Nature Files
Active member
Agreed. The 800 will teach lessons on atmospheric distortion really quick. Us wildlife shooters should be napping during the bright, midday sun anyways right?
400mm F/2.8 Vs. 600mm F/4 - Which Is BEST For Wildlife And Bird Photography?
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
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).
Garfield
Well-known member
Great video Steve. As wild bird videographer that can't really crop 4k files in post, the decision was easy...and the external 1.4xTC hardly ever comes off my 600TC at that!
Mark_Laidlaw
Member
If I'm going to shoot, I'll leave my camera bag locked up in the bed of my pickup overnight and leave it there when I'm driving out in the mornings just to ensure temperature deltas are kept to a minimum and so when I arrive at the location, I don't have to wait for the gear to acclimate.Agreed. The 800 will teach lessons on atmospheric distortion really quick. Us wildlife shooters should be napping during the bright, midday sun anyways right?
Is there a better reviewer? No! Your videos are the best, Steve!
I went through the dilemma of deciding which super tele to get about 4 months ago when I had the opportunity to take up a great trade-in deal a bricks and mortar store was offering a "double the trade-in value" on any Nikon lens traded on a new Z lens. My 400 f2.8E FL VR was now worth "gold" as a trade-in, more than I could get as a private sale even though they didn't actually offer the full double value for the trade on the 400 f2.8E FL VR - it ended up being I decided to trade it in on either a Z 400 TC or Z 600 TC and agonized over the decision over a number of days. A good friend suggested that the Z 600 TC is probably more my range and after lots of thinking about it, he was correct as I used to use my 400 f2.8E FL VR with the 1.4x TCIII almost permanently attached to the lens when on a FF camera. Even on my D500, it was more often than not used with the 1.4x TCIII which means 840mm. I also had the Z 800 PF and it was almost my most used lens since I had it so, I decided to go the Z 600 TC route and don't regret it for a minute. The Z 800 PF was also used as a trade-in to help fund the Z 600 TC as it also attracted the "double the trade-in value" - a maximum of two lenses could be traded. What a deal!! I am sure it was backed by Nikon in some way.
Like you Steve, it is rare I can get that close enough to many subjects where MFD comes into play for the Z 600 TC. I shoot mainly small, medium and large birds and even the large birds mostly require 600mm. So, for birders, I think 600mm is generally more likely the correct choice but if you shoot mainly animals or very large birds, then a 400 maybe more suitable.
What I think is interesting in your test is how well the internal TC resolves to the edges on both lenses. Quite amazing in fact.
It would be interesting to see how the 600 TC stacks up against the 800 PF at the 1200mm mark - 600TC with 2x 1.4x TC or 2x TC against the 800 PF with the 1.4x TC.
Again, another fantastic very helpful video, Steve.
I went through the dilemma of deciding which super tele to get about 4 months ago when I had the opportunity to take up a great trade-in deal a bricks and mortar store was offering a "double the trade-in value" on any Nikon lens traded on a new Z lens. My 400 f2.8E FL VR was now worth "gold" as a trade-in, more than I could get as a private sale even though they didn't actually offer the full double value for the trade on the 400 f2.8E FL VR - it ended up being I decided to trade it in on either a Z 400 TC or Z 600 TC and agonized over the decision over a number of days. A good friend suggested that the Z 600 TC is probably more my range and after lots of thinking about it, he was correct as I used to use my 400 f2.8E FL VR with the 1.4x TCIII almost permanently attached to the lens when on a FF camera. Even on my D500, it was more often than not used with the 1.4x TCIII which means 840mm. I also had the Z 800 PF and it was almost my most used lens since I had it so, I decided to go the Z 600 TC route and don't regret it for a minute. The Z 800 PF was also used as a trade-in to help fund the Z 600 TC as it also attracted the "double the trade-in value" - a maximum of two lenses could be traded. What a deal!! I am sure it was backed by Nikon in some way.
Like you Steve, it is rare I can get that close enough to many subjects where MFD comes into play for the Z 600 TC. I shoot mainly small, medium and large birds and even the large birds mostly require 600mm. So, for birders, I think 600mm is generally more likely the correct choice but if you shoot mainly animals or very large birds, then a 400 maybe more suitable.
What I think is interesting in your test is how well the internal TC resolves to the edges on both lenses. Quite amazing in fact.
