Expected results but not as huge as I though. Sharpness will not justify the price leap for most of the people yet the difference in aperture do makes a serious difference imho.
The question is not whether a higher quality lens will perform better for a 45MP sensor, but whether a high quality lens brings any benefit for those shooting with a 24MP sensor. Pit the 28-400 against the 100-400 on a Z6III and I suspect you'll be helping Nikon sell a boatload of 28-400's...let's see that shootout.
I used the 100-400 and 28-400 shooting a F35 jet on a Z6ii and the 28-400 came out looking the same so I sold the 100-400, it's not justifying the price
Good point. I looked at some shots at f/11 and I still saw a noticeable difference in image quality between the lenses. I did notice a slight improvement on the edges w the 28-400. Not enough to change my conclusion though
I'd also be super keen to see that comparison... The Tamron looks very interesting and is close in size and weight to the 28-400.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
I am also using both lenses, the 28-400 with my ZF for landscape and universal use. The 100-400 ist used for animal photography, sometimes with the TC 1.4
I’ve been struggling as to which lens to purchase and I think I’m going to end up purchasing both. If I’m going on a quick, local hike and want to keep things light I’ll no doubt carry the 28-400. If I’m traveling for a more formal photo shoot I’ll bring the 100-400. And I anticipate anything I shoot with the 28-400 will only be posted on social media (certainly not in a magazine) and you’ll never even see the softness.
I also own the Nikon Z 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 (which I love), but I've been thinking about replacing my Nikon Z 24-200mm f4-6.3 with the new Z 28-400mm for hiking and travel.
That is surprising because I’d expect this test to be understating the actual differences (very distant subject where it’s hard to capture much detail)
Thats normal.... at 400mm it is the worst focal range of both lenses. The 100-400mm suffers a noticable dropoff in image quality from 300/320mm to 400mm. Still a very good image overall but for sure you can see the difference of the lens at 100mm or 200mm to 350/400mm
Tbh, it's very difficult to make a case for the 100-400 when you consider price, weight and the focal range. The vast majority of people would not see the difference at all, and almost no one will when the results aren't side by side
Thanks for the comparison, the results seem acceptable enough and can be somewhat cleaned and post processed. If one understands and accept the limitations then it's good. Even with the use of a teleconverter on the 100-400, it doesn't beat the versatility of having the functionality of 28-400
I remember the same discussion on the internet between this 100-400 and the 400 f4.5 S "the prime is sharpeerrrrrr rrr " "the zoom is more convenieeenttt " *read with diehard lens fighters voice tone I'm actually surprised on how far we got when a 28-400 lens can still show acceptable results on a multi-billion-parsecs pixel sensor. Good times to be rich, isn't it? :D
I have both of them, both I'm using both for different purposes. The 28-400 mm won't give you the best possible telephoto shots, but it may give you useable or somewhat useable telephoto shots in cases, where a regular 400 mm or the 100-400 mm are too big, bulky or heavy.
I got the 100-400 before the 180-600 came out which I now have. I’ve only used the 100-400 occasionally and lug it on shoots but don’t use it that much. Been thinking about trading in for 28-400 as a combo with 14-30 in bag, but love my 24-120. Perhaps best to stick.
Decisions, decisions. It’s great we have so many good options nowadays. How’s the 180-600 been? I haven’t used it before, but I’ll prob rent it at some point
What are you shooting and what would be the logic behind that decision? I shoot mainly landscape and macroa and for landscape my lens are the 14-30 F4, the 24-120 F4 and the 100-400mm. It is literally a perfect trinity. Also have a 20mm f.18 which I don't use as much and have the amazing Z 105mm MC for macros. Why would you trade a superior 100-400mm for the 28-400mm? For me the 24-120mm is a must carry everywhere so that takes the 28-400mm out of the equation for me
What about comparison of 24-200 and 28-400? Does 28-400 is a good replacement? Or quality of 24-200 in the intersection range is much better? Thank you you in advance!
Have you tested whether there is focal length breathing when subjects are close (say within 20 or 30 feet)? Do you get a comparable field of view at 400mm from both lenses or does the 100-400 give more “reach”?
