Question for Steve and every wildlife Photographer: Do we need both a Nikon Z 400 mm f2.8 with Tc and z 800 mm 6.3?

[Activert]

@Steve . I am a Nature conservation photographer. I sold all my DSLR cameras and all the lenses except the 300mm f2.8. I also kept my medium format gear for now to use for landscape and portrait.
My main photography subjects are, like Steve and most of you Wildlife: goes from the tiny insects to all big mammals and a lot of birds. I like also my subjects to fill the frame. I moved to mirrorless and I have now my Z9 that I use with my only kept lenses the 300mm F.2.8 lenses for now. I put an order on the Z 400mm 2.8 S with TC and the Z800mm f6.3. And I am waiting for them to be delivered hopefully soon. Lately I started to question my decision about buying these 2 lenses. Do I need both of them to photograph the subjects I mention (except insect)? I think having the 400mm will be divers and very useful for what I do as photography, Can the 800 mm give me better quality result for bird photography than the 400 with TC (1.4 or 2X)?. For those who work with both lenses, do you feel the need to have both? I know Steve that you tried the 800mm, did you try as well the 400mm, and if so what do you think and would you get both?
I do appreciate all your comment and your input. This will help me to decide whether to keep both lenses or cancel the 800. Thank you!

 

[Dr_J]

I bet Nikon suggests you do . Perhaps try the TC solutions first and consider whether the results satisfy you. For my own part, I use both 1.4 and 2.0 TCE III’s on my F mount 300mm and 500mm PF’s and have yet to find cause for complaint. Then again, my internal organs are sufficiently advanced as to render them insufficient p/x against an F mount 800mm f5.6 .

ATB, John

 

[DRwyoming]

I do appreciate all your comment and your input.

You certainly don't 'need' to own a 400mm f/2.8 and 2x TC as well as an 800mm f/6.3 PF lens as there's a lot of overlap between them at the long end of the range. The reason to own both is more convenience in the field as I'd guess the 800mm f/6.3 PF lens will be a lot more hand holdable than the 400mm f/2.8 with the TC attached. Also if you'll shoot a lot at the 800mm focal length, avoiding having to use a 2x TC is typically a good thing though historically Nikon's 400mm f/2.8 lenses were among the best when it came to using a 2x teleconverter and I'm guessing that will be the case with the Z version of this lens and TC.

If it's comfortably in your budget there's no reason not to own both lenses but if budget is a concern I'd probably stick with the 400mm f/2.8 with both compatible TCs especially if your shooting environments include darker places like rain forests and your range of subjects include mid sized and larger subjects or subjects you can approach more easily. And of course weight isn't a big limiter to your shooting style.

But if weight and hand held shooting is your primary concern I'd lean towards a PF kit with perhaps the 300mm PF (or the upcoming 400mm PF) and the 800mm PF or something along those lines. If weight (both while traveling and shooting) is your major concern and light gathering isn't as big a concern where you shoot a full PF kit as in: 300mm PF, 500mm PF, 800mm PF with a 1.4x TC handy would be a killer light weight wildlife kit that likely costs less than owning both the 400mm f/2.8 Z and 800mm f/6.3 PF Z lenses.

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

Great question. I use the 400 mm 2.8 TC and a Z TC 2.0 with a Z9. My field experience is limited so far so my opinion is preliminary. The 800 PF & Z9 would be about 8.25 lbs. My 400 mm + TC + Z9 is just under 10 lbs. I can hand hold it for short periods but now for hours of shooting. At 800 mm, the PF is likely sharper but the 400 + TC seems reasonably sharp, especially on a tripod. I need some support for longer shooting days so the weight wasn't the deciding factor. The flexibility of 400 @ 2.8, 500 @ 4 and 800 @ 5.6 was the deciding factor. I'm sold on the image quality at 400 and 560. The jury is still out on the 800 mm length using the 2.0 TC.

