400mm f2.8 tc or 600mm f4 tc

[nmerc_photos]

Probably the toughest decision to make within the Nikon system... I've owned both, and currently have the 600TC.

For any brand outside of Nikon, I would never even consider a 400 f2.8. it's just not enough reach without a built in TC for most wildlife, and I prefer 300 f2.8s since they are much smaller and cheaper.

IMO - with either lens, you could easily sell the 800PF. Both the 400TC and 600TC + external TC's offer better IQ than the 800PF. The only advantage the 800PF has is the weight savings.

Since you already have the 70-200 + 400 4.5, I would probably go for the 600TC - assuming you can often carry all 3 lenses and then make your pick that way.

 

[Ivan Rothman]

600 F6.3 PF or 800 F6.3 PF. I am going to Tanzania in Feb and considering taking both the 800 PF and 180-600. Wondering if the 800 will be too long with all the heat shimmer?

Since you have it I would take the 800
Might be great for small birds or distant animals
I used the 800 on a Costa Rica trip in hot weather and had good results

 

[O]

OK I am getting closer to trying one of the big primes.

I currently shoot 70-200 f2.8, 400mm f4.5 and 800mm f6.3 for the long stuff.

Where I am typically active most of my bird photography requires maximum reach. so I usually shoot 800mm plus. I do however go some places where the reach is easier, particularly with mammals.

I am a big guy and in decent shape although somehow I managed to get OLD. No mtatter, I am immortal.

I would imagine that if II got the 400mm f2.8 I would probably still keep the 400mm f4.5 because it is really light and compact and easy to handhold. I also would imagine that if I got the 600mm f4 tc I would probably let the 800 go since the 600 with TC would cover the longer sttuff as well or better.

So tell me, which way should I go.

And don't tell me to get tboth. Just getting this far is going to be a miracle.

400 F2.8 TC, the F2.8 gives great low light performance especially if your in the rain forests or in dusk or dawn shoots it would compliment the 800mm.

If your going to get rid of the 800mm and your just doing wild life then a 600 may be a more preferred general option, and keep your 400 pf.

If your just doing all sorts of subjects and low light shoots the 400 F2.8 is perfect, it would be my choice only because of the F2.8, not just for bokah but again for low light.

Again its all depending on what you mostly do.

Only an opinion.

 

[Garfield]

I own the 180-600, 600pf and 800pf and for a long time thought about picking up the 400TC for its "versatility", but planned on keeping the other lenses. But I recall Steve has cautioned that [paraphrasing] ex. sports perhaps, having f2.8 wasn't as valuable as having a longer-reach when it comes to birds, and f4 was still fast enough for subject isolation and considering todays high-performing bodies/sensors in handling ISO noise. My focus is video and with only 4k to work with (8k has too much overhead) I need to frame the shot in the field, so having the reach but with reasonable speed is the sweet spot.

So as a retirement present to myself I splurged on the 600TC a week ago and OMG(!) the 600TC is absolutely stunning. The extra speed is so nice to have in this dim November light but the lens also performs fabulously with the external TC attached (2700mm equivalent focal length on 2.3x DX). For video, I would have preferred a zoom, but the internal TC and ability to flip between FX, 1.5xDX and 2.3x DX provides "zoom-like" functionality at the press of a few buttons/switches.

Financially of course it was a painful purchase, but I have to say even owning some otherwise fantastic glass, the 600TC is worth every penny to me. The 800pf will be the only lens I sell.

 

[JAJohnson]

OK I am getting closer to trying one of the big primes.

I currently shoot 70-200 f2.8, 400mm f4.5 and 800mm f6.3 for the long stuff.

Where I am typically active most of my bird photography requires maximum reach. so I usually shoot 800mm plus. I do however go some places where the reach is easier, particularly with mammals.

I am a big guy and in decent shape although somehow I managed to get OLD. No mtatter, I am immortal.

I would imagine that if II got the 400mm f2.8 I would probably still keep the 400mm f4.5 because it is really light and compact and easy to handhold. I also would imagine that if I got the 600mm f4 tc I would probably let the 800 go since the 600 with TC would cover the longer sttuff as well or better.

So tell me, which way should I go.

And don't tell me to get tboth. Just getting this far is going to be a miracle.

There’s been interesting commentary in this thread and I’ll add my own somewhat related experience here.