Fair video - getting 28-400 sale off - all in one zoom lite travel lens for my Z DX & Z FF's and using my 80-400 AFS VR Mk 2 until it gives up ghost; / breaks completely before aiming (mid - term ) for the 100-400
Thanks for the side by side comparison. Paying an extra 1k usd just may be worth it for extra detail in the 100-400. As a traditional fine artist and nature/wildlife photographer, details are important to me.
@ZJMichaels I just barely purchased it this morning directly from Sigma, along with the Panasonic S5IIX from B&H. Excited to test both out. I'll update you on the results by the end of the week or this weekend.
@ZJMichaels I took the Panasonic S5iix and the Sigma 60-600mm lens out on a field test and they both perform well together. When shooting in low light with the Panasonic S5iiX, it does fine with a back-lit sensor, photos turn out looking like any raw image taken at night. However, when editing Raw images with low light photos, cross hatching artifacts appear when bumping up the highlights and whites, while lowering the shadows and blacks. I researched further into this phenomenon, and it's partially due to phase detection sensors and electronic shutters that cause 'image banding' effect. The only way to get rid of the crosshatching 'image banding' artifacts from low light photos with high iso and longer shutter speed, is by reducing the luminance noise in raw editor.
Check the video description for gear discounts, my gear list, and more. Thanks for watching!
Expected results but not as huge as I though. Sharpness will not justify the price leap for most of the people yet the difference in aperture do makes a serious difference imho.
The question is not whether a higher quality lens will perform better for a 45MP sensor, but whether a high quality lens brings any benefit for those shooting with a 24MP sensor. Pit the 28-400 against the 100-400 on a Z6III and I suspect you'll be helping Nikon sell a boatload of 28-400's...let's see that shootout.
I used the 100-400 and 28-400 shooting a F35 jet on a Z6ii and the 28-400 came out looking the same so I sold the 100-400, it's not justifying the price
Would have been nice to see comparisons at f11, leaving 1 lens wide open and 1 stopped down will always favor the stopped down lens.
Good point. I looked at some shots at f/11 and I still saw a noticeable difference in image quality between the lenses. I did notice a slight improvement on the edges w the 28-400. Not enough to change my conclusion though
Nice comparison. I'd like to see the Tamron 50-400mm thrown in as a comparison to these two lenses.
Thanks. I’ll consider adding that lens to a future comparison
I'd also be super keen to see that comparison... The Tamron looks very interesting and is close in size and weight to the 28-400.
I am also using both lenses, the 28-400 with my ZF for landscape and universal use. The 100-400 ist used for animal photography, sometimes with the TC 1.4
Great rule / use of both lenses
I’ve been struggling as to which lens to purchase and I think I’m going to end up purchasing both. If I’m going on a quick, local hike and want to keep things light I’ll no doubt carry the 28-400. If I’m traveling for a more formal photo shoot I’ll bring the 100-400. And I anticipate anything I shoot with the 28-400 will only be posted on social media (certainly not in a magazine) and you’ll never even see the softness.
Makes total sense. Both lenses have their strengths and I think it’s worth getting both for different use cases like you mentioned
I also own the Nikon Z 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 (which I love), but I've been thinking about replacing my Nikon Z 24-200mm f4-6.3 with the new Z 28-400mm for hiking and travel.
Thanks for comparison, I did the same test at closer distances, very little difference in my tests at 400mm.
Did you find very little difference in image quality between the lenses? Or very little difference between the results I got in the video?
@@ZJMichaels when I compared both lenses where very close, not the same that you mentioned.
