Long Lens strategy

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).

RichF

Well-known and Infamous Member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
I am considering two different options for my long lens "kit"

Option 1:
- 800 Z (already have this)
- 400 TC (need to order, not sure of the lead time)
- everything below 400 would be covered by 100-400Z

This gets me 400, 560, 800, 1120

Option 2:
- 600 TC (ordered, still waiting)
- 400 F/4.5 (already have this) or just use 100-400Z.
- everything below 400 would be covered by 100-400Z
- would sell 800 Z

This gets me 400, 600, 840

No, I am not going to consider both the 400 and 600 TCs. I see advantages to both. Option 1 is lighter and covers the range very well but involves 2 superteles with all the space that requires traveling. Option 2 is easier to travel with, only 1 supertele. Big trade off using the 800 Z and 100-400 w/ 1.4 TC versus 400 TC.

Option 3. Wait and see what Nikon does to replace the 180-400 TC.

I am leaning to option 3 for the moment
 
I am considering two different options for my long lens "kit"

Option 1:
- 800 Z (already have this)
- 400 TC (need to order, not sure of the lead time)
- everything below 400 would be covered by 100-400Z

This gets me 400, 560, 800, 1120

Option 2:
- 600 TC (ordered, still waiting)
- 400 F/4.5 (already have this) or just use 100-400Z.
- everything below 400 would be covered by 100-400Z
- would sell 800 Z

This gets me 400, 600, 840

No, I am not going to consider both the 400 and 600 TCs. I see advantages to both. Option 1 is lighter and covers the range very well but involves 2 superteles with all the space that requires traveling. Option 2 is easier to travel with, only 1 supertele. Big trade off using the 800 Z and 100-400 w/ 1.4 TC versus 400 TC.

Option 3. Wait and see what Nikon does to replace the 180-400 TC.

I am leaning to option 3 for the moment
Depends on the subjects you shoot. I have a 70-200, 200-600, 400f2.8 and 600f4 with 1.4 and 2x converters. I use my 600 90% of the time but I shoot a lot of birds.
 
You have the 800. I say keep it.
You have the 400/4.5, I say keep it.
The 400/4.5 in DX is 600/4.5
Wait for the upcoming 600pf?

The 400/2.8 is worth to consider because its 2.8.
 
Keep in mind that just because a patent has been requested/granted doesn't mean the lens will ever see the light of day.

That being said, something like that would sound appealing to me. Time will tell.
 
As for the topic at hand, many options :)

Rich, if I remember correctly you mainly shoot birds, right? With the 800pf and 400 4.5, you have a lot covered already. Unless you really need the faster glass, I would just keep using that. If in the future something interesting at the lower end of things comes along (200-600, 180-400,...); that could indeed be a valuable addition.
 
In my opinion, if the light goes down and the 800/6.3 and ISO is so high that it’s no longer producing pictures, f/4 isn’t enough either to capture keepers. In that scenario the only lens left is the 400/2.8 or a 70-200 @2.8. with a touch of de-noise.

In other words, I found the 400/4.5 performing amazing at sunset, up until a certain point when I had to put the camera down, but a quick change to the 70-200 f/2.8 gave me another 15 minutes or so, I needed more lens, but the concept was clear.

I went even farther, I took along the 85/1.2 and got some shots of birds close by on a tree, but, even though the ISO was in control @f/1.2, I got clean and dark colorless photos.
 
I went with option 2. I had the Z 100-400, Z 400/4.5 and the 800 PF, I sold the 400/4.5 and 800 PF when buying the 600/4 TC. For my use the 100-400 compliments the 600/4 TC perfectly and I don’t regret keeping it and selling the 400/4.5 at all.
 
I am considering two different options for my long lens "kit"

Option 1:
- 800 Z (already have this)
- 400 TC (need to order, not sure of the lead time)
- everything below 400 would be covered by 100-400Z

This gets me 400, 560, 800, 1120

Option 2:
- 600 TC (ordered, still waiting)
- 400 F/4.5 (already have this) or just use 100-400Z.
- everything below 400 would be covered by 100-400Z
- would sell 800 Z

This gets me 400, 600, 840

No, I am not going to consider both the 400 and 600 TCs. I see advantages to both. Option 1 is lighter and covers the range very well but involves 2 superteles with all the space that requires traveling. Option 2 is easier to travel with, only 1 supertele. Big trade off using the 800 Z and 100-400 w/ 1.4 TC versus 400 TC.

Option 3. Wait and see what Nikon does to replace the 180-400 TC.

