The (not so) Ubiquitous 600mm f4 Lens...

[eaj101]

Over time I've noticed that, perhaps due to Steve's advocacy of, and stellar images from, the 600mm f4, people here seem heavily weighted towards the 600mm f4 as the pinnacle of long lenses for wildlife and bird photographers. Despite the obvious drawbacks to such an approach (you need a Sherpa, your own airplane, and a small bank $$$ of your own).

Oddly enough, this isn't what I see elsewhere. I'm in Northern California and we have a number of really big wildlife refuges. At the refuges in the area I generally see a few 800 f5.6 lenses, a few 600mm f4s, a LOT of 500mm f4 lenses, and a few 400mm f2.8 lenses (Those are the primes. Of course most of what you see are less expensive long zooms. Tamron, Sigma, Nikon, Sony). Where birds aren't a major factor, I see almost none of the really big (800/600) guns and a big preponderance of 500mm f4 lenses. (and of course, increasing numbers of PFs).

So I'm curious about the what/where/why of the choice of a supertelephoto lens. Taking all factors into account - portability, airplanes, reach with and without TCs, image quality - what's your rationale and why?

 

[bleirer]

Be interesting to see what the pros and advanced folks have to say about it. To me it's all one gigantic compromise of price (most limiting factor for me), weight, IQ, lens speed, and reach. Do you carry a crop body for the extra 1.5 ish, do you go with a tc, accept slower lenses, spend the $13 for the f4 (not me for sure). It's never good enough. I'm among the dissatisfied at times I'm sure. I shoot Canon full frame and carry the EF 100-400 with the 1.4 converter, but I yearn for more reach. I covet the 100-500 but don't want to spend the$2700. They are expected to announce a higher end mirrorless crop body soon, so that is tempting for the reach . But I limit to one backpack that I can hike with, and all gear has to earn it's place for size and weight or it doesn't make the trip.

 

[DRwyoming]

So I'm curious about the what/where/why of the choice of a supertelephoto lens. Taking all factors into account - portability, airplanes, reach with and without TCs, image quality - what's your rationale and why?

Well count me as a big fan of the 600mm f/4 lenses and that predates my association with Steve by a couple of decades. I really like my 500mm PF for portability and ease of hand holding but when I'm serious about a wildlife project I'll always have the 600mm f/4 with me. I tried downsizing to a 500mm f/4 and shot with that as my big lens for a year or two but I almost always had a 1.4x or 1.7x TC attached and in the end I sold it and picked up another 600mm f/4.

At times I've debated the 800mm f/5.6 but I shoot larger mammals as well as small birds and feel the 600mm f/4 is overall more versatile. Yeah, a 600mm f/4 is a bigger rig to travel with compared to say a 500mm f/4 but I've always been able to carry it on flights, even the tiny commuter jets and have never been forced to check it.

I'd agree with you that I'm seeing fewer 600mm f/4's in the field these days but it's not so much a move to 500mm f/4 lenses as the explosion of 150-600mm, 200-600mm, 500mm PF and similar lenses that I'm seeing everywhere but among tripod shooters I'm still seeing plenty of 600mm f/4's up in the Tetons and Yellowstone but part of that may be the longer working distances for bears and wolves enforced by the rangers in the national parks.

 

[Strodav]

My first priority is an interesting subject doing something interesting in good light that helps set a mood, hopefully with a background I can blur. To me and interesting image with small technical flaws is preferable to a boring image that is technically perfect. My 2nd priority is to fill the frame. The more sensor elements I can get on the subject the more detail I can capture. Towards that end I usually take a D850, D500, 200-500mm f/5.6, 600mm f/4, and a 1.4x teleconterter and I'll pack a 60mm macro. That gives me a reach out to 1260mm if needed and still allows me to take closeups of flowers I find interesting. Lens quality is my 2nd priority because a poor quality lens destroys contrast and detail, but even less expensive zooms are usually pretty sharp in the middle of the frame. In general, good quality faster glass is heavy glass, so make the best choices for yourself given what you shoot and what you are willing to carry. I can hike several miles with my birding gear that weighs about 25 lbs including a carbon fiber tripod with carbon fiber gimbal. As far as travel goes, I carry on my backpack with camera gear (yes they always go through it at security) and check the big wooden padded box my 600mm f/4 came in along with my suitcase (where I pack my tripod).

