Nikon lens choices for wildlife setup

[Rectory Photography]

Hi, i'm building a Nikon kit for wildlife photography, mainly birds, using the Z9..... I have in the past primarily shot with a 600mm f4 as my main lens but with the current Nikon line up, see a possible alternative..... I could instead get a 400mm f2.8 with built in TC giving me 560mm at f4, and the extra light of f2.8 for certain subjects at closer range when needed, and then adding an 800mm f6.3 for greater distance and added portability. The second more conventional option is of course to go for the 600mm f4 and as usual and add something faster on the low end at a later date...400mm f2.8... 300 mm f2.8 etc. The only worry i have with the 800mm rather than 600mm f4 is the f6.3 compared to f5.6 at 800/840mm , but at that focal distance i wonder if that 1/3 stop difference would be enough to worry about it.... Any thoughts much appreciated.

 

[SteveLindsell]

I have the 400/2.8 TC. I cannot fault it. Very good results with the 2x as well, wide open. I shoot Sport and Wildlife so 400mm and 2.8 are the standard lens for Sport. But also proved very useful for wildlife on a recent Africa trip. If i'm out in the UK for mammals the lens on it's own covers virtually all I need. If i'm out for birds I'd at least carry the 2x but more likely put it on the lens at the start. My 1.4x basically doesn't see the light of day, though i have used both the internal and external TCs with great results.

I wouldn't be able to justify the 800/6.3 in addition, especially with the loss of that aperture with the results I get with the 400 / 2x combo.

 

[BillW]

f5.6 compared to f6.3 is a third of a stop, not a full stop. I have not felt that was an issue for me and my bird photography. And I’ve also used it for other wildlife (e.g., marine mammals from a zodiac or boat).

I like the Z 800 mm PF a lot. Bought it instead of the Z 600 mm TC because it is so much lighter and easier to travel with. IQ is excellent, although I believe some have said the Z 600 TC with its internal TC engaged is a bit better.

Of course, if you get the Z 400 TC, you can get to 800 mm with a Z 2x TC (or to 784 with the internal TC and an external Z 1.4x TC). That leaves you at f5.6 at 800 mm.

Lots of good choices and many variables including cost and weight/size.

 

[BillW]

One other thing with the Z 800 mm PF. I find it works pretty well with the Z 1.4x TC. That gets you to 1120 mm f9. There are times when I find that is very useful. I’ve also used the Z 800 mm PF with the Z 2x TC. 1600 mm f 13. Not as useful, but I have used it to photograph great blue heron nestlings at a distance (nests were 85 to 125 yards out and you could not get closer).

One thing with the Z 800 mm PF is that I normally have a second body and lens along with a shorter telephoto, for cases when 800 mm might be too much. Say the Z 400 mm f4.5 or the Z 100-400 mm. I also just picked up the Z 600 mm PF for its small size and light weight.

Having a shorter lens on a second body might be less necessary using the Z exotics with built in TCs.

 

[BillW]

I see Brad Hill posted some notes today on best ways to get to 800 mm in the Z system. He ranked the top three for sharpness as the Z 600 TC (with its built-in TC), the Z 400 TC (with the Z 2x TC) and the Z 800 mm PF (in that order). The discussion is in the field notes to an image he took this year of a wolf family in the BC Great Bear Rain Forest. There is a link to the image on his main website.

 

[ajrmd]

It would help to understand a few additional requirements including most common FL’s, budget, size, weight, etc. Is hand holding a key feature, do you want or consider zooms, etc. all of these are helpful to understand what you (or any user) wants. The combination of two really high quality and versatile primes, the 400 f/2.8 and 800 f6.3 are a start and indication that budget might not be a consideration and that hand holding for periods is less important for you as well.

 

[Anjin San]

This really depends on a couple of things. Cost first…are you willing to spend for either the 400/2.8 or the 600TC, that’s the biggest question and only you know that answer. Second…what focal lengths will you want to use more often? Of 400 and 560…get the 400, if 600 and longer get the 600TC. Back to the first question of the expensive on either dollars or weight (an important consideration). Next…are you making money or amateur, and where does the output go. If primarily screen…output is going to be downsampled and a lot of the ‘better’ disappears in that situation…not all but enough that maybe that tips the cost balance. Them go for most use lengths…for me here in SW FL the 600PF and TC provides 840 or 1200 in a pinch in good light and that’s fine…I decided the 800PF was too limiting in both size and weight and flexibility for me. I also have the 400/4.5 and the 100-400 and generally take the latter on my second body. Brad Hill has a very recent post on the 7 ways to get 800mm-ish and ranks them according to sharpness and other factors, as well as Steve’s videos on the various comparisons. For me…at going on 70…size and weight are the top criteria because we hike with the gear…and while we could afford the exotics the size and weight are such that they would likely be about the only lens I had on the hike and that loses flexibility. Second criteria is bang for the buck…and with almost exclusively screen output the ‘this one is slightly sharper at 200%’ evaluations aren’t much help…because better is still the enemy of good enough. OTOH…if my wife were to wake up one morning and decide that being my Sherpa was an OK thing…I might buy the 800PF but that’s about my limit in the price vs everything else comparison, at least until I win the Powerball and then I can hire a Sherpa. Edited to add…with todays NR software and better sensor tech the loss of even a stop isn’t nearly as big a deal as it used to be, and while I admit the bokeh of 2.8 or 4 is nice…the new BG blur feature in LR can if used correctly and sparingly increase the bokeh some…not as good as a rel 2.8 of course but an improvement yes. The whole thing comes down to your needs, budget, and what compromises you are willing to live with because every solution has compromises.

 

[Anjin San]

I see Brad Hill posted some notes today on best ways to get to 800 mm in the Z system. He ranked the top three for sharpness as the Z 600 TC (with its built-in TC), the Z 400 TC (with the Z 2x TC) and the Z 800 mm PF (in that order). The discussion is in the field notes to an image he took this year of a wolf family in the BC Great Bear Rain Forest. There is a link to the image on his main website.

Yep...Brad’s tests are good…and he specifies that he’s trying to meet his needs which is the important thing. But his results break down as expected into expensive/heavy, mid cost, and consumer/hobbyist.