OwlsEyes wrote:
I think if I were to be starting fresh in the Z-system, and did not already own the 100-400S / 500PF combo, an argument could be made for a system that consists of a 24-70, 70-200, 400 f4.5, 800PF.
An alternative and equally useful system (my direction) could be: 24-70 (or 120mm), 100-400, 500PF, and 800PF (the latter will occur when Nikon re-opens orders).
I decided to go with the 1st option (mainly because I already had 24-70/70-200 & 2.8 aperture can be useful here in BC) + I don't want to fuss with the FTZ. Now my 500PF has a happy new owner and I'm just waiting for the 800. But again - everything is about trade-offs - weight, aperture numbers, adapters etc. It's great to have choices .
cvrle59 wrote:
It's hard to judge on Lance's images, his work is always outstanding, whatever lens he uses, but to my eyes,
this lens is sharper, little more contrasty, and colour saturation is more pronounced than 100-400mm, I would say.
Definitely, great addition to already fantastic z-tele world.
Thanks Lance and Lukemeup for amazing work!
Thank you very much, cvrle59. Much appreciated!
I think your assessment of the 400 f4.5 compared to the 100-400 is good.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Lance,
All of these photos are lovely with amazing clarity. Your choice in subjects, locations, backgrounds, and light are useful in making an informed decision.
To me, the most important point you make is at the end. If one already has the focal lengths covered with current Nikon glass, does it make sense to "sell the farm" to buy into the new "crop." I think if I were to be starting fresh in the Z-system, and did not already own the 100-400S / 500PF combo, an argument could be made for a system that consists of a 24-70, 70-200, 400 f4.5, 800PF.
An alternative and equally useful system (my direction) could be: 24-70 (or 120mm), 100-400, 500PF, and 800PF (the latter will occur when Nikon re-opens orders).
After looking at your pictures on the weekend, I decided to finally process some winter swans that I shot with the 100-400 / Z6II. These were orphan files, as I photograph swans about once a week in the winter. Anyway, I feel like those shots (posted in 100-400 thread) were as "clean" as I've seen from the 400 f4.5 and I benefited from the zoom. What's more, they were taken in overcast light at high ISO's. So while it is clear that the 400 f4.5 has the best optical quality, the difference is so small that one needs to consider if the ability to zoom is more or less important than an 4.5 maximum aperture.
Thank you very much for your kind comments, Bruce. Much appreciated!
I couldn't agree more with what you have written about the 400 f4.5, 100-400 and 500 pf. They are all exceptional lenses and the differences these days are minimal at best. If I didn't have the 100-400 I would probably get the 400 f4.5, there is no doubt it is another winner by Nikon. However, the 100-400 is also exceptional and for me a more useful lens.
Love your swan shots. They are very moody and you should have some of your best printed and on the wall.
Lance B wrote:
Thank you very much for your kind comments, Bruce. Much appreciated!
I couldn't agree more with what you have written about the 400 f4.5, 100-400 and 500 pf. They are all exceptional lenses and the differences these days are minimal at best. If I didn't have the 100-400 I would probably get the 400 f4.5, there is no doubt it is another winner by Nikon. However, the 100-400 is also exceptional and for me a more useful lens.
Love your swan shots. They are very moody and you should have some of your best printed and on the wall. ...Show more →
Ripolini wrote:
To conclude: this 400/4.5 is as beautiful as useless lens
Maybe a little overstating it.
If I didn't have the 400 f2.8E FL VR or the 100-400, I would most *definitely* get the 400 f4.5. The sharpness, bokeh, subject separation and overall IQ is actually excellent and with the TC is also an excellent 560mm f6.3. For me, the Pelican sitting on the pier sold me, the detail and overall IQ is superb, IMO.
I use my 400 f2.8 bare and with the 1.4x TC mostly the 400 f4.5 comes close enough in those departments to be a very useful lens yet at 1/3rd the weight. I have even been toying with selling off my 400 f2.8E FL VR simply because I don't use it enough due to weight and size. However, I just can't do it at this stage as I love it's output so much. However, I dare say that I would not use the 400 f4.5 that much either as I would have my 100-400 and 500 pf in the bag mostly anyway. It's a tough decision and I don't think there is really a wrong one, you just have to make up your mind in your particular circumastance and what best suits you.