 

[Anjin San]

Over time I've noticed that, perhaps due to Steve's advocacy of, and stellar images from, the 600mm f4, people here seem heavily weighted towards the 600mm f4 as the pinnacle of long lenses for wildlife and bird photographers. Despite the obvious drawbacks to such an approach (you need a Sherpa, your own airplane, and a small bank $$$ of your own).

Oddly enough, this isn't what I see elsewhere. I'm in Northern California and we have a number of really big wildlife refuges. At the refuges in the area I generally see a few 800 f5.6 lenses, a few 600mm f4s, a LOT of 500mm f4 lenses, and a few 400mm f2.8 lenses (Those are the primes. Of course most of what you see are less expensive long zooms. Tamron, Sigma, Nikon, Sony). Where birds aren't a major factor, I see almost none of the really big (800/600) guns and a big preponderance of 500mm f4 lenses. (and of course, increasing numbers of PFs).

So I'm curious about the what/where/why of the choice of a supertelephoto lens. Taking all factors into account - portability, airplanes, reach with and without TCs, image quality - what's your rationale and why?

500PF for me…and it was based on a combination of cost, weight/size, IQ and hobbyist amateur nature of my use. I don't print things and output is exclusively on screen so losing a little IQ as compared to the large/heavy/expensive lenses isn't a big deal for me. That lens gives me 750 on my D7500, 500 on the Z7II (750 in DX mode) and works well enough with the 1.4TC from reviews that I have one of those on my list to get as well.

Anything bigger is just too hard to hike with as well as being hard to transport and wildly expensive. If I was a pro making money from my equipment…I would be younger and still working and the weight/size might not be unacceptable…plus I would have income from photography that made the expense worthwhile. As it is…I could afford the $$ but the other drawbacks of the longer fast primes would still make them a no go.

 

[Abinoone]

"I sold it and picked up another 600mm f/4"

Wow, that must be nice! Let me know if you ever want to unload one of them!

 

[DRwyoming]

Wow, that must be nice! Let me know if you ever want to unload one of them!

Nope, never had two 600mm f/4 lenses at the same time.

Had one (older first generation AF-S version) sold it and tried downsizing to the 500mm f/4, shot with that for a while and decided it wasn't for me so I sold it and picked up the 600mm f/4 G lens. So yeah, it was 'another one' but not two simultaneously

 

[Viseguy]

I opted for the 400 f2.8 FL, having previously used the 300 f2.8VRII. I pretty much start out each outing with a 1.4 TCIII attached, which gives me about 560mm and f4. Really hard to see any degradation of image quality with this setup. In field, I then have option to go to 400, or even 800 f5.6 with a 2.0 TCiii. The 400 attached to a d850 slips nicely into a Thinktank glass limo bag. Same basic setup that the pros were using on my last India trip. Also will be carrying a 300PF and 500PF, and it will be interesting to see how these get integrated into the mix on the next trip.

 

[Steve]

For me, I started with the 500mm F/4 and like Dave, I was always sticking a TC on it. Sure, there were times I'd use it bare, but most of the time I had the TC. For me, I want a lens I can use without at TC most of the time and the 600mm gets me pretty close. I could make an argument for a 800mm F/5.6, but the truth is the 600mm is more versatile overall. It's no fun to lug around or travel with, but I'm sure happy with the images when I get back home. Plus, the Sony 600mm I'm using now is much lighter than the Nikon and even fits into my bag better (because of the way the hood attaches).

