Nikon Z 400 f4.5 with 1.4x TC vs 500 pf questions!?

Hi folks,

I currently own a Nikon 500 pf that I pair with Z9.

I am considering switching to Z 400 f4.5 with 1.4x TC after selling the 500PF.

A few Youtube reviews that I have seen suggest that the 400 f4.5 with 1.4x tc in place is considerably sharper than the 500 pf with the added benefit of better VR for stills & video.

What are your thoughts?

Also, as the Z mount is larger, will the "T stop" of the Z 400 f4.5 with 1.4x TC (560mm @ f6.3) be the same as that of the 500 mm pf @ f5.6?

I believe you already know that the 400+1.4TC is f/6.3 and the 500 is f/5.6 -- as a result the T-stop of the 400 will be 1/3rd of a stop darker. For me the question is much more about the functionality and performance of the best Z mount lenses over the "older" AF-S lenses with an adapter.
Most reviews I have have seen have stated the difference in image quality is marginal - but the Z-mount s-line lenses bring additional controls and options to the table that are not possible with AF-S adapted lenses.
I recommend RicciTalks review - review even though he does not look at the quality with the ZTC14 -- I found another review which said he did the comparison but I could not see it and know nothing about the reviewer AND Morton's comparison

sid_19911991 said:

Hi folks,

I currently own a Nikon 500 pf that I pair with Z9.

I am considering switching to Z 400 f4.5 with 1.4x TC after selling the 500PF.

A few Youtube reviews that I have seen suggest that the 400 f4.5 with 1.4x tc in place is considerably sharper than the 500 pf with the added benefit of better VR for stills & video.

What are your thoughts?

Also, as the Z mount is larger, will the "T stop" of the Z 400 f4.5 with 1.4x TC (560mm @ f6.3) be the same as that of the 500 mm pf @ f5.6?

Click to expand...

I'd find it hard to believe that the 400 with 1.4 is considerably sharper than the 500PF bare lens. Could you link those videos that have shown that?
I'd think at best the 400/1.4 would match the 500 for sharpness. If anything I'd be more worried than the 500PF is a bit sharper than the 400/1.4. But all that is guesswork on my behalf so if there are some reliable tests out there I'd like to see them.

That said, if I was buying new I'd go for the 400 and 1.4TC. Just to get native Z AF and VR. Also I found the 500PF lost its magic in compactness and balance when using the FTZ on the Z9. I'd guess the 400 would be better although with the 1.4TC may feel similar to FTZ/500PF??

I don't think the native mount will have any effect on the T-stop. However, the labeled f-stop may be rounded differently between the two lenses. The actual equivalent t-stop could go either way...for example, could the 400/1.4 at f/6.3 be slightly brighter than the 500PF stopped down to f/6.3? Or could it be the other way around where the f/4.5 specification is rounded down and 500PF is rounded up making the 500PF have the advantage? Who knows without good testing. Regardless, 1/3 stop as labeled makes little difference and you gain 60mm (assuming the focal lengths aren't fudged too much).

sid_19911991 said:

Hi folks,

I currently own a Nikon 500 pf that I pair with Z9.

I am considering switching to Z 400 f4.5 with 1.4x TC after selling the 500PF.

A few Youtube reviews that I have seen suggest that the 400 f4.5 with 1.4x tc in place is considerably sharper than the 500 pf with the added benefit of better VR for stills & video.

What are your thoughts?

Also, as the Z mount is larger, will the "T stop" of the Z 400 f4.5 with 1.4x TC (560mm @ f6.3) be the same as that of the 500 mm pf @ f5.6?

Click to expand...

I replaced the 500 PF with the 400 f/4.5. Sharpness was not a criteria. The 400 f/4.5 is sharp enough that you are truly splitting hairs in any comparison. Literally a single hair is not a fine enough level of detail to assess sharpness. The 400 f/4.5 resolves sharpness in individual pollen grains. There is no real world difference because the 400mm f/4.5 is exceptionally sharp.

Here is a sample image and a 100% crop of that image:



The differences that make the most difference are:

• 400mm f/4.5 is faster by 2/3 stop - and that's meaningful in lower light
• 400mm f/4.5 is lighter than the 500 PF
• Integration of the newest lenses - including the 400mm f/4.5 - with the Z bodies is believed to be a little better - better VR, IBIS, and AF speed
• The 400mm f/4.5 renders backgrounds better - especially specular highlights which can be awful with the 500mm PF
• The 500mm PF is longer by 25% - and this makes a difference if it is your longest lens or you need maximum reach or with the 1.4 TC on both
• Both lenses work very well with 1.4 teleconverters, but a TC gives up a small amount in sharpness and AF speed
• Only the 400mm f/4.5 is viable with a 2.0 TC - I would not consider that combination with the 500mm PF - but it is softer and impacts cropping
• The 500mm PF is very sharp, compact, and reasonably light

You can't go wrong with either lens.

