400mm F/2.8 Vs. 600mm F/4 - Which Is BEST For Wildlife And Bird Photography?

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).

Steve

Steve

Admin
Staff member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
So which is better for wildlife and bird photography? The 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4? Check out this "Big Glass Masterclass" and avoid a $13,000 mistake! There are so many assumptions made about these lenses that are just plain wrong - and this video sets the record straight - and helps you pick the best lens for YOUR needs!

Heck, even if you aren't ready to buy, there is a TON of info in this video that will surprise you!
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Going to watch this, and will certainly enjoy (love all your vids, sir!), but I already know the outcome for me will be confirmation that I personally don't need either of the lenses beyond profound gear lust (and the need to give NIkon my cash) which resulted in me owning the fabulous and shiny 600 tc :D (Let alone my owning the 180-400 tc, too.)
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for that Steve. I've been stewing over both lenses for a year now and haven't been able to make up my mind. What complicates my decision is that I already have a 400 4.5, 600 6.3 PF and 800 6.3 PF. So my indecisiveness has been between pairing the 400 2.8 TC with the 800 PF, or pairing the 400 4.5 with the 600 4.0 TC. I had been strongly considering the 400 2.8 TC because of the minimum focus distance advantage, but you are correct. The amount of time that I can get closer to small critters than what a 600mm lens can is not that frequent. I'm now leaning 600 TC. I've got a 6 week trip to Yellowstone/Grand Tetons this summer so I hope I can make up mind by then, else just go with what I have now because I know it'll still get me lots of good shots.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Tim Karels said:
Thanks for that Steve. I've been stewing over both lenses for a year now and haven't been able to make up my mind. What complicates my decision is that I already have a 400 4.5, 600 6.3 PF and 800 6.3 PF. So my indecisiveness has been between pairing the 400 2.8 TC with the 800 PF, or pairing the 400 4.5 with the 600 4.0 TC. I had been strongly considering the 400 2.8 TC because of the minimum focus distance advantage, but you are correct. The amount of time that I can get closer to small critters than what a 600mm lens can is not that frequent. I'm not leaning 600 TC. I've got a 6 week trip to Yellowstone/Grand Tetons this summer so I hope I can make up mind by then, else just go with what I have now because I know it'll still get me lots of good shots.
Click to expand...
I would go with the 600TC and 400 4.5. Good combo and most compact combo. I took a 200-600, 400f2.8 and 600 f4 on my last trip to Yellowstone (2.5 weeks) and I shot the 600 significantly more but the 400 range was handy. I didn't shoot tele converters much at all on that trip.
 
That was very interesting. Main takeaway? As you emphasized, subject distance is key.

As an aside, I was wondering why on some of the side by side comparisons the example on the right seemed a little darker than the one on the left? For example the test chart showing the 400 2x vs. 600 1.4
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
That was very interesting. Main takeaway? As you emphasized, subject distance is key.

As an aside, I was wondering why on some of the side by side comparisons the example on the right seemed a little darker than the one on the left?
Click to expand...
Interested to see what Steve says but one thing I have noticed on my 400GM vs my 600GM is the light transmission on the 400GM seems to be greater. If I have them side by side and the 400GM stopped down to F4 my camera meeter will select a lower ISO on the 400GM than the 600GM. It isn't much maybe a 1/3 of a stop but it is consistent.
 
Member's gallery
ssheipel said:
Going to watch this, and will certainly enjoy (love all your vids, sir!), but I already know the outcome for me will be confirmation that I personally don't need either of the lenses beyond profound gear lust (and the need to give NIkon my cash) which resulted in me owning the fabulous and shiny 600 tc :D (Let alone my owning the 180-400 tc, too.)
Click to expand...

+1 got the NAS bug a few years back and am the happy owner of the 600 TC but is already joined by the 180-600, the 600 & 800 PF ;)
 
Member's gallery
Tim Karels said:
Thanks for that Steve. I've been stewing over both lenses for a year now and haven't been able to make up my mind. What complicates my decision is that I already have a 400 4.5, 600 6.3 PF and 800 6.3 PF. So my indecisiveness has been between pairing the 400 2.8 TC with the 800 PF, or pairing the 400 4.5 with the 600 4.0 TC. I had been strongly considering the 400 2.8 TC because of the minimum focus distance advantage, but you are correct. The amount of time that I can get closer to small critters than what a 600mm lens can is not that frequent. I'm now leaning 600 TC. I've got a 6 week trip to Yellowstone/Grand Tetons this summer so I hope I can make up mind by then, else just go with what I have now because I know it'll still get me lots of good shots.
Click to expand...
My opinion isn't worth much as I shoot a 200-500 currently but I have been mulling over my upgrade options as of late. In my opinion the 600mm tc offers you the ability to sell off your 600 and 800 while upgrading to lessen the cost of that upgrade. You would also still be having the compact 400mm should you need it, makes it easy to pack it along with you on a shoot and then just swap lenses if the situation demands it. You're effectively replacing two bulkier options with one lens, the 400 2.8 coupled with the 800 6.3 is a lot of kit to plan and pack around.
 
