Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 TC vs Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC vs Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3

[agrumpyoldsod]

I have now been in the Maasai Mara with both the new Z 400/2.8TC and Z 600/4.0TC and find these lenses, when paired with the Z9 to be "ridiculous". Yesterday on the 4th and 5th game drives (my Day 3) - I had lots of chances to use both lenses with both internal TC and also with external ZTC's (the 14 and 20) attached. I have now disabled the functions I applied to both the lens function and lens control ring -- these are far too easy to accidentally grab while hand holding or supporting the lens on a bean bag, in the "heat" of shooting action.

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

 

[Kuau]

Thanks for all the responses helpful indeed. So I just took delivery on the Z600/4TC wow I was really surprised how light it was.
im going to try it out the first week of April at the US Alpine nationals.
this season I have been using the new Polar Pro Boreal 50L Backpack which could easily hold my Z9 with my Z400/2.8 TC attached and my second Z9 with either my Z24-120/4 or my Z100-400 Zoom, and because of the rooftop design I keep my Crampons stored on top, and I put my water bottle on one side and my monopod on the other. It all fits yet of the weight is a killer. The Polar Pro backpack is quite nice except I wish they had used more padded straps. I think I should be able to hold my new 600/4 attached though I’m not sure I can carry my 2nd Z9 with any lenses attached. Not sure yet. Im still looking for the “perfect “ backpack which I don’t think exists.
Also debating on selling my Z400/2.8 now lots to think about

 

[mdavis501]

I have followed this thread carefully. My question / comment is this -- given that the more dramatic shots, the shots that grab you immediately seem to be in the very early morning or the evening as the light is leaving, isn't the beauty of the 400mm it's speed for those dramatic shots! I have the 600 tc z lens, but with that 400mm tc (which I don't have) I can get twice the light - or said another way, get half the ISO. There are some ISOs which render the image unworkable, even with noise reduction. So, I am strongly considering going with both lenses. I don't think I'd ever shoot the 400mm tc with the tc, I would want it for the f/2.8. HOWEVER, carrying both of those big lenses and a z9 seems more than daunting. For me, what keeps me from getting the 400mm tc is the logistical issue of taking both lenses on the plane. International adds further complexity, but even here in the states - the thought of carrying those two lenses and a body and maybe one smaller lens makes me cringe.

 

[O]

So I want to preface I am not a wildlife shooter. I do mostly winter sports. Alpine Racing, Freestyle etc.
I currently have 2 Z9's and primarily use the Z100-400 and the Z 400mm f/2.8 TC which I own both of. There are occasions where I need longer reach so in my case I would use the built in TC on my 400/2.8 getting me to 560mm and some time I would need even longer reach so I would attach my Z TC1.4X converter getting me 760MM... As much as I love the 400/2.8 I find myself mostly using the builtin TC and hardly every shoot the lens at 400mm. So this got me thinking I have had the new Z600 on order from NPS for a while now and was told mine maybe showing up soon. Do I a. purchase the 600 and just sell the 400/2.8 since I hardly ever shoot at 400, Skip the 600 all together and continue to use the 400 with the TC and maybe pickup the 800 when I need the longer reach...
??

Here is a left shock for.

You use the 100-400 and seem to be happy with it,
You shoot in day light.
You don't need F2.8 as you say.
Weight is or can be an issue as you say.

Well here is a twist, the 180-600 is a sharper lens than the 100-400 according to Ricci, given the environment and the fact its cheap it may be a very welcome surprise, results wise and well worth it to have a play with one. The esoteric lenses speak for them selves, but do you need esoteric images, only you can answer that, my logic is, if the 100-400 is acceptable and you use it, then the 180-600 should have the edge, and could surprise you.

Its not a total solution, but it may bring a surprise benefit underestimation, maybe a 180-600 and a 800mm? you know best as to what your needs are.

Ricci did a good comparison test with the 100-400, 180-600, 200-500, 400 2.8 TC, 60 F4 TC, ..................

Only an opinion

 

[Calson]

There are no objective answers to your question. For me the weight of the 400mm and 600mm TC lenses requires the use of a tripod all the time. With the 600mm I would be using it most of the time with the 1.4x engaged. I get nearly the same reach or image magnification with the 800mm PF and with its lighter weight I can shoot it for short periods without a monopod or tripod for support.

If one wants the ultimate in image quality and cost and weight are no concern then the 400mm TC and 600mm TC are good solutions. For my own shooting I have used 80-400mm, 500mm, 840mm focal lengths the most with telephoto lenses. The 1.4x on the 100-400mm gives me a usable 140-560mm lens that is highly mobile.

