500PF 1.4x or 800PF?

[Pat Cassity]

I was exactly in the same situation, Pat. I have a Z9, 100-400, and 500PF. I shoot my Z9 mostly with the 500PF and 1.4x, which I prefer over the 100-400 for wildlife. I pre-ordered an 800PF to get more reach, with the intent of selling my 500PF in favor of the 100-400 for "short" tele use.

I later canceled my 800PF order before it shipped and decided to stay with the 500PF instead. Looking back at my photos, I have many shots I'm very happy with using the 500+1.4x combo, and few shots that the 500PF couldn't handle would have been saved by the 800PF. (it certainly helps that the Z9 is happy to track at f/8. That wasn't the case in the DSLR days!)

While the 800 PF would surely be better (especially if I tended to print telephoto shots large), the downsides of size/weight/bag compatibility and cost put me off. I canceled my pre-order and bought a GFX100S instead, which I'm having a ball with.

Chris, Thanks! I am probably going to cancel my 800 order, as well. For exactly the same reasons! Ive decided to give the 400 4.5 a try as I have never been happy with the 100-400. Found one yesterday and it will arrive today. Can’t wait to see how it performs!

 

[MatthewK]

The 36 is very roomy and a great bag, but it is quite a bit deeper front to back and thus the very back of the bag sits a long way off your back. Not an issue until you need to move around in areas where there is less room, like when in a shop or at an airport etc. I only use the 36L when I am not going anywhere like that and am taking say my 400 f2.8E FL VR or when/if I get the 800 PF. The 26L is a much better bag for confined areas but won't fit the 800 PF.

Lots to think about now... I was set on parting ways w/ the 500PF (and Backlight 18L) once the 800PF lands, but now I'm not so sure because keeping it around for more casual travel is a superb idea. Guess that'll be the experiment though, because I know once this new puppy arrives, the 500PF is going to get tossed in a corner and neglected until the shine wears off the 800. That, and being a minimalist (I can't stand keeping around gear that I don't regularly use), even if I decided to keep the 500, I'll only really ever use one of them, and the less-used will eventually be sold.

So yeah, either I move whole-hog to the 800 + Backlight 36L, or I stick w/ the 500 + 1.4, and jump up to the Backlight 26L so I can fit the rig w/ the 1.4TC attached. Option #2 also saves me a bit of $$$$

 

[Chris K]

Wow, congrats on the 400! It seems like the best overall option for a lightweight wildlife lens. I am tempted to replace my 500PF with one, and add a 2x for those nervous songbirds. (Who’s afraid of f/9? Not me!)

I think I’m going to live with my 500PF for this year, but I sure would love that 400’s control ring for EC on BIF shots!

Good luck with it!

 

[Lance B]

Lots to think about now... I was set on parting ways w/ the 500PF (and Backlight 18L) once the 800PF lands, but now I'm not so sure because keeping it around for more casual travel is a superb idea. Guess that'll be the experiment though, because I know once this new puppy arrives, the 500PF is going to get tossed in a corner and neglected until the shine wears off the 800. That, and being a minimalist (I can't stand keeping around gear that I don't regularly use), even if I decided to keep the 500, I'll only really ever use one of them, and the less-used will eventually be sold.

So yeah, either I move whole-hog to the 800 + Backlight 36L, or I stick w/ the 500 + 1.4, and jump up to the Backlight 26L so I can fit the rig w/ the 1.4TC attached. Option #2 also saves me a bit of $$$$

For me, I would be keeping the 500 PF for travel as it is lighter and smaller and you can take the 1.4x TCIII if needed - this is over the 800 PF. Yes, there is the 400 f4.5 + 1.4x TC option if you go that route, which would be even smaller and lighter - except the Z 1.4x TC with the 400 f4.5 may be a tad heavier than the 500 PF alone. Like everyhting, it's all about compromise!

