500PF 1.4x or 800PF?

[Pat Cassity]

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?

 

[EricBowles]

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.

 

[Pat Cassity]

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.

Thanks Eric. I certainly have read many of the reviews of the 800 itself, but wonder how you would compare the image quality of the 800 to your 500?

 

[EricBowles]

Thanks Eric. I certainly have read many of the reviews of the 800 itself, but wonder how you would compare the image quality of the 800 to your 500?

I think the 800mm is better than the 500mm - certainly better than the 500mm plus the 1.4 TC.


This little blue heron let me approach to this point of filling the frame. The detail is terrific.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

The western meadowlark let me get close enough and compose as desired. The 800mm not only gave me magnification, but also complete control over my background by moving just a few inches.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

The one problem was this little big horn sheep. It was comfortable with me - and curious. I kept having to move further away to get the entire head in the frame without clipping.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

A deep crop of a prothonotary warbler photographed through the branches.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

All of these images were handheld. The big horn sheep involved walking 400 yards or so from the road to get in position as the first member of the herd moved up a ridge. I was literally running across the field while my shooting mates sat in the car and concluding the subject was too far away. Not with 800mm.

The 800mm lens is small enough that I packed both it and the 500mm PF in my normal carry-on bag. The 400mm f/4.5 is even smaller than the 500mm PF. Buying the pair also caused me to sell my 200-500. I don't need a portable telezoom any more.

 

[Pat Cassity]

I think the 800mm is better than the 500mm - certainly better than the 500mm plus the 1.4 TC.


This little blue heron let me approach to this point of filling the frame. The detail is terrific.
View attachment 47482

The western meadowlark let me get close enough and compose as desired. The 800mm not only gave me magnification, but also complete control over my background by moving just a few inches.
View attachment 47483

The one problem was this little big horn sheep. It was comfortable with me - and curious. I kept having to move further away to get the entire head in the frame without clipping.
View attachment 47484

A deep crop of a prothonotary warbler photographed through the branches.
View attachment 47485

All of these images were handheld. The big horn sheep involved walking 400 yards or so from the road to get in position as the first member of the herd moved up a ridge. I was literally running across the field while my shooting mates sat in the car and concluding the subject was too far away. Not with 800mm.

The 800mm lens is small enough that I packed both it and the 500mm PF in my normal carry-on bag. The 400mm f/4.5 is even smaller than the 500mm PF. Buying the pair also caused me to sell my 200-500. I don't need a portable telezoom any more.

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.

 

[MatthewK]

I'm in the same exact boat as you, Pat... shooting the 500PF on my Z9 while I wait for the 800PF. Most of the time I'm needing the 1.4TC on the 500, and it's like you say, fantastic w/ the 1.4, but I'd rather not need to use that TC.

Big question is whether or not I will keep the 500 if/when the new lens arrives, and I can't decide either! In the past, I've birded with the "big tele + 100-400 zoom" combo, and found that I rarely if ever used the zoom, so ended up selling it. Thinking I'll just run w/ the 800 for a while and see how often I'm missing out on shots that fall under the MFD, and then consider the zoom.

 

[Pat Cassity]

I'm in the same exact boat as you, Pat... shooting the 500PF on my Z9 while I wait for the 800PF. Most of the time I'm needing the 1.4TC on the 500, and it's like you say, fantastic w/ the 1.4, but I'd rather not need to use that TC.

Big question is whether or not I will keep the 500 if/when the new lens arrives, and I can't decide either! In the past, I've birded with the "big tele + 100-400 zoom" combo, and found that I rarely if ever used the zoom, so ended up selling it. Thinking I'll just run w/ the 800 for a while and see how often I'm missing out on shots that fall under the MFD, and then consider the zoom.

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.

 

[EricBowles]

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.

That's a different question.

I have done a lot of shorebird photography with the 500 PF and 1.4 TC - 700mm equivalent on a Z7ii. For that kind of subject, it's all about the angle of the wind and light so the birds I photograph are generally coming toward me or I don't take the photo. My hit rates re very good with practice. I have not had much of that opportunity with the 800mm PF - just random wading birds and raptors in flight. I struggled with kites. I'd rate it the same or better than the 500PF plus teleconverter. The 800mm PF lens backgrounds appear to be much better with specular highlights on the 800mm than the 500mm PF - but I need more testing. 800mm is a lot of reach for flight. You need to know where the subject will be and practice regularly. You don't chase small or distant subjects with 700mm or 800mm.

I find it is much clearer which lens I need with a 400mm or an 800mm lens. You either need one or the other.

