Very worthwhile comparison that I am sure a lot of people were wondering about. Personally, I "need" 600mm or longer, but it's always fun to watch these comparisons nonetheless. As much as I would love to own the Z600 TC, realistically a similar compliment in the 600mm focal length as what Nikon did in the 400mm range is what I am hoping for, i.e. a Z600 f5.6 without built-in teleconverter. Assuming it comes in somewhere between the Z400 f4.5 and the Z800 PF, the 10,000 or so Euro I save over the Z600 TC would be a fair trade for a little less light and the burden of adding the TC manually. If Nikon does add a Z600 f5.6 and FINALLY launches the 200-600 (5.6/6.3), on the long end they will have given serious amateurs and pros an embarrassing range of choices that users of other brands can only dream of.
As it was pointed out to me at the Global Birdfair last year. The 400mm f/4.5 is not a PF lens so does not suffer from PF artefacts. I have used the 500PF on the Z9 for more than a year and love it, but I did get the 400mm f/4.5 in October and the elusive Z TC1.4 in December. I am very happy with the combination and will sell my 500PF.
Just ordered the 400 4.5 and already have a Z TC 1.4x and 2x, so I'll be all set. Never have tried any PF lens, so I don't know what I'm missing in that realm. 400 2.8, 600 4 and 800 PF all way beyond my means to acquire. And it's okay! :)
Same, but I did sell my NPS gotten Z9 for a profit, and I mainly use the D6 and Z7 II, along with the 500mm f/4E VR FL, 70-200FL, the new 24-120mm f/4 S and I am in love. The only reason I sold my Z9 was because I'm first and foremost a photojournalist and low light ability is just better/best with the D6. I know that early copies and results of the Z9 noise performance were made worse by LR, which is my main editing software, but long story short...I prefer the D6 over the Z9. However for 90% of other photographers...the Z9 is the right choice. One deciding factor for me was the lack of a port on the Z9 for my WT-6A transmitters. I've been using this wireless tech since about 2013 with the D4, D4s, D5 and now on my D6 bodies. I can transmit from anywhere at up to 650ft distance and it's been 100% reliable. I use ShutterSnitch and it's never failed me, in fact I can even transmit when my iphone or iPad has no cell service. The built in wireless in the Z9 and D6 just can't do the same things. It has a very short range of about 30ft or 10m and it's nowhere near as reliable. I do understand though my needs are quite niche. Anyways, I've actually never seen another 500FL in the wild, I seem to be the only photographer/photojournalist in my area who owns the 500mm. I see a ton of 500pf's and all of the other big primes. In fact I have access to both Nikon and Canon gear, as my news agency has both for pool gear. So I've used pretty much every Nikon and Canon super-tele, even including the ultra-rare Canon 1200mm f/5.6L USM and the also rare Nikon 13mm f/5.6! Both of which blew me away with their image quality and engineering. I've actually seen two of the Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L's, once AP brought one to an MLB game and shot home-plate from the stands, (sorta a straight on) shot of those up-to-bat! The other time was in my sister's friend's house, his step father's house actually. He collects and loves camera gear and now he owns a major camera company (RED). But I don't want to share too many details. That lens is now worth double to four times the initial special-order price of $114,000. However he has Leica camera's which are probably worth even more. He and one of the Hearst brother's have huge rare Leica collections, some are upwards of $750,000! The Canon 1200mm is insane, it's truly impressive how bog that front element is. It sometimes needs two tripods, one for the camera body and one for the lens, which weighs in at a whopping 37 pounds? I dunno, but it's definitely a pain-in-the-ass!
Thank you for a very interesting video! I am very pleased with my 500PF and will keep it for now. A big advantage is that it fits both my Z6 (for still targets) and my D4 (for Birds in flight). I also have the TC 1.4iii but use it mainly when there is good light. When Z6 MkIII comes out I might replace both the D4 and Z6 and switch to the 400/4.5. Plus the Z TC 1.4.
I have owned both and found both to be excellent lenses. Although 2/3 of a stop doesn’t seem like much, I found it can really make a big difference in lower light situations, especially with sideline sports shots. The 400mm is so light and beautifully balanced, and being able to program the control ring for exposure compensation is a big plus in variable light situations. I was able to sell my 500mm PF for a good price which also made the cost of the switch easier to swallow. I had the Z 100-400 f/5.6 as well, but found that I hardly used it after getting the Z 400mm and sold it as well, opting to use the Z 70-200 with a 1.4 tele, for a 98-280mm f/4 when something shorter is needed and still have a wider aperture than the Z 100-400mm. I do have the Z 800mm on order which will fill my longer focal length needs. It will be interesting to see how the Z 200-600mm will be. Hopefully it will have as good of IQ as most of the other Z lenses, and faster AF than the F mount 200-500mm.
