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).
My wait for the Z 400TC here in Australia goes on, and has been 5 months to date and still no word from Nikon Australia.
I’m still toying with whether o get the 800 or not…want to go through a full season of birding here in FL before deciding. The 400/2.8 is too heavy and expensive to be considered…and although the 400/4.5 is generally rated a bit better than the 100-400 for screen output vice pixel peeking the difference is less noticeable and for me the zoom flexibility counters a lot of that. I may end up with the 800 eventually…but so far I’m not convinced it would get used enough to make it worth the cost and less flexibility…as well as the which lens goes on the Z9 and which on the Z7II conundrum as the former is better for action.
That's the right thought process. The 800mm PF is first and foremost a birding lens or a lens for subjects where you always want lots of reach. The other place it works is for the tight head shots of mammals. It covers the long end very well but you still need something to cover environmental images. In using the 800mm, I found that 95% of my photos were tight frame filling images. That's a relatively one dimensional perspective and as your only telephoto lens would not be a good choice.
Any thoughts about the anticipated 200-600?
It's probably going to be a very good zoom for wildlife. Image quality may not quite match the 400mm and it will be a slower aperture. Probably a variable aperture lens which has some negatives. But the price will likely be less than any of the lenses we are discussing. For occasional use, tight budget, or a single wildlife lens it's a good choice. It will cover birds, mammals, tight shots, and environmental. Birds in flight will probably be very good but not professional level. People rave about the Sony 200-600, but some of them still have the 600 f/4.
The 800 6.3 is amazing and I see no drop off from my 800 5.6. Do you think youd keep the 800 6.3 if the 600 f4 comes out with a TC, or just use that one exclusively?Some interesting discussions on lens choices .... I normally just have these discussions with myself, since these types of choices are naturally very specific to one's circumstances. But I'm curious to get some additional thoughts to swirl around in my head with my own thoughts.
Currently I shoot a significant number of my images on the really long end of things. Almost 50% of my shots are from 800mm+ and that percentage is higher if you start from the time I got the 800f5.6. Typically I'm either shooting small subjects, or I'm in a location where it's physically not possible to get closer to the subjects (one step closer and you fall off the cliff, or fall off the pier, or get submerged in water, or you're not allowed (legally and/or ethically) to leave the trail, etc). I absolutely love my 800f5.6 and love it even more with the Z9. I used to rarely use a TC other than the factory-matched 1.25X. Now I regularly use the 1.4 and sometimes even the 1.7. Of course hiking miles up-and-down steep inclines with the 800, plus monopod and other lenses is pretty fatiguing especially with some of my health issues. So when the 800PF was announced I ordered within hours of pre-orders opening. I'm still anxiously awaiting its arrival (non-NPS). Though I am curious to see how well the 800PF compares to the 800f5.6, especially in terms of backgrounds, particularly with specular highlights.
One of the things I'm trying to figure out now is what other lenses should be on my road-map, especially considering that hopefully soon I'll start traveling a little more (haven't flown since pre-COVID). Currently my travel, such as it's been, has been car-based so I can "pack heavy", though I still get grumbles from the family when half the trunk is filled with camera gear before we even start trying to put in suit cases and other family-related things.
I already have the Z f2.8 "trinity" which gets everything below 400mm OK. I also have the 120-300f2.8 F mount, which I absolutely love, but even though it's "only" 300mm, it's a fairly large lens and I don't think I can really manage that plus something that gets me out in the 800 range. Maybe the 400f4.5 plus TCs, but I've gotten pretty addicted to being able to shoot in fairly low light. That's why the 400TC seemed like a nearly ideal choice. The trinity (plus TCs) cover the <400mm range reasonably well, and the 400TC plus 2X TC would cover the 400-800 range pretty well. Or maybe wait for the 200-600 ... though Nikon's marketing has done a pretty good job convincing me I really want/need the S-line lenses ....
Good point; the 800 PF is much lighter too, but my biggest question would be sharpness, namely with the built in TC is the 600 going to be as sharp at 840 5.6 as the 800 6.3 is without a TC? If so its hard to justify having the PF though its a luxury lens to hold on to for warblers and good light. Tough decision.
If I didn't need to go longer than 800, I would probably go with the 600 if it were a TC and if the sharpness was close enough. But in my case, I'd say more than 50% of my shots with my 800f5.6 are with one of the TCs attached, which is a large part of the reason I originally opted for the 800f5.6 over the 600 (and then, as mentioned, mostly as a "mistake" ended up with a 600f4 too ....). So it would be unlikely I'd give up the 800PF. But who knows .... if I start traveling more, flexibility becomes more important and the 800PF is very special-purpose. The question for me would be more between the 400TC and 600TC if that's what it ends up being. Most likely I'd go with the 400TC, as I'd still have an "800f5.6" with a 2TC and I'd be able to cover more low-light and wider FOV shots.
I do that too…and frequently lose the argument with myself.
Check out the focal length of your last bunch of photos, it they’re 90% or more at or over 400mm then you don’t need the zoom. Not my idea, but it sounds reasonable as a place to start.
I used the Z 100-400 recently in Botswana and it was excellent for hand hold shooting of BIFs and close up subjects.....even with the 1.4 tele.
) while the z100-400 doesn’t appeal…I think because of the variable aperture. Not so sure. But I can wait.
The Z 70-200 F2.8 S with TC 1.4 and 2.0 also could be a solution for me, as I am more a generalist and not the guy who wants to fill the frame with small birds. The 70-200 is a fantastic lens, the rendering of colours, contrast and out of focus areas is outstanding.I got the 2x zTC for the z70-200 as my “stop-gap“ until the z200-600 appears. I’m more a generalist type so a long prime doesn’t fill any need, just lust (
The 400mm f/4.5 is an awfully good lens. I have not used it for much wildlife yet - but my images with it at last week's PGA Tour Championship were exceptional. The resolution holds up even at 300% magnification, and it's lighter than my 70-200 f/2.8. It is great with the 1.4 TC. A friend tried it with the 2x teleconverter on the Z9 and was raving about it.
