Honestly, IQ wise there's very little between them (to the point where you can't really tell in most situations). The 500pf is useful to me for its other benefits (weight, faster AF,...).
The (not so) Ubiquitous 600mm f4 Lens...
- Thread starter eaj101
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Honestly, IQ wise there's very little between them (to the point where you can't really tell in most situations). The 500pf is useful to me for its other benefits (weight, faster AF,...).
FB101
Well-known member
Not sure if I've posted this before but here's an image shot at 10mm on a crop body camera (D200). You never know when you'll want a wider lens even for wildlife subjects
Nikon D200, 10-20mm f/4 lens @ 10mm, f/10, 1/100", ISO 200
View attachment 20965
That's impressive! This is one close shot of a bird that can easily rip you and your gear open if they get mad at you! Did you have the camera on a monopod or are you just inches away from the bird?
When I was young and stupid (as opposed to now when I am older yet still unwise), I did a number of safaris on foot in Kenya - and since that wasn't crazy enough, some days I would only shoot with a 100mm macro lens.
Now full disclosure, this bird was fairly tame(r) and lived near one of the camping sites - I wouldn't have tried that with a bird unfamiliar with humans and sitting on on a random carcass. He still got mad at me and shattered the protective filter on the lens. That's why I still put them on, even if I don't need to anymore with digital. You can tell from he shot, I had a diffused flash on the right side, he tolerated the first flash but not the second.
When I think back about the stuff I did in my early 20s I am shocked that I lived long enough to have kids
All that to say, there is more to wildlife photography than a 600mm - some options cause far more adrenaline production than others!
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
The shot was handheld and probably about ten inches from the nearest bird. This was up in Homer Alaska when Jean the Eagle Lady used to feed the Bald Eagles from her place right on the Homer spit. She's passed now and it's no longer legal to feed the Eagles in Homer city limits but for years she'd feed the Eagles every morning with fish donated by a local cannery.
Photographers and buses of school kids on outings would line up just behind a short fence as she tossed them fish and the Eagles would line up and fly around to catch the fish. That closest Eagle came in and landed right next to me towering above the little fence and waited its turn for some fish so I slapped on my widest lens and handheld the shot with the camera right above the fence. But yeah, it could definitely have taken a piece out of me and that tiny little fence wouldn't have stopped it
Last edited:
The 600 f/4 in any brand are fantastic lenses. I've had the Nikon versions of the 600 f/4 and 500 f/4 and sold both of them. If I was going to a special location and had the time to get setup with the tripod and all they were the lens of choice. However I found that 95% of the time they just sat. For my shooting style I've found that the 500pf gets the job done with little to no loss of IQ especially to a customer that isn't going to pixel peep anyways. If I have a special shoot coming up now I just rent. I've just found that the big primes weren't making me any money sitting still 95% of the time.
robertbeal
Well-known member
I originally bought a 400f2.8e fl ed vr but found that I used it with tc all the time so I got a 500mm f4e fl ed vr it is the perfect size for me and I shoot with a tc-14e iii about half of the time the image quality with and without tc is exceptional , I have found that I use my 300mm f2.8 vr ii lens a lot I love the color and the way the lens renders but I always remember what Steve said to get the lens that you would shoot without tc the most and that is why I picked the 500mm f4e. Now the great part about is that I bought a think tank airport accelerator bag that will hold 500mm f4 with D6 body attached and 300 f2.8 along with couple of smaller lens and lots of accessories and I have been successful using it as a carry on bag without having to check it.
I though the super telephoto lenses were overpriced until I bought one and used it regularly and I have to say that in my experience they are well worth the money spent and the results that you can get are outstanding.
hope everyone has a great day
Robert
I though the super telephoto lenses were overpriced until I bought one and used it regularly and I have to say that in my experience they are well worth the money spent and the results that you can get are outstanding.
hope everyone has a great day
Robert
robertbeal
Well-known member
Before I started buying the nikon super telephoto lenses I told my son that if I left him more than 50 cents in my will I miscalculated he didn't find the humor in it though
I assumed I'd go for the 600f4 but when decision time finally came I chose for my first super tele the 180-400 f4 (with built in 1.4 tc @5.6). My first interest is not birds but of course most of what I've been shooting with the lens has been birds and I almost always leave the lens at 560mm. When shooting big game (elk, sheep, goats) the couple of times I've had the chance to, the zoom has come into play often; and it was having zoom that made up my mind on the lens. Given my bold INexperience with any serious wildlife photography before the purchase (and still now after!) I listened to photogs like Steve very closely, measured that against how I expected use the lens most, before making my decision. I'm very happy with my choice of 180-400 but given I'm growing to enjoy shooting birds (or as I call it sitting/standing in the swamp by myself for hours on end; which I'm happy to do without camera ) I have started saving for the 800mm and plan to order it before summer's end.
