p.2 #1 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
Yea lol it was an expensive evening lol! But well worth it I’m sure of it!
Mike
woodstork wrote:
Although I don’t currently own one, for many years I greatly preferred 500mm/4 lenses. I deem a 500/4 the best overall general wildlife and BIF lens for shooting both subject categories.
When I shot 500mm I had a 1.4TC on it half the time, using it for BIF or small mammals and reptiles as a 700/5.6. When I was shooting larger approachable wading birds and larger mammals I shot it straight as 500/4.
I think I’d have the internal TC on as a default using the 400. And I’d add an external TC about half the time. I’d use the 600 without the TC by default and switch on the internal TC maybe half the time and almost never feel the need to add an external TC to it. So, I just talked myself into buying a 600/4 TC. Thank you....Show more →
p.2 #2 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
woodstork wrote:
Although I don’t currently own one, for many years I greatly preferred 500mm/4 lenses. I deem a 500/4 the best overall general wildlife and BIF lens for shooting both subject categories.
When I shot 500mm I had a 1.4TC on it half the time, using it for BIF or small mammals and reptiles as a 700/5.6. When I was shooting larger approachable wading birds and larger mammals I shot it straight as 500/4.
I think I’d have the internal TC on as a default using the 400. And I’d add an external TC about half the time. I’d use the 600 without the TC by default and switch on the internal TC maybe half the time and almost never feel the need to add an external TC to it. So, I just talked myself into buying a 600/4 TC. Thank you....Show more →
I agree, for birding and general wildlife, a 500/4 lens is ideal, I much prefer it to a 600/4 lens in handling, and it is ideal with a 1.4 TC.
I know it's pointless, but I would hope we will see a 500/4TC lens with built-in 1.4TC one day.
p.2 #3 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
ChrisMak wrote:
I agree, for birding and general wildlife, a 500/4 lens is ideal, I much prefer it to a 600/4 lens in handling, and it is ideal with a 1.4 TC.
I know it's pointless, but I would hope we will see a 500/4TC lens with built-in 1.4TC one day.
Not really pointless, especially if Nikon can reduce the weight of a 500 f/4. The Z to E reduction factor for the 600 f/4 applied to the 500E weight implies that a 500 f/4 could be 2.65kg, and it could be even more. I would love a 500 f/4 around 2.5kg.
p.2 #4 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
Looks like your purchase was already made, but I would add that on the Z8 and Z9, the 600TC is surprisingly hand holdable. The VR/IBIS combination is one of the wonders of the Z mount for me (with Z8 and Z9).
My current walk around birding setup is one body with 600TC and one body with 100-400mm Z on the other. The 100-400 is great for things that come inside the MFD of the 600. Even with the Z9 attached, I can hand hold the 600TC for reasonable periods. I have both lenses set with Arca plates that have QD slots on them, and use a dual Black Rapid sling strap.
One other recommendation is for the Wimberly mono-gimbal monopod head in place of your RRS head - it really works great as a pseudo-gimbal head on a monopod.
p.2 #5 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
If they make that TC beauty I’d preorder it immediately.
Another wild thought is what would a Z 500 PF look like? I doubt they’d just make another PF 500/5.6 because the F mount performs well on the FTZ. Hopefully they’d follow their lead on the 800 PF and just go 1/3 stop slower than the standard exotic fast supertelephoto. That would be a 500/4.5 PF. That’s probably too much to hope for if they are indeed ever planning to issue a 500/4 TC. Half stop would be a 500/4.8 PF. I’d take that! I was disappointed the 600 PF is f/6.3. I’d own that if it was 5.6.
*I think I just made up a new oxymoron with ‘standard exotic.’
JasonTheBirder wrote:
Not really pointless, especially if Nikon can reduce the weight of a 500 f/4. The Z to E reduction factor for the 600 f/4 applied to the 500E weight implies that a 500 f/4 could be 2.65kg, and it could be even more. I would love a 500 f/4 around 2.5kg.
p.2 #6 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
Thank You for the feed back looking up that Wimberly mono-gimbal monopod head. Right now!!!
Mike
aisnikkor wrote:
Looks like your purchase was already made, but I would add that on the Z8 and Z9, the 600TC is surprisingly hand holdable. The VR/IBIS combination is one of the wonders of the Z mount for me (with Z8 and Z9).
