So I am contemplating buying this lens against my 500 PF.
My reason: 500 with a TC is too dark and doesn’t cut it for me. 400 with a TC is workable and longer than 500 bare.
Good thing about 400 is that there is only 1/3rd of a stop aperture penalty for 400+TC compared to 500.
If someone compares 400+1.4 favourably with bare 500, i will think about replacing my 500…even if 560mm downsampled to 500mm is equal/better than 500 PF bare, it will do.
As an aside, the 400/4.5 will make a great pair with 600 6.3 PF ! Because they already have 300 and 500 in F mount, isn’t a 600 6.3 is what they will do next? If only wishes were horses !
nandadevieast wrote:
People compare 400 with 500 but it’s interesting to compare it with 300 PF also.
Surprisingly, same arguments go when we compare 300 PF with 400 4.5: 100mm difference, 400 being faster by 1/3rd stop, 300 very good with TC 1.4, 300 PF being lighter and smaller etc etc
So I am contemplating buying this lens against my 500 PF.
My reason: 500 with a TC is too dark and doesn’t cut it for me. 400 with a TC is workable and longer than 500 bare.
Last evening i watched few videos and read up. Don’t think i should be selling 500 for this amazing lens before someone compares 400+1.4 performance with bare 500 here at Fred Miranda or someone like @StevePerry@@@@@@@
Reason against:
Ultimately, comparing a bare lens with a TC 1.4 on lens has never worked out favourably in the past…often when the lens is new the hyperbole also goes with it. I couldn’t find credible information on this, whether 400+1.4 is equal or worse than 500 bare so i will wait.
Other than TC the crop factor is important as it still gives me a 20mp file at 750mm vs 600mm. That resolution is good and people anyway crop bird pictures to lesser resolutions for monitor displays where 4mp also looks as good.
We can look at things like this:
400@45mp/600@20mp/840@20mp (bare/crop/TC)
And 500@45mp/750@20mp (bare/crop)
Or,
400@45mp/560@45mp/840@20mp (bare/TC/Crop)
And 500@45mp/750@20mp (bare/crop)
400mm makes a case for itself only with 1.4 TC always on. Even with crop mode it reaches (only) 600mm against 750mm of 500 PF.
Good thing about 400 is that there is no aperture penalty for TC when i compare it to 500 (1/3rd of a stop)
Another good thing is that 400mm is a more general FL for rest of the things compared to 500 which is only for birding largely
Bottomline:
If someone compares 400+1.4 favourably with bare 500, i will think about replacing my 500…even if 560mm downsampled to 500mm is equal/better than 500 PF bare, it will do.
As an aside, the 400/4.5 will make a great pair with 600 6.3 PF ! Because they already have 300 and 500 in F mount, isn’t a 600 6.3 is what they will do next? If only wishes were horses ! ...Show more →
A small correction: the 400 f/4.5 is two thirds of a stop faster than the 300 f/4 PF with a 1.4X TC.
nandadevieast wrote:
People compare 400 with 500 but it’s interesting to compare it with 300 PF also.
Surprisingly, same arguments go when we compare 300 PF with 400 4.5: 100mm difference, 400 being faster by 1/3rd stop, 300 very good with TC 1.4, 300 PF being lighter and smaller etc etc
So I am contemplating buying this lens against my 500 PF.
My reason: 500 with a TC is too dark and doesn’t cut it for me. 400 with a TC is workable and longer than 500 bare.
Last evening i watched few videos and read up. Don’t think i should be selling 500 for this amazing lens before someone compares 400+1.4 performance with bare 500 here at Fred Miranda or someone like Steve Perry.
Ultimately, comparing a bare lens with a TC 1.4 on lens has never worked out favourably in the past…often when the lens is new the hyperbole also goes with it. I couldn’t find credible information on this, whether 400+1.4 is equal or worse than 500 bare so i will wait.
Other than TC the crop factor is important as it still gives me a 20mp file at 750mm vs 600mm. That resolution is good and people anyway crop bird pictures to lesser resolutions for monitor displays where 4mp also looks as good.
We can look at things like this:
400@45mp/600@20mp/840@20mp (bare/crop/TC)
And 500@45mp/750@20mp (bare/crop)
Or,
400@45mp/560@45mp/840@20mp (bare/TC/Crop)
And 500@45mp/750@20mp (bare/crop)
400mm makes a case for itself only with 1.4 TC always on. Even with crop mode it reaches (only) 600mm against 750mm of 500 PF.
Good thing about 400 is that there is no aperture penalty for TC when i compare it to 500 (1/3rd of a stop)
Another good thing is that 400mm is a more general FL for rest of the things compared to 500 which is only for birding largely
Bottomline:
If someone compares 400+1.4 favourably with bare 500, i will think about replacing my 500…even if 560mm downsampled to 500mm is equal/better than 500 PF bare, it will do.
