Part of the difference maybe that the D500 uses a 7 V battery and the D9 uses a 10.8 V battery.
As the D5 uses a high voltage battery I would have expected it to be closer to the Z9 AF speed.
Best lens for Z9 and bird photography
- Thread starter GinaLola
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
As the D5 uses a high voltage battery I would have expected it to be closer to the Z9 AF speed.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Plenty of sound advice above. Although perhaps there are too many options based on first comparisons of Nikon-Fit telephotos [overview appended bottom], they can be filtered into at least 4 categories.
Zoom Telephotos, Flexibility where a Zoom is better, and obviously much quicker than swopping a TC off or on. The 100-400 S is the most logical, although a 200-600 Z mount is roadmapped. The "Bigmas" are heavier but get you to 600mm. The 180-400 TC14 is one of my best all rounder wildlife lenses but limited to birds at sufficiently close distances. It also weighs 3.5kg
Lightest Primes, The 500 PF and 400 f4.5S win big time in the light weight category, especially for hiking and BIF. Both these remarkble telephotos pair very well with their TC14 on Z cameras.
Exotic Primes, The heavier E FL and Z (2 models have integral bespoke-TCs) include the succession of models of the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4. These are all unmatched for quality and versatility, as each pairs very well with Teleconverters, but there's the factors of their weights and prices!
800mm (Plus), The 800 PF is very good; indeed it's unique in key respects. Its image quality is very close to the legendary 800 f5.6E, but at significant savings in cost and weight. Small birds often demand at least 800mm to obtain decent FX framing, and 1000mm or 1120mm, 1600mm even, reach is often needed. This schematic below illustrates these challenges, to achieve decent framing of smaller subjects, and/or at longer distances.
Using a DX crop in-camera on a 45mp sensor is often a useful tactic for birds, and the images work well on social media platforms.
Zoom Telephotos, Flexibility where a Zoom is better, and obviously much quicker than swopping a TC off or on. The 100-400 S is the most logical, although a 200-600 Z mount is roadmapped. The "Bigmas" are heavier but get you to 600mm. The 180-400 TC14 is one of my best all rounder wildlife lenses but limited to birds at sufficiently close distances. It also weighs 3.5kg
Lightest Primes, The 500 PF and 400 f4.5S win big time in the light weight category, especially for hiking and BIF. Both these remarkble telephotos pair very well with their TC14 on Z cameras.
Exotic Primes, The heavier E FL and Z (2 models have integral bespoke-TCs) include the succession of models of the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4. These are all unmatched for quality and versatility, as each pairs very well with Teleconverters, but there's the factors of their weights and prices!
800mm (Plus), The 800 PF is very good; indeed it's unique in key respects. Its image quality is very close to the legendary 800 f5.6E, but at significant savings in cost and weight. Small birds often demand at least 800mm to obtain decent FX framing, and 1000mm or 1120mm, 1600mm even, reach is often needed. This schematic below illustrates these challenges, to achieve decent framing of smaller subjects, and/or at longer distances.
Using a DX crop in-camera on a 45mp sensor is often a useful tactic for birds, and the images work well on social media platforms.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
EricKlees
Well-known member
Oh no doubt the reason is the Z9 has the extra power to drive the focusing motor. But i also think it has to do with the Z9 doesn't have a separate AF module and the AF comes directly off the sensor.
Dave Douglass
Well-known member
I continue to use my trusty Nikon 200-500 lens on my Z9 that I had such good luck with my D500. It required an adapter and I have no urge to have another wildlife lens. I do some hand held shooting but mostly monopod assisted.
ARClark
Well-known member
I've been shooting birds for about ten years with various Nikon bodies and lenses. I currently have a D850 and Z9. I owned the 100-400 for a short time but returned it. It's an excellent lens and can do a great job with birds at close range, but I didn't find it long enough for the wide range of birding I do, particularly songbirds. It's also a rather slow lens with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at 400mm. I shoot with three handholdable (for me) 500mm lenses including the 500mm f/4, 500mm f/5.6 PF and 200-500mm f/5.6. I use them for various shooting situations. The f/4E is the heaviest and most expensive, but it is best of the three for ultimate IQ, low light and TC use. The diminutive/lightweight 500 PF still offers excellent IQ, even with a 1.4x TC and is by far the smallest and lightest - really a joy to use. The 200-500 is the least used, but it comes in handy when I anticipate needing zoom flexibility.
