z400 f4.5 with 1.4 TC or z600pf f6.3

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).

seh

seh

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I have the z100-400 and the 1.4 TC which i bought after debating this vs the z400 with TC. I'm thinking about adding a z400, which will give me 400 at f4.5 and 560 at f6.3 with the TC. The alternative is the 600pf at f6.3, currently on sale for $1300 more than the z400 at B&H. I'd probably keep the 100-400 for zoom and minimum focal distance, even though I have the 105 macro. I'm wondering about your thoughts on whether it's worth the extra $1300 given the modest increase in reach with the 600pf, and no flexibility to shoot at 400 f4.5 without the TC. I can afford it the benefits are sufficiently compelling. Weights are similar. Thoughts and / or direction to other posts that discuss are appreciated.
 
Member's gallery
If you often find yourself in conditions where you have to use 560/600 mm I would say that buying the 600 makes the most sense, obviously keeping the 100-400.
the 100-400 with tc14 I find it does not have a great performance so if you use it very seldom you can “make do” with it, 400 f/4.5 and 600 have a completely different performance
 
Member's gallery
I shoot mostly on the go - hiking / trekking - and really value the size / weight of both these lenses. I have both the Z100-400 and Z400f4.5. Got both before the Z600 f/6.3 came out. I really love the 400 f4.5 with and without the TC - it's my go-to when I know most of the shots will be at distance (or subjects will be small). The 100-400 is a must have for shooting from boats & safari vehicles - any time you may need to zoom back to keep the subject in frame. I suspect I would have considered the 600 if it had been available, but don't know if I'd like handling the extra length and weight. Same feelings toward the Z200-600...
 
Member's gallery
Only you can truly know your shooting. The following is with a FWIW caveat.

I have the 100-400 and 600PF. While the 400 4.5 was out I got the 100-400 for Africa and flexibility as I thought I would always want something longer. I rarely find the 600PF to be too long. I have had success with stationary subjects of shooting multiple frames and stitching if I want an environmental. I have also learned to compose more with my feet if I can for a variety of reasons we talk about here - backgrounds, angles etc. Ask yourself if you will really put on or take off the TC in the field? I have thought about the 400 and never decided to buy it although it's a great lens.

Of the lens I just love to use the 600PF is in the group with the 105 and Plena. These three to me have great micro contrast for their range. The 400 may have that too but I have not used it. If you can only choose one lens, ask yourself how many times is 400 really enough. As for the f stop, as yourself how many times are you in a situation where that really matters. Are you really out before dawn or into dusk that often. Look at your images ands how happy you are with ISO's that a bit higher.

Recent example for me is this thread

A walk through Gilbert Riparian AZ with Anjin Sin and his wife

Neil and his wife Connie were visiting and I met up with them yesterday morning. We had a nice walk around the Riparian Preserve at Water Ranch. I didn't think there were that many birds at the start but we managed to find a few along with some interesting light. Here are a sample of mine and...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com

In the second post I added shots of a particular type of duck at different ISOs as the light emerged. What works for you in terms of ISO for your purpose? I don't print, so for screen I have more leeway.

I hope this helps gives you some MM for thought.
 
Member's gallery
seh said:
I have the z100-400 and the 1.4 TC which i bought after debating this vs the z400 with TC. I'm thinking about adding a z400, which will give me 400 at f4.5 and 560 at f6.3 with the TC. The alternative is the 600pf at f6.3, currently on sale for $1300 more than the z400 at B&H. I'd probably keep the 100-400 for zoom and minimum focal distance, even though I have the 105 macro. I'm wondering about your thoughts on whether it's worth the extra $1300 given the modest increase in reach with the 600pf, and no flexibility to shoot at 400 f4.5 without the TC. I can afford it the benefits are sufficiently compelling. Weights are similar. Thoughts and / or direction to other posts that discuss are appreciated.
Click to expand...
What do you photograph? How close can you get to the subject? What kinds of locations do you frequent?

I was recently in the Smokies, and photographed elk, deer, bears, and turkeys using the 400mm f/4.5. 400mm was long enough, and occasionally too much. On the other hand, for birding at a local park or for shorebirds - I'm using the 800mm PF and 400mm is not long enough. Even 600mm is borderline for small birds. If you are photographing small birds at or near a feeder, you can usually be a lot closer and 400-600mm is probably adequate for small birds.

The big advantages of the 100-400 is close minimum focus and compact size. The 400mm f/4.5 is a little sharper and faster - and works well with the TC. The 600mm PF provides more reach - but at minimum focus can be a bit long for feeder birds - and it carries a slower aperture.

