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).
I use a 500pf with my D500 and recently added a Z8 and FTZ II and am very happy with the performance of this lens on the Z8. There are plenty of used copies about so if I were in your shoes, I’d keep my powder dry and wait until the right 500pf comes up. Especially if like me, you plan on keeping the D500.
The gap between 120mm and 180mm is pretty whatever. If 120mm isn't long enough, it won't be like 180 is too long.
Correct, I was thinking of the gap between 120mm and 400mm if I used the 400/4.5. That is a big gap. 120 to 180 is not a gap that greatly concerns me.
I have not yet decided about the D500. Right now it is the only pixel dense body I have, so I do not want to get rid of it until I have some set-up that works well enough for BIF.
I am going to say this, the 400 f4.5 with 1.4TC does not produce the same IQ the 500pf produces natively. I have used both lenses and the PF is sharper. That said, the 400 f4.5 is plenty sharp on its own, and does well with the 1.4TC. BUT ..if your goal is getting past 500mm then your much better off with a used 500pf with 1.4TC or the 600PF which unfortunately is somewhat expensive option. The one strength the 400 f4.5 has over the 500pf is a slight AF advantage , but it's not a huge difference. Good luck
Oh, yeah I agree 100%
Trust me the 600pf is worth the money. You really won't know until you use one. Do what I did , rent one for a weekend... You will understand. That's said , the other choices you noted are also excellent (you can't go wrong ). Nikon makes a telephoto for everyone
I have the 400mm f/4.5, the 500mm PF, the 600mm PF and an 800mm PF (I know crazy). Personally, I am still not sure where the 600mm fits in, I use the 400mm more than the 600mm and more likely to take it when traveling. For me, the flexibility of the 400mm outweighs any slight advantage the 600mm has in sharpness. If I was forced to sell one tomorrow, it would be the 600mm.Trust me the 600pf is worth the money. You really won't know until you use one. Do what I did , rent one for a weekend... You will understand. That's said , the other choices you noted are also excellent (you can't go wrong ). Nikon makes a telephoto for everyone
I guess it and depends on subjects you shoot and how close you can get. 400mm is too short for me 90% of the time .. 600mm is my sweet spot. I rarely need 800mm so the 1.4tc on the 600pf works perfectly as needed. When I need the range up to 400mm, I carry the Z 100-400 S which fills that gap perfectly. A very light and versatile kit for me. I would never sell my 600pf. YMMV
Yep that is the logic that justified my most recent purchase, the 600mm PF. Definitely have found it useful, for example when I go out after the sun is up and plan to return before dark. So will use it, especially when I am walking and can't/don't want to carry the 800mm. However when I am shooting near the car and don't have to walk that far, the 800mm PF is my preferred lens. For some subjects (ie. almost any nest up in a tree, hummingbird nests, etc where one doesn't want to disturb things) the 800mm which I often use with the 1.4TC is perfect. So don't plan to sell any of my lenses (as I said, if I was forced to sell one, but don't see that happening).
I often shoot at 600mm, but I find the 400 4.5, combined with my wife’s z50ii body, a great combination. Makes for a nice ‘600mm’ setup, and I can go up to 840mm with the 1.4TC at f/6.3 so a decent all-rounder.
You kind of nailed what I was thinking about last night, Dan. As is all of photography, lots of tradeoffs. I think that we all want to see if we can "bend the curve a bit in our favor, but that only works to a small degree, if at all. I keep going back and forth on what is most important, what I can afford, and what I would enjoy using. I have seen great examples of almost all the lens combinations, and I know that in the hands of a talented photographer, I am sure good images can be had at all focal lengths, if one "can see" (borrowing from Ernst Haas). I greatly appreciate the skill required to get that close-up of a bird in action, but that is only one type of image. I think another night or two of sleeping on it and I may have a decision.
). The 600 is about $1K more expensive but the TC is $550 so the money difference is minor. On the plus side, the 400 is a half stop faster, weighs a half pound less and is 1” shorter. None of these would be enough to make me go for the shorter focal length.
I don't notice any slowing of AF with the Z1.4TC on the 400 mm f4.5 lens. I think that combo is a great bird/wildlife choice. The field of view is narrower the longer the focal length making it more difficult to find a target which may lower the keep rate, but AF spend is not an issue.
While I thought the 400mm/4.5 was an awesome lens, I decided to go with the 100-400, and so far I have been pleased with it. I am still looking for additional reach, possibly through a Z50ii or a 500PF (with the D500), but have not made any decision yet.@Replytoken : Have you decided on your lens yet? 400 4.5 is plenty sharp, at least imho. I recently got the 600 6.3 as well, and both are superb IQ, light-weight lenses. Sharp enough, unless you're shooting for Discovery Channel, I would imagine
View attachment 111791
I recently grabbed the z50ii for my Wife, and it goes great with the 100-400 and 400 4.5. Very good quality photos from that old D500 DX sensor.
Glad to hear, I looked at one today and am trying to decide on it, and if I do, if I should trade in my D500 as well. Had a love hate relationship with the D500, but much of that could have been the 200-500 that I primarily used with it for BIF.
Must be lens variation, because I found just the opposite in my own experience. The 400 f/4.5 (with and without TC) was hands down sharper than the 500pf.