However, it also depends on what you shoot. I was just shooting hummingbirds at 18 feet with the Sony 600mm + 2X TC (1200mm). However, in Africa I find 600mm is often too much and I start thinking about getting a 500mm again. Still, for the majority of what I personally shoot, 600mm is the sweet spot.

 

[Abinoone]

For me, I started with the 500mm F/4 and like Dave, I was always sticking a TC on it. Sure, there were times I'd use it bare, but most of the time I had the TC. For me, I want a lens I can use without at TC most of the time and the 600mm gets me pretty close. I could make an argument for a 800mm F/5.6, but the truth is the 600mm is more versatile overall. It's no fun to lug around or travel with, but I'm sure happy with the images when I get back home. Plus, the Sony 600mm I'm using now is much lighter than the Nikon and even fits into my bag better (because of the way the hood attaches).

However, it also depends on what you shoot. I was just shooting hummingbirds at 18 feet with the Sony 600mm + 2X TC (1200mm). However, in Africa I find 600mm is often too much and I start thinking about getting a 500mm again. Still, for the majority of what I personally shoot, 600mm is the sweet spot.

Really appreciate your perspective, Steve. A few months ago, I had an opportunity to pick up a near mint Nikon 500 f4 for $6,000 but passed on it for exactly the reason you mentioned, to hold out for a 600 f4 (still waiting). Keep hoping a good, used copy shows up soon, but these days you can't even find a new one in stock!

 

[Ricochet]

Several of my favorite spots for wildlife photography are refuges that restrict access. "Zooming with your feet" is not an option. The big 600 f4 comes in handy in places like that. I would use an 800 f5.6 if someone would buy it for me. But if you see me in Northern California I'm likely chasing big Roosevelt bulls and the old 200-400 f4 is mounted up. The bulls are huge and the foliage limits visibility so the 600 is often just too much. The 200-400 is my "carry lens" while the 600 f4 rarely goes far from my vehicle.

 

[eaj101]

These are really interesting observations in the way you're all managing the tradeoffs. Subject size, the mobility limitations of the location, the need to change focal lengths often (or the ability to)... interesting that no one has yet mentioned portability as a big factor.

The need for reach in locations where you can't move much to get closer had occurred to me but I had forgotten about the converse - what do you do when the subject is too close for your long lens. My worst experience with that was on a pelagic boat trip. I had the 500 on for puffins and shearwaters and the like, and suddenly a blue whale surfaced 50' off. The sea was rough enough that I wasn't even tempted to try to change lenses. I have good images of barnacles on skin. (well, I did get one eye ).

 

[DRwyoming]

... interesting that no one has yet mentioned portability as a big factor.

Well that's exactly why I love the 500mm PF and why it gets more use than any other lens I own at the moment. Still when I work hard to get in front of great wildlife subjects and am really working at my photography I'll want the 600mm f/4 whenever possible with the obvious exceptions of large wildlife I can get close to where it would be too much lens.

You do bring up a great point about minimum focusing distance and that's one area where the 500mm PF (or a 500mm f/4) has an advantage and the main reason I'm still hoping to upgrade from my 600mm f/4 G lens to the newer E FL lens one of these days if I can find one. I shoot a lot more small wildlife subjects than large approachable wildlife subjects and minimum focusing distance is a big deal on smaller subjects that I can get close to. I always have a couple of extension tubes in my long lens kit but having a long lens that focuses even a foot or two closer would be very useful.

BTW, I did the same thing on my first whale watching/photography excursion. I figured it was like most wildlife where long lenses rule but you could never tell where they'd breach and once they did there was only a second or so to get them in the viewfinder and into focus before they were down below again. That and it seems sooner or later they come in closer and then they're too close for all that lens. On subsequent trips I started carrying wider angle zoom lenses and had much better luck.

The truth is, like someone posted above if you shoot a wide variety of wildlife subjects there will be situations where everything from wide angle to super telephoto focal lengths will be useful though we tend to focus discussions on the long end of the range perhaps because we take it for granted that folks will have shorter focal length lenses in their kit.

