z 400 4.5 + 2.0 or 500PF + 1.4

[fcotterill]

Nikon lists several of the more recent DSLRs, which extend AF at f8 with penalties. Pg 11 in the D500 Pro Sports AF Guide has a useful table showing available AF points with the 3 TCs - contingent on maximum lens aperture. This should apply to the D850 as it and the D500 share the D5 AF system.

Thus while compatible with 500 PF and a TC14, many AF points are lost around the periphery of the focsuing window. As I recall, AutoAF and 3D modes are grayed out/not available, however, considering the constraints, I've had decent results with this optical setup on the D850: with GroupAF for this leopard, for example.

 

[Whiskeyman]

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:

Nikon 400mm f/4.5 with the Z TC 2.0

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

ricardo00, I'm impressed with both the equipment capabilities and yours. Those are some shots that require very good technique on the photographer's (your) part.

 

[ricardo00]

ricardo00, I'm impressed with both the equipment capabilities and yours. Those are some shots that require very good technique on the photographer's (your) part.

Thank you very much Wayne!

 

[Icarus]

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.

If weight is an issue you might consider OM-1 with a 300mm pro lens and 1.4 tc converter. Gives you 840mm at f5.6, weights a little over 3 pounds. OM-1 is a stacked sensor camera and extremely fast. Has usual issues of micro 4/3 but weight advantage worth it to me.

 

[ricardo00]

If weight is an issue you might consider OM-1 with a 300mm pro lens and 1.4 tc converter. Gives you 840mm at f5.6, weights a little over 3 pounds. OM-1 is a stacked sensor camera and extremely fast. Has usual issues of micro 4/3 but weight advantage worth it to me.

I definitely have been considering the OM-1 camera, possibly with the 150-400mm with built in TC. Though it is possible that Nikon will release the Z8 with a weight more comparable to the OM-1/Sony a1 and the Z9 capabilities.
PS. When the Z9 gets to heavy, I do have my D500 and the Nikon 300mm PF (plus/minus a TC) which has a combined weight close to the OM-1 plus the Olympus 300mm pro lens (the Nikon lens is much lighter than the Olympus 300mm). And in crop mode, the same reach though fewer pixels on the subject.

 

[John M]

Nikon lists several of the more recent DSLRs, which extend AF at f8 with penalties. Pg 11 in the D500 Pro Sports AF Guide has a useful table showing available AF points with the 3 TCs - contingent on maximum lens aperture. This should apply to the D850 as it and the D500 share the D5 AF system.

Thus while compatible with 500 PF and a TC14, many AF points are lost around the periphery of the focsuing window. As I recall, AutoAF and 3D modes are grayed out/not available, however, considering the constraints, I've had decent results with this optical setup on the D850: with GroupAF for this leopard, for example.

Very helpful post - thanks!

 

[Icarus]

I definitely have been considering the OM-1 camera, possibly with the 150-400mm with built in TC. Though it is possible that Nikon will release the Z8 with a weight more comparable to the OM-1/Sony a1 and the Z9 capabilities.
PS. When the Z9 gets to heavy, I do have my D500 and the Nikon 300mm PF (plus/minus a TC) which has a combined weight close to the OM-1 plus the Olympus 300mm pro lens (the Nikon lens is much lighter than the Olympus 300mm). And in crop mode, the same reach though fewer pixels on the subject.

I keep hoping for the Z8 if it has a stacked sensor. Having the A1 and the OM-1 with stacked sensors, there's no going back for me. But a stacked sensor Z8 with the 300 PF and TC would be awesome! Might add a 400mm or 500 PF. Time will tell.

 

[fcotterill]

Fyi

Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Review

A hands-on review of the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S, Nikon's lightest 400mm lens and a great choice for sports and wildlife photographers.

photographylife.com

 

[ricardo00]

Fyi

Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Review

A hands-on review of the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S, Nikon's lightest 400mm lens and a great choice for sports and wildlife photographers.

photographylife.com

A very nice and complete review. Personally I wish they had said a bit more about how it compares to the 500mm PF lens. The one comment they made: "I consider it Nikon’s best general-purpose wildlife lens since at least the 500mm f/5.6 PF. Maybe ever." Does this mean that the 500mm lens is better as a wildlife lens?

