Nikon one lens for Wildlife?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Could the Nikon Z 400 f2.8 work as a single wildlife lens for 400-800mm range?

  • Would be happy with just the Z 400 f2/8 and 2x teleconvertor

  • Would still want the Nikkor Z 600mm with teleconvertor

  • Would prefer the Nikkor Z 800mm PF for 800mm

Results are only viewable after voting.
A

Ad Astra

Well-known member
Member's gallery
I have been looking at the Nikon Z 400m f2.8 with internal teleconverter.

With this lens and 2x teleconverter you can get
  • 400mm f/2.8
  • 560mm f/4 with internal teleconverter
  • 800mm f/8 with external 2x teleconverter

As such you can cover 400-800mm with one lens. For Nikon users would you consider this meets most wildlife situtations?
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Are you considering the loss of light that occurs when using teleconverters? And the DOF impacts? If subjects are in great light with a long distance between the subject and the background, then the 400mm f2.8 plus either 1.4 or 2x tele would be OK.
 
Member's gallery
Either the 400 TC or 600 TC: while both would work for wildlife, I'd further specialize: you can pick 400 if you tend towards mammals and larger subjects, or the 600 if you are looking to photograph birds and smaller.
 
Member's gallery
I own the 400mm TC. I can hand hold this lens, while the 600mm TC is just over my weight limit. I usually use the external 1.4 TC for birds in the mid-Atlantic US, as this gives me an equivalent 600/800 (f/4, f/5.6) lens by using the internal TC. Yes, the external 2.0 TC is slightly sharper than stacking two 1.4’s and it is then a 800mm f/5.6 not a f/8 - but it only shows when pixel peeping and I can flip the internal TC much faster than I can add an external 2.0 TC. Brad Hill talks a little about this in his blog. The 400mm is also much easier to transport when flying than the 600mm would be.

So, for me the choice was the 400mm TC for reasons of both weight and transportability. I photograph both mammals and birds. If you primarily photograph birds, the 800mm PF is another very good choice (much lighter and less expensive).
 
Member's gallery
John_DE said:
I own the 400mm TC. I can hand hold this lens, while the 600mm TC is just over my weight limit. I usually use the external 1.4 TC for birds in the mid-Atlantic US, as this gives me an equivalent 600/800 (f/4, f/5.6) lens by using the internal TC. Yes, the external 2.0 TC is slightly sharper than stacking two 1.4’s and it is then a 800mm f/5.6 not a f/8 - but it only shows when pixel peeping and I can flip the internal TC much faster than I can add an external 2.0 TC. Brad Hill talks a little about this in his blog. The 400mm is also much easier to transport when flying than the 600mm would be.

So, for me the choice was the 400mm TC for reasons of both weight and transportability. I photograph both mammals and birds. If you primarily photograph birds, the 800mm PF is another very good choice (much lighter and less expensive).
Click to expand...
What do you mean by”it is then a 800 f/5.6 not an f/8”? Both the stacked 1.4 combo and the 2x combo give you f/5.6. Stacked 1.4s is 784mm v 800mm which would make no meaningful difference.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
What do you mean by”it is then a 800 f/5.6 not an f/8”? Both the stacked 1.4 combo and the 2x combo give you f/5.6. Stacked 1.4s is 784mm v 800mm which would make no meaningful difference.
Click to expand...
The OP (Ad Astra) had the 800mm 2.0TC listed as f/8. So, yes the stacked 1.4's or the single 2.0 give you a 800mm at f/5.6. That was my point.
 
Member's gallery
The debate around can a 400f2.8 be a do it all wildlife lens and the answer comes down to it depends. It depends on if you are willing to sacrifice what you get with teleconverters. It depends if ultimately 800mm is long enough for you. It depends on what kind of wildlife you shoot and what your style is. If you shoot large mammals and you like having the environment included it is a solid choice. If you are a song bird photographer the 400 with teles is a poor choice. So simply the answer to your question is it depends.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I had the opportunity to try both the Z 400 f2.8 and Z 600 f4. The 600 was too much for me to hand hold. Also I could not afford to purchase both. hence my thoughs about just the 400.

The Z 400 f2.8 was amazing, being able to switch in the internal teleconvter was a dream, seems an ideal hide or safari lens. 560mm is close enough to 600 for me.

Apologies yes the 400 with 2x teleconverter is f5.6 not f8 so better than the 800PF for light gathering.
 
Member's gallery
If I could have, I would have added 180-400 TC. I know, F mount. lots of flexibility, though does not focus beyond 560. perhaps some day there will be a Z version with (drum roll pease) a 1.4 and 2.0 drop in,🤣
 
Member's gallery
I'm on the same boat as you are and have finally decided to go ahead with the 400.

I was using a 400FL with my Nikon DSLRs including all the 3 TCs. I have also tried 600FL few times. I'm now using a 500FL and I photograph mammals and birds and the versatility of the 400 2.8 is unmatched. Now with the built in TC it's such a dream lens to use.

600Z is also an incredible lens but I feel it would be a better option for birders. For the kind of subjects and lighting conditions in which I shoot, 400/2.8 with the ability to go upto 800 is more useful than starting at 600 with the ability to go upto 1000+ mm.

Ad Astra said:
I have been looking at the Nikon Z 400m f2.8 with internal teleconverter.

