600mm PF or 800mm PF???

[mdirvin]

I just sold my 500 PF for the 600 PF Z and find I am a bit close at times. I agree if you keep the 500 go for the 800, but if you don’t the 600 might be a better choice. After shooting it for a couple of weeks I am very glad I took this route.

I argree I've been out walking around 3-4 hours yesterday, today (2600 images), and probably tomorrow & Monday with the 600 f6.3 (never waste a cloudy day in AZ, they don't come around that often). It was easy to carry provided plenty of photo ops. It can be a bit long at times. While I don't have an 800 pf, I do have the 400 TC similar in size, just a bit heavier. I would not be having the same experience carrying it around for 3 - 4 hours a day shooting 2500-3000 shots per day several days in a row.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I am 75 and a bird ID photographer, all sizes, all situations. I am on foot most of the time and in all types of habitat. I have not used a tripod in many years it is not practical and with the image stabilization I do not really need one for what I am doing.

I photograph primarily here in Southern Idaho in a wide range of habitats but 600mm is almost always not enough focal length for me.

I have had a Z800pf in use since 5-1-2022. I use 2 Z9's. I also have the Z180-600 for those rare situations where I know I am going to be in tight quarters where the 16.5 foot minimum focal distance of the Z800 is to long or I know I want variable focal length. I use the Z800 95% of the time for birds.

Last DSLR birding set ups before going all in with the Z system D850 and D6 with Tamron 150-600 G2, Sigma 60-600 sport, Nikon 500 pf, Nikon 600 f/4E.

I put thousands of images in my e bird checklists. My images are used by journalists and ornithologists and many non profits in print and on line. I still sell a few prints, mostly on metal, and print on paper for my own wall and albums .

 

[Anjin San]

Hi At present I am using Z9,500PF +1.4TC as my longest lens . Am in doubt whether to go for the 600PF or 800PF? price is a bit of a factor,but not critical. As I do mostly BIF ,my 500+tc gives me 700mm @F8, so 800 @ 6.3 would be a bonus. I use the 500PF @ 5.6 when light is not good, think 600 @6.3 would be pushing it a bit?? I use DXO Raw3/Topaz denoise & ISO 6400 is max for most shots. I do crop as cannot always get close enough for what I want to show. Weight is also an issue as not young anymore,and the 180-600 is too heavy for handholding,600 0r 800 are fine ,as far as weight goes. Think the 800 is as heavy as my old 200-500,but balances better. Any feedback is welcome. Also I normally have my 300PF on my D850,so have 2 cameras with mostly.

Depends on what you shoot and whether 600 is enough or you need 800. For me…down here in southern FL…it would be too much lens a lot of the time and the size and weight would limit whatever else I have with me. Add in that my output is almost exclusively to the screen and the downsampling for that hides a lot of the ‘better IQ’ at 1:1…and the 600PF is for me a far better choice…smaller, lighter, doesn’t limit what else I have as much with me, more likely to be the right reach compared to the 800, and becomes a pretty darned good 840 or 1200 with the TCs. And…cheaper.

 

[MJR]

I have the 600 PF and love it for shooting handheld BIF. I have better hit rates with my 500 PF though. Why because the angle of view is wider and easier to pick up the fast moving birds like ducks (Buffleheads, Surf Scooter ect). So when I put a 1.4 on the 600 (840mm) I find it almost impossible to locate the BIF in time. Even trying to locate the birds on the water taking off is a challenge because of the narrow field of view. Now if I was shooting birds on a stick mostly then the 800 PF would be my choice and on a tripod. Some have mentioned the 600 with the 1.4 is f9 which is true . I do not find this a handicap because I tend to shoot in light that I can record a catch light in the subjects eye. No catch light makes the subject dull IMHO.

 

[wotan1]

I was out shooting with the 800 this afternoon using a gimbal and tripod. took a shot of a cormorant in a tree under very unfavorable circumstances. I was shooting a dark bird against a bright sky from quite a distance away. I don't know if it shows from this thumbnail but I actually got him. When I look at this close up in Lightroom they eye is sharp and you can see fine detail on his beak.

I think the 800 is a great lens to work with.