I see you have a D500 in addition to your Z9. The 500 mm PF will work with both your Z9 and D500. The new Z 400 mm f4.5 will work only with the Z9, if that matters.

I have spent some time considering the Z 400 mm f4.5. I have a Z9, Z7II and Z6II. Still have my D850 and D500, but should sell them, as I have not used them since getting the Z9. I think the choice between the Z 400 mm f4.5 and the 500 mm PF turns on the factors Eric mentioned and also on what other lenses you have or plan to get and what and where you shoot.

I have the Z 100-400 mm and the 500 mm PF. The Z 100-400 is valuable to me for its zoom flexibility and close minimum focus difference. It is good at 400 mm, but, of course, not as good there as the Z 400 mm f4.5. If I were to get the Z 400 mm f4.5, I’d also keep the Z 100-400 mm.

Since I have a competent choice at 400 mm, for me the need is for something longer. I photograph a lot of birds, both large and small. So I would probably generally be using the Z 400 mm f4.5 with the Z 1.4x TC (or maybe even the Z 2x TC). Once you do this, it is not faster than the 500 mm PF, as the TC makes turns the Z 400 mm f4.5 into a 560 mm f6.3 lens (or 800 mm f9 with the Z 2xTC). So with Z 1.4x TC, a third of a stop slower, but 12% more focal length. I could see either way as a reasonable choice and I am sure that the optical quality with a 1.4x TC is also very good either way, with differences not very relevant in day-to-day wildlife work.

With a 1.4x TCIII, the 500 mm PF is 700 mm f8, so 140 mm more focal length than the Z 400 mm f4.5 with the Z 1.4x TC, but 2/3s of a stop slower. Of course, if you want 800 mm, you could use the 1.7x TCII on the 500 mm PF (leaving you with 850 mm at f9.5) or the Z 2x TC with the Z 400 mm f4.5 (leaving you at f9).

I have found the 500 mm PF with the 1.4x TCIII (and even the 1.7x TCII and 2x TCIII) to be quite useful on a Z body, particularly the Z9. I bought the 2x TCIII for my 500 mm PF on a Z body after Brad Hill said he found it quite useful on a Z body. You might find Brad’s discussion on his website of using TCs with his 500 mm PF useful.

It’s possible that I would make a different choice if I did not already own the 500 mm PF. It is also possible that my thinking will change, as I pick up my 800 mm PF early next week, so I will be using the 800 mm PF in most cases rather than the 500 mm PF with a TC.

I do see the Z 400 mm f4.5 and a 70-200 f2.8 (in F or Z mount) as a very good low light kit, if 400 mm is enough focal length. And the Z 70-200 mm f2.8 (which I have) is a very good 90-280 mm f4 lens with the Z 1.4x TC.

Thom Hogan has an interesting short discussion of the long telephoto choices available for Z mount photographers. https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/telephoto-options-round-two.html

Good luck with your choice. As Eric notes, hard to go wrong with either lens.

ajm057 said:

I believe you already know that the 400+1.4TC is f/6.3 and the 500 is f/5.6 -- as a result the T-stop of the 400 will be 1/3rd of a stop darker. For me the question is much more about the functionality and performance of the best Z mount lenses over the "older" AF-S lenses with an adapter.
Most reviews I have have seen have stated the difference in image quality is marginal - but the Z-mount s-line lenses bring additional controls and options to the table that are not possible with AF-S adapted lenses.
I recommend RicciTalks review - review even though he does not look at the quality with the ZTC14 -- I found another review which said he did the comparison but I could not see it and know nothing about the reviewer AND Morton's comparison

Click to expand...

I don't know the science of it all...For instance (hypothetical), are you saying the T stop on a 400 mm f5.6 Z mount is the same as that on a 400 mm f5.6?

Doesn't the Z mount with its bigger mount lead to less loss in light, hence a wider T stop with other things being the same when compared with the F mount?

arbitrage said:

I'd find it hard to believe that the 400 with 1.4 is considerably sharper than the 500PF bare lens. Could you link those videos that have shown that?
I'd think at best the 400/1.4 would match the 500 for sharpness. If anything I'd be more worried than the 500PF is a bit sharper than the 400/1.4. But all that is guesswork on my behalf so if there are some reliable tests out there I'd like to see them.

That said, if I was buying new I'd go for the 400 and 1.4TC. Just to get native Z AF and VR. Also I found the 500PF lost its magic in compactness and balance when using the FTZ on the Z9. I'd guess the 400 would be better although with the 1.4TC may feel similar to FTZ/500PF??

I don't think the native mount will have any effect on the T-stop. However, the labeled f-stop may be rounded differently between the two lenses. The actual equivalent t-stop could go either way...for example, could the 400/1.4 at f/6.3 be slightly brighter than the 500PF stopped down to f/6.3? Or could it be the other way around where the f/4.5 specification is rounded down and 500PF is rounded up making the 500PF have the advantage? Who knows without good testing. Regardless, 1/3 stop as labeled makes little difference and you gain 60mm (assuming the focal lengths aren't fudged too much).

