Trying to decide between 400 2.8 TC and 800 PF + 400 4.5.

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).

Member's gallery
Tails said:
Hello @Steve and everyone, first post on this forum even though I've been reading these threads forever. : )

I'm really torn between purchasing 400 2.8 TC or 800PF+400 4.5. Money is not the issue anymore since I secured the funds for 400 2.8.

I mainly shoot wildlife and sports (for sports I actually get paid). My current wildlife combo is Z9 + 500PF and occasionally 70-200 2.8 S.

The advantage of 400 2.8 TC is obviously 2.8 for indoor sports, and some larger mammals or even smaller mammals where I can get close (like squirrels which I shoot a lot). And with 2x TC it'll act as a 800 5.6 for smaller birds as well.

The advantage of 800Pf + 400 4.5 is the weight. I may be able to use a f4.5 lens indoors with ISO's at the limit, but outside shooting some closer mammals, I think it'd do a decent job. And 800PF would be the best lens for small birds obviously.

The IQ advantage of 800Pf vs 400 2.8 + 2xTC is irrelevant to me, I'm sure that in the field both files will be equally amazing. But 800Pf will be easier to handhold all day compared to 400 2.8. And 400 4.5 will be a breeze to handhold all day. So the dilemma is weight vs versatility of 2.8.
Click to expand...
Sold my 800mm AFS because it was a little too long and I wasn't using it much anymore.
I still have the 600 and 400 f2.8 AFS but they are big and heavy.
The 400mm TC is attractive because although a little short for wildlife the TC makes up for it.
I bought the 400mm f4.5 while waiting for the new 600mm TC and I love it so much that I cancelled the order.
Its light and hand holdable even for video.... 🦘
 
  • Like
Reactions: O
Member's gallery
Tails said:
Hello @Steve and everyone, first post on this forum even though I've been reading these threads forever. : )

I'm really torn between purchasing 400 2.8 TC or 800PF+400 4.5. Money is not the issue anymore since I secured the funds for 400 2.8.

I mainly shoot wildlife and sports (for sports I actually get paid). My current wildlife combo is Z9 + 500PF and occasionally 70-200 2.8 S.

The advantage of 400 2.8 TC is obviously 2.8 for indoor sports, and some larger mammals or even smaller mammals where I can get close (like squirrels which I shoot a lot). And with 2x TC it'll act as a 800 5.6 for smaller birds as well.

The advantage of 800Pf + 400 4.5 is the weight. I may be able to use a f4.5 lens indoors with ISO's at the limit, but outside shooting some closer mammals, I think it'd do a decent job. And 800PF would be the best lens for small birds obviously.

The IQ advantage of 800Pf vs 400 2.8 + 2xTC is irrelevant to me, I'm sure that in the field both files will be equally amazing. But 800Pf will be easier to handhold all day compared to 400 2.8. And 400 4.5 will be a breeze to handhold all day. So the dilemma is weight vs versatility of 2.8.
Click to expand...


For me the success of a good capture is simply the right combination of light time and speed.
We often want more reach less weight, who doesn't, really..
Then we want better light and speed capability, and then the wheel of indecision and the unknown spins LOL.
We wish there was a lens that did it all, but they will never give it to us LOL.

Understanding your needs is pivotal, its seems you do.
For me i absolutely prefer F2, F2.8, F4 Primes over everything else even at the expense of a bit of reach, and especially with 60 - 100 plus mp sensors looming, cropping ability of images may be next level.

Rent the 800 and 400 F4.5 if you can........ and use them in your normal application, its given the 400 2.8 TC will defiantly deliver IQ, but for the price, personally i would not touch it.
I would get the 800 and 400 F4.5 for the absolute benefits they offer, smaller lighter means one will use them more.
Then with the fortune i save on NOT buying the 400 F2.8 TC, i would get the previous 400 F2.8 USED and use the FTZ adapter and put a load of money back in my pocket..
This way i have all the bases covered, i mean the 400 F2.8 G for sports action on a Z9 is no slouch.

This way you have all 3 and all bases covered LOL

Only an opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
You didn't mention what kind of wildlife you shoot. Though it you're currently using the 500 PF presumably birds/small mammals? 800mm is a lot of lens. And 400 is rarely enough for small critters unless shooting around a feeder. And there's a big gap between the two requiring TCs. One bit of wisdom that has stood the test of time is to go for the focal length you use most often and figure out how to get by with the rest. The photography version of "spend your money where you spend your time".

All said your decisions is not a bad problem to have.
Click to expand...
Love it, makes a lot of sense.
 
Member's gallery
Roy said:
Sold my 800mm AFS because it was a little too long and I wasn't using it much anymore.
I still have the 600 and 400 f2.8 AFS but they are big and heavy.
The 400mm TC is attractive because although a little short for wildlife the TC makes up for it.
I bought the 400mm f4.5 while waiting for the new 600mm TC and I love it so much that I cancelled the order.
Its light and hand holdable even for video.... 🦘
Click to expand...
So would you trade your 300 2.8 VR II for A 400 4.5 considering any optical difference.
 
