Using Nikon 600mm f4E FL ED VR AF-S Lens with Z9 and Z8. Advice please or opt for Z 600PF?

Hi Steve, I am considering a Nikon 600mm f4E FL ED VR AF-S Lens with adapter to use on my Z9 and Z8, does anyone have experience of this combination, or would I be better losing the f4 advantage and go with the Nikon Z600 f6.3 PF. I would appreciate your thoughts on image quality and usability etc.

I have used the adapted 600FL on Z9 for a long time and have always found it outstanding. It depends a bit on what kind of photography you do, for example if you're always in the mountains walking for hours and big differences in altitude the weight gets to you, but I wouldn't give up an f/4 for a 6.3

It had been my go-to combination (with Z9), used extensively over a year in all sorts of circumstances. I dropped it twice though, eventually requiring a full fix but then I sold it to partially fund a Z 600 f4.

I do not know how to present photos here, the quality suffers greatly when presented in the required format. I recommend running a query for "600mm fl f4 Z9" on flickr but it is a state-of-the-art lens that works very well with a Z9/Z8 plus takes TC's very well.

I can also recommend a Mr Jan Gear front carrier that makes it very easy to keep things safe and balanced symmetrically so that the weight is not biased towards left or right. My hand-holding "session" in that case would normally last 2-3 min and then I can hang the kit on the carrier with about 6-10 sec required to have it ready to point at the skies.

Highly recommended but yes, I'm a big fan of f2.8 and f4 but the foreseeable (and expensive) future is mirrorless lenses so it is a bit of a choice.

The lens will be fine on the two Z camera bodies, with the FTZ. Super sharp and fast focus.

The big concern is the weight difference, that 600 f4 is a heavy, solid made lens. The 600Z is light, tight, right, perfect for the 2 camera bodies you use. I enjoy mine and would not ponder a moment of using the 600E honker, 600 6.3Z all the way. You too will love it

Thanks for the replies so far. Weight is not too much of an issue, mostly concerned with performance and IQ with Z8/9 I shoot wildlife in the UK some birds (raptors) and mammals. We have foxes and badgers living in our woodland,so I'm very lucky.

wildlife_62 said:

Thanks for the replies so far. Weight is not too much of an issue, mostly concerned with performance and IQ with Z8/9 I shoot wildlife in the UK some birds (raptors) and mammals. We have foxes and badgers living in our woodland,so I'm very lucky.

Click to expand...

In that case (also in the UK), I'd say go for it, but make sure it is a good copy. The quality should be breathtaking.

I have the 600 Z PF and love the lens. Light weight and compact. yes i lose 1 and 1/3 stop so not quite as clean backgrounds and need to push the ISO, but for the weight and size, I consider this a reasonable trade off. Also for me, the Z 600 on a Z 8 or Z 9 is handholdable while the FX lens would not Meaning I can respond faster and get shots I would have lost while I work on a tripod / gimbal head

I know the majority of people here (if there was a vote) would completely go for lighter lenses. Well, I have tried them all, and I do not like them because I could not get the results I wanted. If you are saying you have a wrong technique, I may not have a perfect technique, but why do I get markedly better results with proper superteles? It is not about bokeh at all. It is not about mythical sharpness in the back garden. It is about what you can do in the field, under pressure, with a one-off chance and get the best result possible when you won't see this bird, ever, again, or live situation of that kind again.

wildlife_62 said:

Hi Steve, I am considering a Nikon 600mm f4E FL ED VR AF-S Lens with adapter to use on my Z9 and Z8, does anyone have experience of this combination, or would I be better losing the f4 advantage and go with the Nikon Z600 f6.3 PF. I would appreciate your thoughts on image quality and usability etc.

Click to expand...

I use the 600mm f/4 E FL with my Z8 and Z9 all the time. It is by far my favorite lens for days when I'm more serious about wildlife work. If I'm just out walking in good habitat and hoping for opportunistic wildlife photos I'll carry a lighter lens like the 500mm PF but when photography is the main reason I'm out there and will be working primarily from a tripod the 600mm f/4 is my go-to lens.

It works beautifully with the Z8 and Z9.

According to Nikon Rumors next week "allegedly" there will be a huge sale on Nikon F mount lenses. The 600FL for example will be discounted $3600! That may make uup your mind if you are looking to buy one. The price is amazing!


Good luck!!

I used my 600 EFL on the Z9 with and without the 1.4 tC all the time, including a lot of hand holding. AF speed is just fine and it has great IQ. I admit I haven't used it much since I got the 800 pf. I miss the f4 but the 1/3 stop difference between the 800pf and the 600efl w/1.4tc isn't significant. The 600 efl is stellar wide open with and without the 1.4. I get acceptable results with the 1.7 but not with the 2.0. I do need to use extra care when using a FTZ and TC as I'm not totally comfortable with all the connection interfaces but it's never been an issue.

