How much worse is the 400 f/4.5 & TC20 vs 800 f/6.3?

[Jeff Klofft]

I know that Ricci showed one photo in his review, but had anyone seen any other comparisons? Like a lot of us, I'm still waiting for the 800, but have been on the fence about it since I placed the preorder. I do most of my wildlife photography travelling and love the idea of the 800, but not the size.

 

[kenw]

Thom talks about this in his recently published review of the 400/4.5:

I was hoping for a bit more with the 2x converter (800mm f/9), but on my top bodies we're also now recording diffraction quite well, so results were never going to have the acuity you'd see without the teleconverter. I'd characterize the results as pretty much good- across the frame, with the surprise that the center is ever so slightly worse than the near perimeter around it. By comparison, the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S with the 2x is clearly better in the center out through the rule of thirds points than the 400mm f/4.5 VR S with the 2x. The 800mm f/6.3 VR PF S is simply the best choice if you need 800mm. Still, I'm not dissatisfied with the 400mm f/4.5 VR S and a 2x in a pinch. It's right on my "usable" boundary.

He also goes on to say:

I’ll have much more to say about this soon, as I took the time recently to pull out all 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 560mm, 600mm, 700mm, and 800mm options and run them through a couple of rounds of side by side testing. Article coming...

His full 400/4.5 review here:

Nikon 400mm f/4.5 Lens Review | Thom Hogan

Review of the Nikon 400mm f/4.5 S lens for Nikon Z mirrorless cameras

www.zsystemuser.com

Also, over at CameraLabs there is a direct comparison of the 400/4.5+2x and the 800/6.3 on a resolution target:

Nikon Z 400mm f4.5 VR S review | Cameralabs

www.cameralabs.com

That review also has a distant target with the 400/4.5+2x and if you go to the 800/6.3 review:

Nikon Z 800mm f6.3 VR S review | Cameralabs

www.cameralabs.com

There is a distant target shot from the 800. The distant targets are different and under different lighting so the comparison is not perfect. Even so it is quite clear the 800/6.3 is much sharper and the distant target performance difference is similar to the closer resolution target results.

 

[Jim Keye]

I know that Ricci showed one photo in his review, but had anyone seen any other comparisons? Like a lot of us, I'm still waiting for the 800, but have been on the fence about it since I placed the preorder. I do most of my wildlife photography travelling and love the idea of the 800, but not the size.

Thom's comments

I think the diffraction point is probably the most salient. Starting at f9 is just rough. (Which is why, aside from price, Canon's f11 tele's make absolutely no sense to me.)

 

[Ricardo00]

I know that Ricci showed one photo in his review, but had anyone seen any other comparisons? Like a lot of us, I'm still waiting for the 800, but have been on the fence about it since I placed the preorder. I do most of my wildlife photography travelling and love the idea of the 800, but not the size.

It is a question that I am also "struggling with". Since it didn't look like my 800mm PF order would be filled anytime soon, I ordered the 400mm f/4.5 and have been using it fairly frequently with the Z TC 2.0. It is a much lighter combo than the 800mm PF. Both for traveling as well as hiking. Plus holding it up when trying to photograph a rapidly jumping bird. Of course one can use a tripod with the 800mm but that would limit its use plus add to the weight one must carry.

So the 800mm PF is I am sure sharper than the 400mm plus TC (and shoots at f/6.3 versus f/9), but there is also the extra weight which limits its versatility and ability to get the shot (at least in my case). Depending on when it comes, it is possible that there will be a new Nikon camera with the focussing abilities of the Z9 (my only mirrorless camera) which is much lighter so that the addition of the 800mm PF wouldn't be that much greater than my current Z9 plus 400mm and the TC.

So it is great to have choices. But no easy decisions. Since the 800mm PF isn't even available, guess we don't have to make this decision at the moment.

 

[Loaned Light]

The following review should give a reasonable understanding of a very positive impression made by the Z 800 PF, especially how it compared to alternative 800mm configurations.

I find this site extremely useful for checking out equipment evaluation, as the testing environment is more harsh than the UK, but share similar issues with having good all year round lighting conditions.

I shoot regularly as the Sun is rising, and in heavily shaded areas as well, during times when light is good and poor, so the testing carried out in dark forestry locations is another plus point.

I avoid equipment evaluations, especially carried out on Lenses, that are done in regions with exceptional lighting available for the bulk of a year, these are very different to how I function, and I am not sure the review can deliver a accurate representation of how I will function within an environment.

