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

[Tom Reynolds]

My understanding is that the 600pf is an absolutely awesome lens, even better than the 500pf which took unbelievable pictures on my D-500.

My general experience shooting only birds and not very accomplished sneaking up on subjects is that 800mm is my best single length. On a 20MP m43 sensor I can't crop much but I often don't need to. I did find that a single lens with 750mm each (D-500/500pf) was limiting so I wanted a zoom. I have seen plenty of great IQ at 1000mm reach (OM-1/150-400 + 1.25 TC) and even 1200mm (OM-1/300f4+ 2.0TC) so I think that atmospheric conditions more than reach is the controlling factor.

So bottom line the 600pf with 900mm reach is Dx mode is really good coverage for me and what I would purchase if I had a z8-9.

Tom

 

[nmerc_photos]

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!

There's a lot to unpack here.... these are my thoughts as someone who has owned the 600PF and 800PF both multiple times, but never shot DLSR or with the 500PF.

People say the 600PF is the successor to the 500PF because they are both similar size, weight, apertures, and reach. The reason you don't view that comparison is because you're looking at a crop body DSLR and comparing to full frame mirrorless. If you could use both the 500/600PF on the same body (either FF or crop - not one of each) I think you would understand the comparison people are making.

800PF only gets too long if you are using it improperly. I am an expert in this field... I bought the 800PF expecting the longer focal length would give me added reach and let me shoot subjects at further distances than the 400TC/600TC - which could not be more wrong. The proper use of the 800PF is to magnify small subjects at close to medium distances. If you use the 800PF as intended - you will not have issues with atmospherics any more than you would with a 600PF, 500PF, etc.

While some people find tracking birds with 800mm to be difficult, I don't. When I shot Canon I regularly used focal lengths between 1200mm - 2240mm. Not that the images were any good, but I had no difficulty locating and tracking birds. I think the 800mm focal length, and especially the 800PF - are a great everyday combo.

If we ignore weight and cost - I'm picking the 800PF everyday. I find it to be a more enjoyable lens with a better focal length (for me). However, they are both roughly the same cost (used) but I do value size/weight highly - so I currently have the 600PF.

The MFD difference is not significant. 13.3' on the 600PF vs 16.4' on the 800PF. They both have the same aperture and similar background rendering. Reach is going to be your only benefit of going to the 800PF.

It's all going to come down to what you shoot, and how much you care about size and weight.

I have, at times, owned both the 600PF and 800PF together - and had use cases specific to each lens. Although very similar, they are still distinct enough to serve their own purposes.

 

[NorthernFocus]

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 think you're reading too much and not shooting enough. If you already have the 600pf just get out and shoot. Don't let others' ideas confuse you. I suggest you set up a button on your camera to toggle between FX/DX mode. It's very useful and if you've just transitioned from DX to FX it can be very educational as well. @nmerc_photos gave a good summary above so I won't repeat it.

Regarding atmospheric distortion, reading comments on forums like this one would get the impression that atmospherics are quite a mystical phenomenon. Which is a somewhat midieval point of view. In fact to this day mirage effect is sometimes referred to as fata morgana in reference to Morgan le Fay the sorceress of King Arthur's day. However nowadays we(at least some of us) understand that it is in fact physics. And boring as it sounds on any given day atmospheric distortion is proportional to the distance between observer and target regardless of what lens is used. However, I do offer a service for those who adhere to the mystical view. For the nominal fee of just $499(plus shipping/handling) I can install ADC(atmospheric distortion control) on any lens of any length by any manufacturer. The service comes with a full, transferable lifetime warranty(only electronic funds transfer accepted, terms and conditions apply).

 

[arbitrage]

When you talk about reach you need to consider the pixel density (or pixels per area) of the sensor. The D500 and Z8/Z9 are very similar pixel density.
D500: 20.9MP
Z9/Z8: 45.7MP which in DX mode is 20.3MP
20.9 vs 20.3 means we can basically call them equal.