 

[cchuck]

Excellent question! I've been having similar thoughts. Although I like the idea of a lighter weight 800PF, I know its 5-meter minimum focus distance will cause more lost shots vs. the 2.5-meter MFD of the 400mm 2.8 TC. w/2x

 

[EricBowles]

I am a Nature conservation photographer. I sold all my DSLR cameras and all the lenses except the 300mm f2.8. I also kept my medium format gear for now to use for landscape and portrait.
My main photography subjects are, like Steve and most of you Wildlife: goes from the tiny insects to all big mammals and a lot of birds. I like also my subjects to fill the frame. I moved to mirrorless and I have now my Z9 that I use with my only kept lenses the 300mm F.2.8 lenses for now. I put an order on the Z 400mm 2.8 S with TC and the Z800mm f6.3. And I am waiting for them to be delivered hopefully soon. Lately I started to question my decision about buying these 2 lenses. Do I need both of them to photograph the subjects I mention (except insect)? I think having the 400mm will be divers and very useful for what I do as photography, Can the 800 mm give me better quality result for bird photography than the 400 with TC (1.4 or 2X)?. For those who work with both lenses, do you feel the need to have both? I know Steve that you tried the 800mm, did you try as well the 400mm, and if so what do you think and would you get both?
I do appreciate all your comment and your input. This will help me to decide whether to keep both lenses or cancel the 800. Thank you!

I've taken the approach of using a PF based kit. Right now it's the 800 PF and 500 PF, but I will most likely be replacing the 500 PF with the Z 400 PF when it's available.

I have the 800 PF and it's a terrific lens. In addition to being sharp, it's compact, light weight, and extremely portable. I also have the 500 PF so my kit is a 500 PF and the 800 PF - with teleconverters for each. I'm averaging 12,000 steps or more when carrying both of these lenses, so mobility is virtually unlimited. I've used the 800mm with the 1.4 TC and it's a good option I would use without hesitation.

I'm debating whether to keep my 600mm f/4 AFS VR. It's faster and gives me a little more reach with a 1.4 TC at effective f/5.6. But in spite of the great image quality, it's hard to justify the size and weight. I have not shot it side by side against the 800 PF for a critical evaluation, but the difference is not that big.

The 400 f/2.8 is a big, heavy lens as well. It generally takes at least a monopod and often a tripod. Quality is great - at a cost. But you lose out on mobility and weight. While a 1.4 teleconverter is like the native lens, I'm not sure whether the 2.0 teleconverter matches performance of the bare 800mm PF. Given the choice, the 400 f/2.8 is probably a better lens and offers better options for low light (especially with the bare lens, 1.4, and 2.0 teleconverters). But for bird photography like my time this past weekend, I would not have carried the 400mm f/2.8 the distances involved.

 

[arbitrage]

I'd be very surprised if the IQ and AF of the bare 800PF wasn't noticeably better than the 400 with 2xTC or stacked 1.4TCs.
But the question becomes how often you want/need to use 800mm and if the 400@800 is good enough.

I think I would certainly entertain the combination of those two lenses but I would first buy the 400 and the TCs and see if I was happy. I've never owned the Z TCs but I've owned all Canon EF, RF, Nikon F and Sony TCs. I've never been fully satisfied with any 2xTC option even though I have made use of them many times over the years. The only two combinations that really satisfied me were Nikon 2x on 300PF and Canon EF2x on 300f/2.8IS II. But I was less critical of IQ back in those days...somehow I doubt I'd be super happy with them anymore.

Still, I think the one benefit of the 400Z is that you can get to 784mm without using a 2xTC. Using the internal 1.4 with external 1.4 would be what I would try at first because it would give me flexibility to instantly switch from 560 to 784 and it doesn't involve a 2xTC. But who knows, maybe stacked 1.4s is worse than a single 2x? When I owned the Canon 200-400 I found stacked 1.4s about equal to the 2.0.