My current walk around birding setup is one body with 600TC and one body with 100-400mm Z on the other. The 100-400 is great for things that come inside the MFD of the 600. Even with the Z9 attached, I can hand hold the 600TC for reasonable periods. I have both lenses set with Arca plates that have QD slots on them, and use a dual Black Rapid sling strap.
One other recommendation is for the Wimberly mono-gimbal monopod head in place of your RRS head - it really works great as a pseudo-gimbal head on a monopod.
p.2 #7 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
First thing I noticed when unboxing it yesterday was how much lighter it felt vs my AF-S 600 f/4. Maybe today after work I’ll get some time to play with it.
aisnikkor wrote:
Looks like your purchase was already made
p.2 #8 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
MKuran wrote:
First thing I noticed when unboxing it yesterday was how much lighter it felt vs my AF-S 600 f/4. Maybe today after work I’ll get some time to play with it.
You're going to love it! I hand hold mine everywhere I go with it, that's not Conowingo =).
p.2 #10 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
Gonna go see if I can find that video! Thx much appreciated!!!
Just finished watching the video and ordered one. Will be here Tuesday!!!
Mike
rick-reno wrote:
I use that monopod gimbal. Works great. Especially good for carry a big lens on my shoulder. Steve Perry has a YouTube video about it.
p.2 #11 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
I have been shooting with the fantastic Sigma 500mm f4 sports for five years, with the D850 and the Z9. Recently "a few months ago" bought the Nikon Z 400mm f2.8 TC VR S and could not be happier, I have a fantastic 400mm f2.8 and with a flick of a switch I have an excellent 560mm f/4. Having the ability to shoot at f/2.8 is a game changer when it comes to low light, it cuts your ISO in half compared to f/4, and it also gives you more headroom in regards to your shutter speed. For 600mm, and for days I want to go light, I attach the fantastic Z 600mm PF to my Z9.
p.2 #13 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
arbitrage wrote:
What lens/focal length are you using currently for these subjects?
I think there are two ways of looking at this purchase:
1) Pick the base focal length you will use the most. If you think you will have the TC engaged most of the time with the 400TC then the 600TC is probably a better lens for you.
2) Decide what is more important between having 400/2.8 or 1200/8. As those of the focal lengths that can't be duplicated.
I don't think many people really need 1200mm as atmospherics almost always ruin the shots at 1200mm anyways. So I think the real question for you to answer is if having 400 f/2.8 is useful and or important to you?
I'd also say not to buy 400TC if you are only buying it to use the f/2.8 but aren't going to have subjects fill more than the 600mm FOV. People often think they are buying the f/2.8 to be able to shoot longer into the evening or earlier in the morning but if you crop a 400/2.8 image to the 600/4's FOV you lose the aperture advantage from the 1 stop lower ISO anyways. Only get the 400 if you have subjects that are too big for the 600's FOV.
Steve Perry explains this well in this video:
Also another video discussing your decision" ...Show more →
My thought process is how often one needs 800mm. I am pretty sure that I’m going to choose the 400mm over the 600mm, but that is because I don’t really shoot beyond 600mm. I’ve had a 600mm f/4 for two years and never put a 1.4x TC on it.
Assuming I get the 400mm, I’d use it at 560mm more than at 400mm (probably a lot more). But, to my mind, that’s a fine trade off because I view this lens as a 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 all in one package. Id also like to explore shooting wider, which I couldn’t do with a 600mm f/4.
But I’m curious whether 400mm owners think my analysis is misguided.
p.2 #14 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
I'm a broadly focused wildlife photographer and use the 400TC, 600TC and 800PF. At a glance they would seem to have serious overlap, especially for such expensive lenses, but each has its niche for me.
400TC - General wildlife lens that is great for mammals, alligators, large birds and birds-in-flight. I often shoot in pre-dawn conditions, so the 2.8 aperture is highly beneficial. (I'll use it for field sports, too). I shoot 50% hand-held and 50% mono gimbal. If I'm on a longish hike, I'll use the 100-400 instead.