This is looking like another winner. Nikon's telephoto game keeps getting stronger and they are making a strong case for best telephoto lens system (especially if you value light weight options.) They will be in a perfect spot after the 600 f/4 z gets announced.
Seeing how well the 400mm f4.5Z does with the Z1.4TC, are there any thoughts yet on this combo vs the 500pf?
60mm extra + native Z mount + no PF vs no TC plus a slightly wider aperture....
ChrisMak wrote:
Seeing how well the 400mm f4.5Z does with the Z1.4TC, are there any thoughts yet on this combo vs the 500pf?
60mm extra + native Z mount + no PF vs no TC plus a slightly wider aperture....
ChrisMak wrote:
Seeing how well the 400mm f4.5Z does with the Z1.4TC, are there any thoughts yet on this combo vs the 500pf?
60mm extra + native Z mount + no PF vs no TC plus a slightly wider aperture....
I think Lance is the only one who has really articulated his thoughts after using both lenses...
They mirror my thinking, though I only have experience with the 500PF...
If you already own the 100-400S and 500PF, there is little to gain... and maybe a little to lose... if you move to a 400mm f4.5 instead of the former pairing.
If you have a 70-200 S, or are just building a Z-system, a wildlife enthusiast might find that the 70-200S + 400 f4.5 + 1.4x converters would be the best nucleus from which to build up (600/800) and down (24-70/24-120).
Clearly, the one shortcoming of the 100-400/500PF system is the reliance on an adapted lens that may not maintain 100% functionality in the future. As for the hassle of lens changes, I suggest that one place an FTZ on their F-mount telephoto lens and leave it there. By doing this, one does not have to think of a two step process when using an adapted lens.
In many ways, this would be my truth with the 400mm f4.5... I would need to buy a 1.4x converter and just leave it permanently attached to the 400 f4.5, as 400mm is too short for my long lens use. My prior experience with a 70-200 / 500PF combo was that I just left my 1.4x Z converter on the zoom... thus the 100-400 became the better option at that time.
regards,
bruce
ChrisMak wrote:
Seeing how well the 400mm f4.5Z does with the Z1.4TC, are there any thoughts yet on this combo vs the 500pf?
60mm extra + native Z mount + no PF vs no TC plus a slightly wider aperture....
I sold the 500PF just as the 400 4.5 was arriving (I was assuming that even with the 1.4 TC the lens won't be worse & I was not mistaken).
If I had 100-400 I likely wouldn't be looking at 400, but I already had 70-200 & TC1.4. For my usage 400 F4.5 and 800 F6.3 make sense. I won't be able to afford 600 F4 at this stage (and looking at prices of the competition - you can pick brand new 400 & 800 for less $ than 600 F4 + combined weight of those two lenses will be just ~1 pound more). Both 400 & 800 can be handheld for extended periods of time - which is a huge + for me.
After spending a couple days with the 400 4.5 in my (subjective) opinion:
- better bokeh
- better balance on the body
- focus about the same (fast with or without TC)
- no IQ loss with TC (I don't pixel peep much though)
- weight - slightly lighter even with TC (vs 500PF + FTZ)
- slightly more reach with TC but at 1/3rd stop loss of light
- no FTZ (that was my last f-mount lens, not going to miss the FTZ)
One more thought: cost - ~$900 CAD after selling the 500 PF (that I got used & sold at a small loss after using it for 6 months). Was it worth it? That's purely subjective as well.
lukemeup wrote:
I sold the 500PF just as the 400 4.5 was arriving (I was assuming that even with the 1.4 TC the lens won't be worse & I was not mistaken).
If I had 100-400 I likely wouldn't be looking at 400, but I already had 70-200 & TC1.4. For my usage 400 F4.5 and 800 F6.3 make sense. I won't be able to afford 600 F4 at this stage (and looking at prices of the competition - you can pick brand new 400 & 800 for less $ than 600 F4 + combined weight of those two lenses will be just ~1 pound more). Both 400 & 800 can be handheld for extended periods of time - which is a huge + for me.
