Nikon 400mm 4.5 as a replacement for 500mm PF

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).

M

Michael Dreese

Member
Member's gallery
I have been seriously considering the pros and cons of replacing my Nikon 500mm PF lens with the 400mm 4.5 S lens. The advantages of this switch would be 1. A 2/3 stop gain in light wide open 2. Slightly lighter weight 3. I could eliminate my FTZ adapter and f mount 1.4 TC. 4. Versatility: I would have the option of a 400mm 4.5 prime which would be relatively good in low light and with the 1.4 Z tele I could have a decent 560mm f6.3 when the light is abundant. I see the main disadvantages as being 1. Extra cost of buying the S lens since my 500mm PF is not appreciating in value 2. Giving up 100mm of reach.

I should add that my main wildlife targets are birds. When I’m in Florida during the winter months, I shoot mainly wading birds and shorebirds. In Pennsylvania I find myself looking more for songbirds and warblers. I much prefer the Florida subjects. I don’t shoot wildlife nearly as much in PA. My other lenses are the 24-100S and the 100-400s along with the 1.4 Z Teleconverter. The big 400 and 600 primes are a tad to expensive for me and gear weight is becoming a bigger factor as I get older.

I really do love the 500mm PF but I would like to transition completely to the Z mount and the 400mm 4.5 would tick a lot of boxes for me. I considered the upcoming 180-600 but the extra weight and size are not fitting with my light and portable goals. I welcome all comments from those who have made this switch or are contemplating such a move. Thanks in advance!
 
Member's gallery
I sold my 500PF thinking the 100-400 could replace it. It couldn't. Being unhappy with the 100-400, I purchased the 400 4.5 when it was available. It is an incredibly sharp lens and with the 1.4 TC, slightly longer at 560mm than the 500. So, at those focal lengths it was a great alternative to the 500. However, I soon realized that I really missed the 700mm focal length when using the 1.4 TC with the 500PF. Especially for small birds. So, I purchased the 800mm. It was perfect for this ocasional times that I needed a longer lens. However, I found it very limiting due to its weight (I'm almost 70) and also with many BIF situations. So, I cut my losses and sold it after a few months. I am now switching back and forth between the 100-400 and 400 4.5. I have ordered the 180-600, which I am hoping will take care of my focal length needs. I will not sell the 400 4.5 as I feel it's one of the best Nikon lenses I have ever owned. However, the 100-400 might be up for sale if I can use the 180-600 for my near macro shots.
 
Member's gallery
One of the other factors not on your list, which I found when looking into choices for me, was the programming of the 400 buttons, including the FX to DX switch which I used a lot on my 100-400.
 
Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
I sold my 500PF thinking the 100-400 could replace it. It couldn't. Being unhappy with the 100-400, I purchased the 400 4.5 when it was available. It is an incredibly sharp lens and with the 1.4 TC, slightly longer at 560mm than the 500. So, at those focal lengths it was a great alternative to the 500. However, I soon realized that I really missed the 700mm focal length when using the 1.4 TC with the 500PF. Especially for small birds. So, I purchased the 800mm. It was perfect for this ocasional times that I needed a longer lens. However, I found it very limiting due to its weight (I'm almost 70) and also with many BIF situations. So, I cut my losses and sold it after a few months. I am now switching back and forth between the 100-400 and 400 4.5. I have ordered the 180-600, which I am hoping will take care of my focal length needs. I will not sell the 400 4.5 as I feel it's one of the best Nikon lenses I have ever owned. However, the 100-400 might be up for sale if I can use the 180-600 for my near macro shots.
Click to expand...
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I think it is an ever evolving journey based on new releases and changing priorities of the individual. I also thought about the 800mm PF but I can’t quite justify the cost. When I’m shooting in Florida I usually find 400-500mm perfect most of the time. Here in Pennsylvania it seems 800mm is needed most of the time. Lots to consider!
 
Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
I sold my 500PF thinking the 100-400 could replace it. It couldn't. Being unhappy with the 100-400, I purchased the 400 4.5 when it was available. It is an incredibly sharp lens and with the 1.4 TC, slightly longer at 560mm than the 500. So, at those focal lengths it was a great alternative to the 500. However, I soon realized that I really missed the 700mm focal length when using the 1.4 TC with the 500PF. Especially for small birds. So, I purchased the 800mm. It was perfect for this ocasional times that I needed a longer lens. However, I found it very limiting due to its weight (I'm almost 70) and also with many BIF situations. So, I cut my losses and sold it after a few months. I am now switching back and forth between the 100-400 and 400 4.5. I have ordered the 180-600, which I am hoping will take care of my focal length needs. I will not sell the 400 4.5 as I feel it's one of the best Nikon lenses I have ever owned. However, the 100-400 might be up for sale if I can use the 180-600 for my near macro shots.
Click to expand...
If you compare minimum focus distances by focal length you will find the 100-400 focuses closer than the 180-600. For example at 200mm the 100-400 is at 2.63ft. amd the 180-600 is at 4.47ft while at 400 the focus distances are 3.22 and 6.37ft respectively. Those focus distances are retained with the TC1.4 so for the 100-400 you can focus at 3.22ft at 560mm. You will lose some light, but the 100-400 will focus closer and is my choice for such work. I have the 70-200S f/2.8 for low light, 100-400 w/ or w/o TC for most shooting, 500 PF f/5.6 w/ and w/o TC1.4EIII out to 700mm f/8 and the 800PF w/ and w/o TC14Z getting me out to 1120mm at f/9 if needed.

The new noise reduction tool in LrC can help a lot with the low light noise. It is nice that we have so many choices. Make the ones that work for how you shoot! I have made mine. Best wishes.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I have the 500 pf and the Z800 pf, but also the Z100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S and use them on the Z8 and Z9. I would be hesitant in selling the 500 for the 400 especially if you are shooting birds unless you can get closer to them or they are large birds. Shooting birds, I think you would have the 1.4x TC on just about all the time and that f4.5 advantage is lost - you have a 560mm f6.3. I have found that I almost exclusively use my 800 pf now, or that because I have it I find that I can shoot from further away and don't always try or need to get closer. However, before I purchased the 800 pf I found that the 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII on the Z9 was a fantastic 700 f8 to the point where I questioned whether I needed to get the 800 pf once it was available to me. I still ended up getting the 800 pf but at this stage, I still have the 500 pf for travel reasons. In my case, selling the 500 pf for the 400 f4.5 makes a little more sense than in your case when you do not have the 800 pf., IMO

So, summing up. If you decide to get the 800 pf, then the 400 f4.5 (+1.4xTC) would be a reasonable combination and would make more sense, However, if you do not have the 800 pf, then I think the 500 pf is a better option and use it with the 1.4x TCIII when required as it is a great 700 f8.

Then of course, there is the upcoming 180-600 as other's have pointed out.
 
Member's gallery
I agree with the factors, above.....These are all highly capable and top quality telephotos. I have all 3 lenses, for different needs and my 500 PF works with DSLRs and MILCs.

Anyone else disappointed with z 400 f4.5? UPDATED - VERY HAPPY NOW

I thought the 500 PF has more limited AF points mounted on a Z. This is my recollection from a video I saw. No dog in this hunt but curious on the point. No, you don’t lose access to any AF points when mounting a 500mm PF or other F mount lens on a Nikon mirrorless camera. You lose some...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com

The 400 f4.5S is more a 'mammal' lens, so it usually needs the ZTC14 for birds, and this is still too 'short' for small passerines (this is where an 800 on FX is often optimal). The same factor applies to the 100-400 Z. There are exceptions allowing closer working distances obviously, such as using hides.

The 500 f5.6E PF is a hard act to follow. This is unless (until?) Nikon does a 600 PF, which we can be sure will be yet another superb Z Nikkor (if it happens). Until then this prime, with its 700 f8 combination with the TC14 III remains a key option in the Z System, as it is in the F System. These recent data endorse its status.

