600mm pf reach vs 500mm pf on d500 vs 800mm pf

[bcgnz]

I’ve been puzzled about this for a while now. I keep seeing people say that the 600mm pf is the successor to the 500mm pf, but that doesn’t seem right. The 500mm pf on the D500 has a reach of 750mm, so shouldn’t the 800mm pf with the Z8 or Z9 be the real successor?

On top of that, I’ve read a bunch of reviews that say the 800mm pf gets too long often time because of the atmospherics issues. Like, Hogan and Hill both mentioned it. And I’ve also heard that 800mm is too long a focal length for BIF because of its limited FOV, so I was under the impression that 800mm isn’t an every day focal length…. But isn’t the reach of 800mm on the Z8 or Z9 basically the same as the 500mm pf on the D500?

I got the 600mm pf thinking it would be more versatile, but now I’m not so sure. If we ignore the weight and cost, I’m wondering if the bigger aperture, better background rendering, and longer reach of the 800mm pf might be a better choice. Did I miss something about the MFD difference between the two?

I originally thought that when I need the 800mm+, I could just toggle to DX mode with the 600mm lens, and 20MP is plenty for me. That would make the 600mm pf on the Z8 or Z9 combo more versatile than having only the 800mm+ reach. But now I’m not so sure if the 600mm lens is too short a focal length to start with on a full-frame camera, especially since I only photograph small and large birds, not mammals, at least for now. If I decide to include mammals in my photography in the future, I might consider getting a 100-400mm lens to supplement the focal length coverage.

Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts!

 

[Mark_Laidlaw]

All kind of depends on what the user is most comfortable with. Working distances of a 400 or 600 might be difficult to make work because of terrain, or physical ability...

There's no one answer that's wrong or right. I shoot alot of songbirds, so even when I'm close to the subject, 600 might not be tight enough...

 

[Surinxd]

Even when you put the 500mm PF on the D500, it is still a 500mm lens, even if the 'reach' is similar to 750 on full frame. Since longer focal lengths are more susceptible to atmospherics, I would say that the 800MM PF would have atmospheric issues faster than the 600 Pf.

 

[bcgnz]

Even when you put the 500mm PF on the D500, it is still a 500mm lens, even if the 'reach' is similar to 750 on full frame. Since longer focal lengths are more susceptible to atmospherics, I would say that the 800MM PF would have atmospheric issues faster than the 600 Pf.

Is that really true? I thought that from the same distance, an 800mm lens on a full-frame camera would produce the same final image as a 500mm lens on an APS-C camera. So, I figured it would be the same amount of air to go through, right?

 

[bcgnz]

All kind of depends on what the user is most comfortable with. Working distances of a 400 or 600 might be difficult to make work because of terrain, or physical ability...

There's no one answer that's wrong or right. I shoot alot of songbirds, so even when I'm close to the subject, 600 might not be tight enough...

If I’m okay with cropping, do you think the wider aperture of the 800mm pf gives the image a completely different look because of how it renders the background?

 

[Surinxd]

Is that really true? I thought that from the same distance, an 800mm lens on a full-frame camera would produce the same final image as a 500mm lens on an APS-C camera. So, I figured it would be the same amount of air to go through, right?

No, your field of view might be similar, but that is where the equality sort of stops.

You can already see the difference if you look at DOF. Consider you are 15M away from your subject :

• The DOF of the 500PF + D500 is 20cm
• The DOF of the 800PF + Z8/Z9 is only 13cm

Regarding your comment about the 'same amount of air': You are indeed shooting through the same amount of air, but your total image is projected onto a much larger sensor, so the same detail will be amplified much more, which I think should also amplify the atmospherics. Do note, however, that if you have very visible atmospheric issues at 800mm, you are probably very likely to get them on the 600mm as well.

--edit: used wrong aperture for the 800PF, corrected the DOF

 

[bcgnz]

No, your field of view might be similar, but that is where the equality sort of stops.

You can already see the difference if you look at DOF. Consider you are 15M away from your subject :

• The DOF of the 500PF + D500 is 20cm
• The DOF of the 800PF + Z8/Z9 is only 11cm

Regarding your comment about the 'same amount of air': You are indeed shooting through the same amount of air, but your total image is projected onto a much larger sensor, so the same detail will be amplified much more, which I think should also amplify the atmospherics.

