800mmPF or used 600 F4 & TC ?

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).

Now I use the 500PF & 1.4TC = 700 on my Z9. At F8 focus is not so quick for BIF. Thinking of getting the 800PF +1.4TC or a used 600 F4 +1.4 = 840 .(price about the same) As its not easy here to get close enough, I need 700+ alot of the time. Mostly I do handheld for BIF . 100mm extra for $7000 is maybe a bit much? Anyone with these combos.would love to have some feedback. I know heat distortion is an issue,and @ F11 w/800+tc in the golden hours maybe push ISO too far (6400 is my max (with Topaz Denoise) if I can fill the frame. Thanks for any advice
 
If you know you need 800mm plus most of the time I would say go for the 800 6.3. However for lower light the 600 F4 plus TC will be more versatile and Heavier. The 800 6.3 seems
lighter than it actually is and balances well on the Z9.

And the 1.4 TC on the 800 is F9 1120mm. I use this setup frequently. Of course heat distortion can be an issue.
 
If you know you need 800mm plus most of the time I would say go for the 800 6.3. However for lower light the 600 F4 plus TC will be more versatile and Heavier. The 800 6.3 seems
lighter than it actually is and balances well on the Z9.

And the 1.4 TC on the 800 is F9 1120mm. I use this setup frequently. Of course heat distortion can be an issue.
Does it lock on focus fast enough with the 1.4TC.. Weight is an issue as not so young anymore ..
 
Now I use the 500PF & 1.4TC = 700 on my Z9. [...]
Of course all that doesn't answer your initial question. I can't say anything about the 600 F4 F-mount.
I probably would have considered the latter one if there would have been a used one available.

But after having hand-held the 800 for a while, I think it's the better option if you do BIF. I can't imagine to hold a 600 F4 for more than 20 seconds.
Also you can get rid of the FTZ, which is just a piece of plastic that makes your setup even longer, more unstable and a bit heavier.

Next thing that speaks for the 800: It fits in a backpack with Z9 attached. I don't know if this is possible with a 600+FTZ+...

I can say that the 800 is a good lens with a good VR (yes, it seems more stable than the 500PF with a TC).
What I don't like about the 800:
-The construction makes it almost impossible to hold it without bumping any control. The focus ring is placed exactly in the center of mass (with Z9), so you want to hold it there. Even if I manage to keep the focus control where it is, I don't like the feeling to have the full weight on the focus ring. However, holding it by putting your hand under the lens foot is a workaround.
-The front cap drives me nuts and there are better ways to design a lens hood attachment.
-Missing AF mode switch (however, using the i-menu seems to be an acceptable option for me).
 
I've had the 500PF since it was released. Love it so much that I sold my 500 f4. I've had 800PF for six months. 500PF has collected dust.

Conventional wisdom is to get the focal length that you shoot. Planning up front to routinely use a TC only makes sense if you don't care about optimum IQ or you can't financially do otherwise.
Do you primarily shoot birds with the 800mm? If not, what other subjects are you using it on? I’m considering it, but trying to think about use cases for it.
 
Does it lock on focus fast enough with the 1.4TC.. Weight is an issue as not so young anymore ..
52770591943_af49c54e98_o.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Do you primarily shoot birds with the 800mm? If not, what other subjects are you using it on? I’m considering it, but trying to think about use cases for it.
Mostly birds so far. Including large waders, geese, etc. Also plan to use it soon for marine mammals shot from boat/kayak. Looking forward to lower effective POV due to longer distance to subject. And more opportunities due to extended reach.
 
Having used the 800PF extensively in the last couple of months I'd have a hard time recommending 600F4 F-mount for handheld shooting. Unless you go to a gym a lot and don't mind lugging it around.

Some call 800PF 'limited use case' lens but it's been stellar for my applications (birds small and large) so far. Remember that shooting (especially over over water) at 800mm+ you'll get into heat distortion situations no matter what lens you're using. It all depends on time of day and conditions, there's no way around.
 
I'm sure the 800PF (without TC) is going to massively outperform the 500PF/1.4TC...it should outperform the 500PF without TC just because it is native Z.

I don't think there is much point going longer than 800mm for birds. You just run into atmospherics and birds that are really just too far away for a good shot no matter how much focal length you throw at them. I've owned lenses capable of getting to 1000-1200mm since 2012 but everytime I try them out I realize it just isn't worth it. And those are $14K fast primes with 2xTCs.
 
