Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Lens + 2.0 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).

Member's gallery
Member's gallery
I don't own the 400 f4.5 but I had an extensive use of one for a couple of weeks when it was first on sale last year. I tried it with the 2x TC and the results are quite good depending on good light, but I wouldn't put it above the 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII which I think is an amazing combo, considering.

The issues are that at f9 wide open you are getting high ISO's or needing to drop the shutter speed down in order to keep the ISO's low. The high ISO's can/do take the edge of photos depending on the circumstances. These were shot on an overcast day but still quite bright but as you can see, if you need to up the shutter speed to stop motion, then the ISO starts to get into very high levels. Luckily, these birds stayed still but I did have quite a few failures due to bird movement. So, the 2x TC is usable, but the combination of high ISO and the 2x TC taking the edge off the sharpness means a double whammy that you don't have to contend with a sharper combo to start with.

Here are a few shots:
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + 2x TC, 1/250s f/9.0 at 800.0mm iso720
original.jpg


Z9 + 400 f4.5 + 2x TC, 1/160s f/9.0 at 800.0mm iso1400
original.jpg


Z9 + 400 f4.5 + 2x TC, 1/160s f/9.0 at 800.0mm iso1800
original.jpg
 
Member's gallery
Lance B said:
I don't own the 400 f4.5 but I had an extensive use of one for a couple of weeks when it was first on sale last year. I tried it with the 2x TC and the results are quite good depending on good light, but I wouldn't put it above the 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII which I think is an amazing combo, considering.

The issues are that at f9 wide open you are getting high ISO's or needing to drop the shutter speed down in order to keep the ISO's low. The high ISO's can/do take the edge of photos depending on the circumstances. These were shot on an overcast day but still quite bright but as you can see, if you need to up the shutter speed to stop motion, then the ISO starts to get into very high levels. Luckily, these birds stayed still but I did have quite a few failures due to bird movement. So, the 2x TC is usable, but the combination of high ISO and the 2x TC taking the edge off the sharpness means a double whammy that you don't have to contend with a sharper combo to start with.

Here are a few shots:
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + 2x TC, 1/250s f/9.0 at 800.0mm iso720
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + 2x TC, 1/160s f/9.0 at 800.0mm iso1400
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + 2x TC, 1/160s f/9.0 at 800.0mm iso1800
Click to expand...
Hi Lance, your photos seem to show more details than those shared by Ricardo.. Have you processed your photos / sharpen or noise reduction?
Another reason may be the distance to the critter (the closer the subject is the more detail can be resolved by the lens).. how close were those birds?
thanks in advance.
Cheers, Ado
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
Hi Lance, your photos seem to show more details than those shared by Ricardo.. Have you processed your photos / sharpen or noise reduction?
Another reason may be the distance to the critter (the closer the subject is the more detail can be resolved by the lens).. how close were those birds?
thanks in advance.
Cheers, Ado
Click to expand...
I would also love to know if there is a way to improve my processing but my guess is that Lance is able to get closer and/or has better light? I find on the rare occasion when I am close with the right light the detail is much better. However I end up using long lenses because that is rare for me.
 
Member's gallery
ricardo00 said:
I would also love to know if there is a way to improve my processing but my guess is that Lance is able to get closer and/or has better light? I find on the rare occasion when I am close with the right light the detail is much better. However I end up using long lenses because that is rare for me.
Click to expand...
I do not think closer. All photos say lens was 800mm.
 
Member's gallery
jerrylwatson said:
Is anybody using the Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Lens with the Z 2.0 TC? If so how are the results.
Click to expand...
Depends on your expectations. Yes…it isn’t as good as the 800PF…but if you can’t or won’t afford one of those it is just fine. Pixel peeping reveals some minor differences, but if you are mostly screen output the downsampling hides the differences IMO.
 
