z 400 4.5 + 2.0 or 500PF + 1.4

[NorthernFocus]

... I hated the 1.4x on my 200-400VR and disliked the 1.4x on the 300 f2.8AFS ii, as the bokeh was "broken."...

Ditto. The 200-400 didn't handle the converter well. As you say with the 300 2.8 sharpness wasn't as much of an issue as messing up that lovely bokeh. I've noted that on several lenses when using TCs. Particularly shooting over a rippled water surface tends to do odd things. I wasn't going to mention it but now we're on the subject in the eagle shots above the evergreen in the BG looks a bit funky. I wonder if that's to do with the TC.

 

[BLev65]

Ditto. The 200-400 didn't handle the converter well. As you say with the 300 2.8 sharpness wasn't as much of an issue as messing up that lovely bokeh. I've noted that on several lenses when using TCs. Particularly shooting over a rippled water surface tends to do odd things. I wasn't going to mention it but now we're on the subject in the eagle shots above the evergreen in the BG looks a bit funky. I wonder if that's to do with the TC.

I also noticed the less that flattering needle detail in the spruce that sits behind the eagle. The tree was a little close to the bird, so you are seeing the effects of depth of field at f/9. In addition, it was pretty windy during the morning, and this might have contributed to the phenomena. In contrast, I think that the foreground oak leaves blurred out beautifully. If I understand DOF correctly, I think that the depth of field is not symmetrical around the point of focus. I believe that the area of focus is shorter in the foreground and deeper in the background. It is for this reason that it can be a challenge to isolate a subject if the background is relatively close to your target.

Regardless of the latter, I do think that both of these images are acceptable... with enough detail to make at least a 20" print. While not pictures that I would print, I use printing printing as a measure of whether the image could be good enough to keep, use, and/or publish.

regards,
bruce

 

[NorthernFocus]

I also noticed the less that flattering needle detail in the spruce that sits behind the eagle. The tree was a little close to the bird, so you are seeing the effects of depth of field at f/9. In addition, it was pretty windy during the morning, and this might have contributed to the phenomena. In contrast, I think that the foreground oak leaves blurred out beautifully. If I understand DOF correctly, I think that the depth of field is not symmetrical around the point of focus. I believe that the area of focus is shorter in the foreground and deeper in the background. It is for this reason that it can be a challenge to isolate a subject if the background is relatively close to your target.

Regardless of the latter, I do think that both of these images are acceptable... with enough detail to make at least a 20" print. While not pictures that I would print, I use printing printing as a measure of whether the image could be good enough to keep, use, and/or publish.

I did notice that the rest of the bokeh looked pretty smooth. Typically in my experience it is those pattern type objects that tend to produce artifacts. But I suspect as you said in this case it's probably more to do with DOF. I looked for BG artifacts in the shots that I took with the 1.4x a couple of days ago and they looked pretty clean.

FYI DOF is asymmetrical with wide angle lenses but for practical purposes tends to be symmetrical with long glass.

 

[Ductape]

This is one of the best threads I have ever read on BCG forum. Thank you all who contributed the good information. I didn't even realize I wanted to trade in my 500pf for a 400 4.5 and 1.4x tc until I got through about page 1.

 

[BLev65]

This is one of the best threads I have ever read on BCG forum. Thank you all who contributed the good information. I didn't even realize I wanted to trade in my 500pf for a 400 4.5 and 1.4x tc until I got through about page 1.

This forum is filled with some great photographers and respectful people. The dialogues we have are thoughtful and mostly void of reactionary defensive comments. I am thankful for the BCG community, it is a breath of fresh air!

regards,
bruce

 

[Pat Cassity]

So, I started this thread seeking input into whether I should keep my 500PF + 1.4x or sell it and purchase the 2.0x for my 400 4.5. After reading numerous reviews and taking into consideration the comments and pics in this thread, I decided to go with the 2.0 and sold my 500PF. After 2 weeks I am finding that it is significantly ’softer’ than I expected. I certainly didn’t expect it to perform as well as the 1.4x but I thought it would better than what I’m currently experiencing. So, I am again, asking for your input. For those of you that are using it, have you found a ‘sweet spot’ in regards to camera settings, in which it performs at its best? I really enjoy the 800 focal length and I certainly know I can’t expect 800PF performance but I’m really hoping that it’s better than what I am currently experiencing. Thanks!

