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

[ricardo00]

Yes it's well known that the 600PF is an incredible performer with the 1.4TC regardless of the aperture. Nice photos!

Thanks! But could struggle carrying the 800mm PF or use the 400mm with the 2.0TC. Actually did some tests comparing the latter with the 600mm plus 1.4 TC and the latter was clearly better.
PS. I even use the 1.4TC on the 800mm PF. Luckily we have a fair amount of sun in California.

 

[Calson]

I sold my 400mm f/4.5 as I found that I was using the 100-400mm plus 1.4x TC most of the time. The 100-400mm works very well with the two Nikon teleconverters and this includes the 2x one on my Z9 cameras. Autofocus and eye detection is very good with the 100-400mm zoom and either teleconverter. The zoom allows me to adjust the framing of a subject in situations where changing the camera to subject distance is not an option.

 

[seh]

I ordered the 600pf in view of the $800 price break, which ends today. I was on the fence but my wife said "just do it" so I'd quit talking about it. Thanks again for all of the input.

 

[Lance B]

If you are shooting birds etc, then 600 PF is a better bet, IMO. With birds, I find you are always longer rather than shorter and you can add the 1.4x TC and get a great 840 f9. You already have the 100-400 which will serve for the shorter focal lengths if required. IMO opinion, the only advantage of the 400 f4.5 is when shooting at 400 f4.5, everything else is a benefit for the 600 PF.

 

[wotan1]

Here is a contrarian thought.

Why limit to 600. Why not get the 800mm f6.3 pf.

I say that because I did pretty close to what you are contemplating. In my case I had the 400mm f4.5 and added the 600mm pf.

I thought I was happy with the combination until I had the opportunity to acquire the 800mm pf. Much happier with that lens.

Eventually I let the 600 go because the 400 was good enough but the 800 was the Master Birding Lens.

400 and 800 is a magical combination 400 and 600 are pretty close. You get more bang for your buck by adding the 800.

 

[seh]

Here is a contrarian thought.

Why limit to 600. Why not get the 800mm f6.3 pf.

I say that because I did pretty close to what you are contemplating. In my case I had the 400mm f4.5 and added the 600mm pf.

I thought I was happy with the combination until I had the opportunity to acquire the 800mm pf. Much happier with that lens.

Eventually I let the 600 go because the 400 was good enough but the 800 was the Master Birding Lens.

400 and 800 is a magical combination 400 and 600 are pretty close. You get more bang for your buck by adding the 800.

Ah, but those extra pounds are a nonstarter at my tender age!

 

[wotan1]

Ah, but those extra pounds are a nonstarter at my tender age!

I am also quite tenderized, I say tenderized because I did not choose to get in this condition.

I certainly understand the trepidation. I had the same reaction when I was first considering the 800. In fact I rented the 800 for a long weekend before I bought the 600 and at the time I concluded the 800 was too big. What is interesting is that I became persuaded through communications on this forum that I should give the 800 a serious try. I then went back and looked at some of the images I had shot with the 800 I rented and I noticed some good stuff.

So I took the plunge, at the time I had the 400mm f4.5, 600 pf and the 800.

I learned I could use the 800 comfortably and after running with it and comparing the 600 and 800 side by side I found I strongly preferred the 800. What helped me are a few things:

1. I wear straps that make it easier to carry heavy lenses. Currently I am using Holdfast straps, previously I used Blackrapid straps.
2. I learned I can shoot handheld. I leave the lens dangling on the strap and only lift it to shoot then drop it again. I can go a long way that way.
3. I did some strength conditioning to make it easier for me. That helped a lot. None of us are too old that a little strengthening would not help.
4. I use the 800 on a tripod and gimbal whenever I don't have to hike too far.

All I can say is my impression of the 800 changed completely after I got used to handling it. I love what I can do with this lens.

This is my personal impressions and others may obviously differ. It probably helps that I am a big guy and in excellent health despite my advanced age.

 

[Jadiehl]

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.

View attachment 101889

Nice shot!

 

[Jadiehl]

I ordered the 600pf in view of the $800 price break, which ends today. I was on the fence but my wife said "just do it" so I'd quit talking about it. Thanks again for all of the input.

You’ll really like that lens!

 

[AnnetteJane]

I was having the same thoughts and decided to get the 600 6.3 as I'm generally looking for more reach and I don't find the 600 to be to much 95% of the time. I thought it was good advice to determine the length of shooting and not base your every day kit on constant tc usage.
The 400 is a 4.5 though and the 600 a 6.3.. that was the tough part to get past. Would like both but then I have to carry them both. I need to be more mobile than that so needed to choose. I can't see leaving one in the computer room 90 % of the time.

 

[Roaring 40s]

In my book the price of entry for bird shooting is c 600mm. 540mm will do.

If mammals are in the frame then your 100-400mm should cover those but IME neither the Sony nor the Nikon versions impressed when a TC was added. For birds the 1.4xTC is rarely off my 600PF. F9 is a limiting factor of course but it's remarkable how well the Z8 performs at ISO 25000 and 50000. Not ideal sure but acceptable.

It's always worth going back over your shots to see what lengths you used. I did a wet safari in the subantarctic islands of Australia and New Zealand, shooting birds and mammals on land, from zodiacs and from the ship. The pattern was 100mm on penguins on land (them and me), 400mm for seals and penguins from the zodiac, and 600-800mm for nesting and flying birds.

Air travel with lenses of course sharpens the decision import as you usually can't take your whole kit.

ps there's a very useful comparo of MTF performance between Nikon telephotos with and without TCs at

Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Review - Page 3 of 5

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

 

[macwalter]

I have all three, my first was the 100-400 and the 1. 4tc to go to Brazil. It did pretty well overall and the versatility was why I went with it first. Then as I started unloading my dslr gear I got the 400f4.5 and the 2xTC. At this time the 600pf was just coming out and too pricey so I talked to Steve and he said sell all the rest of my dslr gear and save up for the 600pf so I did. as stated above I can tell pretty much what the difference is between the 3 lenses. Especially the 104. In bright light especially with a TC the 400 shows some significant chromatic aberration that can be hard to remove but it is sharp and even with the 2x in good light it will deliver a decent shot. However the 600pf has a subtle quality with a smoother richer result which I just love. It is a bit heavier than the lovely to handle 400f4.5 but not by much. I don’t use the 104 so much but it is versatile and for a zoom pretty good imop. I would say if the 186 was a bit lighter I would be tempted for a versatile do it all lens but I am hooked on primes. You can’t beat the image quality.