Z9 400mm 2.8 or 600mm 4.0

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).

criegel

criegel

New member
Member's gallery
I would love to hear your thoughts on selecting between the 400 2.8 with TC versus the new 600 4.0. I am leaning toward getting the 400 2.8 with TC. I am interested in maximizing reach. The 400 will give me 560 at 4.0 with built in TC and 800 at 5.6 with a 2.0 TC if my calculations are right
Thanks
 
Member's gallery
criegel said:
I would love to hear your thoughts on selecting between the 400 2.8 with TC versus the new 600 4.0. I am leaning toward getting the 400 2.8 with TC. I am interested in maximizing reach. The 400 will give me 560 at 4.0 with built in TC and 800 at 5.6 with a 2.0 TC if my calculations are right
Thanks
Click to expand...
Yup, your calculations are correct.

I'd say it comes down to your typical subjects and working distances. If you'll keep one of the TCs on your lens most or all of time I'd go with the 600mm lens. But if your subjects and working situations allow a lot of use at 400mm (e.g. Safari work with larger animals or situations where you can work at close distances) or if you work a lot in very low light conditions (e.g. rainforests) then the fast 400mm lens could make a lot of sense. IOW, what focal lengths do you get the most mileage out of and if that's at or above 560mm I'd go with the longer prime lens but if your subjects or working situations allow you to use 400mm much if not most of the time and 600mm to 800mm is only a sometimes thing then go with the fast 400mm f/2.8 lens.

Personally I don't hesitate to use TCs, especially with mirrorless cameras but I still find a 600mm f/4 with one or more TCs handy makes more sense for the way I shoot. I've tried baselining my system on a 400mm lens and it didn't work that well for me with a very few exceptions like Moose and Bighorn Sheep that are relatively large and approachable around here.

YMMV

-Dave
 
Member's gallery
Have a look at Steve's first look of the lens. He talks about the choices.
backcountrygallery.com

New Nikon 600mm TC - First Look Field Review! - Backcountry Gallery

Nikon just released their new 600mm F/4 TC VR S series lens, exclusively for the Nikon Z mount! I was fortunate enough to spend some time with the lens prior to today’s announcement and I can’t wait to share what I’ve discovered! Nikon invited me to take one of their pre-production units out for...
backcountrygallery.com backcountrygallery.com
 
Member's gallery
Patrick M is correct about the focal length flexibility but what about image quality? Is the 600 + TC14 internal @840 mm clearly sharper thn the 400 +TC 20 both at f/5.6? How do both compare to the 800 mm 6.3. I would also love to see a comparison of IQ between the 400 TC + 1.4 internal for 560 mm and the 600 mm both at f/4. I would expect the 600 would be sharper, but by enough to be preferred over the 400 with internal TC. Nikon has given us a lot of ways to get there and people will put difference importance on the trade-offs between flexibility, number of lenses they can carry and use, sharpness, how often the shoot in very low light, etc. I've made my choice (and both my bank account and my wife assure me there will be no more changes) I have the 70-200 mm f/2.8 + TC 14 on a Z7ii and the 400 TC 2.8 on Z9. I carry the TC 20 if I need to get to 800 mm (I slightly prefer the TC20 to the combination of TC 14 and internal TC but it is probably just copy differences) I don't worry about the 1000 mm plus options since my technique and my shooting locations just don't provide much use for the very long reach. I look forward to hearing how other photographers decide how to build out a Z telephoto kit with all the available choices.
 
Member's gallery
criegel said:
...I am interested in maximizing reach. The 400 will give me 560 at 4.0 with built in TC and 800 at 5.6 with a 2.0 TC if my calculations are right
Click to expand...
Do you mean maximizing REACH or RANGE/SPAN. If indeed you mean reach(i.e. focal length/magnification) then the longer lens is the logical choice. If you mean range then the shorter lens with TC combinations is the way to go.
 
Member's gallery
After reading the 400mm f/2.8 Z lens review by Thom Hogan I decided not to buy this lens which is arriving at the photo store on Tuesday.

