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

[Steve]

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.

Based on what you say, I'd go 600 TC + 400 4.5 (or, 100-400 - I love the 600TC + 100-400 combo and I take it on most of my Nikon trips). I've also used the 400TC + 800 BUT it's much larger overall. I'd still keep the 600 and 800 though - it's nice to have them for trips where you have to go light - or just hiking in the woods.

 

[Tim Karels]

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.

I would certainly sell off the 800 PF. Although it's much lighter than the 600 TC, it isn't that light to justify keeping both. I'd probably never use it. On the other hand, I would never sell off the 600 PF. It seems redundant to have two 600 mm lenses but the 600 mm is what I take hiking with me or when I need to travel light. Up to now, it's my most used lens. It gets a lot more use than the 800 PF because of its compactness without sacrificing image quality.

 

[Steve]

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

Same settings, lights were the same and they sure look close on my computer. Maybe a slight difference in light transmission? Gotta watch those T-Stops

 

[Tim Karels]

Based on what you say, I'd go 600 TC + 400 4.5 (or, 100-400 - I love the 600TC + 100-400 combo and I take it on most of my Nikon trips). I've also used the 400TC + 800 BUT it's much larger overall. I'd still keep the 600 and 800 though - it's nice to have them for trips where you have to go light - or just hiking in the woods.

That's a good point that the 400 2.8 + 800 PF is a larger combination. I'll definitely keep the 600 PF. I'm not so certain about keeping the 800 PF as well. I can think of times when I might take that on a trip rather than a 600 TC, but I am fairly confident that it will sit in the closet most of the time. If and when I decide to get the 600, I'll figure how much I can get on trading in the 800. It might be worth it just to keep on hand.

 

[Steve]

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.

That's a tough call. FWIW, I prefer the 800PF if I'm shooting a lot at 800mm. For practical purposes, IQ is the same and that third of a stop doesn't bother me one bit. However, the 800 is smaller and lighter - and I love that! I use the thing hand-held far more often that I anticipated. I think it comes down to how critical lower lights performance is for you in the 400-560/600mm range. You might not even really need a big prime. And, if you do, I would almost lean a little towards the 400 2.8. I figure, if most of your stuff is at 800mm, that 800PF would be your primary lens, not either of the exotics. In that case, the 400 2.8 might make more sense. You'd have 400 and 560 for the times you need it and then use the 800PF for most of your work.

I mean, a good argument can be made for the 600 as well, but if you're really at 800mm most of the time, why not use the lighter, smaller lens?

Obviously, if you were more 600/800/840 the 600 + 400 4.5 is the way to go, but at 800 all the time changes the game.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Calson]

I agree with your use of an application to summarize by focal length your images taken. What is overlooked is that a great many images were of large mammals photographed in Africa and this skews the results for those not investing in multiple expensive trips overseas.

 

[Steve]

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.

I go for the 100-400. It's not quite as sharp as the prime, but still very good - and versatile. I find that when I get down to 400mm or less, zooming flexibility seems more important than it does when I need longer focal lengths.

I'm still hoping for a 100-30 2.8 TC

 

[Steve]

First world problems.

the 300 GM with/without a TC meets 90% of my wildlife use cases. My 600mm f/4 use has fallen off dramatically.

That lens is crazy good and takes TCs better than any lens I've ever used - both 1.4 and 2X. I'm taking it as my main lens to the Galapagos and not taking either of the big primes.

 

[JAJohnson]

I'm still hoping for a 100-30 2.8 TC

Availability of that lens from Nikon would cause me to rethink my telephoto portfolio. Maybe we’ll see it within the coming 12 to 18 months.

 

[fcotterill]

The 300f2.8 they don't make yet

The 120-300 f2.8E SR is still the ultimate option, and with TC14 III. This is one of the best zoom telephotos ever released

Commando Kit options are the dinky 300 f4E PF in No 1 position or a 70-300 AFP

However, the heftier 300 f2.8G VR still holds its own - sublime bokeh - and it pairs well with teleconverters

 

[Steve Pumilia]

Thanks Steve. I am glad you addressed the 400 with the 2x versus stacked 1.4x -- I have wondered about that.

 

[fcotterill]

Excellent synopsis Steve. thank you. It's instructive to consider all the aspects, particularly DoF with subject size(s), and distances: plus TC Factors.