 

[BLev65]

A very nice and complete review. Personally I wish they had said a bit more about how it compares to the 500mm PF lens. The one comment they made: "I consider it Nikon’s best general-purpose wildlife lens since at least the 500mm f/5.6 PF. Maybe ever." Does this mean that the 500mm lens is better as a wildlife lens?

I read this as well, but if you spend time with a 500PF on a Z9 and a 400mm f4.5 on a Z9, you will find that the Z lens tracks more accurately and maintains focus better. I have been resistant to giving up 100mm to the 400mm focal length, but in just one afternoon of super crappy weather I discovered that the 400mm f4.5 locks on and maintains focus better than the 500PF. I have not had the opportunity to try this with at the 1.4x converter yet (mine has been ordered), but if AF w/ the converter matches AF without, then the 400mm f4.5 becomes a more versatile option for me.

regards,
bruce

 

[gary_photog]

I just joined the Forum and have been following this thread with some interest. I recently got my Z9 and am anxious to test my 500 pf with the TC 1.4E III. I never thought of possibly getting the 400/4.5 but I may consider it now since it will be next to never waiting on my 400mm/2.8 TC and I am not getting any younger.

 

[Pat Cassity]

I read this as well, but if you spend time with a 500PF on a Z9 and a 400mm f4.5 on a Z9, you will find that the Z lens tracks more accurately and maintains focus better. I have been resistant to giving up 100mm to the 400mm focal length, but in just one afternoon of super crappy weather I discovered that the 400mm f4.5 locks on and maintains focus better than the 500PF. I have not had the opportunity to try this with at the 1.4x converter yet (mine has been ordered), but if AF w/ the converter matches AF without, then the 400mm f4.5 becomes a more versatile option for me.

regards,
bruce

My exact observations as well, Bruce. The 500PF + 1.4 is a great combination. However, the 400 4.5 by itself and with the 1.4 take things to the next level. Adding the 2.0 is slightly soft but completely usable. Especially considering todays sharpening and noise reduction tools. So much so IMO that my 500PF is now listed on EBay.

Pat

 

[SuperflyTNT]

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.

Where did you get the 1.4x TC? When I talked to Nikon it sounded like they’re not making them right now because they’re so short handed in production. I got the 100-400 and was hoping to use it with the 1.4 because they still haven’t announced the 200-600 we’ve been waiting 3 years for.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Where did you get the 1.4x TC? When I talked to Nikon it sounded like they’re not making them right now because they’re so short handed in production. I got the 100-400 and was hoping to use it with the 1.4 because they still haven’t announced the 200-600 we’ve been waiting 3 years for.

Ordered it through local shop and it showed up last week.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I read this as well, but if you spend time with a 500PF on a Z9 and a 400mm f4.5 on a Z9, you will find that the Z lens tracks more accurately and maintains focus better. I have been resistant to giving up 100mm to the 400mm focal length, but in just one afternoon of super crappy weather I discovered that the 400mm f4.5 locks on and maintains focus better than the 500PF. I have not had the opportunity to try this with at the 1.4x converter yet (mine has been ordered), but if AF w/ the converter matches AF without, then the 400mm f4.5 becomes a more versatile option for me.

I got out yesterday and gave the 400 4.5/1.4x TC a spin on some fast paced BIF shooting. It was also the first time I've shot the Z9 since updating to firmware 3.0. The speed and accuracy with this combo was pretty impressive. As much as I hate to say it the days may be numbered for the 500PF. Never thought I'd be here. Historically I've been very critical of using TCs on a regular basis. But things have clearly changed with the Z mount. Now seriously considering picking up the 2x TC and seeing how it performs. With DSLR the 2x was abysmal on anything other than one of the big primes. I'll throw up a thread with some results.

 

[BLev65]

I got out yesterday and gave the 400 4.5/1.4x TC a spin on some fast paced BIF shooting. It was also the first time I've shot the Z9 since updating to firmware 3.0. The speed and accuracy with this combo was pretty impressive. As much as I hate to say it the days may be numbered for the 500PF. Never thought I'd be here. Historically I've been very critical of using TCs on a regular basis. But things have clearly changed with the Z mount. Now seriously considering picking up the 2x TC and seeing how it performs. With DSLR the 2x was abysmal on anything other than one of the big primes. I'll throw up a thread with some results.