Nikon 400mm f/2.8 S TC VR Lens Review | Thom Hogan

Review of the Nikon (Nikkor) 400mm f/2.8 S TC VR lens for the Z mount
www.zsystemuser.com

The bottom line is that this lens cannot be shot hand held as a practical manner if one wants to access the lens control or Fn buttons. This means that for all practical purposes I would be having to shoot with it mounted on a tripod. For me the 500mm PF lens was a game changer as I never needed a tripod when shooting with it. The Z 400mm f/2.8 would be big step back for me.

I decided to keep my 800mm PF and 400mm f/4.5 lenses along with the 100-400mm and two teleconverters for my kit. A little bulkier and 2 lbs heavier kit but all three lenses I shot with hand held with no issues. For me this is the best setup at this point in time.

When I first replaced my 500mm f/4 lens with the 600mm f/4 one it turned out to be a mistake for the most part. The 500mm f/4 and 700mm f/5.6 provided a better choice of view angles for most subjects in the wild. I quickly added the 500mm PF lens when it came out and found myself using the 600mm f/4 lens less and less. Being able to shoot hand held made it possible to move around much faster to get the best position and best background for a subject and to get down to eye level. It is a night and day difference in shooting mobility. I also often make use of a boat for photographing wildlife and a tripod has only worked on a hardbottom inflatable with its flat deck and very little yawl motion.
 
Member's gallery
I’m personally not getting either so take my opinion as you will, but my decision would be based on which focal lengths are more appealing between 400+560 or 600+840. While you can add external TCs to these two lenses, I think the real advantage comes from the internal TC. Adding an external TC would be a limited use case for me.
 
Member's gallery
Buy both -- it all depends on your use/business case for 400/2.8 TC, 600/4 TC or 800/6.3PF and how much pain the cost causes you.
Like some of us I have a very specific case for taking both with me to Africa and then individual use cases for shooting domestic action/wildlife here.

For others to the price is too high for one let alone both.

OK -- we each have our own circumstances.

There are great deals around for used Af-S 400 or 600 E-FL lenses -- I sold both of mine a month ago, together with all the rest of my f-mount gear. The E and G version of the 400 and 600 work great on the Z bodies with the FTZii and awesomely on the Z9 -- the new Z version are simply better.

I believe most folk would benefit from shooting with a 100-400 and a ZTC14. But the light needs to be good. And sure at some point the Z200-600 will be launched -- but it is not an S-line so while cheaper it will be softer particularly out at 600 and have slower AF performance.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
Yup, your calculations are correct.

I'd say it comes down to your typical subjects and working distances. If you'll keep one of the TCs on your lens most or all of time I'd go with the 600mm lens. But if your subjects and working situations allow a lot of use at 400mm (e.g. Safari work with larger animals or situations where you can work at close distances) or if you work a lot in very low light conditions (e.g. rainforests) then the fast 400mm lens could make a lot of sense. IOW, what focal lengths do you get the most mileage out of and if that's at or above 560mm I'd go with the longer prime lens but if your subjects or working situations allow you to use 400mm much if not most of the time and 600mm to 800mm is only a sometimes thing then go with the fast 400mm f/2.8 lens.

Personally I don't hesitate to use TCs, especially with mirrorless cameras but I still find a 600mm f/4 with one or more TCs handy makes more sense for the way I shoot. I've tried baselining my system on a 400mm lens and it didn't work that well for me with a very few exceptions like Moose and Bighorn Sheep that are relatively large and approachable around here.

YMMV

-Dave
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
Member's gallery
To OP: Have you analyzed your exif data (fairly simple in LR Classic)? This quickly reveals your "primary" focal lengths. These show I relied on the 400 f2.8E FL with both TC14 III and TC2 III as my core telephoto, with 500 PF in hiking role [Commando Kit]. The images out of a wide open 400 f2.8 on a 45mp sensor (mostly D850 IME) are outstanding, but this is when subjects cooperate, however. Great for larger mammals, less commonly for the birds I meet, for which 560 or better 800 reach is the norm.

Then, early in this year, I found a discounted Used Mint cdn 180-400 f4E TC14. This stunning zoom pushed aside (sadly) the 400 f2.8 into its TC2 pairing in a 800 f5.6 role, in which it works remarkably well on the Z9 as well as D5 and D850. Then I quickly recognized how the 800 PF eclipsed the 400 f2.8E unless for very rare low light demands. Yet even here, with a f4 or even slower lenses, I find the D5 sensor (now in a D6) does very well indeed.

