If one has the 7-200 f2.8 S and 2.0TC there is zero reason to backup to this lens.

RoyC01 wrote:If one has the 7-200 f2.8 S and 2.0TC there is zero reason to backup to this lens.The 70-200 with the 2.0 TC isn't exactly sharp, in fact, a 2.0 TC is too much for most lenses. Also, a 400 can take a 1.4 TC and get to 560 with good IQ.

bgbgbgbgbg wrote:I have a 500PF and have no interest in this lens. The choice of gaining 2/3 of a stop of light versus losing 100mm is an easy one for me. Also I can use my 500PF on my D500 and my Z bodies not so with the 400z.The 400 might be interesting for those than don't have a 500 PF or for those for which the 500 is too long most of the time, not everyone is shooting birds, although to be fair there isn't much wildlife left except birds and insects...

RoyC01 wrote:If one has the 7-200 f2.8 S and 2.0TC there is zero reason to backup to this lens.Uh, no. The 70-200 f/.8 with the 2x TC would be easily worse, optically, and people would be able to see that it is. No real pixel peeping needed.

bgbgbgbgbg wrote:I have a 500PF and have no interest in this lens. The choice of gaining 2/3 of a stop of light versus losing 100mm is an easy one for me. Also I can use my 500PF on my D500 and my Z bodies not so with the 400z.True

The 400mm f4.5 would go really well with a 32mp Z70/90.  The faster aperture would help with a higher density sensor while providing a 600mm FOV.

I wonder if this 400 will be sufficient to serve in place of an 800? Since I already have the 70-200, I wasn't tempted by the 100-400 (duplicates part of the range.) But with the TC 1.4 and 2.0 I already have, I can get to 800 with the new 400, and can't think of any reason I need the 1600 I could get to by using them with the 800.I'll be eagerly awaiting the early reviews.

Straz wrote:I wonder if this 400 will be sufficient to serve in place of an 800? Since I already have the 70-200, I wasn't tempted by the 100-400 (duplicates part of the range.) But with the TC 1.4 and 2.0 I already have, I can get to 800 with the new 400, and can't think of any reason I need the 1600 I could get to by using them with the 800.I'll be eagerly awaiting the early reviews.I have the 800mm PF in hand and the 400mm f/4.5 on order.  I would not expect the 400mm with a TC to be any kind of regular substitute for the 800mm.  The 800mm PF is very clean and sharp at f/6.3.  With the 400mm f/4.5 and a 2.0 TC you're going to be very borderline - f/9 wide open and limited ability to crop.  I have used the 1.4 TC with the 800mm and found f/9 was fine with reasonable light.I do think a 400/800 combination is going to be just about right.  I'm expecting to use the 400mm, 400mm + 1.4 TC for 560mm at f/6.3, and 800mm f/6.3 - all with flexibility to crop if needed.  The 800mm with 1.4 TC is quite good, so it's more likely to be used than a 2.0 TC with either lens. In addition, they are all easy to handhold for long periods.You didn't ask, but the 500 PF and 1.4 TC might be a better idea if you really need close to 800mm.  It gives you a 700mm effective focal length with the 1.4 at f/8.  I've used that combination for shorebirds in flight with good results.I don't see anything wrong with occasional use of a 2.0 TC on an exception basis if you already have it for an f/2.8 lens or occasionally for a slower lens.  But you'll have to comment and test to get a sense of exactly where tht line is drawn and what the impact is.

RWN Photo wrote:RoyC01 wrote:If one has the 7-200 f2.8 S and 2.0TC there is zero reason to backup to this lens.Uh, no. The 70-200 f/.8 with the 2x TC would be easily worse, optically, and people would be able to see that it is. No real pixel peeping needed.I'm not sure I agree with either of you.  I have a Z7 and the 70-200 with the 2x TC and it's very, very good as others have reported.  That being said the 400mm sense should be better still.  However, the big question is: can the shooter get entitlement performance from either combo.  It is not easy to get a 400mm lens to look good on a 42 MP body.  I feel I'm a pretty competent photographer and I'm not confident I would really be better of at 400mm with the new lens vs the 70-200/2x TC combo.

Thank you. I looked up those yesterday. Yes, this just confirms that I want the 100-400. Glad I have my 300 PF for short range stuff!

I have the 500 PF and the 100-400.  Looking at the CameraLabs MTF plots, it would seem to me that the 500  with Topaz to make up for the 2/3 stop will perform much better than the 400 + 1.4 TC.  Plus in my experience when we need to go very long the 500 plus 1.4 TC will greatly outperform the 400 + 2x TC.Of course some may wish to have the 400 plus the 800 with TCs, but for my use case, back and finances- I think that I will stand pat.

RWN Photo wrote:Is it really that much of an improvement to the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF ED VR...?I'm talking in terms of size? The 400mm seems to be a tiny bit narrower, same length, same filter diameter. The 400mm is about 300 grams lighter, but it is 400mm vs 500mm...I guess the benefit will really be in the optical quality, no adapter required, and maybe VR is better. I think if one has the 500mm PF ED VR it might be tough to get in line for this 400mm f/4.5... agree?I have the 500 PF, the Z 70-200, and 100-400, plus both F and Z 1.4X TCs.  Plus I have the 800 on pre-order.I agree with you.  I have absolutely no need for the new 400mm.