most of what I've been shooting with the lens has been birds and I almost always leave the lens at 560mm. When shooting big game (elk, sheep, goats) the couple of times I've had the chance to, the zoom has come into play often; and it was having zoom that made up my mind on the lens. Given my bold INexperience with any serious wildlife photography before the purchase (and still now after!) I listened to photogs like Steve very closely, measured that against how I expected use the lens most, before making my decision. I'm very happy with my choice of 180-400 but given I'm growing to enjoy shooting birds (or as I call it sitting/standing in the swamp by myself for hours on end; which I'm happy to do without camera ) I have started saving for the 800mm and plan to order it before summer's end.
I think Steve just said "you can never have too much lens"
And of course, length mattersI think Steve just said "you can never have too much lens"
Marco74
Well-known member
Always length matters in real life. 
Sorry for the stupid joke. It was too easy to do it....
Speaking seriously, Steve's suggestions are very valid.
I would add that an early survey of the area can be handy, even more, if you are talking about a protected and well-defined area or to photograph in a fixed hide.
Planning an excursion or photo section is always the best solution.
For example, when I go to the mountains, knowing the places and subjects that I hope to find, I can plan what I can use in advance.
If my goal is to photograph the bearded vulture, like my last excursion, a lens shorter than 300mm is statistically useless. The ideal is 500 or 600mm. While if I search for an ibex, the 600 mm will almost always be too long, since, in my zone, those animals are quite confident, a lens like the 70-300 is the most sensible choice. If I want to have a tighter foreground, I can get closer, terrain limits permitting.
Another important factor in the lens choice is its maximum brightness and, understood not only as of the ability to receive more light, allowing us to use lower ISO but also to "detach" the subject from the background.
The depth of field a 600mm F.4 is obviously shorter than the 500 F.4, and both have much shorter DOF than any cheap lens like the classic Sigma, Tamron 150-600 at the same focal length.
My hiking partner has 500 F.4 and 500 PF and chooses which one to use based on the result he hopes to achieve.
I preferred to take the 600 F.4 because, as written initially, the length, in some cases, is never enough.
Sorry for the stupid joke. It was too easy to do it....
Speaking seriously, Steve's suggestions are very valid.
I would add that an early survey of the area can be handy, even more, if you are talking about a protected and well-defined area or to photograph in a fixed hide.
Planning an excursion or photo section is always the best solution.
For example, when I go to the mountains, knowing the places and subjects that I hope to find, I can plan what I can use in advance.
If my goal is to photograph the bearded vulture, like my last excursion, a lens shorter than 300mm is statistically useless. The ideal is 500 or 600mm. While if I search for an ibex, the 600 mm will almost always be too long, since, in my zone, those animals are quite confident, a lens like the 70-300 is the most sensible choice. If I want to have a tighter foreground, I can get closer, terrain limits permitting.
Another important factor in the lens choice is its maximum brightness and, understood not only as of the ability to receive more light, allowing us to use lower ISO but also to "detach" the subject from the background.
The depth of field a 600mm F.4 is obviously shorter than the 500 F.4, and both have much shorter DOF than any cheap lens like the classic Sigma, Tamron 150-600 at the same focal length.
My hiking partner has 500 F.4 and 500 PF and chooses which one to use based on the result he hopes to achieve.
I preferred to take the 600 F.4 because, as written initially, the length, in some cases, is never enough.
Woody Meristem
Well-known member
I'm an old guy now with a bum back and leg so weight and size are really important. Take a good look at the Olympus E-M1 and Lumix G9 bodies. Their 100-400mm lenses are the FF equivalent of 200-800mm lenses and the Olympus 150-400mm (300-800 equivalent) is apparently a superb lens, with a built-in TC -- as good as any other lens out there. Those cameras and lenses are a fraction of the weight (and price) of the big three's comparable equipment. If you doubt their ability take a look at these posts -- http://smallsensorphotography.com/
With larger sensors, you can crop an image taken with a 500mm by x% (some math wiz fill in the detail) and the same image size. You will have a slightly larger FOV but if you can live with that, then save the weight. I shoot with a 180-400 a lot. About 2/3 of the time, I have the extender dropped into place (2x as often as not in place) and mostly > 400mm.