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

 

[Lance B]

It all depends on what you want to carry when you go out shooting and what you are photographing. For light weight carrying, a one lens solution would be the 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII you use now, or the 600 PF + Z1.4x TC but you are then at f9 which may be a factor in low light but still only 1/3rd of a stop less than the 500 + 1.4x TCIII at f8 - not a big deal, IMO. If you are happy to carry the 500 + 800 together in a backpack, the then just get the 800 PF and use both in the field - this is what I do. The fact that you use the 500 + 1.4x TCIII a lot, means that you are either shooting small birds or animals or are at distance and thus the 800 PF would probably suit. I use the 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII and found it to be excellent, sharp and great overall IQ and wondered whether I would benefit from the 800 PF, but once I got the 800, it is almost always on my camera now. I also shoot birds and I have rarely if ever been too long with the 800 PF, even with larger birds but your scenario really depends on what size your subjects are and how close you can get to them and whether you can back up in a pinch if you need to.

 

[Len Shepherd]

is bokeh is better,that helps me decide,as 500+tc can give noisy bokeh ,

This question part depends what you mean by bokeh

Going from 500mm to 800mm from the same focus distance naturally gives more magnification, a narrower angle of view - and aperture for aperture when NOT using a TC just over 2 stops narrower depth of field - with more blur in out of focus detail.

The plus is it easier to blur either background or foreground detail (though rarely 100%) when going from 500 to 800mm with the 800mm prime..

The minus is going from 500 to 800mm makes it more challenging to both initially locate and then to follow flying birds.

When it comes to the shutter speed usable, the 800mm at f6.3 is better than the f8 equivalent with the 500mm plus 1.4 TC.

In physics you get nothing for nothing.
Adding a 1.4 TC is different to using a longer focal length lens.
Most appreciate a 1.4 TC looses 1 stop equivalent shutter speed.
Fewer appreciate when using a 1.4 TC the 1 stop loss of shutter speed is "balanced" by the loss of 1 stop dof instead of the 2 stops using a longer focal length lens.
Dof with a 1.4 converter is about 1 stop more than with a longer focal length lens.

You are currently using a 500 + 1.4 TC to get to 700mm equivalent.
In comparison the 800 overall will give you a little more magnification, just over 1 stop less dof and will not loose the equivalent of the 1 stop TC shutter speed.

 

[AlexK]

Hi At present I am using Z9,500PF +1.4TC as my longest lens . Am in doubt whether to go for the 600PF or 800PF? price is a bit of a factor,but not critical. As I do mostly BIF ,my 500+tc gives me 700mm @F8, so 800 @ 6.3 would be a bonus. I use the 500PF @ 5.6 when light is not good, think 600 @6.3 would be pushing it a bit?? I use DXO Raw3/Topaz denoise & ISO 6400 is max for most shots. I do crop as cannot always get close enough for what I want to show. Weight is also an issue as not young anymore,and the 180-600 is too heavy for handholding,600 0r 800 are fine ,as far as weight goes. Think the 800 is as heavy as my old 200-500,but balances better. Any feedback is welcome. Also I normally have my 300PF on my D850,so have 2 cameras with mostly.

I moved from the D500/500pf to Z8/500pf and this worked well except I missed that loss of reach going to FX. I rented the 800pf and really liked it except for the size- it seemed really big for me to be walking around with. I bought the Z600 f6.3 and have been very happy with it in terms of size, weight, balance, and IQ. I really like having a control ring to control exposure compensation. The low light limitation is real for me but honestly does not seem that much different than f5.6. If there is enough light the Z600 6.3 works really well with the 1.4 tc for great handheld reach.

 

[wotan1]

the other thing to think about with these lenses is a situation where you might occasionally need even longer reach.

If you decide you need to get out past 800 to fill the frame with something special, you can do that with the 600 and a 2x tc. But you are now out at f13 which is a big compromise.

But if you have the 800 pf to work with you can get to 1200 with a 1.4x tc and you are shooting max f9 if I did the math correctly.. Or you could just go dx to get closer forget about the teleconverter altogether and you are still at f6.3.

In my use of the 800mm so far I have not had to use a teleconverter. If I need to get closer I can either shoot dx or crop in post. So far that has been enough for me. After all if you go out too far atmospheric distortion kicks in and no lens can solve that problem.