 

[Calson]

I have found 500mm and 600mm prime lenses too long at times and so I always have a 80-400mm and now the 100-400mm zoom lenses with me as well. If someone only cares about ID shots then too long is less of a concern but if one wants to show the subject in its wild surrounding then is is important.

The 400mm with the built in 1.4x TC is a great lens but I would not be able to use it all day long without a tripod or a monopod. The question for me is how best to fill the gap between 400mm and 600 or 800mm. The 200-600mm will be a very tempting lens but at this time it is the 400mm or the 800mm primes and the 100-400mm zoom or a 180-400mm with the TFZ adapter.

Having already spent more than $20,000 on Nikon mirrorless cameras and lens this year I am not at all inclined to spend an additional $15,000 on the 400mm f/2.8 lens. I also would need to leave behind the 600m f/4 and the 800mm f/6.3 and take only the 100-400mm and a macro lens on my travels. For where I travel the 800mm with the 100-400mm is a better choice than the 400mm f/2.8 and teleconverters. There are always going to be trade-offs regardless and for me it is important to be able to shoot hand held whether on land or out on the water.

 

[Whiskeyman]

I bet Nikon suggests you do .

ATB, John

... Plus an extra Z9 so that you don't have to swap lenses all of the time!!

 

[gdecamp]

I have both. That being said I use the 400/2.8Z most of the time now. It is a beast from 400 all the way up to 800mm, the most versatile lens I've ever had and sharp as you could want. However now when I go to a place I know I will use 800mm and up I only use the 800pf, lighter to handle and really a pleasure to use.

So do you need both? No!! I'll bet the 400/2.8Z is very close in sharpness with converters to the 800 but I'm no tech guru so I can't quantify this but I can see it is close enough that I don't really notice a difference.

I'm going out on a boat Friday for nesting Ospreys which now have young, I'll use the 800pf all day and leave the 400 home. Next week I'll be doing some shorebirds and again I'll use the 800 so I don't have to crawl closer to my subject. Of course I could easily use the 400/2,8 in both these circumstances but as mentioned the 800 is a bit lighter and so easy to maneuver!

So bottom line in my opinion no you don't need both and could spend the money for the 800 on something else BUT it sure is nice to have and if you want to go to 1120 with the 1.4 it will still be sharp and fast.

 

[cchuck]

Thank you, Eric, arbitrage, Calson, Coyote, DR, gdecamp for sharing your experience and opinions on this matter. I'm hoping my 800 PF comes soon!

 

[hrv]

A bit late tot he party, but for me the question would be how often and how far I would have to carry it all and if I expect to have to hand-hold the lens.
If you hike a lot to get to your wildlife, then the 400 may simply be or become too heavy. If you can get close by car and sit in a blind, then the 400 with internal and external TC might give the 800 a run for its money.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

I am a Nature conservation photographer.
My main photography subjects are, like Steve and most of you Wildlife: goes from the tiny insects to all big mammals and a lot of birds. I like also my subjects to fill the frame.

Ditto - except add large African Cats as a specialism

I put an order on the Z 400mm 2.8 S with TC and the Z800mm f6.3. And I am waiting for them to be delivered hopefully soon.

I received both of mine in April and have completed testing locally before I go out on Safari.
You can access the tests and some of my shots on flickr:
Shots of a Test Target at 8-9m
Shots with Z-400/2.8TC and tele converters
Shots with Z-800/6.3PF and tele converters

Lately I started to question my decision about buying these 2 lenses. Do I need both of them to photograph the subjects I mention (except insect)?
I think having the 400mm will be divers and very useful for what I do as photography, Can the 800 mm give me better quality result for bird photography than the 400 with TC (1.4 or 2X)?. For those who work with both lenses, do you feel the need to have both? I know Steve that you tried the 800mm, did you try as well the 400mm, and if so what do you think and would you get both?

