Trying to decide between 400 2.8 TC and 800 PF + 400 4.5.

[Tails]

On a tripod both are fairly easy for 800mm. Off the tripod the 400mm f2.8 TC is more unwealdly.
The 400mm f2.8 TC is nearly as big/heavy as my old AFS 400mm f2.8.
600mm still seems the optimum wildlife lens and 300-400mm for sports.
I have several long lenses from 300 to 1000mm and the 400mm f4.5 is my go-to lens for most things...

Yes I meant without a tripod. On the tripod with a gimbal head, both should be relatively similar. When I'm in my hide, I put the lens on a tripod most of the time, but if I'm walking around looking for wildlife, I'm always handholding the lens.
And I agree that 600 is the optimal wildlife focal length, that's why I want 400 2.8 TC, since it doubles as a 560 F4 as well.

 

[Roy]

Yes I meant without a tripod. On the tripod with a gimbal head, both should be relatively similar. When I'm in my hide, I put the lens on a tripod most of the time, but if I'm walking around looking for wildlife, I'm always handholding the lens.
And I agree that 600 is the optimal wildlife focal length, that's why I want 400 2.8 TC, since it doubles as a 560 F4 as well.

The 400 TC is a great lens and I was twmtped to update my old 400 f2.8 AFS.
But I just found myself grabbing the 400 f4.5 Z lens instead.
I decided to get the 4.5 while I waited for the 400 TC
But I like the f4.5 so much that I cancelled the TC order..
Image quality and speed is important but the difference is so close that the weight saving outweighs it easily..

 

[BLev65]

In terms of handling, is it considerably easier to track birds in the air with the 800 6.3 compared to 400 2.8 due to added weight?

My answer will be unsatisfactory... it depends.
If you have a bird at a distance and the light is contrasty, you will be able to find your subject with the 800mm lens. 800mm is a super narrow field of view and it is challenging to find your subject if it is already close and moving rapidly. In addition, if your subject is small and the background is cluttered, you may need to do a bit of manual focusing to get the AF to prioritize your intended subject over the background. Finally, the AF motor is not as quick as the 400mm f2.8 S, so while the PF has an AF that will maintain focus, if it mis-focuses or grabs the background, you may be toast until you do a bit of manual focus readjustment.
Clearly, the 800PF benefits from its weight. It is light and you can easily pan the lens with or without a tripod. However, you cannot discount the optical advantages of a faster 400mm or 600mm lens. Clearly, the f2.8 aperture and faster AF motor makes the 400 f2.8S more responsive and more adept at picking up subjects in marginal light. Furthermore, the wider field of view, even at 560mm, will make it easier for you to find and keep the subject in the frame.

regards,
bruce

 

[Tails]

My answer will be unsatisfactory... it depends.
If you have a bird at a distance and the light is contrasty, you will be able to find your subject with the 800mm lens. 800mm is a super narrow field of view and it is challenging to find your subject if it is already close and moving rapidly. In addition, if your subject is small and the background is cluttered, you may need to do a bit of manual focusing to get the AF to prioritize your intended subject over the background. Finally, the AF motor is not as quick as the 400mm f2.8 S, so while the PF has an AF that will maintain focus, if it mis-focuses or grabs the background, you may be toast until you do a bit of manual focus readjustment.
Clearly, the 800PF benefits from its weight. It is light and you can easily pan the lens with or without a tripod. However, you cannot discount the optical advantages of a faster 400mm or 600mm lens. Clearly, the f2.8 aperture and faster AF motor makes the 400 f2.8S more responsive and more adept at picking up subjects in marginal light. Furthermore, the wider field of view, even at 560mm, will make it easier for you to find and keep the subject in the frame.

regards,
bruce

My question was mostly about the handling of the lens, panning due to added weight etc. And yes keeping the bird in the EVF with a 400 or 560mm will be easier than 800mm but I'll be using the 400 with a 2x TC from time to time to get 800mm anyway.

When I was using 200-500 which did weigh similar to 800mm PF (what an astonishing achievement by Nikon to make a 800mm 6.3 that weighs as much as 200-500 5.6), my panning was pretty ok.

 

[Alistair]

Personally I consider the convenience of having an agile, light and compact lens choice available cannot be underestimated. So for me it would be the 400/4.5 + 800/6.3 pairing.
But darn, the images from that 400/2.8 look delicious.

 

[NorthernFocus]

...keeping the bird in the EVF with a 400 or 560mm will be easier than 800mm...

This is only true if shooting the same subject from the same distance and cropping in post to achieve desired field of view. Difficulty to find/keep the subject in the VF isn't a function of focal length it's a matter of field of view. If the frame is filled with the subject the difficulty is the same regardless of FL. Actually for the same FOV it's easier to keep a moving subject in the frame with a longer lens due to less angular/relative motion when the subject is farther away. This advantage is rarely mentioned in discussions probably because those who most often cite the difficulty of keeping subjects in the VF with longer glass don't actually shoot with said glass. Otherwise they would know better.