I was photographing a pronghorn along side a photographer with a 500mm f/4. They indicated a desire to get closer, but were afraid of spooking the animal. I was content at 800mm and did not press the animal at all for a frame filling shot. I even stopped shooting, returned to the car, and approached again without the animal moving away.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Warren D]

I agree with what Eric says. I haven't used my 500pf at all since getting the 800. As for BIF, I'm not having any trouble getting them sighted in, but I was using a 600EFL with 1.4 tc before so the 800 is actually easier.

https://pbase.com/baywing/image/172946784.jpg

 

[EricBowles]

In the past, I've birded with the "big tele + 100-400 zoom" combo, and found that I rarely if ever used the zoom, so ended up selling it. Thinking I'll just run w/ the 800 for a while and see how often I'm missing out on shots that fall under the MFD, and then consider the zoom.

The minimum focus distance of the 100-400 is a major difference. The 800 and 400 f/4.5 both have much less magnification at minimum focus distance. For butterflies, dragonflies, frogs and similar small, jumpy subjects, the 100-400 might be useful. It's even more compelling if you don't have a 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[Calson]

I had been using the 500mm PF for several years and when I first started to use the 800mm PF I found it had too narrow a view angle for many situations. I have a 400mm f/4.5 arriving this week and already have the 1.4x teleconverter so that combo will be taking the place of the 500mm lens. For me it came down to not wanting to carry around 4 teleconverters.

 

[John_DE]

I’ve had the 500 PF since it first came on the market. Now I own the 100-400 and the 800 PF and I find there are times that I use all three of them. The 800 PF is my go to birding lens, except when I’ll be in situations with a lot of other birders. Then I prefer to use the 500 PF for mobility. As noted, BIF is also a challenge with the 800. The 100-400 is great for those times that the birds may be very close, and/or there are mammals that may be at various distances. At times I’ll have the 100-400 on one body and the 800 on another.

In short, you may want to keep the 500PF, if that is affordable for you.

 

[fcotterill]

It's interesting to read how the 400 f4.5S PF has altered decisions, as it's become more available. I also settled on this light 400 PF to pair with the 800 PF - both are an excellent combination from the many options in Nikon-fit telephotos - for African mammals, and birds in my case. I also have the 70-200 f2.8E (often with TC14 III).

This Zed 400/800 Pair make up the ideal "Commando Kit" [as Brad Hill terms it]. However, the 500 PF remains no less capable in a very similar role to the 400 S

Nikon 500mm PF with 1.4x TC

-

bcgforums.com

A couple more relevant discussions. If it's not been suggested already, it's really well worth watching Brad Hill's most recent presentation on Long Lenses:

Z 100-400 or 400 4.5

Now that the 400 4.5 lenses are being delivered I wonder if people who already have the 100-400 will wind up keeping both or choose to keep one? And if they decide to only keep one, which will they choose?

bcgforums.com

Nikon Z 400 f4.5 with 1.4x TC vs 500 pf questions!?

Hi folks, I currently own a Nikon 500 pf that I pair with Z9. I am considering switching to Z 400 f4.5 with 1.4x TC after selling the 500PF. A few Youtube reviews that I have seen suggest that the 400 f4.5 with 1.4x tc in place is considerably sharper than the 500 pf with the added benefit of...

bcgforums.com

 

[Helo48]

@fcotterill Is the 400/4.5 a PF Lens? That is new for me.

 

[EricBowles]

It's interesting to read how the 400 f4.5S PF has altered decisions, as it's become more available. I also settled on this light 400 PF to pair with the 800 PF - both are an excellent combination from the many options in Nikon-fit telephotos - for African mammals, and birds in my case. I also have the 70-200 f2.8E (often with TC14 III).

Just a note - the 400mm f/4.5 is not a PF lens. Nikon reportedly started the design with the idea that it was a PF lens, but performance was not what they wanted. As a result it is a conventional lens.

 

[fcotterill]

Just a note - the 400mm f/4.5 is not a PF lens. Nikon reportedly started the design with the idea that it was a PF lens, but performance was not what they wanted. As a result it is a conventional lens.

Yes my typo/memory lapse - sorry. All the more ironic as I use this lens!!

 

[MatthewK]

I had a larger response typed out, but found I could save everyone the time and just condense: I think if I were to complement the 800PF, the 100-400 makes most sense for me and what I shoot (songbirds). Here's the thing though: when a bird lands under the MFD (500PF or 800PF), the only way I'm getting that shot would be if I had the 100-400 at the ready on on another body, because chances are that changing lenses will scare the bird away. For the sake of keeping my load out lightweight and less cumbersome, I've chosen not to run another body just for those rare under-MFD encounters, and it's the reason why I eventually sold my Canon 100-400 a few years back after I started shooting 500 & 600 f/4s.

So yeah, chances are I'll sell the 500PF when the time comes and just rock the 800PF. Or, I may try shooting the Z9 on DX mode to mimic the D500 experience, and cancel my 800PF pre-order (nah, prb not likely haha). Who knows though, someday I may get back to shooting more general stuff and not just songbirds, in which case a 100-400 would still make the most sense for me.

 

[Lance B]

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?

I've shot both. I own the 500 + 1.4x TCIII and think it is an amazing combo. I have the 800 f6.3 POF on order.
A good friend lent me his 800 f6.3 PF for over a week and it is an amzing lens also. However, it is only 1/3rd of a stop faster than the 500 + 1.4x TCIII.
I then also wonder why I really need the 800 when I can get results like this from the 500 + 1.4x TCIII.

