z 400 4.5 + 2.0 or 500PF + 1.4

[Ivan Rothman]

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.

I've never owned the 500 PF but I did have the 300 PF and it was a great lens. I have no doubt that the 500 PF used with the Z system will yield excellent results and get you out to 700mm at f8 with 1.4X TC. But the Z 400mm f4.5 is also a great choice. It gets out to 560mm with a 1.4X TC but also plays very well with the 2X TC and that gets out to 800mm although it will be at f9. I've decided to go completely Z and am very happy to no longer have to carry FTZ adapter and F-mount teleconverters.

 

[BLev65]

I am following up with my own decision...
I ordered a 400mm f4.5 from NPS a week ago, and it arrived. I have just placed an order for the TC14Z lens and will take delivery of than whenever it arrives.
I made arrangements to sell my 500PF and go with a Z-mount only system...
I look forward to seeing how the 400mm f4.5 performs with my Z9.
I guess this Zebra changed his stripes
cheers,
bruce

 

[Ivan Rothman]

I am following up with my own decision...
I ordered a 400mm f4.5 from NPS a week ago, and it arrived. I have just placed an order for the TC14Z lens and will take delivery of than whenever it arrives.
I made arrangements to sell my 500PF and go with a Z-mount only system...
I look forward to seeing how the 400mm f4.5 performs with my Z9.
I guess this Zebra changed his stripes
cheers,
bruce

Good for you Bruce
We all have a history of "changing our stripes".
I remember a long time ago saying "I am never giving up my film". Then I bought my first Nikon digital camera - just to play with it. When out one morning to use it - and never shot another roll of film.
Now I have a camera that has NO MIRROR NO MECHANICAL SHUTTER
It has 5 axis image stabilization - so I almost don't need a tripod anymore
It has AF with subject recognition - I can put the Z9 in Auto-area AF and now the camera will focus without my help

Now I am just waiting for the next generation of cameras - they will have auto composition and auto shutter release. 100MB shooting at 120 fps in RAW
Or maybe the new (less than 1 pound) zoom lens 14mm - 800mm at a constant f2.8 aperture

 

[Patrick M]

I’m renting the z400 f4.5 for a couple of weeks - just out of curiosity!

 

[NorthernFocus]

I know this is straying from the OP a bit but....

Today I did a quick and dirty comparison between the Z9/400 4.5/1.4x TC vs the A1/200-600@560mm. We had a moose cow lying in the back yard this evening. The light was failing and it was a high ISO situation so not ideal. But under the conditions the pre-edited results for all practical purposes were virtually identical. After running the images through DxO PL the shots with the A1 were clearly better. But... there is still no lens profile in PL for the 400 4.5. I tried to go back and run the A1 file back through PL with the lens corrections turned off but ran into technical problems and gave up So went back to the RAW files and applied NR in LRC and then an identical level of sharpening to each. The results were pretty much a toss up.

This was by no means a "test". Conditions were not controlled at all. Shots were made with the same ss and f-stop, handheld w/VR on, and auto ISO. Just a quick practical comparison to see if there was an obvious difference in IQ. Nope

 

[ricardo00]

I know this is straying from the OP a bit but....

Today I did a quick and dirty comparison between the Z9/400 4.5/1.4x TC vs the A1/200-600@560mm. We had a moose cow lying in the back yard this evening. The light was failing and it was a high ISO situation so not ideal. But under the conditions the pre-edited results for all practical purposes were virtually identical. After running the images through DxO PL the shots with the A1 were clearly better. But... there is still no lens profile in PL for the 400 4.5. I tried to go back and run the A1 file back through PL with the lens corrections turned off but ran into technical problems and gave up So went back to the RAW files and applied NR in LRC and then an identical level of sharpening to each. The results were pretty much a toss up.

This was by no means a "test". Conditions were not controlled at all. Shots were made with the same ss and f-stop, handheld w/VR on, and auto ISO. Just a quick practical comparison to see if there was an obvious difference in IQ. Nope

When you took the photos, did you find that one or the other grabbed focus on the moose's eye better than the other?