 

[Pat Cassity]

For me, I would be keeping the 500 PF for travel as it is lighter and smaller and you can take the 1.4x TCIII if needed. Yes, there is the 400 f4.5 + 1.4x TC option if you go that route, which would be even smaller and lighter - except the Z 1.4x TC with the 400 f4.5 may be a tad heavier than the 500 PF alone. Like everyhting, it's all about compromise!

Lance, I saw your post (and pics) from a few months back on dp review in regards to using the 2.0x on the 400 4.5. How would you rate that combo now compared to the 500PF + 1.4x? Granted the 400 becomes a 800 f9, while the 500 is a 700 f8. Similar picture quality? If I would do that I would be using the 400 + 2.0 on a gimbal.

 

[Lance B]

Lance, I saw your post (and pics) from a few months back on dp review in regards to using the 2.0x on the 400 4.5. How would you rate that combo now compared to the 500PF + 1.4x? Granted the 400 becomes a 800 f9, while the 500 is a 700 f8. Similar picture quality? If I would do that I would be using the 400 + 2.0 on a gimbal.

I would definitely say the 500 + 1.4x TCIII is better than the 400 f4.5 + 2x TC even with cropping the 500 + 1.4x TCIII to 800mm. However, this is just from looking at the shots I took whilst I had the 400 f4.5 on loan from my friend and not any real back to back testing. Even so, I am pretty much always right with my judgements when just looking at the files withou the need to test back to back.

 

[EricBowles]

Lance, I saw your post (and pics) from a few months back on dp review in regards to using the 2.0x on the 400 4.5. How would you rate that combo now compared to the 500PF + 1.4x? Granted the 400 becomes a 800 f9, while the 500 is a 700 f8. Similar picture quality? If I would do that I would be using the 400 + 2.0 on a gimbal.

I have a friend who has the 400 f/4.5 and Z 2.0 TC. It's not a combination he will use frequently, but he found it was completely acceptable. Detail on bird feathers holds up nicely. He will be using it on safari. But it's going to represent a small percentage of images and he understands cropping will be limited. I don't think that it matches the 500 PF and 1.4, but it's close enough you would not see any difference at a 50% view or normal print or publication level resolution.

 

[BLev65]

There seems to be a lot of posts across multiple forums related to one of two things... 500PF vs 400 f4.5 and 500PF + 1.4x vs 800 f6.3.
I think that the first one is the easiest analysis... If you need the extra 2/3 stop of speed, will occasionally use a converter, and have eliminated F-mount bodies from your bag, then the 400mm f4.5 is the way to go. On the other hand, if 400mm is too short and you will essentially "glue" the converter to your lens, then it might be worth a more careful analysis.
Point in fact, prior to the innovation of high quality and light telephoto optics, I shot a 300mm f2.8 (many flavors) as my primary wildlife lens. My affair with this lens spanned Canon IS L and Nikon AFS II optics. These lenses were great, but never long enough. My solution was the addition of the latest-designed 1.4x converters. Forum photogs and pros alike claimed the near lossless image that results from the addition of these converters. So, I followed suit, glued the converter on and shot. Throughout this time, I began to realize the subtle bokeh changes, the slower AF, and chromatic aberration creeps that were never present without the converter. I accepted the image reduction because I needed 400mm more than f2.8. When a 200-400VR became available, I bought the lens and shot it for a year against the 300mm f2.8 w/1.4x. A less than careful analysis of the images revealed a significant improvement in bokeh, CA, and AF speed in the zoom. Key point... even the best converters degrade images. I sold the 300 f/2.8 because I needed 400mm more than 300mm.... So, to those who are buying a 400mm f4.5, but really need/want 500mm +, I suggest you buy or keep your 500mm lens.

As for the 800mm vs 500mm + 1.4x kit... the above remains the same. If you need 800mm for the occasional shooting situation, a converter will save you money and you can get nice quality in good light. Lance's images are an excellent example of what is possible. On the other hand, if you shoot tiny birds more than other subjects, and find yourself needing 800mm on a regular basis,... get an 800mm lens.