Through September I had a 180-600, 400 f/4.5 and 600 PF for my telephoto shooting (mostly birds but other wildlife too). After long consideration I acquired a 400 TC. While it’s much heavier the 400 f/4.5, I’ve enjoyed having the creative potential a larger aperture provides. And I can get close to 600mm with the flick of a switch on the internal TC. And I’ve found use of the 2X TC to get to 800mm provides better acuity than I expected.

I’ve sold the 400 f/4.5. I still have the 180-600 when I need its flexibility and the 600 PF when I want a long prime which I can shoot handheld for long periods. With the 400 TC I’m using my Sirui monopod and a RRS monopod head. So far, so good.

 

[thelordofthelight]

The choice between 400/600 simply boils down to whether you have any use case at all for 400mm and f2.8. In my case, 400mm and f2.8 is a must so i have always preferred the 400 2.8 lenses even back then during the F mount days. For mammals, 400 works like a charm especially in conjunction with the in-built TC. I consider it the most versatile for my uses as i own both the 1.4 and 2.0 TCs and i use my lens predominantly as a 400mm/560mm option when photographing mammals and as a 560mm/800mm when i photograph birds. That’s simply some amazing versatility in one lens. I was just analyzing the focal lengths i was using my 400mm and i use it about 35% of the time at 400mm, 25-30% at 560mm, 35% at 800mm and about 2 to 3% at 1120mm with surprising (positive) results. I do a combination of mammals and birds, almost 50-50. At 560/600mm and 800mm range I don’t think there is any meaningful differences in both the optics and AF performance between the 400TC and the 600TC. In the end my choice simply boiled down to this..point..400 can reach to 600/800 but 600 can not shoot at 400mm and at f2.8 and i always prefer not carrying multiple lenses. I also thought about a 600TC and a 400mm f4.5 but it will be a big compromise. Whatever i mention only applies if you have a strong use case for 400mm and f2.8.

 

[JAJohnson]

In the end my choice simply boiled down to this..point..400 can reach to 600/800 but 600 can not shoot at 400mm and at f2.8 and i always prefer not carrying multiple lenses. I also thought about a 600TC and a 400mm f4.5 but it will be a big compromise. Whatever i mention only applies if you have a strong use case for 400mm and f2.8.

This was an important part of my decision to buy the 400 TC.

 

[ecycled]

The choice between 400/600 simply boils down to whether you have any use case at all for 400mm and f2.8. In my case, 400mm and f2.8 is a must so i have always preferred the 400 2.8 lenses even back then during the F mount days. For mammals, 400 works like a charm especially in conjunction with the in-built TC. I consider it the most versatile for my uses as i own both the 1.4 and 2.0 TCs and i use my lens predominantly as a 400mm/560mm option when photographing mammals and as a 560mm/800mm when i photograph birds. That’s simply some amazing versatility in one lens. I was just analyzing the focal lengths i was using my 400mm and i use it about 35% of the time at 400mm, 25-30% at 560mm, 35% at 800mm and about 2 to 3% at 1120mm with surprising (positive) results. I do a combination of mammals and birds, almost 50-50. At 560/600mm and 800mm range I don’t think there is any meaningful differences in both the optics and AF performance between the 400TC and the 600TC. In the end my choice simply boiled down to this..point..400 can reach to 600/800 but 600 can not shoot at 400mm and at f2.8 and i always prefer not carrying multiple lenses. I also thought about a 600TC and a 400mm f4.5 but it will be a big compromise. Whatever i mention only applies if you have a strong use case for 400mm and f2.8.

Your work (Flickr) is a very convincing testament to the strengths of the 400 f/2.8 TC. Amazing!

 

[O]

This was an important part of my decision to buy the 400 TC.

Absolutely agree, i find having F2.8 at this level spoils you, i can get shots in conditions that others just cant, for my needs the 400 TC is by far perfect.

Today i still have my 300 2.8VR II, for what it does even being a DSLR lens is simply amazing, i am a F2.8 prime and 600 F4 exotic prime fan and always have been.

Due to lack of frequent use i now rent when needed.

If i do a national motor cross event, at times you can not be in a position to blur out the background using the subject positioning, so i just flick down to F2.8, magic.