Bottom line, at least among Nikon lenses the 800mm pf effectively owns the long reach field. Sure, the 600mm tc vr can match it but I will never be able to persuade my wife I have to spend over 16k to buy a lens. The 800mm pf is on sale right now and it costs one third of the 600mm tc vr.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I have the 600 PF and love it for shooting handheld BIF. I have better hit rates with my 500 PF though. Why because the angle of view is wider and easier to pick up the fast moving birds like ducks (Buffleheads, Surf Scooter ect). So when I put a 1.4 on the 600 (840mm) I find it almost impossible to locate the BIF in time. Even trying to locate the birds on the water taking off is a challenge because of the narrow field of view. Now if I was shooting birds on a stick mostly then the 800 PF would be my choice and on a tripod. Some have mentioned the 600 with the 1.4 is f9 which is true . I do not find this a handicap because I tend to shoot in light that I can record a catch light in the subjects eye. No catch light makes the subject dull IMHO.

You can check out my gallery for a small mixture of birds in flight and otherwise most with the Z9 and Z800 and all hand held. Since I shoot for bird ID first for e bird etc. I shoot in all kinds of light and conditions. I usually do not know what is going to pop up as I wander about so I have to acquire the target quickly. Years of target rifle and shotgun shooting help me stay focused on the bird as I raise the camera to my eye and there is the bird in the viewfinder. I shoot with both eyes open.

For what I do I find the 800pf to be better than my 500 pf was all the way around. My primary issue was the 500 pf just as my 600 f/4E was not enough focal length. https://bcgforums.com/member-gallery/ken-miracle.105/

 

[Ken Miracle]

the other thing to think about with these lenses is a situation where you might occasionally need even longer reach.

If you decide you need to get out past 800 to fill the frame with something special, you can do that with the 600 and a 2x tc. But you are now out at f13 which is a big compromise.

But if you have the 800 pf to work with you can get to 1200 with a 1.4x tc and you are shooting max f9 if I did the math correctly.. Or you could just go dx to get closer forget about the teleconverter altogether and you are still at f6.3.

In my use of the 800mm so far I have not had to use a teleconverter. If I need to get closer I can either shoot dx or crop in post. So far that has been enough for me. After all if you go out too far atmospheric distortion kicks in and no lens can solve that problem.

Bottom line, at least among Nikon lenses the 800mm pf effectively owns the long reach field. Sure, the 600mm tc vr can match it but I will never be able to persuade my wife I have to spend over 16k to buy a lens. The 800mm pf is on sale right now and it costs one third of the 600mm tc vr.

You are correct the 800pf on the Z9 is indeed a fast and versatile tool ... I have the memory set button on the lens set to toggle between fx and dx since it is ergonomicaly easy for me to reach and the contgrol ring for EV (exposure compensation) and so can make all of those changes without taking my eye away from the viewfinder. I hold the lens with a longer aftermarket foot resting in the palm of my hand target rifle style. That leaves my Z9 buttons free for other duty like switching quickly between the AF Area modes I have them programmed for.

 

[nmerc_photos]

You can check out my gallery for a small mixture of birds in flight and otherwise most with the Z9 and Z800 and all hand held. Since I shoot for bird ID first for e bird etc. I shoot in all kinds of light and conditions. I usually do not know what is going to pop up as I wander about so I have to acquire the target quickly. Years of target rifle and shotgun shooting help me stay focused on the bird as I raise the camera to my eye and there is the bird in the viewfinder. I shoot with both eyes open.

For what I do I find the 800pf to be better than my 500 pf was all the way around. My primary issue was the 500 pf just as my 600 f/4E was not enough focal length. https://bcgforums.com/member-gallery/ken-miracle.105/

lovely pics Ken. may I ask how you carry the 800 and how long you often walk for?

I've usually slung mine over my shoulder on a monopod, but am interested in looking at a cotton carrier or peak design strap or something...

-------------------------------
for on topic subject, from what I can tell the decision is all about need

do you need 600mm or do you need 800mm? do you need 1200mm or 1600mm?

do you need the lightest weight possible, or is 5lbs fine? do you need something that packs down small, or is a 15" long lens acceptable?

the primary advantages for the 600 6.3 are the weight, size, and wider angle (if you have trouble finding or tracking subjects at 800mm+)

the primary advantages for the 800 are everything else. longer focal length, further TC options, and better bokeh as a result of same aperture but longer focal length

I currently own the 800 but have considering adding, or swapping it for the 600 6.3. in my mind the 600 6.3 is a perfect walk around birding lens, while the 800 6.3 - although not heavy, is quite a bit longer and more cumbersome to carry. I would guess the 800 gives better pictures in all scenarios at 800mm+

 

[Ken Miracle]

lovely pics Ken. may I ask how you carry the 800 and how long you often walk for?