For anyone who cares about my decision... Well, I find that 400mm does not cover my wildlife needs with an FX camera. I have the 100-400S, and I find it sharp throughout the range at maximum aperture. I find it to be at least as sharp as my former 200-400, and that was more than good enough for me. However, I used the 200-400 w/ the D500 DX body and it was an effective 200-600mm lens. Recognizing that my 100-400 is more of a landscape, macro, close wildlife optic, I know that the 400 f/4.5 would need a converter 100% of the time. If Nikon were to introduce a DX body w/ Z9 capabilities, my analysis would change.
As a result, I have permanently glued my 500PF on my Z9. Rather than add a converter, I treat the Z9 as a zoom and will crop down to a 700mm field of view. This combination is light, fast, and accurate. I have found that 500mm is the absolute shortest focal length I can use for 80% of my wildlife images... this realization now has me looking at an older 500mm f4 AFSII for when low light dominates the scenes.

Final point... were I into little birds, I'd have ordered an 800PF a long time ago.

regards,
bruce

 

[Anjin San]

I currently alternate between the 100-400z and the 500 PF on my z9. I am using the 500pf with the 1.4 teleconverter, 90% of the time. I also use the 1.4z on the 100-400 on occasion. After months of use, l still prefer the images produced by the 500pf, when compared to the 100-400, even with the teleconverter. So, the majority of use of this lens is at 700mm. The limitation being the maximum aperture of f8. A few months ago, I decided to order the new 800mm, which of course I am still waiting on. Originally I had intended to sell the 500 when the 800 arrived. However, I’m starting to have second thoughts about the 800. I absolately love the 500, 1.4 combination. I know having the 2 lenses in hand will help me make may decision but i would be interested to hear from those 500pf owners that recently acquired the new 800pf 6.3. Do you have one that you prefer more than the other?

It’s a choice…the 800 is generally better from reviews but a lot of that is that it’s a Z lens and newer ones are better designed. The 800 costs a lot more in $, weight/size, and while long is really nice…sometimes it’s just too long. Had one on order myself and cancelled it…decided the use it would get wasn’t worth the cost and weight issues and almost all of my output is for the blog anyway. A lot also depends on where your output goes as well…if primarily to the screen then you’re going to output at 1000 or 1500 pixels wide probably…and when you crop to those dimensions I would think a lot of the ‘better’ that the 800 has might no longer be noticeable…having tried the 100-400 bare and with both TCs then cropping to the same subject size and outputting for screen there isn’t a whole lot of difference…granted that’s comparing loss of IQ with the TCs but seems like a fairly comparable situation. If you are hiking…you will likely find the 800 a harder carry for distances as well. Add in the what do you shoot question…small birds makes the longer the better good but that might come at the expense of flexibility.

I like the 500 on my Z9…but find the 100-400 and the TCs to be a more flexible combo overall.

You will need to decide what’s most important and what limitations you’re willing to accept.

 

[ricardo00]

There seems to be a lot of posts across multiple forums related to one of two things... 500PF vs 400 f4.5 and 500PF + 1.4x vs 800 f6.3.
I think that the first one is the easiest analysis... If you need the extra 2/3 stop of speed, will occasionally use a converter, and have eliminated F-mount bodies from your bag, then the 400mm f4.5 is the way to go. On the other hand, if 400mm is too short and you will essentially "glue" the converter to your lens, then it might be worth a more careful analysis.
Point in fact, prior to the innovation of high quality and light telephoto optics, I shot a 300mm f2.8 (many flavors) as my primary wildlife lens. My affair with this lens spanned Canon IS L and Nikon AFS II optics. These lenses were great, but never long enough. My solution was the addition of the latest-designed 1.4x converters. Forum photogs and pros alike claimed the near lossless image that results from the addition of these converters. So, I followed suit, glued the converter on and shot. Throughout this time, I began to realize the subtle bokeh changes, the slower AF, and chromatic aberration creeps that were never present without the converter. I accepted the image reduction because I needed 400mm more than f2.8. When a 200-400VR became available, I bought the lens and shot it for a year against the 300mm f2.8 w/1.4x. A less than careful analysis of the images revealed a significant improvement in bokeh, CA, and AF speed in the zoom. Key point... even the best converters degrade images. I sold the 300 f/2.8 because I needed 400mm more than 300mm.... So, to those who are buying a 400mm f4.5, but really need/want 500mm +, I suggest you buy or keep your 500mm lens.

