Nikon 400 4.5 vs 500PF

[Pat Cassity]

I would be interested to hear from those that have recently acquired the new 400 4.5 and also own the 500PF. I currently own the 100-400z and the 500PF. I had originally planned to replace the 500 with the 100-400 but now after using it for 8 months, I still prefer the ‘look’ of images from the 500 compared to the 100-400z. The 100-400 may be a bit faster in the focusing department but I just find myself preferring an image from the 500PF. I do like the minimum focus distance of the 100-400 for near macro shots, but I can use my 24-120z for those. Before I got the 500PF I owned the the 300PF f4. I absolutely loved that lens but it just didn’t have enough reach. So, back to my original thought. For those of you that have recently aquired the 400 4.5, how would you compare it your 500PF. I guess that goes for you 300PF owners, as well. Thanks!

 

[M R Opp]

I am probably in the minority, and I freely state at the outset that the "end user " factors in, but in general, I find the 500PF on the Z9 to be superior to the 100-400 on the Z9. I shot a lot of test comparative images of some flycatchers and although I did get "keepers" with both lenses, there were far more with the 500PF. I'm still working with the 100-400 to find out if I need to change more settings or work on my technique, but I made a tactical error when I took the 100-400 to Iceland and not the 500PF. As such, I am also very much interested in the 400 4.5 as a potential replacement to the 100-400.

 

[Pat Cassity]

I am probably in the minority, and I freely state at the outset that the "end user " factors in, but in general, I find the 500PF on the Z9 to be superior to the 100-400 on the Z9. I shot a lot of test comparative images of some flycatchers and although I did get "keepers" with both lenses, there were far more with the 500PF. I'm still working with the 100-400 to find out if I need to change more settings or work on my technique, but I made a tactical error when I took the 100-400 to Iceland and not the 500PF. As such, I am also very much interested in the 400 4.5 as a potential replacement to the 100-400.

I am in the exact same situation. I have been trying to find the right settings for the 100-400 that would give me images similar to the 500PF. I even sent it back to Nikon service a few weeks ago to insure it wasnt a problem with the lens. They sent it back stating it was within specs and a thorough cleaning. In my 22 years of shooting Nikon digital, I have never ‘struggled’ with a lens like I have the 100-400. I'm just happier with the images from my 500PF.

 

[ricardo00]

I love my 500mm PF and ordered the 100-400mm when I ordered the Z9. However decided that I wouldn't use the 100-400mm when I was doing most of my photography since it didn't have enough reach and when I put the 1.4TC on the 100-400mm the results were not as sharp as the 500mm. So returned the 100-400mm and was very happy with my 500mm PF on the Z9. About a month ago I got the 400mm f/4.5 and have been primarily using it with the 1.4TC. So far I have been quite happy with it, comparable to the 500mm. However I wouldn't say it is a clear choice between the two. With the 1.4TC, the 500mm gave me 700mm, a greater reach. Without the TC, the 400mm gives me f/4.5. I would say the 400mm plus 1.4TC focusses about the same as the 500mm though the 400mm alone is somewhat faster and more accurate, especially with low light (as you would expect). Maybe rent one when it becomes available and try it out?
Post on flickr if you are interested:

Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Peter_P]

I love my 500mm PF and ordered the 100-400mm when I ordered the Z9. However decided that I wouldn't use the 100-400mm when I was doing most of my photography since it didn't have enough reach and when I put the 1.4TC on the 100-400mm the results were not as sharp as the 500mm. So returned the 100-400mm and was very happy with my 500mm PF on the Z9. About a month ago I got the 400mm f/4.5 and have been primarily using it with the 1.4TC. So far I have been quite happy with it, comparable to the 500mm. However I wouldn't say it is a clear choice between the two. With the 1.4TC, the 500mm gave me 700mm, a greater reach. Without the TC, the 400mm gives me f/4.5. I would say the 400mm plus 1.4TC focusses about the same as the 500mm though the 400mm alone is somewhat faster and more accurate, especially with low light (as you would expect). Maybe rent one when it becomes available and try it out?
Post on flickr if you are interested:

Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Nice album Gets a Flickr follow from me.