So, I think I understand what you’re saying. The atmospheric effects seem to be more noticeable in full-frame cameras compared to crop sensors. So, there weren’t many discussions about atmospheric issues with the 500mm + D500 combination? Like, if I understand correctly, I might as well crop with the 600mm if I don’t need so many megapixels.

Is this really why the atmospheric issues are so often brought up with the 800mm pf? Why do I feel like if a full-frame camera is affected by atmospheric issues, an APS-C sensor would be too…

It makes sense that the 800mm pf has a thinner depth of field because of its larger aperture. That’s like the big advantage of the 800mm pf over the 600.

 

[Surinxd]

So, I think I get what you mean. The atmospheric effects only show up in full frame, not crop. So, there wasn’t a complaint about atmospheric issues with the 500mm + D500 combo? Like if I understand correctly, I might as well crop with the 600mm if I don’t need so much megapixels? Is this truly why the atmospherics issues are so often brought up with the 800mm pf?

I mean, it makes sense that the 800mm pf has a thinner depth of field because of its larger aperture. I think that’s a pretty cool feature.

Not really what I was getting at, I was just trying to illustrate the differences between both lenses. Whether atmospheric effects will show up on full frame vs crop is hard to determine I think.

However, I think that more people highlight the atmospherics because 800MM give you more opportunities to get full frames shots of tiny subjects at large distances that have significant magnification. In this case, the higher the distance, the more likely you encounter atmospheric issues.
In my experience, atmospherics can rear its ugly head on 800mm as well as 600mm. If it is really bad at 800mm, it surely will also be bad at 600mm. This can even occur when you have low temperatures. When I was at the Grand Tetons at the end of October, we were shooting grizzlies across a stream, not too far out, and when the sun popped out, we had massive heat haze issues at 23F.

 

[bcgnz]

Not really what I was getting at, I was just trying to illustrate the differences between both lenses. Whether atmospheric effects will show up on full frame vs crop is hard to determine I think.

However, I think that more people highlight the atmospherics because 800MM give you more opportunities to get full frames shots of tiny subjects at large distances that have significant magnification. In this case, the higher the distance, the more likely you encounter atmospheric issues. I get that, but 500mm on DX is still 750mm. I find it surprisingly if atmospherics only show up on full frame but not crop sensor.

So, I think I get it. When we fill the frame with the 800mm lens, it’s still pretty good at capturing details, even in atmospheric conditions. But, it becomes a bigger issue when we start cropping into it on a full-frame camera.

On the other hand, with the 600mm lens, we can still crop it into a 800mm equivalence, since atmospherics issues are not dominant yet at those distances.

So, in that case, the main advantage of the 800 PF lens isn’t its reach (on days with bad atmospherics conditions), but rather its thinner depth of field?

So compared to the 500mm pf DX combo, the 600mm pf FX combo actually gives more versatility by having a shorter reach?….

 

[ButlerKid]

I shoot birds and wildlife. To me, the 600mm (whether TC or PF) is the ideal length. Less atmospheric problems. Goes to 840mm easily.

As Goldie Locks said: Not too hot, not too cold! LOL!

There is no one answer. It depends on each individual. You need to decide for yourself what is important to you.

 

[bcgnz]

I shoot birds and wildlife. To me, the 600mm (whether TC or PF) is the ideal length. Less atmospheric problems. Goes to 840mm easily.

As Goldie Locks said: Not too hot, not too cold! LOL!

There is no one answer. It depends on each individual. You need to decide for yourself what is important to you.

Thanks a bunch! If mammals are taking out of the equations, only big and small birds, do you still find 600mm more versatile?

 

[Surinxd]

So, I think I get it. When we fill the frame with the 800mm lens, it’s still pretty good at capturing details, even in atmospheric conditions. But, it becomes a bigger issue when we start cropping into it on a full-frame camera.

On the other hand, with the 600mm lens, we can still crop it into a 800mm equivalence, since atmospherics issues are not dominant yet at those distances.

So, in that case, the main advantage of the 800 PF lens isn’t its reach (on days with bad atmospherics conditions), but rather its thinner depth of field?

So compared to the 500mm pf DX combo, the 600mm pf FX combo actually gives more versatility by having a shorter reach?….