As of now, I’m planning on keeping my 500pf. I’d love to upgrade to be all native glass. But after today’s trip out to photograph eagles, I think my next lens will need to be the 800mm PF with a 1.4X to get to 1120mm/9 when needed. $6000 is a big chunk of change though.
Well Done!! I too love my 400mm4.5 & Do find it sharp as a tack!!! I believe the images shown show just how amazing the lens quality is with both Lenses!! Again thank you both for your professionalism & commitment to providing us with so much value!!!
I have just swapped from 500pf to 400 4.5 on my Z9 and I am very happy with the change. Focus and performance on the Z lens is better than the 500pf. I use a 1.4 TC or FX/DX depending on environment.
Thank you for this comparison video. Having the 500mm with my D850 had me questioning this when I go mirrorless for another camera body. As a birder myself and not one to use a TC I feel like the 400mm is better suited in events such as racing and sports shoots to see it really shine over the 500mm. Though that's another video in itself. I'm just happy the 500mm performs well on the Zed platform as it's a pricey lens that holds a good spot in the lineup. Either way the D850 and lenses stay in the options bag!
I own both of these lenses and use them exclusively on my Z9 for BIF. The 500mm 5.6 I have owned for about 3 years. The 400mm 4.5 about three weeks now. With the 400mm I almost always have the 1.4tc on. The 500mm pf is incredibly sharp. So far the 400mm I find is very marginally less sharp. For me the 400 with the 1.4tc is a LOT faster in detecting and focusing on birds further away than the 500. The 500 needs to be in wide area large to get quicker subject detection. The 400 is happy using the full area with amazing results. Another plus of the 400mm is the customizable function buttons on the lens itself. The 400 is more compact and lighter than the 500. This is partly due to the smaller lens hood. For a morning out birding the 400 wins easily when you consider the physical ease of use. Lastly, I still need to run the 400mm on my Z7II to see how the auto focus is compared to the 500mm. I am optimistic about an improvement….
Had great results with 500mm Pf, p.x for 400mm f/4.5 Z with the 1.4 x and the 2x . at 560mm its is just so dam good, and at 800mm it is still very good.well worth the pain.
Teleconverters absolutely impact image quality, but starting with a very sharp lens just means the end result is "slightly less very sharp". When I compared these two, the 400+TC was a bit softer. But at this point it's down to variation between individual lenses more than anything.
The final photo's resolution is a combo of the resolution projected by lens and that captured by the sensor's pixels. There are some exceptional pieces of glass which produce such high resolution, that one can use higher mpx sensor, or crop sensor, or teleconvertor (introducing some other optical downsides tho) and actually not suffer resolution loss. You can see an example of such lens for instance with the canon 300 2.8 on dxomark. Using higher mpx body or a crop camera retains the perceived megapixels in the output. With less refined lenses, for example switch from fx to DX will drop output resolution. Or switch from 20mpx FF to 30mpx FF won't produce linear gain. That tells us that TC will do the same.
I wish there were similar compact high quality native Z primes covering 180/200mm and/or 300mm. Nikon has not offered a modern compact 180/200mm f/2.8 lens in decades (last one was the AF-D 180mm from the Eighties that makes no sense on a Z body) and the 200mm f/2 might be superb but it is also superbly unaffordable and massive. They still offer the excellent super compact 300mm PF f/4 in F mount which works well on a Z body but becomes "bigger" due to FTZ adaptor. A Z mount version would have been great, though I have no hope for that after the launch of the 400mm covered in this video. My applications for such lenses are longer range compressed perspective portrait shots and compressed landscapes/cityscapes, not the feathers of birds in flight or safari close ups... The 400mm is way too long for my use cases. It seems that Nikon has decided we should only use only zooms in the range that interests me, but those are bazookas compared to the mentioned primes and way too cumbersome for me. I think I'll repurchase a second hand F mount 300mm PF, even though it is a 200mm f/2.8 I really really want.