I keep toying with the idea of getting the 400mm f4.5 because it ’might’ focus a little faster and better on my Z6ii than the 500mm pf and I won’t have to bother with the FTZ anymore, but as I’m also waiting to see if I can get a TC for the PF I expect I’ll miss the extra reach far more and the PF does take fantastic photos.

 

[Pat Cassity]

I love my 500mm PF and ordered the 100-400mm when I ordered the Z9. However decided that I wouldn't use the 100-400mm when I was doing most of my photography since it didn't have enough reach and when I put the 1.4TC on the 100-400mm the results were not as sharp as the 500mm. So returned the 100-400mm and was very happy with my 500mm PF on the Z9. About a month ago I got the 400mm f/4.5 and have been primarily using it with the 1.4TC. So far I have been quite happy with it, comparable to the 500mm. However I wouldn't say it is a clear choice between the two. With the 1.4TC, the 500mm gave me 700mm, a greater reach. Without the TC, the 400mm gives me f/4.5. I would say the 400mm plus 1.4TC focusses about the same as the 500mm though the 400mm alone is somewhat faster and more accurate, especially with low light (as you would expect). Maybe rent one when it becomes available and try it out?
Post on flickr if you are interested:

Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Very nice album! Again, sounds exactly what I have found as well. How are you finding your shots at f4.5.? Do you find the 2/3 stop Increase justified your decision to return the 100-400 and purchase the 4.5?

 

[Butlerkid]

FWIW..... I have both the 500mm PF and the 100-400. I took the 100-400 to Botswana with me this last May. I was very happy with it for a handheld complement to my 600 f4. Even with 1.4 tele. I bought the 100-400 to replace both my 80-400 AF-S and my 70-200 f2.8 F mount lenses.

Here is an example.

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

I recently pre-ordered the 400 f4.5. Store called yesterday to say it was in. But after watching reviews by Brad Hill and Henry Hudson, I declined the lens. It is a GREAT lens, but not enough improvement to give up the 500 PF or the image quality and flexibility of the 100-400 zoom, even using the 1.4 tele.

I've never warmed up to the 500 PF, but will give it another try.

 

[BillW]

The choice of which longer lens you might like best depends a lot on what you shoot and where.

I have the Z 100-400 mm and the 500 mm PF. Have not at this point ordered a Z 400 mm f4.5. I have an 800 mm PF on order, as I do a lot of bird photography, but who knows when that will come. The 500 mm PF has been my most used lens for wildlife since I got it, although the Z 100-400 mm is starting to catch up.

I think the 500 mm PF is a bit better optically than the Z 100-400 and can get you to 700 mm with a 1.4x TCIII. And I am sure that the Z 400 mm f4.5 is better optically at 400 mm. All 3 lenses would be nice in a kayak or canoe, where I do a lot of photography. But the versatility of the Z 100-400 is very valuable to me. And I like the close minimum focus distance for small (but not tiny) subjects like butterflies, dragonflies and frogs.

I have used the Z 100-400 this year on my Z9 in Yellowstone, Florida, the Khutzeymateen, Iceland and in my kayak in northern Minnesota, both with and without the Z 1.4x TC. I used the zoom feature a lot. For example, in the Khutzeymateen, we shot from a zodiac in water channels in an estuary. At times, the grizzlies were quite close and at other times, they were farther away. The ability to go from 100 mm to 400 mm without changing lenses and without reaching for another body was very nice. The image quality that I get from the Z 100-400 (including with the Z 1.4x TC) is very good in my opinion. I think I get some shots that I might otherwise miss changing bodies or lenses.

I have thought about getting the Z 400 mm f4.5, but for me it would be in addition to the Z 100-400, not in its place, I can see times when a kit with the Z 70-200 f2.8 and the Z 400 f4.5 would be very nice for lower light. But for now, I think the Z 100-400 mm, 500 mm PF and the 800 mm PF (when I can get one) will be a great kit.

Thom Hogan has an interesting comparison of the telephoto options for a Z shooter. https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/telephoto-options-round-two.html

 

[ricardo00]

Nice album Gets a Flickr follow from me.

I keep toying with the idea of getting the 400mm f4.5 because it ’might’ focus a little faster and better on my Z6ii than the 500mm pf and I won’t have to bother with the FTZ anymore, but as I’m also waiting to see if I can get a TC for the PF I expect I’ll miss the extra reach far more and the PF does take fantastic photos.