Click to expand...

Here you go...an initial impressions video by Moose Peterson. --
Paraphrasing...he says the 400 z is comfortably sharper without the TC...with the TC there is barely any loss in quality.


Here is another video that contradicts Peterson's opinion! -

EricBowles said:

I replaced the 500 PF with the 400 f/4.5. Sharpness was not a criteria. The 400 f/4.5 is sharp enough that you are truly splitting hairs in any comparison. Literally a single hair is not a fine enough level of detail to assess sharpness. The 400 f/4.5 resolves sharpness in individual pollen grains. There is no real world difference because the 400mm f/4.5 is exceptionally sharp.

Here is a sample image and a 100% crop of that image:
View attachment 46127
View attachment 46128

The differences that make the most difference are:

• 400mm f/4.5 is faster by 2/3 stop - and that's meaningful in lower light
• 400mm f/4.5 is lighter than the 500 PF
• Integration of the newest lenses - including the 400mm f/4.5 - with the Z bodies is believed to be a little better - better VR, IBIS, and AF speed
• The 400mm f/4.5 renders backgrounds better - especially specular highlights which can be awful with the 500mm PF
• The 500mm PF is longer by 25% - and this makes a difference if it is your longest lens or you need maximum reach or with the 1.4 TC on both
• Both lenses work very well with 1.4 teleconverters, but a TC gives up a small amount in sharpness and AF speed
• Only the 400mm f/4.5 is viable with a 2.0 TC - I would not consider that combination with the 500mm PF - but it is softer and impacts cropping
• The 500mm PF is very sharp, compact, and reasonably light

You can't go wrong with either lens.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Pretty comprehensive info. I guess if the sharpness is the same as 500 pf when 400 z is used with a 1.4x tc, it would still make the 400z a good buy for its other advantages.

Greatest respect for Moose, particularly as a veteran wildlife photographer and he's relied on Nikon a decade or more longer than most of us hence I was pleased to hear him remind viewers of the legacy of the excellent 400 f5.6AIS ED IF, which Nikon released in the late 1970s as a AI telephoto. I also started off with this prime in 1984. It's so easy to carry around as Moose reminisces.

Nevertheless as a Nikon Ambassador he doesn't criticize, but typically lauds every new lens he reports on.

On to comparisons.... The other lens relevant to the status of this 400 S is the excellent 300 PF. One wonders how many photographers tended to use this mostly with a TC 14 (I'm one!)? One of the few valid criticisms of this unique telephoto is it should have been designed as a light 400.

Well, finally, Nikon has released an excellent light 400, decades after the AIS 400 f5.6 EDIF. Without using PhaseFresnel technology, it's only 1.2kg yet a f4.5, with AF and VR, Fn buttons etc. This makes it a unique option in a Hiking 'Commando' Kit, as Brad Hill discusses (see also More details fyi in this thread)

I agree with the in depth comparisons in the posts above. And would add, where I see a distinct difference is the 500 PF is the better Birding lens and the 400 is the better Mammal lens: generalities with exceptions of course. This applies IME particularly in many African habitats as the both rank as lightest options in long focal length Telephotos.


Both work well with their TC14, (on Zed cameras particularly in case of the 500 PF.) I'm keeping my well used 500 PF for my DSLR-Friendly light telephoto often a situation solver on a D6 in poor light etc, and waiting for the 400 f4.5S to pair with the Z9. I know I will also have the 70-200 f2.8E FL for closer wider views.

Sid,
I think your question is "THE" question that nearly every Z-Mount (Zed Mount) wildlife photographer is contemplating right now. It is very hard to interject something new to this or other discussions about the dilemma, but so I'll offer a nuanced perspective.
1. The 400mm f4.5 (and 1.4x) is currently as available as the 400 f2.8S and 800 f6.3PF. So any discussion about this topic is with an eye to the future. Who knows when any of these lenses will be available through regular channels. As an NPS photographer, I've been told that it could be 6 to 12 months before I see my 800mm f6.3... for those looking for a 400 f4.5, you might be waiting for December or January.
2. The resale value of the 500PF has crashed, so if you have one, you're going to take a steep hit. When my lens arrived via NPS in October 2018, I could have sold it for $4300 ($800 mark-up) with little difficulty. The quality of the lens was considered so good, that people started selling their 500mm f/4G & E lenses (Brad Hill is one well known example, but there are many others). The quality of the PF lens has not changed as a result of the introduction of the 400mm lens.
3. Adding a converter is no different than adding an FTZii... it changes the balance of the lens, adds one more point of connection, and introduces a new variable. So if you plan on shooting at 560mm f6.3, much of what people dislike about adapted lenses will apply to your converted 400mm PF.
4. The 100-400mm S is currently available, and its optical quality is almost as good as the 400mm f4.5S. The new lens is faster and sharper, but lacks the flexibility of a zoom.
5. You won't see a difference between the output of the 400mm f4.5 and 500 f5.6 PF unless you shoot where there are a lot of specular water highlights. In these occasions, the bokeh of the 400mm lens will be sweeter... is it worth giving up 100mm and a little light for that situation?... I'm not sure.
6. Finally... If you are thinking about a lens system to optimize flexibility, optical quality, and mass... it is hard to beat a Z9 + backup (Z6/Z7 i or ii), 24-120, 100-400, 500PF. Using DX mode with your Z9 you're at 750mm f5.6... I've found this to produce work that is as good or better than my former D500 w/ 500PF.. a combination that has made me money and garnered many publications since 2018.