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Field Tests: 10 Days With the Nikkor Z 800mm f6.3 VR S

Field Tests by Brad Hill - Wildlife Photographer. Field test of the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. Nikon Cameras, Nikon Lenses, Nikon Accessories.

www.naturalart.ca

 

[FKS]

If you're considering an f/11 lens, you're more concerned with cost than diffraction. That's the attraction of the Canon lenses: reach with acceptable IQ at a low price.

Your priorities lean towards IQ, so you're not the target customer of these lenses ;-)

I think the diffraction point is probably the most salient. Starting at f9 is just rough. (Which is why, aside from price, Canon's f11 tele's make absolutely no sense to me.)

 

[Jim Keye]

If you're considering an f/11 lens, you're more concerned with cost than diffraction. That's the attraction of the Canon lenses: reach with acceptable IQ at a low price.

Your priorities lean towards IQ, so you're not the target customer of these lenses ;-)

Obviously I'm not. I just would have thought f8 would have a been a much better target. But clearly Canon thought otherwise.

I think the diffraction point is probably the most salient. Starting at f9 is just rough. (Which is why, aside from price, Canon's f11 tele's make absolutely no sense to me.)

 

[Jeff Klofft]

Thanks so much!

 

[Jeff Klofft]

If you're considering an f/11 lens, you're more concerned with cost than diffraction. That's the attraction of the Canon lenses: reach with acceptable IQ at a low price.

Your priorities lean towards IQ, so you're not the target customer of these lenses ;-)

Obviously I'm not. I just would have thought f8 would have a been a much better target. But clearly Canon thought otherwise.

I think the diffraction point is probably the most salient. Starting at f9 is just rough. (Which is why, aside from price, Canon's f11 tele's make absolutely no sense to me.)

I agree, that's why I was hoping the 400 would be an f/4 (and f/8 at 800), but alas not to be.

 

[Jeff Klofft]

Thom talks about this in his recently published review of the 400/4.5:

I was hoping for a bit more with the 2x converter (800mm f/9), but on my top bodies we're also now recording diffraction quite well, so results were never going to have the acuity you'd see without the teleconverter. I'd characterize the results as pretty much good- across the frame, with the surprise that the center is ever so slightly worse than the near perimeter around it. By comparison, the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S with the 2x is clearly better in the center out through the rule of thirds points than the 400mm f/4.5 VR S with the 2x. The 800mm f/6.3 VR PF S is simply the best choice if you need 800mm. Still, I'm not dissatisfied with the 400mm f/4.5 VR S and a 2x in a pinch. It's right on my "usable" boundary.

He also goes on to say:

I’ll have much more to say about this soon, as I took the time recently to pull out all 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 560mm, 600mm, 700mm, and 800mm options and run them through a couple of rounds of side by side testing. Article coming...

His full 400/4.5 review here:

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount...lens-reviews/nikon-400mm-f45-lens-review.html

Also, over at CameraLabs there is a direct comparison of the 400/4.5+2x and the 800/6.3 on a resolution target:

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-400mm-f4-5-vr-s-review/2/

That review also has a distant target with the 400/4.5+2x and if you go to the 800/6.3 review:

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-800mm-f6-3-vr-s-review/2/

There is a distant target shot from the 800. The distant targets are different and under different lighting so the comparison is not perfect. Even so it is quite clear the 800/6.3 is much sharper and the distant target performance difference is similar to the closer resolution target results.

Wow that 800 is amazing! I was surprise to see the 400 f/2.8 do so poorly with the 2.0 TC as well.

 

[Jeff Klofft]

I know that Ricci showed one photo in his review, but had anyone seen any other comparisons? Like a lot of us, I'm still waiting for the 800, but have been on the fence about it since I placed the preorder. I do most of my wildlife photography travelling and love the idea of the 800, but not the size.

Thom's comments

I think the diffraction point is probably the most salient. Starting at f9 is just rough. (Which is why, aside from price, Canon's f11 tele's make absolutely no sense to me.)

Exactly. It's what makes the 100-400 with the 2.0TC a no go from the start.

 

[Lance B]

I know that Ricci showed one photo in his review, but had anyone seen any other comparisons? Like a lot of us, I'm still waiting for the 800, but have been on the fence about it since I placed the preorder. I do most of my wildlife photography travelling and love the idea of the 800, but not the size.