 

[BillW]

I bought the Z 400 mm TC lens earlier this year. My reasoning was similar to that of lordofthelight and JAJohnson. For me, the 400 mm TC is more versatile. I wanted to have 400 mm f2.8 for larger mammals. 560 mm f4 with the internal TC engaged is very good optically and close to 600 mm (although not as good optically as the 600 mm TC of course). I already had the Z 800 mm PF lens to get me to 800 mm f6.3 and 1120 mm f9 (with the Z 1.4x TC). But when I do not have room or weight capacity to take two large primes, the 400 TC with the Z 2x TC makes a good 800 mm f5.6 lens (and is usable at 1120 with the internal TC also engaged -- DxO lens corrections help here). And the 400 mm TC with the Z 1.4x TC makes a very good 560 mm f4 lens (with only the external TC) and a good 784 mm f5.6 lens (with both the external and internal TCs -- again, DxO lens corrections help here).

I used the Z 400 mm TC lens extensively this year on trips to Botswana and British Columbia's Great Bear Rain Forest. I did not feel I had room to also bring the Z 800 mm PF or the Z 600 mm TC (which I do not own) -- as it turned out, I might have been able to get a second large prime along for Botswana (one participant on my trip brought both the 400 mm TC and the 600 mm TC, but mostly used the 400 mm TC). Most of my photos were shot at 400 f2.8 and 560 mm f4, with a few more at 560 mm than at 400 mm. I also shot a number of shots at 784 mm f5.6 or 800 mm f5.6, especially of coastal wolves in the Great Bear Rain Forest. Very happy with the lens. I wish I had bought it earlier -- I was worried about the size and weight, but got used to it. I've used it mostly handheld, from a vehicle (in Botswana) or a zodiac (in British Coumbia) and paired it with a Z 100-400 for shorter focal lengths. It would generally not be my choice of lens for a long hike -- there I would prefer something lighter like the Z 400 mm f4.5, Z 600 mm PF or the the Z 100-400.

 

[O]

Once you use a Z9 its hard to use anything else, once you use a 400 F2.8 TC or 600 F4 TC its hard to use anything else, so to speak.
If it was down to just one choice in glass its the 400F2.8 TC with a 2xTC in the pocket.

Only an opinion

 

[Mr.Fox]

OK I am getting closer to trying one of the big primes.

I currently shoot 70-200 f2.8, 400mm f4.5 and 800mm f6.3 for the long stuff.

Where I am typically active most of my bird photography requires maximum reach. so I usually shoot 800mm plus. I do however go some places where the reach is easier, particularly with mammals.

I am a big guy and in decent shape although somehow I managed to get OLD. No mtatter, I am immortal.

I would imagine that if II got the 400mm f2.8 I would probably still keep the 400mm f4.5 because it is really light and compact and easy to handhold. I also would imagine that if I got the 600mm f4 tc I would probably let the 800 go since the 600 with TC would cover the longer sttuff as well or better.

So tell me, which way should I go.

And don't tell me to get tboth. Just getting this far is going to be a miracle.

400 mm F2.8 changes the rule of the game, changes the shooting style. You have to get closer to the subject. Not always convenient or possible. Yes, shorter focal length, but the quality is my preference. Now I'm trying to attach a photo - the forum server does not accept it - very large file

 

[viper699]

600 f6.3 PF and the z100-400mm made a great combination for rainforest canopy shooting of monkeys, and all tropical birds.

On another subject I think a 800 or at least greater reach would have been useful

 

[Ken Miracle]

As you know I am a birder. I sold my Z800 f/6.3 and now have the Z600 f/4 TC and it is fantastic! I have used it on Z9 and Z6III in fact just posted some shots in the wildlife page with it on the Z6III while my Z9's were at Nikon for annual maintenance. I have not regretted the trade off at all.

My other birding lenses continue to be Tamron z mount 150-500 and Z600 f/6.3.

I carry it mostly on my Holdfast Single, I the universal sliders on both my money maker and solo and have used the sailboat clip, mag pull and have finally settled on the carabiner style that I cut off my Black Rapids double and one of my singles.

I have been using Hejnar foot and it worked best with the magpull the placement of the hole for screw in attachments is moved out of balance because of the QD hole. I have a Kirk foot coming tomorrow to see if it might balance a bit better but it is shorter overall but not nearly as short and the RRS foot.

 

[BillW]

As you know I am a birder. I sold my Z800 f/6.3 and now have the Z600 f/4 TC and it is fantastic! I have used it on Z9 and Z6III in fact just posted some shots in the wildlife page with it on the Z6III while my Z9's were at Nikon for annual maintenance. I have not regretted the trade off at all.