I own both lenses and birds are my primary subjects, usually perched but in flight as well. The 600 hasn't gotten much use since I got the 800. Just last week I was photographing Purple Martins in flight (inspired by a thread here). The first day I used the 800 hand-held. The second day, the 600 on a gimble. Both with the Z9. There was very little, if any, difference in focus acquisition. The results were similar, but I preferred using the 800. For me it is the ultimate birding lens. Even with 800 its hard to fill the frame with small birds. Only a very few times in my experience has a bird been too close for the 800 to focus. You say it is hard where you are to get close so I don't think the minimum forcus distance of the 800 will be a problem for you. Maybe people with access to hides (or better birders :)) can get closer than we can, but you can use your 500 for that situation.
As for heat distortion, it is my understanding from previous threads here, it has more to do with distance from the subject and shooting conditions, than the lens.
 
As for heat distortion, it is my understanding from previous threads here, it has more to do with distance from the subject and shooting conditions, than the lens.
I am still unsure on this one.
Atmospheric distortion is not the fault of the lens, and will happen with any lens regardless.
But my experience has been that there is indeed a bandwith of how mushy images turn out in similar situations of degradation due to atmospherics. In other words: some lenses seem to maintain a better rendition than others, and some lenses turn in a higher numbers of images that can be fixed to an extent with some post production.
If the atmospherics are really brutal, than sure: all lenses fail and turn in garbage. But in my experience, there is a grey zone where the lens does play a role.
The fact that the 800PF kickstarts many threads on atmospheric distortion while 600mm f4 lenses with or without 1.4TC rarely do so, should indicate that the 800PF is particularly affected by atmospherics

If you prefer to see things black and white though, than we can all agree that you best put your gear away on bright days after 11 am and don't pick it up again until afte 5 pm.
That will ensure that your lens will perform optimally.
On top of that, if you really want to get the very best out of your lens, avoid spring time and summer from may onwards, and shoot a lot in autumn. Teleconverters perform wonderfully in october, but ruin many shots in may.
 
I am still unsure on this one.
Atmospheric distortion is not the fault of the lens, and will happen with any lens regardless.
But my experience has been that there is indeed a bandwith of how mushy images turn out in similar situations of degradation due to atmospherics. In other words: some lenses seem to maintain a better rendition than others, and some lenses turn in a higher numbers of images that can be fixed to an extent with some post production.
If the atmospherics are really brutal, than sure: all lenses fail and turn in garbage. But in my experience, there is a grey zone where the lens does play a role.
The fact that the 800PF kickstarts many threads on atmospheric distortion while 600mm f4 lenses with or without 1.4TC rarely do so, should indicate that the 800PF is particularly affected by atmospherics

If you prefer to see things black and white though, than we can all agree that you best put your gear away on bright days after 11 am and don't pick it up again until afte 5 pm.
That will ensure that your lens will perform optimally.
On top of that, if you really want to get the very best out of your lens, avoid spring time and summer from may onwards, and shoot a lot in autumn. Teleconverters perform wonderfully in october, but ruin many shots in may.
I would think that the issue on atmospheric distortion is tied more to shooting circumstances and magnification of the lens than any particular lens design. Shorter lenses magnify less (unless you crop) and hence may show less distortion than longer lenses.

So I in the same circumstances, I would expect that atmospheric distortion with a 600 mm lens and 1.4x TC would be similar to atmospheric distortion with an 800 mm lens. On the other hand, in the same circumstances, a 600 mm lens might show less distortion than an 800 mm lens, as the magification is less (until perhaps you crop to equalize FOV).

Perhaps aperture and depth of field matter, if a larger aperture would blur some of the distortion.
 
Last edited:
I chose the Z 800 mm PF over a F mount 600 mm plus 1.4x TC E III because I wanted a lighter lens that was easier to hand hold and travel with (I've done both with the Z 800 mm PF ). The Z 600 mm TC was not announced when I ordered the Z 800 mm PF, but I would make the same choice now. I've used the Z 800 mm PF for bird photograpy (large and small, in flight, swimming/walking, and perched), photography of heron nests at a distance (85 to 125 yards) and for photography of water birds and marine mammals from a zodiac. It has been more useful than I expected.

The 800 mm PF probably only makes sense if you think you will use 800 mm (or longer) a lot. If you need 600 then the 800 is too long. And it may also matter what other telephotos you have. If I need something shorter than 800 mm, I can use my 500 mm PF, Z 400 mm f4.5 or Z 100-400, in each case with or without an F or Z mount TC.

I also like that I can add a Z 1.4x TC to the Z 800 mm PF and have a very good 1120 mm f9 lens. I have used this combination handheld and for BIF. I also have the Z 2x TC and think it can be useful on the Z 800 mm PF (1600 mm f13), but with more compromises.

