Video

finally someone who compares these two lenses at their best/at their limits. What's the use of just comparing them with both at zoom max. at 120mm because one can't go further, or with both apertures at min. f/6.3 just because one can't open more? Today I'm going to buy the 24-120, after nearly 36 hours of excruciating doubts. Not just because of this video, but thank you a lot for it!

I bought the viltrox 85 1.8, it's a great lens for the price. I only really do family portraits and I just can't justify the price difference to get the Nikon 85 1.8. I am glad that third party companies are stepping up to provide budget primes that are reasonable price and quality. I shoot mostly macro and product photography so I have the 105 and the 24-70 for events, but to be able to get a budget portrait and my next purchase will be the 20mm 2.8 viltrox for those focal ranges that I don't often shoot.

'isn't as good' -- respectfully, disagree, it's about character and niche space. A lot of these primes are over corrected, imo, including the 35 1.8s

Wasn't the 58 advertised to do particularly well in night photography?

If you know you shoot small subjects, 600mm, it's the 600/6.3. If you shoot mostly larger subjects, 400/4.5. I see people buying the 70-200/2.8 with a 2xTC thinking it's a two for one/like a 400/4.5, and that's just not the case. Buy a 400mm if you shoot at 400. I would really like to use the 400/4.5 (fits into any bag, so light) with the 1.4TC as a 600-ish lens, like the 600/6.3, but that's just not the case either. If you're mostly shooting small subjects/birds, it's the 600/6.3

The absolute swiss army knife that 100-400! I've used it for close up nature shots (near macro), sports, wildlife, distant landscape shots and even portraits. The aperture difference is not a big difference and the sharpness difference is only meaningful when zooming right in. My only gripe is the cost. Still, for outdoor sports the 100-400 and the 400 f2.8 are a magical combination.

Pass me my 180-600 for wild life

You should get a Kirk Replacent Foot for your 400mm

I have this lens, and 50 and 85 mm 1.4 Nikkor F-mount lens.

Still hilarious how Nikon broke so many brains with one affordable lens ;)

I owned the Z 100-400 but as I preferred to use my Z 70-200 I felt that the 100-400 became unnecessary for me. Maybe one day in the future I intend to buy either the Z 600mm f/6.3 or the Z 180-600. But am more interested in the fixed lens.

Hi Russ, do you still have this lens as of july 24 .. if not what did you get to do a similar role / why did you change?

For decades, the 35mm focal length lens has been my favorite for one-lens shooting on a full-frame camera. I have used the f/2 version and the f/1.4 version. Both work well.

"Meanwhile, the [viewer] got bored and went home." [1:20]

The 1.4 has a STM motor as well

It makes sense to go with a variable aperture lens if said lens is not a focal length(s) you use all the time. It sounds like your 70-200 is a go to lens, so the constant 2.8 aperture is perfect.

Beautiful lenses, I got my 400 4.5 about 2 years ago, and my 100-400 about 4 months ago and they are both wonderful to use and the results are, from my point of view, undistinguishable between the two. But I don‘t pixel-peep… every day, just sometimes :)

I have the Z 100-400 as well, Loz (Like you, I also own the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 S lens.). The 100-400mm is a wonderful lens and I believe that you will enjoy it. I just finished a big five day shoot over 64,000 frames) last month. It was an indoor shoot, and while I shot with 4 different Z lenses during 5 days of shooting (24-120 f4; 70-200mm f2.8; 105mm f2.8 Macro, and 180-600mm f5.6-6.3), my close friend shot 3 days using both the Z 24-120 f4 and his Z 100-400mm f4.5-5.6. He's a very talented photographer and was very happy using the 100-400mm. My Z 100-400mm would have been a better choice than my 180-600mm (over 2800 frames with this lens alone) given the use-case of shooting lots of movement shots indoors, I was very happy with the performance of all my Z lenses.

The 100-400 is not inferior to the 70-200 in IQ. The 180-600 is the star of the show, but not for Loz's use. Good choice Loz, it will get a lot of use I suspect.

Excellent choice. The 100-400 is my most used lens, especially for landscape. Sadly, my 70-200 rarely gets used anymore.

I am saving up for that 100-400 and a Nikon Z8. Will be great for landscape and some minor wildlife photography.

I bought the 400mm f4.5 as I used to have a 200-500 and mostly used it at 500mm. The 400 with TC 1.4 gives me 560mm which is great. Fantastic lens.

Did Russ just ask Loz, "Why do you need a new lens?" Isn't he the expert on answering that question? 😂

Prime vs Zoom war going on here.

I don’t have an interest in either of these lenses but yall are so wonderful to watch I watched it through to the end!

180-600 didn't temp you? I know smaller apature and not S, but range fits perfectly

Welcome to the 100-400 club. This is such a wonderful and versatile lens, it's my absolute favourite.

Brilliant pick up for outdoor daytime events, add a 24-70 and your covered. Saves the wear and tear on the 70-200 2.8, which I think is one of the best l've ever used.

Enjoy the lens. I’ve had mine for a a year plus. It does feel heavy to hike with and pack along for landscape. (Still considering getting the Tamron 70-300 for these uses). A friend got the 400f4.5 and i still lust for that gem. But love the flexibility and very close minimum focal distance.