I think it really comes down to how you do photography more than the IQ of either lens because they are both outstanding. The advantage of the 600mm E FL is its large aperture for better subject isolation and low light performance, while the Z 600 advantage is its weight at a cost of 1.3 stops of light loss. As for sharpness, they are both great and you would be hard pressed to notice the difference. If you are shooting in very dim conditions or from a blind or vehicle, and don't need to carry the lens far, go for the 600mm F/4. If you need to hike a good distance to where your subjects are, or you are weight/size constrained (e.g. aircraft), then go for the Z600 6.3.

I had the 600mm E FL concurrently with the 500mm PF, and for my photography, the 500mm was used probably 90% of the time because I could easily carry it in my pack while hiking and traveling. I only took the 600 E FL if I was traveling by vehicle and shoot relatively close to the road (e.g. like in Yellowstone). Since then I've sold both and now have an 800mm PF and 600mm PF. I love the 600mm PF and would consider it my essential wildlife lens. I might consider a Z600 TC sometime in the future, but I would never give up the 600mm PF.

wildlife_62 said:

Thanks for the replies so far. Weight is not too much of an issue, mostly concerned with performance and IQ with Z8/9 I shoot wildlife in the UK some birds (raptors) and mammals. We have foxes and badgers living in our woodland,so I'm very lucky.

Click to expand...

You might look at your current photos, what aperture do you shoot at? What ISO? Is light a problem? Distance? Are the foxes and badgers out when there is low light? Are you shooting at a large distance? You might even consider a 400mm f/2.8 (not to confuse the issue) if light is the major problem (also going on sale).

foxysport said:

I know the majority of people here (if there was a vote) would completely go for lighter lenses. Well, I have tried them all, and I do not like them because I could not get the results I wanted. If you are saying you have a wrong technique, I may not have a perfect technique, but why do I get markedly better results with proper superteles? It is not about bokeh at all. It is not about mythical sharpness in the back garden. It is about what you can do in the field, under pressure, with a one-off chance and get the best result possible when you won't see this bird, ever, again, or live situation of that kind again.

Click to expand...

And what are the failings of the 600 PF? Curious to know what I should look for

My current setup is a Z9 and a 600mm FL E. I handhold almost exclusively and hike miles at a time with it. The rig can get heavy, but it’s not bad. In fact, I’m currently in Costa Rica and have hiked several miles with both my 2 year old on my back in a hiking backpack and the 600mm f/4 on a BlackRapid strap across my body. I also brought the 100-400 Z but haven’t even used it. I am 40 years old and in decent shape, so take that for what it’s worth. But the setup is definitely useable away from a tripod.

As far as I’m concerned, the 600mm FL E is an absolute steal. I don’t think the price-to-performance ratio can be beaten. I also wouldn’t trade the f/4 for an f/6.3. That trade off makes a massive difference in low light.

groob said:

My current setup is a Z9 and a 600mm FL E. I handhold almost exclusively and hike miles at a time with it. The rig can get heavy, but it’s not bad. In fact, I’m currently in Costa Rica and have hiked several miles with both my 2 year old on my back in a hiking backpack and the 600mm f/4 on a BlackRapid strap across my body. I also brought the 100-400 Z but haven’t even used it. I am 40 years old and in decent shape, so take that for what it’s worth. But the setup is definitely useable away from a tripod.

As far as I’m concerned, the 600mm FL E is an absolute steal. I don’t think the price-to-performance ratio can be beaten. I also wouldn’t trade the f/4 for an f/6.3. That trade off makes a massive difference in low light.

Click to expand...

it is nice to be young. Some of us are old enough to have 2 years as grand kids if not great grand kids

Ive been using my 600mm FL with Z9/Z8 and the 1.4/2.0TC and get amazing results. Ive seen them on the marketplace in mint condition for around 6k-7k. You will not be disappointed with this lens.

Best of luck with your search

Obviously the F 600/4 will work optically just fine on Z bodies and typically will AF a little better than on F bodies. This is a choice of mostly weight vs the loss of a stop and a third. For myself…any of the exotic lenses are off the list and it’s purely a weight issue because of what would get left behind if I was carrying one and the needed tripod…2nd body, more lenses, etc. optically…the Z lenses are better because of the wider mount, physics, and better design software than a dozen years back…and they’re generally lighter and smaller than F equivalents and at equivalent apertures they’re sharper…and more controls and all that because tech advances.

Comes down to weight vs light…and while F gear still works just fine…Z gear has more features and we won’t ever see a new F body or lens IMO. Since you’ve got a Z body…I would not buy any F lenses just because of tech improvements even though they still make excellent images but F is a dead end…although differential cost (for some) could be a factor. You wont be disappointed with output either way though…its those other factors you should base a decision on.

Personally…the 600PF wins hands down.

My personal opinion, I would grab the 600PF no contest.

The F4E FL is an 8.5lb lens. To me, that is far heavier than I am willing to try to handhold regularly. It would make it a monopod/tripod only lens, which greatly limits what I can capture, and reduces the amount of fun I can have.

The 600PF is one of my top 2 favorite lenses to shoot with. And in handholding comparison, the 1.33 less of light doesn't matter because the difference between an 8.5lb and 3lb lens means I can always lower my shutter more than 1.33 stops and still get sharp images, thus allowing lower ISO with the 600PF.