Therefore you compare focal length lenses like for like. So 600PF on Z8/Z9 will give you more "reach" than 500PF on D500. 800PF on Z8/Z9 will give you significantly more reach than 500PF on D500.

As far as keeping the bird in the frame during fast action BIF shooting the 600PF on Z8/Z9 will be easier to shoot than the 500PF on the D500. Because the FOV is 600mm on the Z8/Z9 and the narrower 750mm on the D500. But in the end you will end up with more pixels on a given bird. If you adapt the 500PF to the Z8/Z9 you will have an even easier time keeping the bird in the frame AND have almost identical "reach" as you have now on the D500. Win, Win.
Add to that you will have full sensor AF point coverage on the Z8/Z9 for an easier time tracking the bird if you don't keep up with its movements perfectly. Now the D500 wasn't bad being a crop sensor as it had fairly large AF coverage.
D850 was often compared to D500 as they had the same pixel density relationship as the Z8/Z9 to D500 had. Easier to keep bird in frame...BUT AF points didn't cover the full sensor so you still needed to keep the bird in the centre for AF to track it.

 

[fcotterill]

Pixels/Duck is the variable that's often quoted to describe the benefit of 500 PF on DX versus FX assuming the same resolution of the sensors eg D500 or D6. For comparison, the D500 and D850 (Z9) as the cameras will have almost identical coverage of pixels/duck (all else kept equal except crop factor).

The image below compares how the image is framed on a FX vs DX sensor using the same lens on the subject.

As others have explained, the 500 PF has the same magnification independent of the crop factor, which "tightens up" the FoV on the DX sensor

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

 

[Calson]

The first day out with the 800mm PF I was capturing infocus hairy woodpeckers as they moved quickly around on oak trees. The eye detect AF enabled me to get pictures that would not have been possible with a DSLR. I also needed the 800mm focal length for these small birds.

An 800mm lens provides an image size that is 77% greater than with a 600mm focal length lens. For small subjects that is a great deal of difference and far less cropping is needed, if any, in post. The 600mm provides a 44% larger image size than a 500mm focal length lens which is also significant.

The PF lenses are why I went with Nikon mirrorless cameras as going with Canon or Sony was also an option.

 

[Anjin San]

you set up a button on your camera to toggle between FX/DX mode

I have to admit…I set that up and it rarely gets used unless AF is having trouble with small subjects because cropping in post is just easier most of the time…and if you don’t use DX much it’s lots harder to accidentally stay there and get lower MP shots. Haven’t done away with it on a button yet though.

 

[S⊕TA]

The first day out with the 800mm PF I was capturing infocus hairy woodpeckers as they moved quickly around on oak trees. The eye detect AF enabled me to get pictures that would not have been possible with a DSLR. I also needed the 800mm focal length for these small birds.

An 800mm lens provides an image size that is 77% greater than with a 600mm focal length lens. For small subjects that is a great deal of difference and far less cropping is needed, if any, in post. The 600mm provides a 44% larger image size than a 500mm focal length lens which is also significant.

The PF lenses are why I went with Nikon mirrorless cameras as going with Canon or Sony was also an option.

Can you help me with the math here? If I divide 800/600 I come up with 1.33. Isn't that just 33% larger in size?

 

[DRwyoming]

Can you help me with the math here? If I divide 800/600 I come up with 1.33. Isn't that just 33% larger in size?

It's 33 percent larger in both dimensions. We often think of subject size in terms of the area the subject takes up in the photo so 1.33^2 or the subject with the 800mm lens takes up 1.77 times the area of the same subject at the same distant shot on the same size sensor with the 600mm lens. That's where the 77% larger comes from, area not linear scaling along one axis or the other.

Or as mentioned higher in this thread folks sometimes refer to 'pixels on duck' or how many pixels out of your total sensor resolution are on the subject. For the same size subject at the same distance with the same sensor the 800mm puts 77% more pixels on the subject than the 600mm.

