The TRUTH About the Nikon 100-400mm S Lens | Should You Buy?

Thanks for the review, it was very helpful!!

Shooting with Z9. 100-400mm Z = 2. 0 TC (800mm). With this setup, at low light, within the first five minutes of owning this, I shot 2 of the best Photographs of birds, I have ever taken in the last 10 years. I did that handheld, no tripod at f/11 800mm. I appreciate Perea Photography, but I don't understand what he was doing. I now use the 2.0X TC all the time. The results are mind blowing, considering I am a senior (less strength) and I use it handheld all the time. So for the price this is the deal of the century. Combine it with the TC 1.4x or 2.0x and you don't even come close to the price of those super primes or super zooms. I also don't really know why ISO seems to be a problem. Maybe remove the sun filter many photographers feel they need to put on perfect glass, to "protect their lenses". I experimented with extremely low light shots at ISO 22,600 and the shots were still usable. It maybe the Z9. Now I hate high ISO's but this combo is a joy to own. So these concerns (that were very real in the days of the D4, D5, D6, D850) are moot now as the Z9 processor handles low light so much better, and high ISO's are not to be feared as much as there were in the past. So that is my humble opinion and my personal experience. I also own 5 other S Line lenses, and they all perform faultlessly. 70-200mm (1st place), 24-120mm(2nd place) 100-400mm(3rd place)50mm f1.8(4th place). Only listing the 1-4 places as the others are specialist lenses. Just to also let you know, the first thing I do with any lens is push everything to the extreme limits. HIGH ISO, Low Shutter Speeds like 1/50 sec and lenses closed right down to F/22 etc. As another person has said, the comparisons with 'trinity' lenses is really not a thing anymore. Those 'trinity' lenses from the F-Mount cameras stood out from the crowd back then, but nowadays any of the camera makers like Sony, Nikon, and Cannon make lenses that are so good, even the really really cheap ones are fantastic. The question is no longer quality, but rather budget. with a mix of "what do you really want to do with this Lense". Once you answer those questions, you are good to go. By the way, I also got fantastic photos at 400mm, 300mm, 200mm, 100mm f/7.0-f/16 on my first day of owning this, Lense.

You captured some great photos. I think your analysis here is spot on.

In my eyes the lens is perfect. I used it now for five weeks and i never miss my 80-400. The Z 100-400 is sharper, faster and so well balacing, It's a joy too use it. Best greetz from germany.

Great review buddy, I like how hands on it is and not just all in the studio! Hope you and Chris are well

Great video, the Cloud reflections in the Water are superb. Not a Nikon Shooter but really interesting hearing your review. Keep Well & Stay safe 👍🇬🇧

I am amazed at how well the 100mm-400mm handles on even small cameras like the Z50. While I have no doubt the upcoming Z 200mm-600mm lens will be less expensive, it will also be heavier, and more of a hassle on long hikes. The 100mm-400mm also pairs well with the 1.4 teleconverter, and to me losing a stop (and needing to use higher ISOs) are not that big of a deal, since the Z cameras handle higher ISOs so well. Bottom line, all of Nikon's Z mount lenses have been very good, and this lens is a welcomed addition to the lineup.

As always some great videos your are producing. I was wondering what were the reason you reviewed the lens from a wildlife perspective when being a landscape photographer? It would really be interesting to hear your comments on long distance subjects like mountains on how it performs :-)

Thanks for sharing your experience with comments... great video & location...lens works well ...This is a lens I would love to buy... cheers from Australia 😀

Very competent field report about this tempting glass. I am still not decided if it's the right choice for me. For wildlife - especially small and shy birds - it is often too short. And in general too slow with only F5.6 at 400mm and F8.0 at 560mm. But as I mainly shoot landscapes it could be a good compromise between nature/wildlife and landscape. For wildlife only the combination of the Z 70-200 F2.8 + TC 1.4 resp.TC 2.0 with the new Z 400 F4.5 or with the forthcoming Z 200-600mm could be the better solution. Best regards from Switzerland.

I have exact this Z combo you said - 14-30, 24-120 and 100-400.. will add 1.4 later this year for extra reach if needed.. :)

Hey Mike ! I have that lens and I think its fantastic! I Recognized right away where you"re shooting! Riparian Preserve at Water Ranch? I have gotten some awesome shots there! Rosey, the canadian pelicans that visited us and so much more!

Very nice review and images! I too, am primarily a landscape photographer who also does small products, macro, and ocassional wildlife. Currently my longest lens is a Nikkor AF-P 70-300 f/4.5-5.6, which is amazingly sharp on my Z7. That said, I'm considering this 100-400 and replacing my excellent 24-70 f/4 with the 24-120 f/4, based on the great reviews of that lens. So, just wondering why you didn't use the lens hood? Was it because of the cloudy and somewhat low light conditions? (Just me, I always use the lens hood, if only to protect the front element.) Thanks again!

Mike, first time I've seen your work - very nice. I'm a sports photographer but also do a little birding and wildlife. I've been using a combination of my 400 f/2.8 and my old 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 for birding. The weight of the 400 is doable in sports but when it comes to nature it's a bear. My old 80-400 is showing it's age - it was never the sharpest lens in the bag. I have the 100-400 Z mount on order but NPS has yet to part with one, hope it's pretty soon - going to Alaska next month. I thought you covered all the lens issues very nicely (aperture v. ISO, sharpness, weight and reach) - thanks. I've subscribe to your channel and hope to see you again.

If I knew the upcoming 200-600 was going to be constant f5.6, weather sealed, and internal zoom, I could easily dismiss this lens. The likelihood that it will be none of these three things means the 100-400 + 800pf remains a better option for a 90% bird photographer like myself if I want to cover the full range (which I do). From that point of view, your review especially the comparisons with the 1.4 TC was very valuable and appreciated. Another option would be the 100-400 and the upcoming z 600 prime. Little has been said/speculated about this lens and I wonder what Nikon has up its sleeve to differeniate it from the 400 f2.8 TC.

One of my favorite places in the Riparian Preserve. I go there at least twice a week! Great pics son!!

Great video - thanks for sharing. How would you rate the Z7ii and this lens for birds in flight and AFC? Does the AF track and pick them up OK? Thanks

Informative video.

Great review, thank you......helped with my decision between this and the 400mm f4.5, think the zoom is more versatile.....

I am glad I found this video. Seems like you have the same combination and shooting pattern. I have the 200-500 5.6 and I shoot landscape and wildlife but not into birds that much. I recently moved to Z mount Z7 ii and slowly buying the Z mount lens. Will be looking for a long lens but I can wait a bit. Some thing light to travel with and having a zoom is my preference. I was thinking of getting 100-400 with 1.4 converter bs 180-600. What would be your rwxommendation? Which one will you recommend or should I wait for the 200-600? As that will be ideal reach but not sure about F stop. I have the 24-120 and 70-200. Thanks