 

[Alistair]

I know this is straying from the OP a bit but....

Today I did a quick and dirty comparison between the Z9/400 4.5/1.4x TC vs the A1/200-600@560mm. We had a moose cow lying in the back yard this evening. The light was failing and it was a high ISO situation so not ideal. But under the conditions the pre-edited results for all practical purposes were virtually identical. After running the images through DxO PL the shots with the A1 were clearly better. But... there is still no lens profile in PL for the 400 4.5. I tried to go back and run the A1 file back through PL with the lens corrections turned off but ran into technical problems and gave up So went back to the RAW files and applied NR in LRC and then an identical level of sharpening to each. The results were pretty much a toss up.

This was by no means a "test". Conditions were not controlled at all. Shots were made with the same ss and f-stop, handheld w/VR on, and auto ISO. Just a quick practical comparison to see if there was an obvious difference in IQ. Nope

That would be a very interesting comparison if done in good (ish) light.

 

[BLev65]

I know this is straying from the OP a bit but....

Today I did a quick and dirty comparison between the Z9/400 4.5/1.4x TC vs the A1/200-600@560mm. We had a moose cow lying in the back yard this evening. The light was failing and it was a high ISO situation so not ideal. But under the conditions the pre-edited results for all practical purposes were virtually identical. After running the images through DxO PL the shots with the A1 were clearly better. But... there is still no lens profile in PL for the 400 4.5. I tried to go back and run the A1 file back through PL with the lens corrections turned off but ran into technical problems and gave up So went back to the RAW files and applied NR in LRC and then an identical level of sharpening to each. The results were pretty much a toss up.

This was by no means a "test". Conditions were not controlled at all. Shots were made with the same ss and f-stop, handheld w/VR on, and auto ISO. Just a quick practical comparison to see if there was an obvious difference in IQ. Nope

I know a lot of people do comparisons like this, but it would really shock me if a $2000 zoom would out-perform or perform as well as a $3200 prime w/ a matching TC. Furthermore, in poor light, I would expect the prime to be significantly better than the zoom. The Sony 200-600 deserves all of the accolades it gets, as it is first long range telephoto lens with an internal zoom mechanism to produce consistently professional results for a price that nobody else seems to be able to match... but, to outperform (or marginally underperform) against the new Z 400mm f4.5 under identical situations... I'd be pretty disappointed with Nikon.
I'd be interested to know the iso/shutter combo for both cameras. I'd also be interested to know if the A1 itself produces a file that is superior to the Z9 under similar situations.
As someone entrenched in Nikon, this will not make me go anywhere. However, if I were shooting with both a Sony and Nikon system, I'd sell one kit off and double-down on the other.
regards,
bruce

 

[NorthernFocus]

When you took the photos, did you find that one or the other grabbed focus on the moose's eye better than the other?

Neither camera found the moose's eye. The Z9(fw 2.1) in wide/S kept jumping to the coarse hair on the shoulder so I switched to single point. The A1 stayed focused under the focus point but never did grab the eye.

That would be a very interesting comparison if done in good (ish) light.

Yes I'm intrigued enough to spend a little more time fiddling with it.

...it would really shock me if a $2000 zoom would out-perform or perform as well as a $3200 prime w/ a matching TC. Furthermore, in poor light, I would expect the prime to be significantly better than the zoom....

I'm still at "exit polling" stage with more results and/or analysis needed before making the call. Not sure why you'd expect a prime lens w/(generic)TC to outperform a quality zoom lens with the same effective max aperture. Without the TC sure but it's understandable that adding the TC into the optical equation puts the two more or less on par. Disappointing but understandable.

...I'd be interested to know the iso/shutter combo for both cameras. I'd also be interested to know if the A1 itself produces a file that is superior to the Z9 under similar situations...

Both were at 1/500s and wide open at f6.3. The Z9 chose ISO4000 and the A1 ISO3200. By "superior" file I assume you're referring to dynamic range and color rendering? For that you'll have to visit one of the various websites that analyze such things. Subjectively the Nikon file looks better to me but that's what I'm used to so it's my basis of comparison.