Yeah i had the 500pf which i used with my D850/D500 +1.4 TC but it became a bit of a daisy chain on a Zmount , it works but just felt really unbalanced, so it all gone,Z8+400mm f4,5 + TC, works like a dream and sooo balanced.
Z 400mm f4.5 is absolutely the way to go for Z9, with (560/6.3) or without Z 1.4x TC. DX crop (equivalent FOV 840mm/6.3) @ ~19MP. F-mount 500PF IQ is excellent but AF acquisition is marginally less accurate than Z 400. 500PF + TC-14E III (700mm f8) is softer and AF acquisition suffers, especially with tracking modes on Z9.
As a wildlife photographer I might have a slightly different view than yourselves. I have the 500mm PF and I nearly always shoot with it wide open at f/5.6 so I would want the most light passing through the lens due to the light we get in the UK. I know it will probably equate to a third of a stop advantage against the Z 400mm with the 1.4TC but it can make a difference in low light. Also I have found the light weight of the 500mm PF can make getting sharp panning shots difficult as it’s too easy to pan passed your subject. I used to get sharper panning shots most of the time with my old Sigma 50~500mm lens because it was heavier and was better for panning so the lighter 400mm may be too light for panning, although on a Z camera, the blackout will be less in the viewfinder (none on the Z9), so staying on the subject would be easier than using a DSLR. Steve Perry spoke about the weight while panning in a forum when he reviewed the 500mm PF. Interesting video guys.
I have a 500PF and I'm sure I'll be using it for quite a while. Obviously I sometimes need a 600 or 800 but the way I photograph ( walk search for wildlife ) a bigger or much heavier lens would not really help me. For people that photograph a lot in hides or from tripods a bigger lens would be the way to go.
I love your sweatshirt Becky!! 😂 I am still in both the F and Z mounts. However, I don’t own the 500; so, as for me, I would go with the 400 Z mount and a 1.4 teleconverter.
Exactly in the situation of not having a 500pf, my 300pf is great - but the move up to the 500 range is making the 400 f4.5 + 1.4TC an ideal choice and in Z glass too ! (600 & 800 a step too far for me to justify price wise). Interesting that the 500pf is heavier. Next thought - shall I try a 2x TC ?? very little talk about that - it would be very useful to see/hear image comparison with the 1.4 TC (and would I find a 100-400 useful as well - that is just greedy !)
I knew Kon was there his Nikon coffee thermos gave him away! The 400 f/4.5 looks like a great lens. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and a 2x teleconverter but I would like to add the 400 to my kit for wildlife around here.
Great review and nice to see that you came to pretty much the same conclusions as I did :) I sold my 500mm PF, and the rest of my F-mount kit, teleconverters etc., when I got this lens.. While the difference in image quality is minimal, there is a 'de-faffing' advantage to only having one set of teleconverters / one mount in my kit bag, and also a small weight saving too! The next weight saving for me will hopefully be if / when Z9-level AF and video technology comes out in a non-gripped body...
Although the status was "backordered", I recently ordered a TC1.4 on the Nikon website and it shipped to me within a week. I think they are filling orders as the stock trickles in. Wish I had tried placing an order months ago.
It would be great to do comparison of the 400S lens and the 70-200S lens with the 2x teleconverter. Not all of us have access to a Z9 so maybe on a Z6II or Z7II would be a useful comparison. Thanks!
Ordered 180-600 told 4 month backlog, cancelled order this week after waiting 1 month. Bought 500pf here already and it’s fast on my 850 and Z6II, 400 4.5 I can’t use on D850 so that was also decider. When I got Z8 Q1 next year I will still keep it like the 70-200 EDFL I have it’s fast on all bodies. I did consider a 600f4 but I want Z8/9 over that first. 500pf to me is so light compared to my 200-500 I know I will shoot more with all my bodies not just Z, with f mount. What I see now is almost every Z is 2k plus, with bodies coming down in price. I think the model of upgrading from F to Z will be the earner for Nikon.
Don't waste your money the 500mm PF and the 1.4 converter is a great combination and works great. How you can tell which of the two lenses focuses fastest by just looking through the viewfinder amazes me.Can you give me next weeks lottery numbers ?
If I were going all Z I would go with the Z lens, but since I’m in both worlds I’m sticking with the 500. Going to stay that way until there’s a Z equal to my 850.