cheers,
bruce

BLev65 said:

Sid,
I think your question is "THE" question that nearly every Z-Mount (Zed Mount) wildlife photographer is contemplating right now. It is very hard to interject something new to this or other discussions about the dilemma, but so I'll offer a nuanced perspective.
1. The 400mm f4.5 (and 1.4x) is currently as available as the 400 f2.8S and 800 f6.3PF. So any discussion about this topic is with an eye to the future. Who knows when any of these lenses will be available through regular channels. As an NPS photographer, I've been told that it could be 6 to 12 months before I see my 800mm f6.3... for those looking for a 400 f4.5, you might be waiting for December or January.
2. The resale value of the 500PF has crashed, so if you have one, you're going to take a steep hit. When my lens arrived via NPS in October 2018, I could have sold it for $4300 ($800 mark-up) with little difficulty. The quality of the lens was considered so good, that people started selling their 500mm f/4G & E lenses (Brad Hill is one well known example, but there are many others). The quality of the PF lens has not changed as a result of the introduction of the 400mm lens.
3. Adding a converter is no different than adding an FTZii... it changes the balance of the lens, adds one more point of connection, and introduces a new variable. So if you plan on shooting at 560mm f6.3, much of what people dislike about adapted lenses will apply to your converted 400mm PF.
4. The 100-400mm S is currently available, and its optical quality is almost as good as the 400mm f4.5S. The new lens is faster and sharper, but lacks the flexibility of a zoom.
5. You won't see a difference between the output of the 400mm f4.5 and 500 f5.6 PF unless you shoot where there are a lot of specular water highlights. In these occasions, the bokeh of the 400mm lens will be sweeter... is it worth giving up 100mm and a little light for that situation?... I'm not sure.
6. Finally... If you are thinking about a lens system to optimize flexibility, optical quality, and mass... it is hard to beat a Z9 + backup (Z6/Z7 i or ii), 24-120, 100-400, 500PF. Using DX mode with your Z9 you're at 750mm f5.6... I've found this to produce work that is as good or better than my former D500 w/ 500PF.. a combination that has made me money and garnered many publications since 2018.

cheers,
bruce

Click to expand...

Hello Bruce...

1) I reside in India. 400 f4.5 & 800 pf 6.3 are currently available here in Bangalore. The demand is a lot lower here, so the initial shipments last longer.

2) Drop in resale value of 500pf is certainly not good news. Not sure what is the case here. Currently, Nikon does not have a great mirrorless action camera apart from the Z9. So plenty of people who can't afford the Z9 are still shooting with the DSLRs. So they remain the target buyers...a good chunk of them...
I guess the resale value of 500 pf will further crash if Nikon releases a mid-level mirrorless action camera and the 200-600.

3) While the 500 pf image sharpness quality is excellent for the price...I think it is not the best at long distances (more than 150 feet; atleast my copy). Also the quality control of the 500 pf hasn't been great I think as many have had issues with their copies. I think the PF elements may hinder the sharpness at distances greater than 120-150 feet or so, idk. I feel a regular zoom lens like the Sony 200-600 or even the Nikon 200-500 outperforms the 500 pf at longer distances. They certainly outperform my copy.

4) I think the Z lenses especially without the pf elements will mean sharper images of subject at 120 feet & above. I am assuming so. I am interested in taking a lot of habitat shots of mammals & raptors, where the subject is only 20% of the frame. This is where the my copy of the 500 PF lets me down.
Also, Z lenses are supposed to be far better for video. Another reason why I am keen to get a 400 f4.5.

I did not find that big a drop in value for the 500 PF when I sold it in July. It's in the $2500-2800 US range right now - not bad for an F-mount lens that was released in August 2018 at a retail price of $3599. The reason it holds value well is that it is simply an excellent lens (sharp, small, flexible) - even with the FTZ - and it's available. Part of my reasoning for selling my 500 PF early was the net cost of the change was quite low. If someone wants a 500 PF today, it's a good time to find one in excellent condition but not necessarily at a bargain price. The bargains are in the f/4 telephoto lenses that are selling at 40-50% below the original list price - and the optics are excellent on those lenses but they are bigger and heavier than alternatives.

