Is telephoto “fast glass” worth it?

[Abinoone]

I totally get the concept of “fast glass”, but how much of a difference does it really make for shooting wildlife with super telephotos? I completely understand that IQ may be superior, and that subject isolation and Bokeh are better than equivalent length lenses with smaller apertures. But, on a day-to-day, practical level, is a f4 lens really that much better than, say, a f5.6 telephoto? If you’re fortunate enough to own one of these exulted f4 lenses, how often do you honestly use it for wildlife?

The reason for my question is because I’m seriously thinking of plunking down some serious cash to acquire a Nikon 600 f4 E, and I’d like to be reasonably sure that it’ll deliver superior enough results than my 500 f5.6 PF to justify the cost. I’ve never shot with the 600 f4 E, so have no personal experience to inform my thinking. Yes, I know that I could rent one for a week, but at nearly $600, that’s an expensive test!

BTW, I’m an enthusiastic amateur, not a pro.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and opinions!

 

[jeffnles1]

I'm a poor boy (I need no sympathy..) and don't own any of the 'big glass'. However, I have shot with some and there is a difference. Is it worth the difference in price? Not to me but to you it may be. If I made a living in nature photography, it may be worth it as a business expense. However, as a hobbyist (and retiree) I cannot justify the cost. I like to keep on the move while out shooting and the extra weight of the 'big glass' would also be a cramp in my style.

Jeff
(ps. Bohemian Rapsody reference in first sentence. )

 

[DRwyoming]

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and opinions!

Worth it is completely in the eye of the beholder but I have no intention of selling my 600mm f/4 E even though I get a ton of use out of my 500mm PF. To me, when I'm willing to take my wildlife photography more seriously and really work an interesting subject in good light (as opposed to just walking around with a camera to see what I trip across) there's no substitute for a long fast lens.

For grab and go opportunistic photography I'm very happy with the 300mm PF and 500mm PF but when I really care about working interesting subjects I'll go with the 600m f/4 every time. To me the results are worth it even though the big lens is not nearly as convenient for more casual photography.

YMMV...

 

[JAS]

Good question and subject to much interpretation. If you often shoot in lower light conditions, then the faster glass is a big help. On the other hand, there is the subject of weight and the 600E f/4 weights a whole lot more than the 500PF f/5.6 and weight alone would cause me to stay away from the 600 for how I shoot. Your case may be different. Also, the backgrounds tend to look better on the faster glass, but, again, if not selling the work, what are you looking for in "quality"? I would love the faster glass, but cannot carry it and my photography is a hobby rather than a business. I love my 500PF and it will not be replaced by "fast glass" in my use case.
If you are going on a special trip, maybe a rental would be a good idea just to try it out.

 

[RichF]

I totally get the concept of “fast glass”, but how much of a difference does it really make for shooting wildlife with super telephotos? I completely understand that IQ may be superior, and that subject isolation and Bokeh are better than equivalent length lenses with smaller apertures. But, on a day-to-day, practical level, is a f4 lens really that much better than, say, a f5.6 telephoto? If you’re fortunate enough to own one of these exulted f4 lenses, how often do you honestly use it for wildlife?

The reason for my question is because I’m seriously thinking of plunking down some serious cash to acquire a Nikon 600 f4 E, and I’d like to be reasonably sure that it’ll deliver superior enough results than my 500 f5.6 PF to justify the cost. I’ve never shot with the 600 f4 E, so have no personal experience to inform my thinking. Yes, I know that I could rent one for a week, but at nearly $600, that’s an expensive test!

BTW, I’m an enthusiastic amateur, not a pro.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and opinions!

Fast glass.

Advantages:

• Gains a stop or two vs slow glass. Can work in lower light. For bright conditions, minimal advantage.
• Tends to be sharp Not sure most of us would see the advantage expect in an A B comparison or pixel peeking (when comparing good consumer grade lenses to the best primes).
• Easy to achieve critical focus. The wider open the lens (as you know) the shallow the DOF. For a slower lens, DOF makes it harder to get really great focus (because you are working within the DOF area - at least that is what I think.

Disadvantages

• Weight.
• Cost (you could say this is a weight disadvantage in the bank account/wallet is now lighter )
• Size. My impact travel and distance you can walk

There is really no correct answer. Just a series of trade offs. How do you use/view your images, do you find that they are not tack sharp all the time and you are sure it is not technique.

If you did not spend the money on fast glass what would you do with it. If you find yourself always thinking about faster glass, then the answer is clear - as long as you can truly afford it.