As someone entrenched in Nikon, this will not make me go anywhere. However, if I were shooting with both a Sony and Nikon system, I'd sell one kit off and double-down on the other.

Easier said than done. For my needs/desires Nikon lacks a gripless body and Sony lacks lenses.

 

[Pat Cassity]

Picked up the 2.0 TC for my 400 4.5 yesterday. I got this shot this morning before the clouds set in. There is no doubt that it's a bit softer than the 1.4 TC, but so far I do believe the overall 'look' of the image meets or exceeds those using my 500PF +1.4. Processed in PhotoLab 6 without lens corrections and final edits in Lightroom.

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

 

[Barbara]

For my needs/desires Nikon lacks a gripless body and Sony lacks lenses.

Same here. In the meantime I'm learning to love Olympus.

 

[JamesFarrell]

I am following up with my own decision...
I ordered a 400mm f4.5 from NPS a week ago, and it arrived. I have just placed an order for the TC14Z lens and will take delivery of than whenever it arrives.
I made arrangements to sell my 500PF and go with a Z-mount only system...
I look forward to seeing how the 400mm f4.5 performs with my Z9.
I guess this Zebra changed his stripes
cheers,
bruce

I think you’re going to love how this lens works with the Z9 Bruce. The way the 400/4.5 was designed results in a very easy to hand-hold optic, even with the Z TC14 mounted. Moreover, mount the lens on your Z9 and you‘ll note that the majority of weight (even though the lens is relatively light compared to other telephoto lens) feels much closer to the camera body, giving you a feel of compactness. I find the Z9/400/4.5 to be much easier to hand-hold than the Z9/100-400 - and that’s saying a lot for a 75-year old like this guy.

 

[BLev65]

I think you’re going to love how this lens works with the Z9 Bruce. The way the 400/4.5 was designed results in a very easy to hand-hold optic, even with the Z TC14 mounted. Moreover, mount the lens on your Z9 and you‘ll note that the majority of weight (even though the lens is relatively light compared to other telephoto lens) feels much closer to the camera body, giving you a feel of compactness. I find the Z9/400/4.5 to be much easier to hand-hold than the Z9/100-400 - and that’s saying a lot for a 75-year old like this guy.

I pick up the 400 f4.5 tomorrow, but will have to wait until NPS ships out my 1.4x. If the 400 + 1.4x matches the 500PF, I'll have no regrets at all. I suspect that I'll keep the 400 w/1.4x on the Z9 and use the 100-400 on my Z6II. With DX crop on the Z9, the field of view will be about 840mm... If I like what I see, I'll cancel my 800PF order.

While I'm sure I'll love the 400S, I'd have preferred a 500mm f4.5 and would have gladly paid the $6400 (or so) price it might have been.

regards,
bruce

 

[NorthernFocus]

I pick up the 400 f4.5 tomorrow, but will have to wait until NPS ships out my 1.4x. If the 400 + 1.4x matches the 500PF, I'll have no regrets at all. I suspect that I'll keep the 400 w/1.4x on the Z9 and use the 100-400 on my Z6II. With DX crop on the Z9, the field of view will be about 840mm... If I like what I see, I'll cancel my 800PF order.

While I'm sure I'll love the 400S, I'd have preferred a 500mm f4.5 and would have gladly paid the $6400 (or so) price it might have been.

Pretty much my thinking as well. As much as I have loved the 500PF I hope to replace it with the 400/1.4x. I've had the 400 since just after release but only finally got the 1.4x last week. I love everything about the 400 so far except for the focal length. So we'll see how it does with the TC.

I'd also have preferred that they had updated the 500PF to Z mount. But if the 400 performs well with the TC then it will offer even more flexibility with very similar size/weight/ergonomics to the 500PF plus with Z controls.

One thing for sure is that my kit is a confused mess right now :(

 

[lukemeup]

Pretty much my thinking as well. As much as I have loved the 500PF I hope to replace it with the 400/1.4x. I've had the 400 since just after release but only finally got the 1.4x last week. I love everything about the 400 so far except for the focal length. So we'll see how it does with the TC.

