Help with Telephoto analysis paralysis to compliment Nikon Z 100-400

[tbone1004]

Long time lurker, first time poster and hoping you guys can help! Currently shooting primarily with a Nikon Z 100-400 but am regularly finding it to be too short. I'm currently stuck between getting a 600 or 800 and hoping you guys can sway me one way or the other. I'm leaning to 800mm since most of the photos I'll be shooting in the next several years will be from vehicles or on short hikes and unable to really stake out anything large. I have done a lot with the crop mode and was still needing quite a bit more length in a majority of situations which has me leaning to 600mm not being long enough. Thankfully have 2 bodies but my partner has decided she likes the 100-400 so I'm needing something else for mine. Seeing some good deals on the 800mm 5.6 and as I'm a pretty large guy I'm thinking that the weight savings is not going to offset the lower cost and better IQ of the FL. Can any of you talk me into one side or the other?

 

[tbone1004]

Are we talking about Canon?

Nikon, sorry, edited post

 

[Dollar]

You've mentioned that you're on the Nikon Z system but you specified interest in the 800mm f/5.6; is there a specific reason that you're considering the old F-mount lens over the f/6.3 PF?

 

[tbone1004]

You've mentioned that you're on the Nikon Z system but you specified interest in the 800mm f/5.6; is there a specific reason that you're considering the old F-mount lens over the f/6.3 PF?

bit faster, bit better IQ, quite a bit cheaper. Size and weight is not really a concern for this application and since the used ones are running $1k-$1500 cheaper than the Z it seems like a worthwhile compromise. I doubt they will depreciate much more than they have already

 

[SoCalRick]

The 600mm vs 800mm debate can be a bit polarizing, and there are really no wrong answers. It comes down to which FL you will get the most utility out of. Personally, I voted for 600mm, but went with the F4 with the built-in TC, so I can easily jump to 840 f/5.6 if the situation calls for it. However, last time I checked, I was shooting ~80% of my shots at the 600mm FL.

Personally, I find 800mm to be a bit of a niche FL, but that's just me and what I tend to shoot. The Z800 6.3 is a really good lens image quality-wise, I just don't want to be limited to 800mm as my minimum FL.

I would also recommend that you give a little more thought to selecting the F-mount f/5.6 lens over the Z-mount 6.3 lens. The Z mount lenses have a lot of advantages over their F-mount counterparts. I haven't seen IQ comparisons between these 2 800mm lenses, but I wouldn't be surprised if it came down to pixel peeping to see any real differences in IQ.

So again, I think the question comes down first to answering the 600mm vs 800mm debate. If you had both of those lenses, which one would you be using the most on a day-to-day basis?

 

[Dollar]

bit faster, bit better IQ, quite a bit cheaper. Size and weight is not really a concern for this application and since the used ones are running $1k-$1500 cheaper than the Z it seems like a worthwhile compromise. I doubt they will depreciate much more than they have already

I guess it's news to me that the f/5.6 is cheaper than the Z-mount; MPB is selling a few of the Zs for ~4,500 or less. They even have a "Like New" copy that's marked down to $4,349 because it's missing the hood, cover, case, and strap. I don't care about any of those items (at least not the OEM versions) so if I was buying an 800 today I'd scoop that up and then buy the superior hood and cap from Karl Zemlin.

But as crazy as I think you are for wanting the F800 over the Z800, that's not actually what you were asking about. With respect to your question, it depends on what you're shooting. I bought my 800PF thinking that it'd be a specialized tool and that I'd still use my 500PF quite a bit, but that hasn't really turned out to be the case so far, at least not for birds. If you're shooting larger animals I'm sure 800 can easily end up being too much, but for birds I've only found the 800 to help fill the frame and I've been very happy with it so far as a primary birding lens.

Technically a 600 would offer the flexibility to use a TC to get to that ~800, but like many others on this forum I personally don't suggest buying a lens if you think you'll be using a TC much/most of the time. So again it comes down to which focal length you think you'll need more.

 

[Warren D]

I have a F mount 600 f4 EFL that gets very little use since I got the Z800pf. From the tests Steve has done, I see that the Z800pf is very close in center sharpness to the 600 f4's with a tc. I find my Z800pf to be very sharp in the center, about equal to my 600 f4 EFL but a tad softer in the corners. The corners rarely matter to me so the weight savings is a big advantage. Nikon has sales on refurbs from time to time and IIRC, the 800pf is currently discounted. Don't think that the F mount lenses won't drop in value. They continue to drop as Nikon has discounted the F mount exotics heavily which drives down the used market price. My 600 f4 EFL isn't even worth 1/2 of what I paid for it and value will continue to sink. Once Nikon discontinues these lenses, parts will only be available for 7 years (in the USA) and after that, broken ones become paperweights.
If I could only have one exotic, it would be the Z800pf. It's permanently attached to one of my Z9's.
If there are any minor sharpness issues with the Z800pf they don't affect me as much as sloppy technique will.