You probably want to add the 180-600 into the equation. It's bigger and longer, but still optically very good. You'll have a clear idea of which lens you need most of the time based on location and subject matter. I'd probably decide between the 180-600 and the 600mm PF since you already have the 100-400.

The good news is you have lots of options. The tougher part is deciding what you really need.
 
Member's gallery
seh said:
I have the z100-400 and the 1.4 TC which i bought after debating this vs the z400 with TC. I'm thinking about adding a z400, which will give me 400 at f4.5 and 560 at f6.3 with the TC. The alternative is the 600pf at f6.3, currently on sale for $1300 more than the z400 at B&H. I'd probably keep the 100-400 for zoom and minimum focal distance, even though I have the 105 macro. I'm wondering about your thoughts on whether it's worth the extra $1300 given the modest increase in reach with the 600pf, and no flexibility to shoot at 400 f4.5 without the TC. I can afford it the benefits are sufficiently compelling. Weights are similar. Thoughts and / or direction to other posts that discuss are appreciated.
Click to expand...
I was in a similar situation. When I first transitioned to mirrorless, I was shooting with a d850 and 500PF, with and without the 1.4x. Once I finally went all mirrorless I sold my 500pf and bought the 100-400. I was never happy with its quality at 400 especially with the TC. However I loved its MFD for the occasional near macro shot. When the 4004.5 came out, i decided to see if it was equivalent of the 500pf. It was close but lacked the length that I enjoyed with the 500pf + 1.4x. I bought the 800, which was outstanding but found that it was just too long for my occasional big bird BIF shots. I sold it an lived with the 400 4.5 + 1.4 TC for a while. When the 180-600 came out I tried it but found that still didnt' come close to the 500pf quality. However, the zoom was very useful. I sold it and bought the 600PF 6.3 when it was introduced and feel like I have not only finally found the 500pf replacement but exceeded it, as well. I still have the 400 4.5 which i found to be perfect for my big bird BIF shots, but the 600 6.3 rarely leaves my camera. It, IMO opinion is one of the very best lenses that Nikon's ever produced. Sometimes I wish it was a little faster but today's noise reduction software usually takes care of that issue. I now find that I keep the 600 on my z8 and the 400 4.5 on my z9. To be honest, I do occasionally miss that MFD of the 100-400 for those near macro shot. Good luck to you!
 
Member's gallery
If you get the 400 f4.5, would you keep the 100-400 as well? IN MY OPINION, it makes little sense to own both. If you are going to keep the 100-400, then I would say get the 600PF (which I bought from someone on this forum a few months ago and love). Those two would be a good compliment. And since you mention 1.4x teleconverter, don't forget you could use it on the 600PF to get 840mm.
 
Member's gallery
I have both the 400 4.5 and the 600PF. I bought the 400 4.5 and the Z1.4 TC with the idea it would replace my adapted 500PF on the Z9. While that combo gave acceptable results, the 500PF produced sharper images. I learned for me that if possible I shouldn’t base my everyday kit on a TC. I tried to get the 180-600, but they were heavily back ordered and so picked up the 600PF when they first came out. I don’t think that lens has been off my Z9 since. It gives me everything the 500PF did and more. And while a little heavier than 400 4.5/TC combo, it balances real well and works for me.
So I’d say “it depends”. Look at what you shoot. If you can get the images you like with just the 400 4.5, with occasional TC usage, then great. But if you think you’ll be using the TC a lot, then in my opinion, the 600PF makes a lot of sense, budget allowing. YMMV.
 
Member's gallery
Timely post, as those are the 3 lenses I currently own. Recently re-added the 100-400 to the lineup for its MFD powers. The 600PF is my primary lens for birding, it's going to take 90% of my photos, while that other 10% is for when a situation or species requires me to be able to shoot close-up below the 13' MFD of my 600PF. The 400 4.5 is giving me an additional ~5' of space to shoot, but the 100-400 grants ~10' and a metric-ton more focal length flexibility. The loss of 2/3 stop of light and tiny bit more sharpness do not factor into my decision making, as I feel the flexibility and MFD of the zoom far outweigh those tiny advantages for my use case. Additionally, earlier this year I auditioned the Z 105 MC, but ended up passing on it because I just don't do enough macro to justify it, but now with the 100-400 I have both a birding lens but also a pseudo-macro when I get the itch.

