z 400 4.5 + 2.0 or 500PF + 1.4

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).

Pat Cassity

Pat Cassity

Active member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I recently made the decision to cancel my order for the 800PF and keep my 500PF to use with my 1.4 TC. I also purchased the 400 4.5. I’ve been very happy with 500PF and 1.4 the last few years. Last week, I put my 1.4z tc on the 4004.5 and was blown away with the results. So, I did a few (very unscientific) side by side tests of the 500 +1.4 tc compared to the z400 + 1.4 tc. Both shots were on the z9. In my opinion, the 400 4.5 shots were significantly sharper and produced an overall more pleasing image. I’ve read many of the reviews of z 2.0 TC and most are just ‘so so‘ when used on this specific lens. I don’t intend to sell my 500PF, but I now wonder if the 2.0 on 400 would be a better choice to (occasionally) get to the 700-800 range than the 500 + 1.4. So, is there anyone out there that has been in a similar position with these 2 lens, TC combinations? I would really be interested in your thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I'm interested to hear what others have to say on this topic. I just (finally)received my Z 1.4x TC and was planning on some similar testing. Though I had in mind shooting the 400+1.4x against the bare 500 PF due to the roughly interchangeable focal length. As much as I love the 500PF I'll start leaving it home if the 400/TC produces equivalent IQ. I'll also be testing the 400/TC against the Sony A1/200-600. Will report back when I have meaningful results.
 
Member's gallery
I have been using the Z 2.0 TC fairly frequently with the 400mm f/4.5. I haven't decided to cancel my order for the 800mm f/6.3 yet but find the TC combo reasonable for most of my pics and in some ways (weight) preferable to the 800mm. I probably will go ahead and see if I ever get the 800mm but will have to wait to get it to see which I prefer.
If interested, I posted an album with photos take with the Z 2.0TC and 400mm lens:
www.flickr.com

Nikon 400mm f/4.5 with the Z TC 2.0

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Member's gallery
Ricardo00: You have taken some nice photos with the Z 2.0 TC on your Z 400mm lens. I have been using my Z 2.0 TC on my 100-400mm zoom but your combination would give me 800mm at one less stop and I note that Nikon USA are currently showing the 400mm lens as in stock and available for purchase.

So: Please excuse the questions but were you shooting with a Z9 and did you have to do much noise reduction and or sharpening on the photos that you posted on flickr.com?

Reason: I am thinking that a 400mm + 2.0 TC combined with my 100-400mm zoom + 1.4 TC along with my Z7 and Z9 would give me a flexible set of fairly lightweight equipment. This would tide me over until Nikon re-opens orders for the Z 800mm even then, there might be a long wait to get one and meantime I'm looking forward to a lot of migratory and nesting bird shooting this coming winter and spring.

I really enjoy photography as a hobby but the new Z 600mm prime is currently beyond my hobby budget and by the time I can afford one I'll be probably be too old to carry it!
 
Member's gallery
ricardo00 said:
I have been using the Z 2.0 TC fairly frequently with the 400mm f/4.5. I haven't decided to cancel my order for the 800mm f/6.3 yet but find the TC combo reasonable for most of my pics and in some ways (weight) preferable to the 800mm. I probably will go ahead and see if I ever get the 800mm but will have to wait to get it to see which I prefer.
If interested, I posted an album with photos take with the Z 2.0TC and 400mm lens:
www.flickr.com

Nikon 400mm f/4.5 with the Z TC 2.0

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
Click to expand...
nice set!
 
Member's gallery
BrianMM said:
Ricardo00: You have taken some nice photos with the Z 2.0 TC on your Z 400mm lens. I have been using my Z 2.0 TC on my 100-400mm zoom but your combination would give me 800mm at one less stop and I note that Nikon USA are currently showing the 400mm lens as in stock and available for purchase.

So: Please excuse the questions but were you shooting with a Z9 and did you have to do much noise reduction and or sharpening on the photos that you posted on flickr.com?

Reason: I am thinking that a 400mm + 2.0 TC combined with my 100-400mm zoom + 1.4 TC along with my Z7 and Z9 would give me a flexible set of fairly lightweight equipment. This would tide me over until Nikon re-opens orders for the Z 800mm even then, there might be a long wait to get one and meantime I'm looking forward to a lot of migratory and nesting bird shooting this coming winter and spring.