Member's gallery
ricardo00 said:
? Not sure what you mean. Just because we both use 800mm, the subjects aren't necessarily the same distance to us. Almost none of my photos were shot with the subject filling the frame. I am cropping substantially in many of them.
Click to expand...
You are right, cropping will definitely rob the photo of details, while Lance seems to be filling the frame with the subject. I had that problem when using the 300 PF + 1.4 TC combo. This improved when I upgraded to the 500PF and by getting closer to the critter. Good light is a definite advantage, as you mentioned 👍
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
Hi Lance, your photos seem to show more details than those shared by Ricardo.. Have you processed your photos / sharpen or noise reduction?
Another reason may be the distance to the critter (the closer the subject is the more detail can be resolved by the lens).. how close were those birds?
thanks in advance.
Cheers, Ado
Click to expand...
Hi Ado, yes I do post process them and on these images I probably did some noise reduction and sharpening. Noise reduction is with Topaz and a small amount of sharpening. If I do not use Topaz noise reduction, I use another plug-in that I have used for many years, Power Retouche and put a very small amount on just to crisp it a little. Power Retouche has always worked brilliantly, IMO but is not really sold by the maker any more, I don't think. He may sell you a version if you want it, but I may have to get in touch with him and see. He has sort of abandoned it as there was no money in it.

These birds were very close, about 6mts would be my guess outside my computer room window.
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
You are right, cropping will definitely rob the photo of details, while Lance seems to be filling the frame with the subject. I had that problem when using the 300 PF + 1.4 TC combo. This improved when I upgraded to the 500PF and by getting closer to the critter. Good light is a definite advantage, as you mentioned 👍
Click to expand...
Cropping may not always rob detail, you just need to have a good starting image and maybe the lens bare helps but not always. Here is a case in point using the 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII. Original then cropped image that I have shown here on numerous occasions:
Z9 + 500 f5.6 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/800s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1400
original.jpg


Cropped image
original.jpg
 
Member's gallery
Lance B said:
Hi Ado, yes I do post process them and on these images I probably did some noise reduction and sharpening. Noise reduction is with Topaz and a small amount of sharpening. If I do not use Topaz noise reduction, I use another plug-in that I have used for many years, Power Retouche and put a very small amount on just to crisp it a little. Power Retouche has always worked brilliantly, IMO but is not really sold by the maker any more, I don't think. He may sell you a version if you want it, but I may have to get in touch with him and see. He has sort of abandoned it as there was no money in it.

These birds were very close, about 6mts would be my guess outside my computer room window.
Click to expand...
Thanks Lance for your reply. Yes, 6 mts is defintely a very good distance to photograph birds.. as one can capture a lot if not all of the feather details, as illustrated in your photos, lovely ones by the way! I have used the 1.4 TC with both my 300 and 500 PF. I decided to sell it, as the Cropping quality of photos taken with the bare lens were as good and much less of a hassle.

I also agree with you in that cropping doesn't always rob you of details, when the subject was close at the time of taking the photo. But if one starts with a far away subject, with a mounted TC, then a crop of that photo would reflect less details, as the starting point is already a weak one.

I think new Noise Software do a great job. I personally don't mind some grain in my photos (as I come from the Film era). To me it's an artistic effect rather than a fault in the photo :) I do admit, I dislike spending time in the processing stage.. and tend to spend as little time as required to process my RAW files in NX Studio (the only software I own / use).

Have a nice day and I happy shooting.
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
Thanks Lance for your reply. Yes, 6 mts is defintely a very good distance to photograph birds.. as one can capture a lot if not all of the feather details, as illustrated in your photos, lovely ones by the way! I have used the 1.4 TC with both my 300 and 500 PF. I decided to sell it, as the Cropping quality of photos taken with the bare lens were as good and much less of a hassle.

I also agree with you in that cropping doesn't always rob you of details, when the subject was close at the time of taking the photo. But if one starts with a far away subject, with a mounted TC, then a crop of that photo would reflect less details, as the starting point is already a weak one.

