Costa Rica: 600mm f/4 + Z 400mm f/2.8?

[Steve]

Thanks very much, Steve. Makes good sense. I hear you loud and clear on the need for greater focal length in the OSA. I was planning to bring both the 600 f/4 (F-mount with FTZ adapter + TC) and the 400 f/2.8 (as well as the Z 105mm Macro you recommend in your CR video). How about that? It leaves no coverage from 100mm to 400mm, so am thinking of investing in a Z100-400 or 180-600. Alternatively, there is the less expensive option of bringing a used 300 PF (I don’t own one but it’s now available for a reasonable price at B&H), since I recall you said that the 300PF is a good lightweight option to use in CR. Thoughts?

Thanks to you and everyone for all the helpful replies. Looking forward to first CR trip later this month.

By the way, Steve, your Z8/Z9 setup guide is impressive and comprehensive. Am finding it to be exactly what I need as I move from the D850 to mirrorless.

Both may be ideal, depending on what you see

I'd add the 100-400 for the wider stuff - although, seriously, there are trips I'm never in need of anything less than 400mm / 600mm for normal (non-macro) shooting. (And 600mm is by far my most used).

 

[Calson]

Many places are accessible only with a small boat which can be hired for half a day at a nominal cost for one or two people. That is where I have used the 500mm PF and the 80-400mm zoom with a body mounted on each lens and no lens changes when out on the water.

In places in Costa Rica where feeders are used to attract various species even a 500mm focal length has too great a minimum focus distance to be usable. I encounted the same at Monte Verde when photographing quetzals at their nest that was less than 60 feet from the trail. The 400mm TC would have been usable but the 600mm would not have worked and there was no room to have a tripod on the trail blocking its use by others.

 

[Anjin San]

Hi Anjin, sorry for the late reply. In response to your question, I am going later this month, so am sorry to miss the opportunity to meet you. Thanks for the recommendation of the 100-400.

Just got back from our trip on Saturday and I used the 600PF without the TC about 70% of the time and with another 10% and used the 100-400 the remaining 20%. Light was a a bit dim sometimes and while the f4 off f2.8 of the exotics would have helped with that the weight and size of both make them not interesting for me. I just choose to accept the higher ISOs and reduce noise as the first stop in processing. Granted…one might think an f4 or 2.8 image is 'better' than a noise reduced 6.3 one and technically you would most likely be right…but then I remember I'm an amateur, not making money, and taking pictures pretty much for the blog…so for me the 'better is the enemy of good enough' principle applies…and it's really the weight rather than the price that influences that decision. We had both the 400/2.8 and 600TC on the trip as well as several 500/4 F mount lenses…and every one of those folks had a second body (gripped 850, second Z9 and even a Z9/Z8 combo) that they carried as well but all that weight makes it too much like work for me. Even the dual Z8s with 600PF and 100-400 got a bit heavy at times, particularly when I also had to lug the tripod.

I was planning on using extension tubes with my 100-400 for the reptile/macro day…and I did try that but then Dennis loaned me a 105 macro and I had a lot more fun that day than I anticipated I would so I'm thinking about adding one of those to my gear as well.

 

[Jamie Baker]

I definitely would not bring a 600 f/4 and 400 f/2.8. Way too much bulk and weight to deal with. Personally I’d prefer the 600. I’d also recommend the 100-400, the zoom and shorter focal length would be good for mammals and also birds at feeders.