It would be interesting to see how the 600 TC stacks up against the 800 PF at the 1200mm mark - 600TC with 2x 1.4x TC or 2x TC against the 800 PF with the 1.4x TC.
Again, another fantastic very helpful video, Steve.
Last edited:
Thanks so much!
I'd like to do a test like that, but I don't think my basement is long enough - I have a tough time getting to 1200mm, - although maybe I can manage with just the DX area of my little test chart.
And I think it needs to be done in a controlled environment (like your basement) which means inside is best as the light can be controlled and there are less atmospherics to worry about. But that can't be done, unfortunately. To be quite honest, I don't think it is an imperative test as my Z 600TC at 1200mm with both 1.4x TC's gave a great result as did my Z 800 PF with 1.4x TC. Realistically, I only ever used the Z 800 PF + 1.4x TC a few times and the results were excellent considering the extremely long focal length. I did do a few test shots with the Z 600 TC with both 1.4x TC's with a lorikeet and the results were also excellent, considering the extreme focal length. My general rule of thumb is that around the 800mm is the longest focal length I use due to the shutter speed/aperture/ISO triangle. So, at the end of the day, a test at 1200mm isn't a big deal for me as I am not going to get the Z 800 PF again any time soon if ever, the Z 600 TC is all that I need. I have seen plenty of great images on the net with the Z 600 TC at 1200mm and incredibly, plenty of excellent results at 1680mm - Z 600 TC with internal 1.4x engaged + an external 2x TC!
Last edited:
Thanks Steve for this amazing and well documented videos. As usual, it is very interesting.
I did exactly the same as you mention in your video and as you did. To decide to buy the 600 tc or the 400 tc, I checked the focal lens of the majority of my photos that I took over the years at that time and found that around 70 % were taken at 600 mm and over. So the choice was easy, and I bought the 600 mm Tc. I have been using this lens for the last two years and I took with it more than 120 thousands photos, all kind of animals and mostly birds. I am so happy that I chose this lens.
However, I am still thinking about the 400 tc, because I really want to have this 2.8 focal for low light situation. I am photographing more and more in blue and golden hours. With the 600 tc, it is ok , but sometimes I have to use very high iso when there is action And not enough light.
I did exactly the same as you mention in your video and as you did. To decide to buy the 600 tc or the 400 tc, I checked the focal lens of the majority of my photos that I took over the years at that time and found that around 70 % were taken at 600 mm and over. So the choice was easy, and I bought the 600 mm Tc. I have been using this lens for the last two years and I took with it more than 120 thousands photos, all kind of animals and mostly birds. I am so happy that I chose this lens.
However, I am still thinking about the 400 tc, because I really want to have this 2.8 focal for low light situation. I am photographing more and more in blue and golden hours. With the 600 tc, it is ok , but sometimes I have to use very high iso when there is action And not enough light.
RikWriter
Well-known member
For me, it was a no-brainer, since most of my shots are either at around 800mm or down below 300mm. Got the 600f4 and put a 1.4X TC on it and usually carry the 100-400 around my neck when I have the 600 on a tripod.
I really did not need to watch this but could not help myself Being a bird ID photographer constantly on the move with a lot of small birds in heavy cover and various birds in flight suddenly showing up the Z600 f.4TC was my dream lens.
My LRC catalog shows a bias since 4-1-22 to the Z800 f/6.3 prior to that 600 because that was the longest focal length I owned. Back in my DSLR days my 600 f/4 E was a great lens but I frequently wished for a quick move to the 800 mm range and a more logistically friendly lens. With the Z800 pf there were many times that I got jammed with BIF and even some little brown jobs being a bit to close for 800 f/6.3.
When I was using the Z180-600 for a while it was almost always at 600 or maybe 500. In my DSLR years Sigma 60-600 sport, my Sigma 150-600 Sport and my Tamron 150-600 G2 spent the vast majoriity of time at 600. My Nikon 200-500 at 500 with heavier cropping.
So I went with the Z600 f/4TC and sold my Z800 f/6.3. I kept the Z600 f/6.3 to pair with my Z6III because I will never forget @Steve 's barrel roll with that combo My 3rd birding lens on my second Z9 or Z6III is the Tamron z mount 150-500 and it meets my needs for variable focal length being lighter and more compact than my now sold Z180-600 and when I need variable focal length it is right in my wheel house.