Not sure if I've posted this before but here's an image shot at 10mm on a crop body camera. 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

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Garfield]

The 600/4 is (correctly IMO) considered to be the best all-round birding lens available due to its "reach", speed, uncompromising IQ and ability to take TC's. If it were only that simple, aside from cost, everyone would own one. Unfortunately physics dictates that as focal lengths increase and apertures stay more-or-less constant, the volume and weight of a lens rises exponentially, which has a huge impact on usability. Personally I've owned them all at one time or another and have to admit a modern, light weight 500/4 is probably easiest to justify because it can do everything really well even though it comes up short against the 600/4 and 800/5.6 in terms of reach. Choosing a supertelephoto lens is always an exercise compromise. Best to think REALLY hard about your usage, then choose wisely.

Perhaps I should add that I've since sold my supertele primes and am only shooting 200-600, but that's mostly because a zoom is a better fit for my new found interests in video. The curious thing about shooting wildlife videos is IQ and lens speed aren't as critical compared to shooting stills and that really opens up lens options. But if I wanted to buy a tele prime, a 500/4 would be at the top of my list. It's a shame Sony doesn't make one.

 

[NorthernFocus]

A pro told me something 30 years ago that was sage advice and has stood the test of time. You can never have too much glass(i.e. too long). That said, there are practical considerations. My decision for the first serious glass I purchased was steered heavily by economics. I was prepared to spend what was necessary but balanced by wanting something that would get as much use as possible. So I bought a Nikon 200-400 VRii thinking it would be more versatile. Mistake. In retrospect I shot it 90 percent of the time at the long end and often with a TC(which it handled poorly). So when I decided to move to a big prime I never even seriously considered the 400mm. But it took some time to decide between the desired reach of the 600 f4 and the smaller, lighter, more portable 500 f4. So I rented a 600 and took it on a trip that involved flying commercial, a several hours long ferry ride, working out of an auto, and a good bit of hiking including wading several creeks. I absolutely loved shooting the 600. And I absolutely hated hauling it around. When i got back off the trip I immediately ordered the 500 f4. My back and my bank account were both happy with my decision. I guess if there's a moral to the story it is that which lens you see people using in the field may be driven by many other factors that may not be evident at the moment you're seeing them.

 

[VStammer]

I will preface my comments that I am a hobby/enthusiast wildlife photographer. I have had very few opportunities to travel outside of my immediate home region in the last several years. Because of this I have focused on bird photography even though I would be perfectly happy shooting pics of mammals, such as bears, moose, wolves, etc...
I have purchased all of my camera bodies and lens used. I started out with the cheaper off brand zooms, but just was not able to achieve what I wanted to and so I eventually was able to purchase an older used Nikon Af-S 500mm f4 lens. Great lens, great results.....but would often desire more reach. Didn't really think I could ever afford to join the big boys club and purchase a 600 mm f4 but I got lucky and found an older Nikon Af-s D version of the 600mm f4 at a price just within reach after selling the 500mm. I love the lens, love the results, hate the size and weight. I really have to be purposeful with when and where I decide to take it. If I could afford to I would really like a 500 pf 5.6 lens as a walk around lens. Right now my walk around lens is the Nikon 200-500. Decent lens, but doesn't come close to comparing to either of the primes. As I get older I do not know how much I will really want to lug the big lens around. For now I wouldn't want to give it up! As far as 500 vs 600 prime I don't think you will actually be disappointed by purchasing and owning either one. Lighter & shorter 500 or longer reach of the 600, both have their pluses. One thing to recognize is the newer versions have been getting lighter in weight, which can be helpful, but they come at a much higher cost! Good luck.

 

[GrandNagus50]

Back in my early days (daze) of bird photography it seemed like a nice 400mm f5.6 lens was what most amateurs aspired to. But getting a bird to fill the frame at 400mm. was (and still is) pretty challenging. Even back then, in the age of the dinosaurs, the 600mm f4 (mf) was considered by many photographers, rightly, to be the best lens for small bird photography, partly because it so easily could become an 840mm f5.6 with a 1.4xTC.