MTF data for the 500 f5.6E PF (including TC's)

Photography Life have updated their review of the 500mm f5.6E PF with Imatest data. These include both Teleconverters. The results with TC14 III corroborate the high quality of the images obtainable with this combination. And the review compares the older 500 f4G...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Lance B said:
I have the 500 pf and the Z800 pf, but also the Z100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S and use them on the Z8 and Z9. I would be hesitant in selling the 500 for the 400 especially if you are shooting birds unless you can get closer to them or they are large birds. Shooting birds, I think you would have the 1.4x TC on just about all the time and that f4.5 advantage is lost - you have a 560mm f6.3. I have found that I almost exclusively use my 800 pf now, or that because I have it I find that I can shoot from further away and don't always try or need to get closer. However, before I purchased the 800 pf I found that the 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII on the Z9 was a fantastic 700 f8 to the point where I questioned whether I needed to get the 800 pf once it was available to me. I still ended up getting the 800 pf but at this stage, I still have the 500 pf for travel reasons. In my case, selling the 500 pf for the 400 f4.5 makes a little more sense than in your case when you do not have the 800 pf., IMO

So, summing up. If you decide to get the 800 pf, then the 400 f4.5 (+1.4xTC) would be a reasonable combination and would make more sense, However, if you do not have the 800 pf, then I think the 500 pf is a better option and use it with the 1.4x TCIII when required as it is a great 700 f8.

Then of course, there is the upcoming 180-600 as other's have pointed out.
Click to expand...
Thanks so much for the detailed insights. Perhaps I’m overthinking things. The combination of the 100-400 and the 500mm PF gives me a lot of versatility and I have both 1.4 Teleconverters as well. I think I could definitely use an 800mm in Pennsylvania but I feel the 500mm focal length has served me well in Florida. I think I will stick with what I have for now and take note of what focal lengths I use most often going forward. I think the 800mm PF has more potential for me than the upcoming 180-600. Cheers
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
I agree with the factors, above.....These are all highly capable and top quality telephotos. I have all 3 lenses, for different needs and my 500 PF works with DSLRs and MILCs.

Anyone else disappointed with z 400 f4.5? UPDATED - VERY HAPPY NOW

I thought the 500 PF has more limited AF points mounted on a Z. This is my recollection from a video I saw. No dog in this hunt but curious on the point. No, you don’t lose access to any AF points when mounting a 500mm PF or other F mount lens on a Nikon mirrorless camera. You lose some...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com

The 400 f4.5S is more a 'mammal' lens, so it usually needs the ZTC14 for birds, and this is still too 'short' for small passerines (this is where an 800 on FX is often optimal). The same factor applies to the 100-400 Z. There are exceptions allowing closer working distances obviously, such as using hides.

The 500 f5.6E PF is a hard act to follow. This is unless (until?) Nikon does a 600 PF, which we can be sure will be yet another superb Z Nikkor (if it happens). Until then this prime, with its 700 f8 combination with the TC14 III remains a key option in the Z System, as it is in the F System. These recent data endorse its status.

MTF data for the 500 f5.6E PF (including TC's)

Photography Life have updated their review of the 500mm f5.6E PF with Imatest data. These include both Teleconverters. The results with TC14 III corroborate the high quality of the images obtainable with this combination. And the review compares the older 500 f4G...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
Click to expand...
I would love to see a 600mm PF! I think I will stick with my current lineup until or IF that happens. Appreciate your input!
 
Member's gallery
Michael Dreese said:
Thanks so much for the detailed insights. Perhaps I’m overthinking things. The combination of the 100-400 and the 500mm PF gives me a lot of versatility and I have both 1.4 Teleconverters as well. I think I could definitely use an 800mm in Pennsylvania but I feel the 500mm focal length has served me well in Florida. I think I will stick with what I have for now and take note of what focal lengths I use most often going forward. I think the 800mm PF has more potential for me than the upcoming 180-600. Cheers
Click to expand...
As I said, do not discount the ability of the 500 + 1.4x TC for an excellent 700 f8. Works brilliantly on the Z8 and Z9.
 
Member's gallery
BarkingBeansCoffee said:
One of the other factors not on your list, which I found when looking into choices for me, was the programming of the 400 buttons, including the FX to DX switch which I used a lot on my 100-400.
Click to expand...
You can also use the button on the 500pf for that function.