Having said all that, for a single lens, I'd certainly consider a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm or a Sony 200-600 with adapter (or wait for Nikon's 200-600 release?). While the Sigma 150-600mm Sport may be the best in the 150-600 focal range, it's also the heaviest and most expensive. As a somewhat lighter, less expensive but capable alternative, the Tamron G2 would be a prime option. The Nikon 200-500 has the benefit of a constant f/5.6 aperture and TC interchangeability with other Nikon lenses, but 150-600 focal range of the Tamron is very enticing. Finally, if you don't need a zoom, I'd definitely consider the 500 PF for its excellent IQ, small size and weight ,and ability to use TCs. The 800 appears to be an awesome lens, but would not be a one-lens solution. But it could complement one of the zooms or the 500 PF quite well.
The 500 mm PF I think is the best compromise for you. Its compact size and weight make it perfect for hiking long distances. The key here is "If you could only have one lens". As mentioned 800mm with its narrow field of view can be challenging at best to initially pick up BIF. On a Z9 the 500 PF focuses very fast. All the AFS TC's work. Even the 2X focuses reasonably fast abeit its at f11. There are used 500 PF's out there if you didn't want to buy new. Try renting one and see if this works for your one lens criteria.
Do what I did, tell the wife we won’t be taking a holiday for the next ten years & buy the Z 600mm f4 with a 1.4 TC!
Roy
Well-known member
Either the 600 or 400 TC lenses.
600mm seems to be the ideal focal length but the 400mm with TC is pretty close and more versatile.
The only drawback on these lenses is the weight ...
I am a birder and bird photographer. All terrain and habitat. Mostly on foot occasionally with suv as a rolling blind. Hand held 100% of the time.
I have had the Z800pf since 5-1-22 and the only time it seems to leave my Z9 is when I do a people shoot for church like I did today, then the Z50 f/1.8 and the Z24-120 f/4 get used.
I do have the Z100-400 and with the 1.4TC it works great and I sold my 500pf when I got that combo. However now with the Z800pf I just never use it.
I will probably add a Z200-600 if it ever comes out or a Zmount ready 150-600 or some such form Tamron or Sigma I used and was happy with Tamron G2 and Sigma Sport with my DSLR's.
I have had the Z800pf since 5-1-22 and the only time it seems to leave my Z9 is when I do a people shoot for church like I did today, then the Z50 f/1.8 and the Z24-120 f/4 get used.
I do have the Z100-400 and with the 1.4TC it works great and I sold my 500pf when I got that combo. However now with the Z800pf I just never use it.
I will probably add a Z200-600 if it ever comes out or a Zmount ready 150-600 or some such form Tamron or Sigma I used and was happy with Tamron G2 and Sigma Sport with my DSLR's.
What I have: For bird photography I have a choice of two good lenses, the 500F4G and the 300 F2.8 VRII, with the TC 1.4 as an option. They date from my D500 days. They are even better on the Z9 with the FTZ. If I had to pick a Z lens for bird photography, it would be much better to be closer to 500 to 750mm. I like prime lenses for BIF and BOB. I was never a fan of the 200-500 for bird photography anyway.
What I would choose for Z mount: The best choices would be either the 400 TC or the 600 TC. It is a shame that there is no 500 TC. For the birds I see, the 500mm focal length (with the option to add a 1.4TC) is the sweet spot.
It is not just the 500mm focal length it is the speed. F4 glass or better for me. (I have to admit that the 500PF is a great option, however).
If you start at 6.3 or need to stop down to F8 to get acceptably excellent image quality, focus speed and low light performance would probably suffer too much. Slow aperture more or less rules out the option to us a TC in poor light.
I prefer a prime lens because I prefer good edge to edge sharpness and soft bokeh is often essential when backgrounds are potentially distracting or too busy. Close focussing is a key parameter I would expect the Z mount lenses to do better than my F mount glass. I have never been a fan of variable aperture zooms.
