400mm f2.8 tc or 600mm f4 tc

[wotan1]

OK I am getting closer to trying one of the big primes.

I currently shoot 70-200 f2.8, 400mm f4.5 and 800mm f6.3 for the long stuff.

Where I am typically active most of my bird photography requires maximum reach. so I usually shoot 800mm plus. I do however go some places where the reach is easier, particularly with mammals.

I am a big guy and in decent shape although somehow I managed to get OLD. No mtatter, I am immortal.

I would imagine that if II got the 400mm f2.8 I would probably still keep the 400mm f4.5 because it is really light and compact and easy to handhold. I also would imagine that if I got the 600mm f4 tc I would probably let the 800 go since the 600 with TC would cover the longer sttuff as well or better.

So tell me, which way should I go.

And don't tell me to get tboth. Just getting this far is going to be a miracle.

 

[MrFotoFool]

One deciding factor is if you often shoot in low light where a faster aperture would help. I realize both lenses have a faster aperture, but the 400 TC is still a full stop faster than the 600 TC. FOR ME, that would be the one I would want (though I do more mammals than birds). If low light and slower shutter speeds is not the most important feature, and you shoot mostly birds with a long lens, then the 600 TC seems the clear choice and could replace the 800 PF.

 

[jcnemy]

I'm sort of in the same dilemma as well where I've been really considering on going the 400TC route so I can still cover low-light field sports and then use a 2XTC to replicate the loss of the 800PF that would be sold to help fund either a 400 or 600. From what I've read, the 400TC takes all the TCs nicely, especially stacked. But after reading some material from Brad Hill, seems his experience of using the 400TC with a 2X clearly failed to match sharpness or image quality of the 800PF (I know....duh??!?!??!?!).

Since I shoot mainly birds and mostly at a distance....really need the best at 800mm'ish, so thinking of sacrificing low-light field sports and getting a 600TC. The main reason I would consider this is the better background rendering of the 600TC versus 800PF...which occasionally produces of odd artifacts due to the PF elements.

Now to answer your question...if your main subject is shooting birds and routinely using the 800PF to accomplish that, then I would believe the 600TC is the way to go. Plus - you have the 400/4.5 to cover closer stuff and if needed.

 

[groob]

Sounds like you shoot birds a good bit more than mammals. If so, I’d get the 600mm. When you’re paying this kind of premium, you don’t want to be stacking TCs or using a 2x TC most of the time. Plus, it seems like the 600mm would solve more problems, whereas the 400mm would just be a luxurious addition.

 

[bsinc1962]

It's a nice dilemma to have.

I wound up getting the 400 mostly because my primary targets are mammals and even then 400 can be too much. I do like the fact that if I need a bit of reach it's only a flip of the switch away. I do carry a 2x tc but seldom use it. The results with it are acceptable (especially with modern software).

I had the 800pf but sold it mostly to offset the cost of the 400. It's a great lens.

My opinion. If you keep the 800 then get the 400. If you sell the 800pf then get the 600.

 

[ecycled]

If I were buying I would go for the 400 f/2.8 TC to add some amazing speed and low-light ability to my arsenal (plus you also have with a flick of a switch a very respectable 520 f/4). I would probably sell the 400 f/4.5 though the weight of that lens is 1/3 of the 2.8. And I'd keep the 800 f/6.3 for reach. Hard decision for sure.

 

[DavidT]

If you’re shooting birds go 600TC, keep your 400 and enjoy the best gear you could ask for. Easy way to decide this is sell everything but your 400. Would that be enough glass for you? I’m guessing no which means the 400TC won’t be either.

 

[AlanB313]

First, congrats on being able to move forward on this! SWMBO must be in a good mood.

Have you considered renting either for a weekend? This could help figure out which compliments your shooting style and subjects the best. You have in previous posts articulated really liking the 800mm pf and find it okay to carry with a 2nd body. Perhaps the weight of either the 600tc or 400 might affect this. By renting you could check this out as well.

Having a f2.8 could add a new creative element and open up possibilities you don't have now. I'd love to have a long lens 2.8 for owls and other dusk critters.