I'll fill you in on this, as I am buying a 2x converter today and hope to use the combination this weekend.

regards,
bruce

 

[Pat Cassity]

For anyone interested in the 400 4.5 + 2.0 combination on the z9, here are a couple of shots from this morning. I wanted to be able to get a shot of the eagles around the nest but they weren't cooperative today. So, here is a shot of the nest and a Mockingbird. Both images were initially processed in PhotoLab 6 with final edits in Lightroom. The shot of the nest is uncropped at about 150ft. The shot of the Mockingbird is cropped to 1637 x 2046. It was about 65' to 70' from me. There is no doubt that the 2.0 softens the image significantly more than the 1.4x. However, much of the softness can be reduced with various editing techniques.

Bird - 800mm, f9, 1/1800s, ISO 1800
Nest - 800mm, f9, 1/1800s, ISO 2000

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.

 

[Anjin San]

I got out yesterday and gave the 400 4.5/1.4x TC a spin on some fast paced BIF shooting. It was also the first time I've shot the Z9 since updating to firmware 3.0. The speed and accuracy with this combo was pretty impressive. As much as I hate to say it the days may be numbered for the 500PF. Never thought I'd be here. Historically I've been very critical of using TCs on a regular basis. But things have clearly changed with the Z mount. Now seriously considering picking up the 2x TC and seeing how it performs. With DSLR the 2x was abysmal on anything other than one of the big primes. I'll throw up a thread with some results.

Dan…I've got both Z TCs and while the 2.0 is lower IQ than the 1.4 with my 100-400 or the bare 100-400…it's pretty darned good still. Biggest problem is that it's f11 so that drives up ISO somewhat, but you do get more pixels on subject and therefore more potential detail…that's counterbalanced by less overall sharpness and more noise but the latter is pretty easily corrected these days. For screen output…there isn't a whole lot of difference between the lens and shots with either of the two TCs once you adjust cropping so that the subject is the same size…and what difference there is turns out to be more…for me at least…of a 'it's different' rather than 'it's better or worse'. I find myself using the 2.0TC much less than the 1.4…the latter is almost always on the lens because of minimal difference with/without it in the images.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Dan…I've got both Z TCs and while the 2.0 is lower IQ than the 1.4 with my 100-400 or the bare 100-400…it's pretty darned good still. Biggest problem is that it's f11 so that drives up ISO somewhat, but you do get more pixels on subject and therefore more potential detail…that's counterbalanced by less overall sharpness and more noise but the latter is pretty easily corrected these days. For screen output…there isn't a whole lot of difference between the lens and shots with either of the two TCs once you adjust cropping so that the subject is the same size…and what difference there is turns out to be more…for me at least…of a 'it's different' rather than 'it's better or worse'. I find myself using the 2.0TC much less than the 1.4…the latter is almost always on the lens because of minimal difference with/without it in the images.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Calson]

After I bought the Z9 and the 100-400mm lens I found myself with two S teleconverters and two f-mount teleconverters (for the 70-200mm, 500mm PF, and 600mm f/4). I knew I wanted to make adjustments so the f-mount teleconverters were not needed. To this end I sold the 500mm PF and later bought the 400mm f/4.5 lens and the 800mm PF. In terms of image quality it was a wash but at least for wildlife photography I do not need to carry the FTZ adapter or the two f-mount teleconverters in my pack.

 

[BLev65]

I am on the endless waiting list for the 800PF, and doubt that I will be fortunate enough to get one until the middle of next year. With the desire to shift my lenses to an all Z platform, I sold my well used (and loved) 500PF and replaced it with the 400mm f4.5. The dearth of 1.4x converters led me to buy the 2x. While I am certain that I will reach for the 400 + 1.4x more often (if I can find a converter), I will likely use this combination 400mm + 2x until I manage to find/buy the 800PF lens.
regards,
bruce

 

[Patrick M]

I am on the endless waiting list for the 800PF, and doubt that I will be fortunate enough to get one until the middle of next year. With the desire to shift my lenses to an all Z platform, I sold my well used (and loved) 500PF and replaced it with the 400mm f4.5. The dearth of 1.4x converters led me to buy the 2x. While I am certain that I will reach for the 400 + 1.4x more often (if I can find a converter), I will likely use this combination 400mm + 2x until I manage to find/buy the 800PF lens.
regards,
bruce

as a more generalist shooter, my preference has always been for zoom lenses not primes and definitely not super tele type primes. I occasionally do birds, but it's not my thing.