I relied on my superb 400 f2.8E FL for almost 4 years but quickly realized it confirmed a big coverage Gap to be 800mm ' Reach'.

It finally became feasible to fill the 800 gap in 2022. Now it's the 400 f4.5S or 500 PF in my Commando Kit, and 180-400 TC as primary wildlife lens - with genuine 800 prime.

We are living in best of times with so many excellent choices, and the worst of times in agonies of the correct choices and the high costs!

 

[TurtleCat]

I’ve got this on my watch later. Must see Youtube!

 

[Steve]

Thanks Steve. I am glad you addressed the 400 with the 2x versus stacked 1.4x -- I have wondered about that.

It's close - but it's weird how the stack is better towards the edges and the 2X better in the center.

 

[MatthewK]

An amazing video, but it didn't help, I still can't decide

 

[Takatanaka]

Great video. Thanks a lot, Steve!

I currently own an old AF-S 500mm f/4 (and the F mount 1.4x TC) and the Z 400mm f/4.5 (and the Z 1.4x TC).
I used to shoot with the AF-S coupled on the D500 and more recently coupled on my Z8 with the FTZ II. This combo is a kind of love and hate (regardless of the attached body)... I love the results of this lens (sharpness, keep rate, focus speed... etc. On other hand I hate this combo weight and the resulting reduced mobility.

Only because of the weight (and somehow limited budget), I decided to go for the Z 400 f/4.5 and the Z 1.4x TC on my Z8. Yes, I am very happy with the results on my wildlife photography with this combo (mainly birding). I also gained less arms and shoulder pain as well as more mobility while shooting.
Most of the time (but not always), I use it with the 1.4x TC installed on FX mode, sometimes when I need a bit more reach, I switch the camera to DX mode.
Despite the fact that this solution serves my wildlife purposes, the ideal would be a 600 or 800mm f/4 lens weighting and costing about the same as the Z 400mm f/4.5

 

[Steve]

We are living in best of times with so many excellent choices, and the worst of times in agonies of the correct choices and the high costs!

Thanks - it was almost easier when there weren't so many choices out there! I get daily emails asking this lens or that. Plus, all of the new lenses are SOOOO good now!

 

[bsinc1962]

Power move by Steve when the first scene in the video he's sitting behind >$50k worth of glass.

That being said I went with the Z400 f/2.8 due to the majority of my subject matter. Great video.

 

[wotan1]

I have noticed that with quality long primes they work together if the second lens roughly doubles the focal length of the first. Thus, if I have a 400mm f4.5 the 600 PF is too close. I am better off with the 800mm pf.

I would think similarly if you are working with a 600mm pf for instance, a shorter prime lens would be 300mm.

At one point I had the 400mm f4/5. the 600mm pf and the 800mm pf. I found that the 600 did not get much use. Too short for anything under 600 of course and when I got to 800 I much preferred the 800 pf. So I ended up letting the 600 go.

I could see that if you already have the 600mm TC you are probably better off with the100-400 rather than the 400mm f4.5 because the 100-400 gives you greater range.

The main reason to my mind to have a prime over zoom is the better IQ and the ability to crop significantly. However when you are using a decent quality zoom for shorter stuff you don't need to crop so maybe it does not matter.

 

[wotan1]

That's a tough call. FWIW, I prefer the 800PF if I'm shooting a lot at 800mm. For practical purposes, IQ is the same and that third of a stop doesn't bother me one bit. However, the 800 is smaller and lighter - and I love that! I use the thing hand-held far more often that I anticipated. I think it comes down to how critical lower lights performance is for you in the 400-560/600mm range. You might not even really need a big prime. And, if you do, I would almost lean a little towards the 400 2.8. I figure, if most of your stuff is at 800mm, that 800PF would be your primary lens, not either of the exotics. In that case, the 400 2.8 might make more sense. You'd have 400 and 560 for the times you need it and then use the 800PF for most of your work.

I mean, a good argument can be made for the 600 as well, but if you're really at 800mm most of the time, why not use the lighter, smaller lens?

Obviously, if you were more 600/800/840 the 600 + 400 4.5 is the way to go, but at 800 all the time changes the game.

Just some thoughts.

I am averse to air travel I did too much of it while working and I would be happy never to get on a plane again.

I now live in the middle of Bird Paradise In Washington State where a lot of birds come to winter. There are literally thousands of them in one place under right conditions, the predators hang around because there is plenty of food. Plus you have the salmon runs that lead to feeding frenzies.