Do you own the 400 f4.5? If not, get the 500 pf and use the 1.4x TCIII. Not quit 800mm but a very usable 700 f8 and is sharp as a tack. I can post images if you like.

I had the 800pf on loan for a week and I can assure you, the 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII is much closer to the 800 pf than the 400 f4.5 + 2x TC - which I also had on loan for a week and tried it with the 2x TC. The 400 f4.5 + 2x TC is very usable, but not as good as the 500 fp + 1.4x TCIII, IMO.

I guess it comes down to what you are doing. If you need lightweight in order to travel and would rather take the 400 f4.5 and on the rare occasion use it withe the 2x TC and are accepting that the results are not going to be as good, then that makes sense. However, in that scenario, it might be better to just use the 400 + 1.4x TC and crop if possible.

--
Lance B
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/?
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 

[Lance B]

Thom talks about this in his recently published review of the 400/4.5:

I was hoping for a bit more with the 2x converter (800mm f/9), but on my top bodies we're also now recording diffraction quite well, so results were never going to have the acuity you'd see without the teleconverter. I'd characterize the results as pretty much good- across the frame, with the surprise that the center is ever so slightly worse than the near perimeter around it. By comparison, the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S with the 2x is clearly better in the center out through the rule of thirds points than the 400mm f/4.5 VR S with the 2x. The 800mm f/6.3 VR PF S is simply the best choice if you need 800mm. Still, I'm not dissatisfied with the 400mm f/4.5 VR S and a 2x in a pinch. It's right on my "usable" boundary.

He also goes on to say:

I’ll have much more to say about this soon, as I took the time recently to pull out all 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 560mm, 600mm, 700mm, and 800mm options and run them through a couple of rounds of side by side testing. Article coming...

His full 400/4.5 review here:

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount...lens-reviews/nikon-400mm-f45-lens-review.html

Also, over at CameraLabs there is a direct comparison of the 400/4.5+2x and the 800/6.3 on a resolution target:

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-400mm-f4-5-vr-s-review/2/

That review also has a distant target with the 400/4.5+2x and if you go to the 800/6.3 review:

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-800mm-f6-3-vr-s-review/2/

There is a distant target shot from the 800. The distant targets are different and under different lighting so the comparison is not perfect. Even so it is quite clear the 800/6.3 is much sharper and the distant target performance difference is similar to the closer resolution target results.

Wow that 800 is amazing! I was surprise to see the 400 f/2.8 do so poorly with the 2.0 TC as well.

Only well out from the centre. In the centre they are very close.

 

[Wildkits]

Thom talks about this in his recently published review of the 400/4.5:

I was hoping for a bit more with the 2x converter (800mm f/9), but on my top bodies we're also now recording diffraction quite well, so results were never going to have the acuity you'd see without the teleconverter. I'd characterize the results as pretty much good- across the frame, with the surprise that the center is ever so slightly worse than the near perimeter around it. By comparison, the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S with the 2x is clearly better in the center out through the rule of thirds points than the 400mm f/4.5 VR S with the 2x. The 800mm f/6.3 VR PF S is simply the best choice if you need 800mm. Still, I'm not dissatisfied with the 400mm f/4.5 VR S and a 2x in a pinch. It's right on my "usable" boundary.

He also goes on to say:

I’ll have much more to say about this soon, as I took the time recently to pull out all 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 560mm, 600mm, 700mm, and 800mm options and run them through a couple of rounds of side by side testing. Article coming...

His full 400/4.5 review here:

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount...lens-reviews/nikon-400mm-f45-lens-review.html

Also, over at CameraLabs there is a direct comparison of the 400/4.5+2x and the 800/6.3 on a resolution target:

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-400mm-f4-5-vr-s-review/2/

That review also has a distant target with the 400/4.5+2x and if you go to the 800/6.3 review:

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-800mm-f6-3-vr-s-review/2/

There is a distant target shot from the 800. The distant targets are different and under different lighting so the comparison is not perfect. Even so it is quite clear the 800/6.3 is much sharper and the distant target performance difference is similar to the closer resolution target results.

Wow that 800 is amazing! I was surprise to see the 400 f/2.8 do so poorly with the 2.0 TC as well.

Only well out from the centre. In the centre they are very close.

True. In fact, in the center, the 400 f/2.8 is marginally better than the 800 pf (i.e., the definition of close). Since I'm not shooting landscapes at 800mm, I'll probably be happy with the 400f/2.8 + 2xTC (not to mention even "poor corners" will be far superior any lens that I've used at 400mm or longer).

