The Z 100-400 is a fine lens, but is often way too heavy to carry on a strenuous hike. I have the Tamikon 70-300 Z and it is a fine lens, but I sometimes need more reach, especially high up in the mountains. My camera is a Z6iii so there is some room for cropping but not too much.
Does something like a 100-400 f/5.6-6.3 exist? I don't care about aperture on the long end.
The main alternatives are the Nikon 28-400 and the Tamron 50-400. You might consider reading the Photographylife reviews of the four lenses (these two plus the Tamron 70-300 and Nikon 100-400) and looking at the "Lens Comparisons" pages of each review.
At half the weight, the 28-400 is probably your best option and the magnification factor is similar which is good. I've never shot with it to know the IQ though.
How much do you use the 200-400mm range and close focus of the 100-400?
Do you need the z6iii? Do you have a 45mp camera?
Just to add another option out there in case it adds some versatility, you could pick up a used Z7 which is still excellent for landscapes and non-moving wildlife and then you have the option to crop with another lens on hand. I sold my 24-200 for the 24-120, but for hiking the 24-200 with a Z7 is a very light option. This may cost more than the 28-400 though, plus the 24-200 wasn't the sharpest at 200mm. The 28-400 is likely your best bet.
Wezre wrote:
The main alternatives are the Nikon 28-400 and the Tamron 50-400. You might consider reading the Photographylife reviews of the four lenses (these two plus the Tamron 70-300 and Nikon 100-400) and looking at the "Lens Comparisons" pages of each review.
Thanks, will look into them. The 28-400 is a bit too much of a zoom but together with the 14-30 it can make for an extremely compact kit when weight is what matters most.
PixiPhotography wrote:
Tamron has a 100-400 F/4.5-6.3 VC - I used it on a D850 and it was nice. Its lighter at 1,115g vs Nikon 1,435g, but factor in the FTZ...
urbanwildwrote:
How much do you use the 200-400mm range and close focus of the 100-400?
Do you need the z6iii? Do you have a 45mp camera?
Just to add another option out there in case it adds some versatility, you could pick up a used Z7 which is still excellent for landscapes and non-moving wildlife and then you have the option to crop with another lens on hand. I sold my 24-200 for the 24-120, but for hiking the 24-200 with a Z7 is a very light option. This may cost more than the 28-400 though, plus the 24-200 wasn't the sharpest at 200mm. The 28-400 is likely your best bet. ...Show more →
No interest in a Z8 - too large and heavy for my needs. Don't need 45Mpx 99.9% of the time. And after experiencing the nice useability improvements of the Z6iii firmware I am not inclined to go back to the pre-historic days with a Z7. This is a very corner case use for me.
The 100-400 Nikkor is a very nice lens, the first of those types of lenses which I've used that's actually at its sharpest wide open, making it more useful than similar lenses used to be in the past. For example, the 80-400 AF-S VR is not only heavier, my copy required stopping down to f/8 for good results at 400 mm, and this for me at least limited its uses considerably. It additionally had a vibration-prone tripod mount and internal construction (when focus direction changed, the image shifted laterally and that introduced additional focus slop). I think the Z version is a remarkably practical and useful lens and not at all heavy for what it offers. Going with a lens that has a smaller maximum aperture and cheaper construction is undoubtedly going to result in significant quality loss in the resulting images.
RoamingScott wrote:
Canon excels at extremely crappy consumer grade telephotos, you might look in that direction 🤣
They just so happen to have the exact lens you are looking for.
There are certainly some issues with Canon’s consumer lens strategy, but their 100-400, while slow, is not a crappy optic. It’s actually quite good optically, focuses very quickly and has an outstanding IS unit. It’s a wonderful size and weight for travel. It would honestly be great if Nikon also had a similar lens.
Of course, one could use a Z50 II with the DX 50-250 and get pretty close. That lens is also quite good optically (though at 50mm when shot closer up is weak).
The joke was more about their laughable f11 teles.