Fairly obviously only you can judge.
OK -- so my decision is about working in very dusty conditions and needing a back up very long lens when I travel to Africa. A zoom just does not do the job. When I travel I carry 3 bodies (currently 2 Z9 and a Z6II or Z7), two long lenses (used to be 400/2.8 and 600/4.0 Now 400+800), multiple Teleconverters (ZTC14, ZTC20), a 70-200, 24-70 and a wide angle -- but I only use this for night shots and low down (currently I am vacillating between taking the 14-24/2.8 or a smaller wide prime I can put on the Z6/Z7 and shoot with it very low level held out of the safari vehicle on a monopod (with very strong safety line).
As can be seen from my tests - with the 400mm - flipping to 560/4 is effectively instantaneous and adding a TC to obtain 784/5.6 or 1,120mm/8.0 is workable and the results a great. The results when using a ZTC20 (with or without the internal TC) are not as sharp as when using the ZTC14.
Obviously each TC you add has an impact on optical quality and looses you stops of light -- but you must also push shutter speed up to offset working with longer effective focal lengths - and this tends to need higher ISO too. I have not yet use Z9+400+ITC14+ZTC20 and DX crop - to reach 1,680mm at f/8 or shot videos with any crop factor.
Now one has the 800mm/6.3PF -- flawless native 800mm on the Z9, great when used with the ZTC14 to obtain 1,120/9.0 -- but not f/8 which is what is possible with the 400. AND only useable in very good light when used with the ZTC20 - 1,600mm f/13
Over the summer I am heading up into the Scottish Mountains to shoot Eagles and other birds of prey and stalk other game. The reach and lighter weight of the 800mm is a huge advantage. As is the ability to reach 1,600mm.
This is all about a) do you need/want to also carry a very long backup lens with you. b) what distances and focal lengths do you use the most and what compromises can you live with (like using a ZTC20) to gain that extra bit of reach when you need it. c) will there be better choices available for you "coming soon"
Before I bought my 2 lenses I completed a comprehensive review of my last 5 african safaris and the lenses and focal lengths I used to obtain the very best shots I used /sold out of the 50k plus plus images I took over 2 years.

1. Dawn/Dusk - Lions and ultra low light actions -- 400/2.8 every single time -- but this lens was only used for 15% of my shots
2. Landscape/environmental/close to elephants -- 200mm or less -- <5% of my shots
3. Everything else so 80% used a 600/4.0 and 1/3rd of these used a TC14 as well (so 840/5.6).

Had the Z 600/4.0TC been available I would not have bought the 800/6.3 - but now I have I greatly enjoy it's lightweight and sharpness. That said it in no way approaches the performance of the Z400/2.8TC -- WOW what a lens. AND when the 600/4.0TC emerges later this year - my name is already on a list at my favourite store and with NPS-UK to buy it. At that time I may well sell quite a lot of gear (including the 800/6.3PF) to pay the 15k price.
What about the 200-600 -- well this all depends on the specs and the performance of the lens and it is not clear when anyone will be able to get hold of one. I own the 100-400 and it is more than OK; I used to own the 200-400, 200-500 and 80-400 and did not enjoy any of them as much as a long prime. BUT I know folk who love theirs, love the lighter weight and flexibility of being able to shoot with a zoom -- we zoom by moving a trucks and feet.

I do appreciate all your comment and your input. This will help me to decide whether to keep both lenses or cancel the 800. Thank you!

Use/test them both and return the 800 if you cannot justify it as well or sell it later when a replacement comes along.

 

[Terry]

The other combination I haven't seen mentioned is how does the 400 with the internal TC look in DX mode on the Z9? That gives you an 840 f4 and if you fill the frame maybe good results? I'm not up to that caliber of gear since I can't afford the divorce but it might be interesting to try.

 

[Activert]

I bet Nikon suggests you do . Perhaps try the TC solutions first and consider whether the results satisfy you. For my own part, I use both 1.4 and 2.0 TCE III’s on my F mount 300mm and 500mm PF’s and have yet to find cause for complaint. Then again, my internal organs are sufficiently advanced as to render them insufficient p/x against an F mount 800mm f5.6 .