So I intend to spend my time closer to home and will only travel if I can drive there in one day more or less. Which by the way puts me in range of Yellowstone and the Grand Tietons as well as British Columbia and the Canadian Rockies.

I have examined my conduct when going out for a bird shoot. I nearly always lead with the 800 and bring a tripod and gimbal. Many times I don't even bother with a shorter lens the only time I might need one is if a flying bird is getting into close range.

I am planning to do more low light shooting. Now that I live close I can do more magic hour photography because I am only 15-30 minutes away from the prime sites around here.

The salmon runs will be on local rivers and I suspect I will be closer for them.

Right now I am thinking the 400mm f2.8 is something to think about. I think I am going to rent one once things settle down here. We only got moved about two weeks ago and still have a lot of unpacking to do.

 

[Steve]

I am averse to air travel I did too much of it while working and I would be happy never to get on a plane again.

I now live in the middle of Bird Paradise In Washington State where a lot of birds come to winter. There are literally thousands of them in one place under right conditions, the predators hang around because there is plenty of food. Plus you have the salmon runs that lead to feeding frenzies.

So I intend to spend my time closer to home and will only travel if I can drive there in one day more or less. Which by the way puts me in range of Yellowstone and the Grand Tietons as well as British Columbia and the Canadian Rockies.

I have examined my conduct when going out for a bird shoot. I nearly always lead with the 800 and bring a tripod and gimbal. Many times I don't even bother with a shorter lens the only time I might need one is if a flying bird is getting into close range.

I am planning to do more low light shooting. Now that I live close I can do more magic hour photography because I am only 15-30 minutes away from the prime sites around here.

The salmon runs will be on local rivers and I suspect I will be closer for them.

Right now I am thinking the 400mm f2.8 is something to think about. I think I am going to rent one once things settle down here. We only got moved about two weeks ago and still have a lot of unpacking to do.

Renting first is always a good idea

 

[RichF]

Another great video. Very comprehensive so the length was required and necessary to have all the details included.

A follow on video that I would like to see - I will speak of Nikon only but might apply to Sony and/or Canon. Talking about ML lenses

1). 400 F/2.8 TC vs 400 F/4.5. Straight and with TC

2). 600 F/4 TC vs 600 PF F/6.3. Again straight and w/ TC

3. Following the questions in this video, 400 F/4.5 w/ TC vs 600 PF F/6.3

4. 600 PF F/6.3 w/ TC vs 800 PF F/6.3

How much is lost when choosing the slower, lighter lens?

 

[TurtleCat]

Watching it I think I’m going to not get either. Don’t get me wrong, I want both. But I think I’m just too interested in too many things and if I picked one I’d want the other as well. So this plus Scott Key’s similar video from a few weeks ago have finally convinced me to not worry about and enjoy my 100-400 and 600pf with their inherent limitations.

 

[Nature Files]

I hate cropping and I hate TCs. With that said, my 800pf/Z8 is a match made in heaven for me and my bird photography. I rounded out my wildlife kit with a 100-400Z last year, which is now my go-to butterfly lens. Life is good!

 

[Mark_Laidlaw]

That's a tough call. FWIW, I prefer the 800PF if I'm shooting a lot at 800mm. For practical purposes, IQ is the same and that third of a stop doesn't bother me one bit. However, the 800 is smaller and lighter - and I love that! I use the thing hand-held far more often that I anticipated. I think it comes down to how critical lower lights performance is for you in the 400-560/600mm range. You might not even really need a big prime. And, if you do, I would almost lean a little towards the 400 2.8. I figure, if most of your stuff is at 800mm, that 800PF would be your primary lens, not either of the exotics. In that case, the 400 2.8 might make more sense. You'd have 400 and 560 for the times you need it and then use the 800PF for most of your work.

I mean, a good argument can be made for the 600 as well, but if you're really at 800mm most of the time, why not use the lighter, smaller lens?

Obviously, if you were more 600/800/840 the 600 + 400 4.5 is the way to go, but at 800 all the time changes the game.

Just some thoughts.

This is the route I went. For those little songbirds like sparrows, chickadees, junco's, if my 400/4.5 isn't long enough, the 1.4TC won't be either. That said, I've never had to put the 1.4 on the 800. If I'm at 800mm and the 1.4 needs to be considered, I'm just too far away because the atmosphere will wreck any gains.