Vincent_VdB
Well-known member
I was a bit hesitant to write it but glad you took it with a smileWe like our neighbors but we are proud to be Canadian
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).
I found it funny and it made me laugh. It is nice from time to time to jock about things and not to take everything seriously. Hope you will enjoy your tripI was a bit hesitant to write it but glad you took it with a smile
mzwang
Well-known member
I have Nikon 600mm TC, 800mm PF, 600mm PF and 400mm f/4.5. My main focus is bird in flight. I use either 800mm or 840mm (600mm +1.4x) almost all the time. 400mm is just too short for birds and small animals. My style is using gimbal head on monopod with holster support. I walk around or hike. Even with 800mm or 840mm, I still missed a lot of opportunities due to distance. Lighting is the main factor for me to choose which lens. For small bird in flight, 600mm pf + 1.4 give me more success rate.
What about the combo Z600tc + 70/200? Would it be a choice of yours for just 1 bag (2 bodies, of course)?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.
If too heavy the 2.8...perhaps the 70/200 f/4?
Krgds, Marcelo
Too much of a gap between 200mm and 600. I mean, you could put a 1.4 on it, or a 2X, but at that point I might as well just use the 100-400
DHL
Well-known member
And we like you too!We like our neighbors but we are proud to be Canadian
So... bottom line.. the 180/400 TC always in the bag!Too much of a gap between 200mm and 600. I mean, you could put a 1.4 on it, or a 2X, but at that point I might as well just use the 100-400
@Steve I like to make a suggestion for making a video about Ā« What is in my bag For 2025 Ā» where you show us what gear you are taking with you for each of your workshops for this year, what equipment you add or you get rid off, and what accessories are useful. I donāt know if some here in this forum ( I know we are all different and have different need ) are inspired by the best photographers like you and are curious like me about knowing what you have in your bag and what you take with you for each trip. Just a suggestion!
Anjin San
Well-known member
He showed several 10p-400 shots in the videoā¦because sometimes you just need 293 or whatever. I find it an excellent companion on the second body with the 600PF and swap in the TC on the prime when needed.
I watched the videoā¦and TBH neither of those exotics is on my want list because of the weight and size and not the price (although it is a little on the price based on the cost/benefit calculation). My biggest thought on the video isā¦does it really matter? Sureā¦at 2:1 or whatever in LR he was able to spot some very small differencesā¦but outside of bokeh or noise considerations Iām not sure those actually translate into a meaningful difference in the output, expecia.ly a final DeNoise, processed, and sharpened image. I would have liked to see the final output images at web output size and maybe a cropped but how big it would be on a 13x19 or 20x24 print and have a comparison on whether there was a difference there. I realize testing everything isnāt possibleā¦but my guess is that with the inevitable downsizing and/or printer ability that the small differences would mostly disappear.
Steveā¦can you comment on that without doing a whole bunch of extra workā¦I realize youāre a busy guy so a general impression is fine.
If I was willing to carry the size/weightā¦it would be the 600TC for me.
Anjin, thank you. You explained very well to me. Your comment makes a lot of sense
Lina
Doug Herr
Well-known member
Superb optics have been available for at least 40 years but what has changed is coating & manufacturing technology that make these lenses affordable to some of us mortals.
Wallie
Active member
We like our neighbors but we are proud to be Canadian
There's a difference, but you dismissed the main two - background rending and noise - as if they are just side notes when, in fact, they are the main reason to use faster glass.
From a sharpness only standpoint, I don't think you'd see a serious difference between most of those tests, and to expand on it, I don't think you'd see a serious sharpness difference between the slower primes and the faster primes, again from a sharpness standpoint. You would notice it on a large print between the primes and the zooms (100-400, 180-600), but if it mattered to the viewer or not is subjective and left to the viewer's own opinion.
However, swinging back around, the reason people buy these optics is for what many might consider an incremental improvement the isn't commensurate with the price difference. However, if you are buying to get the absolute best possible image quality - again, in my opinion that's the customer for these lenses - then a minor difference in sharpness at your most common focal length matters.
Last edited:
Large "Thank-you Steve".
I watched the video with great interest having gone through the 400/600 decision process recently.
My scenario: I was starting to reach the limits of the 100-400. Great images, but was at the end of the focal length a lot. As it were, circumstances were such that I could try to reach that next level. I wish I had this video when I started the (re)search, it would have saved me a LOT of time. But, even now, very valuable as it allowed me to think through the use models.