Thanks Peter! I can definitely see that logic. It is a close call.

 

[ricardo00]

Very nice album! Again, sounds exactly what I have found as well. How are you finding your shots at f4.5.? Do you find the 2/3 stop Increase justified your decision to return the 100-400 and purchase the 4.5?

Thanks Pat! The reason for returning the 100-400mm was more that I was unhappy with my shots with the 1.4TC. The f/4.5 helps, but when light gets really low, my 300mm f/2.8 definitely is better (but too heavy to handhold for me for more than a few seconds). But I have gotten shots in lower light with the f/4.5 400mm than I think I would with the 500mm f/5.6. I shoot almost 95% of the time at 500mm plus. If I had more occasion for closer wildlife, I would have kept the 100-400mm.

 

[Pat Cassity]

The choice of which longer lens you might like best depends a lot on what you shoot and where.

I have the Z 100-400 mm and the 500 mm PF. Have not at this point ordered a Z 400 mm f4.5. I have an 800 mm PF on order, as I do a lot of bird photography, but who knows when that will come. The 500 mm PF has been my most used lens for wildlife since I got it, although the Z 100-400 mm is starting to catch up.

I think the 500 mm PF is a bit better optically than the Z 100-400 and can get you to 700 mm with a 1.4x TCIII. And I am sure that the Z 400 mm f4.5 is better optically at 400 mm. All 3 lenses would be nice in a kayak or canoe, where I do a lot of photography. But the versatility of the Z 100-400 is very valuable to me. And I like the close minimum focus distance for small (but not tiny) subjects like butterflies, dragonflies and frogs.

I have used the Z 100-400 this year on my Z9 in Yellowstone, Florida, the Khutzeymateen, Iceland and in my kayak in northern Minnesota, both with and without the Z 1.4x TC. I used the zoom feature a lot. For example, in the Khutzeymateen, we shot from a zodiac in water channels in an estuary. At times, the grizzlies were quite close and at other times, they were farther away. The ability to go from 100 mm to 400 mm without changing lenses and without reaching for another body was very nice. The image quality that I get from the Z 100-400 (including with the Z 1.4x TC) is very good in my opinion. I think I get some shots that I might otherwise miss changing bodies or lenses.

I have thought about getting the Z 400 mm f4.5, but for me it would be in addition to the Z 100-400, not in its place, I can see times when a kit with the Z 70-200 f2.8 and the Z 400 f4.5 would be very nice for lower light. But for now, I think the Z 100-400 mm, 500 mm PF and the 800 mm PF (when I can get one) will be a great kit.

Thom Hogan has an interesting comparison of the telephoto options for a Z shooter. https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/telephoto-options-round-two.html

Thanks Bill! Thom’s review is great. One of the few of his I hadn’t seen. He makes a compelling point for the 4.5. However, his (and Steve’s) position for the 800 sounds even better. I may now lean towards keeping the 100-400 for its versatility and replacing the 500PF with the 800PF.

 

[ricardo00]

FWIW..... I have both the 500mm PF and the 100-400. I took the 100-400 to Botswana with me this last May. I was very happy with it for a handheld complement to my 600 f4. Even with 1.4 tele. I bought the 100-400 to replace both my 80-400 AF-S and my 70-200 f2.8 F mount lenses.


I recently pre-ordered the 400 f4.5. Store called yesterday to say it was in. But after watching reviews by Brad Hill and Henry Hudson, I declined the lens. It is a GREAT lens, but not enough improvement to give up the 500 PF or the image quality and flexibility of the 100-400 zoom, even using the 1.4 tele.

I've never warmed up to the 500 PF, but will give it another try.

