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?

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).

Not a Nikon shooter anymore but I do own a 400f2.8, 600f4, 200-600 and 1.4x and 2x converters. I used to own the Nikon 300f2.8 and have had one version of that lens in my kit since the 90’s when I was a photojournalist.

For wildlife my favorite is the 600f4. I do shoot a lot of song birds and the 600 I can typically get close enough to not need a tele but for when I do the tele is handy. I prefer to shoot lenses without converters even with my current ones having almost no negative impact on image quality.

The 800 for song birds would be a great choice. Not super thrilled with the fstop but it would work. It’s an advantage I have with an f4 lens is I can focus more on getting closer and keeping iso lower vs a slower more magnified lens that I have no choice. It doesn’t make the 800 bad but in my opinion does limit it a little when shooting in heavy trees or early/late light. It’s essentially the same limitations my 200-600 has and my 500PF had before.

The 400f2.8 would be a solid choice. If money is a concern I’d sell the 300f2.8 as I enjoy the 400 a lot more and with the new Z lens having a built in tc it would be a pretty strong contender as a lens that can do most anything and do most anything well.

As I mentioned above I still prefer not to use TC but with the mirrorless cameras improved af capabilities, lenses and improvements in TC there isn’t much negative about them when compared to DSLR and older TC.

So to me if you can afford it I’d buy the 800PF and the 400f2.8. For larger closer birds and mammals the 400 is great. For song birds and more distant mammals the 800 is a solid choice in good light. I think in the Nikon ecosystem Z mount today it’s your best choice for a two lens wildlife system.

When the 600f4 comes out with a built in TC I’d take it over the 800PF but it could be a while till that lens is obtainable. When it does the 400 and 600 both with built in TC would be a killer combo. By that time there is likely a new Z9 out as well and as they say you’ll be cooking with fire by than.

This is assuming you have the budget for all of this. If not I think I’d trade things around when the time comes and get the Z 600f4 and pair it with the 100-400 and get out and shoot.
 
I have always been a fan of the best and fastest big glass. For many years I have used the 600mm f4. And while that lens had become lighter in weight over the years, the most recent one still weighed 8.3 lbs. Difficult to carry on a plane with all my other equipment. Fine when I was shooting from a blind, but when hiking to find my subject it did put limits on my getting to the subject, or being able to easily move around to find the best location and angle. And I couldn't really use it hand held, except for very brief period of time, so I would also need to be using a tripod or monopod. All limiting in my mobility and no question at times I was missing the best shots.
Now I have gone almost completely "Z" with my Z9, 100-400 and 800mm PF lens, plus teleconverters and of course shorter lenses. I've sold my 600mm. The only F-mount lens I'm still using is the 300mm f4 PF.
The 800mm weights only 5.2 lbs, is easily hand holdable. Fits in my Gura Gear bag attached to camera and with lens hood in stored position. Greatly increases my mobility in the field. I can hike or run around the place I am shooting, either with a tripod or monopod, or without one.
The new Z 400mm f2.8 looks like a beautiful lens. Even if not discouraged by the hefty $14000 price compared with $6500 for the 800mm, it does weigh 6.5 lbs, which is 1.3 lbs heavier than the 600mm. I don't think I'd be comfortable using that lens hand held.
I guess it all comes down to your style of shooting. For me, I'm now very happy with my basic traveling kit of a pair of Z9s, Z 14-24mm f2.8 (when I'm doing night or serious landscape work), Z 24-120mm f4, Z100-400mm, teleconverters, and the Z800mm (when I need more reach than I can get with the 100-400mm + 1.4X TC. I'll be interested when and if there is a Z 600mm PF lens.
 
It comes down to how much use one expects to get from any lens and the alternative options and planned use for the image files. Someone making 11x14 or smaller prints or primarily posting them on a website can get buy with shorter focal length and compenstate with a higher resolution camera.

With the 500mm PF I found myself using the the 80-400mm zoom and the 600mm f/4 prime lens a great deal less. The 500mm provided more reach while being incredibly lightweight and the 600mm required the use of a tripod and gimbal head and greatly reduced mobility.

If I lived in Africa or nearby the continent then a 180-400mm coupled with the 400mm f/2.8 with teleconverters would be a winning, although very expensive option. But my travels are primarily to Asia or Latin America and hand holdable lenses work much better overall. Not having to carry around a tripod with a gimbal head is something I value a great deal.

I also care about the total weight of my gear for going through airports and on to aircraft and even going from the car to my room at a lodge. So some compromises need to be made to make this happen. For me my travel kit when there is air or boat travel will be then 105mm macro, 100-400mm, 500mm PF, and the 800mm PF along with two 1.4x teleconverters.
 