I am leaning to option 3 for the moment
I had a similar dilemma and finally decided to go with your option 1 with a slight tweak. I just got the 4002.8TC and the 2X TC.

I photograph mammals and birds (almost 50:50) and when I'm photographing mammals, i absolutely love the 400mm focal length and most importantly the F2.8 aperture ( plus the 70-200 f2.8). It makes a huge difference in the Indian forests. I have used almost all telephoto lenses from Nikon and somehow have a bias towards their f2.8 teles (3002.8, 4002.8, 120-300 2.8). There's something magical about these lenses, to my eyes at least, particularly when photographing mammals with the 400 bare lens.

When I'm on birding trips, i prefer either 600mm or 800mm focal lengths depending on the place and this is where the in built TC and also the performance with Z 2X TC was critical. When i was using the FL version of the 4002.8 ( with DSLRs), I'd mostly use it either with 1.4 or at times with 1.7TC but very rarely did I use the 2X TC as it had it's limitstions (like AF speed drop, AF consistency, AFFT related challenges, performance is good for closer and static subjects but not so good with mid to long distance or for action). With the Z 400, all these problems are gone. I find the 400 performs amazingly well with 2X TC. Of course there's still some minor compromises like drop in AF speed etc. but the performance is comparable to how F mount teles perform with 1.4 TCs. So that's more than good enough for my uses.

So I'd gravitate more towards your 1st option, assuming you photograph mammals or wildlife that are approachable. Unless you absolutely need 800mm focal length AND need to hand hold, the 400TC with 2X is still a very capable 800mm so you don't actually have to carry both the 400 and 800.

I'm eagerly waiting for a light weight tele option in the Z mount, hopefully a 600PF for casual/ walk around birding.
 
I'm close to option 1 on your list. I have the 400 TC and the 800 PF. My wife uses the 400 4.5 and the 100-400 so I have access to both of those at certain times.

If I could only have 1 lens it would 100% be the 400 TC. I just did a week away and only took that and the extra 1.4x (I did briefly steal my wife's 400 4.5 to try some flying swallows after seeing the thread on here). If i'm somewhere where the subjects are mixed but on the smaller side then I'll often want the 400 + 1.4x so that I have 560mm or 800mm options. If the subjects are always going to be small birds then I'd take the 800mm. My ideal combo on safari would be the 400 TC on one body and then depending on the day I'd go for the 100-400 on a second body or the 800 for bird shots. That assumes it all works in the luggage.

The 400 TC fits in one side of my kiboko backpack mounted on my Z9 and still fits with the extra 1.4x attached.

I went this route because the shots that I value the most are the ones I tend to take whilst on trips or in photography hides. The photo hides I've visited in the UK are frequently set up with a 500mm in mind so it works wonderfully and a 600mm would often be a bit too tight. On trips I'm often doing mammals and then the 400mm shines both for the focal length and the low light capability. I'm trying to do more and more photography whilst at home too and then I tend to take out the most appropriate lens for the location/subject but 400 TC and 800 PF have me covered there.

I was very worried that I'd get the 400 TC and have buyer's remorse when the 600 TC came along and it never happened. In places like Botswana and Costa Rica I realised I had made the right choice for me. I would encourage you to not only think about what focal length you shoot the most but also what focal length produces the shots you care about the most. I may try and photograph many small birds in the UK with the 800 PF but the photo that I treasure and that goes on the wall is the leopard or polar bear etc shot with the 400 TC.

Good luck with your choice!

Edit - In relation to option 3.. I used to own the 180-400mm. I loved it but I far prefer the 400 TC. The massively lower weight, ability to go down to f2.8 and the stunning quality mean I would never go back just to have that zoom range. I had looked at many of the images taken with the 180-400mm whilst on trips and found my good shots were almost always at or near 400mm so that was also a factor.
 
Last edited:
I'm with you pwaring I have the same kit and it fits all the scenarios I shoot. The 400TC is just awesome whether I use it at 400 all day or 600 all day then I have the 800 for the small stuff.
 
As others have said, it really depends on 1) the subjects you enjoy shooting, and 2) how you go about shooting.
If you typically go to a location, set up tripod and photograph the scenes while stationary, then weight is less of a concern. Even if you hike a way to the spot, once everything is out of the backpack, the tripod carries the weight.
If you typically "run and gun" meaning hike a lot with camera not in the backpack and cover a lot of ground in a day capturing images to and from then weight becomes a huge concern.

Unless you just sold your tech startup for a King's Ransom, inherited a fortune, or won the lottery, cost becomes an issue as well, I have no idea what your financial situation is (nor am I asking, it's none of my business) however, figure out your budget for camera gear and act within those parameters.