ATB, John

Thank you for your advice. I appreciate it!

 

[Activert]

You certainly don't 'need' to own a 400mm f/2.8 and 2x TC as well as an 800mm f/6.3 PF lens as there's a lot of overlap between them at the long end of the range. The reason to own both is more convenience in the field as I'd guess the 800mm f/6.3 PF lens will be a lot more hand holdable than the 400mm f/2.8 with the TC attached. Also if you'll shoot a lot at the 800mm focal length, avoiding having to use a 2x TC is typically a good thing though historically Nikon's 400mm f/2.8 lenses were among the best when it came to using a 2x teleconverter and I'm guessing that will be the case with the Z version of this lens and TC.

If it's comfortably in your budget there's no reason not to own both lenses but if budget is a concern I'd probably stick with the 400mm f/2.8 with both compatible TCs especially if your shooting environments include darker places like rain forests and your range of subjects include mid sized and larger subjects or subjects you can approach more easily. And of course weight isn't a big limiter to your shooting style.

But if weight and hand held shooting is your primary concern I'd lean towards a PF kit with perhaps the 300mm PF (or the upcoming 400mm PF) and the 800mm PF or something along those lines. If weight (both while traveling and shooting) is your major concern and light gathering isn't as big a concern where you shoot a full PF kit as in: 300mm PF, 500mm PF, 800mm PF with a 1.4x TC handy would be a killer light weight wildlife kit that likely costs less than owning both the 400mm f/2.8 Z and 800mm f/6.3 PF Z lenses.

Thank your for your recommendation, I appreciate them!

 

[Activert]

Great question. I use the 400 mm 2.8 TC and a Z TC 2.0 with a Z9. My field experience is limited so far so my opinion is preliminary. The 800 PF & Z9 would be about 8.25 lbs. My 400 mm + TC + Z9 is just under 10 lbs. I can hand hold it for short periods but now for hours of shooting. At 800 mm, the PF is likely sharper but the 400 + TC seems reasonably sharp, especially on a tripod. I need some support for longer shooting days so the weight wasn't the deciding factor. The flexibility of 400 @ 2.8, 500 @ 4 and 800 @ 5.6 was the deciding factor. I'm sold on the image quality at 400 and 560. The jury is still out on the 800 mm length using the 2.0 TC.

Thank you for sharing your experience with the 400 mm! It helps me a lot!

 

[Activert]

Excellent question! I've been having similar thoughts. Although I like the idea of a lighter weight 800PF, I know its 5-meter minimum focus distance will cause more lost shots vs. the 2.5-meter MFD of the 400mm 2.8 TC. w/2x

Thank you for your comments

 

[Activert]

I've taken the approach of using a PF based kit. Right now it's the 800 PF and 500 PF, but I will most likely be replacing the 500 PF with the Z 400 PF when it's available.

I have the 800 PF and it's a terrific lens. In addition to being sharp, it's compact, light weight, and extremely portable. I also have the 500 PF so my kit is a 500 PF and the 800 PF - with teleconverters for each. I'm averaging 12,000 steps or more when carrying both of these lenses, so mobility is virtually unlimited. I've used the 800mm with the 1.4 TC and it's a good option I would use without hesitation.

I'm debating whether to keep my 600mm f/4 AFS VR. It's faster and gives me a little more reach with a 1.4 TC at effective f/5.6. But in spite of the great image quality, it's hard to justify the size and weight. I have not shot it side by side against the 800 PF for a critical evaluation, but the difference is not that big.

The 400 f/2.8 is a big, heavy lens as well. It generally takes at least a monopod and often a tripod. Quality is great - at a cost. But you lose out on mobility and weight. While a 1.4 teleconverter is like the native lens, I'm not sure whether the 2.0 teleconverter matches performance of the bare 800mm PF. Given the choice, the 400 f/2.8 is probably a better lens and offers better options for low light (especially with the bare lens, 1.4, and 2.0 teleconverters). But for bird photography like my time this past weekend, I would not have carried the 400mm f/2.8 the distances involved.