As an aside, the 400/4.5 will make a great pair with 600 6.3 PF ! Because they already have 300 and 500 in F mount, isn’t a 600 6.3 is what they will do next? If only wishes were horses ! ...Show more →
I actually think there are a lot of comparisons like the one you are seeking out there. A search for 400mm f4.5 v 500mm PF will yield plenty of results. I also have seen many FMers (like myself) compare these lenses, as I had them both at the same time for a while.
Things of note:
1. The 400mm f4.5 is faster @ f4.5 by 2/3 stop stop than the bare 500PF or 300PF w/1.4x.
2. The 400mm f4.5 does not require an FTZ whereas the 500PF requires this and the 300PF has to points of weakness (FTZ and 1.4x) to get to 420mm.
3. The 400mm f4.5 was designed bottom up for the Z system and thus has a quieter motor, quieter VR, and faster AF fhrough its range than the F-mount lenses.
4. The 400mm f4.5 does not have a PF element and thus never has "onion ring" bokeh which can be present in PF lenses when shooting in backlit conditions.
5. The 500PF is marginally sharper (200% pixel peeping) than the 400mm f4.5 with 1.4x, and is 1/3 stop faster than the 400PF w/1.4x converter.
6. The 400mm f4.5 w/ 1.4x focuses as fast as the 500PF in spite of the converter.
7. With a converter, the 400mm f4.5 becomes 560mm FX and 840mm DX crop...the 500PF is 500mm FX and 750mm DX.
8. Finally, with sufficient light and fast shutter speed, the 400mm 4.5 w/ Z-2X becomes a 800mm FX lens and 1200mm DX lens that has much better than expected performance.
If this is relevant... my telephoto "kit" now includes the 100-400S, 400mm f4.5, and 800mm PF. My least used lens in the last 4 months has been the 400mm f4.5 because the 100-400S is good enough when I need the focal length. I am holding on to the 400mm f4.5 for now, as it is a great travel option when weight may restrict me.
As you know, I have the 500PF but what I know of the 400 4.5 is only learned from these threads.
I am in agreement with the interesting points you make (most of them favoring the 400 4.5) but in the last sentence you seem to turn and walk away from it. Please just clarify.... and thanks for your opinion.
As you know, I have the 500PF but what I know of the 400 4.5 is only learned from these threads.
I am in agreement with the interesting points you make (most of them favoring the 400 4.5) but in the last sentence you seem to turn and walk away from it. Please just clarify.... and thanks for your opinion.
Robert
Hello Robert... I am happy to clarify my thoughts.
I am at a crossroads with my gear. I am not sure what I want to do with my telephoto lenses.
Clarifications...
1. The 400mm f4.5 is the sharpest lens I currently own. It, however, is a redundant lens with the 100-400 f5.6. I appreciate the versatility of the zoom and now carry the latter with my 800PF.
2. Prior to getting the 800PF I had the 100-400 and 400 f4.5 w/ 1.4x in my bag. I now have my F-Stop Tilopa configured to carry these two lenses, my wide angles, and my two cameras. This bag is my travel kit when I can't bring the 800PF.
3. My daily/local/road trip bag is now a Mindshift Backlight 36L and it holds the 800PF, 100-400, 24-120, 17-28, Z8, Z9.
I have plans to go to Japan to photograph winter wildlife in January. I will probably bring the "travel kit" instead of the daily kit. The 800PF is more lens than I need. My current issue with the 400 f4.5 is that I have a 100-400 and 800PF. When I need long glass, the 800PF is the best option. If I don't need long glass, I need versatility... If I can find a 400mm f2.8 w/ built in converter, I'd take that over my two long primes. Unfortunately, the 400 f2.8S is criminally expensive and very difficult to find.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Hello Robert... I am happy to clarify my thoughts.
I am at a crossroads with my gear. I am not sure what I want to do with my telephoto lenses.
Clarifications...
1. The 400mm f4.5 is the sharpest lens I currently own. It, however, is a redundant lens with the 100-400 f5.6. I appreciate the versatility of the zoom and now carry the latter with my 800PF.
2. Prior to getting the 800PF I had the 100-400 and 400 f4.5 w/ 1.4x in my bag. I now have my F-Stop Tilopa configured to carry these two lenses, my wide angles, and my two cameras. This bag is my travel kit when I can't bring the 800PF.
3. My daily/local/road trip bag is now a Mindshift Backlight 36L and it holds the 800PF, 100-400, 24-120, 17-28, Z8, Z9.
I have plans to go to Japan to photograph winter wildlife in January. I will probably bring the "travel kit" instead of the daily kit. The 800PF is more lens than I need. My current issue with the 400 f4.5 is that I have a 100-400 and 800PF. When I need long glass, the 800PF is the best option. If I don't need long glass, I need versatility... If I can find a 400mm f2.8 w/ built in converter, I'd take that over my two long primes. Unfortunately, the 400 f2.8S is criminally expensive and very difficult to find.