Pat

 

[BLev65]

So, I started this thread seeking input into whether I should keep my 500PF + 1.4x or sell it and purchase the 2.0x for my 400 4.5. After reading numerous reviews and taking into consideration the comments and pics in this thread, I decided to go with the 2.0 and sold my 500PF. After 2 weeks I am finding that it is significantly ’softer’ than I expected. I certainly didn’t expect it to perform as well as the 1.4x but I thought it would better than what I’m currently experiencing. So, I am again, asking for your input. For those of you that are using it, have you found a ‘sweet spot’ in regards to camera settings, in which it performs at its best? I really enjoy the 800 focal length and I certainly know I can’t expect 800PF performance but I’m really hoping that it’s better than what I am currently experiencing. Thanks!

Pat

Hello Pat,
I'll be working with the combination during the holiday weekend. I generally shoot in the morning when the light and contrast are low. As with my posted eagle and deer pictures, this is the time of day and type of work I like to do. I find that the 2x works great when the sun angle is in your favor, but if you have to push the ISO beyond 3200, are shooting through fog, shooting early in the morning, and/or cropping to tighten the composition, the converter may rob you of the detail you might want.
My NPS request for the 1.4X has shipped (BTW thanks for the recommendation via PM... my shipping confirmation showed up the next day). At this point, if I don't like what I see this weekend, I'll return the 2X and just use the 1.4x. This drops me down in focal length, so I'll use the DX crop to get me back up to 800mm if I need it. I think that this strategy is what I will use until my 800mm PF ships (when/if that occurs...).

regards
bruce

 

[Pat Cassity]

Hello Pat,
I'll be working with the combination during the holiday weekend. I generally shoot in the morning when the light and contrast are low. As with my posted eagle and deer pictures, this is the time of day and type of work I like to do. I find that the 2x works great when the sun angle is in your favor, but if you have to push the ISO beyond 3200, are shooting through fog, shooting early in the morning, and/or cropping to tighten the composition, the converter may rob you of the detail you might want.
My NPS request for the 1.4X has shipped (BTW thanks for the recommendation via PM... my shipping confirmation showed up the next day). At this point, if I don't like what I see this weekend, I'll return the 2X and just use the 1.4x. This drops me down in focal length, so I'll use the DX crop to get me back up to 800mm if I need it. I think that this strategy is what I will use until my 800mm PF ships (when/if that occurs...).

regards
bruce

Bruce,
I would be interested to see your results!
Pat

 

[BLev65]

Bruce,
I would be interested to see your results!
Pat

Hello Pat...
So I will have a few more images to add as I process them, but this is a good example of what the 400 f4.5 and 2X converter can do in the field.
Backstory... I found an eagle's nest that is undergoing a "new construction" process. This pair of eagles live in my area and have a large nest that they have used for years. I am not sure about their motivation, but it appears that they are ready to build an annex. This is good news for me, as I can get a bit of access to the nest via a dirt road. However, I need to do all of the shooting from my car, because they are spooked by my presence. I do not know if yesterday was a one off, so I am heading back today to check out the nest again. The shooting is morning light at high ISOs, and the birds are either in the nest or flying to and from it.
I found that the lens + converter tracked much better than expected. The high ISO robs some detail with noise, but Topaz does a good job recovering it. Exposure is a challenge because of the Eagle's white head and dark body in the warm sunrise light.
Attached is one shot that gives you an idea of what is possible as well as the shooting situation.