I would not expect the 400mm lens to be long enough for small birds, but it's quite good for mammals, wading birds or birds with an environmental perspective. The f/4.5 aperture means 2/3 stop lower ISO and potentially faster focus - things that can matter.

Keep in mind Nikon has a 200-600 on the roadmap that is very likely to be released with the next "action camera". This lens should be a major upgrade from the 200-500mm f/5.6. My view is it was pointless for Nikon to release this lens without a body targeting sports and wildlife enthusiasts. I expect to hear something within 60 days. Demand will be very high - there is no need for Nikon to leak or provide advance notice on this combination.

sid_19911991 said:

Hello Bruce...

1) I reside in India. 400 f4.5 & 800 pf 6.3 are currently available here in Bangalore. The demand is a lot lower here, so the initial shipments last longer.

2) Drop in resale value of 500pf is certainly not good news. Not sure what is the case here. Currently, Nikon does not have a great mirrorless action camera apart from the Z9. So plenty of people who can't afford the Z9 are still shooting with the DSLRs. So they remain the target buyers...a good chunk of them...
I guess the resale value of 500 pf will further crash if Nikon releases a mid-level mirrorless action camera and the 200-600.

3) While the 500 pf image sharpness quality is excellent for the price...I think it is not the best at long distances (more than 150 feet; atleast my copy). Also the quality control of the 500 pf hasn't been great I think as many have had issues with their copies. I think the PF elements may hinder the sharpness at distances greater than 120-150 feet or so, idk. I feel a regular zoom lens like the Sony 200-600 or even the Nikon 200-500 outperforms the 500 pf at longer distances. They certainly outperform my copy.

4) I think the Z lenses especially without the pf elements will mean sharper images of subject at 120 feet & above. I am assuming so. I am interested in taking a lot of habitat shots of mammals & raptors, where the subject is only 20% of the frame. This is where the my copy of the 500 PF lets me down.
Also, Z lenses are supposed to be far better for video. Another reason why I am keen to get a 400 f4.5.

Click to expand...

Sid,
It is interesting that you have access to the 400 and 800mm Z lenses. These are only available on eBay for crazy prices. I know of one person selling their 800PF, but I am not willing to pay an extra $1500 for the lens.
In contrast to you, I have heard almost ZERO reports related to quality control on the 500PF lens. Mine was one of the first delivered in my state, and other than a quick repair on the tripod collar (something that was fixed in production), very few people complain about QC issues. I have quite a few wildlife photographer friends (many of whom date back to the 1980's club of well-respected pros), and none of them find fault with their 500PF up close, in the rain, or at a distance.
As for the reasons to buy a 400 f4S, I can think of many.. native Z-mount, native Z AF, quieter VR, f4.5 aperture, compatibility w/ Z 1.4x, size and weight.
At the same time, I can find many reasons to buy a 500PF... lightest 500mm lens, f5.6 at 500mm instead of f6.3, outstanding sharpness throughout the range, price per mm, professional construction (I shoot at -20deg F (-29C) to 105 F (40.5C), in the rain, in the snow, and in the mist), cross compatibility from F to Z, and physical size.
I don't want to bomb your thread with pictures, but I can show you many wildlife landscapes where I was very far away from the subject and maintained outstanding sharpness.
While the PF has its limits, optical quality is not one fo them.

regards,
Bruce

EricBowles said:

I did not find that big a drop in value for the 500 PF when I sold it in July. It's in the $2500-2800 US range right now - not bad for an F-mount lens that was released in August 2018 at a retail price of $3599. The reason it holds value well is that it is simply an excellent lens (sharp, small, flexible) - even with the FTZ - and it's available. Part of my reasoning for selling my 500 PF early was the net cost of the change was quite low. If someone wants a 500 PF today, it's a good time to find one in excellent condition but not necessarily at a bargain price. The bargains are in the f/4 telephoto lenses that are selling at 40-50% below the original list price - and the optics are excellent on those lenses but they are bigger and heavier than alternatives.

I would not expect the 400mm lens to be long enough for small birds, but it's quite good for mammals, wading birds or birds with an environmental perspective. The f/4.5 aperture means 2/3 stop lower ISO and potentially faster focus - things that can matter.

Keep in mind Nikon has a 200-600 on the roadmap that is very likely to be released with the next "action camera". This lens should be a major upgrade from the 200-500mm f/5.6. My view is it was pointless for Nikon to release this lens without a body targeting sports and wildlife enthusiasts. I expect to hear something within 60 days. Demand will be very high - there is no need for Nikon to leak or provide advance notice on this combination.

Click to expand...