Any chance of a Z 400mm 4.5 w/ 2x tele vs F 500 5.6 w/ 1.4 tele? Currently using my 500 5.6 w/1.4 TC quite a bit on my Z9. The 400 w 2x TC would really be of interest to many of us who would not be able to afford an 800/6.3
Hi guys, You should had mention the main differences in these lenses. And it is that the 500 PF has a Frasnel lens and in certain situations, the background-bokeh can be unnerving, I would even call it ugly. Also, at 500mm, focus and stabilization are much noisier. And third, but not least, is the fact that with teleconverters Z 400 4.5 works significantly better, including with a double converter at 800mm. The 500 PF has a usable maximum of 700mm at F8 in my opinion. BR Martin,
You can most certainly use the F-Mount TC on the FTZ with the 500PF. What isn't compatible is the Z mount teleconverters with the FTZ - so there's no shortcut to using a Z TC with an F mount lens essentially.
I'm tempted to buy a 1.4x tele for my 400 f4.5 but I like using my Z50 for the 1.5 equivalent crop factor so I'll just stay put for now until we see a Z6iii with 30MP or the Z7iii.
this is a little bit crazy if you want a long lens you don't want a high f stop number generally speaking. it feels like Nikon just don't want to support wildlife photography unless we pay through the nose. how many 400mm lenses do we need before they cover the zoom range ? it seems the road map for lenses is doing the same thing the Beatles did and dying in the wrong order.
I have the wonderful 400 f 4.5 S and the 100-400 Z S. WHAT we NEED is a 600 Prime of a SENSIBLE f minimum, like f 4.5 OR a F 5.6. THESE mega expensive lens are NOT helping NIKON what NIKON NEEDS is great lans at a price that serious amateurs can USE in the filed. With a Z 1.4 TC it would be quite popular. The 200-600 on the Road Map though will NOT be as fast and for many of us that use say a 400 and the 1.4 TC and have to use it in DX mode all the time......an affordable prime without the HUGE size and PRICE this is a target NIKON should realize, and SOON
After using the 500pf, 400 f4.5 with TC1.4 and 180-600, I pick the 400 f4.5 with TC. Reason, size weight and the naked 400 is fantastic for bigger wildlife. Yes I would love the 600 f6.3 in size and weight but the price gap is just to big for me. I travel a lot into Africa and now have a simple system, compact, great quality and light. Z8, 400 f4.5, Z6ii and 24-200 and 50f1.8.
I use the 500pf on Z9 and to be honest using the 1.4 TCEiii is disappointing. I have had mixed results with the pf lenses especially with TC's attached. The Z9 is such an amazing camera with fantastic sensor and detail that it justify buying the best possible lens. Shooting birds is not my main nature and wildlife targets. Big birds and animals are. I tend to make the mistake with birds to expect to much out of lenses especially longer distances. And that is they key. Getting close to the subject is key. Fill as much in the frame as possible. The 4000 f4.5 is a dream lens just like the 300 f2.8 vrii with TC's. For many years my main wildlife lens. Regretted many time selling it for the 500pf.
Very worthwhile comparison that I am sure a lot of people were wondering about. Personally, I "need" 600mm or longer, but it's always fun to watch these comparisons nonetheless.
As much as I would love to own the Z600 TC, realistically a similar compliment in the 600mm focal length as what Nikon did in the 400mm range is what I am hoping for, i.e. a Z600 f5.6 without built-in teleconverter. Assuming it comes in somewhere between the Z400 f4.5 and the Z800 PF, the 10,000 or so Euro I save over the Z600 TC would be a fair trade for a little less light and the burden of adding the TC manually. If Nikon does add a Z600 f5.6 and FINALLY launches the 200-600 (5.6/6.3), on the long end they will have given serious amateurs and pros an embarrassing range of choices that users of other brands can only dream of.
As it was pointed out to me at the Global Birdfair last year. The 400mm f/4.5 is not a PF lens so does not suffer from PF artefacts. I have used the 500PF on the Z9 for more than a year and love it, but I did get the 400mm f/4.5 in October and the elusive Z TC1.4 in December. I am very happy with the combination and will sell my 500PF.
Just ordered the 400 4.5 and already have a Z TC 1.4x and 2x, so I'll be all set. Never have tried any PF lens, so I don't know what I'm missing in that realm. 400 2.8, 600 4 and 800 PF all way beyond my means to acquire. And it's okay! :)
Looks like I’ll be using my 500 f/4E on my Z9 for a long time. The Z9 has been amazing with my F mount 500 f/4 and 300 f/2.8.