As for the 800mm vs 500mm + 1.4x kit... the above remains the same. If you need 800mm for the occasional shooting situation, a converter will save you money and you can get nice quality in good light. Lance's images are an excellent example of what is possible. On the other hand, if you shoot tiny birds more than other subjects, and find yourself needing 800mm on a regular basis,... get an 800mm lens.

For anyone who cares about my decision... Well, I find that 400mm does not cover my wildlife needs with an FX camera. I have the 100-400S, and I find it sharp throughout the range at maximum aperture. I find it to be at least as sharp as my former 200-400, and that was more than good enough for me. However, I used the 200-400 w/ the D500 DX body and it was an effective 200-600mm lens. Recognizing that my 100-400 is more of a landscape, macro, close wildlife optic, I know that the 400 f/4.5 would need a converter 100% of the time. If Nikon were to introduce a DX body w/ Z9 capabilities, my analysis would change.
As a result, I have permanently glued my 500PF on my Z9. Rather than add a converter, I treat the Z9 as a zoom and will crop down to a 700mm field of view. This combination is light, fast, and accurate. I have found that 500mm is the absolute shortest focal length I can use for 80% of my wildlife images... this realization now has me looking at an older 500mm f4 AFSII for when low light dominates the scenes.

Final point... were I into little birds, I'd have ordered an 800PF a long time ago.

regards,
bruce

Generally I agree with much of what you said Bruce but come away with a slightly different opinion. First, the 800mm PF is really not an option for most of us non-NPS members in the US at this time, even if we want to spend the money and carry the extra weight. My local camera store (I put my order and deposit in before the announcement) said I am first in line but claim they have not received a single copy for people other than NPS orders. I also ordered from B&H shortly after it went online for available.
Second, for small birds on the Z9, I really want more than the 500mm PF plus 1.4TC. So had been using the 500mm PF plus the 1.7TC. I also think that is a fairer comparison with the 400mm f/4.5 plus 2.0TC. In that comparison, after a few months with the 400mm, I have decided that the Z combo focusses faster and is preferable over the 500mm PF. It also has the advantage when light gets low, I can take off the TC and shoot (ie. owls, etc).
Each lens is a compromise and for sure a f/2.8 would be better in the really low light situations (and do keep my 300mm f/2.8 in the car for such occasions). But at the present time for a lightweight hiking outing, I take the 400mm with the 2.0TC on my Z9. I am sure this will change if I ever get one of the 800mm PF lenses I have ordered.
Some pics with the 400mm F/4.5 plus 2.0 TC are on my flickr if interested:

Nikon 400mm f/4.5 with the Z TC 2.0

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Pat Cassity]

I once read an article explaining how a camera always focuses at the maximum aperture of the attached lens, regardless of the f stop setting. For example a 400 2.8 set at f8 will establish focus at f2.8. Explaining why a lens with a very fast aperture focuses so much faster than one with a smaller aperture. I wonder if using a 1.4 or 2.0 TC on a lens changes the aperture in which a lens initially establishes focus. Does a 400 4.5 + a 1.4 TC establish focus at 6.3 instead of its native 4.5?

 

[Coolbob]

I was a university photographer for 33 years. 99% of my work for clients was shot with lenses under 200mm and the longest lens I had at work was 300mm. After I retired a few years ago a friend made me an offer to buy his pristine 200-400mm f4 VRII at a great price. I started photographing songbirds in my back yard and before I knew it I had the 200-400mm, a 200-500mm, 300mm PF, 500mm PF and a TC1.4e-III. I found that I never used the 300mm and the 200-500 stays in my truck along with a camera so I always ready for anything I may see on the side of the road. The 200-400mm is just too heavy for me to use except for on a gimbal. So the 500mm and 500mm+TC1.4 have become my go-to birding glass.