Being a bird ID photographer constantly on the move with a lot of small birds in heavy cover and various birds in flight suddenly showing up the Z600 f.4TC was my dream lens.My LRC catalog shows a bias since 4-1-22 to the Z800 f/6.3 prior to that 600 because that was the longest focal length I owned. Back in my DSLR days my 600 f/4 E was a great lens but I frequently wished for a quick move to the 800 mm range and a more logistically friendly lens. With the Z800 pf there were many times that I got jammed with BIF and even some little brown jobs being a bit to close for 800 f/6.3.
When I was using the Z180-600 for a while it was almost always at 600 or maybe 500. In my DSLR years Sigma 60-600 sport, my Sigma 150-600 Sport and my Tamron 150-600 G2 spent the vast majoriity of time at 600. My Nikon 200-500 at 500 with heavier cropping.
So I went with the Z600 f/4TC and sold my Z800 f/6.3. I kept the Z600 f/6.3 to pair with my Z6III because I will never forget @Steve 's barrel roll with that combo
My 3rd birding lens on my second Z9 or Z6III is the Tamron z mount 150-500 and it meets my needs for variable focal length being lighter and more compact than my now sold Z180-600 and when I need variable focal length it is right in my wheel house.
1680 is nuts - and the fact that it can pull a successful image is crazy! I don't think I've ever even tried it LOL!
Nuts is right. Here is the person's Flickr link:
I know these are small images but still it's not bad considering:
@Steve Steve, do you like the 100-400? I have the 24-70 f2.8, the 70-200 f2.8, the 180-600 and the 400 f4.5 that cover me up 600mm( plus the 600 tc) . I want to know your thought about the 100-400 if it is sharper than the 180-600 at the same focal, and if it is better then the 70-200 f2.8 with 1.4 tc let say up to 300 mm. I just want to know how sharp it is compare to what I have and to know if I should consider adding it to my bag. I kind feel, like I need to make some changes with my gear . Also, if you don’t mind, what do you think of the 24-120? I know I am asking you a lot, sorry and thanks .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.
ajrmd
Well-known member
One of your finest videos ever Steve. Now if only I could spin thread into gold, the choice would be clear.
Wrogu
Active member
By term affordable I would imagine the used G/E or mk II glassI might do just that - although, I think it would be pretty much the same results, just with smaller F/stops and lighter weights
Although I am not in a market for Canon and Nikon it would be fun to watch such a video. How much has the gear advanced, is it just weight and AF or is there more to that.Somewhere in the unforseen future, given recent sony glass reception (50 1.4, 300 2.8, 28-70 f2) it would be interesting to see if the new rumored 400 2.8 surpasses the current one by a noticable margin
Is there a lot of developemnt made in the optics? A year ago I would argue that there is not much progress ... but this year Sony seems to prove me wrong.It would also be a fun test to check the glass on an old body (20-24 MPX) and on a new high mpx body (Z vs E and G).
@Webbie! There were tests of nikon primes (400 4.5/600 PF/800 PF ) and they seemed to be really good. I would guess Steve is spot on that the main difference would be weight and Fstop. In Steve the 600 Sony vs Nikon video there is also 800mm PF in the mix
Kjellis
Well-known member
I was really hoping you would compare the 600 TC with stacked tc’s versus the 2x tc also
Great video and a also a confirmation that I made the right choise when I bought the 600 TC
I own both the Z800 and the Z600TC (along with the 500PF, the 180-400TC and the 180-600 [...] ).
The beauty of the Z600 and the only real reason for me to leave the 800PF behind is its versatility, nothing beats being in the bush and be able to reframe back from 800 (840) to 600, while gaining a stop+ against the 800.
However, when not on a fully (or mainly) birding scenario, the 180-400 TC + the 800PF is "the" combo for me. The 184 for "everything" and when needed more FL, the Z800 is the champion (in this context and considering weight as well).
I mean, you can travel very heavy having the 184 and the 600 or, you can travel "light" by leaving the Z600 and adding the Z800.
Now, if travelling really light, and only one lens is on the table, the Z600 AND a 70-200/2.8 on another Z8/Z9 (to take advantage of the 47mpx) would be my choice.
It seems a huge gap uncovered but if we need a wider angle, 200mm should do the trick, specially if cropping a bit. And eventually, having a 1.4TC at hand if all goes wrong with the shorter FL choice...
Either way, it's a luxury to have so many choices, specially with the high Mpx of the newer cameras.