Not a Nikon shooter anymore but I do own a 400f2.8, 600f4, 200-600 and 1.4x and 2x converters. I used to own the Nikon 300f2.8 and have had one version of that lens in my kit since the 90’s when I was a photojournalist.

For wildlife my favorite is the 600f4. I do shoot a lot of song birds and the 600 I can typically get close enough to not need a tele but for when I do the tele is handy. I prefer to shoot lenses without converters even with my current ones having almost no negative impact on image quality.

The 800 for song birds would be a great choice. Not super thrilled with the fstop but it would work. It’s an advantage I have with an f4 lens is I can focus more on getting closer and keeping iso lower vs a slower more magnified lens that I have no choice. It doesn’t make the 800 bad but in my opinion does limit it a little when shooting in heavy trees or early/late light. It’s essentially the same limitations my 200-600 has and my 500PF had before.

The 400f2.8 would be a solid choice. If money is a concern I’d sell the 300f2.8 as I enjoy the 400 a lot more and with the new Z lens having a built in tc it would be a pretty strong contender as a lens that can do most anything and do most anything well.

As I mentioned above I still prefer not to use TC but with the mirrorless cameras improved af capabilities, lenses and improvements in TC there isn’t much negative about them when compared to DSLR and older TC.

So to me if you can afford it I’d buy the 800PF and the 400f2.8. For larger closer birds and mammals the 400 is great. For song birds and more distant mammals the 800 is a solid choice in good light. I think in the Nikon ecosystem Z mount today it’s your best choice for a two lens wildlife system.

When the 600f4 comes out with a built in TC I’d take it over the 800PF but it could be a while till that lens is obtainable. When it does the 400 and 600 both with built in TC would be a killer combo. By that time there is likely a new Z9 out as well and as they say you’ll be cooking with fire by than.

This is assuming you have the budget for all of this. If not I think I’d trade things around when the time comes and get the Z 600f4 and pair it with the 100-400 and get out and shoot.
Thank you so much for your comments, they are very helpful!
 
I have always been a fan of the best and fastest big glass. For many years I have used the 600mm f4. And while that lens had become lighter in weight over the years, the most recent one still weighed 8.3 lbs. Difficult to carry on a plane with all my other equipment. Fine when I was shooting from a blind, but when hiking to find my subject it did put limits on my getting to the subject, or being able to easily move around to find the best location and angle. And I couldn't really use it hand held, except for very brief period of time, so I would also need to be using a tripod or monopod. All limiting in my mobility and no question at times I was missing the best shots.
Now I have gone almost completely "Z" with my Z9, 100-400 and 800mm PF lens, plus teleconverters and of course shorter lenses. I've sold my 600mm. The only F-mount lens I'm still using is the 300mm f4 PF.
The 800mm weights only 5.2 lbs, is easily hand holdable. Fits in my Gura Gear bag attached to camera and with lens hood in stored position. Greatly increases my mobility in the field. I can hike or run around the place I am shooting, either with a tripod or monopod, or without one.
The new Z 400mm f2.8 looks like a beautiful lens. Even if not discouraged by the hefty $14000 price compared with $6500 for the 800mm, it does weigh 6.5 lbs, which is 1.3 lbs heavier than the 600mm. I don't think I'd be comfortable using that lens hand held.
I guess it all comes down to your style of shooting. For me, I'm now very happy with my basic traveling kit of a pair of Z9s, Z 14-24mm f2.8 (when I'm doing night or serious landscape work), Z 24-120mm f4, Z100-400mm, teleconverters, and the Z800mm (when I need more reach than I can get with the 100-400mm + 1.4X TC. I'll be interested when and if there is a Z 600mm PF lens.
Thank you very much for sharing your thought specially about the Z800. Very helpful!
 
It comes down to how much use one expects to get from any lens and the alternative options and planned use for the image files. Someone making 11x14 or smaller prints or primarily posting them on a website can get buy with shorter focal length and compenstate with a higher resolution camera.

With the 500mm PF I found myself using the the 80-400mm zoom and the 600mm f/4 prime lens a great deal less. The 500mm provided more reach while being incredibly lightweight and the 600mm required the use of a tripod and gimbal head and greatly reduced mobility.

If I lived in Africa or nearby the continent then a 180-400mm coupled with the 400mm f/2.8 with teleconverters would be a winning, although very expensive option. But my travels are primarily to Asia or Latin America and hand holdable lenses work much better overall. Not having to carry around a tripod with a gimbal head is something I value a great deal.