I've usually slung mine over my shoulder on a monopod, but am interested in looking at a cotton carrier or peak design strap or something...

-------------------------------
for on topic subject, from what I can tell the decision is all about need

do you need 600mm or do you need 800mm? do you need 1200mm or 1600mm?

do you need the lightest weight possible, or is 5lbs fine? do you need something that packs down small, or is a 15" long lens acceptable?

the primary advantages for the 600 6.3 are the weight, size, and wider angle (if you have trouble finding or tracking subjects at 800mm+)

the primary advantages for the 800 are everything else. longer focal length, further TC options, and better bokeh as a result of same aperture but longer focal length

I currently own the 800 but have considering adding, or swapping it for the 600 6.3. in my mind the 600 6.3 is a perfect walk around birding lens, while the 800 6.3 - although not heavy, is quite a bit longer and more cumbersome to carry. I would guess the 800 gives better pictures in all scenarios at 800mm+

I use black rapids strap usually my single carry. However the camera and lens are usually cradled in my arms "baby carry style" most of the time it is usually hanging from the strap only if I need a free hand to move brush out of the way etc. or I am covering a wide are of ground where I do not anticipate a bird.

My walking time is variable depending on the day and location it can be 1 hour or 8 hours. I would guess the average is around 3-4 hours.

As I have noted else where for the vast majority of the bird photography I do 600mm or less is not enough focal length.

For me I use 800mm or 1200mm equivalent by toggling from FX to DX with my Z9.

I have noissue with finding or tracking subjects at 800mm or even normally at 1200mm .... I shoot with both eyes open I focus on the bird or whatever the target is and then bring the viewfinder to my eye and this applies to stationary or moving subjects the difference with moving subjects it the camera is moving/panning as I bring it up and am focused on the bird.

I have the advantage of having shot many thousands of rounds of shotgun shells when I was hunting and shooting sporting clays. I was also a competitive target rifle shooter so this all comes natural for me.

I also support the lens with the longer after market foot from Hejnar resting in the palm of my hand with my elbows tucked into my sides and my feet positioned for support under the left elbow and forward toward the target in my stance the stance is dictated by terrain, elevation of the target, sometimes I could be kneeling or even prone of course, movement of the target ie the direction I am panning and the habitat I am in.

Since I seldom want 600mm or less I do not plan on getting the Z600pf since I have the Z 180-600 and frequently want variable focal lenght if I want less than 800mm focal length.

 

[MatthewK]

lovely pics Ken. may I ask how you carry the 800 and how long you often walk for?

I've usually slung mine over my shoulder on a monopod, but am interested in looking at a cotton carrier or peak design strap or something...

-------------------------------
for on topic subject, from what I can tell the decision is all about need

do you need 600mm or do you need 800mm? do you need 1200mm or 1600mm?

do you need the lightest weight possible, or is 5lbs fine? do you need something that packs down small, or is a 15" long lens acceptable?

the primary advantages for the 600 6.3 are the weight, size, and wider angle (if you have trouble finding or tracking subjects at 800mm+)

the primary advantages for the 800 are everything else. longer focal length, further TC options, and better bokeh as a result of same aperture but longer focal length

I currently own the 800 but have considering adding, or swapping it for the 600 6.3. in my mind the 600 6.3 is a perfect walk around birding lens, while the 800 6.3 - although not heavy, is quite a bit longer and more cumbersome to carry. I would guess the 800 gives better pictures in all scenarios at 800mm+

Having used the 800PF all last year, and now the 600PF, I fully consider 600mm the better walk-around focal length for birding, and the 600PF the better lens for that task. 800PF is leaning towards the more specialized end, better suited for specific situations you know you're going to need it; that doesn't discount it as a walk-around option, it's just too much lens at times for casual use. 600mm, on the other hand, gives a bit more breathing room to compose and is obviously the easier to wield lens due to the smaller size/weight.

