p.45 #1 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
nmerc_photos wrote:
I found the 600TC much heavier on paper than expected (~1lb difference), but I don't notice it at all in actual practice.
Like you - I found myself almost always at 560/784/800.
I haven't used my 600TC a ton since I got it, but I think it ended up being the right choice for me. We'll know more during my 2 weeks in the Tetons/Yellowstone in October.
Interesting. My Z 600TC weighs in at 3.450gms which is 7lbs 8oz - no lens coat but original hood. According to your scales showing 8lbs 4.8oz, that is 3765gms. The lens coat and Zemlin Hood must add up to about 315gms!
Anyway, I am supremely glad I went with the 600TC instead of the Z400TC as I am almost always at 600mm and 840mm. The weight difference from my old 400 f2.8E FL VR was huge - the total for the 400 f2.8E FL VR + FTZ + original hood + 1.4x TCIII = 4.450kg!! 1kg more than the Z600TC! I certainly notice that difference! I have no issue wielding the Z600TC around, whereas the 400 f2.8E FL VR was getting a little difficult, especially above shoulder height.
p.45 #2 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Lance B wrote:
Interesting. My Z 600TC weighs in at 3.450gms which is 7lbs 8oz - no lens coat but original hood. According to your scales showing 8lbs 4.8oz, that is 3765gms. The lens coat and Zemlin Hood must add up to about 315gms!
Anyway, I am supremely glad I went with the 600TC instead of the Z400TC as I am almost always at 600mm and 840mm. The weight difference from my old 400 f2.8E FL VR was huge - the total for the 400 f2.8E FL VR + FTZ + original hood + 1.4x TCIII = 4.450kg!! 1kg more than the Z600TC! I certainly notice that difference! I have no issue wielding the Z600TC around, whereas the 400 f2.8E FL VR was getting a little difficult, especially above shoulder height....Show more →
Regarding mass and the difference between the 400TC and 600TC, I think an argument can be made for replacing the 400TC with the 600TC if your primary interest is smaller subjects. In addition, if you spend most of your time pursuing large animals that are at a distance, the 600TC will close the gap while maximizing subject size in the frame.
On the other hand, there is an equal counter argument to using the 400TC. The lighter weight does allow one to hold the lens at eye level for longer times. At 5'9" and 150lb, my arms are what they are, and the 600TC would result in lowering the camera and lens more often than the 400TC. Furthermore, the reduction in length allows me to carry my lens and camera with hood attached is 36L bag that fits in overhead bins on most aircraft. The latter also allows me to carry 3 bodies and 2 other lenses in the same bag.... this makes for a full kit in one bag that's ready to go. Finally, I like to shoot in early morning light and being able to shoot at f/2.8-f/3.5 translates to lower ISOs... see the two attached images shot at ISO 20000 (yes!). The more we push the ISO, the less detail we capture.
regards,
bruce
p.45 #3 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
OwlsEyes wrote:
Regarding mass and the difference between the 400TC and 600TC, I think an argument can be made for replacing the 400TC with the 600TC if your primary interest is smaller subjects. In addition, if you spend most of your time pursuing large animals that are at a distance, the 600TC will close the gap while maximizing subject size in the frame.
On the other hand, there is an equal counter argument to using the 400TC. The lighter weight does allow one to hold the lens at eye level for longer times. At 5'9" and 150lb, my arms are what they are, and the 600TC would result in lowering the camera and lens more often than the 400TC. Furthermore, the reduction in length allows me to carry my lens and camera with hood attached is 36L bag that fits in overhead bins on most aircraft. The latter also allows me to carry 3 bodies and 2 other lenses in the same bag.... this makes for a full kit in one bag that's ready to go. Finally, I like to shoot in early morning light and being able to shoot at f/2.8-f/3.5 translates to lower ISOs... see the two attached images shot at ISO 20000 (yes!). The more we push the ISO, the less detail we capture.
regards,
bruce
I went with the 600 simply because I shoot mostly smaller birds and at distance. I was always using the 800PF and when I had the 180-600 or 600PF on the camera was generally after longer. I don't find it too heavy, but ask me again in 5 years time, . There is a case for the 400TC for the larger birds and animals but for my use on what I shoot it would be at 560mm and 800mm 90% of the time. Weight was a consideration, but it is only 300gms. Bulk was also a consideration but only length as they are all about the same diameter - 400TC, 600TC and 800PF.
p.45 #4 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Random bird fact - "Garry oaks in British Columbia rely upon Steller's jays for acorn dispersal. The jays bury acorns singly in the ground to use as overwinter food, but may not re- cover all of the acorns they bury, thereby dispersing seeds to caching locations"
p.45 #6 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Choosing the right lens depends primarily on your subjects and personal photographic preferences. There’s no right or wrong, or better or worse—only the best tool for your individual needs.
All the following photos were captured with a 400mm focal length.
I have no issue wielding the Z600TC around, whereas the 400 f2.8E FL VR was getting a little difficult, especially above shoulder height.
. There is a case for the 400TC for the larger birds and animals but for my use on what I shoot it would be at 560mm and 800mm 90% of the time. Weight was a consideration, but it is only 300gms. Bulk was also a consideration but only length as they are all about the same diameter - 400TC, 600TC and 800PF.