I was able to upgrade to a used 500mm f4P Nikon lens purchased on ebay some years ago. It was (and still is) remarkably affordable on the used market. But when I finally was able to buy an up to date, autofocus "dream lens," it was indeed a (refurbished) 600mm f4. And indeed, I have used it with the TC14eiii a lot of the time. My 600mm even plays remarkably well with the 1.7x teleconverter. When I have gone on group bird photography workshops overseas, that has been my primary lens.

Expensive as these lenses are, the 800mm lenses are even more costly (and rare). I have never been on an overseas workshop where anyone brought along one of these. There are often people with a 500mm who seem to be considering whether they would rather have a 600. And there are people with the very popular 150-600mm zooms.

The bugaboo is the size and weight. I have the G version of the 600mm lens, which is over ten pounds. It is a tripod lens and increasingly, it is a pain to take on airplane flights.
That is a big reason why I took up micro four-thirds gear as a second system. The Olympus 300mm f4 is very sharp and way, way smaller than a full frame 600mm. It combines amazingly with the Olympus 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, and it can still be handheld, thanks partly to Olympus' very good image stabilization technology. I also have a Lumix 100-400mm zoom made by Leica, a versatile and excellent lens.

I am also fortunate enough to have two hand-holdable telephotos for my full-frame rig. I use the Nikon 200-500 and the 500mm PF lenses, variously. I also take various combinations of this smaller gear on vacation trips with my wife (e.g., to Trinidad and Tobago just before the COVID shutdown).

 

[Doug Herr]

So I'm curious about the what/where/why of the choice of a supertelephoto lens. Taking all factors into account - portability, airplanes, reach with and without TCs, image quality - what's your rationale and why?

Quoting Ansel Adams: "the best camera is the biggest one you're willing to carry".

I'm willing to carry the 600 GM because it's a big factor in getting spectacular image quality. Last year it was also a substitute for workouts at the gym. It also helps when the goal is maximizing Pixels Per Duck (PPD) and I don't want to risk spooking the birds.

Regarding airplanes, even without equipment considerations I avoid commercial air travel if there's a reasonable alternative. My legs don't fit in the seating area, I detest being treated like a terrorism suspect and I'm not fond of crowds. In 2018 I drove from Sacramento to Alaska. When my grandkids were in Wisconsin I drove to visit them (BTW Yellowstone is a halfway point).

 

[Jamie Baker]

I agree with everyone’s comments above

So many great lenses, so hard to choose! I’ve gone through most of the Nikon options over the last 10 years, usually buying older used lenses and trading up. I’m finally settled on the 500 PF and a 600 f/4. I have no more excuses!

I do think the 500 PF is the absolute best birding lens of all the options available. Extremely sharp, small for the focal length, handhold-able, and 1/3 the price of the big guns.

 

[DaveR]

Very interesting thread. Thanks to everyone for their input.

I decided earlier this year to get a 600mm to go along with my 500pf. I'll have the money to buy it in a couple of months time which at first I found frustrating as I was eager to get my hands on one but I think that has turned out to be a blessing.

My main concerns are portability and stability. I love the 500pf and results I get from it. I carry it on a monopod with a Winberley Monopod Gymbal head (thanks for the review Steve} which means it lays nicely across my shoulders and I can walk miles with it with no problem with my D850 and battery pack. The new Canon and Sony 600mm's weigh in at 3kg which is impressive for a lens like this. I'm hoping the new Z600mm Nikon will match or even beat that and the Z9 will turn out ok as I want to move to ML and keep the 500pf. If not I'll probably move to Canon.

You're all going to think I'm crazy but to see how I would get on with a heavier lens I taped a 2kg bag of sugar to my 500pf and took it out for a walk. I noticed the difference straight way but that monopod head allowed me to lay the weight across my shoulders and to my surprise I was ok with it. I think portability shouldn't be too much of a problem.