Hot take here, but I think the 180-600 is the best walk-around lens Nikon makes for birding and wildlife. Even hotter take: I think Canon's 200-800 is better yet Would I switch systems for it? No, but that's because I already have an R5

Doesn't matter what I think though, everyone's environment and use case are completely different. I'm just stuck inside and bored during the winter with nothing to photograph, so what else am I going to be doing besides regaling everyone with my unsolicited opinion?

 

[cchuck]

Hi At present I am using Z9,500PF +1.4TC as my longest lens . Am in doubt whether to go for the 600PF or 800PF? price is a bit of a factor,but not critical. As I do mostly BIF ,my 500+tc gives me 700mm @F8, so 800 @ 6.3 would be a bonus. I use the 500PF @ 5.6 when light is not good, think 600 @6.3 would be pushing it a bit?? I use DXO Raw3/Topaz denoise & ISO 6400 is max for most shots. I do crop as cannot always get close enough for what I want to show. Weight is also an issue as not young anymore,and the 180-600 is too heavy for handholding,600 0r 800 are fine ,as far as weight goes. Think the 800 is as heavy as my old 200-500,but balances better. Any feedback is welcome. Also I normally have my 300PF on my D850,so have 2 cameras with mostly.

I have the 800PF and like it. Although it is lighter than any other 800mm Nikon has offered, it still weighs 2 lbs. more than the F-mount 500PF you've been using. Two pounds sounds small, but can become more significant when trying to hold a lens steady. I also have used the 500mm PF and the F-mount 1.4 TC on my Z9 and find the 800PF's extra two pounds to be a challenge after 10-15 minutes of continuous shooting. As long as you're aware and capable, the 800PF is a very sharp lens, and it works well with the 1.4 TC
--when stabilized on a tripod.

 

[mdirvin]

I'm just stuck inside bored during the winter with nothing to photograph, so what else am I going to be doing besides regaling everyone with my unsolicited opinion?

Well the good news might be that the great spring migration may be starting, or not. On my morning walk around (600 f6.3) I came across several Anna'a buzzing around. While there are many resident hummers here, I have not seen any Anna's since arriving mid Nov. Not that that means a whole lot. But there is hope that soon....

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

 

[MatthewK]

Well the good news might be that the great spring migration may be starting, or not. On my morning walk around (600 f6.3) I came across several Anna'a buzzing around. While there are many resident hummers here, I have not seen any Anna's since arriving mid Nov. Not that that means a whole lot. But there is hope that soon....View attachment 79701

Hope springs ever eternal! I think the first returning species arrive here in April, so we have a full 2 months yet.

 

[MatthewK]

Our body weight can easily vary by 1.5 - 2 lbs per day. We never notice it. Then why do we obsess over a few extra ounces of camera gear?

I just lost 30 lbs of pork this past year. Does that mean I will pack 30 pounds of extra gear? No, but a few pounds or ounces don't make a difference. Heavier gear means those lazy, weak, flabby muscles will get some much needed exercise.

Great work on losing that weight! What ended up being the method you used to accomplish the feat?

Well, that body weight is our center of gravity with muscles and bones to support it in a vertical manner. Whereas, camera gear is being held up outside our core by smaller muscles, and no bone support directly opposed to the moment weight. So, feels a lot heavier than equivalent body mass.

 

[Calson]

I did not appreciate how limiting it was to have to shoot from a tripod. It limited both my mobility to move and alter the backgrounds for subjects and also the shooting height. Go to anywhere that there are large numbers of photographers using big lenses and see how much they move their tripod (other than to leave) and how often they change the height of the tripod to get to eye level with their subjects. I only see this being done in teaching videos and never with photographers in the field.

I have tracked songbirds and woodpeckers and similar birds through the trees and photographed them successfully with the 800mm PF on the Z9 camera. It was only thanks to the fast autofocus and eye detect feature that this was possible. With my DSLR cameras and lens I relied on manual focus most of the time to be sure the eye was sharp.

Different subjects are best photographed with different focal lengths. For songbirds a 800mm is often a bare minimum. With large wading birds a 400mm is often long enough, especially if photographing them in flight.