Lucky you to go to Botswana! If I did, I would want something like the 100-400mm since much of the wildlife can be quite close (unlike around my home). However, at the present time I only have one mirrorless camera, the Z9. So even if I went to Botswana tomorrow, I would have a tough decision, do I put my 500mm PF on the Z9 where it functions better or on them D500 (my other camera)? Eventually when Nikon has the Z90, I can see buying the 100-400mm again (or the 200-600mm) and having that on my Z90 (or whatever it is called).
Have you compared the 100-400mm plus TC with the 600mm f/4? Maybe not a fair comparison, but at least with my copy of the 100-400mm and TC I clearly saw that it was less sharp than my 500mm PF prime. That is not to say that one can't get decent pics with the combo, just for my typical shooting where I need the extra reach 90% of the time, it made no sense for me to use the 100-400mm plus TC. If I had the 800mm f/6.3 (ordered within the first hour it went online at two places), I probably would not have gotten the 400mm f/4.5.

 

[BillW]

Lucky you to go to Botswana! If I did, I would want something like the 100-400mm since much of the wildlife can be quite close (unlike around my home). However, at the present time I only have one mirrorless camera, the Z9. So even if I went to Botswana tomorrow, I would have a tough decision, do I put my 500mm PF on the Z9 where it functions better or on them D500 (my other camera)? Eventually when Nikon has the Z90, I can see buying the 100-400mm again (or the 200-600mm) and having that on my Z90 (or whatever it is called).
Have you compared the 100-400mm plus TC with the 600mm f/4? Maybe not a fair comparison, but at least with my copy of the 100-400mm and TC I clearly saw that it was less sharp than my 500mm PF prime. That is not to say that one can't get decent pics with the combo, just for my typical shooting where I need the extra reach 90% of the time, it made no sense for me to use the 100-400mm plus TC. If I had the 800mm f/6.3 (ordered within the first hour it went online at two places), I probably would not have gotten the 400mm f/4.5.

If you think you’d like the Z 100-400 on a Z90 (if and when it is released), you can do a DX crop on your Z9, either in post or in camera. Gives you pretty much the same pixels on the subject that you would get with the same focal length lens on a D500 (understanding the Z 100-400 can’t be used on the D500). Of course, a Z90, if we get one, may have a higher MP sensor than the D500. I still have my D500 and D850, but should sell them, as I prefer the Z9 and Z7II/Z6II at this point.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I would be interested to hear from those that have recently acquired the new 400 4.5 and also own the 500PF. I currently own the 100-400z and the 500PF. I had originally planned to replace the 500 with the 100-400 but now after using it for 8 months, I still prefer the ‘look’ of images from the 500 compared to the 100-400z. The 100-400 may be a bit faster in the focusing department but I just find myself preferring an image from the 500PF. I do like the minimum focus distance of the 100-400 for near macro shots, but I can use my 24-120z for those. Before I got the 500PF I owned the the 300PF f4. I absolutely loved that lens but it just didn’t have enough reach. So, back to my original thought. For those of you that have recently aquired the 400 4.5, how would you compare it your 500PF. I guess that goes for you 300PF owners, as well. Thanks!

I'm shooting both. In regards to IQ any comparison is splitting hairs. Particularly if you approach it from a practical standpoint and compare shots of the subject taken from the same distance. Whatever advantage the 400 might have in sharpness/bokeh is offset by the need to crop and increased effective DOF.

This really boils down to whether reach or light is the priority. I'd suggest a review of your files. With the 100-400 do you shoot it most of the time at 400? And still crop in post?. With the 500PF do you shoot it wide open all the time? At high ISO?

 

[ricardo00]

If you think you’d like the Z 100-400 on a Z90 (if and when it is released), you can do a DX crop on your Z9, either in post or in camera. Gives you pretty much the same pixels on the subject that you would get with the same focal length lens on a D500 (understanding the Z 100-400 can’t be used on the D500). Of course, a Z90, if we get one, may have a higher MP sensor than the D500. I still have my D500 and D850, but should sell them, as I prefer the Z9 and Z7II/Z6II at this point.