Thank you for your comments and your thoughts!

 

[Activert]

I'd be very surprised if the IQ and AF of the bare 800PF wasn't noticeably better than the 400 with 2xTC or stacked 1.4TCs.
But the question becomes how often you want/need to use 800mm and if the 400@800 is good enough.

I think I would certainly entertain the combination of those two lenses but I would first buy the 400 and the TCs and see if I was happy. I've never owned the Z TCs but I've owned all Canon EF, RF, Nikon F and Sony TCs. I've never been fully satisfied with any 2xTC option even though I have made use of them many times over the years. The only two combinations that really satisfied me were Nikon 2x on 300PF and Canon EF2x on 300f/2.8IS II. But I was less critical of IQ back in those days...somehow I doubt I'd be super happy with them anymore.

Still, I think the one benefit of the 400Z is that you can get to 784mm without using a 2xTC. Using the internal 1.4 with external 1.4 would be what I would try at first because it would give me flexibility to instantly switch from 560 to 784 and it doesn't involve a 2xTC. But who knows, maybe stacked 1.4s is worse than a single 2x? When I owned the Canon 200-400 I found stacked 1.4s about equal to the 2.0.

Thank you for your advice! I appreciate it!

 

[Activert]

I have found 500mm and 600mm prime lenses too long at times and so I always have a 80-400mm and now the 100-400mm zoom lenses with me as well. If someone only cares about ID shots then too long is less of a concern but if one wants to show the subject in its wild surrounding then is is important.

The 400mm with the built in 1.4x TC is a great lens but I would not be able to use it all day long without a tripod or a monopod. The question for me is how best to fill the gap between 400mm and 600 or 800mm. The 200-600mm will be a very tempting lens but at this time it is the 400mm or the 800mm primes and the 100-400mm zoom or a 180-400mm with the TFZ adapter.

Having already spent more than $20,000 on Nikon mirrorless cameras and lens this year I am not at all inclined to spend an additional $15,000 on the 400mm f/2.8 lens. I also would need to leave behind the 600m f/4 and the 800mm f/6.3 and take only the 100-400mm and a macro lens on my travels. For where I travel the 800mm with the 100-400mm is a better choice than the 400mm f/2.8 and teleconverters. There are always going to be trade-offs regardless and for me it is important to be able to shoot hand held whether on land or out on the water.

Thank you for your reply and your comments!

 

[Activert]

... Plus an extra Z9 so that you don't have to swap lenses all of the time!!

In fact I am thinking to get the Z8 if we will see it and if its a mirrorless version of the D850. We will see. Thanks for your reply

 

[Activert]

A bit late tot he party, but for me the question would be how often and how far I would have to carry it all and if I expect to have to hand-hold the lens.
If you hike a lot to get to your wildlife, then the 400 may simply be or become too heavy. If you can get close by car and sit in a blind, then the 400 with internal and external TC might give the 800 a run for its money.

I travel a lot specially to National Park! I do both type of photography: by hiking, from the car or from a hide. In this case maybe I should take the 800mm while I am hiking and both when I am in my car or in a hide close to parking.!
I do a lot of hiking with heavy gear and my back is used to carry the 500mm F4/4 G which is heavy and other lenses and a tripod with a gimbal head. Maybe the weight of the 400 won't be a problem for me. I have to try and see.
Thank a lot for your helpful comment

 

[Activert]

Ditto - except add large African Cats as a specialism

I received both of mine in April and have completed testing locally before I go out on Safari.
You can access the tests and some of my shots on flickr:
Shots of a Test Target at 8-9m
Shots with Z-400/2.8TC and tele converters
Shots with Z-800/6.3PF and tele converters