 

[EricBowles]

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've had the 800mm PF since release. I just got back from Big Bend NP and took that lens. For me, it's a small bird lens 90% of the time. I've used it for other things over the past month - a gray fox, a few deer, the moon, sandhill cranes and whooping cranes, bald eagles and even a few wading birds at longer distances. I love the lens, but it is for creating frame filling shots of wildlife and small birds. If a subject is 400 yards away, you don't need a longer lens - you need to get closer.

My other main lens for wildlife is the 400mm f/4.5. It's smaller and lighter with excellent image quality - especially backgrounds. This lens is great for larger animals and wading birds - especially in places where the subject matter is common and can be approached. It also is good for environmental wildlife shots - images that include the context of the place rather than another frame filling head shot.

I had the 500mm PF and sold it before getting the 400mm f/4.5. I did not like the backgrounds in situations with bright specular highlights - like shorebirds. That is a common subject for me, and a place where PF lenses can show an odd bokeh. I also have the 600mm f/4, but it's a lens that requires a tripod and gimbal so it does not work as well for birding or hiking.

I would consider the 600mm PF the successor to the 500mm PF. It's a little longer focal length, but you also have a slightly slower aperture. You can use either lens on a Z camera, and the camera can be used in DX mode if desired. It will work fine on a Z50ii if you want a DX camera.

Across the Nikon lenses, the minimum focus distance normally gets longer with longer lenses. The magnification ratio is about the same on all of these lenses - around 1:6.5. The exception is the zoom lenses, but they are harder to compare because the MFD is at the shorter end of the range. Still, the 100-400 has the highest magnification ratio of any lens that reaches 400mm or longer - and that makes it ideal for dragonflies and butterflies. The 100-400 is also a very good lens for travel due to its compact size.

I've used all these lenses with DX cameras or in DX mode. DX is simply a crop - and you can crop either in the camera or after taking the image.

 

[bcgnz]

I've had the 800mm PF since release. I just got back from Big Bend NP and took that lens. For me, it's a small bird lens 90% of the time. I've used it for other things over the past month - a gray fox, a few deer, the moon, sandhill cranes and whooping cranes, bald eagles and even a few wading birds at longer distances. I love the lens, but it is for creating frame filling shots of wildlife and small birds. If a subject is 400 yards away, you don't need a longer lens - you need to get closer.

My other main lens for wildlife is the 400mm f/4.5. It's smaller and lighter with excellent image quality - especially backgrounds. This lens is great for larger animals and wading birds - especially in places where the subject matter is common and can be approached. It also is good for environmental wildlife shots - images that include the context of the place rather than another frame filling head shot.

I had the 500mm PF and sold it before getting the 400mm f/4.5. I did not like the backgrounds in situations with bright specular highlights - like shorebirds. That is a common subject for me, and a place where PF lenses can show an odd bokeh. I also have the 600mm f/4, but it's a lens that requires a tripod and gimbal so it does not work as well for birding or hiking.

I would consider the 600mm PF the successor to the 500mm PF. It's a little longer focal length, but you also have a slightly slower aperture. You can use either lens on a Z camera, and the camera can be used in DX mode if desired. It will work fine on a Z50ii if you want a DX camera.

Across the Nikon lenses, the minimum focus distance normally gets longer with longer lenses. The magnification ratio is about the same on all of these lenses - around 1:6.5. The exception is the zoom lenses, but they are harder to compare because the MFD is at the shorter end of the range. Still, the 100-400 has the highest magnification ratio of any lens that reaches 400mm or longer - and that makes it ideal for dragonflies and butterflies. The 100-400 is also a very good lens for travel due to its compact size.

I've used all these lenses with DX cameras or in DX mode. DX is simply a crop - and you can crop either in the camera or after taking the image.

If not making large prints, would the 400mm with 2x TC? work similarly well compared to the 800mm PF? Do you notice odd bokeh with the 800mm PF as well?

 

[EricBowles]

If not making large prints, would the 400mm with 2x TC? work similarly well compared to the 800mm PF? Do you notice odd bokeh with the 800mm PF as well?