 

[Wildkits]

If you're considering an f/11 lens, you're more concerned with cost than diffraction. That's the attraction of the Canon lenses: reach with acceptable IQ at a low price.

Your priorities lean towards IQ, so you're not the target customer of these lenses ;-)

Obviously I'm not. I just would have thought f8 would have a been a much better target. But clearly Canon thought otherwise.

I doubt that Canon could have produced an f/8 lens at a 1000 ($/€) price point. I suspect that it would be perhaps $2000 or more (pure speculation on my part, but clearly an f/8 lens would have been substantially over the 1000 ($/€) price point they clearly targeted). Thus, if you are an extremely budget constrained birder, the Canon 800mm is amazingly attractive, and for this market segment, the IQ is far better than any other options that have for 600mm and beyond.

I think the diffraction point is probably the most salient. Starting at f9 is just rough. (Which is why, aside from price, Canon's f11 tele's make absolutely no sense to me.)

I agree, that's why I was hoping the 400 would be an f/4 (and f/8 at 800), but alas not to be.

 

[Jeff Klofft]

The following review should give a reasonable understanding of a very positive impression made by the Z 800 PF, especially how it compared to alternative 800mm configurations.

I find this site extremely useful for checking out equipment evaluation, as the testing environment is more harsh than the UK, but share similar issues with having good all year round lighting conditions.

I shoot regularly as the Sun is rising, and in heavily shaded areas as well, during times when light is good and poor, so the testing carried out in dark forestry locations is another plus point.

I avoid equipment evaluations, especially carried out on Lenses, that are done in regions with exceptional lighting available for the bulk of a year, these are very different to how I function, and I am not sure the review can deliver a accurate representation of how I will function within an environment.

http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/fieldtest_Z800mmPF.html

Thanks, I too like Brad's reviews. This one is less helpful for me as I don't own (or plan to own) the 400 f/2.8.

 

[Jeff Klofft]

I know that Ricci showed one photo in his review, but had anyone seen any other comparisons? Like a lot of us, I'm still waiting for the 800, but have been on the fence about it since I placed the preorder. I do most of my wildlife photography travelling and love the idea of the 800, but not the size.

Do you own the 400 f4.5? If not, get the 500 pf and use the 1.4x TCIII. Not quit 800mm but a very usable 700 f8 and is sharp as a tack. I can post images if you like.

First, no, I don't own the 400 and yes, I would love to see some samples of the 500PF with the 1.4eIII. All I've seen have used the 1.7TC and I know that one isn't as good as the 1.4III. I've been resistant to this as I really don't want to invest more in F glass, but does seem like a good solution.

I had the 800pf on loan for a week and I can assure you, the 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII is much closer to the 800 pf than the 400 f4.5 + 2x TC - which I also had on loan for a week and tried it with the 2x TC. The 400 f4.5 + 2x TC is very usable, but not as good as the 500 fp + 1.4x TCIII, IMO.

Makes sense. There's a big drop off from the 1.4 to the 2.0 TC is virtually every case.

I guess it comes down to what you are doing. If you need lightweight in order to travel and would rather take the 400 f4.5 and on the rare occasion use it withe the 2x TC and are accepting that the results are not going to be as good, then that makes sense. However, in that scenario, it might be better to just use the 400 + 1.4x TC and crop if possible.

Perhaps my best solution is 500PF and the 800PF with their respective 1.4 TCs. Like I said above, I've been resistant to investment in F glass, but perhaps I need to get over that. Thanks.

 

[Wildkits]

I know that Ricci showed one photo in his review, but had anyone seen any other comparisons? Like a lot of us, I'm still waiting for the 800, but have been on the fence about it since I placed the preorder. I do most of my wildlife photography travelling and love the idea of the 800, but not the size.

Do you own the 400 f4.5? If not, get the 500 pf and use the 1.4x TCIII. Not quit 800mm but a very usable 700 f8 and is sharp as a tack. I can post images if you like.

I had the 800pf on loan for a week and I can assure you, the 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII is much closer to the 800 pf than the 400 f4.5 + 2x TC - which I also had on loan for a week and tried it with the 2x TC. The 400 f4.5 + 2x TC is very usable, but not as good as the 500 fp + 1.4x TCIII, IMO.

I guess it comes down to what you are doing. If you need lightweight in order to travel and would rather take the 400 f4.5 and on the rare occasion use it withe the 2x TC and are accepting that the results are not going to be as good, then that makes sense. However, in that scenario, it might be better to just use the 400 + 1.4x TC and crop if possible.