The big issue is the upfront cost of the long Z mount lenses. The prices are way out of my reach. For the foreseeable future my F-mount lenses will remain in use with the Z9. The benefits of the Z lenses is nothing like as obvious at focal lengths over 200mm as it is with short focal lengths.
What I would choose for Z mount: The best choices would be either the 400 TC or the 600 TC. It is a shame that there is no 500 TC. For the birds I see, the 500mm focal length (with the option to add a 1.4TC) is the sweet spot.
It is not just the 500mm focal length it is the speed. F4 glass or better for me. (I have to admit that the 500PF is a great option, however).
If you start at 6.3 or need to stop down to F8 to get acceptably excellent image quality, focus speed and low light performance would probably suffer too much. Slow aperture more or less rules out the option to us a TC in poor light.
I prefer a prime lens because I prefer good edge to edge sharpness and soft bokeh is often essential when backgrounds are potentially distracting or too busy. Close focussing is a key parameter I would expect the Z mount lenses to do better than my F mount glass. I have never been a fan of variable aperture zooms.
The big issue is the upfront cost of the long Z mount lenses. The prices are way out of my reach. For the foreseeable future my F-mount lenses will remain in use with the Z9. The benefits of the Z lenses is nothing like as obvious at focal lengths over 200mm as it is with short focal lengths.
I did not mention in my earlier post that I had a 600f/4E when I got my Z800pf and I sold it immediately before the price dropped. But for me the big difference was that 600mm is not enough focal length for Southern Idaho and our wide open spaces.
EricKlees
Well-known member
Interesting how you mention you needed to stop down the 500PF to f8 to get acceptably excellent IQ. I've not ever heard of much of a copy variance with the 500PF but my 500PF was razor sharp wide open at 5.6. I only stopped down to f8 for subjects at or close to MFD for more DOF, otherwise I shot it exclusively wide open.
That’s my dream birding lens at this point, a 500 f/4 TC. None of the big 3 have done a 500 f4 with the recent “move all elements rearward to lessen weight and improve balance” treatment, so it’d be interesting to see how much weight reduction they could accomplish.
To not give the impression that I think the 500mm pf is a bad birding lens for the Z9 I did use my 500pf with and without a 1.4TC on my Z6II a few times but never on my Z9 since I sold it before the Z9 arrived.
Here are some examples where I did use the 500pf on my DSLR's from f/5.6 to f/8. I just used other lenses more and preferred the Z100-400 with or without 1.4 TC for its variable focal length flexibility.
Here are some examples where I did use the 500pf on my DSLR's from f/5.6 to f/8. I just used other lenses more and preferred the Z100-400 with or without 1.4 TC for its variable focal length flexibility.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
fcotterill
Well-known member
On sleeping on your question, if it's one lighter lens and only the 1 lens, I would use the 500 PF or 400 f4.5S with the respective TC14. And also keep the TC17 or ZTC2 on hand for longer reach for photos of birds where the question is primarily their identification, and to share locality records etc.
However,a 800 PF performs better in wider open habits, including shorelines but the MFD might be 'too far' of a restriction in some close up situations. My ideal system is the 800 PF on the Z9 and 500 PF on the D6. If I had a second Z camera, the 400 f4.5S would be the optimal choice.
If weight and high cost is manageable, there's the 400 f2.8S TC that also handles ZTC2 quite well, apparently. However the 600 f4S TC is likely the better choice if it's bought mainly for birds.
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
Interesting speculation. I agree the 500 f4S hits a sweet spot in magnification, speed, and ergonomics. Furthermore, it's always rated higher on the TCF scale (f5.6, f8), second to the 400 f2.8 category (f4, f5.6).
Despite adding the integral TC14 into the 400 f2.8S, Nikon engineers trimmed 22% weight (850g) off the 400 f2.8. perhaps they can get out a 500 f4S TC of ~2.5kg (given the 500 f4E FL weighs 3.1kg, and compared to the 400 f2.8 & 600 f4, it has a narrower window, 125 vs 143/150mm). EDITED
It will be interesting to see what materializes, 500 f4S TC14 or/and 500 f5.6S PF
*TCF=TeleConverter Factor
Last edited:
Yes. I love the look of the images the 500G produces, even wide open it’s great. I need to shoot at 5.6 or more if I want good depth of field when the birds are close to me.