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

 

[ricardo00]

Hello Pat...
So I will have a few more images to add as I process them, but this is a good example of what the 400 f4.5 and 2X converter can do in the field.
Backstory... I found an eagle's nest that is undergoing a "new construction" process. This pair of eagles live in my area and have a large nest that they have used for years. I am not sure about their motivation, but it appears that they are ready to build an annex. This is good news for me, as I can get a bit of access to the nest via a dirt road. However, I need to do all of the shooting from my car, because they are spooked by my presence. I do not know if yesterday was a one off, so I am heading back today to check out the nest again. The shooting is morning light at high ISOs, and the birds are either in the nest or flying to and from it.
I found that the lens + converter tracked much better than expected. The high ISO robs some detail with noise, but Topaz does a good job recovering it. Exposure is a challenge because of the Eagle's white head and dark body in the warm sunrise light.
Attached is one shot that gives you an idea of what is possible as well as the shooting situation.

Thanks for posting Bruce! You are lucky to have bald eagle's near your house. However, as you mention, tough to get the exposure on the head with direct sun. Also the pics posted on this forum have limited resolution. For sure one can get useable photos with the combo though it is tough to compare directly with the 500mm PF plus 1.4TC unless one uses a test subject, in which case one can't compare how well the Z9 tracks and obtains focus. I too share your view that I do better with the 400mm plus 2.0 than the 500mm PF plus 1.4 in terms of obtaining focus on the Z9 but both definitely seem useable.
PS. I have pretty much stuck with the 400mm plus the 2.0TC these days and rarely use my Z 1.4TC on the 400mm or the 500mm PF. When light is low, I just take off the TC and use the 400mm alone.
A recent example:
[

https://flic.kr/p/2nYQtQj

]

 

[BLev65]

Ricardo.. that is a lovely photo of a Coyote... the backlighting really makes the shot special.
You and others may enjoy the following, as it is a copied post that I wrote on FM yesterday evening. It includes a few more pictures from both Friday and Saturday. The light conditions were different Saturday, as was the eagle behavior. While I certainly enjoy photographing eagles and swans, I'd much rather point my lens on coyotes, bobcats, or badgers...
Repost begins...
During the past two weeks I have devoted myself to seeing if the 400mm f4.5 w/ 2X converter would be a viable option for me. At 800mm f9, I knew that I would find the lens to be a bit too slow and that the out of focus areas might have too many distracting details.
The 500PF is a great solution for wildlife photography especially when paired with the D500. The 750mm field of view on a crop body has been my go to for a long time. I, however, wanted to build out a native Z system.
So the following is my take on the 400mm f4.5... It is a great lens at 400mm and I can't imagine that the 400mm f2.8 would be any sharper at equivalent apertures. The lens focuses fast and picks up the eye even in pre-dawn light.
When you add the 2X converter, the f9 aperture translates into higher ISOs and thus more noise. Furthermore, the 2x introduces a hint of chromatic aberration (cyan) especially when shooting a white head against a bright sky. The AF with the converter is shockingly good. I was surprised by how well the 400mm lens tracked with a 2X converter attached. The sharpness is very good and this surprised me as well With that said, my 1.4x converter is arriving next week and I think I will be returning the 2X converter (editor note... I added "I think" as I may just keep the 2x until my 800PF arrives).

While the image quality is good, the f/9 aperture is well beyond my comfort. I am already giving up a 1/3 of a stop to the 500PF when I use a 1.4x on the 400 f4.5...

I am attaching some images taken with the 400 + 2x converter. The images where taken on Friday and Saturday at an Eagle's next that was 150 to 200 yards from my position. I was closer for the eagle portrait, but had to shoot with the lens pointing up. Note the high ISO translated into noise that robbed a bit of the detail.