I really enjoy photography as a hobby but the new Z 600mm prime is currently beyond my hobby budget and by the time I can afford one I'll be probably be too old to carry it!
Click to expand...
Thank you! I do use the Z9. I also tried the 100-400mm but ended up returning it since I mostly shoot at 400mm plus. When the light gets low I tend to remove the TC and shoot with the lens alone. I process in DxO Photo Lab and use what they call Deep Prime XD for noise reduction and minimal sharpening in most. I might get the 100-400mm again but at this time I only have the one mirrorless camera (the Z9) so need a lens that can work on that for close subjects (depending on light, I use the 70-300mm or 300mm f/2.8 on my second camera, a D500).
PS. I do worry that the 800mm plus Z9 will be too heavy for my walks so hoping a new mirrorless is introduced with the focussing abilities of the Z9 but a much lighter weight.
 
Member's gallery
ricardo00 said:
I have been using the Z 2.0 TC fairly frequently with the 400mm f/4.5. I haven't decided to cancel my order for the 800mm f/6.3 yet but find the TC combo reasonable for most of my pics and in some ways (weight) preferable to the 800mm. I probably will go ahead and see if I ever get the 800mm but will have to wait to get it to see which I prefer.
If interested, I posted an album with photos take with the Z 2.0TC and 400mm lens:
www.flickr.com

Nikon 400mm f/4.5 with the Z TC 2.0

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
Click to expand...
Excellent, Ricardo! I don’t see any softness in any of the shots. I might give the 2.0 a try.
 
Member's gallery
ricardo00 said:
Thanks Pat! Definitely helps to have a lot of light (which often we do in sunny California). The 800mm PF will definitely work better when light is low.
Click to expand...
Ricardo, The images help me a lot and I’m sure you will love the 800. However, I would still like to hear from someone that had to ability to compare it to the 500PF with the 1.4 at 700mm.
 
Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
Ricardo, The images help me a lot and I’m sure you will love the 800. However, I would still like to hear from someone that had to ability to compare it to the 500PF with the 1.4 at 700mm.
Click to expand...
Hi Pat,
I bought the 500mm PF when it was first released and used it extensivelyfor 4 years, both alone and with the 1.4 and 1.7TC. During the last year (ie. before I got the 400mm f/4.5), used it on the Z9. When I first got the 400mm f/4.5, I did compare the 400mm plus the 1.4TC and the 500mm a;pme and found the latter was superior. I also compared the 500mm PF plus the 1.7TC with the 400mm f/4.5 plus the Z 2.0TC. The latter two were very close, with the 500mm PF plus the 1.7TC being in my hands sharper for a stationary test shot at a distance. However, for a moving bird, I did give the edge to the 400mm f/4.5 plus 2.0TC. However they are quite similar in my view and not sure it is worth the extra expense to go for the 400mm f/4.5 plus Z 2.0 TC. So if you have the 500mm PF and use it extensively with the 1.4TC, not sure there is that much to gain for going to the 400mm.
Some of my pics with the 500mm pf plus TC (both the 1.4 and 1.7) are in another album in flickr. The more recent ones use the Z9. It is hard to compare though with my 400mm ones since I think I have gotten better in taking photos as well as processing in the last 4 years. I could try to dig out the comparison photos but again, those are for still subjects (think I did post on this board a while back). Not sure what you are trying to photograph but I think the 500mm PF is a fantastic lens and works even better on the Z9 with a TC than on my D500.
Some of the photos with the 500mm plus TC: https://www.flickr.com/photos/60519499@N00/albums/72157715101727996