The 500F4 is heavy so I nearly always use a monopod with monogimbal. It predates the 500PF.
The 500G does actually balance well with the heavy Z9. A key issue with weight is “carrying” such a large heavy lens. It more or less eliminates the chance to carry other lenses etc.
If they could produce a well balanced 500 for hand holding, that would be very attractive.
I would prefer a Z series with built in TC. One issue with long focal lengths is if the image stabilisation is really good or not. The advantages of having 5 way VR has a lot of appeal.
Err…… maybe you misread me. I have a 500F4G. I got it well before the e PF was even available, so I never owned PF. Everyone I know with the PF loves it. I was not in a position to buy a second 500 when it was released.
My point about stopping down is really a reference to the 200-600 being a 6.3. That alone reduces my interest in it.
NicholasN
Active member
In what way is the 200-600mm better - is it autofocus speed acquisition, quality of images, feel - lightness etc …interested to know how the adapter works also ?
ARClark
Well-known member
“If they could produce a well balanced 500 for hand holding, that would be very attractive.”
Obviously the 500 PF is most handholdable 500mm. But Nikon has produced a balanced 500 f/4 for hand holding in the 500E FL. With the lighter-than-glass fluorite lens up front, the weight shifts back towards the camera. However, if you’re referring to a Z version, I don’t see one on the horizon yet.
Yep, I definitely should have been clearer!
A Z series F4 well balanced hand holdable 500 [would be vey attractive]. I was assuming that the context of the comment implied that - but perhaps it was not.
Yes, you can hand hold the 500 E series, and the PF. They are both great lenses, no question at all. They are also both (a bit) better than the 500F G. The Pf is lighter, and smaller, the E series is a bit lighter. (about 1kg). The differences in each case were not enough for me to be able to convince myself to spend additional cash to make the change.
What I should have been say was: I would prefer a lens which offered several advantages over the 500G (more compact, Zglass and coatings, Z series 5 way VR, built in TC) all at 500mm.
BTW you can even hand hold the 500F4G (but not for very long)
Last edited:
Strodav
Well-known member
I compared the Sony 200-600mm with Megadap 211 against a Nikon 200-500mm with FTZ II on my Z9. They weigh almost exactly the same at 88 oz with lens hoods. The Sony internally focuses, so balance doesn't change through the zoom range. I really like that you can go through the whole zoom range in less than a quarter twist. The Sony is longer than the Nikon when the Nikon is at 200mm and shorter than the Nikon when the Nikon is at 600mm. At 70 years old, I use it handheld for BIF with no trouble, but others may find it heavy. IQ of the Sony is superior to that of the Nikon not only in resolution throughout the zoom range, but the Nikon is softer in the corners. I have not measured AF speed, but subjectively I can't tell much of a difference. It's hard to separate the Z9's AF system from the lens capability. In a sequence taken at 20fps most images will be sharp with both lenses, but there are some slightly softer ones as well with both lenses. I keep the Megadap 211 adapter on the Sony lens and attach both to the camera at the same time. The adapter is so thin, it's barely noticeable. The documentation does have a warning to make sure the camera is off when mounting the adapter and lens. Firmware updates for the adapter are quick and easy with the device that's included in the box with the adapter. I have not tried to use lens function buttons, so don't know if they work or not. So far, it was a good decision for me.
The Z 600 TC. Since I got it, I have taken more than 20 000 photos of birds. It is really an amazing lens.
Depends…on what you shoot (hummers vs waders) and how far they're away (which may be location based or species based), where you output goes (screen, print, commercial), are you making money and can depreciate your equipment/afford more of it, how much weight you're willing to carry (since a 600/4 is really nice but it's heavy and pretty limiting in what you can shoot if that's your only lens today), what percentage of your needs are met by a single long lens as opposed to some oth3er focal length, and how much money you're willing to spend. For myself…I'm not willing to spend the weight or dollars for the 600 TC or 400 TC, might her willing to spend the weight/dollars for the 800PF but it would not be the everyday lens for me and that gets back into the weight issue.