But I don't want two Z9s at the weight they are. So if I have a Z9 and D500, I am forced to put the 100-400mm on the Z9 since I can't put it on the D500. Which means for birds, action at a distance, etc I am using the 100-400mm when I consider the 500mm at a distance the superior lens. Can't have what I consider the best lens at a distance on the Z9 since my Z9 is being used with the 100-400mm.
These are a couple photos I took with the 500mm PF versus the 100-400mm plus 1.4TC. They are representatives of a number of different test.
[https://richaroth.smugmug.com/Nikon-100-400mm-plusminus-tc/i-kVcwBCr/A]
[https://richaroth.smugmug.com/Nikon-100-400mm-plusminus-tc/i-RTbjwZV/A]

 

[BillW]

But I don't want two Z9s at the weight they are. So if I have a Z9 and D500, I am forced to put the 100-400mm on the Z9 since I can't put it on the D500. Which means for birds, action at a distance, etc I am using the 100-400mm when I consider the 500mm at a distance the superior lens. Can't have what I consider the best lens at a distance on the Z9 since my Z9 is being used with the 100-400mm.
These are a couple photos I took with the 500mm PF versus the 100-400mm plus 1.4TC. They are representatives of a number of different test.
[https://richaroth.smugmug.com/Nikon-100-400mm-plusminus-tc/i-kVcwBCr/A]
[https://richaroth.smugmug.com/Nikon-100-400mm-plusminus-tc/i-RTbjwZV/A]

Makes sense if you have 2 bodies going at once and one is a D500. I have only one Z9, but I have a Z7II and Z6II to use as a second or third body depending on conditions.

 

[Anjin San]

Hudson's video said the lens was excellent but he sent it back because…for him…it wasn't the right lens. Sharp, yep…maybe even better than the 500PF which he also got rid of. For him…the flexibility of the 100-400 with the 1.4 and even in a pinch with the 2.0…although he also has the 800PF but it's so large/heavy it isn't always in the bag…made the difference.

He didn't include this observation but I'll say that whether it's 'sharp enough' or not depends on your needs, style…and very importantly where your shots end up. If they end up on blogs or anything else that's primarily display based…they're going to get downsampled to 1024 wide or something like that for display anyway. I did some testing myself with the 100-400, 70-200, both TCs, the 500PF, and the 24-200. Made all the test shots at as close to the same shutter, aperture, and ISO that I could and used a couple of Boehm bird statues, a teddy bear, and the back of a spray can all sitting on a table in the sun mid morning. All shots on tripod with my Z9 and moved the tripod back and forth so the framing was as close to identical as I could get.

Pulled all the images into LR and did no corrections…just looked at sharpness. And…just as one might expect…when viewing pixel peeping at 1:1 there are some slight differences in sharpness and the general pattern was what one expects…TCs are worse than not and zooms worse than prime and cheaper worse than expensive. But the problem is that this was with pixel peeping.

Exported all the images at 1024 wide like they would go on the blog and then looked at all of those…and ya know…there's really no difference in the exported images at final output size. In some cases…I could see very slight differences between the images but in none of the cases were the differences something that made one better or worse…they just made them look slightly different.

I've got the 500PF and am seriously considering selling it myself…along with the 70-200 which gets rarely used; but am more likely to keep the zoom than the 500PF because of the speed and low light ability. But…it's really too short for wildlife in most cases and in my view I'm thinking that it (or the 100-400) might be the better intermediate kit between what Brad Hill calls the commando kit and the full on wildlife kit. Commando for me would be for non photo centric travel and be the 14-30 and 24-200, then intermediate the 24-70/4, one of the longer zooms depending on whether low light or reach was more important, and perhaps the 14-30 if really wide would be important. Then the full on kit is both bodies adding in the Z7II and leaving the really wide lens home and realistically would probably mount the two zooms with the 24-70 in the bag just in case. Alternatively…maybe add the 500PF if I keep it on the d7500 for really long reach but realistically that's not much different than the 100-400 with the TC and putting the Z9 or Z7II in crop mode. I really liked his ideas on commando vs intermediate vs full on setups depending on what he was doing. I'm thinking I'll wait until after another SW FL bird breeding season before making any decision to sell though…and I can see myself potentially getting the F mount 1.4 if I keep the 500PF for really long reach even though at this point that's my only remaining F mount lens and while it's pretty darned sharp it doesn't get used much these days.

 

[ricardo00]

Makes sense if you have 2 bodies going at once and one is a D500. I have only one Z9, but I have a Z7II and Z6II to use as a second or third body depending on conditions.