For video it is a different matter where a zoom lens takes priority and I will be using a tripod 100% of the time. The AF-S 28-300mm is great for wildlife video and quite affordable. I plan to buy the Sigma 60-600mm assuming it does not present problems with focus breathing for that purpose.

Any lens is a compromise and I think in terms of two or three lenses that will fit inside my 32L backpack and provide the widest range of options in the field. It had been the 80-400mm, 500mm PF, and 600mm f/4 (and TC-14 teleconverter). Now it is the 100-400mm, 400mm f/4.5, 800mm PF, and the two S teleconverters.

 

[hrv]

The golden hour certainly gives the most beautiful light. But I wouldn't say you always need 2.8. The 400 TC is pretty comfortable to hand hold for a while, with surprisingly good results, even in low light with slow shutter speeds.

I tend to use it more at f4 than f2.8. DOF at f2.8 often isn't the best for wildlife. Really depends on your subject, distance, etc.

 

[EricBowles]

Here is a left shock for.

You use the 100-400 and seem to be happy with it,
You shoot in day light.
You don't need F2.8 as you say.
Weight is or can be an issue as you say.

Well here is a twist, the 180-600 is a sharper lens than the 100-400 according to Ricci, given the environment and the fact its cheap it may be a very welcome surprise, results wise and well worth it to have a play with one. The esoteric lenses speak for them selves, but do you need esoteric images, only you can answer that, my logic is, if the 100-400 is acceptable and you use it, then the 180-600 should have the edge, and could surprise you.

Its not a total solution, but it may bring a surprise benefit underestimation, maybe a 180-600 and a 800mm? you know best as to what your needs are.

Ricci did a good comparison test with the 100-400, 180-600, 200-500, 400 2.8 TC, 60 F4 TC, ..................

Only an opinion

Good point - but Ricci was not doing comprehensive testing. He was only testing the limit of each lens. We don't know how the comparison might change at 50mm less, stopped down a half stop, etc. We might get the same result, but I felt his sample photos for the 100-400 did not show that lens at its best. It also is unique in the close focus distance and magnification you can get with the 100-400. I certainly don't fault Ricci for his testing - just adding food for thought before drawing conclusions about the 100-400.

 

[John Navitsky]

also it was the 100-400 with the 1.4tc against the 180-600 native. i suspect each at 400 native the 100-400 will probably be a bit better

 

[Marco74]

I had the 600 TC and I use it 99% of the time without a tripod even in low light conditions.
Last Saturday I went to the mountains, alone, just for fun and to escape the hot temperature of my city (+37 °C with 75 % of humidity).
The trail sign indicated an excursion time of 1,10 hours to reach the refuge with about 500 m of difference in altitude.
It took me just over 40 minutes with a 14 kg backpack on my shoulders. (Z9+600TC+Water+24-120 etc. etc.)
I write all this to say that the weight of the new 600 TC is the least of my problems for me.
Among friends, there is a constant discussion as to which of the 400 TC and 600 TC is the best lens for wildlife photography.
As already written by many of you, I think that the best focal length is the one that is used most often without the use of CT, leaving the latter as a plus.
In my opinion, the option to shoot DX or add an extra TC to those lenses is an emergency alternative.
Without money problems, the ideal would be to have both lenses, but otherwise, I remain of the opinion that the 600 TC is the best option, at least for me.
There are many other options that allow you to cover the focal length of 400 mm with excellent quality and at reasonable prices, but to date, none allows you to get to 600 / 840 mm with the same quality as the 600 TC. (The quality of the photo is not the best because the compression for post it here is made with the mobile phone)

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

 

[grnqvst]

I have the 800 pf on Z9 primarily for birds. I'm considering the 400 tc or the 600 tc. I have read a lot of tests and reviews. One of them tests the sharpness of the 600 close to the MFD, which seems highly relevant for small birds. According to that test the sharpness with tc engaged "takes a nosedive". https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-z-600mm-f4-tc-vr-s-review
Has these results been confirmed in any other tests or was it a "bad" copy of the 600?
The 400 on the other hand seems to be stellar according to the same source.
Thankful for thoughts on the topic.
/grnqvst

 

[arbitrage]

I have the 800 pf on Z9 primarily for birds. I'm considering the 400 tc or the 600 tc. I have read a lot of tests and reviews. One of them tests the sharpness of the 600 close to the MFD, which seems highly relevant for small birds. According to that test the sharpness with tc engaged "takes a nosedive". https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-z-600mm-f4-tc-vr-s-review
Has these results been confirmed in any other tests or was it a "bad" copy of the 600?
The 400 on the other hand seems to be stellar according to the same source.
Thankful for thoughts on the topic.
/grnqvst

I don't know the answer to the close up question, but I think the ideal compliment to the 800PF is the 400TC, not the 600TC. If I was to buy a 600TC, I'd sell the 800PF. I guess if you want a lighter weight 800mm option you could go 600TC and 800PF but I think in that case I'd just get 600TC and 600PF??

