Nikon 400 f2.8 tc v 600 f4 tc

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).

T

TonyBrown

Member
Member's gallery
I would be interested to hear how the Nikon 400 f2.8 tc with the tc engaged so 560mm compares with the Nikon 600 f4 at 600mm. For me circa 600mm is the critical focal length and if the 400 holds up well against the 600 then that’s the lens for me.
 
Member's gallery
Everything I’ve seen says that the 400 at 560 and the 600 are both outstanding…so it’s hard to go wrong with either...but it’s possible ypu might see some difference with the TC in at pixel peeping levels…so it’s a matter of which double reach you find more optimum.
 
Member's gallery
Camera Labs actually has comparisons of the 400mm 2.8 @ 560/F4 versus the 600mm F/4. They're very close.

1687097197617.png


Nikon Z 600mm f4 TC VR S review | Cameralabs

www.cameralabs.com www.cameralabs.com
 
Member's gallery
The post above is extremely useful (great find @BlackHorsePhotos ). Looking at the FX corner (far right), the bare 600 seems much sharper to me than the 400 with tc engaged. The center is also slightly sharper, but very slightly. If the primary use is wildlife photography, then corners usually don't matter so far that use the 400 plus tc may be fine. I wouldn't want to use it for architecture, but then again I don't know anyone who does architecture photography at 560mm!

I think the deciding factor is if you sometimes need to shoot at the shorter 400mm setting and/or in low light where you need f2.8 . If so, then the 400 TC seems like a logical choice (if I wanted a super tele that is what I would get just for the 2.8 ). However if you shoot almost exlusively at or near 600mm then it makes little sense to buy a shorter lens with the intention of keeping the teleconverter engaged full time.
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
The post above is extremely useful (great find @BlackHorsePhotos ). Looking at the FX corner (far right), the bare 600 seems much sharper to me than the 400 with tc engaged. The center is also slightly sharper, but very slightly. If the primary use is wildlife photography, then corners usually don't matter so far that use the 400 plus tc may be fine. I wouldn't want to use it for architecture, but then again I don't know anyone who does architecture photography at 560mm!

I think the deciding factor is if you sometimes need to shoot at the shorter 400mm setting and/or in low light where you need f2.8 . If so, then the 400 TC seems like a logical choice (if I wanted a super tele that is what I would get just for the 2.8 ). However if you shoot almost exlusively at or near 600mm then it makes little sense to buy a shorter lens with the intention of keeping the teleconverter engaged full time.
Click to expand...

I don't shoot past 400mm often, so I can't comment on wildlife shooters.

These lenses look to me like they're essentially range bound now.

If you shoot 400-600mm, get the 400mm 2.8 and use the switch for the longer 560mm range as a convenience.
If you shoot 600mm-800mm, get the 600mm 4.0 and use the switch for the longer 840mm range as a convenience.

Obviously, you're dealing with a one stop difference on both but the range of the lenses would be the deciding factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top