I noticed no shorter lenses mentioned but I figured you were talking specifically about long glass kit.

I would talk about my kit but it suits my shooting style, the subjects I enjoy and my budget (although it stretched the upper limits of my budget for sure). However, that wouldn't do you much good as your style may be different than mine.

Jeff
 
This is something I‘ve been thinking about too and it is very subject dependent. The big super telephoto lenses have their place and advantages, especially the Zs with their built in TCs, but also are bigger and more difficult to travel with. This decision would probably be easier if you were with Canon or Sony because the choices are more limited, but having the 400mm 4.5 and 800mm PF options could change the strategy quite a bit. If you need a large aperture lens or feel the built in TC is something that will be a game changer for you, I’d base the decision on whether you are at the 400-600mm or 600-800mm range more frequently. The 400mm 4.5 is an amazing and light lens and I hear the 800mm PF is as well so either way you go you have a good alternative to cover the remaining focal length.

One option I’ve been looking at is one you already have. 400mm 4.5, 1.4x TC, and 800mm PF. This option would provide me a relatively light, small, and affordable 400mm 4.5, 560mm 6.3, 800mm 6.3 which seems about ideal for me. My concern with this combination is would I use the 800mm enough to justify buying and/or carrying it. Birds are not my primary subject, but I think it would work great when needed. This may be the route I go. Out of curiosity, what are you looking for that this combination doesn’t do?
 
My interest is bird videography so my comments may not be that relevant, but FWIW...

Coming from the Sony system, the three most important and welcome features the Nikon/Z9 has brought to the table for me are a wider selection of excellent lens options, the ability to hand hold and get relatively steady video, and the option to shoot a range of high-quality NRaw codecs ranging in from 8.3k60p FX to 5.3K60p 1.5x DX to 3.8k120p 2.3x DX -- which on a bare 400mm lens provides 400mm, 560mm and 920mm with no loss of light.

Currently, my only lens is the 100-400 which I pair with the TC's when needed, but I'm actively looking at longer lens options.

The two big exotics (400TC and 600TC) are obvious options that I can afford, but my desire to hand hold as much as possible and the ability to gain reach by the aforementioned cropping modes opens up options for me that never existed before.

So, my latest thinking is to pick up the 400/4.5 for a light carry which still yields a relatively fast f4.5 up to 920mm equivalent focal length (using the 3.8k120p DX crop mode), and the 800pf for full FX captures all the way up 1840mm at a reasonably fast f6.3. TC's just expand the possibilities even further, though at a the cost of loss of some and light and sharpness.

Of course I'll definitely be picking up the 200-600 whenever it arrives -- zooms work best for video when shooting BIF where ranges are constantly changing.

I'd keep my 100-400 for close focus garden critter shooting.

Just my current thoughts.
 
I would go with option 1…but that's just me.…except I would get the 400/4.5 instead of the TC and have the 100-400 for shorter stuff, an affordable and more easily carry-able with something else in the bag 400, and the 800…and I would toss in the 1.4TC at least myself. I've got both and have zero issues with using the 1.4 on either the 100-400 or the 400/4.5…and likely wouldn't have any with the 800 either. The 2.0TC is a little less sharp and bumps up the aperture so narrow DoF isn't really an option at distances where that combo would be needed, but it is what it is. I haven't bought the 800 for a couple reasons…mostly it's the extra weight vs how much I would use it vs what do I leave behind if I have it (would likely be the 400 since the zoom provides more flexibility but depending on where I was going maybe the 400 prime would be a better option. I'm still mulling possibilities and usefulness of the 800.
 
I'm close to option 1 on your list. I have the 400 TC and the 800 PF. My wife uses the 400 4.5 and the 100-400 so I have access to both of those at certain times.
And we have it…the understatement of the year 😀😀😀. Of course…I would be saying the same thing if my bride of going on 47 years was interested in carrying anything more than the 2 lens Z50 combo…but she's not and sez she ain't my Sherpa so I gotta carry all of it myself. If I end up getting the 800 eventually at the end of my thinking about it process…then I would only carry it and either the zoom or the 400 prime but not both unless it was mostly a vehicle trip…and OTOH if the 600PF were to appear then it would get some consideration as well over the 800 and my thinking about it process and depending on size/weight vs the 800…but even then carrying all 3 ain't happening unless it's mostly a vehicle readily available outing.
 
