Hi, I just saw the following video on youtube and I was shocked what he mentioned. is this true for 100-400? how about other longer telephoto lenses from Nikon? looks like improving close distance photography has made subjects that far in distance less sharp?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMX_PlRNO8c

a review by someone, Thom Hogan, worth taking seriously:https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/nikon-z-mount-lens-reviews/nikon-100-400mm-f45-56.html- says the opposite.nearly all issues with long lenses from whoever at long subject distances are due to user error or atmospheric aberrations - not just talking deserts or over misty lakes here - its uncommon NOT to have IQ reduced outside at large subject distances.

I will not comment further about the lens since I don't own Z100-400 S, but noticed in the video that he had Radius set at 2.0 in Lightroom for NEF raw. Other camera's settings were not shown.This will not produce the sharpest details for fine details. Radius 1.0 or smaller is good starting point.Also the underlying default sharpening levels may be different for different raw formats & cameras.Long distance test shots can be also found on Cameralab's review. I find these valuable.There is so many variables (atmospheric and technical) that this kind of lens comparison should be done at the same date and time, preferably with exactly the same camera with exactly same settings (IBIS/VR off etc).

maljo

AlireaPhotography wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMX_PlRNO8cSuch Millennial Garbage I could barely watch it -- but I did and commented "Felt it ....." -- such a millennial review term. "Oh I'm a little "sad" -- grow up Present EVIDENCE not your feelings - because who cares. Is "mushier" a technical term?Stating he/they are not a lens design engineer and then make I'm inclined to think it was a compromise -- such crud. How about he reads the following by Thom Hogan-- this is how to present data and findings: "Sharpness: With test targets at 100-200mm the performance is very good both in the center and corners wide open. At 300mm, the center is very good, the corners just barely good. At 400mm, you have to stop down to f/8 to make the center very good, and the corners stay in the good range at almost every aperture. I've seen others describe their test results as "excellent," but if I'm being consistent with the charts and evaluation, I have to stick with "very good." Not that this is bad. Moving away from the test charts photographed at close distances, the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S becomes clearly excellent in the center at distance, and particularly improves in the corners to perhaps very good. Even with the 1.4x teleconverter I'd judge the results to range from very good in the center to the margin of good/very good in the corners. But again, at the closest focus distance the lens is a little soft, though stopping down two or more stops brings the results into the good to very good category, even with the teleconverter. So there's a bit of a consistency issue you need to be aware of: at the closest focus distances the results are not as strong optically and you should stop down to get best results. With close-in subjects at test chart distances, the center snaps into something very usable, but at 300-400mm the corners are still weak. As you move to longer distances and more normal use distances, the lens gets better. Almost the opposite of the old 200-400mm f/4's reputation: subjects further away from the 100-400mm render quite well, but get down to the closest focus distances and you lose contrast and acuity. The lens focuses down to a 1:2.6 magnification ratio, which is near macro, and thus needs to be tested at both close and far distances. It's the close side where the lens is more tepid. At the distance end, note that I wrote that it's excellent wide open, with very good corners. Even with the 1.4x teleconverter on the lens, I'd judge the center to be very good and the corners to be good at most use distances. Compared to the F-mount 80-400mm, the Z-mount 100-400mm is much better at most focal lengths and apertures at typical use distances, though only slightly so at the wider end of the zoom range. Compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 S with a 2x teleconverter, the 100-400mm is also clearly better, though perhaps not by as much as some would expect at the wider end of the range. Still, the common question I get is "why not just use the 2x on the 70-200mm?" My answer is: the 100-400mm is better at 400mm f/5.6 in almost all cases. " Millennials -- the western world is doomed. If you are one you will love your feelings being stroked - but if you a normal adult or just areallygrumpyoldsod like me then just the facts save the feelings and avoid this twit.

AlireaPhotography wrote:Hi, I just saw the following video on youtube and I was shocked what he mentioned. is this true for 100-400? how about other longer telephoto lenses from Nikon? looks like improving close distance photography has made subjects that far in distance less sharp?That's another YouTuber that can safely be added to my mental "ignore list".

I find it has acceptable sharpness at distance with wide apertures, moving to good sharpness when stopped down a bit (7.1 or 8). These are subjective terms, of course, and it may be that someone else may find it unacceptable or marginal. In all I find it an acceptable compromise between size, weight, speed, performance and cost.I did not watch the video, as based on the comments I am not missing much.