As much as I love the 500mm and 500mm+TC1.4 I took the plunge and ordered an 800mm as soon as it was available and much prefer it over the 500mm+TC1.4. I don't have any raw data to back this up, but my seat of the pants impressions are that the Z9 does a lot better acquiring and locking focus with an f6.3 lens than it does with the f8 combo of 500+TC1.4. It also seems less likely to jump to focusing on the background when the bird turns away briefly and eye focus is lost.

Encouraged by the results I'm getting from the 800mm plus the ability to ditch the FTZ adapter, I recently picked up a 400mm f4.5. I found all of the attributes of the 800mm to also apply to the 400mm so I've sold my 300mm PF and sent my 500mm + TC to the camera store where I got the 400mm for a partial refund on the purchase price of the 400mm.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I am late to the party because I have been busy chasing rare birds and life birds with my Z9 and Z800 PF. I have been using the Z800 since 5-1-22.

I also have the Z100-400, Z 70-200 f/2.8 and the Z 1.4 TC and my wife uses the Z400 f/4.5 on her Z50 she loves it and has not let me try it yet on my Z9
@EricBowles summed up a lot of it.

I owned the 500PF, 1.4 TCIII and a 600 F4E that I used on a D850 and D6. Bottom line I no longer own any of those.

I am a birder and take a lot of photographs of birds first for ID and then for anything else from hummingbirds to turkey vultures. Many are skulking deep in the brush or high in the trees including in deep shade and backlighting on branches.

I am a run and gun birder and pursue them primarily on foot or as needed using my SUV as a rolling blind. I live in Southern Idaho and our terrain includes riparian, high sage steppe and steep mountains and canyons.

The Z9 and & Z800 provide me with and amazing birding combination that fits my needs. I hand hold since it is the best option for my style of birding.

 

[BillW]

I once read an article explaining how a camera always focuses at the maximum aperture of the attached lens, regardless of the f stop setting. For example a 400 2.8 set at f8 will establish focus at f2.8. Explaining why a lens with a very fast aperture focuses so much faster than one with a smaller aperture. I wonder if using a 1.4 or 2.0 TC on a lens changes the aperture in which a lens initially establishes focus. Does a 400 4.5 + a 1.4 TC establish focus at 6.3 instead of its native 4.5?

The Z7/Z6 versions I and II focus at the aperture you set on the camera and lens as long as it is f5.6 or faster. Presumably to avoid focus shift on stopping down after focus is obtained. If you set something slower than f5.6 on a lens that is f5.6 or faster at maximum aperture, the camera focuses at f5.6 and then stops down. I assume my Z9 does the same,

Adding a TC does change the aperture of the lens. So you are correct that adding the Z 1.4x TC to the Z 400 f4.5 makes the combination 560 mm f6.3. So the TC will generally change the aperture use for focusing.

 

[O]

The 800mm PF is excellent. I sold my 500 PF in favor of the 400mm f/4.5 - and have the 1.4 TC available as needed. If you are using the 500mm PF and a 1.4 most of the time, the 800mm PF will cover that nicely. If your photography is more diverse with environmental images, large mammals, wading birds, and similar subjects that don't need 800mm, a 400mm or 500mm lens is a good choice to complement the 800mm. I don't think it makes sense to buy a lens and then use it with a 1.4 TC most of the time. That can work, but what it really means is you nee a longer lens.

"what it really means is you nee a longer lens"

Well put

 

[O]

I really wish the 400 4.5 had been released before the 100-400. I think having it would make my decision much easier. I find myself only using 100-400 for near-macro shots. I may end up selling both my 100-400 and 500PF and replacing them with the 400 4.5 and 800, similar to Eric.

