Best low light Nikon telephoto lenses

[Abinoone]

I'd be curious about opinions on which Nikon telephoto lenses you prefer for low light situations, at the edges of the day or on heavily overcast days. I currently shoot with a 500mm f5.6 lens and, while generally I get OK results, AF really struggles in the early morning and late evening hours when light is low, and images end up at very high ISO, thus compromising the quality of the images. I'm considering acquiring a faster lens - f4 or wider - in an effort to obtain better results. For those of you who have shot in low to very low light situations with such lenses, what has been your experience?

 

[DRwyoming]

My go to long lens for low light is a 600mm f/4.

Many prefer the 400mm f/2.8 but when I owned one I always had a TC mounted as 400mm is a bit short for my typical subjects.

 

[ajrmd]

If you provide the camera, FL, and intended targets it would be helpful.

 

[ButlerKid]

What Dave said.............

 

[arbitrage]

400TC or adapted Sony 300GM

 

[JAJohnson]

I'd be curious about opinions on which Nikon telephoto lenses you prefer for low light situations, at the edges of the day or on heavily overcast days. I currently shoot with a 500mm f5.6 lens and, while generally I get OK results, AF really struggles in the early morning and late evening hours when light is low, and images end up at very high ISO, thus compromising the quality of the images. I'm considering acquiring a faster lens - f4 or wider - in an effort to obtain better results. For those of you who have shot in low to very low light situations with such lenses, what has been your experience?

I usually shoot wildlife with my Z8 & Z9. I have a Z 400 TC so that would be my choice for low light, but I've been able to get surprisingly good low light (and higher ISO) shots with a 600 PF.

 

[fcotterill]

I've owned 300 f2.8G VRII and 400 f2.8E FL, both are superb optics but as many find they require a TC most of the time. I finalized on a Used copy of the 180-400 f4E TC14, which is excellent for mammals, although obviously a 560 f5.6 with the TC engaged. Used at f2.8 and f4 respectively, thse all work very well as the sun drops low or on overcast conditions.

The relatively improved availability of 800mm primes has also changed my previous use of the shorter telephoto primes for "reach", which is one reason I traded in the 400 f2.8E reluctantly, and dropping f2.8 to f4 is not too limiting. Here again, the "fastest" 800mm yet made is f5.6 or f7.1 at 1000mm

I've also had excellent results around sunset and into the gloaming with close up subjects using the 70-200 f2.8E FL (on Z7, D850, Z9)

 

[nmerc_photos]

it's going to depend heavily on how big your subjects are, and how far away they are

obviously the f2.8 300mm/400mm are generally considered the best - but if you have to be cropping to 600mm FOV anyways, you're going to lose all that benefit

for me the 600mm f4 is generally the best low light telephoto

 

[Ivan Rothman]

My favorite low light lens to use with my Z9 or Z8 is the 600mm f4 TC. Or when I want more mobility, I'll use the 600mm f6.3 or the 400mm f4.5 or the 100-400mm f4.5 - 5.6.

 

[SoCalRick]

Similar to what @DRwyoming said, my go to long lens for low light would be my 600 F4.

Sure the 400 2.8 is 1-stop faster, but the reach is too short for what I like to shoot, and you lose the f2.8 advantage as soon as you start adding TC's or cropping.

If you are thinking about the golden hour as being your "low light" situations, then consider that the light levels can change fairy rapidly during these periods. There is probably only a small percentage of the golden hour where I would be forced into unusable ISOs levels with my 600 F4, so yes I would have to wait for the light to change before I could begin shooting around sunrise (or have to stop shooting around sunset). But that waiting period can take only a matter of minutes in some circumstances. Outside of those (brief?) periods, I'm good to go with my f4 aperture, and the 600mm reach that I prefer.

 

[Anjin San]

The 600PF is the best one I’m willing to carry the weight of…and the most expensive one I’m willing to buy. The TC lenses aren’t on my radar because of the weight. And as can be seen in the lion drinking at sunset recently…it gives excellent results even at 840mm and 1/50 second which I could get away with because he wasn’t moving and I had a beanbag in the vehicle. If I ever decide to carry one…it will be the 600TC for the reach…but unless I was shooting out of the car or was only interested in one subject (which isn’t my style at all)…the weight would result in it likely being the only lens I was toting around and that loss of flexibility makes the purchase unlikely.

 

[MrFotoFool]

70-200 f2.8 . My long lens is 600 f6.3 PF. If I go out at dawn when it is barely light I will start with the 70-200 then switch to the 600 when it gets lighter. At end of day I reverse this: start with 600 then switch to 70-200 when it gets darker. There comes a time when it is too dark even for f2.8 and I would like get the 135 f1.8 Plena for this, but I don't want to carry a third telephoto and can't see the Plena replacing my versatile 70-200 (which is a favorite for landscape as well).