 

[tbone1004]

I guess it's news to me that the f/5.6 is cheaper than the Z-mount; MPB is selling a few of the Zs for ~4,500 or less. They even have a "Like New" copy that's marked down to $4,349 because it's missing the hood, cover, case, and strap. I don't care about any of those items (at least not the OEM versions) so if I was buying an 800 today I'd scoop that up and then buy the superior hood and cap from Karl Zemlin.

But as crazy as I think you are for wanting the F800 over the Z800, that's not actually what you were asking about. With respect to your question, it depends on what you're shooting. I bought my 800PF thinking that it'd be a specialized tool and that I'd still use my 500PF quite a bit, but that hasn't really turned out to be the case so far, at least not for birds. If you're shooting larger animals I'm sure 800 can easily end up being too much, but for birds I've only found the 800 to help fill the frame and I've been very happy with it so far as a primary birding lens.

Technically a 600 would offer the flexibility to use a TC to get to that ~800, but like many others on this forum I personally don't suggest buying a lens if you think you'll be using a TC much/most of the time. So again it comes down to which focal length you think you'll need more.

Fair, had been looking mainly at the new price since I searched on mpb and others and it seemed like nearly no used ones out there. Just saw that since I'm in Asia right now it was redirecting me to the non-US site so just saw them. So call it a net wash on price, that certainly tips back in favor of the Z if I go 800. I have done a lot of peeping back through lightroom and it seems like a lot of the images that I shot with the 100-400 in crop mode to get effective near 600mm ended up being cropped further. May have to wait for the next NPS email announcing a sale on the refurbs and grab that

 

[nmerc_photos]

What is your budget and current body(s)? And what do you mainly shoot?

I often find 400mm too short as well, but 800mm can be too long. And I would never consider F mount primes unless you absolutely have to on a budget. No matter how big you are, there's nothing fun about lugging a 10lb lens around.

The 600PF at $3500 and the 800PF at $4000 are absolute steals as far as value is concerned. In my own use, I find these two combos do really well:

Z 100-400 + 600PF
Z 180-600 + 800PF

mainly deciding if you want small and compact, or bigger/heavier with more reach and aperture advantage

 

[tbone1004]

Z6ii, Z7ii, Z9. Most of what I shoot is sports actually so there is usually a 100-400 on the Z9 and depending on sport will depend on what is wider on the other. Getting more into wildlife as my SO is dragging me to every National Park out there and it gives me something to do while we are traveling around which has me concerned that the 600 will be too short and she'd be shooting with the 100-400 anyway

 

[mjais]

I have the 600PF, 800PF and the 600TC.


The 4/600TC is the best bird lens ever (in my humble opinion) and the most flexibly option. But it's also heavy and bulky (it is really light for what it is but it is heavier than the 800PF).

The 600PF is, when 6.3 and 600 are enough, the most fun wildlife lens I've ever used. Very sharp, fast AF on the Z8 and super easy to handhold.

The 800PF is shorter, less bulky and almost 1kg lighter than the 600TC. That is the reason why I keep it. The smaller size and lower weight are great for hiking or when I need a bit more room in the backpack for other lenses, e.g. when I also want to photograph landscapes.

Technically theses lenses are all awesome, I would decide on what you photograph and how much weight you want to carry. I live in Central Europe, here many animals are shy, so I often need 800 or 840mm.

If I was a Canon shooter I would get the RF 4/600 and the 1.4x and 2x RF extenders. I would not buy the RF 5.6/800 as it is more expensive, at least here in Germany, and not as flexible as the RF 4/600 + extenders.

 

[ingweDave]

I personally would not consider the 800 5.6. I have used this lens in the past and it is heavy. (My 500 f4 sits in a cupboard, not having been touched for 2 years.)

I shoot with both the Z800 6.3 and the Z600 6.3. There are arguments for choosing either, if only selecting one. I have my doubts that the 800 5.6 is a higher image quality, maybe in a static test on a tripod What I am sure of, is that with either of the PF lenses you will simply take more decent pictures.

 

[Viathelens]

I shoot two Z8 cameras with the Nikon 100-400 and the Nikon 600PF. A great combo, If I want more reach I simply hit the FX/DX button and change to DX mode.

 

[Anjin San]

If you're using a Z body…I can't really recommend buying any F mount lenses at this point unless budget makes it the only option…and even then I personally think one of the Z zooms is a better idea. The wider throat and better optical design software available today make the Z lenses overall smaller, lighter, and better IQ than their F brethren…and in addition since the F mount is dead any repairs if you need them might be impossible due to parts not being available. That said…you need to decide whether a zoom is needed or whether the prime is sufficient. I have the 180-600, 100-400, and 600PF along with the TCs and carry the first one when I want a one body/lens solution and the latter 2 when I am taking both Z8s. Had an 800PF on order and canceled it based on weight/size/flexibility. For me…the 100-400 and 600PF along with the 1.4TC is almost the perfect wildlife carry…went with me to Tanzania and Costa Rica this year. Africa saw more with the TC on the 600 than bare, Costa Rica the opposite…but the size, weight, and flexibility with the TC make it a better choice for my use. Yeah…you lose a stop with the TC and IQ at 2:1 is marginally better than the bare prime is…but I don't look at images at 2:1 except in PP and after downsampling for web output my eyes see no difference in IQ between the bare prime and adding the TC. Small differences in bokeh and background of course…but today's noise reduction software and the lens blur in LR handle that for me. Strictly speaking…only primes and never TC might be "better"…but that's the enemy of good enough and to my eyes the differences between the bare prime, prime + TC, zooms, and zoom + TC are just "different" and not "better/worse" at output resolution which is what I care about.