The spread is much better 400-800

To compliment the 800 mm for lower light applications I would consider camera light gathering performance and iso needs, the 800 while its not a real issue for many ideal situations it is still a F6.3 lens, having a larger pixel pitch, ie Z6 versus Z7 versus Z9 versus D6.

I mean in ideal conditions the 800 is fine, i am not over the moon to shot at F6.3 in challenging conditions on a high res camera....hey that's just me.

I am a 600 F4 fan even with the 1.4 TCIII = 840mm at F5.6 on a D6 or Z9, the D6 defiantly in challenging light.

I think Nikon is missing a lower res high iso pro speed monster, only a dream LOL.

Bring on the flood of 500 pfs cheap going forward i am happy to wait LOL

Only an opinion

 

[Roy]

I currently alternate between the 100-400z and the 500 PF on my z9. I am using the 500pf with the 1.4 teleconverter, 90% of the time. I also use the 1.4z on the 100-400 on occasion. After months of use, l still prefer the images produced by the 500pf, when compared to the 100-400, even with the teleconverter. So, the majority of use of this lens is at 700mm. The limitation being the maximum aperture of f8. A few months ago, I decided to order the new 800mm, which of course I am still waiting on. Originally I had intended to sell the 500 when the 800 arrived. However, I’m starting to have second thoughts about the 800. I absolately love the 500, 1.4 combination. I know having the 2 lenses in hand will help me make may decision but i would be interested to hear from those 500pf owners that recently acquired the new 800pf 6.3. Do you have one that you prefer more than the other?

My favourite focal length is 600mm f4. 500mm being my second.
I also have the 200-400 and 200-500 lenses so I'm pretty well covered.
Although I have a 400mm f2.8 ive also bought the 400mm f4.5 - its just so light and handy and doesn't degrade too much with a TC.
The 100-400 is a good lens but a little soft for a Z lens.
I had the 800mm f5.6 AFS and sold it because it was slightly too long for most uses and most birds here are a good size here...

 

[Ken Miracle]

The spread is much better 400-800

To compliment the 800 mm for lower light applications I would consider camera light gathering performance and iso needs, the 800 while its not a real issue for many ideal situations it is still a F6.3 lens, having a larger pixel pitch, ie Z6 versus Z7 versus Z9 versus D6.

I mean in ideal conditions the 800 is fine, i am not over the moon to shot at F6.3 in challenging conditions on a high res camera....hey that's just me.

I am a 600 F4 fan even with the 1.4 TCIII = 840mm at F5.6 on a D6 or Z9, the D6 defiantly in challenging light.

I think Nikon is missing a lower res high iso pro speed monster, only a dream LOL.

Bring on the flood of 500 pfs cheap going forward i am happy to wait LOL

Only an opinion

all those cheap 500 pfs going forward ... why I sold mine a ways back

 

[Ken Miracle]

My favourite focal length is 600mm f4. 500mm being my second.
I also have the 200-400 and 200-500 lenses so I'm pretty well covered.
Although I have a 400mm f2.8 ive also bought the 400mm f4.5 - its just so light and handy and doesn't degrade too much with a TC.
The 100-400 is a good lens but a little soft for a Z lens.
I had the 800mm f5.6 AFS and sold it because it was slightly too long for most uses and most birds here are a good size here...

I honestly do not find my copy of the Z100-400 a little "soft" but that is not only possible copy variation but also a highly subjective thing. I am impressed with the results my wife gets with her Z400 f/4.5 on her Z50. She has not let me try it yet

600mm was my favorite focal length whether the amazing 600 f/4E I had or the Tamron 150-600 G2 tuned to my camera body by Tamron it was slower focusing and bokeh not as nice but just as sharp and a lot more portable than my 600 f/4E or my Sigma sports (I had 150-600 and 50-600).

Bird shooter that I am the 800mm is now my favortie focal length but I am a "bit" of a specialist and would rather shoot a sparrow than a Bald Eagle I think 800mm can be too long for a lot of users.

