Nikon 400mm 4.5 as a replacement for 500mm PF

[Roy]

The FTZ should set the sensor at the same flange distance on a Z body as on the D850...

 

[macwalter]

The FTZ should set the sensor at the same flange distance on a Z body as on the D850...

I believe the actual sensor sits further forward in the z body. It makes the lens protrude a bit more. It’s noticeable but not a big deal. The actual distance between the sensor and the flange would have to remain the same. Maybe because it’s dual stacked? I wouldn’t think this would be the case.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I believe the actual sensor sits further forward in the z body. It makes the lens protrude a bit more. It’s noticeable but not a big deal. The actual distance between the sensor and the flange would have to remain the same. Maybe because it’s dual stacked? I wouldn’t think this would be the case.

The body on the Z bodies is thinner which brings the camera flange closer to the sensor. The distance from the sensor to the flange on the f-mount lens is what has to be the same on either camera. The FTZ replicates the thicker body of the DSLR and pushes the lens flange farther from the sensor on the Z body. If you check overall length from the objective end of the lens to the LCD on the back of the body on D850/Z8 I think you'll find it nearly the same. There are a lot of comments on-line about this but it is more perception than reality.

 

[macwalter]

The body on the Z bodies is thinner which brings the camera flange closer to the sensor. The distance from the sensor to the flange on the f-mount lens is what has to be the same on either camera. The FTZ replicates the thicker body of the DSLR and pushes the lens flange farther from the sensor on the Z body. If you check overall length from the objective end of the lens to the LCD on the back of the body on D850/Z8 I think you'll find it nearly the same. There are a lot of comments on-line about this but it is more perception than reality.

I will have to measure it. I realize the body is thinner and it could be that this makes the hand holding the body sit further back but there is a difference.

 

[doclrb]

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!

I’ve been pondering this matter as well. For myself, the loss of 100 mm is the deal-breaker.

doclrb

 

[macwalter]

I went back and forth about the 400 f4.5 vs the 100-400 and decided to go with the zoom as I haven’t had a decent zoom for years. The loss of 100mm is significant so I decided to try the TC1.4 as it gets good reviews. I also realized that f8 is 2/3 a stop slower than f6.3 which both the new 180-600 and the 400f 4.5 with TC would have. This is noticeable but having the ability to close focus for small stuff for me makes up for the loss of some light which to be frank in most occasions is not that big of a deal. It’s not perfect but the AF speed and image quality are quite good And I love having the flexibility to go after pretty much anything I come across. In normal light I have no problem photographing BIF and by that I mean smaller birds. The focus limiter helps and having it at 3meters vs 6meters is important. Except for insects etc. you are rarely within 10 of your subjects. I mainly use the 500pf for more reach at 700mm. The TCs work so much better on the z8. I have no doubt the 400f4.5 is sharper but once again you are either a bit short or going 560 at f6.3. I do imagine it might be a bit better on subjects a bit further away. Also the balance of the 100-400 is very good.

 

[philippe]

Deleted

 

[fcotterill]

The optical advantages of the Z Mount have been explained in some detail previously. Some interesting material here

Does flange distance impact sharpness?

I recently asked the folks running Greys of Westminster YouTube channel via live chat about why the Z lenses are significantly sharper than f mount glass. They implied that the larger Z mount with the 16 mm flange distance as opposed to the 46 mm flange distance on the f mount is a big reason...

bcgforums.com

Nikon's lens designers say they have 'Used Up' the maximum potential to describe the completeness of new products e.g. how the design 70-200 f2.8S is taken to the limits to exploit the full optical benefits/potential of the Z mount architecture.

They confirm the Z mount architecture permits the design of a f0.6 optic.

The design of the 400 f4.5S suggests the designers also leveraged these Z architecture advantages to realize its novel, compact design, and without using phase-fresnel technology.

The 2nd interview refers

Nikon Interview - September 2022

Obscure and informative, and these articles were republished recently [22 December] by Nikon Imaging from 'Cameraholics extra issue 100 Percent Mastering The Nikon Z9" by Hobby Japan. The engineers confirm the reasons why the camera has several distinct features to maximize performance and...

bcgforums.com

 

[fcotterill]

There is also a patent for a F-mount 600 f5.6 (with 108mm window). Nikon should be able to put out a 600 f4.8S PF by "scaling down" the 800 f6.3S PF - keeping the 127128mm window - into a shorter 600 or instead opt for more compact f5.6 or less likely f6.3. A f4.8 will differentiate from the 180-600 f6.3.