On the 500pf you have the "Focus function selector". When you set that to AF-ON, then you can use the buttons for whatever you have them programmed to in your camera.
 
Member's gallery
Michael Dreese said:
Thanks so much for the detailed insights. Perhaps I’m overthinking things. The combination of the 100-400 and the 500mm PF gives me a lot of versatility and I have both 1.4 Teleconverters as well. I think I could definitely use an 800mm in Pennsylvania but I feel the 500mm focal length has served me well in Florida. I think I will stick with what I have for now and take note of what focal lengths I use most often going forward. I think the 800mm PF has more potential for me than the upcoming 180-600. Cheers
Click to expand...
Here’s another perspective. I shoot mostly small birds, but like to shoot wading birds and wildlife (chipmunks to bears) when the chances arise as well as flower and insect close-ups. I have the Z9 and 105 macro, 300 PF, 200-500, 500 PF, 500 f/4E Fl, 800 PF and a range of TCs. All of these lenses have their place with various strengths and weaknesses. I typically decide before going out which one I will use depending on subject matter and how much walking I’ll be doing, and I resign myself to certain limitations for that photo session. For example, the 800 PF offers great reach, but has a 15’ MFD. Great for small subjects at a distance, but not great for on-the-fly flower and insect (or very near bird) closeups.

I purchased the 100-400 as a possible Z replacement for the 200-500, but I quickly realized that it just wasn’t long enough and that adding a 1.4x TC made it an f/8 560mm! Way too slow. So I returned that. I’ve considered the 400 f/5.6 and can relate to your quandary between choosing between that and the 500 PF. The light weight and 4.5 aperture are very tempting So far I’ve resisted due to the limited focal length and likely need to shoot it with a TC most of the time as 560mm f6.3. Plus it doesn’t match the 700mm f/8 offered by the 500 PF and a 1.4x TC, but I might ADD it one day.

But what I’m really looking forward to right now is the 180-600. I see it as a lighter and more versatile alternative to the 200-500 and long enough to compete with with my longer teles if its IQ is up to the challenge. With this lens, I would hope to rely on it for shooting birds at a distance and still offer the ability to shoot my flower and insect closeups, or birds that fly in too close for prime lenses to capture.

I do get that the 180-600 might be a bit large and heavy for you. For me, it will lighter and smaller than most of my birding lens options and offer zoom and closeup capability, but in your case, coming from a 500 PF, it’s larger and heavier than what you’re used to, though it fits your needs as a single lens solution for the wide range of focal lengths between your PA and FL shooting.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you end up with a 400 f4.5 😊, but best of luck with your decision.
 
Member's gallery
ARClark said:
Here’s another perspective. I shoot mostly small birds, but like to shoot wading birds and wildlife (chipmunks to bears) when the chances arise as well as flower and insect close-ups. I have the Z9 and 105 macro, 300 PF, 200-500, 500 PF, 500 f/4E Fl, 800 PF and a range of TCs. All of these lenses have their place with various strengths and weaknesses. I typically decide before going out which one I will use depending on subject matter and how much walking I’ll be doing, and I resign myself to certain limitations for that photo session. For example, the 800 PF offers great reach, but has a 15’ MFD. Great for small subjects at a distance, but not great for on-the-fly flower and insect (or very near bird) closeups.

I purchased the 100-400 as a possible Z replacement for the 200-500, but I quickly realized that it just wasn’t long enough and that adding a 1.4x TC made it an f/8 560mm! Way too slow. So I returned that. I’ve considered the 400 f/5.6 and can relate to your quandary between choosing between that and the 500 PF. The light weight and 4.5 aperture are very tempting So far I’ve resisted due to the limited focal length and likely need to shoot it with a TC most of the time as 560mm f6.3. Plus it doesn’t match the 700mm f/8 offered by the 500 PF and a 1.4x TC, but I might ADD it one day.

But what I’m really looking forward to right now is the 180-600. I see it as a lighter and more versatile alternative to the 200-500 and long enough to compete with with my longer teles if its IQ is up to the challenge. With this lens, I would hope to rely on it for shooting birds at a distance and still offer the ability to shoot my flower and insect closeups, or birds that fly in too close for prime lenses to capture.