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

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

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

 

[arbitrage]

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

I'd go for the 400.
I found the 500PF just lost its magic once having to use an adapter on the Z9. Probably my favourite lens of all time for a DSLR and the last DSLR lens I owned. But it just seemed unbalanced and awkward on the Z9. I also didn't like the VR running all the time. Of course you already know what it is like on the Z9 and sounds like you are happier with it than I was.

I would probably end up using the 400 a lot with the 1.4TC and it sounds like you would also. That would be my one hesitation as I much prefer using bare lenses. But it would be nice to have the f4.5 option in early mornings with larger subjects.

But having the benefits of Z with better AF and better VR and a lighter lens would be worth it to me even if I was using the 1.4TC a lot.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I'd go for the 400.
I found the 500PF just lost its magic once having to use an adapter on the Z9. Probably my favourite lens of all time for a DSLR and the last DSLR lens I owned. But it just seemed unbalanced and awkward on the Z9. I also didn't like the VR running all the time. Of course you already know what it is like on the Z9 and sounds like you are happier with it than I was.

I would probably end up using the 400 a lot with the 1.4TC and it sounds like you would also. That would be my one hesitation as I much prefer using bare lenses. But it would be nice to have the f4.5 option in early mornings with larger subjects.

But having the benefits of Z with better AF and better VR and a lighter lens would be worth it to me even if I was using the 1.4TC a lot.

IMO mounted on the Z9 the 400 4.5 feels almost identical to the 500PF. They both take some getting used to with very little weight on the objective end of the lens.

VR running all the time on the 500PF led me to turn the sleep time on the Z9 down to 15 seconds. Which of course has its downside. That's a clear advantage of the 400. Also VR on the 400 is quieter which I guess is good for anyone who shoots video.

I've never been a fan of TCs very rarely using them on DSLRs even with f2.8 and f4 primes. Due to both AF performance and degradation of IQ. But it's a whole new game now. At least it is with the Z9(and from what I've read with other Z bodies). Not sure how much is due to MILC in general and how much is specific to Nikon AF and/or the Z mount geometry. But whatever the reason the improved IQ and AF performance(vs DSLR) make shooting with the 1.4x TC(can's speak to the 2x) a viable if not an attractive alternative. Of course there's no getting around the effects of the smaller aperture on exposure and DOF.

I'm not quite there yet but am seriously contemplating giving up the 500PF. For me too it has been my favorite DSLR lens bar none. Heck I sold my 500mm f4 because is sat on the shelf after I got the little guy :(

 

[BLev65]

I'd go for the 400.
I found the 500PF just lost its magic once having to use an adapter on the Z9. Probably my favourite lens of all time for a DSLR and the last DSLR lens I owned. But it just seemed unbalanced and awkward on the Z9. I also didn't like the VR running all the time. Of course you already know what it is like on the Z9 and sounds like you are happier with it than I was.

I would probably end up using the 400 a lot with the 1.4TC and it sounds like you would also. That would be my one hesitation as I much prefer using bare lenses. But it would be nice to have the f4.5 option in early mornings with larger subjects.

But having the benefits of Z with better AF and better VR and a lighter lens would be worth it to me even if I was using the 1.4TC a lot.

Geoff,
I agree with everything you said. I absolutely love my 500PF and it was a dream lens for me. I spent the better part of my shooting time with a D500 + 500PF and Z6(i /ii) / Z7ii on a 200-400 f4. I recently told a friend that I could have worked with his pairing forever if I had not bought the Z9. Ever since I purchased the Z9, I've recognized the limits of DSLRs and wanted to move away from adapted optics. The Z9 w/ 400 f4.5 is amazingly good. AF acquisition and focus tracking is the best I have ever experienced, and it seems to lose little in the way of tracking when a 2x is added &/or in DX mode... this simply blows my mind.