 

[Abinoone]

Similar to what @DRwyoming said, my go to long lens for low light would be my 600 F4.

Sure the 400 2.8 is 1-stop faster, but the reach is too short for what I like to shoot, and you lose the f2.8 advantage as soon as you start adding TC's or cropping.

If you are thinking about the golden hour as being your "low light" situations, then consider that the light levels can change fairy rapidly during these periods. There is probably only a small percentage of the golden hour where I would be forced into unusable ISOs levels with my 600 F4, so yes I would have to wait for the light to change before I could begin shooting around sunrise (or have to stop shooting around sunset). But that waiting period can take only a matter of minutes in some circumstances. Outside of those (brief?) periods, I'm good to go with my f4 aperture, and the 600mm reach that I prefer.

Generally speaking, I don’t have difficulty with the “golden hour”. It’s those close to end/start of day situations when foxes, coyotes, moose, and other critters often get active. 600 f4 might be my solution but oh the weight!

 

[MrFotoFool]

Yes, the weight is an issue (though for me the price is also an issue). I assume I am not alone in wishing Nikon would produce a 300 f2.8 that is as lightweight as Sony's version.

 

[RichF]

Yes, the weight is an issue (though for me the price is also an issue). I assume I am not alone in wishing Nikon would produce a 300 f2.8 that is as lightweight as Sony's version.

Like to see lightweight 300 F/2.8 and 500 F/4 without TC. Or perhaps give up 1/3 to 1/2 F stop if the weight savings could be considerable.

 

[RichF]

Generally speaking, I don’t have difficulty with the “golden hour”. It’s those close to end/start of day situations when foxes, coyotes, moose, and other critters often get active. 600 f4 might be my solution but oh the weight!

What the 600 F/6.3. 1 and 1/3 stop slower so iso would double. COuld yuoui live with that ?

 

[luckmurph]

For me its the 400tc, that was one of the main reasons for getting it its lowlight capabilities, dawn and dusk are my main times when i go out, its. Extended the length of my shooting time when ore of the elusive animals tend to come out (UK)

 

[DHL]

Generally speaking, I don’t have difficulty with the “golden hour”. It’s those close to end/start of day situations when foxes, coyotes, moose, and other critters often get active. 600 f4 might be my solution but oh the weight!

Perhaps you should take a look at the Z 400 VR TC S. It’s a bit lighter than the 600mm. I shoot a lot of mammals and often prefer to include some of the environment, so the 400 is perfect for that. For more reach I use the built in TC. If I’m shooting a smaller subject I add the external 2x TC (others prefer to double up the 1.4x TCs). I lose some sharpness and reach at 800mm in comparison to the 600mm TC, but the versatility of the 400mm TC can’t be beat in a prime (400mm, 560mm, 800mm in one lens). That works for me when I’m traveling on small planes with luggage restrictions.

 

[Ado Wolf]

Unlike the photographers that have commented before me, I cannot afford expensive telephoto glass. So I consider my current 300 PF as my lowlight telephoto lens. I do hope that Nikon will produce an “affordable“ 300 F2 .8 Z lens otherwise I will have to settle down for the Z 70 - 200mm f2.8 which I still do not own.

I mainly shoot mammals (deer and fox), so 300 - 400 mm is enough (in fact 400 mm on a full frame is sometimes too narrow). For occasional bird photos, I only go for it when the bird is close enough (or big enough, like herons). Here the 500 PF serves me well (although it’s not the best in lowlight).

side note: with current noise reduction programs and improved sensor technology, f2.8 glass became less of importance as it used to be back in the days.

 

[John Navitsky]

Steve’s recent video basically says the priority is enough focal length to frame the way you want, maximum aperture being second

 

[Abinoone]

Perhaps you should take a look at the Z 400 VR TC S. It’s a bit lighter than the 600mm. I shoot a lot of mammals and often prefer to include some of the environment, so the 400 is perfect for that. For more reach I use the built in TC. If I’m shooting a smaller subject I add the external 2x TC (others prefer to double up the 1.4x TCs). I lose some sharpness and reach at 800mm in comparison to the 600mm TC, but the versatility of the 400mm TC can’t be beat in a prime (400mm, 560mm, 800mm in one lens). That works for me when I’m traveling on small planes with luggage restrictions.

I'm afraid that's about all I'd be able to do with this lens - look. At $14k, it's a little out of my price range, but one can always dream.