With this lens and 2x teleconverter you can get
  • 400mm f/2.8
  • 560mm f/4 with internal teleconverter
  • 800mm f/8 with external 2x teleconverter

As such you can cover 400-800mm with one lens. For Nikon users would you consider this meets most wildlife situtations?
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
I think that combo with both TCs is excellent…if one is willing to spend the 14K or whatever it is for the lens. I'm not willing to do that so for me it's not a good combo, particularly with the size/weight of the lens. I would be much more likely to go with the 400/45. and the TCs or what I currently do the 100-400 with the TCs and just accept the fact that if I need 800 reach the subject is probably far out there (I don't do little birds) and in that case heat haze and a lot of other things tend to degrade the image anyway…and since my output is to the blog and very rarely to print and then only 11x14 the slight loss in IQ is pretty easily taken care of with noise and sharpening. I keep reading good things about the 400/4.5…but for me the flexibility of the zoom overrides it's slightly better IQ. And I still have my 500PF which could be paired with the F 1.4 TC if I really decided I needed longer, but even the 800PF is out of what I would spend given the percentage of shots I would use it and the "if I'm carrying the 800 what else do I leave in the car and how many shots do I miss because I didn't have the other thing with me" issue.
 
Member's gallery
I shoot more sports than wildlife so for me the 400 f2.8 would be my dream lens, add the 2x TC and it would work for me as a wildlife lens. But at $14,000 it is a little out of my price range right now.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
I think that combo with both TCs is excellent…if one is willing to spend the 14K or whatever it is for the lens.
Click to expand...
You forgot one critical point, these lenses are not available for the most part. As far as I can tell there has only been a single shipment of 600 TC lenses to the US thus far.
 
Member's gallery
As others have said, it really depends on what you shoot. What focal lengths do you use the most frequently now? The advantage with the TC lenses I that you can quickly switch between your two most use focal lengths. For me, that's 600mm and 840mm. It wouldn't make any sense for what I do to get a 400 since I'd use it at 560mm and 800mm all the time, which sort of negates the advantage of the TC (I know I can attach an external TC, but I have a feeling the internal one is likely better). In addition, in my experience, the less TC you have on the lens, the more consistent the autofocus. Generally, I find AF best with the primary focal length, still very good with the 1.4, and sometimes a bit more spotty with the 2X. I've found this with my Sony 400 2.8 for sure, however, I haven't used the Nikon. (Although, when I have added TCs to Z series Nikon glass, I do notice a drop in AF performance).

In short, if you use 400mm and 560 all the time, then the 400 2.8. If you use 600 / 840, then the 600mm.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
As others have said, it really depends on what you shoot. What focal lengths do you use the most frequently now? The advantage with the TC lenses I that you can quickly switch between your two most use focal lengths. For me, that's 600mm and 840mm. It wouldn't make any sense for what I do to get a 400 since I'd use it at 560mm and 800mm all the time, which sort of negates the advantage of the TC (I know I can attach an external TC, but I have a feeling the internal one is likely better). In addition, in my experience, the less TC you have on the lens, the more consistent the autofocus. Generally, I find AF best with the primary focal length, still very good with the 1.4, and sometimes a bit more spotty with the 2X. I've found this with my Sony 400 2.8 for sure, however, I haven't used the Nikon. (Although, when I have added TCs to Z series Nikon glass, I do notice a drop in AF performance).

In short, if you use 400mm and 560 all the time, then the 400 2.8. If you use 600 / 840, then the 600mm.
Click to expand...
This would make a great video to compare the 400 and 600 and why living with TC on all the time isn't the best choice.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
This would make a great video to compare the 400 and 600 and why living with TC on all the time isn't the best choice.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% - and it's a video I'm dying to do - but I want to test the Nikon 400 2.8 to see if it's similar to the Sony. However, getting a loner from Nikon is proving impossible. They keep saying they'll get me one, but I've been trying for over three months now.
 
Member's gallery
It doesn't really matter what lens I have and what I'm primarily shooting. There is always an opportunity presented that I won't be ready for, focal length wise.

I just take the shots I can, some of which I shouldn't, and take them to post-processing at the end of the day.

However, if I could have only one of the OP's mentions, it would be the 400mm w/TC.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
I agree 100% - and it's a video I'm dying to do - but I want to test the Nikon 400 2.8 to see if it's similar to the Sony. However, getting a loner from Nikon is proving impossible. They keep saying they'll get me one, but I've been trying for over three months now.
Click to expand...
Well you could do a Sony one comparing the two to attract that crowd and than a second one comparing the Nikon
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
Well you could do a Sony one comparing the two to attract that crowd and than a second one comparing the Nikon
Click to expand...
I want it to be more comprehensive than that. The thing is, there are a LOT of misconceptions about 400 2.8s vs 600 F/4s - many parroted by "pros". I want to help clear things up - and I can do all of it with the Sony stuff, except confirm the impact of TCs on the Nikon 400. Which, in typical YT fashion, would be the point of contention with the video LOL!
 
Member's gallery
As Steve says, it depends what you shoot. “Wildlife” varies from giraffes and buffalo down the tiny finches etc. There is no one size fits all.
I shot a second gen 80-400 for years and learned to adapt or what not yo waste time on until I could afford more / better lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top