Another thought on renting is that you may decide you have the perfect combo already. Just a thought...

Keep in mind that I'm a beginner gaining experience and others may have better advice. Your well considered posts have helped me figure out equipment upgrades and techniques in the past, and I thank you and others for them.

And a comment on getting old...it beats the alternative !

 

[wotan1]

Does your new place have room for me (and my wife and my two children and my dog)?

First, congrats on being able to move forward on this! SWMBO must be in a good mood.

Have you considered renting either for a weekend? This could help figure out which compliments your shooting style and subjects the best. You have in previous posts articulated really liking the 800mm pf and find it okay to carry with a 2nd body. Perhaps the weight of either the 600tc or 400 might affect this. By renting you could check this out as well.

Having a f2.8 could add a new creative element and open up possibilities you don't have now. I'd love to have a long lens 2.8 for owls and other dusk critters.

Another thought on renting is that you may decide you have the perfect combo already. Just a thought...

Keep in mind that I'm a beginner gaining experience and others may have better advice. Your well considered posts have helped me figure out equipment upgrades and techniques in the past, and I thank you and others for them.

And a comment on getting old...it beats the alternative !

I am not there yet but it is looking possible in a few months we will ee.

I like the idea of renting and I will probably do that.

 

[Ivan Rothman]

I had the 800mm but I sold it when I got the 600mm TC. The big 600 is especially great for bird photography and the ability to go to 840mm by just a flick of the built in TC is priceless. For larger and closer subjects or for hand held shooting of birds in flight I usually use the 400mm f4.5 or the 100-400mm. I also have the 600mm f6.3 PF lens which is great lens and useful when the big 600 f4 is too much for me to carry or when I want to do hand held photography and need a longer reach. For example, in 10 days I will be in Florida photographing Ospreys diving into the sea to catch fish and hand held may be better. I'll also be in a boat photographing flying owls and no tripod allowed on the boat. So for me the 600 f6.3 PF and the 100-400mm will be an ideal combination to use.

 

[wotan1]

I had the 800mm but I sold it when I got the 600mm TC. The big 600 is especially great for bird photography and the ability to go to 840mm by just a flick of the built in TC is priceless. For larger and closer subjects or for hand held shooting of birds in flight I usually use the 400mm f4.5 or the 100-400mm. I also have the 600mm f6.3 PF lens which is great lens and useful when the big 600 f4 is too much for me to carry or when I want to do hand held photography and need a longer reach. For example, in 10 days I will be in Florida photographing Ospreys diving into the sea to catch fish and hand held may be better. I'll also be in a boat photographing flying owls and no tripod allowed on the boat. So for me the 600 f6.3 PF and the 100-400mm will be an ideal combination to use.

Curious about your impression on the 600 vs 800 performance at 800 did you see a difference

 

[Ivan Rothman]

Curious about your impression on the 600 vs 800 performance at 800 did you see a difference

The 800mm was a terrific lens and gave me very good results. But the 600mm TC with TC engaged is a fabulous lens and gives more light with TC engaged at 840mm. And when shooting with the 800mm, I often found I had too much lens whereas with the 600mm TC I can instantly go back and forth between 600mm and 840mm.
The downside of the 600mm TC is the expense of buying it and the difficulty carrying around the lens and the sometimes limited mobility when using it in the field.
Depending on the shooting/hiking situation, I may use the 600 TC or the 600 f6.3 PF (which also takes the 1.4X TC). I also have the 180-600mm lens which was my most used lens when photographing in Botswana last April (both birds and larger mammals).

 

[DavidT]

I had the 800mm but I sold it when I got the 600mm TC. The big 600 is especially great for bird photography and the ability to go to 840mm by just a flick of the built in TC is priceless. For larger and closer subjects or for hand held shooting of birds in flight I usually use the 400mm f4.5 or the 100-400mm. I also have the 600mm f6.3 PF lens which is great lens and useful when the big 600 f4 is too much for me to carry or when I want to do hand held photography and need a longer reach. For example, in 10 days I will be in Florida photographing Ospreys diving into the sea to catch fish and hand held may be better. I'll also be in a boat photographing flying owls and no tripod allowed on the boat. So for me the 600 f6.3 PF and the 100-400mm will be an ideal combination to use.

