I have been using a Z 400 f/4.5 paired with a Z9 and have overall been happy with my results. That said, the 400 f/2.8 has been looking more and more attractive to me lately, especially given the built in 1.4x extender as well as the general consensus that the larger lens is considerably sharper. While I recognize that there is considerable difference between their respective size and weights, this is not particularly worrisome to me. I would appreciate the thoughts of any who have made this switch or who might otherwise have an opinion on this.
Thanks in advance.
It is definitely "better" in image quality, flexibility and, of course, lower light, but it's probably not $9,000 better unless you're a serious wildlife or sports photographer.
I moved from the 400mm f4.5 to the 400mm f2.8TC about two years ago. If you visit the thread about the 400TC, you'll see my many image contributions and thoughts about the lens ( https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1743890/ ). There are a small number of photographers who contribute to the discussion, and they will all say what I am about to say...
The Nikon 400mm f2.8TC is one of the best lenses Nikon has introduced. The same can be said for the 600TC. If you are a long lens shooter and are willing to forgo a significant amount of money, you will not be unhappy with this lens's capacity to resolve and produce stunning images if you are doing your part.
The lens is definitely heavier and more bulky than the 400 f4.5. The lens requires a larger bag, the willingness to accept the additional mass, and can be a hassle when you travel on smaller planes. However, it is extremely sharp at f/2.8 (without the converter) and f/4 with the built in converter. One only needs to stop the lens down to meet a creative criteria (more depth of field or slower shutter speed). The capacity to add and remove a converter with the flick of a switch is liberating because you don't need to consider the time and hand gymnastics to do this with an external converter. Furthermore, the decision about whether to use or not use a converter is no longer influenced by weather or amount dust and moisture in the environment. Finally, the autofocus is significantly faster than with the 400 f4.5.
I use the lens handheld and with a tripod... it is my favorite lens ever.
regards
bruce
Just be aware that the handling of this kens is very different from the smaller lenses. Even though it’s technically hand holdable, it’s no longer comfortable or quick. You probably need some kinda of strap or a monopod at the least.
fnzmf25 wrote:
Just be aware that the handling of this kens is very different from the smaller lenses. Even though it’s technically hand holdable, it’s no longer comfortable or quick. You probably need some kinda of strap or a monopod at the least.
To this point... If you are of moderate strength the 400mm f4.5 can be held up to the eye for a very long time with little need for relief. The lens is even lighter (or at least feels lighter) than the 100-400mm lens. In addition, it is very nicely balanced. With that said, the 400mm f2.8TC is very hand-holdable in spite of the size and weight. The lens is very well balanced, and if you are comfortable with the Z9, the two pair very well.
I am 5'8", 155lb, and 60 years old. In spite of my name, I'm no bruiser, yet I never use a strap or monopod. I carry the lens by the tripod mount, and lift it to my eye to shoot. I can hold it in place for about 5 minutes without serious arm fatigue. If my subjects are stationary or at a distance, I either sit with the lens or use a tripod. If I'm tracking movement, the lens comes off the tripod and I shoot it like any other telephoto.
This type of shooting requires practice, but it is not restricted to tall, young, body builders.
Thank you all for your thoughts. Having recently spent quite a bit of time with the Canon RF 400f2.8 before switching over to Nikon, I believe that I understand the size and wight of the Z version. My concerns in creating this post were the relative optical qualities between the two Nikon offerings; while the 400 f 4.5 is an excellent lens does the 2.8 offer significantly better sharpness, auto focus performance, and overall image quality along with the convenience of a built in 1.4x extender.
Thanks again for your input.
Another thought I have is depending on your focal length needs, you could wait to see what Nikon comes out for the 120-300 if it has a TC it could work for you
pesto wrote:
Thank you all for your thoughts. Having recently spent quite a bit of time with the Canon RF 400f2.8 before switching over to Nikon, I believe that I understand the size and wight of the Z version. My concerns in creating this post were the relative optical qualities between the two Nikon offerings; while the 400 f 4.5 is an excellent lens does the 2.8 offer significantly better sharpness, auto focus performance, and overall image quality along with the convenience of a built in 1.4x extender.
Thanks again for your input.
I had my 400TC for nearly 3 years before moving over to the 600TC. Hands down the 400TC is the best 400mm on the market and if not the best lens Nikon has made. I have taken some of my best pictures ever with that lens. I am looking to jump back to Nikon when they introduce the Z9ii - and I will 100% get the 400TC again... I miss shooting with that lens.