Same, but I did sell my NPS gotten Z9 for a profit, and I mainly use the D6 and Z7 II, along with the 500mm f/4E VR FL, 70-200FL, the new 24-120mm f/4 S and I am in love. The only reason I sold my Z9 was because I'm first and foremost a photojournalist and low light ability is just better/best with the D6. I know that early copies and results of the Z9 noise performance were made worse by LR, which is my main editing software, but long story short...I prefer the D6 over the Z9. However for 90% of other photographers...the Z9 is the right choice. One deciding factor for me was the lack of a port on the Z9 for my WT-6A transmitters. I've been using this wireless tech since about 2013 with the D4, D4s, D5 and now on my D6 bodies. I can transmit from anywhere at up to 650ft distance and it's been 100% reliable. I use ShutterSnitch and it's never failed me, in fact I can even transmit when my iphone or iPad has no cell service. The built in wireless in the Z9 and D6 just can't do the same things. It has a very short range of about 30ft or 10m and it's nowhere near as reliable. I do understand though my needs are quite niche. Anyways, I've actually never seen another 500FL in the wild, I seem to be the only photographer/photojournalist in my area who owns the 500mm. I see a ton of 500pf's and all of the other big primes. In fact I have access to both Nikon and Canon gear, as my news agency has both for pool gear. So I've used pretty much every Nikon and Canon super-tele, even including the ultra-rare Canon 1200mm f/5.6L USM and the also rare Nikon 13mm f/5.6! Both of which blew me away with their image quality and engineering. I've actually seen two of the Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L's, once AP brought one to an MLB game and shot home-plate from the stands, (sorta a straight on) shot of those up-to-bat! The other time was in my sister's friend's house, his step father's house actually. He collects and loves camera gear and now he owns a major camera company (RED). But I don't want to share too many details. That lens is now worth double to four times the initial special-order price of $114,000. However he has Leica camera's which are probably worth even more. He and one of the Hearst brother's have huge rare Leica collections, some are upwards of $750,000! The Canon 1200mm is insane, it's truly impressive how bog that front element is. It sometimes needs two tripods, one for the camera body and one for the lens, which weighs in at a whopping 37 pounds? I dunno, but it's definitely a pain-in-the-ass!
Thank you for a very interesting video! I am very pleased with my 500PF and will keep it for now. A big advantage is that it fits both my Z6 (for still targets) and my D4 (for Birds in flight). I also have the TC 1.4iii but use it mainly when there is good light. When Z6 MkIII comes out I might replace both the D4 and Z6 and switch to the 400/4.5. Plus the Z TC 1.4.
I have owned both and found both to be excellent lenses. Although 2/3 of a stop doesn’t seem like much, I found it can really make a big difference in lower light situations, especially with sideline sports shots. The 400mm is so light and beautifully balanced, and being able to program the control ring for exposure compensation is a big plus in variable light situations. I was able to sell my 500mm PF for a good price which also made the cost of the switch easier to swallow. I had the Z 100-400 f/5.6 as well, but found that I hardly used it after getting the Z 400mm and sold it as well, opting to use the Z 70-200 with a 1.4 tele, for a 98-280mm f/4 when something shorter is needed and still have a wider aperture than the Z 100-400mm. I do have the Z 800mm on order which will fill my longer focal length needs. It will be interesting to see how the Z 200-600mm will be. Hopefully it will have as good of IQ as most of the other Z lenses, and faster AF than the F mount 200-500mm.
I have the Z 400 mm f/4.5 S. I love its portability!
As of now, I’m planning on keeping my 500pf. I’d love to upgrade to be all native glass. But after today’s trip out to photograph eagles, I think my next lens will need to be the 800mm PF with a 1.4X to get to 1120mm/9 when needed.
$6000 is a big chunk of change though.
Well Done!! I too love my 400mm4.5 & Do find it sharp as a tack!!! I believe the images shown show just how amazing the lens quality is with both Lenses!! Again thank you both for your professionalism & commitment to providing us with so much value!!!
I only bought the 400 f4.5 because i'm tired of waiting for the mythical 200-600 Z lens
But its a surprisingly good lens🦘
I have just swapped from 500pf to 400 4.5 on my Z9 and I am very happy with the change. Focus and performance on the Z lens is better than the 500pf. I use a 1.4 TC or FX/DX depending on environment.