If you want the best of the best, the F4E is it out of your choices. But the tradeoff isn't worth it for me personally. YMMV.

Thanks for all your thoughts. I'm going with the 600 f4 FL, it seems to fit the bill for my requirements, Have a great weekend everyone

nmerc_photos said:

the 1.33 less of light doesn't matter because the difference between an 8.5lb and 3lb lens means I can always lower my shutter more than 1.33 stops and still get sharp images, thus allowing lower ISO with the 600PF.

Click to expand...

Huh???

You lose 1 1/3 stops of aperture going from the 600 f4 to the 600 f6.3 pf. That is a significant deficit.

One of the signal beauties of these big lenses is the ability to separate subject from background. You don’t have the same ability with the 600 pf.

In addition if you start using teleconverters on these lenses the aperture gap becomes worse. A 1.4x tc on the 600 pf pushes you out to f9, heaven help you use the 2x for then you are out at f13. With the f4 lens adding the 1.4 tc has you at f5.6.

If you can deal with the weight you are going to have better results with the 600 f4.

I don’t currently have one of those big beauties but I do plan to go there one day. I recently got a taste of what it must be like because I recently acquired the 135mm f1.8 Plena. I have seen what creamy dreamy background looks like with a tack sharp subject and it is amazing how that can be exploited creatively.

Nature Files said:

Huh???

Click to expand...

nmerc_photos wrote - the 1.33 less of light doesn't matter because the difference between an 8.5lb and 3lb lens means I can always lower my shutter more than 1.33 stops and still get sharp images, thus allowing lower ISO with the 600PF.

Let me guess what he meant. Don't agree with but I see his point

600 Z is 1 1/3 stop slower (hence the comments about less light)

Because of the weight difference (partiallly due to weight smaller max aperture and partially due to PF vs non-PF) the weight is reduced from 8.5 to 3 Lbs

With lower weight it will possible to handhold at slower shutter speed AND assuming that the aperture is the same on both lens (6.3 or higher). you can use a lower ISO.

Alot of assumptions here ... ignores apertures between 4 and 6.3 on the FX lens


At least that is what I think nmerc was saying

RichF said:

nmerc_photos wrote - the 1.33 less of light doesn't matter because the difference between an 8.5lb and 3lb lens means I can always lower my shutter more than 1.33 stops and still get sharp images, thus allowing lower ISO with the 600PF.

Let me guess what he meant. Don't agree with but I see his point

600 Z is 1 1/3 stop slower (hence the comments about less light)

Because of the weight difference (partiallly due to weight smaller max aperture and partially due to PF vs non-PF) the weight is reduced from 8.5 to 3 Lbs

With lower weight it will possible to handhold at slower shutter speed AND assuming that the aperture is the same on both lens (6.3 or higher). you can use a lower ISO.

Alot of assumptions here ... ignores apertures between 4 and 6.3 on the FX lens


At least that is what I think nmerc was saying

Click to expand...

Yes, that's a lot of assumptions. I would think a heavier lens would shake less while hand holding. Physics doesn't lie:

Nature Files said:

Yes, that's a lot of assumptions. I would think a heavier lens would shake less while hand holding. Physics doesn't lie:

View attachment 93988

Click to expand...

If you think this, you've never handheld the two lenses in question, or done a comparison between a "big and heavy" lens and a "small and light" lens.

It isn't the lens that is shaking, it's the human that is shaking, and there's much more involved than a drastic oversimplification of mass vs acceleration.

If you have access to any of these lenses - go outside and do some testing. 600TC vs 600PF for example when shooting screech owls, I can consistently get sharp images at 1/6s handheld with the 600PF, but rarely get sharp images at 1/50 or slower with the 600TC. With a 600 F4E FL, that number would probably be 1/100 or faster.

Wotan is correct - the 600 F4E will have better subject isolation due to the shallower DOF, but a lot of commenters point at f6.3 lenses and say it must result in higher ISO, which isn't always true due to the differences in size and weight.

Rich was taking a bit more liberties with his assumptions, I meant shooting both wide open. so 600 F4E at f4 vs 600PF at 6.3. all else equal, you will be able to get the same level of sharpness at a lower ISO with the 600PF when handholding, despite the 1.33 stop loss in aperture.

Of course, if you shoot from a tripod - it matters much less and a monopod makes the difference between the two less than handholding, but not as drastic as the tripod.

and as for your "physics" comment and image taken out of context, look at examples of the affects of weight the further it is from your body. with a small, light lens you can keep it neatly up against you. with one of the big beasts, the center of gravity is further away, which induces more strain and shake.

it's why anyone can hold a mallet close to them without difficulty, but powerlifters challenge themselves to hold the same weight with their arms fully extended - and it's much more difficult.

torque is proportional to the distance from the weight to the point of suspension, your body. more force --> more ATP required --> more tiring -> more shaking

there are also many other factors that would make handholding the F4E more difficult. the existence of a larger hood which acts as a sail, the lesser VR/IS whatever, the older technology which means that lens is not built to be as well balanced as a 600PF/600TC, etc.