I replaced 500PF with 400 4.5 (+TC1.4) when the lens 1st launched. Used it mostly with TC1.4 since and have zero complaints. The initial 2.5 pages of this album on my flickr - https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzApgs is all 400 4.5 (+TC).

 

[BLev65]

I replaced 500PF with 400 4.5 (+TC1.4) when the lens 1st launched. Used it mostly with TC1.4 since and have zero complaints. The initial 2.5 pages of this album on my flickr - https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzApgs is all 400 4.5 (+TC).

I've followed your threads on FM (I'm OwlsEyes there), and your posts were one of the things that gave me the confidence to make the move. I'll miss the f/5.6 aperture, but not the funky bokeh that often occurs in backlit images. I am also excited to not hear the VR motor on all of the time. I couldn't help but feel that the VR system would go down due to an overuse that was not designed for an "always on state."
Like many, I have the 800PF on pre-order with the hope of taking delivery in the next 6 months... I, however, would much prefer Nikon to introduce a 600m f5.6 or even and smaller 600mm f6.3 prime. I find that 800mm is such a narrow field of view, and it reduces its value to some very specific shooting conditions. While the new 400mm f2.8S and 600mm f4S would by an ideal solution, I just can't see myself spending that much money on a lens.

regards,
bruce

 

[ricardo00]

I've followed your threads on FM (I'm OwlsEyes there), and your posts were one of the things that gave me the confidence to make the move. I'll miss the f/5.6 aperture, but not the funky bokeh that often occurs in backlit images. I am also excited to not hear the VR motor on all of the time. I couldn't help but feel that the VR system would go down due to an overuse that was not designed for an "always on state."
Like many, I have the 800PF on pre-order with the hope of taking delivery in the next 6 months... I, however, would much prefer Nikon to introduce a 600m f5.6 or even and smaller 600mm f6.3 prime. I find that 800mm is such a narrow field of view, and it reduces its value to some very specific shooting conditions. While the new 400mm f2.8S and 600mm f4S would by an ideal solution, I just can't see myself spending that much money on a lens.

regards,
bruce

Maybe one of these days the 200-600mm will be released and (even more importantly) will be available for purchase. If it had been available, not sure I would have bought the 400mm. Unfortunately, none of us have any say in these things, so it is only a question of whether we buy what Nikon has available or switch to another system.

 

[Pat Cassity]

Maybe one of these days the 200-600mm will be released and (even more importantly) will be available for purchase. If it had been available, not sure I would have bought the 400mm. Unfortunately, none of us have any say in these things, so it is only a question of whether we buy what Nikon has available or switch to another system.

As I have mentioned in this and previous posts, I cancelled my order for the 800PF and bought the 400mm 4.5, instead. I already owned the 100-400 and just wasn’t happy with it. IMO, the 400 4.5 blows away the 100-400 in overall image quality. It’s very much the experience I had when I replaced my 200-500 with the 500PF. I fear the 200-600 will suffer the same lack of clarity and sharpness of the surrounding primes. Especially since it’s reported to not be a ‘S’ lens. But, we all have different tolerance levels. Maybe, the reason the 200-600 hasn’t been announced is Nikon wants it to be the perfect telephoto and is taking more time to develop.

 

[lukemeup]

Maybe one of these days the 200-600mm will be released and (even more importantly) will be available for purchase. If it had been available, not sure I would have bought the 400mm. Unfortunately, none of us have any say in these things, so it is only a question of whether we buy what Nikon has available or switch to another system.

I can handhold 400 all day, not sure I'll be able to do it with 200-600 that's going to weigh 2 pounds more. We can complain about some things in the Z cameras but I don't think tele selection is one of them.

 

[JamesFarrell]

I pick up the 400 f4.5 tomorrow, but will have to wait until NPS ships out my 1.4x. If the 400 + 1.4x matches the 500PF, I'll have no regrets at all. I suspect that I'll keep the 400 w/1.4x on the Z9 and use the 100-400 on my Z6II. With DX crop on the Z9, the field of view will be about 840mm... If I like what I see, I'll cancel my 800PF order.