I also care about the total weight of my gear for going through airports and on to aircraft and even going from the car to my room at a lodge. So some compromises need to be made to make this happen. For me my travel kit when there is air or boat travel will be then 105mm macro, 100-400mm, 500mm PF, and the 800mm PF along with two 1.4x teleconverters.
Thank you very much Calson! Very helpful comments!
 
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!
Personally I would opt for both and I plan on selling my 500 PF IF (and this is a big if) the size and weight of the 400 is noticably smaller/lighter than the 500 PF.

I having only a 400 PF + TCs will slow me down. I don't know about your but I am rather slow adding/removing or switching TC.
 
Personally I would opt for both and I plan on selling my 500 PF IF (and this is a big if) the size and weight of the 400 is noticably smaller/lighter than the 500 PF.

I having only a 400 PF + TCs will slow me down. I don't know about your but I am rather slow adding/removing or switching TC.
Thank you and I think I agree with you. I hardly use any TC except in really specific situation where I find something rare and far.
 
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'm only a product photographer but when I have the time I love wildlife.
The 800mm is a great value lens and its even hand holdable for a 800mm.
The extra half stop of the 400mm TC at 800mm would mean more to me than being forced to use the 2x TC.
I'm waiting to see what the 200-600mm and 400mm PF Z glass will eventually be like.
Because I have the same 300mm a 200-400mm and 600mm f4 in AFS and they all work well on my Z9 - i'm in no hurry to upgrade yet.
I'm seriously looking at the 400mm TC - but although its probably a great lens the 800mm Z lens is probably not for me.
I've used the older Nikkor 800mm in the past and although the new 800mm Z is very light i dont need that much reach and all its evolves..🦘
 
I will through a monkey wrench into the discussion. I currently have 2 Z9’s Z7ll, Z400/2.8, Z1.4TC, F 120-300/2.8 i don’t shoot wildlife, primarily winter sports.
When I need the extra reach I just attach the Z1.4TC to my 400/2.8 and end up at 760/5.6 that’s plenty for me.
Now the fun part. I also have the Sony FE200-600 zoom and just received the new MegaDAP ETZ21 adaptor. Initial thoughts it works excellent.
So for those waiting for Nikon to release the Z200-600 lens which I have been told by multiple sources will not be a “S” line lens and will be more “budget” friendly whatever that means…
 
With this wealth of information, I have a question for Steve and others familiar with his Costa Rica workshop: How often will we have an opportunity to use a tripod with a gimbal head for my Nikon 400mm FL lens? Or might it be better to pair my Nikon 500 mm PF with the D500 DX format camera and hand hold, possibly with a monopod?
 
@Activert @Shlomo Neuman . if you want to make sure Steve sees your question I would suggest tagging him as I did you.

I am primarily a run and gun bird photographer, from ID shots on small birds deep in the brush to swallows, terns, waterfowl etc. in flight. I use a Z9 and a Z6II. I hand hold all the time.

After getting and using the Z100-400 and Z1.4 TC and the Z800mm pf I have sold all of my f mount glass including 600 f/4E and now 500 PF and gone all Z Glass. I also have the Z 24-120, Z 70-200 so far used only on my Z6II. Depending on the specs when they come out I will most likely consider the Z200-600 or the Z600 when they are released.

I have used the Z800mm pf 90% of the time on my Z9 since the 800 arrived since I have been doing a lot of birding. The Z100-400 is an amazing lens and plays very well with the 1.4TC.

At this point the Z400 f/2.8 (with built in 1.4 TC ready to go) is not on my drawing board because of size, weight and cost and it does not fit my needs as well as the Z100-400 which I have used on my Z6II in very low light before sunrise and it worked quite well, or the Z800PF which on the Z9 I have not had a low light issue with yet but have not used it much in that situation since the birds I have been chasing are not active before sun up.
 
I shoot too many subjects from boats where I like having the 500mm PF on one camera and the 100-400mm on the second one. I like to minimize lens changes as much as possible. With Canon one does have the available 100-500mm zoom lens that would be great to use but I am not attracted to the Canon mirrorless camera lineup that does not have a high resolution pro body with a full size battery as an option (nor does Sony).
 
@Activert @Shlomo Neuman . if you want to make sure Steve sees your question I would suggest tagging him as I did you.

I am primarily a run and gun bird photographer, from ID shots on small birds deep in the brush to swallows, terns, waterfowl etc. in flight. I use a Z9 and a Z6II. I hand hold all the time.