Best to click on the images to see them at full size.

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso125

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1000

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso900

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/640s f/10.0 at 700.0mm iso250

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso220

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/640s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1250

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso3200

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso6400

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso160

There is no doubt that a dedicated lens is better and one without the need of a TC, but I am astounded how good this combo is and the AF works brilliantly.

 

[MatthewK]

I've shot both. I own the 500 + 1.4x TCIII and think it is an amazing combo. I have the 800 f6.3 POF on order.
A good friend lent me his 800 f6.3 PF for over a week and it is an amzing lens also. However, it is only 1/3rd of a stop faster than the 500 + 1.4x TCIII.
I then also wonder why I really need the 800 when I can get results like this from the 500 + 1.4x TCIII.

Best to click on the images to see them at full size.

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso125

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1000

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso900

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/640s f/10.0 at 700.0mm iso250

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso220

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/640s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1250

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso3200

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso6400

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso160

There is no doubt that a dedicated lens is better and one without the need of a TC, but I am astounded how good this combo is and the AF works brilliantly.

Shots like this makes me question the 800PF as well, very nice work! Love the Fairy Wren in the first shot, it's on my list of birds I need to see before I die.

Admittedly, the 500PF + 1.4 TC has been doing great work for me now that it's on the Z9, and realistically it does make for a more versatile kit. IQ-wise, it's phenomenal, but a couple of things sorta bug me: 1) the clinking sound the TC makes, and 2) I can't fit it into my current bag w/o removing the TC (Mindshift Backlight 18L... am thinking of moving up to the 26L or 36L for the 800PF anyway).

 

[Gov]

I've shot both. I own the 500 + 1.4x TCIII and think it is an amazing combo. I have the 800 f6.3 POF on order.
A good friend lent me his 800 f6.3 PF for over a week and it is an amzing lens also. However, it is only 1/3rd of a stop faster than the 500 + 1.4x TCIII.
I then also wonder why I really need the 800 when I can get results like this from the 500 + 1.4x TCIII.

Best to click on the images to see them at full size.

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso125

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1000

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso900

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/640s f/10.0 at 700.0mm iso250

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso220

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/640s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1250

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso3200

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso6400

Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso160

There is no doubt that a dedicated lens is better and one without the need of a TC, but I am astounded how good this combo is and the AF works brilliantly.

Beautiful photographs! Since I have both lenses these images give me pause. But isn't the 800 2/3 of a stop faster (not 1/3)? And I do think the bokeh is better with the 800.

 

[Lance B]

Shots like this makes me question the 800PF as well, very nice work! Love the Fairy Wren in the first shot, it's on my list of birds I need to see before I die.

Admittedly, the 500PF + 1.4 TC has been doing great work for me now that it's on the Z9, and realistically it does make for a more versatile kit. IQ-wise, it's phenomenal, but a couple of things sorta bug me: 1) the clinking sound the TC makes, and 2) I can't fit it into my current bag w/o removing the TC (Mindshift Backlight 18L... am thinking of moving up to the 26L or 36L for the 800PF anyway).

Thank you very much, Matthew. Much appreciated!

I have the Mindshift 26L and 36L. The 26L takes the 500 + 1.4x TCIII easily. The 36L will fit the 800 PF but the 26L will not.

Mindshift 26L. I just move the small divider a little towards the top of the bag and the 500 will fit with the 1.4x TCIII and FTZ mounted.

Mindshift 36L.

 

[Lance B]

Beautiful photographs! Since I have both lenses these images give me pause. But isn't the 800 2/3 of a stop faster (not 1/3)? And I do think the bokeh is better with the 800.

Thank you very much, Gov. Much appreciated!
Sorry, yes the 800 pf is 2/3rd stop, not 1/3rd. Must check my posts before posting!

 

[MatthewK]

Thank you very much, Matthew. Much appreciated!

I have the Mindshift 26L and 36L. The 26L takes the 500 + 1.4x TCIII easily. The 36L will fit the 800 PF but the 26L will not.

Mindshift 26L. I just move the small divider a little towards the top of the bag and the 500 will fit with the 1.4x TCIII and FTZ mounted.

Mindshift 36L.

Lance, thank you very much! This is the EXACT information I have been searching the webs for, a comparison b/w the 26L and 36L w/ the 800PF... Looks like 36L is the way to go then, very spacious bag. Gonna miss the diminutive 18L for travel and portability... man, the sacrifices we make for more reach haha

 

[Chris K]

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.

 

[Lance B]

Lance, thank you very much! This is the EXACT information I have been searching the webs for, a comparison b/w the 26L and 36L w/ the 800PF... Looks like 36L is the way to go then, very spacious bag. Gonna miss the diminutive 18L for travel and portability... man, the sacrifices we make for more reach haha

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.