LR is a great way to figure out what you used and what you did
LR is a great way to figure out what you used and what you did
I will be 73 in August. I workout 3 times a week and am blessed to still be able to enjoy my "gorilla" birding outings. I travel through a variety of terrain from flat and brushy to steep open and rocky here in Idaho. I primarily am a birder who also photographs the birds first for ID, then for the art side of it. I still print for myself, accidental sales, exhibits and a few contests and to use at auctions etc. to raise money for non profits, and for publication in Newspapers and various print and on line conservation magazines. I do most of my birding on foot or from my SUV blind. I have had a lot of lenses in the 10 years I have been shooting. I have good tripods, gimbal heads and a monopod and they have only been used to test a lens from my patio in the last 2 or 3 years. I hand hold when birding on foot and the SUV window sill provides support when using it as a rolling blind I have also shot Coyotes, deer, pronghorn, wolves, bears, elk during the pandemic. Also all manner of African critters, my favorite were leopards, several years agon on my only photo safari to Africa. I do shoot the occasional landscape, street scene, events for church etc. but that makes up less than 10% of my photography.
I have had quite a few bodies and lenses over the years. I recently got a Nikon D6 and a refurbished 600 f/4 E from Nikon. I find that it has become my primary birding set up because of the low light capabilities and focus speed and speed of acquisition on birds from warblers to eagles sitting in brush, trees or flying. I still use my 500pf either as a back up or when the smaller size is critical it is a great lens but to light for my shooting style and is harder for me to hand hold. If I am just driving to my intended birding location I have either a D500 with a Tamron 18-400 or a D850 with a Tamron 100-400 or the 500pf sitting next to me in the SUV (wedged in on a folded fleece between me and the center console). I still have my Tamron 150-600 G2 and have won contests, been published in magazines and sold images taken with that lens I almost always used it at 600 and now my 500pf and 600 f/4 E are faster to focus and give me lower light capabilities.
So I am blessed to be fit and live where I do and have years of shotgun and target rifle shooting experience that helps me with my "gorilla" style of bird photography.
Forgot to mention I use Black Rapids cross body or double carry straps.
I have also shot Coyotes, deer, pronghorn, wolves, bears, elk during the pandemic. Also all manner of African critters, my favorite were leopards, several years agon on my only photo safari to Africa. I do shoot the occasional landscape, street scene, events for church etc. but that makes up less than 10% of my photography.I have had quite a few bodies and lenses over the years. I recently got a Nikon D6 and a refurbished 600 f/4 E from Nikon. I find that it has become my primary birding set up because of the low light capabilities and focus speed and speed of acquisition on birds from warblers to eagles sitting in brush, trees or flying. I still use my 500pf either as a back up or when the smaller size is critical it is a great lens but to light for my shooting style and is harder for me to hand hold. If I am just driving to my intended birding location I have either a D500 with a Tamron 18-400 or a D850 with a Tamron 100-400 or the 500pf sitting next to me in the SUV (wedged in on a folded fleece between me and the center console). I still have my Tamron 150-600 G2 and have won contests, been published in magazines and sold images taken with that lens I almost always used it at 600 and now my 500pf and 600 f/4 E are faster to focus and give me lower light capabilities.
So I am blessed to be fit and live where I do and have years of shotgun and target rifle shooting experience that helps me with my "gorilla" style of bird photography.
Forgot to mention I use Black Rapids cross body or double carry straps.
2Lab
New member
I shot in central California NWR's and my 500 f/4 w/TC1.4 mounted on a D850 and it is a perfect combination. From following Steve's excellent advice my images have improved 100%+. I also have a 200-400 f/4 mounted on a D810 for when I do not need the reach and again a perfect setup. I have taken both lenses on safari to Kenya and Tanzania and have had no problems as yet from the airlines. Granted both lenses did not fit into one roller bag but my wife took 200-400 f/4 two of her camera bodies and a couple of lenses in her roller. Since I was also carrying the backup electronics I had to put my D810 in my backpack with the 24-70 f/2.8 mounted and this worked out surprisingly great for those on the road images. Gosh, I would love a 600 f/4 but with my current lenses and a retirement annuity, the cost can not be justified.
Just my 2-cents.
Just my 2-cents.
Calson
Well-known member
Since buying the 500mm PF lens I find myself using the 600mm much less as I am more mobile without the need for a tripod. The D850 with its 45MP sensor is also a factor as I have a larger image file with the D850 and the 500mm than the D5 and the 600mm f/4. The 600mm lens provides an image area that is 44% larger than the 500mm lens with the same camera being used and that is significant.
As for transport when traveling by plane I put the 600mm, 500mm PF, and 80-400mm lenses and two bodies in a 32L Bataflae backpack. On the other hand the 500mm and 80-400mm and two cameras fit nicely in my 26L Bataflae backpack.