I rarely use DX mode on my Z8s…easier to crop in post but will select it if AF needs a little help, but then I have to remember to go back to FZ and dont' always remember.

The TC lenses are excellent…but they're too heavy for me to even think about…that would limit whatever else I carried that day and that limits flexibility…so the bang for the buck isn't there for me.

For me here in FL…the 800 is just too much lens a lot of the time and I would have to carry the 180-600 to have adequate FL coverage and that's more weight than I want to schlep around…like Viathelens I find the 600PF and 100-400 a pretty darned perfect combo unless I'm aiming for lighter and only want a single body. We're headed to Phoenix for a couple days soon and I'm taking 1 Z8, the 180-600, and the 24-70/f4 for walking around since we do have a photo outing scheduled but it isn't really a photography trip so less gear is the goal.

 

[fcotterill]

Long time lurker, first time poster and hoping you guys can help! Currently shooting primarily with a Nikon Z 100-400 but am regularly finding it to be too short. I'm currently stuck between getting a 600 or 800 and hoping you guys can sway me one way or the other. I'm leaning to 800mm since most of the photos I'll be shooting in the next several years will be from vehicles or on short hikes and unable to really stake out anything large. I have done a lot with the crop mode and was still needing quite a bit more length in a majority of situations which has me leaning to 600mm not being long enough. Thankfully have 2 bodies but my partner has decided she likes the 100-400 so I'm needing something else for mine. Seeing some good deals on the 800mm 5.6 and as I'm a pretty large guy I'm thinking that the weight savings is not going to offset the lower cost and better IQ of the FL. Can any of you talk me into one side or the other?

[Edited]
Most photographers report the 800 PF to be highly portable, but it sometimes needs a monopod support. The IQ is excellent and it pairs well with the ZTC14 and can even deliver decent images with a ZTC2.

In comparison, similar to the great dinky 500 PF, the new 600 f6.3S PF is much lighter than the 800 PF

The 800 f5.6E FL is rated as one of Nikon's best lenses ever, at least compared in the pre Z era. Its Bespoke TC125 gives it the unique advantage of a 1000 f7.1. I often use this combination but it requires support, especially with an extra 1.3 kg of gripped camera on the 4.6kg lens!

The IQ of these Nikkor 800mm primes is excellent, however they have come to occupy distinct niches in a destination kit or a commando kit, respectively.

The caveat is atmospherics can trash image quality using any telephoto over longer subject distances.

Comparisons: 800mm f5.6E FL and 800mm f6.3S PF Nikkors

Here follow a selection of images taken over the past several months with both lenses, with/without their respective teleconverters. I have built up a sizeable database since mid 2022, when time and conditions permitted. I took all these primarily with the aim of trying to define the...

bcgforums.com

Nikkor 800mm f6.3S PF with Z-TC's for African mammals and Birds

My 800 PF arrived early May not long before I left on a long (and long awaited) trip into northern Kruger Nat Park. I took many more images with the 800 PF than anticipated, which meant the Z9 was mostly glued to this lens. But in retrospect, a 400 f2.8E FL has been my previous workhorse for...

bcgforums.com

 

[jcgamble]

I use the Z6III with the Z 100-400 and the Z9 with the 600 f6.3 PF. Going to DX on the Z9 gives me 900 mm equivalent at 19 mpx. Pretty good coverage for things like African safari or large game out west. It is about as light weight with high quality as you can get.

 

[fulltimewanderer]

tbone1004, Coming from someone that moved from DSLR to mirrorless. Between myself and my wife we owned 11 F mount lenses from 14-24 2.8 up to a 600 F4G. Last year I made the change, purchased a Z9 followed by my wife purchasing a Z9 shortly after. Early this year I purchased my first Z lens, a 100-400 and traded my 80-400. Back a couple of months I purchased my second Z9 (used, too good a price to pass) followed by purchasing a 180-600. Currently still own 10 F mount lenses. So from what I see is all your cameras are Z, I’d suggest strictly staying with the Z lenses. If budget is limited maybe give your wife your 100-400 Z, purchase a 180-600 Z that will give you a good idea if a 600 will meet your needs. If not purchase a 800 PF, if happy with the reach then go with the 600 PF or if budget allows the 600 TC. Base my thoughts on this is all your bodies are Z, why take a small step backwards when it comes to the lenses.

 

[Calson]

With the 100-400mm and the 1.4x teleconverter I have 560mm f/8 and when I need something longer with more image magnification the obvious choice is the 800mm PF lens. A 600mm would be useful only if it was usable with teleconverters and 80% of the time with a 600mm f/4 lens I used the TC-14 teleconverter for 840mm. Having 800mm with a 5.2 lb lens that I can shoot hand held is a big advance in my mobility with not needing to use a tripod and gimbal head.