 

[Steve]

The key is working within the limits of the lens. The 500 PF is a wonderful lens and I have quite a few shots with it I really like. However, sometimes I'm shooting slower shutter speeds than I'd like, sometimes subject isolation isn't as easy as I'd like, and I absolutely hate putting a TC on it and ending up at F/8. There's no denying that the 600 F/4 has some serious advantages and makes life easier in the field - although the flexibility of the 500PF for getting into tight spots shouldn't be underestimated, either.

I'm with Dave above - I use both the 600 and 500 (although, not for long - I just got a 400 4.5 that will replace both my 300 PF and 500 PF). They serve different purposes for me. When I need to travel light and want to hand-hold, the 500PF is perfect and I make it work. However, the rest of the time I'm happy to leverage the advantages the 600 F/4 has

Here's a few of my favorites with the 500PF.

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.

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.

 

[Stephen Berger]

With the advances in making such glass lighter weight the Sony 600 f4 - for sharpness, reach, subject isolation, low light capability and compatibility with TC's - is 100% worth it to me... and I'm def not rich and don't own anything else as expensive save for my car. But for others, even with the cash to burn, it may no be worth it at all.

 

[Griffym]

I love my (old/heavy) 500 F4G. It is the intangibles and the subtle things which I notice. It produces images with a look that I didn’t realise I was looking for before I started using it.
Specifications and sharpness tests are probably important in helping to sell lenses but they don’t mean much if you don’t find yourself looking at your images and enjoying how well they have turned out.
There is always a catch with lenses and cameras. Picking the right lens for you is as much about the things you decide are ‘not really‘ obstacles as it is about picking up on things you “like”.
Can you overlook the weight penalty on an old but optically brilliant second hand lens in great condition or would a shinier, more expensive, lighter but slower lens with F5.6 and PF suit you?
I tried the 500F4G for a couple of months first (on loan) but it really only took me a couple minutes to see that it was capable of producing images that had something optically.
I think it is worth forgetting about the economics and practicalities of a lens and looking at the way the images look to you.
Beg, borrow or rent the lenses you want to try and see if they just ‘feel’ special in some way.

 

[Stephen Berger]

I love my (old/heavy) 500 F4G. It is the intangibles and the subtle things which I notice. It produces images with a look that I didn’t realise I was looking for before I started using it.
Specifications and sharpness tests are probably important in helping to sell lenses but they don’t mean much if you don’t find yourself looking at your images and enjoying how well they have turned out.
There is always a catch with lenses and cameras. Picking the right lens for you is as much about the things you decide are ‘not really‘ obstacles as it is about picking up on things you “like”.
Can you overlook the weight penalty on an old but optically brilliant second hand lens in great condition or would a shinier, more expensive, lighter but slower lens with F5.6 and PF suit you?
I tried the 500F4G for a couple of months first (on loan) but it really only took me a couple minutes to see that it was capable of producing images that had something optically.
I think it is worth forgetting about the economics and practicalities of a lens and looking at the way the images look to you.
Beg, borrow or rent the lenses you want to try and see if they just ‘feel’ special in some way.

The 500 f4G was my dream lens for a while and I got one used about 10 months before switching to mirrorless/Sony and man did it live up to my hopes for it. I loved (love) that lens!!

 

[Doug Herr]

I'm using the Sony 600mm f/4 GMaster for wildlife including longer hikes. I've used it almost exclusively for about three years and I'm delighted with its performance but TBH because of DOF 95% of the time I'd be just as happy if the maximum aperture was f/5.6. OTOH I use the lens at maximum aperture far more often when it's used with the 1.4x TC, meaning it's effectively ... drumroll ... f/5.6, so considering the TC use cases the f/4 max aperture is worthwhile.

 

[Griffym]

I certainly agree that TC are important when deciding long focal length lenses. Faster glass has significant advantages if extra reach is required. It may also depend on the camera you use as well.
The 500 F4G with a D500 was not able to manage a TC. It was too slow to focus with either TC. The Z9 on the other hand responds very well to the 1.4TC with no focusing issues. I don’t switch the Z9 into DX mode very often but sometimes it is useful.

 

[ricardo00]

I totally get the concept of “fast glass”, but how much of a difference does it really make for shooting wildlife with super telephotos? I completely understand that IQ may be superior, and that subject isolation and Bokeh are better than equivalent length lenses with smaller apertures. But, on a day-to-day, practical level, is a f4 lens really that much better than, say, a f5.6 telephoto? If you’re fortunate enough to own one of these exulted f4 lenses, how often do you honestly use it for wildlife?