I own both 70-200f2.8s & 100-400f4.0s lensesI mostly use the 100-400 for wildlife & landscape (in combinaison with the 24-120 & 14-30).I made several comparison tests between the 70-200 and the 100-400, including long distance shot; at 100, 150 &200mm (f5,6-f8) , I saw no difference in sharpness between the 2 (on a Z7).You should no worry about this YT videoThe 100-400 is simply excellent at all focal lenses, and at all distances.

Thank you all for your answers. Really appreciate them. I don't have this lens but I am in middle of buying this or 400mm 4.5 and I have orders for both of them but will choose one at the end. 400 4.5 sounds more interesting to me but 100-400 is also amazing lens and that is why I asked this here if there is something known but it seems the video was just another youtube clickbait. thanks for sharing your experiences.

AlireaPhotography wrote:Thank you all for your answers. Really appreciate them. I don't have this lens but I am in middle of buying this or 400mm 4.5 and I have orders for both of them but will choose one at the end. 400 4.5 sounds more interesting to me but 100-400 is also amazing lens and that is why I asked this here if there is something known but it seems the video was just another youtube clickbait. thanks for sharing your experiences.I did not watch this video so I won't comment about that, but I can tell you that I have the 100-400mm (not the 400mm) and it is a fabulous lens.By all that I read the 400mm is also very, very good. I don't think you can go wrong with either. It just depends how you plan to use the lens. For me, I wanted the flexibility of the 100mm-400mm, especially for hiking, so I picked one up as soon as I found one available, earlier this year (I got lucky). I have not been disappointed.

I'm late to the party, but...I spent a few weeks in the northwest shooting with the 100-400 just to finally gather some "final" thoughts about it's performance parameters beyond the chart tests I've done, and honestly, to see whether I think I'll keep it long term or not (the answer is absolutely yes)So - the 100-400 is at it's *weakest*, resolution wise, at/near it's closest focus distance. It maintains contrast quite nicely, but does not have the super fine detail (fine structure MTF in techy terms) that it does once you get further away. So it's actually at it's strongest, optically at the moderate to far distances, although to be quite clear, just because I saw "weakest" at the closer range does not mean it's bad; just that other distance ranges are stronger. I've verified this with test charts, at least at the wider focal lengths. So if you compare the 100-400 at 7 feet, let's say, with the 105/2.8MC or something like the Zeiss 135/2 Apo Sonnar, it's gonna lose quick and you'll clearly see it. In isolation (not comparing) because it has good contrast (a large part of what we call image quality), it will look good on it's own. Again - this is in the closer ranges. At distance it gets a lot better.In terms of focal length, the lens is also relatively speaking at it's weakest at 400mm compared to the rest of the range. Again, not bad, but something also to keep in mind: 400mm is a lot of focal length, and the odds are that atmospheric issues, wind, lack of a great support system and a ton of other things other than the lenses performance will conspire to remove ultimate sharpness at these longer lengths, and I can say it happened to me while testing. You don't just pick up a 400 and treat it like an 85 and expect perfection; long lens work is a skill set you'll have to work on if you aren't used to them.I personally love the performance from 100mm (where it's closer to the 105/2.8MC macro lens, one of the best Z there is, than it has any right to be for a zoom) to the mid 200's, maybe even to 280mm or so. 300 is still quite good, 400 I find I have to stop it down a bit and get a bit into diffraction while of course fighting long lens issues as mentioned earlier and I probably won't shoot it at 400 unless I just need to. But I'm pretty picky....So my suggestion is as such: IF you see yourself using the 100-400 most all the time at the long end, the 400/4.5 is your better option. If you truly need a zoom in this range and will actually utilize all or most of the focal lengths within the range, obviously the zoom is the better answer. Some people just park their zoom at the longest end and that's that, hence I note this. I tend to look at the lens for what it is - a really good if not quite world class lens at those 100/200/near300 focal lengths - I know it's not going to be giving me the performance of a 400/2.8S, but I didn't expect that for what it costs. I've found it very nice for both landscape and some outdoor dance photography when I want some telephoto "compression". As such, while I initially had questions about it, I'm keeping it around for the long term.Good luck, try not to get too caught up in the youtube video crowd. Not too many of them really have a clue honestly....-m

There is an interesting video where you can compare the sharpness with the 70-200 and 500mmpf.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpqCaa5qhf0&t=2102sI hope it will help.