Krgds, Marcelo
ps: thanks @Steve for the video!
The beauty of the Z600 and the only real reason for me to leave the 800PF behind is its versatility, nothing beats being in the bush and be able to reframe back from 800 (840) to 600, while gaining a stop+ against the 800.
However, when not on a fully (or mainly) birding scenario, the 180-400 TC + the 800PF is "the" combo for me. The 184 for "everything" and when needed more FL, the Z800 is the champion (in this context and considering weight as well).
I mean, you can travel very heavy having the 184 and the 600 or, you can travel "light" by leaving the Z600 and adding the Z800.
Now, if travelling really light, and only one lens is on the table, the Z600 AND a 70-200/2.8 on another Z8/Z9 (to take advantage of the 47mpx) would be my choice.
It seems a huge gap uncovered but if we need a wider angle, 200mm should do the trick, specially if cropping a bit. And eventually, having a 1.4TC at hand if all goes wrong with the shorter FL choice...
Either way, it's a luxury to have so many choices, specially with the high Mpx of the newer cameras.
Krgds, Marcelo
ps: thanks @Steve for the video!
I watched this video yesterday and although I don’t imagine I‘ll buy either (money aside, a bit too big and heavy for me) I think the principles of what prime to choose was very useful. So now I know I have the ‘wrong’ lens in my Sony 300 F2.8! (which I use with a 2xTC 99% of the time) It does mean that if Sony ever make a slower/PF equivalent 600mm then I definitely will buy one.
It does mean that if Sony ever make a slower/PF equivalent 600mm then I definitely will buy one.
ajrmd
Well-known member
Used a 300 f/2.8 for years w and w/o a tc. For sports, it was great for swimming, motocross, cycling, skiing, etc. A 300 f/2.8 performs incredibly well with tc’s. With a 1.4xtc, it was fine for large mammals and 2x it was a solid WL lens provided the subject was large enough. Alas, most of my WL is farther away so 600mm at the long end didn’t cut it and switching tc’s in the field isn’t the best option. For some users, it is a useful solution.I watched this video yesterday and although I don’t imagine I‘ll buy either (money aside, a bit too big and heavy for me) I think the principles of what prime to choose was very useful. So now I know I have the ‘wrong’ lens in my Sony 300 F2.8! (which I use with a 2xTC 99% of the time)
I like it, although at the long end it trails the 180-600 for sharpness a bit. BUT for my trips where I want a single bag, the 600, and a couple of bodies, the 180-600 won't fit. It's all about compromise.
I don't really have enough room to do it. I could just use the center of the target, but it's not the same as the sides of the target when comparing. I might do some tests later though -I made that target and should use itI was really hoping you would compare the 600 TC with stacked tc’s versus the 2x tc also
Great video and a also a confirmation that I made the right choise when I bought the 600 TC
(It took a few days to get it right)
I'd love to see a Sony 600 "PF" style lens! Although, FWIW, the 300 22.8 Sony takes TCs better than any lens I've used - at least based on field work. (I haven't formally tested it with charts and stuff).I watched this video yesterday and although I don’t imagine I‘ll buy either (money aside, a bit too big and heavy for me) I think the principles of what prime to choose was very useful. So now I know I have the ‘wrong’ lens in my Sony 300 F2.8! (which I use with a 2xTC 99% of the time)
Vincent_VdB
Well-known member
Exactly why I have the 100-400 with me when I travel with the 600TC, fitting this in a backpack comfortably along with other stuff. However, I am leaving Saturday for Canada, the future 51st state of the US of AI don't really have enough room to do it. I could just use the center of the target, but it's not the same as the sides of the target when comparing. I might do some tests later though -I made that target and should use it
) to photograph snowy owls and is my Mr JanGear Boris backpack packed to the max with 2x Z9, the 180-600 and 600TC along with spare batteries, memory cards, USB cables, … it will also be the first serious trip for the 180-600 lens so really looking forward to put it to the test (firmware is the latest version to deal with the freezing temperature).
Thank you for replying and for your thoughtI like it, although at the long end it trails the 180-600 for sharpness a bit. BUT for my trips where I want a single bag, the 600, and a couple of bodies, the 180-600 won't fit. It's all about compromise.
We like our neighbors but we are proud to be CanadianHowever, I am leaving Saturday for Canada, the future 51st state of the US of A