The 400mm f/2.8 would be a very good TC option (likely the price is a show stopper), but the f/4.5 version is not as good to begin with, and as you add a 2.0 teleconverter you are probably pushing past the limits for critical sharpness. It would be okay uncropped in a pinch, but is not a substitute for the 5600mm PF or 800mm PF. The 1.4 TC on the f/4.5 lens is pretty good and I have no hesitation about using it. Just keep in mind that if you need 600mm, get the longer lens. The bare lens is always going to be sharper and focus faster and more accurately.

My take is the 800mm PF backgrounds are much better controlled than the 500mm PF. It's a newer PF technology and design and it shows. It's not a big deal with normal use - just for a specific use case I see frequently. If you rarely run into specular highlights in your backgrounds or if you are mainly photographing with the light at your back, it's not really an issue.

 

[nmerc_photos]

If not making large prints, would the 400mm with 2x TC? work similarly well compared to the 800mm PF? Do you notice odd bokeh with the 800mm PF as well?

edit: I misread. this was about the 400 4.5 + 2x. I would never choose that option instead of the 800PF.

 

[Calson]

Most of my images have been taken over the years with a 840mm focal length using a 600mm with a 1.4x teleconverter. Otherwise it has been with the 500mm PF or the 80-400mm lens. The 800mm PF is far more easily managed in the field than a 600mm with TC in terms of weight and the need for a tripod and a gimbal head.

The Z 600mm PF has taken the place of the 500mm f-mount lens. The 13 foot minimum focus distance would only be a problem with hummers at feeding stations as was the case with the 500mm PF lens. The 600mm PF is comparable in size and weight to a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.

For small subjects a long lens and one light enough to no hinder mobilty are my two primary considerations. I had the 180-600mm lens for a short time but found that I was seldom taking it into the field due to its weight an bulk and instead have used the 100-400mm with the 1.4x TC or the 600mm PF lens.

People continue to post about which lenses to take and which to leave at home. With PF lenses I have more options. Of course my wife's MFT kit is half the size and half the weight of my FX gear on our travels and she takes everything.

 

[Nimi]

Pixels/Duck is the variable that's often quoted to describe the benefit of 500 PF on DX versus FX assuming the same resolution of the sensors eg D500 or D6. For comparison, the D500 and D850 (Z9) as the cameras will have almost identical coverage of pixels/duck (all else kept equal except crop factor).

The image below compares how the image is framed on a FX vs DX sensor using the same lens on the subject.

As others have explained, the 500 PF has the same magnification independent of the crop factor, which "tightens up" the FoV on the DX sensor


View attachment 107053

The bird on the sensor should be inverted.

 

[Woodyg3]

I have to say that this thread has taken overthinking to a bit of an extreme. No prime lens will be the "right" field of view all the time. So, there is no "right" answer between the 600 and 800.

You've got the 600, so I would go out and shoot and shoot and shoot, then decide how well it's working for you. Not high tech advice, but I really think it's the best approach.

 

[S⊕TA]

It's 33 percent larger in both dimensions. We often think of subject size in terms of the area the subject takes up in the photo so 1.33^2 or the subject with the 800mm lens takes up 1.77 times the area of the same subject at the same distant shot on the same size sensor with the 600mm lens. That's where the 77% larger comes from, area not linear scaling along one axis or the other.

Or as mentioned higher in this thread folks sometimes refer to 'pixels on duck' or how many pixels out of your total sensor resolution are on the subject. For the same size subject at the same distance with the same sensor the 800mm puts 77% more pixels on the subject than the 600mm.

Now I got it. Thank you for that explanation.

 

[MarkB]

To me it's more about how many pixels you are getting on the subject. If you can get close enough with the 500mm to fill the frame then it will produce a very good result from a sharpness perspective, which is what I value most with wildlife and birds. If you can't fill the frame then perhaps a longer focal length will produce a better result.

Comparing a D500 to lets say a D850; the D500 has 20.6 megapixels whereas the D850 has 45.7 megapixels. The D850 can be shot in DX mode at 19.5 megapixels which gives a very similar result to the D500. But if I can get close enough to fill the frame on my D850 it will be a sharper image than the D500 can produce.