And one of my all time favorite shots was taken with the Z9 plus the 500mm PF and 1.4 TC, the passage of a vole from the parent WTK to one of its offspring:
[
https://flic.kr/p/2nvWyAs
]
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
ricardo00 said:
Hi Pat,
I bought the 500mm PF when it was first released and used it extensivelyfor 4 years, both alone and with the 1.4 and 1.7TC. During the last year (ie. before I got the 400mm f/4.5), used it on the Z9. When I first got the 400mm f/4.5, I did compare the 400mm plus the 1.4TC and the 500mm a;pme and found the latter was superior. I also compared the 500mm PF plus the 1.7TC with the 400mm f/4.5 plus the Z 2.0TC. The latter two were very close, with the 500mm PF plus the 1.7TC being in my hands sharper for a stationary test shot at a distance. However, for a moving bird, I did give the edge to the 400mm f/4.5 plus 2.0TC. However they are quite similar in my view and not sure it is worth the extra expense to go for the 400mm f/4.5 plus Z 2.0 TC. So if you have the 500mm PF and use it extensively with the 1.4TC, not sure there is that much to gain for going to the 400mm.
Some of my pics with the 500mm pf plus TC (both the 1.4 and 1.7) are in another album in flickr. The more recent ones use the Z9. It is hard to compare though with my 400mm ones since I think I have gotten better in taking photos as well as processing in the last 4 years. I could try to dig out the comparison photos but again, those are for still subjects (think I did post on this board a while back). Not sure what you are trying to photograph but I think the 500mm PF is a fantastic lens and works even better on the Z9 with a TC than on my D500.
Some of the photos with the 500mm plus TC: https://www.flickr.com/photos/60519499@N00/albums/72157715101727996

And one of my all time favorite shots was taken with the Z9 plus the 500mm PF and 1.4 TC, the passage of a vole from the parent WTK to one of its offspring:
[
https://flic.kr/p/2nvWyAs
]
Click to expand...
Ricardo, Another incredible shot! Since I already own the 400 4.5 it would just be a matter of adding the 2.0 TC. However, if the difference between the 400 with the 2.0 and the 500PF and 1.4 isn't significant, not sure I need to spend the extra money.
 
Member's gallery
When I found myself with the FTZ adapter and 4 teleconverters I knew that in the long term I needed to get to a S only lens and eliminate the two f-mount teleconverters and the FTZ when traveling. That was what drove my decision to sell the 500mm PF and buy the 400mm f/4.5. Image quality with the 500mm PF was not a concern in the least.
 
Member's gallery
Calson said:
When I found myself with the FTZ adapter and 4 teleconverters I knew that in the long term I needed to get to a S only lens and eliminate the two f-mount teleconverters and the FTZ when traveling. That was what drove my decision to sell the 500mm PF and buy the 400mm f/4.5. Image quality with the 500mm PF was not a concern in the least.
Click to expand...

Agree. I want to reduce the number of TC, adapters in my camera bag. but for the moment I'll keep the 500 PF and the old FX 1.4 TC.
 
Member's gallery
I continue to be on the fence when it comes to the 400mm f4.5S. My NPS order for the lens is being shipped to my local, but at this point I am not sure I want the lens. I have a 500PF, and find that I need to shoot at 500mm or use the DX crop on my Z9 to approach a longer focal length. My concerns with the 500PF have nothing to do with size and weight because I can hand carry, hold to the eye, and shoot effortlessly with it. At f5.6 the aperture is on 2/3 slower than f/4.5 and a 1/3 stop faster than the 400mm f/4.5 with 1.4x. A 2x converter, while possible, seems impractical w/ either lens. I won't use the 500PF w/ 1.4x bc it adds a second failure point (FTZii + 1.4x).
Clearly, the 400 f4.5S has a few advantages beyond size... The AF motor is designed for the Z bodies and all reports suggest that it focuses faster than the 500PF. I have not found the 500PF focus acquisition to be a problem, but I do find that continuous AFC w/ VR sport results in many less than tack images as 20FPS. This is one of two major reasons I am considering a shift to an all Z platform. My second reason is the VR mechanism... VR on the 500PF has the motor running all of the time. The additional noise is picked up by acute ears (deer) as well as the audio in a video feed. Furthermore, I can help but wonder if the VR is causing the slight reduction in sharpness in some of my images (mentioned above).
Nikon's lack of more "affordable" 500mm / 600mm lenses in the Z-mount has me frozen here, as I feel like 500mm is just enough (w/ DX cropping from time to time)...
When I look at reviews, the consistent message is: 1) the 400 f4.5 has better bokeh and sharpness than the 500PF when comparing straight out of camera 2) the 500PF has better sharpness than the 400 f4.5 w/ 1.4x, but not by a lot