The 500pf is super snappy on a d5… that will always be a winning combo for me, 800pf for the z mount is the one i would buy.
Yep!
Thank you for this comparison video. Having the 500mm with my D850 had me questioning this when I go mirrorless for another camera body. As a birder myself and not one to use a TC I feel like the 400mm is better suited in events such as racing and sports shoots to see it really shine over the 500mm. Though that's another video in itself.
I'm just happy the 500mm performs well on the Zed platform as it's a pricey lens that holds a good spot in the lineup. Either way the D850 and lenses stay in the options bag!
Great comparison I have the 200-500 but I am not on Z mount yet, but would get the 400 as its f/4.5. I am hoping Nikon brings out a 600mm f/6.3s
I own both of these lenses and use them exclusively on my Z9 for BIF. The 500mm 5.6 I have owned for about 3 years.
The 400mm 4.5 about three weeks now.
With the 400mm I almost always have the 1.4tc on.
The 500mm pf is incredibly sharp. So far the 400mm I find is very marginally less sharp.
For me the 400 with the 1.4tc is a LOT faster in detecting and focusing on birds further away than the 500.
The 500 needs to be in wide area large to get quicker subject detection. The 400 is happy using the full area with amazing results.
Another plus of the 400mm is the customizable function buttons on the lens itself.
The 400 is more compact and lighter than the 500. This is partly due to the smaller lens hood.
For a morning out birding the 400 wins easily when you consider the physical ease of use.
Lastly, I still need to run the 400mm on my Z7II to see how the auto focus is compared to the 500mm.
I am optimistic about an improvement….
Your opinion on 100-400z +1.4z versus 500pf for birds ?
A nice 200-600mm would solve all those little quirks you are suffering ... 🦘
Had great results with 500mm Pf, p.x for 400mm f/4.5 Z with the 1.4 x and the 2x . at 560mm its is just so dam good, and at 800mm it is still very good.well worth the pain.
Teleconverters absolutely impact image quality, but starting with a very sharp lens just means the end result is "slightly less very sharp". When I compared these two, the 400+TC was a bit softer. But at this point it's down to variation between individual lenses more than anything.
The final photo's resolution is a combo of the resolution projected by lens and that captured by the sensor's pixels. There are some exceptional pieces of glass which produce such high resolution, that one can use higher mpx sensor, or crop sensor, or teleconvertor (introducing some other optical downsides tho) and actually not suffer resolution loss. You can see an example of such lens for instance with the canon 300 2.8 on dxomark. Using higher mpx body or a crop camera retains the perceived megapixels in the output. With less refined lenses, for example switch from fx to DX will drop output resolution. Or switch from 20mpx FF to 30mpx FF won't produce linear gain. That tells us that TC will do the same.
I wish there were similar compact high quality native Z primes covering 180/200mm and/or 300mm.
Nikon has not offered a modern compact 180/200mm f/2.8 lens in decades (last one was the AF-D 180mm from the Eighties that makes no sense on a Z body) and the 200mm f/2 might be superb but it is also superbly unaffordable and massive.
They still offer the excellent super compact 300mm PF f/4 in F mount which works well on a Z body but becomes "bigger" due to FTZ adaptor. A Z mount version would have been great, though I have no hope for that after the launch of the 400mm covered in this video.
My applications for such lenses are longer range compressed perspective portrait shots and compressed landscapes/cityscapes, not the feathers of birds in flight or safari close ups... The 400mm is way too long for my use cases.
It seems that Nikon has decided we should only use only zooms in the range that interests me, but those are bazookas compared to the mentioned primes and way too cumbersome for me. I think I'll repurchase a second hand F mount 300mm PF, even though it is a 200mm f/2.8 I really really want.
Yeah i had the 500pf which i used with my D850/D500 +1.4 TC but it became a bit of a daisy chain on a Zmount , it works but just felt really unbalanced, so it all gone,Z8+400mm f4,5 + TC, works like a dream and sooo balanced.
Z 400mm f4.5 is absolutely the way to go for Z9, with (560/6.3) or without Z 1.4x TC. DX crop (equivalent FOV 840mm/6.3) @ ~19MP.
F-mount 500PF IQ is excellent but AF acquisition is marginally less accurate than Z 400. 500PF + TC-14E III (700mm f8) is softer and AF acquisition suffers, especially with tracking modes on Z9.
