Nikon 600mm f4 vs 800mm f5.6

[DavidT]

I am curious as to the thoughts of everyone on the two lenses. I am a few months away from pulling the trigger on a 600 or 800. My current long lens is a 500PF.

I shoot a D850 and will be adding a D6 to my kit in a couple of weeks.

I often am cropping and can see a lot of times the 600 will need a converter on it since wildlife I have access to aren't the ones that will walk up to you. I do plan on trips each year which will lend to less timid wildlife but that will be a few weeks a year.

As I have been researching I came across Moose Peterson who I have met and been on a trip with many moons ago and noticed he no longer has a 600 in his kit. He shoots the 800 and his next lens smaller is the 180-400.

I have the 200-500 and 500PF but can't currently swing a 180-400 and a 600 or 800 at the same time. I could in the future say a year from now have both but right now I am looking for a longer lens to compliment the two lenses I have.

So I am wondering if I would be better off buying a 600E with 1.4 or find a 800? I can buy a 600E new but when the time is ready will try and find a used one first in the $9K range. I have seen a couple 800 last year that sold for $14K range used. The 800 used is in my price range and the 600 I can do used or new when I am ready.

My area of focus is wildlife and I have a wide range of birds in my neck of woods so they tend to be a lot of my subjects. When traveling larger mammals along with birds will be my subjects.

I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[DRwyoming]

I appreciate your thoughts.

Personally I think the 600mm f/4 plus TC is a more versatile combo especially if your wildlife subjects include larger animals. No doubt the 800mm f/5.6 is a great lens but it can be too much lens for larger or closer subjects and of course it's both expensive and very heavy.

I suppose you could make the argument that already owning the 500mm PF it makes more sense to jump to 800mm for your big glass and that makes some sense but personally I'd go with a 600mm f/4 with a TC handy for my big glass. YMMV.

 

[Warren D]

I agree with Dave. The 600 EFL is more versitile and you have a big advantage of f4. Even the D6 benefits from f4 in dim light. A 1.4 tc (be sure it's the EIII version) and you have 840mm @f5.6. I've even used a 1.7 tc on my 600 EFL at f6.3 and not much loss of IQ. Not sure if you intend to do a little hand holding from time to time but you could with the 600 and likely not with the 800. I looked at the 800 before I bought my 600 and I'm glad I got the 600. Just the 600 alone can be tough to site in on your target and it only gets tougher at 840mm. I like the ability to flip a lever and go from tripod to hand holding if the action dictates. No way could I hand hold an 800.

 

[Steve]

+1 for Dave and Warren's comments. The 800mm is sharper than the 600 + 1.4TC, but the 600 + TC is still jaw-dropping. I have thought about the 800 - still do in fact - but I always come around to thinking I'm shooting 60% of my images at 600mm and 40% with the TC attached. If those numbers were reversed, I might consider the 800 to go with my 180-400.

 

[Warren D]

Oh, and another point, I don't believe anything Moose Peterson says. Listened to his raves about the first 80-400 years ago, he said at 400mm it was just as good as the 400 f2.8. Not knowing, I bought one and guess what, not even close.

 

[Steve]

Oh, and another point, I don't believe anything Moose Peterson says. Listened to his raves about the first 80-400 years ago, he said at 400mm it was just as good as the 400 f2.8. Not knowing, I bought one and guess what, not even close.

Good point.

 

[thelordofthelight]

I think the 800 f5.6 is the way to go, considering you are planning to buy a 180-400 later. The 600+1.4TC or the 4002.8+2X TC are all great combos to get to 800mm+ but there is simply no comparison with the native 800 both in terms of optics and most importantly the AF performance. Also, the 800 comes with its factory calibrated 1.25TC, which is superb. The only challenge with the 800 is its weight.

 

[fcotterill]

+1 for Dave and Warren's comments. The 800mm is sharper than the 600 + 1.4TC, but the 600 + TC is still jaw-dropping. I have thought about the 800 - still do in fact - but I always come around to thinking I'm shooting 60% of my images at 600mm and 40% with the TC attached. If those numbers were reversed, I might consider the 800 to go with my 180-400.

What follows below is biased to my not having used a 600 f4E, and I've only taken some test shots indoors in big arenas with the 800 f5.6E.....

Today, we face so many choices in excellent lenses; so there're at least 2 ways to get to 800 f5.6 - and a bit more - with a Teleconverter (besides the prime). There's also the question of tele-zoom vs prime... Budget and carrying are the major factors that bring things down earth - and rather hard!

A final decision on a singular telephoto is a tricky decision, and best not to be rushed. If most of your subjects are smaller birds or shooting far flung sports action, then the 600 f4 wins. As the 600 f4E delivers excellent IQ with TC14 III at 840 f5.6, it reaches just that much further than a 400 + TC2.