Eric,
If I recall, you do a fair bit of sport photography... I think you shoot golf (?)... Were I sports photographer, I would definitely shift to a 70-200S & 400mm f4.5 kit for flexible sidelines work. Here the faster aperture would allow me to maintain good quality at only moderately high ISO as the light falls. Shooting under stadium lights and indoor venues force ISO's into the 8000s (+). While I am a low light nature photographer (dawn through sunrise), I'm not chasing people around a pitch or field. Most bird in flight photography occurs after sunrise, so when I do stuff like this, there is plenty of light to shoot at 3200 or below. For me, I hate converters. I must be the only one who sees the chromatic aberrations, wonkie bokeh, light fall off, and soft corners when using converters. Furthermore, I've never used a converter that has not negatively impacted AF speed. So short of buying a lens with built-in converter like the 180-400 or 400 f2.8S, I prefer to shoot a lens at the focal length for which it was designed. I am so committed to this practice, that I always choose to crop first. Given a choice of a fixed 400mm or 500mm at the same price, focal length is my priority.
As for the future... I'd love a 400 f2.8S (560 f4)Z, a 600 f5.6, or the MIA 800PF...) for now, the 500PF is more than up to the task.

bruce

EricBowles said:

I did not find that big a drop in value for the 500 PF when I sold it in July. It's in the $2500-2800 US range right now - not bad for an F-mount lens that was released in August 2018 at a retail price of $3599. The reason it holds value well is that it is simply an excellent lens (sharp, small, flexible) - even with the FTZ - and it's available. Part of my reasoning for selling my 500 PF early was the net cost of the change was quite low. If someone wants a 500 PF today, it's a good time to find one in excellent condition but not necessarily at a bargain price. The bargains are in the f/4 telephoto lenses that are selling at 40-50% below the original list price - and the optics are excellent on those lenses but they are bigger and heavier than alternatives.

I would not expect the 400mm lens to be long enough for small birds, but it's quite good for mammals, wading birds or birds with an environmental perspective. The f/4.5 aperture means 2/3 stop lower ISO and potentially faster focus - things that can matter.

Keep in mind Nikon has a 200-600 on the roadmap that is very likely to be released with the next "action camera". This lens should be a major upgrade from the 200-500mm f/5.6. My view is it was pointless for Nikon to release this lens without a body targeting sports and wildlife enthusiasts. I expect to hear something within 60 days. Demand will be very high - there is no need for Nikon to leak or provide advance notice on this combination.

Click to expand...

I hope it is a 200-600 f5.6 with distance limiters at

1) 15 feet to 40 feet
2) 40 feet to 80 feet
3) 40 feet to infinity
4) Full

This should help in targeting birds & mammals in a clutter.

BLev65 said:

Sid,
It is interesting that you have access to the 400 and 800mm Z lenses. These are only available on eBay for crazy prices. I know of one person selling their 800PF, but I am not willing to pay and extra $1500 for the lens.
In contrast to you, I have heard almost ZERO reports related to quality control on the 500PF lens. Mine was one of the first delivered in my state, and other than a quick repair on the tripod collar (something that was fixed in production), very few people complain about QC issues. I have quite a few wildlife photographer friends (many of whom date back to the 1980's club of well-respected pros), and none of them find fault with their 500PF up close, in the rain, or at a distance.
As for the reasons to buy a 400 f4S, I can think of many.. native Z-mount, native Z AF, quieter VR, f4.5 aperture, compatibility w/ Z 1.4x, size and weight.
At the same time, I can find many reasons to buy a 500PF... lightest 500mm lens, f5.6 at 500mm instead of f6.3, outstanding sharpness throughout the range, price per mm, professional construction (I shoot at -20deg F (-29C) to 105 F (40.5C), in the rain, in the snow, and in the mist), cross compatibility from F to Z, and physical size.
I don't want to bomb your thread with pictures, but I can show you many wildlife landscapes where I was very far away from the subject and maintained outstanding sharpness.
While the PF has its limits, optical quality is not one fo them.

regards,
Bruce

Click to expand...

I would love to see some of your pictures.
Yes, I see plenty of razor sharp images taken with the 500 PF on Flickr etc.

Mark Smith had a bad copy related to AF. He gave it away after buying it. Steve Perry too says the VR on his 500 PF at low shutter speeds is highly inconsistent.

I didn't realize I already follow you on Instagram. Awesome varied portfolio BTW.

BLev65 said:

Eric,
If I recall, you do a fair bit of sport photography... I think you shoot golf (?)... Were I sports photographer, I would definitely shift to a 70-200S & 400mm f4.5 kit for flexible sidelines work. Here the faster aperture would allow me to maintain good quality at only moderately high ISO as the light falls. Shooting under stadium lights and indoor venues force ISO's into the 8000s (+). While I am a low light nature photographer (dawn through sunrise), I'm not chasing people around a pitch or field. Most bird in flight photography occurs after sunrise, so when I do stuff like this, there is plenty of light to shoot and 3200 or below. For me, I hate converters. I must be the only one who sees the chromatic aberrations, wonkie bokeh, light f,all off, and soft corners when using converters. Furthermore, I've never used a converter that has not negatively impacted AF speed. So short of buying a lens with built-in converter like the 180-400 or 400S, I prefer to shoot a lens at the focal length for which it was designed. I am so committed to this practice, that I always choose to crop first. Given a choice of a fixed 400mm or 500mm at the same price, focal length is my priority.
As for the future... I'd love a 400 f2.8S (560 f4)Z, a 600 f5.6, or the MIA 800PF... for now, the 500PF is more than up to the task.

bruce

Click to expand...