I will most likely add a variable focal length with 600 on the long end somewhere in the future. I would have a "nostalgic" leaning to a Z mount Tamron 150-600 (I have a lot of BIF images on my wall and others taken with the f mount version. That said I have an order number from a dealer for a Z200-600 ready to request NPS priority delivery when they finally announce it

 

[philippe]

.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Thanks so much! The photos are gorgeous! Have you had an opportunity yet for a BIF photo? Would be curious how difficult it is to locate a fast-moving subject with a lens that long.

 

[O]

My favourite focal length is 600mm f4. 500mm being my second.
I also have the 200-400 and 200-500 lenses so I'm pretty well covered.
Although I have a 400mm f2.8 ive also bought the 400mm f4.5 - its just so light and handy and doesn't degrade too much with a TC.
The 100-400 is a good lens but a little soft for a Z lens.
I had the 800mm f5.6 AFS and sold it because it was slightly too long for most uses and most birds here are a good size here...

I have heard it often from club members the 100-400 is a little soft.

Its all horses for courses i guess.

As an X audiophile, i quit because in the end i was listening more to equipment rather than the music, i was always looking for that last edge or improvement or feature,

then my girlfriend said,

i amazed that with the tens of thousands you have spent on equipment i don't see your foot tapping to the music like you used to ?
In an Epiphany moment i sold everything, i now enjoy listening to music all on a modest basic musical system and our feet tap now LOL
.
I have decided not to get caught like that again especially with photography gear.

The 200-500 serves me well, i hire or borrow a 600 f4 when ever the need arises, i hire or borrow on a needs basis for lower light work or challenging work a D6 as well, i own a Z9 D850.......if i let go of the Z9 i will be still very happy with the D850 as an all round awesome camera, the Z8 subject to the specs may be of interest possibly to replace the Z9 for what i do..........that's me.

I respect the Z6II as tool that fits.

I have seen the 500 pf come in price as have many other trending lenses before.

The 200-600 will be i feel a refined Z version of the brilliant 200-500 but for the price !!!! i expect it may have improvements but i don't think it will be a total 200-500 slayer.

I am a 600 F4 or 400 or 300 2.8 fan, the prices are really coming down used.

My most used lens is the 200-500 FL

Only an opinion

 

[O]

For me i feel the 800 is a little to long and limited in versatility, if you have the need then defiantly its a consideration.

Only an opinion

 

[Ken Miracle]

I have heard it often from club members the 100-400 is a little soft.

Its all horses for courses i guess.

As an X audiophile, i quit because in the end i was listening more to equipment rather than the music, i was always looking for that last edge or improvement or feature,

then my girlfriend said,

i amazed that with the tens of thousands you have spent on equipment i don't see your foot tapping to the music like you used to ?
In an Epiphany moment i sold everything, i now enjoy listening to music all on a modest basic musical system and our feet tap now LOL
.
I have decided not to get caught like that again especially with photography gear.

The 200-500 serves me well, i hire or borrow a 600 f4 when ever the need arises, i hire or borrow on a needs basis for lower light work or challenging work a D6 as well, i own a Z9 D850.......if i let go of the Z9 i will be still very happy with the D850 as an all round awesome camera, the Z8 subject to the specs may be of interest possibly to replace the Z9 for what i do..........that's me.

I respect the Z6II as tool that fits.

I have seen the 500 pf come in price as have many other trending lenses before.

The 200-600 will be i feel a refined Z version of the brilliant 200-500 but for the price !!!! i expect it may have improvements but i don't think it will be a total 200-500 slayer.

I am a 600 F4 or 400 or 300 2.8 fan, the prices are really coming down used.

My most used lens is the 200-500 FL

Only an opinion

Love that music gear metaphor

 

[Ken Miracle]

For me i feel the 800 is a little to long and limited in versatility, if you have the need then defiantly its a consideration.

Only an opinion

Yup ... why I always try and remember to tell people I am more specialized in my subjects than many and that 800mm is a speciaized tool in my opinion.