After getting and using the Z100-400 and Z1.4 TC and the Z800mm pf I have sold all of my f mount glass including 600 f/4E and now 500 PF and gone all Z Glass. I also have the Z 24-120, Z 70-200 so far used only on my Z6II. Depending on the specs when they come out I will most likely consider the Z200-600 or the Z600 when they are released.

I have used the Z800mm pf 90% of the time on my Z9 since the 800 arrived since I have been doing a lot of birding. The Z100-400 is an amazing lens and plays very well with the 1.4TC.

At this point the Z400 f/2.8 (with built in 1.4 TC ready to go) is not on my drawing board because of size, weight and cost and it does not fit my needs as well as the Z100-400 which I have used on my Z6II in very low light before sunrise and it worked quite well, or the Z800PF which on the Z9 I have not had a low light issue with yet but have not used it much in that situation since the birds I have been chasing are not active before sun up.
Thank you for the tagging suggestion, Ken!
 
I've been off line 'out there' in northern Kruger NP for 5 weeks, an experience that's clarified my gear strategy. The bush is still thick in foliage and high grass, because of the late rains into May this year. Locating subjects has been challenging but rewarding from many hours driving very slowly , and repeatedly, through likely habitats and stake outs in key locations etc. Invariably one to shooting through clutter and struggling to avoid some infuriating branch or twig!

My core optics at hand are 70-200 f2.8E FL, 180-400 f4E TC14 and 800 f6.3S PF. The Z9 is almost always on the 800, and my D5 has been almost glued to the 180-400, with a well worn D850 on the shorter zoom. The latter proves very useful for close subjects and wider views etc. I have a 500 PF which is far better for quick shots but it works best on a 4th camera, which I plan to get. This trip has certainly confirmed a tele zoom outperforms primes in majority of situations for savanna wildlife photography.

I found the D5 captured many of my keepers on the 180-400. Time and again its bullet proof Close Subject Priority grabbed sharp eyes - instantly - that too often challenge a MILC - within clutter of grass stems /twigs; in such situations, one often has to think twice tweaking/toggling the Z9 AF and too often fix its discombobulated grabs of backgrounds etc. So a Critical Lesson... l plan to invest in a D6 soon!

The reach of the 800 PF is often essential for not only more distant subjects but equally to frame tight portraits etc and obviously smaller subjects. In fact the ZTC14 is often on the 800 PF. On rarer occasions I needed the ZTC2. I still have to analyze the stats of Total Images/Optic, but the 1120mm has proved vital for the majority of my keepers of 8 leopards. This finding applies not only in shooting across open spaces/gaps in mopane jesse thickets but also on the vast grassy plains on deeply weathered Basalts, south of the Olifants river.

So this not just endorses but underscores the conclusions on reach etc by @ajm057 and others :) Previously my 400 f2.8E + TC2 IIl has been a capable but heavy 800 f5.6 solution. This is either on a DSLR or the Z9. it's taken many keepers but too often I still needed more reach.

The 800 PF is indeed a game-changer. The reasons are already widely known. The difference in speed of f6.3 vs f5.6 is trivial. I'll post some more findings later from post processing etc, including on the optimal and less optimal conditions.
 
Last edited:
@Activert @Shlomo Neuman . if you want to make sure Steve sees your question I would suggest tagging him as I did you.

I am primarily a run and gun bird photographer, from ID shots on small birds deep in the brush to swallows, terns, waterfowl etc. in flight. I use a Z9 and a Z6II. I hand hold all the time.

After getting and using the Z100-400 and Z1.4 TC and the Z800mm pf I have sold all of my f mount glass including 600 f/4E and now 500 PF and gone all Z Glass. I also have the Z 24-120, Z 70-200 so far used only on my Z6II. Depending on the specs when they come out I will most likely consider the Z200-600 or the Z600 when they are released.

I have used the Z800mm pf 90% of the time on my Z9 since the 800 arrived since I have been doing a lot of birding. The Z100-400 is an amazing lens and plays very well with the 1.4TC.

At this point the Z400 f/2.8 (with built in 1.4 TC ready to go) is not on my drawing board because of size, weight and cost and it does not fit my needs as well as the Z100-400 which I have used on my Z6II in very low light before sunrise and it worked quite well, or the Z800PF which on the Z9 I have not had a low light issue with yet but have not used it much in that situation since the birds I have been chasing are not active before sun up.
How do I Tagg Steve? Thank you!
 