 

[viper699]

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

I've shot small birds, like Ttanager's and smaller- hummingbirds regularly. The 600mm PF on my z8 is pure gold. The only thing I'd be curious about is the 800mm. However I only carry 2 lenses when I travel, and the other is z100-400.

 

[S⊕TA]

I've shot small birds, like Ttanager's and smaller- hummingbirds regularly. The 600mm PF on my z8 is pure gold. The only thing I'd be curious about is the 800mm. However I only carry 2 lenses when I travel, and the other is z100-400.

Some say, there is no replacement for displacement. In our hobby or line-of-work, probably best off not going with a TC, meaning buy the 800mm vs getting a TC of some sort.

Having said that, I'll say this - I purchased a TC anyway, for use with the 600 PF. The TC 1.4 to be specific. I am more than satisfied with the results. see attached photo - as shot with the exception of cropped. Nikon Z8, ISO 64, f/10 1/100 on a 600 PF with TC 1.4 (=840mm)

One of the reasons I picked the 600mm PF vs. the 800mm, was the filter support. Had the 800mm PF had filter support I would have snarfed that up in a heartbeat, especially knowing the 800mm was f/6.3.

Sidebar: I purchased the 600mm PF in prep for the 2024 Total Solar Eclipse. I did not suffer the "PF" flare issue even though I was pointing the lens directly at the sun. I attribute the issue-free experience due to the fact I was shooting at infinity, no out-of-focus area.

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

 

[Mike Bull]

Regarding atmospheric softening of images 500mm to 800mm lenses, the fact that you will take images with the 800mm that are farther away than you would with 500mm means there is more chance of atmospheric softening happening, I think this is why we see more comments on social media. I put my wonderful 500MM PF in part exchange for a 600mm PF to negate the use of a adaptor on my Z9 plus the added reach, I have found the 600mmPF is the same quality image as the 500mmPF but not any better,

 

[TomSavage]

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

View attachment 107043

Of course, the 800PF has a similar 93 million mile reach with no obvious atmospherics.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Regarding atmospheric softening of images 500mm to 800mm lenses, the fact that you will take images with the 800mm that are farther away than you would with 500mm means there is more chance of atmospheric softening happening, I think this is why we see more comments on social media...

I think there's a difference in theory vs the reality of the average person switching from 500mm to 800mm. The comments on social media are mostly discussions by people reading articles/watching youtube videos put out there by pros rather than their own personal experience. With pros it is true that they shoot things farther away with 800mm than with 500mm. Because they use the proper equipment to fill the frame when they shoot. On the other hand most amateurs that are shooting 500mm are already as close as they can get to the subject. Which is why so many people on forums like this one talk about using TCs as a big consideration when buying lenses. So most people switching up from 500 to 800 are not going to experience and worse atmospherics and are simply going to crop less than they do with 500mm. Or quit using a TC.

That said, there are some who will indeed start reaching that much farther and go back to their cropping ways...

 

[bcgnz]

I think there's a difference in theory vs the reality of the average person switching from 500mm to 800mm. The comments on social media are mostly discussions by people reading articles/watching youtube videos put out there by pros rather than their own personal experience. With pros it is true that they shoot things farther away with 800mm than with 500mm. Because they use the proper equipment to fill the frame when they shoot. On the other hand most amateurs that are shooting 500mm are already as close as they can get to the subject. Which is why so many people on forums like this one talk about using TCs as a big consideration when buying lenses. So most people switching up from 500 to 800 are not going to experience and worse atmospherics and are simply going to crop less than they do with 500mm. Or quit using a TC.

That said, there are some who will indeed start reaching that much farther and go back to their cropping ways...

sorry…

So are you saying that , for amateur, 800mm PF is actually better than 500mm? And it actually gives more reach for amateurs?

 

[NorthernFocus]

sorry…

So are you saying that , for amateur, 800mm PF is actually better than 500mm? And it actually gives more reach for amateurs?

I'm saying if you're shooting 500mm and using DX mode, using a TC, or cropping a lot in post, then yes you're better off shooting 800mm.