Yep, having two mirrorless cameras would definitely change the equation. The other potential use I envisioned for the 100-400mm when I ordered it was for whale watching/photography. However occasionally I need to hold the lens/camera in one hand (using my other hand to hold the rail) and the extra weight of the 100-400mm (an additional 1.5 pounds) over my 70-300mm did make a difference. Plus occasionally the whales do get really close to the boat and being able to zoom out to 70mm over 100mm convinced me to stick to the 70-300mm though I would have liked to have the extra reach of the 100-400mm. Great to have so many choices!

 

[Apija]

For the last few years I have used the D500 and 500 PF for BIF / wildlife shootings. I have already sold the TC 1.4 E III because of lack of sharpness and unusable for BIF (maybe lack of personal skills). Just replaced my 500 PF with the new Z 400 f4.5 as I want to go all mirrorless. As I’m still waiting for delivery of the Z9 I do a lot of shootings of more or less stationary motifs. I’m more than satisfied with the imagequality I get with the Z 400 f4.5 & 1.4 TC attached to my Z6. On a 4K monitor hardly anyone can distinguish between pictures with or without the TC. In practical terms without pixel peeping the imagequality of the 500 PF vs Z 400 f4.5 (with/without TC 1.4) is for my use case on the same level but the 2/3 extra stop of light was the key to switch lenses.

 

[Pat Cassity]

For the last few years I have used the D500 and 500 PF for BIF / wildlife shootings. I have already sold the TC 1.4 E III because of lack of sharpness and unusable for BIF (maybe lack of personal skills). Just replaced my 500 PF with the new Z 400 f4.5 as I want to go all mirrorless. As I’m still waiting for delivery of the Z9 I do a lot of shootings of more or less stationary motifs. I’m more than satisfied with the imagequality I get with the Z 400 f4.5 & 1.4 TC attached to my Z6. On a 4K monitor hardly anyone can distinguish between pictures with or without the TC. In practical terms without pixel peeping the imagequality of the 500 PF vs Z 400 f4.5 (with/without TC 1.4) is for my use case on the same level but the 2/3 extra stop of light was the key to switch lenses.

Do you miss the reach of 500? Especially since you would use it with the 1.4x, even though you weren't happy with the image quality?

 

[Apija]

So far not really ; if I had to use the TC with my D500 / 500 PF because of the extra reach than it was the wrong spot. My new combo 400 f4.5 & TC 1.4 is for my use case more versatile: FX 400 f4.5 up to DX 840 6.3 although I could miss one or two shots because of mounting on / off the TC. For wildlife it performs superbly on the Z6.

 

[Shlomo Neuman]

During my January Antarctic expedition of three weeks I had the Nikon Z 100-400 on one Z9 body and the 500mm PF on another. I found the first extremely useful for photographing almost all wildlife, including birds flying close to the ship, without a TC as the latter gave softer results. The 500 PF worked beautifully with and without a 1.4 TC for more distant objects such as birds in flight, distant vistas and whales. The same combos should serve me well during my planned trip to Masai Mara next February. I see no reason to replace any of these two lenses with the Z 400mm f4.5, as it appears to be at best marginally better than the 100-400. I did sold my 400mm f2.8 FL lens with an eye toward an eventual purchase of the Z 400mm f2.8 if it ever becomes available ...

 

[joe43]

There are a lot of good comments here. I have a Z9 and use it with my 100-400mm, 100-400mm with Z 1.4x tc, 500 f5.6 pf, and 500mm f5.6 pf with 1.4c tc III. It all depends on what you shoot and in what light. Given the relatively small size and weight of the 500mm f5.6 pf, I will definitely keep it as its extra length is a plus. I do like the bokeh of the 100-400mm with the Z mount 1.4x tc and AF has not been as much as a problem in low light as I had anticipated.

I do not love the 500mm f5.6 with the FTZII adapter and the 1.4x tc. on the Z9. if on a tripod under controlled shooting, it is OK. But the extra extensions bother me mainly because I do not want to damage any of the couplings.

If you have not tried out the Z 1.4x tc, I would rent it and see if it is for you.

I will checkout that Thom Hogan link.

 

[jdinny]

Here's a shot with Z9 and 500pf with 1.7 tcI have the 400 4.5 as well and find myself using this combo mor for the reach, although the 400 4.5 performs very good with both Nikon Z TC's

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