I think the question should be why the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S (in the NY, NY superstore: US$ 2,500 excluding sales tax) and not the Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR (US$ 1,700)? Alternatively, why not use the brilliantly excellent 70-200 with a 1.4 TC? I'm a fan of the "S" class lenses and they're the only ones I have, a bunch actually, but some of the non-S lenses are actually really good. They may have a quirk here or there, but if you know how to work with, or around that, they are great value for money.

Loz is Mister Zoom like me. Congratulations, fantastic combo with the Z8.

Love my 100-400, shame the 180 to 600 is a little sharper, but the 100-400 being an s-lens with better seals and it's close focus ability makes it great for close up shots with insects and butterflies etc. Better for events / Low light too

Love these guy's and the banter.

I have an idea - how about a x2 teleconverter on the 70-200 vs the 100-400mm? That would be a good watch! I also wonder why Loz didn't went with the teleconverter in the first place.

The image quality on the 100-400 is amazing! I almost never use my 70-200mm f/2.8 anymore unless I’m shooting in a low-light situation (e.g. concert). And I often add the 1.4x TC if I need additional reach (560mm @ f/8).

Nice purchase but for Airshows wouldn't the 180 to 600 along with your 70 to 200 have been a better match? 🤔😊

I’ve got the 100-400, it’s brilliant. I’m amazed by how much I use it and for what. I bought it because I found my 500pf too restrictive and missed so many shots because I was too close so being able to zoom in to 100 is very useful.

At 3:44 you have put the lighting device very close to the 14-30, but no such thing with the 20mm. This is ruining the comparison, isn't it? If you instead had put the light close to the 20mm, and not done the same on the 14-30 image, then the conclusion from that comparison would be the other way around. At 6:35 the light has changed, and the 14-30 again has better lighting conditions. If you look at the areas where the 20mm has sufficient light, you will see that it is actually sharper, not softer.

Look at the Viltrox 28mm1.8. I use it for weddings and events.

This comparison is flawed on a few levels. The dollar value comparison of a used 1.8 vs a new 1.4 doesn't make sense. Compare the new pricing for both. Secondly, they haven't tested the 1.4 but they consider it inferior to the 4 year old 1.8 that they don't like on many levels. A brand new Z lens will undoubtedly be a better product than the first Z lens made. Finally, 1.2 Z lenses are heavy and expensive, not practical for many photographers. This 1.4 isn't heavy or expensive but offers sharpness, great bokeh and a compact size. I'm getting my 1.4 next week and it fits the bill as an inexpensive street lens or portrait or travel lens. I will be taking it to Eastern Turkey in a few months to photograph Kurdish villagers and ancient sites. Along with the 85mm ƒ1.8, 24-120mm, 40mm ƒ2, 100-400 and 14-30 I have a group of relatively light lenses that will deal with any situation. BTW, my wife and I both shoot, so its 2 bodies and 2 backpacks for 2 photographers with Z8 and Z9.

my Z8 and Zfc for street and traveling i got a Viltrox 56 1.7 for my zfc and even for my Z8 (DX)

I have a Nikon Z6ii and Z30. I like to use my Z30 as my webcam for meetings with the Nikkor DX 24mm f/1.7. So no plans on selling the Z30 as I really like having a nice webcam. And can always use it for other things if I want.

D780 overpriced. Just buy a D850 •Sigma Art 40mm is much better than 50mm & 35mm in tests & good go-between

You saved me 600 bucks! That was the best review thanks keep it up

In regards to the used market, z6 at around $700 or z6ii at $1100. Using it for Milky Way, seascapes, dont think I am doing wildlife, at least I dont want to yet. Give up USB power and longer shutter speed of 30" for extra money for lenses?

I say why not. If You use Older Nikon F Mount lenses and if it is faster in lower light. I see no problem with it. Cheers!

Crazy for a lens hood, do you know anybody with a 3D printer? Got to admit at that price I'd rather go down to B&Q, get a piece of plastic pipe and a roll of duct tape!

I bought the 200-500mm 5.6 lens for $800. It works great for me and that’s all that I care about. Great video. Thanks for sharing your experience with us. ❤❤❤

I'm not a pro photographer anymore and mainly shoot video. So the lenses I want for video I'm moving to Z mount. But I still have some F mount lenses I do use for my personal stuff, mainly the dogs and as they were good enough for pro work a few years ago, I can't really justify splashing the cash for that little bit extra (sharpness or convenience). To be fair I don't really see a difference in IQ between my new Zf and my old D750, apart from the ZF just nails focus on my dogs eyes with a greater hit rate than I can on my D750.

I think that as long as we don't have a few more in depth explorations of this lens and a side by side comparison with an adapted 35mm Sigma 1.4 art, we won't have a full understanding of what this lens can do. Maybe the character and Bokeh will make it the "portrait" 35mm lens while the 1.8 and 1.2 will work better with Architecture. It is too early to judge, but, personally, I will try to borrow one to test alongside my beautiful old sigma, which, adapted, is heavier than a dead horse.