I used that combination - 70-200 and 400 f/4.5 - two weeks ago at the PGA Tour Championship in Atlanta. I also had the 24-70 f/2.8 and 1.4 TC (which I never used). Most days I had a single camera body - the Z7ii. The combination was great. The 400mm f/4.5 was light enough that I had no problem walking 6-7 miles. And image quality was great. The added reach of the 400mm f/4.5 produced a number of images I could not get with my normal kit.

sid_19911991 said:

I would love to see some of your pictures.
Yes, I see plenty of razor sharp images taken with the 500 PF on Flickr etc.

Mark Smith had a bad copy related to AF. He gave it away after buying it. Steve Perry too says the VR on his 500 PF at low shutter speeds is highly inconsistent.

I didn't realize I already follow you on Instagram. Awesome varied portfolio BTW.

Click to expand...

Hello Sid,... I am attaching a mix of work that I generally describe as wildlife landscapes. While they might suffer from jpg compression onto the forum, they are all critically sharp on my 4k monitor. All but the heron were with either a Z6 or D500... the heron was taken last week with my Z9. It was on the other side of wide river flying through river mist.
Regardless of the lens you choose, I think we can all agree that Nikon has been producing some amazing and revolutionary optics beginning with the 300PF... Since the latter's introduction, we've seen: 500PF, 120-300 f2.8, 180-400 f4, 100-400S, 400 f2.8S, 400 f4.5S, and 800PF. Each and every one of these contribute to what is probably the best selection and most cost effective lineup of telephoto lenses available to mirrorless shooters.

I look forward to hearing what you decide.
bruce

sid_19911991 said:

Hi folks,

I currently own a Nikon 500 pf that I pair with Z9.

I am considering switching to Z 400 f4.5 with 1.4x TC after selling the 500PF.

A few Youtube reviews that I have seen suggest that the 400 f4.5 with 1.4x tc in place is considerably sharper than the 500 pf with the added benefit of better VR for stills & video.

What are your thoughts?

Also, as the Z mount is larger, will the "T stop" of the Z 400 f4.5 with 1.4x TC (560mm @ f6.3) be the same as that of the 500 mm pf @ f5.6?

Click to expand...

For about the last month, I have been trying out the 400mm f/4.5 (mostly with the 1.4TC) as well as doing a few tests comparing it with the 500mm PF which I have used (and loved) for 4 years, first with the D500 and more recently with the Z9. My tests showed that a 400mm f/4.5 plus 1.4TC was about the same as the 500mm PF in "sharpness" in a test situation. I haven't noticed a big gain in grabbing focus or image stabilization with the Z lens. Just last week I got the Z
TC 2.0 and ran a test of the 400mm f/4.5 with this TC versus the 1.7TC on the 500mm PF. Surprisingly the latter appeared sharper in my test shots. I think the main advantage of the 500mm PF is its longer native reach and, with the 1.4TC, the ability to get to 700mm. The main advantage of the 400mm is that one can get the extra half stop of light by shooting it without a TC. So IMO there is not a huge gain in getting the Z 400mm. I would suggest that if you need reach, the 800mm is the way to go. At least in my hands the VR of the 400mm plus TC was not sufficient for hand held video, a tripod is still necessary. In which case the 500mm PF is also fine. And for really low light, my 300mm f/2.8 still out focussed the 400mm f/4.5 (as expected).
Some photos with the 400mm f/4.5 (mostly with the 1.4TC, will be posting some with the ZTC 2.0 soon) are on my flickr site:

An album which contains the "test" shots is:

BLev65 said:

Hello Sid,... I am attaching a mix of work that I generally describe as wildlife landscapes. While they might suffer from jpg compression onto the forum, they are all critically sharp on my 4k monitor. All but the heron were with either a Z6 or D500... the heron was taken last week with my Z9. It was on the other side of wide river flying through river mist.
Regardless of the lens you choose, I think we can all agree that Nikon has been producing some amazing and revolutionary optics beginning with the 300PF... Since the latter's introduction, we've seen: 500PF, 120-300 f2.8, 180-400 f4, 100-400S, 400 f2.8S, 400 f4.5S, and 800PF. Each and every one of these contribute to what is probably the best selection and most cost effective lineup of telephoto lenses available to mirrorless shooters.

I look forward to hearing what you decide.
bruce
View attachment 46171
View attachment 46172View attachment 46177
View attachment 46179

Click to expand...

