Good morning... I thought I'd share a story of my morning shoot and how I think this relates to the 400mm dilemma.
Today I visited a regular location to photograph beavers, muskrats, green herons, and wood ducks. The location is a steep climb up and a steep climb down... about 3/4 miles in both directions (I like to say it is uphill both ways
).
First the Backstory: I've been photographing the lives of beavers and their co-inhabitants since 2014. My original gear for this project was the 200-400 VR1 and D300 (followed by D500). This provides an effective 300-600mm f/4 lens. The burden of a pre-sunrise hike in and out the pond was something I always described as the "price to play."
In late 2018 I purchased the 500PF and began to exchange the 200-400 w/ a 500PF / 70-200 combo-platter. I sold both the 200-400 and 70-200 f2.8 since purchasing the 100-400S and now pair this with the 500PF.
Enter today: I was at the trialhead by 5:45 (or so). The morning was overcast and threatening to rain. After the mornings hike in, I nestled down along the beaver's lodge and waited. Once the beaver appeared (and later the heron) the shooting began. Here I was at 500mm f5.6 / 1/320 / ISO6400. Every bit of focal length and light mattered. There was not one moment in which I thought... let me grab the 100-400mm lens, as I needed to be at 500mm.
The 400PF lens poses a problem for someone who already has the 100-400 and 500PF. The 500PF is "that good" and is 500mm w/out a converter. The 400PF is redundant w/ the 100-400 and w/ converter, slower than the 500PF.
For those who do not have the 100-400 / 500PF combo-platter and want all native glass, the 400 f4.5 is perfect... Had Nikon released the 400 f4.5 prior to my purchase of the 100-400, I think I would have pre-ordered... however, in the end, I might have had buyer's remorse, as 500mm is an important starting point for much of my wildlife photography.
Attached... a picture of the beaver pond at 7AM 7/4
regards,
bruce
View attachment 42123