In my opinion, if the light goes down and the 800/6.3 and ISO is so high that it’s no longer producing pictures, f/4 isn’t enough either to capture keepers. In that scenario the only lens left is the 400/2.8 or a 70-200 @2.8. with a touch of de-noise.

In other words, I found the 400/4.5 performing amazing at sunset, up until a certain point when I had to put the camera down, but a quick change to the 70-200 f/2.8 gave me another 15 minutes or so, I needed more lens, but the concept was clear.

I went even farther, I took along the 85/1.2 and got some shots of birds close by on a tree, but, even though the ISO was in control @f/1.2, I got clean and dark colorless photos.
I’m going to guess you don’t own a 600f4. There is a lot more magic to a lens like this than simply allowing for shooting longer in fading light. There are a host of great lens choices out there but none of them can deliver what a 600F4 can do. Everything else is a compromise. Unless you have a physical handicap that keeps you from using a large prime like this there is no reason not to have one if you can afford it.
 
And we have it…the understatement of the year 😀😀😀. Of course…I would be saying the same thing if my bride of going on 47 years was interested in carrying anything more than the 2 lens Z50 combo…but she's not and sez she ain't my Sherpa so I gotta carry all of it myself. If I end up getting the 800 eventually at the end of my thinking about it process…then I would only carry it and either the zoom or the 400 prime but not both unless it was mostly a vehicle trip…and OTOH if the 600PF were to appear then it would get some consideration as well over the 800 and my thinking about it process and depending on size/weight vs the 800…but even then carrying all 3 ain't happening unless it's mostly a vehicle readily available outing.
I only really got away with using her 400 4.5 for swallows last week because she's on a Z7 and her Z8 won't be around for a week or two (if we're lucky). Though I don't think she'd enjoy the challenge of stuff like that as much as I do. I have to say though I am incredibly lucky. On trips and in hides I meet so many people whose husband/wife/partner has little or no interest in nature or wildlife photography and yet we can share it and make it the priority for our big holidays and small getaways.. even down to where we've chosen to live. She doesn't like the weight of her backpack but she's travelled with plenty of women now who are much older than her and have big prime lenses that she knows she can't complain too much!
 
I only really got away with using her 400 4.5 for swallows last week because she's on a Z7 and her Z8 won't be around for a week or two (if we're lucky). Though I don't think she'd enjoy the challenge of stuff like that as much as I do. I have to say though I am incredibly lucky. On trips and in hides I meet so many people whose husband/wife/partner has little or no interest in nature or wildlife photography and yet we can share it and make it the priority for our big holidays and small getaways.. even down to where we've chosen to live. She doesn't like the weight of her backpack but she's travelled with plenty of women now who are much older than her and have big prime lenses that she knows she can't complain too much!
I kinda gave up on swallows…although TBH we haven't been anywhere to see them since I got the Z9 but the Z7II was pretty much worthless on them. Luckily…my bride likes to take photos…just not as much as I do. She won't Sherpa, she won't go stand in the water to get the waterfall composition, and she won't carry anything but the Z50 2 lens kit.…and oh yeah, she won't hike more than 3 to 4 miles max and hates elevation changing hikes.
 
A long lens strategy is still evading me. Arguing with myself re zoom vs primes. In my 2 big trips (hopefully more in future) and most of my local wildlife refuge trips, I use my Tamron 150-600mm, the vast majority of the time at 600mm (not ideal for this lens), and am still cropping up a storm in post. Yet had/have numerous times I pulled it all the way back. The issues I'm trying to balance are: an 800 mm would be great for much of what I'm shooting but then something gets close, the primes with TC would be nice but $$$; travel, especially international, restricts how many long lenses I can bring due to weight and size on carry-on; $$; carrying one camera with zoom vs 2 cameras with different focal length to, hopefully, cover what I need; putting on/taking off TC's can be a pain, time consuming and dangerous (oops, dropped the camera).
What are others thoughts/experiences on the zoom v prime decisions?
 
I am kind of reluctant to pay the hefty sum for new Z long primes. I understand that they are perfect if money is no issue. But the Z 600 F4 TC price is prohibitive for non-professional use IMO.

What I want to advocate is using of F primes as an alternative. I have F mount Sigma Sport 500/F4 and the results on Z9 are excellent. Focusing speed is reasonable, sharpness on par or better then Z 100-400, better reach than 400 mm and a bonus of F4 aperture. (MPB offers one in 'like new' condition for 25% of Z 600 TC)

Hence my current setup is:
Z 100-400 - for shorter ranges
F 500/F4 +- TC 1.4 as a main prime lens
Z 800 PF as long reach and astronomy lens
 
Back
Top