The reason for my question is because I’m seriously thinking of plunking down some serious cash to acquire a Nikon 600 f4 E, and I’d like to be reasonably sure that it’ll deliver superior enough results than my 500 f5.6 PF to justify the cost. I’ve never shot with the 600 f4 E, so have no personal experience to inform my thinking. Yes, I know that I could rent one for a week, but at nearly $600, that’s an expensive test!

BTW, I’m an enthusiastic amateur, not a pro.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and opinions!

When I started my "serious" amateur photography about 10 years ago, there was no 500mm f/5.6, etc. So I bought the 300mm f/2.8 VR (it was new at the time and there still is no replacement for this lens). It focusses incredibly fast and lets in 4 times as much light as my 500mm f/5.6. So it will focus better when light is low and will occasionally still use it, even over the 400mm f/4.5. A few years after I got the 300mm f/2.8 I bought the 500mm f/4 (not the E version but the one before, the G version). Again this was before any PF lenses were available. Even though I still own it, I have not used it for several years.
So instead of answering your question, I will further complicate it by suggesting that you consider one of the 400mm f/2.8 lenses. If you have need for a distant subject, the 800mm PF would be the best choice. But for low light photography and greater separation from of a subject from the background, the f/2.8 would work better. In general they are lighter as well. Personally, I do contemplate buying a fast telephoto Z lens and tend to favor the Z 400mm f/2.8 TC over the Z 600mm f/4 TC though so far find it hard to justify the cost of either. And personally I would choose to buy the 400mm f/2.8E over the 600mm f/4 E. However as others have suggested, I would think that you might want to rent (or borrow) either before making the investment.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I totally get the concept of “fast glass”, but how much of a difference does it really make for shooting wildlife with super telephotos? I completely understand that IQ may be superior, and that subject isolation and Bokeh are better than equivalent length lenses with smaller apertures...

But, on a day-to-day, practical level, is a f4 lens really that much better than, say, a f5.6 telephoto?

Yes it is better. How much is subjective. Even a little bit is enough for some people and unless it's an obvious different SOOC it's not enough for others.

If you’re fortunate enough to own one of these exulted f4 lenses, how often do you honestly use it for wildlife?

Early on I used my 500 f4 all the time. I mean all the time. After I got the 500PF I only used the f4 for "serious shoots", i.e. if I was spending a lot of money/going through a lot of trouble to go after something new/different.

The reason for my question is because I’m seriously thinking of plunking down some serious cash to acquire a Nikon 600 f4 E, and I’d like to be reasonably sure that it’ll deliver superior enough results than my 500 f5.6 PF to justify the cost. I’ve never shot with the 600 f4 E, so have no personal experience to inform my thinking. Yes, I know that I could rent one for a week, but at nearly $600, that’s an expensive test!

BTW, I’m an enthusiastic amateur, not a pro.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and opinions!

The reason I decided on a 500 f4 rather than a 600 was because I rented a 600 for a week and went on a trip with it. I absolutely loved shooting with it but no way I wanted to deal with air travel, taking it on my boat, etc. Unless you go most places in you car and are fine shooting with a tripod all the time you may want to give it some additional thought. I sold my 500 f4 with plans to get the 600 but never pulled the trigger. Every time one came up on the used market I talked myself out of it. I opted for the 800 PF instead so now the ship has sailed.

 

[sdloeffler]

I use both the 600 and 500 (although, not for long - I just got a 400 4.5 that will replace both my 300 PF and 500 PF).

Steve, what is your thought process for using the 400 f/4.5 over the 300pf and 500pf? just curious.

 

[NorthernFocus]

BTW I also owned a 300 2.8 VR2. Best lens I ever owned for IQ, able to hand hold, etc. Last year I reviewed every image that I have in LR and it was my least used telephoto. So I sold it.

 

[Stephen Berger]

BTW I also owned a 300 2.8 VR2. Best lens I ever owned for IQ, able to hand hold, etc. Last year I reviewed every image that I have in LR and it was my least used telephoto. So I sold it.

God I loved my 300 2.8. And the bokeh…

 

[Lance B]

Much of my thoughts are for my 400 f2.8E FL VR, but as I can add the 1.4x TCIII to get a 560 f4, my thoughts can be applied to your dilemma to an extent.

