron 150-600mm or one of the similar Sigma lenses.