If you are going to Sebastian inlet leave the tripod at home. Handhold is the only way to successfully shoot ospreys diving. Also, depending on where they are fishing you may need more than 600 and you may want less. I’d take both of your 600’s and something in the 400 range. I’d suspect the 400 will stay in the bag but if you need it you will have it. I shoot my 600f4 exclusively and take both TC with me. 10 days is a lot of shooting so be prepared for constantly changing conditions.

 

[Ivan Rothman]

If you are going to Sebastian inlet leave the tripod at home. Handhold is the only way to successfully shoot ospreys diving. Also, depending on where they are fishing you may need more than 600 and you may want less. I’d take both of your 600’s and something in the 400 range. I’d suspect the 400 will stay in the bag but if you need it you will have it. I shoot my 600f4 exclusively and take both TC with me. 10 days is a lot of shooting so be prepared for constantly changing conditions.

I will be photographing at Sebastian inlet and while I will bring a tripod, I planned on handholding for the ospreys diving. I'm not strong enough to handhold the 600 f4 for very long and for that reason I will be using my 600 6.3 PF. If necessary I can put a 1.4X TC on it or shoot in DX mode.

 

[mdirvin]

I have both, if I had to sell one I would keep the 600. It's the 8ft MFD on the 400/560 I would miss. At times I find myself in a situation where I can get very close to some small birds. Usually in a gardens situation. I do hike with the 400, and use it from a monopod. I also hike (as in walk around) with the 600 and shoot from a monopod, but it's a tad more cumbersome. In some areas I can get close to large birds where the 600/840 is to much to catch them in flight as the go by. When in a gardens situation (as in public gardens) backing up to 15 ft isn't a good option as there are obstacles/ people getting in the way. For that I would switch over to the 400/4.5. I have to say the 600/840 is a very versatile lens. On thing to keep in mind when thinking about the benefits of f2.8 is that the DOF at 8ft is less than 1/4 inch. So while it there is not something you will always want to use.

 

[hectorkevin]

OK I am getting closer to trying one of the big primes.

I currently shoot 70-200 f2.8, 400mm f4.5 and 800mm f6.3 for the long stuff.

Where I am typically active most of my bird photography requires maximum reach. so I usually shoot 800mm plus. I do however go some places where the reach is easier, particularly with mammals.

I am a big guy and in decent shape although somehow I managed to get OLD. No mtatter, I am immortal.

I would imagine that if II got the 400mm f2.8 I would probably still keep the 400mm f4.5 because it is really light and compact and easy to handhold. I also would imagine that if I got the 600mm f4 tc I would probably let the 800 go since the 600 with TC would cover the longer sttuff as well or better.

So tell me, which way should I go.

And don't tell me to get tboth. Just getting this far is going to be a miracle.

Sounds like you're in a good spot with your gear! If you like the 400mm f/4.5 for its lightness and portability, it’s worth keeping for easier, handheld shooting.


For the big decision, the 600mm f/4 with TC would be a solid choice. It’ll replace your 800mm and give you great quality, plus versatility with the TC for both short and long distances. The 400mm f/2.8 would be great for low light and background blur, but it’s heavier and bulkier.


I’d go with the 600mm f/4 with TC—it covers both ends and keeps things simple without losing quality. You can always keep the 400mm f/4.5 for lighter days!

 

[Loggitie]

Problem solved (the 100-400 is replaced by the 180-600 and the 400 f4.5 has been sold in the mean time). Thinking to sale the 800 now

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[ChrisRufousHummer]

I got the 400 2.8 tc and shoot mainly birds. Yes I have to get closer to the birds to fill the frame or do some cropping in post, but I love the lens. And I got the 400 2.8 in the hopes of a "Z APS-C D500" camera coming out which of course would make the lens 600 f2.8/840 f4. I might be waiting a long time for that lol.