Last point... I can't see keeping both lenses. Their focal lengths are too close, and I am too lazy to change lenses in the field. I have shot my 500PF since its introduction, and with the exception of some rare bokeh issues, it has been a winner for me. I never ask questions like this, but I am seeking opinions from the crowd as I am at a paralytic point.

regards,
bruce
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
I continue to be on the fence when it comes to the 400mm f4.5S. My NPS order for the lens is being shipped to my local, but at this point I am not sure I want the lens. I have a 500PF, and find that I need to shoot at 500mm or use the DX crop on my Z9 to approach a longer focal length. My concerns with the 500PF have nothing to do with size and weight because I can hand carry, hold to the eye, and shoot effortlessly with it. At f5.6 the aperture is on 2/3 slower than f/4.5 and a 1/3 stop faster than the 400mm f/4.5 with 1.4x. A 2x converter, while possible, seems impractical w/ either lens. I won't use the 500PF w/ 1.4x bc it adds a second failure point (FTZii + 1.4x).
Clearly, the 400 f4.5S has a few advantages beyond size... The AF motor is designed for the Z bodies and all reports suggest that it focuses faster than the 500PF. I have not found the 500PF focus acquisition to be a problem, but I do find that continuous AFC w/ VR sport results in many less than tack images as 20FPS. This is one of two major reasons I am considering a shift to an all Z platform. My second reason is the VR mechanism... VR on the 500PF has the motor running all of the time. The additional noise is picked up by acute ears (deer) as well as the audio in a video feed. Furthermore, I can help but wonder if the VR is causing the slight reduction in sharpness in some of my images (mentioned above).
Nikon's lack of more "affordable" 500mm / 600mm lenses in the Z-mount has me frozen here, as I feel like 500mm is just enough (w/ DX cropping from time to time)...
When I look at reviews, the consistent message is: 1) the 400 f4.5 has better bokeh and sharpness than the 500PF when comparing straight out of camera 2) the 500PF has better sharpness than the 400 f4.5 w/ 1.4x, but not by a lot

Last point... I can't see keeping both lenses. Their focal lengths are too close, and I am too lazy to change lenses in the field. I have shot my 500PF since its introduction, and with the exception of some rare bokeh issues, it has been a winner for me. I never ask questions like this, but I am seeking opinions from the crowd as I am at a paralytic point.

regards,
bruce
Click to expand...
Bruce, I believe we have similar concerns. However, contrary to your comment about the 500 + 1.4 being sharper than the 400 + 1.4, I found the opposite. That’s actually what started my thinking towards getting the 2.0 TC for the 400 4.5. I was on the fence in regards to the 400, as well. Especially since I already own the 100-400z. However, it has been an absolute pleasant surprise. i wasn’t happy with the 100-400 from the day I bought it. Just the opposite with the 400 4.5. I love having the the 4.5 for lower light situations but I’m finding the 1.4 TC is becoming a permanent fixture. Ricardo posted some really incredible shots using the 2.0 on the 400mm but I’m just not yet sold that it would be significantly better than the 1.4 on the 500PF. But, the desire to go all mirrorless may end up being the overriding reason to pull the trigger on the 2.0 for the 400.
 
Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
I recently made the decision to cancel my order for the 800PF and keep my 500PF to use with my 1.4 TC. I also purchased the 400 4.5. I’ve been very happy with 500PF and 1.4 the last few years. Last week, I put my 1.4z tc on the 4004.5 and was blown away with the results. So, I did a few (very unscientific) side by side tests of the 500 +1.4 tc compared to the z400 + 1.4 tc. Both shots were on the z9. In my opinion, the 400 4.5 shots were significantly sharper and produced an overall more pleasing image. I’ve read many of the reviews of z 2.0 TC and most are just ‘so so‘ when used on this specific lens. I don’t intend to sell my 500PF, but I now wonder if the 2.0 on 400 would be a better choice to (occasionally) get to the 700-800 range than the 500 + 1.4. So, is there anyone out there that has been in a similar position with these 2 lens, TC combinations? I would really be interested in your thoughts.
Click to expand...
I have been very happy with my z 400mm f4.5. Works extremely well with the 1.4TC. And with the 2X TC it does well.
This picture was taken in South Africa. It is a relatively rare Mountain Zebra (as opposed to the more common Plains Zebra) and it was quite distant in the mountain. This picture was taken with the 400mm + 2X TC and is further cropped about 100%. No sharpening has been applied.
Tswalu_Z9A6363.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Ivan Rothman said:
I have been very happy with my z 400mm f4.5. Works extremely well with the 1.4TC. And with the 2X TC it does well.
This picture was taken in South Africa. It is a relatively rare Mountain Zebra (as opposed to the more common Plains Zebra) and it was quite distant in the mountain. This picture was taken with the 400mm + 2X TC and is further cropped about 100%. No sharpening has been applied.
View attachment 49139
Click to expand...
Excellent shot, Ivan! Thanks!
 
Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
Bruce, I believe we have similar concerns. However, contrary to your comment about the 500 + 1.4 being sharper than the 400 + 1.4, I found the opposite. That’s actually what started my thinking towards getting the 2.0 TC for the 400 4.5. I was on the fence in regards to the 400, as well. Especially since I already own the 100-400z. However, it has been an absolute pleasant surprise. i wasn’t happy with the 100-400 from the day I bought it. Just the opposite with the 400 4.5. I love having the the 4.5 for lower light situations but I’m finding the 1.4 TC is becoming a permanent fixture. Ricardo posted some really incredible shots using the 2.0 on the 400mm but I’m just not yet sold that it would be significantly better than the 1.4 on the 500PF. But, the desire to go all mirrorless may end up being the overriding reason to pull the trigger on the 2.0 for the 400.
Click to expand...
Thanks... I think you misread what I wrote... the 500PF straight is sharper than the 400PF + 1.4x... this was the key point w/ this comparison. On the other hand, you get an extra 60mm
 
Member's gallery
Ivan Rothman said:
I have been very happy with my z 400mm f4.5. Works extremely well with the 1.4TC. And with the 2X TC it does well.
This picture was taken in South Africa. It is a relatively rare Mountain Zebra (as opposed to the more common Plains Zebra) and it was quite distant in the mountain. This picture was taken with the 400mm + 2X TC and is further cropped about 100%. No sharpening has been applied.
View attachment 49139
Click to expand...
Thanks... I've photographed this species in Kenya... I don't see myself using a 2x on this lens, as I already struggle with subject isolation w/ and f5.6 lens.... Note... stand corrected, I did not photograph the mountain Zebra... thanks for sharing the image Ivan.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
Thanks... I've photographed this species in Kenya... I don't see myself using a 2x on this lens, as I already struggle with subject isolation w/ and f5.6 lens.
Click to expand...
You didn't photograph this Zebra in Kenya. The Mountain Zebra is only found in Southern Africa. In Kenya, there are 2 types of zebra. The common Plains Zebra which is also found in southern Africa. And the Grevy's Zebra - which is the largest of the zebras and is considered endangered.
I'm a frequent traveller to Eastern Africa and to Southern Africa. I still get confused by the different zebra species. And the different giraffe species.
 
Member's gallery
Ivan Rothman said:
You didn't photograph this Zebra in Kenya. The Mountain Zebra is only found in Southern Africa. In Kenya, there are 2 types of zebra. The common Plains Zebra which is also found in southern Africa. And the Grevy's Zebra - which is the largest of the zebras and is considered endangered.
I'm a frequent traveller to Eastern Africa and to Southern Africa. I still get confused by the different zebra species. And the different giraffe species.
Click to expand...
Thanks Ivan, I thought there were only two species of zebra... I did not realize that the Mountain zebra was different from the Grevy's. Now you've given me one more reason to visit South Africa... I had actually made reservations to photograph SA at Zimanga this past summer, unfortunately my wife's illness made the trip an impossibility... maybe some day ;)

regards,
bruce
 
Member's gallery
The 500mm is going to be as sharp as the 400mm f/4.5. Adding a 1.4x teleconverter is going to result in less image degradation with the 400mm lens but if you need the image magnification then you do what you need to do. I shot with the 500mm PF in the Pantanal and used the TC-20 to get shots of twin jaguars at a comfortable distance so as not to have them bothered by our boat.

For me it was a matter of having to carry the FTZ and 4 teleconverters in the field. With a 100% S lens kit I could eliminate the FTZ and two teleconverters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top