While I'm sure I'll love the 400S, I'd have preferred a 500mm f4.5 and would have gladly paid the $6400 (or so) price it might have been.

regards,
bruce

I’m hoping that Brad will write about the 400/4.5 in his blog soon. Interested in his views. He’s had the lens for a couple of months, and I know he really likes it for when he hikes about on his property. Brad has posted on his gear for sale page - http://www.naturalart.ca/wares/gear4sale.html - his 500 PF for sale, mentioning the use of the Z TC14 with the 500 PF. I guess the 400 4.5/ZTC 14 is replacing his 500 PF.

 

[Roy]

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.

I have a 500 and the 400 4.5 Z lenses with the TCs.
I'm no fan of teleconverters but the Z TCs are probably the best ive ever used.
The 2x Z TC is noticeably softer than the 1.4x but its still very usable.
I've had a few 400mm Nikkors over the years and the 400 f4.5 continues to impress me even hand held for video.
I was tossing up between getting the 400 f4.5 or the 2.8 TC - I bought the 4.5 not on price but mostly on weight.
I sold my 800 AFS lens because I also have the 600 f4 AFS...

 

[lukemeup]

I've followed your threads on FM (I'm OwlsEyes there), and your posts were one of the things that gave me the confidence to make the move. I'll miss the f/5.6 aperture, but not the funky bokeh that often occurs in backlit images. I am also excited to not hear the VR motor on all of the time. I couldn't help but feel that the VR system would go down due to an overuse that was not designed for an "always on state."
Like many, I have the 800PF on pre-order with the hope of taking delivery in the next 6 months... I, however, would much prefer Nikon to introduce a 600m f5.6 or even and smaller 600mm f6.3 prime. I find that 800mm is such a narrow field of view, and it reduces its value to some very specific shooting conditions. While the new 400mm f2.8S and 600mm f4S would by an ideal solution, I just can't see myself spending that much money on a lens.

regards,
bruce

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts about the new gear, Bruce.

 

[John M]

First post from new guy: greetings all. I'm a long-time Nikon user and am shooting mostly birds. Live on the East Coast. Main rig most days is D850 with 500mm PF. I've just started boosting my reach with the TC1.4 II and have had absolutely miserable luck with the camera forever hunting to grab focus. It will do so eventually, but for jumpy birds, it has not been successful. I should add that this problem occurs on sunny days on high contrast subjects. Contacts appear fine, lens is super fast without the TC and I suppose what I need to do is put the TC on something else, like a 70-200 2.8. Will try to do that shortly. In the meantime, anyone else experiencing this sort of problem? [sorry - if there is a better place to introduce myself, couldn't find it]

John

 

[BLev65]

First post from new guy: greetings all. I'm a long-time Nikon user and am shooting mostly birds. Live on the East Coast. Main rig most days is D850 with 500mm PF. I've just started boosting my reach with the TC1.4 II and have had absolutely miserable luck with the camera forever hunting to grab focus. It will do so eventually, but for jumpy birds, it has not been successful. I should add that this problem occurs on sunny days on high contrast subjects. Contacts appear fine, lens is super fast without the TC and I suppose what I need to do is put the TC on something else, like a 70-200 2.8. Will try to do that shortly. In the meantime, anyone else experiencing this sort of problem? [sorry - if there is a better place to introduce myself, couldn't find it]

John

Welcome to the forum John.
I know a lot of people have had some success with their 500PF + 1.4x on DSLR's, but it seems that most do not. W/ the converter you are shooting at f/8 and I think that AF is only "reliable" in the Center AF point at on a DSLR at f/8. The majority of people having success w/ their 500PF + 1.4x have been using Z-mount mirrorless bodies.
regard,
bruce

 

[John M]

Very helpful - thanks BLev65. I will explore with Center AF (which is I think how I usually shoot anyway) and f/8. I will go mirrorless when the z8 or equiv finally emerges.