 

[luckmurph]

I was in a similar dilema!
I had the 400 4.5 100-400 800pf
I plumped for the 400 2.8 and a 2x tc, and I’ve not looked back for me its very versatile being a 2.8 is great for low light here in the uk, you then have 560 f4 and 800 5.6
I have since purchased the 180-600 but probably only used it a handful of times, also got the 70-200 2.8 which takes the tc’s brilliantly so for my shooting it made more sense to get the 400!
If you cant make your mind up i would say rent Beth of them its one hell of an investment and you don’t want to get it wrong!!!

 

[Stennis]

I have both the 400 2.8 and the 600 4.0. Like you I love birds - particularly BIF. Use the 400 for most of my birding. Also photograph high school sporting events for a local paper. With the built in TC I basically have the base 600 with the 400. Just returned from the Tetons with the 600 and worked perfect. Also use it when photographing shore birds. I personally think this is the best combo - 400 f2.8 and 600 f4

 

[SoCalRick]

The 400 TC is too short for the BIF photography that I like to shoot with my big prime (600 TC).

Also, as Steve mentions in this video, "...a fast lens doesn't always give you an edge...":

So I wouldn't get drawn into the f/2.8 vs f/4 aperturre comparison, but rather I would put more emphasis on what focal lengths you commonly shoot at. Both of these lenses are very fast, compared with the other lenses that are available at these FLs.

For me, shooting between 600 and 840mm is really the sweet spot for what I like to photograph. The subject isolation of the 600 TC at 600 f/4 is fantastic (as long as you don’t have too close of a background).

Go for the 600 TC!

 

[RichF]

I had the 800mm but I sold it when I got the 600mm TC. The big 600 is especially great for bird photography and the ability to go to 840mm by just a flick of the built in TC is priceless. For larger and closer subjects or for hand held shooting of birds in flight I usually use the 400mm f4.5 or the 100-400mm. I also have the 600mm f6.3 PF lens which is great lens and useful when the big 600 f4 is too much for me to carry or when I want to do hand held photography and need a longer reach. For example, in 10 days I will be in Florida photographing Ospreys diving into the sea to catch fish and hand held may be better. I'll also be in a boat photographing flying owls and no tripod allowed on the boat. So for me the 600 f6.3 PF and the 100-400mm will be an ideal combination to use.

Hi Ivan

Have you considered/tried the 180-600. I find it a good compromise and a way to get weight down

 

[Luskentyre]

I cannot comment re: the z mount lenses, but I have the f mount 400mm 2.8 e fl & the 800 5.6 e fl (I used to have a 600f4 g which I sold when I bought the 400 & 800). In my experience, there is no perfect focal length & whilst I’m happy with what I have, I often find the 400 too short & 800 not fast enough (600 is probably the best “compromise” in that regard in that it is f4 & “long enough”). If I’m going to a static location, I tend to take both, starting with the 400 earlier in the morning & subsequently moving on to the 800 when there is enough light (& vice versa in the evening). I use the 500pf-my favourite- at all other times, especially when walking. I’m based in the UK however; conditions might well be very different in the states, especially if it’s possible to get closer to wildlife than possible here.

 

[Ivan Rothman]

Hi Ivan

Have you considered/tried the 180-600. I find it a good compromise and a way to get weight down

Rich I have the 180-600mm and I agree it is a great lens. I love the versatility of having that range of zoom. On a trip to Botswana last April, I left my 600mm f4 TC at home because of the weight and the 180-600mm was my most used lens. I also used the 600mm f6.3 PF especially for birds.

 

[RichF]

Rich I have the 180-600mm and I agree it is a great lens. I love the versatility of having that range of zoom. On a trip to Botswana last April, I left my 600mm f4 TC at home because of the weight and the 180-600mm was my most used lens. I also used the 600mm f6.3 PF especially for birds.

600 F6.3 PF or 800 F6.3 PF. I am going to Tanzania in Feb and considering taking both the 800 PF and 180-600. Wondering if the 800 will be too long with all the heat shimmer?