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
I am using the 400mm 4.5 with the 1.4x TC and it maintains a very high image quality and would expect the 400mm 2.8 TC to perform even better. I‘ve considered the 2x TC option myself as 800mm isn’t a focal length I would need often but I’m not confident enough in the performance. I might rent one to see what I think. The 400mm 2.8 is an amazing lens and the most flexible single lens option in your use case.
Click to expand...

This is the 400 4.5 w/2x TC on a Z6II from a distance of roughly 50m and 5m up a pole. Cropped to about 15mp. Basic PP in ACR.
Not perfect, but gives a decent idea of sharpness and iq.
_GHP1370-BCG.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Roy said:
yes - but i'm keeping both - the 400mm f4.5 gets much more use ...🦘
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, i can understand the light weight and size would be appealing to use more often, a bit like the 300 pf was.

Optically for me the 300 2.8 having F2.8 is by far the single true benefit of the lens, optically the 300 pf while excellent was never as sharp, or as good in lower light, hence i assumed the 400-4.5 would have a similar difference but with the added benefits of the new Z design which may have narrowed the gap.

I can understand you wanting to keep both the 300 2.8 and 400 4.5.

I have hung onto the 300 2.8 VR II simply because of the F2.8 and flawless results every time i use it, also the focal length and at times with a 1.4 TC III covers all my needs and yes i use it mostly on a lightweight mono pod, if i am walking around hand held then its the 70-200 fl mostly used at F2.8 and sometimes with a 1.4 tc in my pocket.

I think i will need to rent the 400-4.5, as i can see size and weight would make it very useful and i would use it more often as you say. I think that was why the 300 pf was so popular.

The Z9 seems to really like mating with it that's for certain LOL.

On a Side note 300 pfs are hitting $ 1000-$1200 AUD used, a few of the 500 PFs are stalling selling used............

Only an opinion
 
Member's gallery
O said:
Thanks for that, i can understand the light weight and size would be appealing to use more often, a bit like the 300 pf was.

Optically for me the 300 2.8 having F2.8 is by far the single true benefit of the lens, optically the 300 pf while excellent was never as sharp, or as good in lower light, hence i assumed the 400-4.5 would have a similar difference but with the added benefits of the new Z design which may have narrowed the gap.

I can understand you wanting to keep both the 300 2.8 and 400 4.5.

I have hung onto the 300 2.8 VR II simply because of the F2.8 and flawless results every time i use it, also the focal length and at times with a 1.4 TC III covers all my needs and yes i use it mostly on a lightweight mono pod, if i am walking around hand held then its the 70-200 fl mostly used at F2.8 and sometimes with a 1.4 tc in my pocket.

I think i will need to rent the 400-4.5, as i can see size and weight would make it very useful and i would use it more often as you say. I think that was why the 300 pf was so popular.

The Z9 seems to really like mating with it that's for certain LOL.

On a Side note 300 pfs are hitting $ 1000-$1200 AUD used, a few of the 500 PFs are stalling selling used............

Only an opinion
Click to expand...
The 400mm 4.5 is really close to the size of the 500mm PF without the ftz, but it is really light.
 
Member's gallery
O said:
Thank you, may i ask do you know optically the difference ......
Click to expand...
20 percent less reach and 2/3 stop wider aperture :) Joking aside they are so close optically that practically speaking IQ is not a factor. Deciding one over the other is about 1) which focal length do you need, 2) how much value do you place on newer controls on Z mount lenses, 3) how badly do you want to get out of using the FTZ, some other stuff...
 
Member's gallery
O said:
Thank you, may i ask do you know optically the difference ......
Click to expand...
Although the 400 is slightly shorter focal length - it does seem sharper and if you are into Bokeh then its not the PF distorted type.
Of all my lenses over 300mm the 400 f4.5 is me new favourite .. 🦘
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
20 percent less reach and 2/3 stop wider aperture :) Joking aside they are so close optically that practically speaking IQ is not a factor. Deciding one over the other is about 1) which focal length do you need, 2) how much value do you place on newer controls on Z mount lenses, 3) how badly do you want to get out of using the FTZ, some other stuff...
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
Member's gallery
From my shooting with the 200-400mm lens with its weight of 7.4 lbs, weight is important in terms of my ability to shoot for any length of time hand held. Even with the 200-400mm lens I used a tripod with gimbal head 99% of the time. The same would be the case with the 400mm f/2.8 lens with a teleconverter. For wildlife I would be using the 400mm with both its internal TC and an external one most of the time.