As a wildlife photographer I might have a slightly different view than yourselves. I have the 500mm PF and I nearly always shoot with it wide open at f/5.6 so I would want the most light passing through the lens due to the light we get in the UK. I know it will probably equate to a third of a stop advantage against the Z 400mm with the 1.4TC but it can make a difference in low light. Also I have found the light weight of the 500mm PF can make getting sharp panning shots difficult as it’s too easy to pan passed your subject. I used to get sharper panning shots most of the time with my old Sigma 50~500mm lens because it was heavier and was better for panning so the lighter 400mm may be too light for panning, although on a Z camera, the blackout will be less in the viewfinder (none on the Z9), so staying on the subject would be easier than using a DSLR. Steve Perry spoke about the weight while panning in a forum when he reviewed the 500mm PF. Interesting video guys.
I have a 500PF and I'm sure I'll be using it for quite a while. Obviously I sometimes need a 600 or 800 but the way I photograph ( walk search for wildlife ) a bigger or much heavier lens would not really help me. For people that photograph a lot in hides or from tripods a bigger lens would be the way to go.
Thanks! The video I was hoping for,.. will keep my 500pf for now, which I move between my D500 and Z7II.
Thank you Stephen, much appreciated! 🙏
I love your sweatshirt Becky!! 😂 I am still in both the F and Z mounts. However, I don’t own the 500; so, as for me, I would go with the 400 Z mount and a 1.4 teleconverter.
Exactly in the situation of not having a 500pf, my 300pf is great - but the move up to the 500 range is making the 400 f4.5 + 1.4TC an ideal choice and in Z glass too ! (600 & 800 a step too far for me to justify price wise). Interesting that the 500pf is heavier. Next thought - shall I try a 2x TC ?? very little talk about that - it would be very useful to see/hear image comparison with the 1.4 TC (and would I find a 100-400 useful as well - that is just greedy !)
The 500pf with TC1.4e iii is also pretty good at 700m considering the compactness. But at F7.8 you'll need a D750 or Z to get good AF.
I knew Kon was there his Nikon coffee thermos gave him away! The 400 f/4.5 looks like a great lens. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and a 2x teleconverter but I would like to add the 400 to my kit for wildlife around here.
Great review and nice to see that you came to pretty much the same conclusions as I did :) I sold my 500mm PF, and the rest of my F-mount kit, teleconverters etc., when I got this lens.. While the difference in image quality is minimal, there is a 'de-faffing' advantage to only having one set of teleconverters / one mount in my kit bag, and also a small weight saving too! The next weight saving for me will hopefully be if / when Z9-level AF and video technology comes out in a non-gripped body...
Now if only the TC1.4 was available somewhere.
Although the status was "backordered", I recently ordered a TC1.4 on the Nikon website and it shipped to me within a week. I think they are filling orders as the stock trickles in. Wish I had tried placing an order months ago.
It would be great to do comparison of the 400S lens and the 70-200S lens with the 2x teleconverter. Not all of us have access to a Z9 so maybe on a Z6II or Z7II would be a useful comparison. Thanks!
Ordered 180-600 told 4 month backlog, cancelled order this week after waiting 1 month. Bought 500pf here already and it’s fast on my 850 and Z6II, 400 4.5 I can’t use on D850 so that was also decider. When I got Z8 Q1 next year I will still keep it like the 70-200 EDFL I have it’s fast on all bodies. I did consider a 600f4 but I want Z8/9 over that first. 500pf to me is so light compared to my 200-500 I know I will shoot more with all my bodies not just Z, with f mount.
What I see now is almost every Z is 2k plus, with bodies coming down in price. I think the model of upgrading from F to Z will be the earner for Nikon.
Don't waste your money the 500mm PF and the 1.4 converter is a great combination and works great. How you can tell which of the two lenses focuses fastest by just looking through the viewfinder amazes me.Can you give me next weeks lottery numbers ?
I have the 500PF, and the older TC version 1, would like to try TC #3 and see how it goes.
I'm thinking of 600mm but maybe 400mm + 2x TC would be better. I have Sigma 100-400mm for my Z5 via FTZ.
If I were going all Z I would go with the Z lens, but since I’m in both worlds I’m sticking with the 500. Going to stay that way until there’s a Z equal to my 850.
Im waiting for a Z equal to the D500 so I understand completely!