Photographing the grizzlies in the Yellowstone area a 600mm and teleconverters are much needed. Photographing bison or elk and the 80-400mm is my lens of choice. Shooting from a boat anywhere and the 500mm PF and 80-400mm are the lenses I use.
As for transport when traveling by plane I put the 600mm, 500mm PF, and 80-400mm lenses and two bodies in a 32L Bataflae backpack. On the other hand the 500mm and 80-400mm and two cameras fit nicely in my 26L Bataflae backpack.
Photographing the grizzlies in the Yellowstone area a 600mm and teleconverters are much needed. Photographing bison or elk and the 80-400mm is my lens of choice. Shooting from a boat anywhere and the 500mm PF and 80-400mm are the lenses I use.
Marco74
Well-known member
I completely agree with you. I’m also still using a lot less my 600 after bought the PF.
I never stay in Yellowstone but I hope to be able to go there in the near future.
Nice equipment list! If that 600E ever gets too heavy for you, please be sure to let me know!I will be 73 in August. I workout 3 times a week and am blessed to still be able to enjoy my "gorilla" birding outings. I travel through a variety of terrain from flat and brushy to steep open and rocky here in Idaho. I primarily am a birder who also photographs the birds first for ID, then for the art side of it. I still print for myself, accidental sales, exhibits and a few contests and to use at auctions etc. to raise money for non profits, and for publication in Newspapers and various print and on line conservation magazines. I do most of my birding on foot or from my SUV blind. I have had a lot of lenses in the 10 years I have been shooting. I have good tripods, gimbal heads and a monopod and they have only been used to test a lens from my patio in the last 2 or 3 years. I hand hold when birding on foot and the SUV window sill provides support when using it as a rolling blind
I have had quite a few bodies and lenses over the years. I recently got a Nikon D6 and a refurbished 600 f/4 E from Nikon. I find that it has become my primary birding set up because of the low light capabilities and focus speed and speed of acquisition on birds from warblers to eagles sitting in brush, trees or flying. I still use my 500pf either as a back up or when the smaller size is critical it is a great lens but to light for my shooting style and is harder for me to hand hold. If I am just driving to my intended birding location I have either a D500 with a Tamron 18-400 or a D850 with a Tamron 100-400 or the 500pf sitting next to me in the SUV (wedged in on a folded fleece between me and the center console). I still have my Tamron 150-600 G2 and have won contests, been published in magazines and sold images taken with that lens I almost always used it at 600 and now my 500pf and 600 f/4 E are faster to focus and give me lower light capabilities.
So I am blessed to be fit and live where I do and have years of shotgun and target rifle shooting experience that helps me with my "gorilla" style of bird photography.
Forgot to mention I use Black Rapids cross body or double carry straps.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
Nice equipment list! If that 600E ever gets too heavy for you, please be sure to let me know!
You're going to carry it for him? How thoughtful!
I am sure it will someday but of course then it could be my heirs disposing of itNice equipment list! If that 600E ever gets too heavy for you, please be sure to let me know!
Aww man, if I could I would!
an example of what I mean by an ID shot and showing some of the environment with this Chipping Sparrow
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
One more example of a bird ID and environment shot ... Western Tanager ... at about 7000 feet on a trail in the hills above Boise, Idaho.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Roy
Well-known member
I use the 600mm and longer if the distance is great or the subject small. In some cases these lenses cant be surpassed.
You will see 300-500mm lenses more often mainly because they are cheaper. And up to 500mm you can often hand hold without a tripod.
Unlike wide angle lenses where a couple of mm can make a huge difference, Long lenses beyond 500mm will have less effect on you angle of view.
I bring long lenses with me if I dont need to leave the area of my car. Otherwise if I need to carry it i'll take the 500mm or shorter lenses.
For many years i've carried TCs in my bag but I cant remember the last time I used one.
Ltgk20
Active member
One of the things that'll be interesting is to see the continued weight progression on the long telephotos. When Sony and Canon came out with their most recent 600mm primes they shaved nearly 2lbs off of the weight. The result is their 600s are as light or lighter than Canon and Nikon's current 500 f4 lenses (and I assume these will get lighter in the next generation as well).
there are some engineers out there working on a whole new technology that in theory would produce a 600mm equivelant lens as small as my iPhone 11 pro. I already find the 500 pf to light for my photographic technique
I am an old school barrel bull target rifle type that uses the "barrel" heavy set up of the 600 f/4 E for static stability (via inertia) and smooth swinging/panning.