The only place where the 400mm would be a great choice is in Costa Rica. It would not be a lens I would take to the Pantanal or to Alaska or Yellowstone and many other places. For me a combo of two lenses with the same camera mounted works by far the best. In the past it was a 500mm or 600mm prime with the 80-400mm zoom. Now it is the 100-400mm with the 800mm PF that is my go to kit for wildlife.

I put together a spreadsheet with my lenses and their weights and then have various combinations as potential travel kits. I look at the combined weight and bulk of each kit in deciding its suitability for travel.

I also consider the cost and with the 400mm f/2.8 costing over $15,000 (and only a 1-year warranty) against alternative lenses at lower costs. I bought the 800mm PF, 100-400mm, and 400mm f/4.5 for a total cost of $13,600 or $1700 less than the cost of the single 400mm f/2.8 lens. If the 800mm PF lens did not exist the 400mm f/2.8 would have more value to me.
 
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
My experience matches what the others said. The two lenses are very close in IQ, but my feeling is the 400mm is slightly sharper with better bokeh. Not enough alone to justify changing lenses.
Click to expand...
I was looking at snapping up a dirt cheap USED 500 PF.

The 400 f4.5 seems to be impressively light making it a very attractive usable option based on the reply's here in, it seems to handle a 1.4 TC well as i am being told, never been able to understand the extortionate prices Nikon is now asking for things especially Z TCs.

My appeal is the 400 4.5 it will compliment the Z8 as a light small combo.

My 200-500 is so far is very practical and has a versatile purpose be it on a D850 D6 Z9.

I think the 200-600 Z will have that extra magic in clarity providing you get a good sample out of .....China ?, sadly i expect it to be a extortionate price if Nikon is consistent.

Only an opinion
 
Member's gallery
Calson said:
From my shooting with the 200-400mm lens with its weight of 7.4 lbs, weight is important in terms of my ability to shoot for any length of time hand held. Even with the 200-400mm lens I used a tripod with gimbal head 99% of the time. The same would be the case with the 400mm f/2.8 lens with a teleconverter. For wildlife I would be using the 400mm with both its internal TC and an external one most of the time.

The only place where the 400mm would be a great choice is in Costa Rica. It would not be a lens I would take to the Pantanal or to Alaska or Yellowstone and many other places. For me a combo of two lenses with the same camera mounted works by far the best. In the past it was a 500mm or 600mm prime with the 80-400mm zoom. Now it is the 100-400mm with the 800mm PF that is my go to kit for wildlife.

I put together a spreadsheet with my lenses and their weights and then have various combinations as potential travel kits. I look at the combined weight and bulk of each kit in deciding its suitability for travel.

I also consider the cost and with the 400mm f/2.8 costing over $15,000 (and only a 1-year warranty) against alternative lenses at lower costs. I bought the 800mm PF, 100-400mm, and 400mm f/4.5 for a total cost of $13,600 or $1700 less than the cost of the single 400mm f/2.8 lens. If the 800mm PF lens did not exist the 400mm f/2.8 would have more value to me.
Click to expand...


Makes incredible sense

Less is more

I wont buy the overpriced exotics, here in Oz its $24000 AUD for the 400, to then show images on the web ? and view on my phone or Samsung computer screen LOL.

Only an opinion
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Roy
Member's gallery
O said:
Makes incredible sense

Less is more

I wont buy the overpriced exotics, here in Oz its $24000 AUD for the 400, to then show images on the web ? and view on my phone or Samsung computer screen LOL.

Only;y an opinon
Click to expand...
Agreed my 600mm f4 was expensive big and heavy.
A little short sometimes but I like the 400mm f4.5 much better...🦘
 
Member's gallery
Roy said:
Agreed my 600mm f4 was expensive big and heavy.
A little short sometimes but I like the 400mm f4.5 much better...🦘
Click to expand...
Really good to hear, i am eyeing off the 600 F4 FL USED when it comes up at the right time, but gee i am liking the sound of the 400 4.5, it seems or sounds like a updated refined longer version of the awesome 300 pf
 
Member's gallery
O said:
Really good to hear, i am eyeing off the 600 F4 FL USED when it comes up at the right time, but gee i am liking the sound of the 400 4.5, it seems or sounds like a updated refined longer version of the awesome 300 pf
Click to expand...
I love my 600mm f4 but usually gram the 400mm f4.5 because i'm lazy.
I'm also a fan of the PF lenses but i'm glad the 400mm Z lens isn one when it comes to Bokeh...🦘
 
Member's gallery
Tails said:
In terms of handling, is it considerably easier to track birds in the air with the 800 6.3 compared to 400 2.8 due to added weight?
Click to expand...
On a tripod both are fairly easy for 800mm. Off the tripod the 400mm f2.8 TC is more unwealdly.
The 400mm f2.8 TC is nearly as big/heavy as my old AFS 400mm f2.8.
600mm still seems the optimum wildlife lens and 300-400mm for sports.
I have several long lenses from 300 to 1000mm and the 400mm f4.5 is my go-to lens for most things...🦘
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top