I have only had the Z 100-400 for 2 days now and during that time I have almost exclusively been using it at 400mm at around its minimum focusing distance, 0.98m (for dragonflies). All I can say is that, even if 400mm is its weakest focal length, and even if the sharpness at near distances is not as good as for greater distances, it is still an excellent performer. It gives me a capability that I cannot achieve with any of my other lenses, and would not be achievable with either the Z 400mm f/4.5 or Z 400mm f/2.8, both of which only focus down to 2.5m.

MrWinnieThePooh wrote:I have only had the Z 100-400 for 2 days now and during that time I have almost exclusively been using it at 400mm at around its minimum focusing distance, 0.98m (for dragonflies). All I can say is that, even if 400mm is its weakest focal length, and even if the sharpness at near distances is not as good as for greater distances, it is still an excellent performer. It gives me a capability that I cannot achieve with any of my other lenses, and would not be achievable with either the Z 400mm f/4.5 or Z 400mm f/2.8, both of which only focus down to 2.5m.It has higher magnification, yes. But interestingly, calculators give focal length of only 195mm with 0.98m focus distance and 0.38X magnification.The Z 400 4.5 S seems to be around 300mm at its min focus distance. Which means less focus breathing. And with teleconverters or extension tubes the maginification can be improved somewhat further.

I haven't seen the video, but it is true that Nikon lenses in the past (zooms, all of them) have often performed worse at distance than closer, regardless of atmospherics.   The 200-400 has that reputation, as does my 80-400g and some others.  When the 200-500 came out, it seemed to me that it did NOT have the distance issue that my other lenses had.

I have the Z9 in use since January this year and was one of the first users of the 100-400 S in Belgium.Although the lens is very versatile with splendid IQ , I keep on struggling with the lens and camera for small birds (doves and smaller)  in flight at longer distances (30 m -infinity): the camera just doesn’t get AF acquisition and starts hunting : you loose precious moments and the photo as well.i tried all kinds of settings , but no difference.i am highly disappointed with this combo for BIF.I only use the lens now , for small insects and allround photography .If I take my wife’s Sony a9 and 100-400 gm , no such issues.https://www.flickr.com/photos/159705946@N03/ https://500px.com/p/gunthergeeraerts?view=photos

AlireaPhotography wrote:Hi, I just saw the following video on youtube and I was shocked what he mentioned. is this true for 100-400? how about other longer telephoto lenses from Nikon? looks like improving close distance photography has made subjects that far in distance less sharp?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMX_PlRNO8cI'm not sure the author's methodology is sound. His biggest problems are his comparisons, which are poorly selected and paired. An example is his first comparison where he says he is comparing the 100-400 to the RF 100-500. He uses two different landscapes, one being a snow covered and shot by the Canon, while his Nikon comparison is a bare rock face. He calls the Canon sharper. I just don't see it.   Others have mentioned that his settings are not the same or questionable. My own experience with the 100-400 (although not landscape) is, at 400, its pretty sharp.

DarkShift wrote:It has higher magnification,Higher magnification is higher magnification, no matter how you achieve itThis lens also seems to have more than 1 foot working distance - i.e. front element to subject.This feature is on my shopping list when the 100-400 starts to arrive in the UK.Look at another wayif you cannot get at least a good 36 inch wide print from a distant scenewith a 45 mph camera then either the atmosphere is polluted, your technique is not good or the lens is broken.Nikon gives you choices.There are Nikon lenses that are likely to give you at least a good 42 inch wide print at higher price points, including the 180–400 with built in TC at around four times the price.

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:I haven't seen the video, but it is true that Nikon lenses in the past (zooms, all of them) have often performed worse at distance than closer, regardless of atmospherics. The 200-400 has that reputation, as does my 80-400g and some others. When the 200-500 came out, it seemed to me that it did NOT have the distance issue that my other lenses had.Have you had any exprience with Z system lens if the issue persists for telephoto lens?

Orsonneke wrote:I have the Z9 in use since January this year and was one of the first users of the 100-400 S in Belgium.Although the lens is very versatile with splendid IQ , I keep on struggling with the lens and camera for small birds (doves and smaller) in flight at longer distances (30 m -infinity): the camera just doesn’t get AF acquisition and starts hunting : you loose precious moments and the photo as well.i tried all kinds of settings , but no difference.i am highly disappointed with this combo for BIF.I only use the lens now , for small insects and allround photography .If I take my wife’s Sony a9 and 100-400 gm , no such issues.https://www.flickr.com/photos/159705946@N03/ https://500px.com/p/gunthergeeraerts?view=photosOh, that is sad. the image quality is excellent for this lens but seems not a fast focuser.