Jman13 wrote:
There are certainly some issues with Canon’s consumer lens strategy, but their 100-400, while slow, is not a crappy optic. It’s actually quite good optically, focuses very quickly and has an outstanding IS unit. It’s a wonderful size and weight for travel. It would honestly be great if Nikon also had a similar lens.
Of course, one could use a Z50 II with the DX 50-250 and get pretty close. That lens is also quite good optically (though at 50mm when shot closer up is weak).
I actually really liked the 800/11 also. Yes, it requires a lot of light, but it allows for unprecedented reach at that price point. Fairly decent optically too.
The lightest way to zoom to 400 is the Z 28-400mm. It’s half the weight of the 100-400Z and it’s a solid lens, even at 400mm. Plus it’s very compact when retracted.
But in my experience the lens to get is the Tamron 50-400 F4.5-6.3. It’s significantly smaller than the Z 100-400 and 70-200 2.8 (plus TC). It’s shorter, narrower and almost 1lb lighter. It also gives you that range down to 50mm. So now I often just pair it with a small wide zoom or even just the 26mm pancake. It’s both a little faster at 400mm and a little sharper than the 28-400.
GroovyGeek wrote:
The Z 100-400 is a fine lens, but is often way too heavy to carry on a strenuous hike. I have the Tamikon 70-300 Z and it is a fine lens, but I sometimes need more reach, especially high up in the mountains. My camera is a Z6iii so there is some room for cropping but not too much.
Does something like a 100-400 f/5.6-6.3 exist? I don't care about aperture on the long end.
Instead of buying a mediocre superzoom, I would rather buy a DX body and use it with your Tamrikon 70-300.
I'm not sure you need top high-ISO performance in the mountains. For pictures at sunrise/sunset I'd much prefer a small tripod. And if you need a decent AF, well a Z50II with 16-50 DX and 70-300 Z is a sufficiently lightweight kit for hiking. Let's add that the main Tamrikon limits are the fair/poor border performance. This is no longer an issue with a DX body.
Add a 67 mm achromatic close-up filter (e.g., Nisi, Marumi) and you will also enter the world of close-up photography.
P.S.: the main problem with DX bodies is battery life. You should get at least two spare batteries.
If you are good at keeping the lens at f8 I would take a look at the Nikon 28-400mm. If you need something a bit faster, take a look at the Tamron 50-400 f6.3.
I would avoid the Z6II and choose a body with smaller pixels to gain reach, but maybe there is some other reason you use the lower-res sensor. Sony has better lightweight/compact options and you can natively use the 100-400 Sigma. The a7CR has the same awesome 61MP sensor as the a7RV but is notably smaller. You can use a 250mm lens and still have the same reach as 400mm on 24MP. >250mm will give you even more reach and there are plenty of lens options there.
Maybe look into renting some specific gear for that project. At least look at a Z7II or Z50II. The Z7II uses the standard 16Wh EN-el15 series batteries rather than the little ~9W ones of the lower-grade bodies.
Ripolini wrote:
Instead of buying a mediocre superzoom, I would rather buy a DX body and use it with your Tamrikon 70-300.
I'm not sure you need top high-ISO performance in the mountains. For pictures at sunrise/sunset I'd much prefer a small tripod. And if you need a decent AF, well a Z50II with 16-50 DX and 70-300 Z is a sufficiently lightweight kit for hiking. Let's add that the main Tamrikon limits are the fair/poor border performance. This is no longer an issue with a DX body.
Add a 67 mm achromatic close-up filter (e.g., Nisi, Marumi) and you will also enter the world of close-up photography.
P.S.: the main problem with DX bodies is battery life. You should get at least two spare batteries....Show more →
The Tamron 70-300 doesn’t have VC and the Z50II doesn’t have IBIS. That limits the scenarios in which this combination works well quite a bit. Probably better to go for the 50-250mm DX when using the Z50II.
For the Z6II the Tamron 50-400mm is probably the best compromise right now between weight, IQ and reaching 400mm.
