Advice on Nikon 400f4.5

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
Tarsna said:
I need help please. Ive been shooting with a D4s with a 300 f2.8 and converter. As I get older its becoming heavy to handhold. I shoot greyhounds racing and coursing so the Autofocus needs to be snappy. However ive upgraded to the Z8 and trying the 300pf results are just ok. The PF is great on slower things but misses a beat on fast twist turns and changes of directions. The Z8 is fine with the f2.8. im trying to convert to lighter stuff as im 72 now.
I'm looking at getting the 400 f4.5 s. But worried the auto focus wont be as good as the 300 f2.8 . Living in Ireland I cannot rent one....there is only two camera shops in Ireland and they don't carry this lens. Anyone out there who can tell me about the Autofocus speed of the 400 please ?
Click to expand...
I had the 300 mm f2.8 and it was my favorite lens without the converter. For me it was the sharpest lens I have ever used. I have the 400 f4.5, it is different than the 300 f2.8, but it is also very nice lens, sharp and very light. Between the 300 mm f2.8 with converter and the 400 f4.5, you won’t notice any difference in sharpnes. Go ahead with the 400 f4.5, if it is the 400 mm reach you need and you will love handling this len.
 
Member's gallery
Weekkey said:
Hi,

After reading all the messages above, I've now decided to sell my 180-600 and keep my 400 f/4.5.
I've 2 examples of the 400 with the tc2.0 in my gallery.

Thank you all for the information,
Click to expand...
Interesting. I had sold my 400 after buying the 186 and recently acquired another copy. Though I fell in love again with the compactness, bokeh, and stop advantage in the 400, I had forgotten about the fringing (which is absent on the 186) and the lack of utility. Back it went. In the final analysis for me, the utility and near comparable IQ (minus the loss in stop) offset the larger size/weight.
 
Member's gallery
and a example of BIF's in without the TC's.... Much easier than with the 180-600.

NikonZ 400mm45.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Weekkey said:
and a example of BIF's in without the TC's.... Much easier than with the 180-600.
Click to expand...
Glad to hear you're enjoying your 400 f/4.5. After buying another copy and using it alongside my 186, the utility of the 186 and lack of fringing far offset any of the advantages that the 400 f/4.5 offerred. Ultimately, the user determines the relative value.

400 f/4.5 - ouch - severe fringing/CA
fringe000.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

186 - no fringing/CA
fringe000.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Activert said:
I had the 300 mm f2.8 and it was my favorite lens without the converter. For me it was the sharpest lens I have ever used. I have the 400 f4.5, it is different than the 300 f2.8, but it is also very nice lens, sharp and very light. Between the 300 mm f2.8 with converter and the 400 f4.5, you won’t notice any difference in sharpnes. Go ahead with the 400 f4.5, if it is the 400 mm reach you need and you will love handling this len.
Click to expand...
I love the f2.8 sometimes I do 4 hour sessions and its quite tiring. Ill never give it up but 100mm extra reach and easy to handle is a draw im looking forward too. Im not expecting anything to be better other than the weight.
 

Attachments

  • mountain honey.6JPG.JPG
    mountain honey.6JPG.JPG
    1.3 MB · Views: 26
Member's gallery
I have the 400f4.5 and had the 300pf. The main thing I loved about the 300pf was the 4ft close focus and super lightweight. However it was so light this could present a problem at times like with any wind. I handhold. Now I have the 600pf amd 400f4.5 as my main go to glass. The 400 is excellent overall and is good in low light compared to the 600pf. It is very sharp especially stopped down a bit. The 600pf is I think a hair sharper. But we are splitting hairs here. I do notice a difference in terms of richer contrast with the 600pf. Small but there. Another thing the chromatic aberration can be bad in high contrast situations with TCs with the 400. The 600 does better here. I find AF speed on the 400 to be very fast and to me a hair faster than the 600pf in how I use it. But it is a non issue for me. They are both plenty fast. Both are faster than the f mount lenses I used in the past and more accurate af. The z8 plays a big role here. The Nikon 300f2.8 is a beast, twice as heavy so I couldn’t handhold it. I’m hoping Nikon will put out and update to this lens like the Sony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top