Back before dpr mired itself, there was useful discussion and contributions on choosing a telephoto (links here). In deciding on a 400 f2.8, I came to realize rank all the key factors of these expensive optics really helps to spell out the respective Sui Generis of a lens. I suggest tabulate the factors to distill key features for individual needs. These are not only image quality, but MFD, Haptics (incl. Balance), Luggability. A tighter MFD is often essential with confiding subjects (often trusting mammals), and this is not changed with a TC. Basically every lens has its limitations, but relevance varies.

A key "derived" factor of a telephoto is TCF (TeleConverter Factor), and so is the IQ over longer subject distances with TCs. TCF is merely a comparative index based on how many combos (eg 1 vs 3) are possible; and respective penalties of lens speed, with f5.6 and f8 as key thresholds with most DSLRs (a MILC can stretch this constraint to slower f-stops, subject to IQ. My own tests confirm experienced reports that the IQ on even the best primes takes a hit with TCs as subject distances increase beyond 30m. This varies with the combination. Threads with some results here and discussion of MTF data.

If do you manage to get through the threads above, it's clear several owners of these Nikkor exotics chose the 400 f2.8E because its key factors of IQ, MFD, TCF make it more versatile than a 600. Besides the topstakes in TCF, I really need its +ves in the 2.6m MFD, and being 7cm shorter to pack and handle (with open hood). After committing the pile of shekels, I read this great summary - confirming all the evidence etc - of the 400 f2.8E FL - its sui generis :- "This lens is not just a 400/2,8 lens. It is a 560/4,0 and 800/5,6 with absolutely excellent picture quality and AF... ". The 400 f2.8E is also (almost) unique because its IQ is excellent with the fickle TC17 II, and gives you a 680 f4.8. (IQ with the 300 f4E PF+TC17 is nearly as good as a 510 f6.7. This is unlike most Nikkors, as many report TC17 II to be a fickle beast.

So it's the rare optic that can wear such an accolade for all of IQ, reach and AF. On somewhat different criteria, the Nikkor phase fresnel primes are close runners.

If one shoots mostly out of a vehicle/hide, note that a 800 f5.6E + TC125 goes to 1000 f6.7 which should not be overlooked. The IQ of this prime is reportedly exquisite, and each TC is bespoke to that individual lens. Not only do their matching serial# underscore this, but a replacement TC requires shipping the entire lens back to the factory in Japan (!) In the tropics, however, haze and heat often interfere with IQ over longer subject distances. In my case subject distances walking in Africa often dictate I often have the TC2 III on my 400 for birds and smaller mammals. It's great to have the option to drop focal length quite rapidly. And this only costs carrying the TC14 or TC17. However, much as I often dream of a 800 prime, the reality is it needs a decent monopod at least. Mostly I handhold my 400 on a gripped D850 as this rig is well balanced. For stake outs and longer "holds" I use a light gimbal-tripod if the Steadify hip-monopod is not sufficient.

Oh, and another point, I don't believe anything Moose Peterson says. Listened to his raves about the first 80-400 years ago, he said at 400mm it was just as good as the 400 f2.8. Not knowing, I bought one and guess what, not even close.

He does himself no favours as in review of the 180-400 f4E TC14 that its quality with TCs replaces the 800 f5.6 (in Nikon Owners Mag)

 

[Thern]

ggg

I think the 800 f5.6 is the way to go, considering you are planning to buy a 180-400 later. The 600+1.4TC or the 4002.8+2X TC are all great combos to get to 800mm+ but there is simply no comparison with the native 800 both in terms of optics and most importantly the AF performance. Also, the 800 comes with its factory calibrated 1.25TC, which is superb. The only challenge with the 800 is its weight.

I completely agree.
(I can shoot the 800 handheld btw)
I’ve owned the 600G and E ditched the latter in favor of the 180-400 and needed as a result (LOL) the 800.
If @dtibbals considers the 180-400 AND the 800 there’s no substitute for versatility and reach.
In his case I’d acquire the 800 first and after that ditch the 200-500 and acquire the 180-400

 

[armchicago]

The 800 is 162 ounces and greater than 18 inches without the hood! All these lenses are spectacular from a performance perspective, truly about the best money can buy. So to me it comes down to really understanding what you're getting yourself into relative to size and weight... especially if your big rigs now are the 200-500 and PF. If you've actually had your hands on both so you understand and are ok with that aspect, then my advice is to use all the advice/opinions on some of the finer points that everyone else in this thread has mentioned. If you haven't, I would really encourage you to rent them or play with a friend's.

 

[Calson]

It is not at all unusual to find that a given focal length is actually too long and crops the subject(s) too tightly and greatly weakens the image with the loss of the area around them. I have found the 600mm to be too long in places like Costa Rica and ended up using the 500mm PF lens most of the time. I greatly prefer to have the FOV of a 600mm f/4 lens that can with a TC-14 be used as a 840mm f/5.6 lens as well, or the 500mm f/4 that is perfectly usable as a 700mm f/5.6 lens.

To me the 800mm is the lens I would rent for a special situation as it would otherwise be sitting in the closet a great deal of the time.