Still not really what I mean. The only thing I'm trying to explain is why you might find more comments online about atmospheric issues on the 800mm.

I think the cropping thing you highlight is any 'artifact or problem' you have in an image is highlighted by cropping tighter, see Steve's video's about noise. But that was not the point I was trying to make earlier

 

[ButlerKid]

Thanks a bunch! If I don’t shoot mammals (only big and small birds), do you still think 600mm is the best lens?

I’m mainly wondering if the difference in depth of field really matters in the field with the PF lens! And also the one more top of light from the 800 pf.

Judge for yourself. Almost every image in these galleries was taken with the 600mm PF. (I needed rotator cuff surgery and left my 600mm TC at home!). Due to the constant rain and low light conditions, I would have preferred my 600mm TC so I could use lower ISOs, but the 600mm PF did just fine!

DOF largely depends on the distance of the subject to the background. You can see that my images from Panama generally still have nice subject separation from the background.

 

[bcgnz]

Judge for yourself. Almost every image in these galleries was taken with the 600mm PF. (I needed rotator cuff surgery and left my 600mm TC at home!). Due to the constant rain a low light conditions, I would have preferred my 600mm TC so I could use lower ISOs, but the 600mm PF did just fine!

DOF largely depends on the distance of the subject to the background. You can see that my images from Panama generally still have nice subject separation from the background.

Wow - your photos speak volumes!! If there are no post blurs applied to them, I probably think I would want less not more lol..

 

[bcgnz]

Still not really what I mean. The only thing I'm trying to explain is why you might find more comments online about atmospheric issues on the 800mm.

I think the cropping thing you highlight is any 'artifact or problem' you have in an image is highlighted by cropping tighter, see Steve's video's about noise. But that was not the point I was trying to make earlier

Thanks! I was a bit surprised that many reviewers warned about the atmospheric issues with the 800mm pf, when the 500mm DX combo has the same reach with just the pixel difference, specially if no cropping!

 

[ButlerKid]

Wow - your photos speak volumes!! If there are no post blurs applied to them, I probably think I would want less not more lol..

No blurring in post..... It was the first time I used the 600mm PF......and honestly I was blown away by the image quality and fine details. When 600mm was too short, I switched to DX mode on the Z8.

My advice? Quit reading all the comments on the internet and go shoot with the lens. Decide for yourself whether or not the 600mm PF meets your needs.

 

[bcgnz]

No blurring in post..... It was the first time I used the 600mm PF......and honestly I was blown away by the image quality and fine details. When 600mm was too short, I switched to DX mode on the Z8.

My advice? Quit reading all the comments on the internet and go shoot with the lens. Decide for yourself whether or not the 600mm PF meets your needs.

Thank you! Great advice!

 

[JAJohnson]

My advice? Quit reading all the comments on the internet and go shoot with the lens. Decide for yourself whether or not the 600mm PF meets your needs.

Great advice!

 

[Viathelens]

I’ve been puzzled about this for a while now. I keep seeing people say that the 600mm pf is the successor to the 500mm pf, but that doesn’t seem right. The 500mm pf on the D500 has a reach of 750mm, so shouldn’t the 800mm pf with the Z8 or Z9 be the real successor?

On top of that, I’ve read a bunch of reviews that say the 800mm pf gets too long often time because of the atmospherics issues. Like, Hogan and Hill both mentioned it. And I’ve also heard that 800mm is too long a focal length for BIF because of its limited FOV, so I was under the impression that 800mm isn’t an every day focal length…. But isn’t the reach of 800mm on the Z8 or Z9 basically the same as the 500mm pf on the D500?

I got the 600mm pf thinking it would be more versatile, but now I’m not so sure. If we ignore the weight and cost, I’m wondering if the bigger aperture, better background rendering, and longer reach of the 800mm pf might be a better choice. Did I miss something about the MFD difference between the two?

I originally thought that when I need the 800mm+, I could just toggle to DX mode with the 600mm lens, and 20MP is plenty for me. That would make the 600mm pf on the Z8 or Z9 combo more versatile than having only the 800mm+ reach. But now I’m not so sure if the 600mm lens is too short a focal length to start with on a full-frame camera, especially since I only photograph small and large birds, not mammals, at least for now. If I decide to include mammals in my photography in the future, I might consider getting a 100-400mm lens to supplement the focal length coverage.

Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts!

I use a 600PF on a Z8, love the combo, good reach. The 800 would most likely be a bit long for some things and it might be heavier, too. I find the 600PF, and I do use it on DX mode a lot, works for me. The 600PF is the successor because it was the closest lens that matched the 500 that many of us used on a dSLR. The 600 is always attached to the camera and is my go-to lens for most wildlife shots.

 

[Ralph]

Is that really true? I thought that from the same distance, an 800mm lens on a full-frame camera would produce the same final image as a 500mm lens on an APS-C camera. So, I figured it would be the same amount of air to go through, right?

Absolutely

 

[Ralph]

So, I think I understand what you’re saying. The atmospheric effects seem to be more noticeable in full-frame cameras compared to crop sensors. So, there weren’t many discussions about atmospheric issues with the 500mm + D500 combination? Like, if I understand correctly, I might as well crop with the 600mm if I don’t need so many megapixels.

Is this really why the atmospheric issues are so often brought up with the 800mm pf? Why do I feel like if a full-frame camera is affected by atmospheric issues, an APS-C sensor would be too…

It makes sense that the 800mm pf has a thinner depth of field because of its larger aperture. That’s like the big advantage of the 800mm pf over the 600.

I use the 500pf on my D500 and i frequently deal with atmospherics. Time of day and distance from subject is the main determining factor. I think that people that have a lot of issues with the 800 pf are just trying to shoot subjects that are too far or wrong time of day.

 

[Viathelens]

I use the 500pf on my D500 and i frequently deal with atmospherics. Time of day and distance from subject is the main determining factor. I think that people that have a lot of issues with the 800 pf are just trying to shoot subjects that are too far.

I think that last sentence refers to a lot of people who have one problem or another with their long lens!

 

[S⊕TA]

600 pf reach? 93 million miles z9, f/8, 1/200 iso 64

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

 

[Chappy]

The first thing you have to remember is the D500 is a crop sensor camera. The 500pf is still a 500mm lens. So you have a a 500mm lens on a smaller sensor makes it the view of a 750. Since it is a crop sensor camera you can not crop as much as a full frame sensor. The D850, Z8 and Z9 are all full frame cameras shooting at 45mp and if you put them in dx mode they will be very close at 19mp. Again you can't crop much. If shooting in FX mode then you have the ability to crop it to the same as DX mode.

The 600pf is still a 600mm lens and is still longer than the 500pf. The 600pf was considered the replacement to the 500pf for mirrorless cameras. I own both lenses and I rarely ever use the 500pf any more. IMHO it is not as fast or as robust a build as the 600pf.

In my part of the world you will get atmospheric distortion on both lenses. Maybe a bit more on the 600pf but not by very much. Any prime lens is going to be less versatile than a zoom lens such as the 150-600 Sigma Sport or the Nikon 200-500. I have owned both of those lenses and while I had more versatility with focal length, I felt like i was giving up too much image quality and and auto focus performance..

 

[Lance B]

I’ve been puzzled about this for a while now. I keep seeing people say that the 600mm pf is the successor to the 500mm pf, but that doesn’t seem right. The 500mm pf on the D500 has a reach of 750mm, so shouldn’t the 800mm pf with the Z8 or Z9 be the real successor?

On top of that, I’ve read a bunch of reviews that say the 800mm pf gets too long often time because of the atmospherics issues. Like, Hogan and Hill both mentioned it. And I’ve also heard that 800mm is too long a focal length for BIF because of its limited FOV, so I was under the impression that 800mm isn’t an every day focal length…. But isn’t the reach of 800mm on the Z8 or Z9 basically the same as the 500mm pf on the D500?

I got the 600mm pf thinking it would be more versatile, but now I’m not so sure. If we ignore the weight and cost, I’m wondering if the bigger aperture, better background rendering, and longer reach of the 800mm pf might be a better choice. Did I miss something about the MFD difference between the two?