So why do I still have the 400 4.5? Truthfully, I just haven't been able to work up the fortitude to sell it yet because it's such an amazing little lens. The intention was to pair it with my (long since sold) 800PF, and then my 600PF, for the same closer-MFD purpose, plus the 1-stop aperture advantage for shooting in shaded, woody areas or on overcast days. It also would make for a fun, minimalist travel setup w/ the 1.4TC, but I haven't been able to convince myself to do that yet because I like the 600PF too much to leave it at home 😌

There's also an esoteric reason as well: I prefer the simplicity of a prime over a zoom, that limitation breeds creativity. I like going out with an intention to make a photo working with constraints, taking just the 400 4.5 to see what I can do with it.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
If you're keeping the 100-400, I'd go 600PF no question.

100-400 + 400 4.5 is just too much overlap imo. There isn't enough difference in IQ between the two lenses to justify having both.
Click to expand...
Again, I think it depends on what someone is shooting. I agree with Matthew in keeping the 100-400 for its MFD. However, it's just an 'ok' lens when used wide open and at 300-400. I find there is a significant difference between it and the 400 4.5 when shooting at 400 and 5.6. For me, I have found my 600 to be slightly long when shooting eagles in flight, when 100-200 away and not sure where it will be going or coming from. My 400 4.5 has been perfect for that. The shot I have posted was from earlier this afternoon as the eagle was launching from its nest. I was able to not only get it when it launched, but was also able to stay with it as it flew over my head at about 40'. Would have been able to do that with the 600.

Z91_6599-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I've had this dilema too. I had the 100-400, 400 4.5 and the 1.4 tc. to be honest I find the 400 4.5 to be great as a walkaround lens, so much so I realised I didn't use the 100-400 for wildlife at all anymore as I prefered the 105 for the short range stuff. I sold it and got the tamron 50-400 to retain the capability and to use for landscape as it's lighter.

For what it's worth, I keep pondering the 600 pf but I would have to sell the 400 to fund it as I couldn't justify keeping both. I have come to the conclusion that I am perfectly happy with the output of the 400 or the 400 with tc (even the 2x is ok in a pinch) and the gains with the 600 pf just don't warrant the big expense for me to get a lens a bit sharper but the same aperture. It also has a 4m min focus distance which could make it iffy for use as a walkabout lens in some situations. While I often think 400 is too short, in low light situations it's useful to go to the bare lens to get the 4.5 apperture and crop in post.

I have decided that, for me, it's better to use the cost difference to put towards an 800 pf where there is a clearer jump in capability.
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
Timely post, as those are the 3 lenses I currently own. Recently re-added the 100-400 to the lineup for its MFD powers. The 600PF is my primary lens for birding, it's going to take 90% of my photos, while that other 10% is for when a situation or species requires me to be able to shoot close-up below the 13' MFD of my 600PF. The 400 4.5 is giving me an additional ~5' of space to shoot, but the 100-400 grants ~10' and a metric-ton more focal length flexibility. The loss of 2/3 stop of light and tiny bit more sharpness do not factor into my decision making, as I feel the flexibility and MFD of the zoom far outweigh those tiny advantages for my use case. Additionally, earlier this year I auditioned the Z 105 MC, but ended up passing on it because I just don't do enough macro to justify it, but now with the 100-400 I have both a birding lens but also a pseudo-macro when I get the itch.

So why do I still have the 400 4.5? Truthfully, I just haven't been able to work up the fortitude to sell it yet because it's such an amazing little lens. The intention was to pair it with my (long since sold) 800PF, and then my 600PF, for the same closer-MFD purpose, plus the 1-stop aperture advantage for shooting in shaded, woody areas or on overcast days. It also would make for a fun, minimalist travel setup w/ the 1.4TC, but I haven't been able to convince myself to do that yet because I like the 600PF too much to leave it at home 😌

There's also an esoteric reason as well: I prefer the simplicity of a prime over a zoom, that limitation breeds creativity. I like going out with an intention to make a photo working with constraints, taking just the 400 4.5 to see what I can do with it.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I bought the 105 before the 100-400 and have wondered whether I should keep it if I hang on to the 100-400. I've done less macro than I had planned when I got the 105 in part because it was harder than I thought.😊 did you
 
Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
Again, I think it depends on what someone is shooting. I agree with Matthew in keeping the 100-400 for its MFD. However, it's just an 'ok' lens when used wide open and at 300-400. I find there is a significant difference between it and the 400 4.5 when shooting at 400 and 5.6. For me, I have found my 600 to be slightly long when shooting eagles in flight, when 100-200 away and not sure where it will be going or coming from. My 400 4.5 has been perfect for then. The shot I have posted was from earlier this afternoon as the eagle was launching from its nest. I was able to not only get it when it launched, but was also able to stay with it as it flew over my head at about 40'. Would have been able to do that with the 600.