I always think in terms of which two lenses to take into the field. A 600mm f/4 along with a 200-500mm was a good combo. Now I use the 100-400mm with the 800mm PF. I am seriously considering adding the Sigma 60-600mm zoom to my kit. I plan to rent one for a week to evaluate its performance and its weight.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Great work on losing that weight! What ended up being the method you used to accomplish the feat?

Well, that body weight is our center of gravity with muscles and bones to support it in a vertical manner. Whereas, camera gear is being held up outside our core by smaller muscles, and no bone support directly opposed to the moment weight. So, feels a lot heavier than equivalent body mass.

If you are holding a long lens correctly there is bone support. Target rifle style elbows tucked in with long after market foot resting in the palm of my hand and I find the 800pf more stable than the lighter lenses I have had like the 500pf.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Hope springs ever eternal! I think the first returning species arrive here in April, so we have a full 2 months yet.

We are blessed with an ever rotating mixture of birds year round here.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I did not appreciate how limiting it was to have to shoot from a tripod. It limited both my mobility to move and alter the backgrounds for subjects and also the shooting height. Go to anywhere that there are large numbers of photographers using big lenses and see how much they move their tripod (other than to leave) and how often they change the height of the tripod to get to eye level with their subjects. I only see this being done in teaching videos and never with photographers in the field.

I have tracked songbirds and woodpeckers and similar birds through the trees and photographed them successfully with the 800mm PF on the Z9 camera. It was only thanks to the fast autofocus and eye detect feature that this was possible. With my DSLR cameras and lens I relied on manual focus most of the time to be sure the eye was sharp.

Different subjects are best photographed with different focal lengths. For songbirds a 800mm is often a bare minimum. With large wading birds a 400mm is often long enough, especially if photographing them in flight.

I always think in terms of which two lenses to take into the field. A 600mm f/4 along with a 200-500mm was a good combo. Now I use the 100-400mm with the 800mm PF. I am seriously considering adding the Sigma 60-600mm zoom to my kit. I plan to rent one for a week to evaluate its performance and its weight.

I have seen rumors that Sigma was going to release a Z mount 60-600 but I have not seen one on Sigma's web page ???

I had a Sigma 60-600 f mount ... nice lens ... heavy ... sold it along with all of my other DSLR and f mount stuff.

 

[MatthewK]

If you are holding a long lens correctly there is bone support. Target rifle style elbows tucked in with long after market foot resting in the palm of my hand and I find the 800pf more stable than the lighter lenses I have had like the 500pf.

We’re talking about from the standing, right? There’s a reason it’s the most unstable of the shooting positions, and it’s due to what I wrote above. It’s the floppiest, most unsupported position because there’s no direct muscular/skeletal support. Kneeling, sitting, prone, are all 100x more stable.

Talking in terms of fatigue, no way a heavier lens will be less fatiguing than a lens that’s ~2lb lighter. Stablity, sure, the added weight may give it more resistance to vibration and your body’s natural movement.

 

[Ken Miracle]

We’re talking about from the standing, right? There’s a reason it’s the most unstable of the shooting positions, and it’s due to what I wrote above. It’s the floppiest, most unsupported position because there’s no direct muscular/skeletal support. Kneeling, sitting, prone, are all 100x more stable.

Talking in terms of fatigue, no way a heavier lens will be less fatiguing than a lens that’s ~2lb lighter. Stablity, sure, the added weight may give it more resistance to vibration and your body’s natural movement.

Standing, kneeling seldom sitting, some times prone. Done correctly is not floppy, done incorrectly it is. Prone may be the most stable but in most birding habitat not practical or even possible. Every shot you can see in my gallery here was taken hand held and the majority standing or kneeling. And at Cornel Lab of Ornithology in my e bird checklists you can find thousands more.

 

[Anjin San]

Our body weight can easily vary by 1.5 - 2 lbs per day. We never notice it. Then why do we obsess over a few extra ounces of camera gear?

I just lost 30 lbs of pork this past year. Does that mean I will pack 30 pounds of extra gear? No, but a few pounds or ounces don't make a difference. Heavier gear means those lazy, weak, flabby muscles will get some much needed exercise.

One would think that…but from a practical experience my shoulders can tell the difference, particularly when carrying 2 bodies with lenses on 2 BR straps. Before I got the Z8…I had the Z9 with 100-400 and usually the TC as well on one side and the Z7II with a short lens on the other side and shoulders easily recognized the difference.