How do I Tagg Steve? Thank you!
Whenever you want to tag a forum member just start with @ and then the name and when you see it come up in a box below the name click on that box so @Steve
In this case I would suggest editing your original post if you want to make sure he sees it and doing it within your post.
 
Whenever you want to tag a forum member just start with @ and then the name and when you see it come up in a box below the name click on that box so @Steve
In this case I would suggest editing your original post if you want to make sure he sees it and doing it within your post.
Thank you! I tried and I hope I did it correct.
 
@Steve My question must not have reached you, so I am raising it again. How much opportunity will there be, in the upcoming Costa Rica workshop, to use my Nikon 400mm FL and TCs on a tripod? Or might it be better to go for Nikon 500mm PF paired with the Nikon D500, handheld or using a monopod? Or the 400mm with a monopod? I own these, hence the question. Thank you, Shlomo
 
Personally, I don't think you need two of those big lenses. With 2x 1.4 or 1x 2.0, the Z 400/2.8 TC doesn't match to the bare 800 PF in sharpness. But it has more flexibility, better bokeh in some situations and can also be used very well hand held. Also consider how often you can tickle the optimum out of the lenses in the field. I am of the opinion that you will no longer recognize these small differences in the finished developed photo. If I preferred to photograph birds, then the pendulum would swing to the 800 PF. I was at the coast at the weekend and took hand hold photos for several hours with 2x 1.4.
 
I've been off line 'out there' in northern Kruger NP for 5 weeks, an experience that's clarified my gear strategy. The bush is still thick in foliage and high grass, because of the late rains into May this year. Locating subjects has been challenging but rewarding from many hours driving very slowly , and repeatedly, through likely habitats and stake outs in key locations etc. Invariably one to shooting through clutter and struggling to avoid some infuriating branch or twig!

My core optics at hand are 70-200 f2.8E FL, 180-400 f4E TC14 and 800 f6.3S PF. The Z9 is almost always on the 800, and my D5 has been almost glued to the 180-400, with a well worn D850 on the shorter zoom. The latter proves very useful for close subjects and wider views etc. I have a 500 PF which is far better for quick shots but it works best on a 4th camera, which I plan to get. This trip has certainly confirmed a tele zoom outperforms primes in majority of situations on savanna wildlife photography.

The DAY captured many of my keepers on the 180-400. Time and again its bullet proof Close Subject Priority grabbed sharp eyes - instantly - that too often; in situations where one has to think twice with tweaking/toggling the Z9 AF and too often fix its discombobulated grabs of backgrounds etc. So a Critical Lesson... l plan to invest in a D6 soon!

The reach of the 800 PF is often essential for not only more distant subjects but equally tighter portraits etc and smaller subjects. In fact the ZTC14 is often on the 800 PF. On rarer occasions I needed the ZTC2. I still have to analyze Total Images/Optic, but the 1120mm has proved vital for the majority of my keepers of 8 leopards. I've found this finding applies not only in shooting across open spaces/gaps in mopane jesse thickets but also on the vast grassy plains on the Basalt south of the Olifants river.

So this not just endorses but underscores the conclusions on reach etc by @ajm057 and others :) Previously my 400 f2.8E + TC2 IIl has been a capable but heavy 800 f5.6 solution. This is either on a DSLR or the Z9. it's taken many keepers but too often I found i needed more reach.

The 800 PF is indeed a game-changer. The reasons are already widely known. The difference in speed of f6.3 vs f5.6 is trivial. I'll post some more findings later from post processing etc, including on the optimal and less optimal conditions.
Thank you for sharing your experience and your thought!
 
I’m looking at these lenses as well. I think the deciding factor will be for me to see what the 800 plus tc look like. What do 1,200 and 1,600 magnifications look like? If not so good, I will stick with the 400 and max out at 800. That seems to be a pretty good length.
 
I’m looking at these lenses as well. I think the deciding factor will be for me to see what the 800 plus tc look like. What do 1,200 and 1,600 magnifications look like? If not so good, I will stick with the 400 and max out at 800. That seems to be a pretty good length.
I have never tried my 1.4 tc on my 800mm ... because I usually do not have time to put on a tc when I want to fill more of the frame with a bird ... I just use my i menu to go to dx on my Z9. I use that quite a bit on small birds when shooting for bird identification. I may have to get around to trying the 1.4 TC.
 
I’m looking at these lenses as well. I think the deciding factor will be for me to see what the 800 plus tc look like. What do 1,200 and 1,600 magnifications look like? If not so good, I will stick with the 400 and max out at 800. That seems to be a pretty good length.
Thank you! That makes a lot sense
 
Back
Top