My other birding lenses continue to be Tamron z mount 150-500 and Z600 f/6.3.

I carry it mostly on my Holdfast Single, I the universal sliders on both my money maker and solo and have used the sailboat clip, mag pull and have finally settled on the carabiner style that I cut off my Black Rapids double and one of my singles.

I have been using Hejnar foot and it worked best with the magpull the placement of the hole for screw in attachments is moved out of balance because of the QD hole. I have a Kirk foot coming tomorrow to see if it might balance a bit better but it is shorter overall but not nearly as short and the RRS foot.

Ken, do you ever shoot at 1120 mm to 1200 mm?

I have the 400 mm TC and the 800 mm PF. The 800 mm PF plus the Z 1.4 TC is 1120 mm f9 and pretty good in my experience, if you can live with f9. I have also used the 400 mm TC with the external 2x TC and the internal TC engaged (on a trip where I did not have the ability to bring both the 400 mm TC and 800 mm PF and wanted access to 400 mm f2.8 and 560 mm f4). That gets you 1120 mm f8. Not as good optically as the 800 mm PF plus the 1.4x TC, it seemed to me, but usable, especially if you apply DxO lens corrections in Pure Raw or Photo Lab.

Do you have any experience on how the 600 mm TC performs with the internal TC and an external 1.4x TC (1176 mm f8) or with just the external 2x TC (1200 mm f8)?

The difference between f8 and f9 is not likely a big deal to me.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Ken, do you ever shoot at 1120 mm to 1200 mm?

I have the 400 mm TC and the 800 mm PF. The 800 mm PF plus the Z 1.4 TC is 1120 mm f9 and pretty good in my experience, if you can live with f9. I have also used the 400 mm TC with the external 2x TC and the internal TC engaged (on a trip where I did not have the ability to bring both the 400 mm TC and 800 mm PF and wanted access to 400 mm f2.8 and 560 mm f4). That gets you 1120 mm f8. Not as good optically as the 800 mm PF plus the 1.4x TC, it seemed to me, but usable, especially if you apply DxO lens corrections in Pure Raw or Photo Lab.

Do you have any experience on how the 600 mm TC performs with the internal TC and an external 1.4x TC (1176 mm f8) or with just the external 2x TC (1200 mm f8)?

The difference between f8 and f9 is not likely a big deal to me.

I have not used external TC's in a long time. I am a birder and bird ID photographer on foot in a wide range of habitat and light. I am on the move with my subjects popping up unpredictably and all hand held so there is no time to add or take away an external TC. With the Z800 if I had a situation with a small bird where I wanted to improve af and or subject detection by filling more of the frame I had a lens button programmed to go to DX mode. I have the function ring on the Z600 f/4/TC set to toggle between fx and dx for the same reason.

 

[Lance B]

It depends on the size of the subjects you shoot and how close you can get. For me, I tossed up between the 400TC and 600TC but when I had the 400 f2.8E FL VR, the 1.4x TCIII was almost always attached when on FF thus almost always at 560mm f4. The most times it was shot bare was on the D500 and even then, I was using the 1.4x TCIII a lot of the time. It was clear to me that reach was always more important., the 400 f2.8 bare was rarely used but I shoot birds and rarely many animals. I had the 800PF and it was a great lens, relatively light and great IQ. However, it was redundant when I got the 600TC and sold the 800PF also.

If I was in your situation, I would keep the 400 f4.5 and get the 600TC, but again, it depends on the size of the subjects and how close you can get. The 400 f4.5 is so light and small, it would make a great shorter lens option to the 600TC and they can be taken out together in a bag. I doubt that you would take the 800PF out with the 400TC as they are both big lenses and would be hard pressed to fit in a bag. So, the 800PF becomes a less utilized lens as you would only take it out by itself or with the 400 f4.5, thus sort of defeating the purpose of the discussion - you may as well get the 600TC and be more versatile than the 400 f4.5 + 800PF. If you did get the 400TC, then it would be basically taking it out by itself or taking the 400 f4.5 and 800 PF option. I have the 70-200 f2.8, 100-400, 180-600 and any of them can be used as an adjunct to my 600TC. I may even consider getting the 400 f4.5 as an adjunct to the 600TC.