Member's gallery
I have been thinking long and hard about this subject.

What I observe about my own shooting is that 800mm is of paramount importance to me in my wildlife activity. In this respect I already have the 800mm pf and find the lens wonderful.

Steve did a comparison test a while back between the 800 pf and 600 f4 with 1.4x tc. He found the 800mm pf held up well against the more expensive prime and probably actually did marginally better, yet the difference was negligible.

So to me having the 600mm f4 tc vr means I would have a marginally wider aperture (5.6 v 6.3) at 800/840mm but the 800 pf would be equally sharp. The 800 pf would be a bit lighter and easier to handle.

I already shoot with the 400mm f4.5 which I prefer because it has better IQ than the 100-400, It seems I always go with the lens with the better image quality.

The other lesson I learned from these comparisons and my own observation is that the more you stray beyond the lens' native focal length the more things come apart. The 1.4tc works well but adding another tc or going to 2.0 starts to degrade. That means that if I needed to gain additional reach beyond 800 I may actually do better with the 800 pf than the 600 f4. The 600 is already extended to get out to 800 while the 8 is at its native focal length. This means the 800 still has all the options for extending range including cropping, dx or 1.4x tc.

Obviously between these two super primes the 600mm f4 tc vr would be the best choice for me since I shoot at 800mm a lot. However I already have the 800 mm pf and I would not be gaining any IQ at 800. I would be gaining flexibility with the ability to jump between 600 and 800 with the flip of a lever. But when I shoot at 800 I usually am happy with that focal length and do not want to get back. Plus I could grab my 400mm f4.5 and cover shorter subjects.

So when I look at the 400mm f2.8 I am now looking at a comparison between that lens and the 400mm f4.5. The 4.5 is a nice lens, very compact and easy to use.

Anyway those are my observations and my mind is open to hear of others' experience with these big lenses.
 
Member's gallery
Great video! For those who chose the Nikon 600, the question becomes what to bring along as a second lens: 100-400 (softer than a prime) 180-600 (softer than a prime and heavy), 400 4.5 (too close to 600, no range), 70-200 2.8 (too short, and heavy). I chose the 180-600, but....... Maybe the mythical lightweight Z 300 f2.8 would fit the bill. Exactly half the length and fast.
 
Member's gallery
Gov said:
Great video! For those who chose the Nikon 600, the question becomes what to bring along as a second lens: 100-400 (softer than a prime) 180-600 (softer than a prime and heavy), 400 4.5 (too close to 600, no range), 70-200 2.8 (too short, and heavy). I chose the 180-600, but....... Maybe the mythical lightweight Z 300 f2.8 would fit the bill. Exactly half the length and fast.
Click to expand...
The 300f2.8 they don't make yet ;)
 
Member's gallery
Gov said:
Great video! For those who chose the Nikon 600, the question becomes what to bring along as a second lens: 100-400 (softer than a prime) 180-600 (softer than a prime and heavy), 400 4.5 (too close to 600, no range), 70-200 2.8 (too short, and heavy). I chose the 180-600, but....... Maybe the mythical lightweight Z 300 f2.8 would fit the bill. Exactly half the length and fast.
Click to expand...
My current 'second lens' is the 180-400 tc if I'm in a have a second lens along situation, but close to home I ain't carting that around on my back while carrying the 600! Once the pennies are saved I'm going to grab a Z 70-200 and a 2x zTC for second lens duties.
 
Member's gallery
I used to have a 600 f4, but have since sold it & purchased used copies of 4002.8 e fl & 8005.6 e fl. I find the 400 works better for me when the light is low & 800 when I need the reach (I use a 500 pf for general use i.e. most of the time). Yes, there are times when I think I wish I had the 600, too, but I can’t justify spending anymore money on lenses, even though I buy them cheap/used!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top