I originally thought that when I need the 800mm+, I could just toggle to DX mode with the 600mm lens, and 20MP is plenty for me. That would make the 600mm pf on the Z8 or Z9 combo more versatile than having only the 800mm+ reach. But now I’m not so sure if the 600mm lens is too short a focal length to start with on a full-frame camera, especially since I only photograph small and large birds, not mammals, at least for now. If I decide to include mammals in my photography in the future, I might consider getting a 100-400mm lens to supplement the focal length coverage.

Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts!

Why are you comparing a 500mm PF on a D500 to say the 600mm PF on the Z8/Z9? You are comparing a crop sensored camera to a FF sensored camera and thus there is a 1.5x "multiplier on the APS C camera and 500mm will be like a 750mm on FF. The supposed "successor" to the 500PF is generally thought of as the 600mm PF when both are used on a Z8/Z9. The 600mm PF is thought of as the successor of the 500mm PF simply because they are both PF lenses and are of similar size and weight.

If you are using the 500PF on the D500 at the moment and want to switch to a Z8/Z9, then yes, the 800PF is a more apt comparison of focal length "equivalence". If you crop the Z8/Z9 image to APS C format with a 500mm PF lens, you will effectively have a 750mm lens. If you crop the Z8/Z9 image to APS C format with a 600mm PF lens, you will effectively have a 900mm lens. If you crop Z8/Z9 image to APS C on the 800mm PF lens you will effectively have a 1200mm lens.

Now, as to your dilemma about buying a 600mm PF over say the 800mm PF. If you shoot mostly at 600mm and occasionally at 800mm, then get the 600mm PF and add the 1.4x TC for an excellent 840mm f9. However, if you are always shooting at 750mm, as you did with your D500 + 500mm PF, then the 800PF may be more appropriate for you on a FF camera. However, you do not have the advantage of a 600mm lens if required.

As for MFD. MFD is also a result of the focal length of the lens. The 800mm PF has a MFD of 5mts and a magnification of .16x. The 600mm PF has a MFD of 4mts and a mag of .14x. The older 500mm PF has a MFD of 3mts and a mag of .18x.

Let's look at MFD by itself. The 600mm focal length is shorter than the 800 by a factor of 600/800 = .75x. In other words, you have to be closer to the subject with the 600 by a factor of .75x of what the MFD of the 800 is. So, if you multiply the MFD of the 800 by the shorter focal length factor you get 5mts/0.75 = 3.75mts however the MFD of the 600 is 4mts, you can't get to 3.75mts. This means that at 5mts, the 800mm actually has a closer MFD as a ratio of the focal length compared to the 600mm lens which would need to be at 3.75mts when in reality it is 4mts. This is borne out by the fact that the 800 has a mag of .16x and the 600 has a mag of only .14x. So, in reality, even though the 800's MFD is longer at 5mts than that of the 600 at 4mts, it is not in reality as the ratio of focal length to MFD is in the 800's favor. You will have a larger subject size in your resultant photo when the 800 is at MFD compared to the 600 at MFD. The 500 PF has a closer MFD in relation to the other two lenses and also has a higher mag as a result of this. So, the ratio between the 800 and 500 is 500/800 = .625x. so, as the above example, if we multiply the MFD of the 800 to compare it to the 500 we get 5mts x .625x = 3.125mts and the 500's MFD is actually 3mt. This means that the 500mm has a MFD that is closer in relation to the 800mm's MFD, you will have a larger subject size on your photo when both lenses are at MFD with the 500 rather than the 800. As I also pointed out, the mag of the 500 is .18x compared to the 800 at .16x and the 600 at .14x.

Another factor to consider is that by adding any TC, it keeps the MFD of the original lens which can be of benefit for small birds or small subjects. So, the 600 with a 1.4x TC becomes an 840mm lens but with a MFD of the original 4mts yet a mag of almost .2x - the 600's mag of .14x multiplied by the TC of 1.4x = .196x. The mag is now larger than that of the 800 PF at .16x.

I think people get too caught up in this with regards to the size of your subject and how close you can actually get in reality. My experience with most small birds will be less than happy with anyone that is say 3mts away with your 500 PF even if it doesn't fill the frame on a FF sensored camera. Most small birds will be more comfortable with you at the MFD of the 800 at 5mts and you will have a fairly similar sized subject in the frame. In fact, it is really only smallish birds where close MFD may be important in order to "fill the frame". Anything larger and you will need to step back with any of these lenses regardless.