Obviously, the ZTC2 with the 400 f2.8S TC has improved the tripartite performance of this fast 400 prime to be even better than the F-mount E FL prime. Remarkable times, especially with the pending 600 f4S TC! Nevertheless, I think the year 2022 may come to be remembered - among some wildlife lens geeks at least - as the year of the 'Democratization of the 800 Prime': for those who need its native qualities and this is with the huge bonus a Nikkor 800 prime - f5.6E / f6.3S PF - gives twinned with a TC. This expands the 800's reach to 1000 f7.1 /1120 f8/1600 f11 or 1120 f9/1600 f13.

In summary, perhaps i'm fortunate that I find my telephoto usage in south-central Africa falls out rather neatly into a dichotomy of 100-400/560 and 800-1120. I find my needs thus far for 1600 are the exception, but 1600mm Reach can still be vital to have in emergencies. Obviously atmospherics can trash such desktop ideals, especially with telephotos > 600 and pushing out subject distances!
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
My short answer would be: "Neither if the result is not worth the investment."

Both are great lens by their specs. But unless you know 100% that it will shift you to another league of picture quality, there are more cost effective means for significant improvement.

But this line of argument goes only for budget aware shooters. If money is no issue, I would prefer 400 + 1.4. Those are more useful focal lengths for common wildlife subjects and optical conditions of shooting them. Also, one can almost have 400 + 1.4 and a 800 PF for the price of 600 + 1.4.
 
Member's gallery
To add, somewhat off topic, we can be most grateful to the Z mount for many positives; but for some of us, one especially is how it's liberating exotic F-mount optics, which many of us never had any hope of affording. The Used inventories have changed completely since late 2021. In particular, the Z9 liberated a surprising number of not only 180-400 TC's but also 800 f5.6E FL's. With very little demand for the latter in SA, Used prices abseiled even of mint cdn copies.....

[However, I've seen very few if any Used copies of the 105 f1.4E, 200 f2G, nor 120-300 f2.8E, which suggests a fair number have migrated seamlessly with their owners to those who've bought into the Z system :D ]

The FTZ is one superb accessory, the FTZ II in particular. I see no need to ditch F-mount optics, nor in honesty when to move to Z lenses 100%. Rather augment a F system with those more unique Z Nikkors., with distinct advantages. IMHO, the 180-400 f4 TC14 has many unique advantages for many needs in wildlife photography; although the 100-400 f4.5/5.6S is another alternative, which overlaps in many aspects.

Equally, admittedly in a tighter niche, I find the 800 f5.6/ 1000 f7.1 - in one huge prime - is unique with outstanding image quality in the 400 f2.8E realm, but it's important to add these exotics, i.e. heavy tele-zoom and heavier prime, are best confined and combined in fixed stations or hides (vehicle included). The 400 f4.5S or 500 PF are there for the sustained handholding and hikes etc, as is the 800 PF.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Calson said:
The bottom line is that this lens cannot be shot hand held as a practical manner if one wants to access the lens control or Fn buttons. This means that for all practical purposes I would be having to shoot with it mounted on a tripod. For me the 500mm PF lens was a game changer as I never needed a tripod when shooting with it. The Z 400mm f/2.8 would be big step back for me.
Click to expand...
@Calson

Have you tried the Z400TC yourself for any length of time?
The hand hold ability of this lens w/access to the Lens Fn buttons & rings is really quite subjective, and I'm in the Brad Hill camp and found for my hand holding style I had good access to the mentioned buttons. Looking through the various reviews I found that it was only Thom Hogan who did not like the handling/hold ability w/button access.
Just to clarify, I've been shooting with long prime Nikkor's for over 35 yrs.

I was fortunate to shoot this lens on a Z9 in March in the Serengeti (granted for only a day) and loved how it felt and balanced in my hand, so much nicer than my 400E, now since sold.
My 400TC is arriving from Nikon in just 2/3 days, and can't wait!
I'm really looking forward to putting this lens through its paces on my upcoming month long Serengeti assignment in 2 weeks.
 
Member's gallery
marc said:
@Calson

Have you tried the Z400TC yourself for any length of time?
The hand hold ability of this lens w/access to the Lens Fn buttons & rings is really quite subjective, and I'm in the Brad Hill camp and found for my hand holding style I had good access to the mentioned buttons. Looking through the various reviews I found that it was only Thom Hogan who did not like the handling/hold ability w/button access.
Just to clarify, I've been shooting with long prime Nikkor's for over 35 yrs.