Having said that, I just rented the z400mm f4.5 which is damn impressive! I'm on a trip to southern Spain shortly, where I hope to be able to get some good use out of the thing, which will be interesting - while satisfying my recent GAS too!

 

[BLev65]

I posted the following on FM, as I frequent that site as well... The post I made there is very relevant to this thread. I apologize to those who ended up reading it twice.
...
I had my first outing with the 400mm f4.5 today. I had really wanted the 1.4x converter, but my dealer did not have any in stock. They did have the 2x, so I took the gamble and bought it. I really want to like the 400 + 2x combo, as it is such a light way to get to 800mm... so far, I am on the fence.
Today was brutally cold for mid November (17 degF... 5 degF w/ the wind). In MN the cold comes out of nowhere... one day it's 55 degrees, and the next it's well below freezing. These conditions really tax the body and gear.
All of the pictures presented were w/ the 2x converter. The deer was shot from my little van w/ a bean bag. The heat change from a vehicle and air can cause a bit of distortion. The deer shot was a DX crop, so this is a FOV of 1200mm!

The eagle photos were taken while on a walk. I saw a pair on a branch, but they buried themselves in the branches of an oak. One of the two flew off when it saw me coming and the other stayed put. It took a lot of creeping in crunchy cold snow to get a clean shot. The horizontal was an FX image w/ 10% crop for leveling, the vertical was made from a horizontal... about 20MP.

Overall, I'd say the 2x is a viable option, as this was a pretty unforgiving situation with white snow, overcast skies, and wind.

Bravo Nikon!
regards,
bruce

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.

 

[Pat Cassity]

Bruce, beautiful shots! I know exactly what you mean about being on the fence with the 400 4.5 + 2.0. I’m really trying to like it. I’ve got some really great shots with and also some really poor ones. if you hadn’t posted these shots without identifying the use of the 2.0, I don’t believe anyone would have questioned the quality of each shot. As such, I really believe we truly are our own greatest critics.

 

[BLev65]

Bruce, beautiful shots! I know exactly what you mean about being on the fence with the 400 4.5 + 2.0. I’m really trying to like it. I’ve got some really great shots with and also some really poor ones. if you hadn’t posted these shots without identifying the use of the 2.0, I don’t believe anyone would have questioned the quality of each shot. As such, I really believe we truly are our own greatest critics.

Thanks Pat!
For there most part, I have rarely found a lens + converter combination I have ever loved. Back in the day... I mean prior to 2014, I shot with a Canon 300 f2.8IS + 1.4 and 2x converters. I thought I really liked the performance of the 1.4x until I studied the images without a converter. In the end, I used the converters in Africa and Costa Rica because I needed the focal length more than per-pixel quality.
After moving to Nikon 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." The only converter + lens combinations that seemed to minimize softness was the TC14 iii w/ 70-200FLE and TC 14Z on the 70-200 f2.8S. When I sold my 70-200S + Z14 converter to buy the 100-400S. I would have never made the sale had I known that a 400mm f4.5 was around the corner. I assumed that Nikon was just making the 400 f2.8S and 600 f4S, and would let the eventual 200-600mm non S lens cover the middle. Af the time, the opportunity to get a 100-400S seemed like the perfect lens to pair w/ my 500PF...
The chance to get a little more lens speed and native compatibility with the Z-mount led me to blow it all up... Unfortunately, the Z TC14 are on back order, so I went with the 2x to see how it goes. I definitely will pick up the 1.4x converter, as I am pretty sure the 90% of my wildlife photography will be w/ the 400 + 1.4x. I am dabbling with the 2x for now to see if I can do without the 800PF. I am willing to spend the $6500 to buy the 800PF, but I would rather spend that amount on a 600mm f5.6S or a less expensive 600mm f6.3.

For now, I think if I focus on my technique, the 400 f4.5 + 2x will serve me well when I need to push the focal length envelope.
Apologies for the long response,
bruce