I am now swapping out the 100-400 (Before) for the 400/2.8 (After).
Thinking about it as "if everything was a prime" for everything 70mm+ in the bag (including TCs).
Before: 70/2.8; 100/2.8; 135/1.8; 200/2.8; 280/4; 400/5.6; 560/8[stretch]; 800/12[super_stretch]
After: 70/2.8; 100/2.8; 135/1.8; 200/2.8; 280/4; 400/2.8, 560/4; 800/5.6[small_stretch] ; 1120/11[super_stretch]
Observations so far:
**Squishing the aperture wider in a familiar operating range is refreshing as it adds options/choices.
**I can't shoot at 1120mm... need skills improvement to get consistency at 800mm.
**Handling (in/out of the car; carrying in the field; etc) requires new skills for someone (me) who has never used a large prime!
**Some buyer's remorse for choosing 400mm over the 600mm, but at the same time glad for the 400mm. Going outside and shooting ends second guessing quickly.
**The "feet-based-zoom" skills have increase photography involvement (This is one of the features that I value the most.)
BTW, if you haven't tried it yet, the 400mm/2.8 (or 560/4 with TC engaged) with 35mm tube can add a bit of additional frame fill in the ~8" to ~20" range.
I watched the video with great interest having gone through the 400/600 decision process recently.
My scenario: I was starting to reach the limits of the 100-400. Great images, but was at the end of the focal length a lot. As it were, circumstances were such that I could try to reach that next level. I wish I had this video when I started the (re)search, it would have saved me a LOT of time. But, even now, very valuable as it allowed me to think through the use models.
I am now swapping out the 100-400 (Before) for the 400/2.8 (After).
Thinking about it as "if everything was a prime" for everything 70mm+ in the bag (including TCs).
Before: 70/2.8; 100/2.8; 135/1.8; 200/2.8; 280/4; 400/5.6; 560/8[stretch]; 800/12[super_stretch]
After: 70/2.8; 100/2.8; 135/1.8; 200/2.8; 280/4; 400/2.8, 560/4; 800/5.6[small_stretch] ; 1120/11[super_stretch]
Observations so far:
**Squishing the aperture wider in a familiar operating range is refreshing as it adds options/choices.
**I can't shoot at 1120mm... need skills improvement to get consistency at 800mm.
**Handling (in/out of the car; carrying in the field; etc) requires new skills for someone (me) who has never used a large prime!
**Some buyer's remorse for choosing 400mm over the 600mm, but at the same time glad for the 400mm. Going outside and shooting ends second guessing quickly.
**The "feet-based-zoom" skills have increase photography involvement (This is one of the features that I value the most.)
BTW, if you haven't tried it yet, the 400mm/2.8 (or 560/4 with TC engaged) with 35mm tube can add a bit of additional frame fill in the ~8" to ~20" range.
pgohil
New member
Are you visiting Alberta?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 A
pgohil
New member
I am looking at upgrading from my 200-500 on a Z8 to a 500/600 prime. I got an offer on a 600mm F4 FL ED VR for $4500, whereas a new Z600 PF is $4700 and much much lighter to handhold and no messing around with 2 extra pieces of glass (like on the 600 f4 with the FTZ and a 1.4TC) but obviously 1.5 stops slower. What should I do?
I had the 600 f/4E and have the Z600 f/6.3. Z600 f/6.3 much lighter and more compact as you noted and image quality is great. I would get the 600 f/6.3 if that is the choice and the Z 1.4 TC does work well with it to get to 840 mm f/8 but I do not use my 1.4TC on it but others do with good success.
Not sure what you mean by the "two" exta peices of glass. If you were wanting to get to 840 mm then you would have a 1.4TC on either one so only one extra piece of glass the FTZ adaptor on the f mount 600 f/4 but a lot more bulk and weight for the gain 1 1/3 stops. f/4 to f/5.6 is 1 stop and 1/3 more to f/6.3.
My Z600 f/6.3 (PF) is my back up lens and used on my Z6III for the most part.
My primary birding lens on my Z9 is a Z600 f/4 TC does go to 840mm at f/5.6 with the flip of a switch no extra glass to add. But it is bigger, heavier and more expensive than the Z600 f/6.3.
Vincent_VdB
Well-known member
Montreal region ;-)