I have kept my 500 mm PF and F mount TCs. Where important, the 500 mm PF is still smaller and lighter. I would be more likely to use it as a bare lens now, given I have the Z 800 mm PF. Overall, I have used the 500 mm PF a lot less since getting the Z 800 mm PF.
 
I am still unsure on this one.
Atmospheric distortion is not the fault of the lens, and will happen with any lens regardless...
Should have stopped here. :)

...The fact that the 800PF kickstarts many threads on atmospheric distortion while 600mm f4 lenses with or without 1.4TC rarely do so, should indicate that the 800PF is particularly affected by atmospherics.
The fact that the 800 attracts so many comments about atmospherics means absolutely nothing. And it certainly doesn't mean that the PF behaves differently than any other 800mm lens. On this site(at least) the majority of the comments that I see regarding atmospheric issues are generic about that length lens and quite often(if not most times) the comments are made by people who don't own/haven't used the lens. Atmospheric distortion is caused by the light waves being bent on their path between the subject and lens. Has nothing to do with the optics. Other than the fact that a soft lens will soften the distorted detail and a sharp lens will display it in sharp detail. A crooked line is a crooked line. The lens isn't going to straighten it out. Where much of the confusion enters the discussion is the same as with many other topics when people compare images with different FOV. Narrower FOV/ more magnification will of course make the distortion more evident than wider FOV/less magnification of the same subject at the same distance.
 
Now I use the 500PF & 1.4TC = 700 on my Z9. At F8 focus is not so quick for BIF. Thinking of getting the 800PF +1.4TC or a used 600 F4 +1.4 = 840 .(price about the same) As its not easy here to get close enough, I need 700+ alot of the time. Mostly I do handheld for BIF . 100mm extra for $7000 is maybe a bit much? Anyone with these combos.would love to have some feedback. I know heat distortion is an issue,and @ F11 w/800+tc in the golden hours maybe push ISO too far (6400 is my max (with Topaz Denoise) if I can fill the frame. Thanks for any advice
If I’m buying to use on a Z body…I’m going with a Z lens…they’re generally better optically than F counterparts, smaller and lighter, and are newer designs optically and coating wise which contribute to both of the above. OTOH…if I already had the F mount lens it is spa more complex decision involving focal length, TC performance, and size/weight. That said…I had a 500PF and swapped it for a 400/4.5 and use it mostly with the Z 1.4TC…and definitely would not go back to the F mount. But I tend to agree with the 100mm for $7K comments…with a Z9 or any other high MP body I would just crop a bit in post or use DX. I like the 400/4.5 with TC and 100-400 for wildlife because of flexibility and anything heavier than that forces me to leave something behind and carry just the single long lens…and 800 isn’t flexible enough for me to carry by itself because I don’t go on outings designed with a single subject solely in mind, but the 800 would mean that the zoom got left behind…but then I would not go out with only the 400 either.
 
Last edited:
I sold my 600mm f/4 lens when I got the 800mm PF. The 600mm weighed 8.4 lbs and so I needed to use a tripod with a gimbal head 100% of the time. With the 800mm PF lens I can shoot hand held for extended period of time and track birds through the woods with much greater speed when able to leave my tripod and its head behind.

The 800mm PF with the Z9 eye detect is a fantastic combination for photographing small moving subjects.
 
If I’m buying to use on a Z body…I’m going with a Z lens…they’re generally better optically than F counterparts, smaller and lighter, and are newer designs optically and coating wise which contribute to both of the above. OTOH…if I already had the F mount lens it is spa more complex decision involving focal length, TC performance, and size/weight. That said…I had a 500PF and swapped it for a 400/4.5 and use it mostly with the Z 1.4TC…and definitely would not go back to the F mount. But I tend to agree with the 100mm for $7K comments…with a Z9 or any other high MP body I would just crop a bit in post or use DX. I like the 400/4.5 with TC and 100-400 for wildlife because of flexibility and anything heavier than that forces me to leave something behind and carry just the single long lens…and 800 isn’t flexible enough for me to carry by itself because I don’t go on outings designed with a single subject solely in mind, but the 800 would mean that the zoom got left behind…but then I would not go out with only the 400 either.
Is the 400 4.5 +TC faster with AFC than the 500PF alone? Yes Z mount are better it seems, but I use D850/500 as well for now..
 
I own the 600 and it really needs to be on a tripod all the time. Yes, you can hand hold it, but you won’t for long. It’s big, heavy, and kind of a pain in ass! It’s also spectacular, and produces amazing images. For birding though I’d recommend the 800, that’s what I’ll be getting someday. There’s no doubt in my mind the 800 is the best birding lens on the market right now.
 
Back
Top