Once you get over the sticker shock of the price, it is the humping around of a fast lens that may then be the issue. The beauty of the 500 f5.6 PF is that you can whack it in with a few other lenses if you are going to shoot a variety of subject matter - say the birds are not around and then you start to shoot some landscapes or whatever instead. The 500 PF is small and light enough that you can take it on a aeroplane with you with other gear whereas a 400 f2.8, 500 f4 or 600 f4 basically means lens and camera only. I have taken the 500 PF on a number of plane trips with me with other lenses. I would never check in an exotic lens, or any gear for that matter, they come with me as carry on only and that limits your gear weight.

The 400 f2.8E FL VR which weighs almost exactly the same as the 600 f4 E and it can be a chore sometimes if you are chasing BIF handheld, which is the way I shoot 99% of the time. Lifting the 400 over my head chasing Peregrines the other day did start to get tedious, especially as they didn't cooperate! If I am taking trhe 400 f2.8E FL VR out, it is usually it by itself with a couple of TC's.

So, it comes down to how much that bit of extra IQ is important to you and whether you need that extra stop of light. Most of the time I haven't found the need to shoot wide open as I am not in low light situations as much as many others may be - here in Australia light is pretty good all year round. The only reason I shoot wide open is to get that subject isolation and that is not always an advantage as you may actually want more DOF. But even so, it is only one stop and the high ISO ability of lenses cameras and post processing software is so good these days that it is less of a concern. So, it is really the benefit of subject isolation wide open that then becomes the other advantage. In my case, as I already own the 400 f2.8E FL VR, the only lens that would be equivalent in focal length is the 400 f4.5. The weight and size difference is huge and for only 1.3 stops advantage for the 400 f2.8 - 3.8kg compared to 1.25kg!! Of course, when I start to add TC's to the 400 f2.8 I get a 560 f4 and a 680 f5 and an 800 f5.6 whereas the 400 f4.5 becomes a 560 f6.3 and 800 f9. In your case you can add the 1.4x TC and get a handy 840 f5.6 but it is about 4.0kg but compared to the 500 PF and add a 1.4x TC for a 700 f8 at about 1.7kg which has excellent IQ and works great on the Z9.

I love the output from my 400 f2.8 E FL VR and that is why I haven't sold it *yet*. By itself wde open there is no lens better, IMO. However, I am serisously questioning owning it as I don't use it all that much simply because of its weight and size but then, when I do use it on certain subject matter I just think, I can't bare to part with it. Reality may come to a head and I will probably sell it though. Most of the time, the isolation difference between f4 and f5.6 of say the 500 PF is minimal but it depends on what you are shooting. I don't see a large enough advantage of f4 over f5.6 most of the time for what I am shooting and hence why I use the 500 PF 99% of the time over the 400 f2.8 (+TCs).

 

[Erik N]

I'm in the same boat. I could use a fast lens here in the dark north. I can get a used 400 2.8G now at a good price, but it's 4.6kg! Not very tempting to lug around as I do most of my shooting hiking. We have winter and there's no rush for me to make a decision, and I'm also curious to see what might come from Nikon in the near future. If I'd mostly shoot in decent light though I'd probably wouldn't bother. As I see it it's all about that extra stop of light!

 

[hrv]

Aside from the bokeh and subject isolation advantage that is part of the quality of the big lens, let me offer some other things you may want to consider.

If you shoot mostly large animals, then you may consider that the additional stop may not be required, as large animals move slower. Unless you want to extend your day of shooting and be able to capture things earlier in the morning and later in the afternoon / evening. Probably 30-45 minutes each end at most?

If you shoot small birds, that are always moving, then in my opinion every little bit of additional shutter speed you can get while keeping your ISO under control is the main advantage. Especially when photographing from a hide from behind glass.

But it comes at a cost. You are used to a 500pf, a lens I own and love. It is the lens that is always on my camera when I go for a walk in the woods. It is highly portable. The 600 however is several kilograms heavier, much bigger and definitely not a lens you take on your daily walk. I own the 500 f/4 lens and I use that in bird hides or when stationary for wildlife, but when I have to walk with it for longer distances, it isn't in a "ready to shoot" configuration, like the 500pf always is. The 600 being even more of a beast, I would think you only will use it for stationary work, from the car, from a blind, on a tripod.

In other words, two very different lenses that support different styles of wildlife photography and that is why I invested in both... It's an expensive hobby.

If I had to choose for only one lens? I would go for the 500pf, even with less light, it is just more versatile in its usage. It simply means you have to be a little bit more lucky with good lighting conditions to get that great shot in some situations.