600TC - Essential for me for small birds (warblers & coastal peeps) and difficult-to-approach wildlife. I'll start out at 840mm as I approach a skittish subject and switch to 600mm if I can get close enough. More difficult for birds in flight. I shoot about 10% hand-held, 70% mono gimbal and 20% tripod.
800PF - Workable for a moderate hike and other conditions where a mono gimbal or tripod would be awkward. Surprisingly good for birds-in-flight - better than either the 400 or 600 for me. I shoot about 70% hand-held, 20% mono gimbal and 10 percent tripod (if I'm staking out a location).
I emphasize the "for me" in all of this, with a nod to those who think I'm crazy. Your sweet spot would depend on what you shoot (large mammals or itty bitty birds), how you prefer to shoot (hand-held or supported), and your arm strength and stamina. (Oops. Forget to mention cost. I frequently forget to consider cost until it's too late. In that vein, the 400PF, 600PF and 160-600 offer greater value with relatively minor compromises on image quality.)
p.2 #15 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
Kestrels and songbirds make the decision a slam dunk for the 600/4. If you ever have been around kestrels you know they are skittish as hell. As songbirds are both skittish and tiny. If you are shooting large birds and mammals your choice may be different. Wish I could convince myself that I need either one. $13k+ is a lot of moolah for me. So I live in the poor house with 180-600 and 800. That is one ritzy poor house :-)
p.2 #16 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
I have owned 3 Nikon 600mm f/4 lenses and switched to using a 600mm PF and 800mm PF combination. I am selling the two PF lenses and I bought the 400mm f/2.8 TC lens to replace them.
With a 600mm lens the realistic MFD Is 20 feet and anything closer required using a zoom lens like the 100-400mm. 600mm is simply too restrictive with closer or larger subjects at places like Brooks Falls or Yellowstone.
The 400mm provides a MFD of 8' and so is a viable alternative to the 100-400mm zoom lens. I have the Z 1.4x and 2x teleconverters and this gives me the option of 400mm, 560mm, 784mm, or 1120mm with a usable aperture of f8 or wider.
There is a very long thread on fredmiranda for the 400mm with images posted using the lens with and without the two teleconverters. Seeing is believing.
p.2 #17 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
elkhornsun wrote:
I have owned 3 Nikon 600mm f/4 lenses and switched to using a 600mm PF and 800mm PF combination. I am selling the two PF lenses and I bought the 400mm f/2.8 TC lens to replace them.
With a 600mm lens the realistic MFD Is 20 feet and anything closer required using a zoom lens like the 100-400mm. 600mm is simply too restrictive with closer or larger subjects at places like Brooks Falls or Yellowstone.
The 400mm provides a MFD of 8' and so is a viable alternative to the 100-400mm zoom lens. I have the Z 1.4x and 2x teleconverters and this gives me the option of 400mm, 560mm, 784mm, or 1120mm with a usable aperture of f8 or wider.
There is a very long thread on fredmiranda for the 400mm with images posted using the lens with and without the two teleconverters. Seeing is believing.
I'll second this assessment. In 2023 I sold my 800PF, 180-600, and 400 f4.5 and replaced it all with the 400mm f2.8TC and an external 1.4x. The 400TC has been my most used lens for wildlife photography, and I while I have since repurchased a 180-600 lens, it is only used when I'm shooting from the water on a kayak or whale watching/photo trip. I've since added the 2x converter and I've been astonished by how well the 2x works with the 400TC. I used to say that I never met a 2x converter I liked, but when paired with the 400TC and run through DXO Prime, the lens becomes an excellent 800mm f5.6 optic.
Where I live and the subjects I photograph lend themselves well to the 400TC. I probably shoot it at 560mm 60% of the time and 400mm 35%. The remaining 5% would be with an additional converter attached. If you review the 400TC thread, you will see that it is a very capable wildlife optic, and the balance of the lens with the Z9 makes it something that can be used without a tripod.
p.2 #18 · Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S vs Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
A point that had escaped me is that the MFD of a lens is not affected by the use of a teleconverter. The 400mm with the 2x TC provides me with a 800mm lens with a MFD of 8 feet.
The 800mm PF lens worked well hand held in large part thanks to the eye detection of the Z9 camera I used with it. A woodpecker at a distance of 50 feet and moving quickly through the trees could be successfully photographed. Had I needed a tripod or a monopod I would have missed the shots.