Fairly obviously only you can judge.
OK -- so my decision is about working in very dusty conditions and needing a back up very long lens when I travel to Africa. A zoom just does not do the job. When I travel I carry 3 bodies (currently 2 Z9 and a Z6II or Z7), two long lenses (used to be 400/2.8 and 600/4.0 Now 400+800), multiple Teleconverters (ZTC14, ZTC20), a 70-200, 24-70 and a wide angle -- but I only use this for night shots and low down (currently I am vacillating between taking the 14-24/2.8 or a smaller wide prime I can put on the Z6/Z7 and shoot with it very low level held out of the safari vehicle on a monopod (with very strong safety line).
As can be seen from my tests - with the 400mm - flipping to 560/4 is effectively instantaneous and adding a TC to obtain 784/5.6 or 1,120mm/8.0 is workable and the results a great. The results when using a ZTC20 (with or without the internal TC) are not as sharp as when using the ZTC14.
Obviously each TC you add has an impact on optical quality and looses you stops of light -- but you must also push shutter speed up to offset working with longer effective focal lengths - and this tends to need higher ISO too. I have not yet use Z9+400+ITC14+ZTC20 and DX crop - to reach 1,680mm at f/8 or shot videos with any crop factor.
Now one has the 800mm/6.3PF -- flawless native 800mm on the Z9, great when used with the ZTC14 to obtain 1,120/9.0 -- but not f/8 which is what is possible with the 400. AND only useable in very good light when used with the ZTC20 - 1,600mm f/13
Over the summer I am heading up into the Scottish Mountains to shoot Eagles and other birds of prey and stalk other game. The reach and lighter weight of the 800mm is a huge advantage. As is the ability to reach 1,600mm.
This is all about a) do you need/want to also carry a very long backup lens with you. b) what distances and focal lengths do you use the most and what compromises can you live with (like using a ZTC20) to gain that extra bit of reach when you need it. c) will there be better choices available for you "coming soon"
Before I bought my 2 lenses I completed a comprehensive review of my last 5 african safaris and the lenses and focal lengths I used to obtain the very best shots I used /sold out of the 50k plus plus images I took over 2 years.

1. Dawn/Dusk - Lions and ultra low light actions -- 400/2.8 every single time -- but this lens was only used for 15% of my shots
2. Landscape/environmental/close to elephants -- 200mm or less -- <5% of my shots
3. Everything else so 80% used a 600/4.0 and 1/3rd of these used a TC14 as well (so 840/5.6).

Had the Z 600/4.0TC been available I would not have bought the 800/6.3 - but now I have I greatly enjoy it's lightweight and sharpness. That said it in no way approaches the performance of the Z400/2.8TC -- WOW what a lens. AND when the 600/4.0TC emerges later this year - my name is already on a list at my favourite store and with NPS-UK to buy it. At that time I may well sell quite a lot of gear (including the 800/6.3PF) to pay the 15k price.
What about the 200-600 -- well this all depends on the specs and the performance of the lens and it is not clear when anyone will be able to get hold of one. I own the 100-400 and it is more than OK; I used to own the 200-400, 200-500 and 80-400 and did not enjoy any of them as much as a long prime. BUT I know folk who love theirs, love the lighter weight and flexibility of being able to shoot with a zoom -- we zoom by moving a trucks and feet.

Use/test them both and return the 800 if you cannot justify it as well or sell it later when a replacement comes along.

Thank you so much for all these important information. Thank you also for all the detail, I do really appreciate taking the time to explain everything. I feel like I want to keep both lenses and I needed someone to tell me from his experience that he enjoyed both. And you did by all your gorgeous photos. Thank you again and hope to see your photos of the eagle of Scotland.

 

[Activert]

The other combination I haven't seen mentioned is how does the 400 with the internal TC look in DX mode on the Z9? That gives you an 840 f4 and if you fill the frame maybe good results? I'm not up to that caliber of gear since I can't afford the divorce but it might be interesting to try.

Thank you