To stability then. Would I be able to use the beast with my prefered monopod or would I need a tripod? I sometimes use a 1.4 TC on the 500 so I'm used to working at 700m. I stand with my legs apart and the monopod out in front of me and between us we make a pretty good tripod and I find I can get it very steady. I would probably use TC's with the 600 so that would take me to 840 and 1200mm. I've tried to simulate that by setting the D850 to DX mode which takes me to 1050mm (I think) and I've still had good results as long as I keep my shutter speed up.

I'm still planning to go ahead with a 600mm but as there don't seem to be any in stock anywhere it won't be anytime soon. That means I can wait and see what the Nikon Z9 and Z600mm are like. Hopefully that will be my way forward later in the year.

 

[Jmaes]

I think part of it also has to do with what's available on the used market. Many people (myself included) can't justify spending the money on a new 500/600 f4; so used is a more realistic option. I don't know how things are in your part of the world, but over here (Western Europe), the 600mm f4 is practically nonexisting used. The 500mm f4 on other hand always has at least a few copies available at quite decent prices (especially if you're willing to go for a G version).

Personally, I own the 500 f4G, 500pf and 200-500. Each of them gets used in specific situations. But if given the chance, I would also still trade in my 500f4 for a 600f4 in a heartbeat.

 

[Abinoone]

I think part of it also has to do with what's available on the used market. Many people (myself included) can't justify spending the money on a new 500/600 f4; so used is a more realistic option. I don't know how things are in your part of the world, but over here (Western Europe), the 600mm f4 is practically nonexisting used. The 500mm f4 on other hand always has at least a few copies available at quite decent prices (especially if you're willing to go for a G version).

Personally, I own the 500 f4G, 500pf and 200-500. Each of them gets used in specific situations. But if given the chance, I would also still trade in my 500f4 for a 600f4 in a heartbeat.

How do you think the IQ on the 500PF and 200-500 compare?

 

[Steve]

The need for reach in locations where you can't move much to get closer had occurred to me but I had forgotten about the converse - what do you do when the subject is too close for your long lens. y worst experience with that was on a pelagic boat trip. I had the 500 on for puffins and shearwaters and the like, and suddenly a blue whale surfaced 50' off. The sea was rough enough that I wasn't even tempted to try to change lenses. I have good images of barnacles on skin. (well, I did get one eye ).

The thing is, you can't or won't always have the perfect lens on the camera for a given scenario. Just no way around it. You have to pick the lens that will work best most of the time for the subject you shoot.

However, there are a few tricks if a subject is too close. Most of these wouldn't have worked in your particular example, but for those other times they may prove handy.

1. Forget trying to get the entire animal and concentrate on head shots. Not sure that would have been a good way to go in your particular case, but I find on my workshops people are sometimes obsessed with getting the entire animal. Head shots and close up are also fun though - as I like to remind them - we're not shooting field guides, so feel free to get artistic!

2. Keep an extra camera and a shorter lens handy (I try to do this whenever it's practical). If something happens where I need a shorter lens, this is my best chance.

3. Take multiple shots and merge the images together. Sort of like a wildlife pano. I do this with monkeys in Costa Rica frequently - I get their little faces and bodies but sometimes the tails are getting cut off at the bottom of the frame. So, after I get my shot of the face and body, I move the lens down and, without refocusing, grab the tail. Take the two images and stick them together in Photoshop. (I should do a video on this).

 

[Abinoone]

I should do a video on this

Great idea!

 

[Doug Herr]

...
3. Take multiple shots and merge the images together. Sort of like a wildlife pano. I do this with monkeys in Costa Rica frequently - I get their little faces and bodies but sometimes the tails are getting cut off at the bottom of the frame. So, after I get my shot of the face and body, I move the lens down and, without refocusing, grab the tail. Take the two images and stick them together in Photoshop. (I should do a video on this).

This Sandhill Crane nest was too close to the road to spend any time changing lenses so I made a pano using three quick exposures with a 280mm lens and moved on.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.