 

[fcotterill]

Little more to add, except a major advantage of the fastest telephoto - to hand - shows up the slower alternatives in low light: in addition to differences in subject isolation, including bokeh. The isolation advantage is optimum closer up (relative to focal length, obviously) and with optimal framing.

The fastest Nikkor telephotos are also the best optimized for pairing with teleconverters. This is their Sui Generis, the 400 f2.8E and 400 f2.8S especially.

As always, one's choice is a comprise. I keep these data (below) I compiled into a folding cheatsheet to compare how one lenses features work in different contexts.

The graphic compares how the magnification of subjects (different size classes) vary across distance (subject to image framing)

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.

 

[Abinoone]

The key is working within the limits of the lens. The 500 PF is a wonderful lens and I have quite a few shots with it I really like. However, sometimes I'm shooting slower shutter speeds than I'd like, sometimes subject isolation isn't as easy as I'd like, and I absolutely hate putting a TC on it and ending up at F/8. There's no denying that the 600 F/4 has some serious advantages and makes life easier in the field - although the flexibility of the 500PF for getting into tight spots shouldn't be underestimated, either.

I'm with Dave above - I use both the 600 and 500 (although, not for long - I just got a 400 4.5 that will replace both my 300 PF and 500 PF). They serve different purposes for me. When I need to travel light and want to hand-hold, the 500PF is perfect and I make it work. However, the rest of the time I'm happy to leverage the advantages the 600 F/4 has

Here's a few of my favorites with the 500PF.


View attachment 51049


View attachment 51050

View attachment 51056


View attachment 51055

View attachment 51051

View attachment 51053

View attachment 51054

View attachment 51052

Wonderful set of images, Steve!

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

The reason for my question is because I’m seriously thinking of plunking down some serious cash to acquire a Nikon 600 f4 E, and I’d like to be reasonably sure that it’ll deliver superior enough results than my 500 f5.6 PF to justify the cost. I’ve never shot with the 600 f4 E, so have no personal experience to inform my thinking. Yes, I know that I could rent one for a week, but at nearly $600, that’s an expensive test!

The obvious guidance is to rent before you buy. As you appear to be in the USA this should be very possible. But make sure you have it for a few days.

I am clearly biased and in favour of long bright glass -- not just for Africa but for all wildlife shooting

AND yes -- is my answer to is it worth it. It is to me.

The same reason one buys a Range Rover and not just a Land Rover -- while both will get you there and when deep in the mud a land-rover is a better choice, the Range Rover is simply a higher quality product with better performance. AND so is true for long lenses.

Sure - there is a cost and it is not just financial -- they are bigger and heavier and that is because they use bigger glass with bigger AF motors to drive them.
You should factor in how you are going to transport, carry and use the lens into your decision. A 600mm needs a bigger bag/backpack -- it is longer than the 400 and certainly longer than any PF.

The E-FL is clearly superior to the G-series, which was superior to its predecessors. AND so now the Z 600/4.0TC is a superior lens to the E-FL -- primarily as a result of the TC and native Z-mount, but also it is lighter and seems quicker. I cannot argue if it is sharper or not -- I sold my E and now only own a Z.

 

[John_DE]

Many good points in the comments above. For me, a big factor in large super telephotos is the size and weight of the lens. I have owned the 500/4 G and E f-mount lenses. For those I needed a monopod or tripod. The 500 PF changed that in that it is easily hand holdable. I still own this lens and use it on trips where photography is not the primary activity (like bird walks). I own both the 800 PF and the 400/2.8 TC. For me, I can hike and hand hold either of these lenses. Also, either of these Z lenses are small enough that I can and have flown with them as part of my carry on baggage. The new 600 TC is, for me, too large to easily transport and (for me) too heavy to shoot hand held for any length of time.

The 600 E f-mount is a great lens and used copies are becoming affordable. However, just for me, it is too large and heavy for use without a monopod or tripod - and I greatly prefer to hike and photograph hand held whenever possible.

 

[Steve]

Steve, what is your thought process for using the 400 f/4.5 over the 300pf and 500pf? just curious.

Mostly I'm tired of using adapted glass and want consistency in my controls. The 400mm focal length fits nicely between the two and I can adda. TC to the 400 and have a 560 F6.3 (the third of a stop isn't really a deal breaker since I'm trading it for 60 extra mm). Honestly, I'm really surprised how much I like the 400 - it's light, fast, and very reminiscent of the 500 PF, but with Z series lens controls

 

[DougC]

For me, the fast telephotos shine in these areas: AF speed and accuracy, background rendering and they are far more reliable when using TC’s.