JustShootMe wrote:
I know 400 is a little on the short side , but it's such a fantastic lens.
I had a 400 4.5 last year, but sold it in order to go with a zoom (100-400, and then 180-600) to cover the short end in support of my 800PF. Part of me is thinking of getting one again to pair with my 600PF and have a very lightweight kit for travel and hiking. Just wondering if it'll actually get used effectively, or would it be a "solution that's in search of a problem" sort of thing, and sit in the bag.
MatthewK wrote:
I had a 400 4.5 last year, but sold it in order to go with a zoom (100-400, and then 180-600) to cover the short end in support of my 800PF. Part of me is thinking of getting one again to pair with my 600PF and have a very lightweight kit for travel and hiking. Just wondering if it'll actually get used effectively, or would it be a "solution that's in search of a problem" sort of thing, and sit in the bag.
Yeah I guess it depends on your priorities and what you shoot. I would think the 100-400 , 600 PF, and the 1.4 TC would be the ultimate go light kit. To me weight , and length of the lens is most important if optical qualities are close enough between the choices.
MatthewK wrote:
I had a 400 4.5 last year, but sold it in order to go with a zoom (100-400, and then 180-600) to cover the short end in support of my 800PF. Part of me is thinking of getting one again to pair with my 600PF and have a very lightweight kit for travel and hiking. Just wondering if it'll actually get used effectively, or would it be a "solution that's in search of a problem" sort of thing, and sit in the bag.
let's just keep buying all the lenses together!
I was also playing around with the idea of a 400 4.5, pretty much just for owling. or consolidating my kit and going 400 4.5, 600 tc, 180-600 or something. dunno....
I’d originally purchased the 400 4.5 + 1.4TC to be my 500PF replacement, to get back to being a 1 camera/1 lens shooter, but things haven’t exactly worked out that way It’s been waaaaay too easy letting myself fall into the trap of thinking I need all of these lenses and focal lengths, and I’m finding that it’s only complicated things and made me second guess what to take out on shoots.
The 180-600 complicates matters… a nice setup would be the 400 4.5/600PF/800PF, but if I’m being dead honest with myself that zoom could take the place of first two primes. Yet, I’m not able to bring myself to part with the 600PF, and I’m actually not using the 180-600 at all Not because it isn’t a fabulous optic, more so because I’m smitten by the 600PF. I don’t shoot the 186 and 600PF on the same outing, and that’s what has me wondering if the 400 4.5 may have a place in my arsenal yet again. Would I find myself in enough situations (I’m mostly a songbird shooter) where I’d naturally want a 400mm lens, or again, will it be a case where I have to force myself to use it in order to change things up? That could be useful to help stoke creativity, I suppose, and the lightest kit possible is certainly appealing.
I'm not one to carry around a bunch of lenses either. Which is why I love shooting a long zoom. And I also don't like holding on to equipment that I'm not using. That's the quandary I'm in with my 400 4.5. Since buying the 180-600 I haven't really used the 400 at all. And I'm not sure where I would use it in the future. If I need to add the 1.4 I may as well just stick with the zoom. I purchased the 400 a while before the 180-600 was announced. My grandson's soccer games is probably the only spot because it's so small it really doesn't attract a lot of attention. Given the fact that I'd probably get less than $2000 retail I'm most likely going to keep it because it's just soooo good.
As good as the 600 pf looks to be, I can't see it replacing the 180-600 for my uses. My favorite place to shoot is from the kayak and having a one body/one lens setup is the only option for me.
Gary
I bought the 400 4.5 for motorsports and find it to be outstanding. I was originally going to buy the 180-600, but not so anymore. I added the 1.4x teleconverter for this season as well, but I'm not even sure I will use it much. I'm often just cropping in on the Z9 if I need the reach and when I shoot video, I can shoot with a 2.3x crop that gets me to 920mm.
slim pickings! Heh? . What do u think about the combo compared to A1+300? I know it's impossible to compare side by side on same subject. Overall feeling after FW 2.0?
Another question, where do u see these ducks year around? When I was in northern side of US I used to see them during spring and fall. Very few of them were close enough for even a 500mm. It looks like you can get them up close!
arbitrage wrote:
Borrowed a friend's Z8/400 kit today just for fun. Here are a few shots I got. Wasn't all that much flying today so slim pickings.
I'd kill for a nearby lake/pond that had regular water fowl. Lakes here are either inaccessible, or they're so large the ducks are inaccessibly far away.
Jemini wrote:
slim pickings! Heh? . What do u think about the combo compared to A1+300? I know it's impossible to compare side by side on same subject. Overall feeling after FW 2.0?
Another question, where do u see these ducks year around? When I was in northern side of US I used to see them during spring and fall. Very few of them were close enough for even a 500mm. It looks like you can get them up close!
Our ducks winter on Vancouver Island so most of them are here from late Sept till April. We have some that stay all year and breed like mallards but most aren't on the lagoon in the summer. Which I like because it allows me to kayak without disturbing all the ducks. Ducks do not do well around kayaks. I don't kayak in the winter even though I could as we are fairly mild. because of all the ducks and how much of a disturbance it is. I can get within MFD of the duck from shore but can't get within 100 feet on the water.
I will send you a PM about my thoughts on Nikon v Sony after using FW 2.0. I don't want to post it in this image thread.
It’s been waaaaay too easy letting myself fall into the trap of thinking I need all of these lenses and focal lengths, and I’m finding that it’s only complicated things and made me second guess what to take out on shoots. 
Not because it isn’t a fabulous optic, more so because I’m smitten by the 600PF. I don’t shoot the 186 and 600PF on the same outing, and that’s what has me wondering if the 400 4.5 may have a place in my arsenal yet again. Would I find myself in enough situations (I’m mostly a songbird shooter) where I’d naturally want a 400mm lens, or again, will it be a case where I have to force myself to use it in order to change things up? That could be useful to help stoke creativity, I suppose, and the lightest kit possible is certainly appealing. 
. What do u think about the combo compared to A1+300? I know it's impossible to compare side by side on same subject. Overall feeling after FW 2.0?
. I don't kayak in the winter even though I could as we are fairly mild. because of all the ducks and how much of a disturbance it is. I can get within MFD of the duck from shore but can't get within 100 feet on the water.