Definitely haven't compared side by side, but I agree that the 500pf+ 1.4TC is very sharp.

However, I stopped using it because on my Z9, the AF just didn't keep up with the BIF shots I wanted. The hit rate was probably 20-30% lower than what I got with the 500pf sans TC. Perhaps my TC was defective, but when I'm already using an adapted lens, I don't want to compound it by using an FX TC (FX or Z TC is probably not relevant, but adding a TC is).

Of course, nothing is better to 800mm on a Z body than the 800mm pf. But for me, if I'm purchasing one of two relatively close options for my Z bodies, I'm going to choose the one that was designed from the ground up for mirrorless even if it means sacrificing some IQ. Of course, if I'm only shooting static subjects, my decision may differ. YMMV.

 

[Jeff Klofft]

I know that Ricci showed one photo in his review, but had anyone seen any other comparisons? Like a lot of us, I'm still waiting for the 800, but have been on the fence about it since I placed the preorder. I do most of my wildlife photography travelling and love the idea of the 800, but not the size.

Do you own the 400 f4.5? If not, get the 500 pf and use the 1.4x TCIII. Not quit 800mm but a very usable 700 f8 and is sharp as a tack. I can post images if you like.

I had the 800pf on loan for a week and I can assure you, the 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII is much closer to the 800 pf than the 400 f4.5 + 2x TC - which I also had on loan for a week and tried it with the 2x TC. The 400 f4.5 + 2x TC is very usable, but not as good as the 500 fp + 1.4x TCIII, IMO.

I guess it comes down to what you are doing. If you need lightweight in order to travel and would rather take the 400 f4.5 and on the rare occasion use it withe the 2x TC and are accepting that the results are not going to be as good, then that makes sense. However, in that scenario, it might be better to just use the 400 + 1.4x TC and crop if possible.

Definitely haven't compared side by side, but I agree that the 500pf+ 1.4TC is very sharp.

However, I stopped using it because on my Z9, the AF just didn't keep up with the BIF shots I wanted. The hit rate was probably 20-30% lower than what I got with the 500pf sans TC. Perhaps my TC was defective, but when I'm already using an adapted lens, I don't want to compound it by using an FX TC (FX or Z TC is probably not relevant, but adding a TC is).

Of course, nothing is better to 800mm on a Z body than the 800mm pf. But for me, if I'm purchasing one of two relatively close options for my Z bodies, I'm going to choose the one that was designed from the ground up for mirrorless even if it means sacrificing some IQ. Of course, if I'm only shooting static subjects, my decision may differ. YMMV.

For me, anything longer than 600 is too much for BIF (even larger birds of prey like Osprey).

 

[Lance B]

I know that Ricci showed one photo in his review, but had anyone seen any other comparisons? Like a lot of us, I'm still waiting for the 800, but have been on the fence about it since I placed the preorder. I do most of my wildlife photography travelling and love the idea of the 800, but not the size.

Do you own the 400 f4.5? If not, get the 500 pf and use the 1.4x TCIII. Not quit 800mm but a very usable 700 f8 and is sharp as a tack. I can post images if you like.

First, no, I don't own the 400 and yes, I would love to see some samples of the 500PF with the 1.4eIII. All I've seen have used the 1.7TC and I know that one isn't as good as the 1.4III. I've been resistant to this as I really don't want to invest more in F glass, but does seem like a good solution.

I had the 800pf on loan for a week and I can assure you, the 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII is much closer to the 800 pf than the 400 f4.5 + 2x TC - which I also had on loan for a week and tried it with the 2x TC. The 400 f4.5 + 2x TC is very usable, but not as good as the 500 fp + 1.4x TCIII, IMO.

Makes sense. There's a big drop off from the 1.4 to the 2.0 TC is virtually every case.

I guess it comes down to what you are doing. If you need lightweight in order to travel and would rather take the 400 f4.5 and on the rare occasion use it withe the 2x TC and are accepting that the results are not going to be as good, then that makes sense. However, in that scenario, it might be better to just use the 400 + 1.4x TC and crop if possible.

Perhaps my best solution is 500PF and the 800PF with their respective 1.4 TCs. Like I said above, I've been resistant to investment in F glass, but perhaps I need to get over that. Thanks.

--
Lance B

Lance BB

Explore Lance BB’s 738 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Galleries by Lance B

www.pbase.com