View attachment 101889
Click to expand...
Thank you. Beautiful catch.
 
Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
Again, I think it depends on what someone is shooting. I agree with Matthew in keeping the 100-400 for its MFD. However, it's just an 'ok' lens when used wide open and at 300-400. I find there is a significant difference between it and the 400 4.5 when shooting at 400 and 5.6. For me, I have found my 600 to be slightly long when shooting eagles in flight, when 100-200 away and not sure where it will be going or coming from. My 400 4.5 has been perfect for that. The shot I have posted was from earlier this afternoon as the eagle was launching from its nest. I was able to not only get it when it launched, but was also able to stay with it as it flew over my head at about 40'. Would have been able to do that with the 600.
Click to expand...

Excellent shot, but I suspect if you had taken that shot with a 400 4.5 and with a 100-400, you'd be unable to tell the difference without looking at the EXIF data.

I've done comparisons with my lenses as well as seen others, and I would be willing to bet there's nobody out there who could distinguish the two the majority of the time.

The 100-400 gives similar IQ with all of the benefits the 400 4.5 misses (zoom, MFD, quasi-macro capability, etc.)
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
Excellent shot, but I suspect if you had taken that shot with a 400 4.5 and with a 100-400, you'd be unable to tell the difference without looking at the EXIF data.

I've done comparisons with my lenses as well as seen others, and I would be willing to bet there's nobody out there who could distinguish the two the majority of the time.

The 100-400 gives similar IQ with all of the benefits the 400 4.5 misses (zoom, MFD, quasi-macro capability, etc.)
Click to expand...
Thanks! But I disagree. I was able to tell the difference between each lens immediately after the first use. As I mentioned before, none of them of matched the clarity and sharpness of the 500pf except for the z600pf. I think that most of us that have used primes can see the differences immediately. However, it’s also fairly subjective and we all have differences of acceptance, as well as tolerance.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
seh said:
Thank you. I bought the 105 before the 100-400 and have wondered whether I should keep it if I hang on to the 100-400. I've done less macro than I had planned when I got the 105 in part because it was harder than I thought.😊 did you
Click to expand...
Birding is hard enough, but macro is a whole other beast! I was really into macro for a couple of years before getting bit by the birding bug, and I barely scratched the surface of what's possible in that realm! I eventually came to the conclusion that for the "small things" I saw & wanted to capture while out birding, butterflies/flowers/neat stuff in the woods/etc, a 100-400 is more than adequate, and a dedicated macro lens wouldn't be used to its fullest potential.
 
Member's gallery
seh said:
Thanks to all for your helpful thoughts!
Click to expand...
As someone who had the 400mm f/4.5, the 500mm PF and the 800mm PF, I was sure that I would not get the 600mm PF (also had bought the 100-400mm but returned it after I compared it with a 1.4 TC with the 500mm PF ). However the recent sale on the 600mm PF resulted in my succumbing to GAS and buying one. For me the main advantage has been having a way to reach 840mm in a light weight package for my hikes (shaves 2 pounds off the 800mm). Still too early to see which one I will mostly use. A couple shots with the 600mm plus 1.4 TC have convinced me to keep it:
https://flic.kr/p/2qvtggk
https://flic.kr/p/2qvDDQQ
 
Member's gallery
And let's not forget the fact that everyone's eyes are very different. Some folks have 20/20 vision where they can see the difference, but most do not. Our individual eyesight is a reason why so many perceive variations in sharpness over a particular lens. Most never know it until they have their eyes tested for acuity at different distances.

Pat Cassity said:
Thanks! But I disagree. I was able to tell the difference between each lens immediately after the first use. As I mentioned before, none of them of matched the clarity and sharpness of the 500pf except for the z600pf. I think that most of us that have used primes can see the differences immediately. However, it’s also fairly subjective and we all have differences of acceptance, as well as tolerance.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
Yes it's well known that the 600PF is an incredible performer with the 1.4TC regardless of the aperture. Nice photos!

ricardo00 said:
As someone who had the 400mm f/4.5, the 500mm PF and the 800mm PF, I was sure that I would not get the 600mm PF (also had bought the 100-400mm but returned it after I compared it with a 1.4 TC with the 500mm PF ). However the recent sale on the 600mm PF resulted in my succumbing to GAS and buying one. For me the main advantage has been having a way to reach 840mm in a light weight package for my hikes (shaves 2 pounds off the 800mm). Still too early to see which one I will mostly use. A couple shots with the 600mm plus 1.4 TC have convinced me to keep it:
https://flic.kr/p/2qvtggk
https://flic.kr/p/2qvDDQQ
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top