Interesting, thanks. I will have to check on that myself as well
That is surprising because I’d expect this test to be understating the actual differences (very distant subject where it’s hard to capture much detail)
Thats normal.... at 400mm it is the worst focal range of both lenses. The 100-400mm suffers a noticable dropoff in image quality from 300/320mm to 400mm. Still a very good image overall but for sure you can see the difference of the lens at 100mm or 200mm to 350/400mm
Tbh, it's very difficult to make a case for the 100-400 when you consider price, weight and the focal range. The vast majority of people would not see the difference at all, and almost no one will when the results aren't side by side
Thanks for the comparison, the results seem acceptable enough and can be somewhat cleaned and post processed. If one understands and accept the limitations then it's good. Even with the use of a teleconverter on the 100-400, it doesn't beat the versatility of having the functionality of 28-400
I remember the same discussion on the internet between this 100-400 and the 400 f4.5 S "the prime is sharpeerrrrrr rrr " "the zoom is more convenieeenttt " *read with diehard lens fighters voice tone
I'm actually surprised on how far we got when a 28-400 lens can still show acceptable results on a multi-billion-parsecs pixel sensor. Good times to be rich, isn't it? :D
I think the 28-400 is really good for a superzoom lens. Definitely has a place in my kit
I have both of them, both I'm using both for different purposes. The 28-400 mm won't give you the best possible telephoto shots, but it may give you useable or somewhat useable telephoto shots in cases, where a regular 400 mm or the 100-400 mm are too big, bulky or heavy.
But the cheaper lens has crushing advantage in the 28-99mm focal length... :)
Yes, the ultimate advantage.
Lol yes it does :)
I got the 100-400 before the 180-600 came out which I now have. I’ve only used the 100-400 occasionally and lug it on shoots but don’t use it that much. Been thinking about trading in for 28-400 as a combo with 14-30 in bag, but love my 24-120. Perhaps best to stick.
Decisions, decisions. It’s great we have so many good options nowadays. How’s the 180-600 been? I haven’t used it before, but I’ll prob rent it at some point
What are you shooting and what would be the logic behind that decision? I shoot mainly landscape and macroa and for landscape my lens are the 14-30 F4, the 24-120 F4 and the 100-400mm. It is literally a perfect trinity. Also have a 20mm f.18 which I don't use as much and have the amazing Z 105mm MC for macros. Why would you trade a superior 100-400mm for the 28-400mm? For me the 24-120mm is a must carry everywhere so that takes the 28-400mm out of the equation for me
What about comparison of 24-200 and 28-400? Does 28-400 is a good replacement? Or quality of 24-200 in the intersection range is much better? Thank you you in advance!
Have you tested whether there is focal length breathing when subjects are close (say within 20 or 30 feet)? Do you get a comparable field of view at 400mm from both lenses or does the 100-400 give more “reach”?
Fair video - getting 28-400 sale off - all in one zoom lite travel lens for my Z DX & Z FF's and using my 80-400 AFS VR Mk 2 until it gives up ghost; / breaks completely before aiming (mid - term ) for the 100-400
Thanks for the side by side comparison. Paying an extra 1k usd just may be worth it for extra detail in the 100-400. As a traditional fine artist and nature/wildlife photographer, details are important to me.
Yeah if fine details are important to you, then the 100-400 is the better option for sure
@ZJMichaels I decided to go with the Sigma L mount 60-600mm.
Oh nice, how are you liking it so far?
@ZJMichaels I just barely purchased it this morning directly from Sigma, along with the Panasonic S5IIX from B&H. Excited to test both out. I'll update you on the results by the end of the week or this weekend.
@ZJMichaels I took the Panasonic S5iix and the Sigma 60-600mm lens out on a field test and they both perform well together.
When shooting in low light with the Panasonic S5iiX, it does fine with a back-lit sensor, photos turn out looking like any raw image taken at night.
However, when editing Raw images with low light photos, cross hatching artifacts appear when bumping up the highlights and whites, while lowering the shadows and blacks.
I researched further into this phenomenon, and it's partially due to phase detection sensors and electronic shutters that cause 'image banding' effect.
The only way to get rid of the crosshatching 'image banding' artifacts from low light photos with high iso and longer shutter speed, is by reducing the luminance noise in raw editor.
Longing for closer subjects, this is all at - what? Several miles, many 100's of yards..
Per i video il 28-400 potrebbe essere un'ottima lente, dove sia la nitidezza sia lo stop di differenza assumono meno importanza.
i find someone steal your vedio + AI vioce.
100-400 for photographers and the 28-400 for tourists ...? 🦘
Agreed 100%
Only if you want to produce illustrated postcards....