Nikon Z shooters, do want a 300 or 500 prime

If so, what should the aperture be? Personally I don't have a need for 300 F/2.8 either w/ or w/o a TC. With a TC, it would get me to 420 F4 which is very similar to the 400 F/4.5. And a 300 F/2.8 is only 1 stop faster than a 70-200 F/2.8 w/ TC. Granted it will be sharper but probably...

bcgforums.com

Nikon Patents New Lens

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/nikon-designs-new-phase-fresnel-lenses-including-a-1000mm-f8 Please remove if posted elsewhere.

bcgforums.com

 

[fcotterill]

Here are some exemplars of the quality that is possible

Nikon 500mm PF with 1.4x TC

-

bcgforums.com

Would anyone be in a position to post a photo taken with the Z8/Z9 + 500pf + FTZ + 1.4 TC? Like others here, I am trying to find a solution for gaining reach in excess of 500mm. I'm waiting for reviews of the 180-600 before ordering. 600mm f4 is out of my reach pricewise (well, my wife and internal auditor has decided that it is). I'm on the fence about the 800pf - I'm just not sure it would get enough use to justify it. A 600pf would be the perfect solution, so I continue to pray to Nikon for that one.

 

[Len Shepherd]

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.

Oh

I agree a 5.6 would be ideal. I think at 600mm I would usually be good with the bare lens.

One issue with a 600 mm f5 .6 concept is that the minimum front element diameter would need to be at least 107 mm – making a somewhat large and heavy lens at least half way in weight and probable size between the 400mm f4.5 and the 800 PF :(

 

[Len Shepherd]

I agree, 600mm is kind of a sweet spot for birds especially handholding.

One issue with a 600 mm f5.6 concept is the front element diameter needs to be at least 107 mm to be f5.6.
Although probably not much taller than the 500 PF, the front element size would need to be similar to that of there 800 PF - with cost and size implications - and maybe a need for a rear slot in filter.
The 400 f4.5 was launched at £3,300 including 20% sales tax in the UK - though current street price is around 10% lower at £2,995.
The 800 PF launched at £6,300 with a current street around £5,999.
If a 600 f5.6 launched at the mid price between the 400 and 800 it would initially be at a serious price for many at around £5,300.
A 600 f6.5 (rather than f6.3) usefully fits within the 95mm front filter size of the 400 f4.5 and 500 F mount PF - and might be launcheable if it ever comes at below £4,500.

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

 

[fcotterill]

Oh

One issue with a 600 mm f5 .6 concept is that the minimum front element diameter would need to be at least 107 mm – making a somewhat large and heavy lens at least half way in weight and probable size between the 400mm f4.5 and the 800 PF :(

To repeat my post above - and see 600 PF Poll - Nikon could "scale down" the 800 f6.3S PF - keeping the 128mm window. Another distinct possibility is Nikon could follow up its 2018 patent in a 600 f5.6S PF

Most importantly, a 600 PF will be ~10cm shorter than the 800 PF. A Z 600 PF should weigh well under 2kg, even if it is a f4.8S

This will set an unprecedented benchmark for a light supertelephoto, compared against any of the super tele zooms, let alone the exotic primes.

 

[EricBowles]

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.

It's unlikely the 180-600 will provide similar close focus magnification at the level of the 100-400. The magnification ratio of almost all Nikon's long lenses and long zooms is around 1:6. The 100-400 is the exception.

My hope is they will release a 300mm f/4 to provide close focus. While that's close to your 400mm f/4.5, the design would be quite different with a different purpose.

 

[fcotterill]

It's unlikely the 180-600 will provide similar close focus magnification at the level of the 100-400. The magnification ratio of almost all Nikon's long lenses and long zooms is around 1:6. The 100-400 is the exception.

My hope is they will release a 300mm f/4 to provide close focus. While that's close to your 400mm f/4.5, the design would be quite different with a different purpose.

Official specification is a max reprod. ratio of 0.25x (100-400 S is 0.35x). The MFD(s) of the 180-600 are almost double:

180mm zoom position: 4.27 ft (1.3 m)
200mm zoom position: 4.47 ft (1.36 m)
300mm zoom position: 5.48 ft (1.67 m)
400mm zoom position: 6.37 ft (1.94 m)
500mm zoom position: 7.19 ft (2.19 m)
600mm zoom position: 7.88 ft (2.4 m)

100-400 S:
100mm zoom position: 2.46 ft (0.75m)
135mm zoom position: 2.56 ft (0.78m)
200mm zoom position: 2.63 ft (0.8m)
300mm zoom position: 2.86 ft (0.87m)
400mm zoom position: 3.22 ft (0.98m)

 

[macwalter]

Would anyone be in a position to post a photo taken with the Z8/Z9 + 500pf + FTZ + 1.4 TC? Like others here, I am trying to find a solution for gaining reach in excess of 500mm. I'm waiting for reviews of the 180-600 before ordering. 600mm f4 is out of my reach pricewise (well, my wife and internal auditor has decided that it is). I'm on the fence about the 800pf - I'm just not sure it would get enough use to justify it. A 600pf would be the perfect solution, so I continue to pray to Nikon for that one.