I do get that the 180-600 might be a bit large and heavy for you. For me, it will lighter and smaller than most of my birding lens options and offer zoom and closeup capability, but in your case, coming from a 500 PF, it’s larger and heavier than what you’re used to, though it fits your needs as a single lens solution for the wide range of focal lengths between your PA and FL shooting.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you end up with a 400 f4.5 😊, but best of luck with your decision.
Click to expand...
I greatly appreciate your response. I’m still considering the 180-600 but I’m going to wait until some user reviews come in before making a decision. I think for the time being I will stick with my 500mm PF. I’m eager to test out my 100-400 in Florida as well. I love your approach of taking out a single lens and working within its limitations. That approach allows one to focus better on the opportunities that present themselves. I really wish Nikon would release a 600mm PF!
 
Member's gallery
For what it’s worth as all the comments makes sense. I’m new to the z world so I only have the 100-400mm and the 1.4TC. I also have f mount 300 and 500pf lenses. I have a d850 and a z8. On the 850 I found the 1.4 tc OK but not what I would call great except in very good light. I mostly handhold as I like to be mobile. The 500of by itself was superb and my go to birding glass for all types of birds, large and small. I would just get closer being well aware that at times this was not an option.
with the z8 both I found both the z1.4 and the f1.4 work way better. Faster, sharper and I have to say even at f8 the 100-400z works amazing. I can still do fast BIF and also get good clean images except in very low light. This lens is fast and sharp, maybe not as sharp as a prime but still in most cases more than good enough and I am very picky about detail. I also love being able to shoot from a little over 3feet to infinity with one lens. This versatility is hard to beat. The primes can’t come close in this regard. Also the 500pf with the 1.4tc works so much better on the z8 that I can use it for those longer situations but in most cases the 100-400 with or without the TC will likely be my go to glass for now. If I need 700mm I have the 500pf. I’m not a fan of 2xTCS so I won’t be going that route. Also I still have the d850 as a backup so I still need some good f glass. The 180-600 may be worth a look down the road but if it is like a better 200-500 I won’t go that route. Too big slow and heavy. I’m 75 And I can’t afford the big “pro”glass.
 
Member's gallery
macwalter said:
For what it’s worth as all the comments makes sense. I’m new to the z world so I only have the 100-400mm and the 1.4TC. I also have f mount 300 and 500pf lenses. I have a d850 and a z8. On the 850 I found the 1.4 tc OK but not what I would call great except in very good light. I mostly handhold as I like to be mobile. The 500of by itself was superb and my go to birding glass for all types of birds, large and small. I would just get closer being well aware that at times this was not an option.
with the z8 both I found both the z1.4 and the f1.4 work way better. Faster, sharper and I have to say even at f8 the 100-400z works amazing. I can still do fast BIF and also get good clean images except in very low light. This lens is fast and sharp, maybe not as sharp as a prime but still in most cases more than good enough and I am very picky about detail. I also love being able to shoot from a little over 3feet to infinity with one lens. This versatility is hard to beat. The primes can’t come close in this regard. Also the 500pf with the 1.4tc works so much better on the z8 that I can use it for those longer situations but in most cases the 100-400 with or without the TC will likely be my go to glass for now. If I need 700mm I have the 500pf. I’m not a fan of 2xTCS so I won’t be going that route. Also I still have the d850 as a backup so I still need some good f glass. The 180-600 may be worth a look down the road but if it is like a better 200-500 I won’t go that route. Too big slow and heavy. I’m 75 And I can’t afford the big “pro”glass.
Click to expand...
Thanks so much for your response. I’m very eager to try out the 500mm PF with the 1.4 tele on my Z8 as I keep hearing positive reviews. I’m with you on not being able to afford the pro lens offerings. I guess there are always trade offs with telephoto lenses. It all comes down to price, weight and performance for me. I try to keep an open mind but I don’t see the 180-600 as an ideal fit for me. I will definitely read Steve’s review when he has the opportunity to test the lens.
 