Beautiful composition. When I was contemplating switching to another brand, it was the 500PF that prevented me from doing so. Nikon offers the most affordable lenses of the 3 brands currently. Quality is pretty good too...

ricardo00 said:

For about the last month, I have been trying out the 400mm f/4.5 (mostly with the 1.4TC) as well as doing a few tests comparing it with the 500mm PF which I have used (and loved) for 4 years, first with the D500 and more recently with the Z9. My tests showed that a 400mm f/4.5 plus 1.4TC was about the same as the 500mm PF in "sharpness" in a test situation. I haven't noticed a big gain in grabbing focus or image stabilization with the Z lens. Just last week I got the Z
TC 2.0 and ran a test of the 400mm f/4.5 with this TC versus the 1.7TC on the 500mm PF. Surprisingly the latter appeared sharper in my test shots. I think the main advantage of the 500mm PF is its longer native reach and, with the 1.4TC, the ability to get to 700mm. The main advantage of the 400mm is that one can get the extra half stop of light by shooting it without a TC. So IMO there is not a huge gain in getting the Z 400mm. I would suggest that if you need reach, the 800mm is the way to go. At least in my hands the VR of the 400mm plus TC was not sufficient for hand held video, a tripod is still necessary. In which case the 500mm PF is also fine. And for really low light, my 300mm f/2.8 still out focussed the 400mm f/4.5 (as expected).
Some photos with the 400mm f/4.5 (mostly with the 1.4TC, will be posting some with the ZTC 2.0 soon) are on my flickr site:

Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

An album which contains the "test" shots is:

500mm PF lens

This photo hosted by SmugMug; your photos look better here.

richaroth.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Hmmm...interesting observations.

The 500pf is pretty sharp when one fills the frame...how about it when the subject is more than 80-120+ feet away & occupies only about 15% of the frame?

It would be great if you shoot a subject 120 feet away with the 500 pf at f5.6...likewise at 96 feet with the 400 f4.5 lens at f4.5...

I wonder which one will be sharper...

Will check out your Flickr page...

I've shot the 500PF since it first came out and adapted to the Z9 since January. And I've had the 400 4.5 since release. There's no practical difference in IQ. It's all of the misc things mentioned above that you have to decide on. One thing that really bothers me about the adapted 500PF is that the VR runs continuously when the camera is awake. I don't have a Z mount TC yet so can't speak to how the 400 is at 560mm.

sid_19911991 said:

I don't know the science of it all...For instance (hypothetical), are you saying the T stop on a 400 mm f5.6 Z mount is the same as that on a 400 mm f5.6?

Doesn't the Z mount with its bigger mount lead to less loss in light, hence a wider T stop with other things being the same when compared with the F mount?

Click to expand...

F stop is geometry so dictated by throat size. T stop is affected by how well the glass transmits light.

sid_19911991 said:

Hmmm...interesting observations.

The 500pf is pretty sharp when one fills the frame...how about it when the subject is more than 80-120+ feet away & occupies only about 15% of the frame?

It would be great if you shoot a subject 120 feet away with the 500 pf at f5.6...likewise at 96 feet with the 400 f4.5 lens at f4.5...

I wonder which one will be sharper...

Will check out your Flickr page...

Click to expand...

I have often used the 500mm PF when subjects are quite far (not sure how far) but have to crop a bunch and always found it to be sharp. If not, it was due to atmospheric conditions, etc. For me, the harder part is getting focus on a fast moving bird at 800mm, etc. After only a week with the Z TC 2.0, I am tending towards saying that the 400mm f/4.5 with this TC focuses faster than the 1.7TC on the 500mm PF with the Z9. This is purely a subjective test, spotting a bird at a distance and grabbing focus and tracking (the 400mm combo is also lighter by almost half a pound). Clearly the 800mm PF would be better then either of these however not sure when mine will show up. Also that lens is heavier than these combos, so not sure if I will take it on a long hike. Have created an album on flickr with photos just taken with the Z TC 2.0 and 400mm f/4.5 (have been trying to get a bird catching an insect but so far haven't managed to do that, may have to try pro-Capture mode and 120 fps on the Z9).

NorthernFocus said:

I've shot the 500PF since it first came out and adapted to the Z9 since January. And I've had the 400 4.5 since release. There's no practical difference in IQ. It's all of the misc things mentioned above that you have to decide on. One thing that really bothers me about the adapted 500PF is that the VR runs continuously when the camera is awake. I don't have a Z mount TC yet so can't speak to how the 400 is at 560mm.

Click to expand...

I think that the running VR is the one thing that bothers me most about any adapted F-mount VR lens. If the 400 f4.5 was a 500mm f5.6 (or 4.5) Z-mount lens, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Because the 500PF is my longest lens, I do not want to step down to 400mm just to add a converter and turn it into an f6.3 lens.
It is unfortunate that we can not turn lens VR off while maintaining IBIS. While you might only gain one stop of VR, I'd take it and shoot my 500mm lens at 1/300 or faster.

bruce