I am a bit bummed that I will likely keep the 1.4x glued to the 400mm lens, and would have gladly paid a premium if they made this 400mm f4.5 w/ a built in converter... wouldn't that have been cool! While I have the 800PF on order, I am on the fence here because I do not know if I will use 800mm enough to justify the expense. If I could find the resources, I know that my optimal Z-kit would be the 400 f2.8S (w/built in 1.4x) and an additional 1.4x in the bag. In fact, I recently told a friend that I could do 100% of my type of photography with a Z7 (i or ii) on a 24-120 f4S and a Z9 on the 400 f2.8S... this two body/two lens kit covers my typical shooting. My current bag includes a Z6II, Z9, 24-120S, 100-400S, and 400 f4.5 (w/ both converters as of next week). My 100-400 is the most expensive unused lens I own... I think I've probably made fewer than a 1000 pictures with the lens. While it is an outstanding optic, I like to shoot wide to short tele or long... that's it.

regards,
bruce

 

[lukemeup]

Bruce, you know my opinion. Just wait till you give a Z TC1.4 a serious spin on that 400 you'll have less regrets giving up the F mount.

 

[fcotterill]

Somewhat off topic..... We shouldn't be surprised if Nikon release a 600 f5.6S PF. The design exists already in the 800 f6.3S PF with 127mm window.

Scaling down this optical design to a 600 f5.6, will keep the PhaseFresnel element in the same 3rd position , and of proportionally narrower dia. (a 108mm window). Compared to the 2.38kg 800 PF, its weight should be 2kg at most.

Nikon would typically wait for sales to slow up of the current new Z mount telephotos, and then reignite the predictable pulse of buying / upgrading etc!

 

[Pat Cassity]

Geoff,
I agree with everything you said. I absolutely love my 500PF and it was a dream lens for me. I spent the better part of my shooting time with a D500 + 500PF and Z6(i /ii) / Z7ii on a 200-400 f4. I recently told a friend that I could have worked with his pairing forever if I had not bought the Z9. Ever since I purchased the Z9, I've recognized the limits of DSLRs and wanted to move away from adapted optics. The Z9 w/ 400 f4.5 is amazingly good. AF acquisition and focus tracking is the best I have ever experienced, and it seems to lose little in the way of tracking when a 2x is added &/or in DX mode... this simply blows my mind.

I am a bit bummed that I will likely keep the 1.4x glued to the 400mm lens, and would have gladly paid a premium if they made this 400mm f4.5 w/ a built in converter... wouldn't that have been cool! While I have the 800PF on order, I am on the fence here because I do not know if I will use 800mm enough to justify the expense. If I could find the resources, I know that my optimal Z-kit would be the 400 f2.8S (w/built in 1.4x) and an additional 1.4x in the bag. In fact, I recently told a friend that I could do 100% of my type of photography with a Z7 (i or ii) on a 120-400 f4S and a Z9 on the 400 f2.8S... this two body/two lens kit covers my typical shooting. My current bag includes a Z6II, Z9, 24-120S, 100-400S, and 400 f4.5 (w/ both converters as of next week). My 100-400 is the most expensive unused lens I own... I think I've probably made fewer than a 1000 pictures with the lens. While it is an outstanding optic, I like to shoot wide to short tele or long... that's it.

regards,
bruce

Bruce,
I got

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

this shot of a Red-Shouldered Hawk taking off from a tree limb this morning with the 400 4.5 and the 1.4x TC.
Pat

 

[NorthernFocus]

Somewhat off topic..... We shouldn't be surprised if Nikon release a 600 f5.6S PF. The design exists already in the 800 f6.3S PF with 127mm window.

Scaling down this optical design to a 600 f5.6 needs a 108mm window, and keeps the PhaseFresnel element in the same 3rd position , and of proportionally narrower dia. Compared to the 2.38kg 800 PF, its weight should be 2kg at most.

Nikon will typically wait for sales to slow up of the current new Z mount telephotos, and then reignite the predictable pulse of buying / upgrading etc!

We can hope. A perfect and final kit for me would be 400 4.5, 600PF, and 800PF. The 500PF released me from addiction to the wide aperture primes and I'd like to not go back there.