Member's gallery
Michael Dreese said:
I have been seriously considering the pros and cons of replacing my Nikon 500mm PF lens with the 400mm 4.5 S lens. The advantages of this switch would be 1. A 2/3 stop gain in light wide open 2. Slightly lighter weight 3. I could eliminate my FTZ adapter and f mount 1.4 TC. 4. Versatility: I would have the option of a 400mm 4.5 prime which would be relatively good in low light and with the 1.4 Z tele I could have a decent 560mm f6.3 when the light is abundant. I see the main disadvantages as being 1. Extra cost of buying the S lens since my 500mm PF is not appreciating in value 2. Giving up 100mm of reach.

I should add that my main wildlife targets are birds. When I’m in Florida during the winter months, I shoot mainly wading birds and shorebirds. In Pennsylvania I find myself looking more for songbirds and warblers. I much prefer the Florida subjects. I don’t shoot wildlife nearly as much in PA. My other lenses are the 24-100S and the 100-400s along with the 1.4 Z Teleconverter. The big 400 and 600 primes are a tad to expensive for me and gear weight is becoming a bigger factor as I get older.

I really do love the 500mm PF but I would like to transition completely to the Z mount and the 400mm 4.5 would tick a lot of boxes for me. I considered the upcoming 180-600 but the extra weight and size are not fitting with my light and portable goals. I welcome all comments from those who have made this switch or are contemplating such a move. Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
We can often get bogged down in the various pros/cons. As someone both educated in and retired from a technical field I'm prone to do so. But as I've aged at least my hind sight has improved. When I purchased the 400 4.5 I considered all of the pros of the 500 PF mentioned above and held on to it. Comparing IQ between the two is truly splitting hairs so it comes down to other factors when comparing the two. A year later there the 500 sits in its spot on the shelf collecting dust. So without listing the various arguments the benefits of the Z lens apparently outweigh those of the adapted 500PF. At least for me.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Michael Dreese said:
I have been seriously considering the pros and cons of replacing my Nikon 500mm PF lens with the 400mm 4.5 S lens. The advantages of this switch would be 1. A 2/3 stop gain in light wide open 2. Slightly lighter weight 3. I could eliminate my FTZ adapter and f mount 1.4 TC. 4. Versatility: I would have the option of a 400mm 4.5 prime which would be relatively good in low light and with the 1.4 Z tele I could have a decent 560mm f6.3 when the light is abundant. I see the main disadvantages as being 1. Extra cost of buying the S lens since my 500mm PF is not appreciating in value 2. Giving up 100mm of reach.

I should add that my main wildlife targets are birds. When I’m in Florida during the winter months, I shoot mainly wading birds and shorebirds. In Pennsylvania I find myself looking more for songbirds and warblers. I much prefer the Florida subjects. I don’t shoot wildlife nearly as much in PA. My other lenses are the 24-100S and the 100-400s along with the 1.4 Z Teleconverter. The big 400 and 600 primes are a tad to expensive for me and gear weight is becoming a bigger factor as I get older.

I really do love the 500mm PF but I would like to transition completely to the Z mount and the 400mm 4.5 would tick a lot of boxes for me. I considered the upcoming 180-600 but the extra weight and size are not fitting with my light and portable goals. I welcome all comments from those who have made this switch or are contemplating such a move. Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
I have the 600 and 500 f4 AFS lenses and I was too impatient to wait for the 180-600 that I've now on order too.
So I bought the 400 f4.5 as a stop gap.
Apart from the slightly shorter reach, I found it a fantastic lens - and it fits in the case with the other lenses too.
Even handheld, the video is good.
There is also a 600mm PF on the Nikon Z roadmap that could be worth the wait ... 🦘
 
Member's gallery
Michael Dreese said:
I agree a 5.6 would be ideal. I think at 600mm I would usually be good with the bare lens.
Click to expand...
I agree, 600mm is kind of a sweet spot for birds especially handholding. I have had good luck with the 500pf. It is very sharp and has great balance especially on the d850. The FTZ does throw things off a bit as the sensor sits more forward but it’s not a big deal. I love the dual motor AF on the 100-400. It’s fast and accurate even with the TC. I would hope the new lens would be similar. I worry the AF on the 180-600 will more like the Tamron G2. It’s decent but not great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top