I think new Noise Software do a great job. I personally don't mind some grain in my photos (as I come from the Film era). To me it's an artistic effect rather than a fault in the photo :) I do admit, I dislike spending time in the processing stage.. and tend to spend as little time as required to process my RAW files in NX Studio (the only software I own / use).

Have a nice day and I happy shooting.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for your kind comments, Ado. I was also trying to say that the 1.4x TCIII is a good thing to use sometimes when you have to crop as well as use the 1.4x TC like I have in the photo above. Otherwise, you have to crop too much with the bare lens.

Happy shooting.
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
Thanks Lance for your reply. Yes, 6 mts is defintely a very good distance to photograph birds.. as one can capture a lot if not all of the feather details, as illustrated in your photos, lovely ones by the way! I have used the 1.4 TC with both my 300 and 500 PF. I decided to sell it, as the Cropping quality of photos taken with the bare lens were as good and much less of a hassle.

I also agree with you in that cropping doesn't always rob you of details, when the subject was close at the time of taking the photo. But if one starts with a far away subject, with a mounted TC, then a crop of that photo would reflect less details, as the starting point is already a weak one.

I think new Noise Software do a great job. I personally don't mind some grain in my photos (as I come from the Film era). To me it's an artistic effect rather than a fault in the photo :) I do admit, I dislike spending time in the processing stage.. and tend to spend as little time as required to process my RAW files in NX Studio (the only software I own / use).

Have a nice day and I happy shooting.
Click to expand...
Yup grain can be desirable and now Light Room Classic has a set of sliders under effects to add grain ... amount, size and roughness :)
 
Member's gallery
Lance B said:
I don't own the 400 f4.5 but I had an extensive use of one for a couple of weeks when it was first on sale last year. I tried it with the 2x TC and the results are quite good depending on good light, but I wouldn't put it above the 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII which I think is an amazing combo, considering.

The issues are that at f9 wide open you are getting high ISO's or needing to drop the shutter speed down in order to keep the ISO's low. The high ISO's can/do take the edge of photos depending on the circumstances. These were shot on an overcast day but still quite bright but as you can see, if you need to up the shutter speed to stop motion, then the ISO starts to get into very high levels. Luckily, these birds stayed still but I did have quite a few failures due to bird movement. So, the 2x TC is usable, but the combination of high ISO and the 2x TC taking the edge off the sharpness means a double whammy that you don't have to contend with a sharper combo to start with.

Here are a few shots:
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + 2x TC, 1/250s f/9.0 at 800.0mm iso720
original.jpg


Z9 + 400 f4.5 + 2x TC, 1/160s f/9.0 at 800.0mm iso1400
original.jpg


Z9 + 400 f4.5 + 2x TC, 1/160s f/9.0 at 800.0mm iso1800
original.jpg
Click to expand...
Fantastic images as usual. I think I remember these from before.

1.4 TC's f mount and now z mount seem to be always at least a bit better than the 2.0 light is light.

My favorite lighting thin uniform (bright) clouds with ie. natures soft box ... frequently can crank up exposure with plenty of light for detail without blowing highlights.
 
Member's gallery
Ken Miracle said:
Fantastic images as usual. I think I remember these from before.

1.4 TC's f mount and now z mount seem to be always at least a bit better than the 2.0 light is light.

My favorite lighting thin uniform (bright) clouds with ie. natures soft box ... frequently can crank up exposure with plenty of light for detail without blowing highlights.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much, Ken. Much appreciated!
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
Hi Lance, your photos seem to show more details than those shared by Ricardo.. Have you processed your photos / sharpen or noise reduction?
Another reason may be the distance to the critter (the closer the subject is the more detail can be resolved by the lens).. how close were those birds?
thanks in advance.
Cheers, Ado
Click to expand...
Probably sharper just because the air spins differently down under ... after all even the water in the toilet bowl goes backwards for us up north :) Sorry could not resist LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top