Good comparison but some people prefer the long telephoto lens than a PF variant
Any chance of a Z 400mm 4.5 w/ 2x tele vs F 500 5.6 w/ 1.4 tele? Currently using my 500 5.6 w/1.4 TC quite a bit on my Z9. The 400 w 2x TC would really be of interest to many of us who would not be able to afford an 800/6.3
How would the 400 compare to the 200 to 500 F lens. Thank you from the USA.
Hi guys,
You should had mention the main differences in these lenses. And it is that the 500 PF has a Frasnel lens and in certain situations, the background-bokeh can be unnerving, I would even call it ugly. Also, at 500mm, focus and stabilization are much noisier. And third, but not least, is the fact that with teleconverters Z 400 4.5 works significantly better, including with a double converter at 800mm. The 500 PF has a usable maximum of 700mm at F8 in my opinion.
BR Martin,
I found a small amount of sharpness loss when using the teleconverter on the 400mm 4.5.
I had been led to believe the 500 mm f/5.6 PF would not allow the F-mount 1.4 TC with the FTZ adapter to connect to the Nikon Z9. Is that not correct?
You can most certainly use the F-Mount TC on the FTZ with the 500PF. What isn't compatible is the Z mount teleconverters with the FTZ - so there's no shortcut to using a Z TC with an F mount lens essentially.
@@graysofwestminster Thank you for that clarification.
I'm tempted to buy a 1.4x tele for my 400 f4.5 but I like using my Z50 for the 1.5 equivalent crop factor so I'll just stay put for now until we see a Z6iii with 30MP or the Z7iii.
Or a D500 in mirrorless with high MP.
Very helpful. Thanks.
Thanks!
Thanks Duane, much appreciated!
this is a little bit crazy if you want a long lens you don't want a high f stop number generally speaking. it feels like Nikon just don't want to support wildlife photography unless we pay through the nose. how many 400mm lenses do we need before they cover the zoom range ? it seems the road map for lenses is doing the same thing the Beatles did and dying in the wrong order.
You should have zoom down to 500 with the 400 for better comparison IMHO...
I have the 100-400 & the 500 pf…. As I use my 100-400 at 90% + at 400…. I really think to sell both lens and buy the 400S and the tc…
Put on the lens hood on the 500!
I have the wonderful 400 f 4.5 S and the 100-400 Z S. WHAT we NEED is a 600 Prime of a SENSIBLE f minimum, like f 4.5 OR a F 5.6. THESE mega expensive lens are NOT helping NIKON what NIKON NEEDS is great lans at a price that serious amateurs can USE in the filed. With a Z 1.4 TC it would be quite popular. The 200-600 on the Road Map though will NOT be as fast and for many of us that use say a 400 and the 1.4 TC and have to use it in DX mode all the time......an affordable prime without the HUGE size and PRICE this is a target NIKON should realize, and SOON
Das Nikon 500 mm 5.6 PF ist eine Traum Linse vor allem an der Nikon D6.... Z System never ever....
After using the 500pf, 400 f4.5 with TC1.4 and 180-600, I pick the 400 f4.5 with TC. Reason, size weight and the naked 400 is fantastic for bigger wildlife. Yes I would love the 600 f6.3 in size and weight but the price gap is just to big for me. I travel a lot into Africa and now have a simple system, compact, great quality and light. Z8, 400 f4.5, Z6ii and 24-200 and 50f1.8.
I use the 500pf on Z9 and to be honest using the 1.4 TCEiii is disappointing. I have had mixed results with the pf lenses especially with TC's attached. The Z9 is such an amazing camera with fantastic sensor and detail that it justify buying the best possible lens. Shooting birds is not my main nature and wildlife targets. Big birds and animals are. I tend to make the mistake with birds to expect to much out of lenses especially longer distances. And that is they key. Getting close to the subject is key. Fill as much in the frame as possible. The 4000 f4.5 is a dream lens just like the 300 f2.8 vrii with TC's. For many years my main wildlife lens. Regretted many time selling it for the 500pf.
I would love a comparison of the 800PF and the 600 f4 with the tele.
Steve Perry has made this comparison and as expected 800mm PF native is slightly sharper than Z 600 F4 with Z 1.4x teleconverter.
All i need is 135 and a 200600
👍🏾🙏🏾
To me 400mm 4.5 is a bit of a meh lens. Go big or go home.