I go to Brazil next week where I will have a chance to get some decent photos. So far it’s only my backyard and walking the beach with relatively few birds and all I’m doing is practicing with the z8, getting used to its functions and differences between it and my d850. All I can say is I have found the IQ to be better using this combo on the z8 due the the faster more accurate AF parameters this camera offers. For me a 600pf would have to be 5.6 or I would likely continue with the 500pf. My copy is tack sharp. I do feel that the d850 IQ overall is slightly cleaner but you don’t have the amazing speed so you miss many more opportunities compared to the z8 and this in my opinion makes all the difference. Also the TCs work so much better making 700mm more doable. I handhold so I may not get as good an image as a tripod with the big glass but I’m really fast and good at getting on BIF and many are tack sharp.

 

[philippe]

Deleted

 

[Len Shepherd]

Official specification is a max reprod. ratio of 0.25x

On FX this is a 6 inch wide subject.

For FX divide 1.5 inches (the FX format width) by the magnification of 0.25 to get a 6 inch wide subject.

The 0.35 for the 100-400 is a 4.286 wide subject.

 

[Len Shepherd]

To repeat my post above - and see 600 PF Poll - Nikon could "scale down" the 800 f6.3S PF - keeping the 128mm window. Another distinct possibility is Nikon could follow up its 2018 patent in a 600 f5.6S PF

Most importantly, a 600 PF will be ~10cm shorter than the 800 PF. A Z 600 PF should weigh well under 2kg, even if it is a f4.8S

This will set an unprecedented benchmark for a light supertelephoto, compared against any of the super tele zooms, let alone the exotic primes.

I was overlooking the 180-600 f6.3 was already in production.

Splitting hairs it is maybe about 2% smaller than f6.3.

Your point is well made in that there are 3 400mm Z lenses covering 400mm, being the 100-400, the 400 f4.5 and the 400 f2.8.

Eventually their might be 3 600mm lenses.

 

[Roy]

Oh

One issue with a 600 mm f5 .6 concept is that the minimum front element diameter would need to be at least 107 mm – making a somewhat large and heavy lens at least half way in weight and probable size between the 400mm f4.5 and the 800 PF :(

Big front element - perhaps, but 107mm is still fairly small.
But PF reduces the amount of glass considerably therefor should be lighter than the TC ...

 

[macwalter]

It will definitely weigh a bit and cost a bit but balance is critical and pf lenses can do well in this regard. Another lens I’ve always wondered about is a 300mm pf f2.8 but this may not be feasible as I think pf doesn’t do so well in larger glass.

 

[Roy]

It will definitely weigh a bit and cost a bit but balance is critical and pf lenses can do well in this regard. Another lens I’ve always wondered about is a 300mm pf f2.8 but this may not be feasible as I think pf doesn’t do so well in larger glass.

I'm still amazed how well Nikons' PF lenses work.
PF can reduce the amount of glass in an element by up to 2/3, greatly reducing the total weight ...

 

[Venkatesh VT]

I bought 400 mm 4.5 since my 500 PF would lose focus in the middle of shooting ( may be due to some FTZ issue) while we were on a 10 day birding trip ( my wife uses it mostly with Z9)
While she is pretty happy with 400 mm 4.5 she says she prefers the 500 PF & hence I kept them both
We are going to Borneo in Sep end & she should be able to give the final verdict after that
I just can’t help ranting that I am still stuck with 200 600 for my A1 & can’t help feeling cheated that Sony has not brought out a 500 PF or a 400 4.5 prime at par with Nikon ( I invariably end up renting a 600 mm f4 for my important trips)

 

[Roy]

I bought 400 mm 4.5 since my 500 PF would lose focus in the middle of shooting ( may be due to some FTZ issue) while we were on a 10 day birding trip ( my wife uses it mostly with Z9)
While she is pretty happy with 400 mm 4.5 she says she prefers the 500 PF & hence I kept them both
We are going to Borneo in Sep end & she should be able to give the final verdict after that
I just can’t help ranting that I am still stuck with 200 600 for my A1 & can’t help feeling cheated that Sony has not brought out a 500 PF or a 400 4.5 prime at par with Nikon ( I invariably end up renting a 600 mm f4 for my important trips)

Nikon has always been a lens first company and unfortunately for now are the only one with PF lens technology...

 

[macwalter]

I’m not too up on the Sony gear. I did try briefly the Sony A1 with the 200-600mm. But to be fair I was just showing somebody a trick about BIF and her camera was handy. I didn’t even look to see what I photographed. I have heard that this lens gets a bit soft on the long end and I imagine the Nikon will as well. I have read this is also true for the 100-400 but I have found it to be quite sharp even at 560 with the 1.4tc. That being said I love the 500pf and so far I have had no issues on the z8. I do notice the AF can focus ”hard” at times kinda of slamming into focus. I’m assuming this is related to the stronger processor In the z8. The FTZ adapter has no glass so it could be contacts. Have you cleaned them. For me the main issue with the 500of is it is a prime with all the pros and cons, extremely fast and sharp but lousy close focus and only one focal length. But I have used mine exclusively the past few years on the d850 with wonderful results. I feel it is my only true “pro” glass. Unless they come out with a z500 or 600z pf I will keep mine. I like good 700mm at f8 as well especially on the z8.