Point 7:
And 500 PF with converter becomes 700 FX and 1050mm DX, albeit at F8 (which is why you haven’t mentioned it i assume). I have read that focus speed doesn’t take a hit on Z9, but on F mount 500 AF speed slows down.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I actually think there are a lot of comparisons like the one you are seeking out there. A search for 400mm f4.5 v 500mm PF will yield plenty of results. I also have seen many FMers (like myself) compare these lenses, as I had them both at the same time for a while.
Things of note:
1. The 400mm f4.5 is faster @ f4.5 by 2/3 stop stop than the bare 500PF or 300PF w/1.4x.
2. The 400mm f4.5 does not require an FTZ whereas the 500PF requires this and the 300PF has to points of weakness (FTZ and 1.4x) to get to 420mm.
3. The 400mm f4.5 was designed bottom up for the Z system and thus has a quieter motor, quieter VR, and faster AF fhrough its range than the F-mount lenses.
4. The 400mm f4.5 does not have a PF element and thus never has "onion ring" bokeh which can be present in PF lenses when shooting in backlit conditions.
5. The 500PF is marginally sharper (200% pixel peeping) than the 400mm f4.5 with 1.4x, and is 1/3 stop faster than the 400PF w/1.4x converter.
6. The 400mm f4.5 w/ 1.4x focuses as fast as the 500PF in spite of the converter.
7. With a converter, the 400mm f4.5 becomes 560mm FX and 840mm DX crop...the 500PF is 500mm FX and 750mm DX.
8. Finally, with sufficient light and fast shutter speed, the 400mm 4.5 w/ Z-2X becomes a 800mm FX lens and 1200mm DX lens that has much better than expected performance.
If this is relevant... my telephoto "kit" now includes the 100-400S, 400mm f4.5, and 800mm PF. My least used lens in the last 4 months has been the 400mm f4.5 because the 100-400S is good enough when I need the focal length. I am holding on to the 400mm f4.5 for now, as it is a great travel option when weight may restrict me.
nandadevieast wrote:
Point 7:
And 500 PF with converter becomes 700 FX and 1050mm DX, albeit at F8 (which is why you haven’t mentioned it i assume). I have read that focus speed doesn’t take a hit on Z9, but on F mount 500 AF speed slows down.
You are correct about the 500PF and the 1.4x converter. I'm not wild about starting at f/8 and would prefer to shoot the 400mm f/4.5 add the 1.4x, and stop down to f/8 to increase acuity and contrast. If we are going to "play" the slow aperture game, one can add the very very good 2x converter to the 400mm f4.5, be at 800mm f/9 in FX and shoot at 1200mm in DX mode. I posted a few eagle images w/ the 400mm f4.5 w/2x in DX somewhere in this thread and they look surprisingly good. To be clear, AF speed takes a hit and the 800PF is much better.
BTW... I missed that you were shooting w/ a D850 too. If I was running a hybrid / mirrorless kit, I'd buy the mirrorless lens I want to use with the mirrorless body the most, and use an FTZ with those lenses that would normally be assigned to the D850.
Some action shots of one of our smallest birds, the superb fairy wren. She's only about 3" not including tail so even with 560mm she's small in the frame on DX mode on the Z9. She was trying to catch insects on the sand and was jumping about so fast it was incredibly hard to even get the lens on her let alone get a focused shot. Still, patience prevailed an I managed to get a few nice keepers.
All shots were with 400 f/4.5 + 1.4x + Z9 in DX mode.
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Z TC-1.4x lens560mmf/6.31/2000s3600 ISO+0.7 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Z TC-1.4x lens560mmf/6.31/2000s3600 ISO+0.7 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Z TC-1.4x lens560mmf/6.31/2000s5600 ISO+0.7 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Z TC-1.4x lens560mmf/6.31/2000s4500 ISO+0.7 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Z TC-1.4x lens560mmf/6.31/3200s5600 ISO+0.7 EV
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Some action shots of one of our smallest birds, the superb fairy wren. She's only about 3" not including tail so even with 560mm she's small in the frame on DX mode on the Z9. She was trying to catch insects on the sand and was jumping about so fast it was incredibly hard to even get the lens on her let alone get a focused shot. Still, patience prevailed an I managed to get a few nice keepers.
All shots were with 400 f/4.5 + 1.4x + Z9 in DX mode.
Wow! She's so cute and serious! Don't want to go to roost hungry.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Some action shots of one of our smallest birds, the superb fairy wren. She's only about 3" not including tail so even with 560mm she's small in the frame on DX mode on the Z9. She was trying to catch insects on the sand and was jumping about so fast it was incredibly hard to even get the lens on her let alone get a focused shot. Still, patience prevailed an I managed to get a few nice keepers.
All shots were with 400 f/4.5 + 1.4x + Z9 in DX mode.
Wonderful series. I love these birds as they are so characterful as they go about their business.