After spending a couple days with the 400 4.5 in my (subjective) opinion:
- better bokeh
- better balance on the body
- focus about the same (fast with or without TC)
- no IQ loss with TC (I don't pixel peep much though)
- weight - slightly lighter even with TC (vs 500PF + FTZ)
- slightly more reach with TC but at 1/3rd stop loss of light
- no FTZ (that was my last f-mount lens, not going to miss the FTZ)
One more thought: cost - ~$900 CAD after selling the 500 PF (that I got used & sold at a small loss after using it for 6 months). Was it worth it? That's purely subjective as well. ...Show more →
I used the Canon 400DOII with the 1.4TC glued to it for some time. Optically that combo worked very well, with great sharpness and great contrast and clarity, really prime level rendering even with the TC. Except for the bokeh, which was plain bad in some circumstances. I notice that the Nikon Z400mm seems to do the 400DOII trick with the 1.4TC, without the bad bokeh downside. I really liked the 560mm f5.6 combinatione, and I think f6.3 is also just about acceptable. I hate f8 in general when using a long lens. I only ever use it for landscapes at 25mm f8.
Some people may say that the extra 60mm's vs the 500PF mean nothing, but I disagree, the difference between 500mm and 600mm is big in my opinion, and 60mm's is a good way there.
It could make for a highly portable prime lens quality combo with a future lighter Nikon Z action body, e.g. an aps-c stacked sensor body. A cheaper and lighter set-up than my former Canon set-up.
ChrisMak wrote:
I notice that the Nikon Z400mm seems to do the 400DOII trick with the 1.4TC, without the bad bokeh downside. I really liked the 560mm f5.6 combination
I think the new lens doesn't suffer from that because it's not a PF lens (which is similar tech as DO). As for F8 on the long end - that would be a 'no go' here in BC for me (even F6.3 is a bit of a stretch). That's why I haven't even considered 100-400 because with TC it would put me at F8. Everything is about trade offs.
For the longer glass I'll have:
70-200 2.8 (100-280 4 with TC)
400 4.5 (560 6.3 with TC)
800 6.3 (that I'll likely never use with TC).
All 3 lenses are cheaper combined than Sony's 600mm (and Nikon's if it has built in TC will likely come at a price premium). Choices.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I think Lance is the only one who has really articulated his thoughts after using both lenses...
They mirror my thinking, though I only have experience with the 500PF...
If you already own the 100-400S and 500PF, there is little to gain... and maybe a little to lose... if you move to a 400mm f4.5 instead of the former pairing.
If you have a 70-200 S, or are just building a Z-system, a wildlife enthusiast might find that the 70-200S + 400 f4.5 + 1.4x converters would be the best nucleus from which to build up (600/800) and down (24-70/24-120).
Clearly, the one shortcoming of the 100-400/500PF system is the reliance on an adapted lens that may not maintain 100% functionality in the future. As for the hassle of lens changes, I suggest that one place an FTZ on their F-mount telephoto lens and leave it there. By doing this, one does not have to think of a two step process when using an adapted lens.
In many ways, this would be my truth with the 400mm f4.5... I would need to buy a 1.4x converter and just leave it permanently attached to the 400 f4.5, as 400mm is too short for my long lens use. My prior experience with a 70-200 / 500PF combo was that I just left my 1.4x Z converter on the zoom... thus the 100-400 became the better option at that time.
regards,
bruce...Show more →
I pretty much agree with all that has been said. I ended up with the 400/4.5, having neither the 100-400 nor the 500pf, but I could quite happily have gone either way.
Going forward, I can see the "400/4.5 or 100-400?" being a most common title question on forums for some years to come!
I purchased 100-400s back in February, I new I wouldn't be dragging around 200-600mm, but we didn't know much about 400s back then.
If I new what was coming, and how soon, I would've passed on 100-400, which showed up to be an amazing lens.
When first rumor came about 400s, I immediately notified my local dealer to put my name on the list, I felt it's a lens made for me.
Once announced, I started selling my 100-400s, but I couldn't get what I expected, so I missed to get first delivered copy.
More I use 100-400s for closeup, more I think, if I really want to swap it for new lens
But, when I see how good new lens is with TC14, I think I'm gonna go for it, 560mm at f6.3 in such compact package is so desirable, and I'm willing to compromise short DOF of 100-400 for it.
It's gonna happen most likely after my vacation, end of August or beginning of September.
I will lower my expectation for 100-400s, so I should be able to sell it.
Yes, I agree, this is going to be dilemma for a long time for Nikon shooters, it's not an easy decision.
. 