I was fortunate to shoot this lens on a Z9 in March in the Serengeti (granted for only a day) and loved how it felt and balanced in my hand, so much nicer than my 400E, now since sold.
My 400TC is arriving from Nikon in just 2/3 days, and can't wait!
I'm really looking forward to putting this lens through its paces on my upcoming month long Serengeti assignment in 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
TH's recent comments in 400 f4.5S review - "...I'm not giving up my 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S, mind you, it's simply the best 400mm and 560mm combo you can get in the Z-mount at the moment, has the ability to throw backgrounds more out of focus, plus with the 2x teleconverter it's a near 800mm f/6.3 PF S equivalent. Once that f/2.8 lens got mounted to my Z9, I wasn't taking it off (except to test other lenses)...."
 
Member's gallery
I only have the 500 pf

For BIF, the 600 TC is preferred than the 400 TC for the birds I shoot.

With the 400 TC, I will always find the birds occupy small portion of the frame which means, I will be most of the time using the tc

But the 400 maybe better for other people
 
Member's gallery
I got an older 400/2.8 f-mount as it was easily available used while 600s and 500s were not. Quite frankly even from a hide you need to be close to MFD to fully frame a bird the size of a kingfisher or smaller, so the TC will be permanently engaged probably for birds, as my 1.4x is permanently glued on my 400 and if the 2x delivered better IQ, it probably would be instead.
That being said, the occasions you can shoot [email protected] for light and target size reasons, it's wonderful. But if birds are a large part of your shooting 400/560 will be a bit short often and going further will degrade IQ, i guess.
Long story short, we need a 400-800 f4ish-5.6ish zoom don't we!
 
Member's gallery
I got the Z400 2.8 and i like it very much! Im thinking about to switch it for the 600, but im not sure yet. One moment I think 600, other moment 400.... i just cant make up my mind.
If I go for the 600 i need to also buy the 100-400 f4.5/5.6 but loose the 2.8 low light capabilitty. and it cost me like 5000 euro extra...
here are some of my thoughts:

Advantages of the 600 f4:
1) I think its going to be sharper at 840mm f5.6 with the internal 1.4 converter, than the 400mm f2.8 with 2x converter.
2) I think its going to be sharper at 600mm f4 than the 400mm f2.8 with internal converter at 560mm f4.
3) Possible to shoot at 1200mm f8 with 2 times converter (if its with good stabilization)

Advantages of the 400 2.8:
1) MFD is 2.5 meters, and with 600 4.3 meter
2) its a little bit less weight and smaller.
3) The 2.8 low light capability
4) A bit cheaper ;)
5) I think the 400 is a bit more versatile/flexible, and it covers 600 and 800mm

Best thing would be both :ROFLMAO:, but a cant afford that
 
Member's gallery
I prefer to think in terms of a camera kit for various locations. For a trip to Costa Rica or Alaska, the 400mm f/2.8 TC would be my choice. It is not a good lens for use on a boat with its weight and awkard positioning of the buttons.

For photographing sandhill cranes or wildlife at Yellowstone the 600mm would be my first choice of the two but with a 800mm PF lens the 4 lbs lighter PF lens would be my choice.

With either lens the 100-400mm would be needed.

I reviewed my image files from past trips and the majority were with 300mm to 600mm focal lengths. About 10% were at focal lengths of 600mm or greater.

Something I see all the time with images from Haines of the bald eagles is that the photographer took a 600mm lens and with its narrow view angle either a part of the wing is cropped off in the camera or there is little in the picture to show where it was taken. It is easy to have too long a focal length and not much you can do about it. Even with the 400mm TC lens people have missed shots or had to resort to closeups of the face as they had too long a lens.

This is where one camera with the 100-400mm and the other with a prime lens has worked the best. So for me the 400mm f/4.5 and the 800mm PF are better additions to my kit than the 400mm TC or 600mm TC lenses. Once freed of the need to use a tripod and gimbal head, as I discovered with the 500mm PF lens, it is difficult to go back to hauling around heavy glass and a tripod with a gimbal head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top