400TC and 800PF is the Nikon kit I'm leaning towards if I switch back to Nikon....although the 600PF has muddied the water a bit.

 

[grnqvst]

I don't know the answer to the close up question, but I think the ideal compliment to the 800PF is the 400TC, not the 600TC. If I was to buy a 600TC, I'd sell the 800PF. I guess if you want a lighter weight 800mm option you could go 600TC and 800PF but I think in that case I'd just get 600TC and 600PF??

400TC and 800PF is the Nikon kit I'm leaning towards if I switch back to Nikon....although the 600PF has muddied the water a bit.

Thank for your input. Which ever I choose, 400tc or 600tc, it will most likely have to replace the 800pf.
Apart from the possible issue with the sharpness with the tc, it is still a hard choice. The 2.8 aperture is tempting for dusk and dawn but will 400mm suffice?

 

[EricBowles]

I don't know the answer to the close up question, but I think the ideal compliment to the 800PF is the 400TC, not the 600TC. If I was to buy a 600TC, I'd sell the 800PF. I guess if you want a lighter weight 800mm option you could go 600TC and 800PF but I think in that case I'd just get 600TC and 600PF??

400TC and 800PF is the Nikon kit I'm leaning towards if I switch back to Nikon....although the 600PF has muddied the water a bit.

This website includes specs of all Nikon lenses including the Magnification Ratio. Most of the Z long prime lenses have a magnification ratio of around 1:6.3 - a little higher or lower for exotics TC versions. The difference is the distance at which you achieve the same level of magnification.

Nikon Lenses

The 600mm TC lags a little with magnification of 1:7.1, but with the TC engaged it is 1:5.

Zooms like the 100-400 and 180-600 have the highest magnification of longer focal lengths - 1.2.6 and 1/4 respectively. But if you move back 5 feet from MFD, there is a bigger impact with shorter focal lengths than something like the 800mm PF.

 

[McStamp]

Thank for your input. Which ever I choose, 400tc or 600tc, it will most likely have to replace the 800pf.
Apart from the possible issue with the sharpness with the tc, it is still a hard choice. The 2.8 aperture is tempting for dusk and dawn but will 400mm suffice?

I would not like to give up my 400 TC. This lens is excellent in every aspect, beautiful bokeh and its sharpness is amazing.

 

[grnqvst]

This website includes specs of all Nikon lenses including the Magnification Ratio. Most of the Z long prime lenses have a magnification ratio of around 1:6.3 - a little higher or lower for exotics TC versions. The difference is the distance at which you achieve the same level of magnification.

Nikon Lenses

The 600mm TC lags a little with magnification of 1:7.1, but with the TC engaged it is 1:5.

Zooms like the 100-400 and 180-600 have the highest magnification of longer focal lengths - 1.2.6 and 1/4 respectively. But if you move back 5 feet from MFD, there is a bigger impact with shorter focal lengths than something like the 800mm PF.

Thanks for the response.
What is the quality like at the 1:5 magnification on the 600mm tc?

 

[EricBowles]

Thanks for the response.
What is the quality like at the 1:5 magnification on the 600mm tc?

It's very good, but DOF is quite shallow. You have to balance the need for more DOF with magnification. At MFD DOF is under 1/4 inch (check a DOF calculator - it may be closer to 1/10 inch). That means for a songbird, you need to precisely focus on the near edge of the eye - not just the eye.

 

[grnqvst]

It's very good, but DOF is quite shallow. You have to balance the need for more DOF with magnification. At MFD DOF is under 1/4 inch (check a DOF calculator - it may be closer to 1/10 inch). That means for a songbird, you need to precisely focus on the near edge of the eye - not just the eye.

Yes, DOF is very shallow indeed. Had the chance yesterday to take some test shots with both the 400tc and 600tc. Tried them with all combinations of external TC's and internal TC's aswell. In this very unscienctific test the results seemed to be useful, maybe with the exception of 2.0tTC + internal TC. I was surprised that the 600tc, despite its size, didn't feel heavier. The difference between the 600tc and 400tc is almost negliable.
@arbitrage Leaning towards keeping my 800pf and getting a 400tc.
Thank you for your input.