Is telephoto “fast glass” worth it?

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).

Member's gallery
Steve said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
How do you feel it compares overall when used with the 1.4X to the 500mm PF in terms of AF and IQ? I keep going back to looking at the 400mm 4.5 and struggling to decide if I want to change out my 500mm PF for it. From what I have read, it seems most say to keep the 500mm PF if you already have it, but I think a 400mm 4.5 could have some advantages in lower light.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
Ditto all of the above. It seems good in theory to gradually transition from F mount to Z. But in practice it becomes frustrating. Plus as soon as you start getting Z mount lenses your DSLR is no longer a true backup because lens adaptability is a one way street.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
Steve, I'm curious...what advantages do you see to the 400 f/4.5 with TC (to get you out to 500+) over the 500 PF? I currently have the 500 PF as my long lens for the Z9 but have thought of selling it and getting the 400 f/4.5 (or keeping it and getting the 100-400 S for versatility). Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I will not be giving up my 600mm f/4 G, which I bought for use on both a D850 and D500 and now use on the Z9. There is a big difference in IQ between the telephoto zooms like the 200-500mm f/5.6 and while the IQ difference may be small compared to the 500pf, the extra reach is very nice to have. DOF has not been an issue as it's less than a foot at normal shooting distances at f/4 for blurred backgrounds. In fact, I find myself closing down to increase DOF and improve the chances for a sharper image for bigger water birds.

My strategy is to pick up the Z 200-600mm f/? when it comes out along with the 800mm f/6.3 as money allows. That should cover my wildlife / birding needs for Z mount. Until then its the FTZ II along with a 200-500mm f/5.6 and 600mm f/4G.
 
Member's gallery
i'm coming at this from a bit different angle based on my subject matter, but during a recent workshop, i sort of got long/fast glass religion.

in particular, relating to two things. 1) background compression/bokeh, and 2) color depth relating to iso.

in the past, i kind of didn't think too much about lens length other than "is it long enough". but during the workshop we shot we talked about the effect of length, compression and bokeh, and i'm nodding, like yah, i know that. but then we shot the same sequence, most of us with 200s, and a few 300s, and i'm like.. ooohh!

the other thing is in the past, i tended not to worry about iso very much. i shoot shutter speeds needed to capture the action and don't worry about it. but during the workshop, it was pointed out the dramatic effect of iso on color depth.

i've always been aware of af speed of every given lens, but it was also pointed out to me the af speed of the 100-400 vs say the 70-200 is enough to matter in our subject matter.

based on the first two points in a recent dock diving competition, i decided to use the 70-200 instead of the 100-400 and see how low i could push the iso. on that particular day, i compromised a bit on shutter speed and was able to push the iso to 64, base iso. and the results were pretty dramatic in terms of color. basically, just a lot more image fidelity, the images really "popped" as they say.

that kind of pushed me over the edge. since there is no 300 2.8 that i'm willing to buy right now and since i can't quite justify the 400 2.8 TC (this is just a hobby for me), after a test shooting only at 400 with my 100-400, i ended up picking up a 400 f/4.5s even though i own the 100-400 which is a great lens because 1) about a stop faster so lower iso at same lighting conditions, 2) faster af. and if i could swing it, i'd totally go for the 400 2.8 tc.

is it dramatically better than the 100-400? no. is it better? yes. at some point you start looking for every trick you know to get the images you have in your head realized and longer, faster glass are some of those tools.

Dugan catching with flare on an overcast winter day
_JN98346-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Steve said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
Got the 400 F/4.5 and found it was a great lens. Never go back to the 500 PF.
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
Ordinarily, renting is exactly what I’d do to try it out, but at $511 per week, that’s an expensive proposition!
Click to expand...
The two times I rented was from Borrow Lenses. They periodically have "discounts". You might sign up so you can be notified of these. Most recently, they had 7 free days if you rented for 7 days, effectively halving the cost per day. Lens Rentals may have similar periodic sales.
 
Member's gallery
I own and use the following Nikon tele lenses: 300mm f2.8; 300mm f4 pf; 500mm f5/6 pf; 500mm f4 E; and the Z mount 100-400mm S lens. At age 79, my one regret is that I never have owned or used a 600mm f4. Given Z bodies and Z mount S lenses, I would try and include a 600mm f4 in my long long lens category. The 20% more "reach" of a 600mm over a 500mm is something that cannot be overlooked. That being said, I love using my 500mm pf given its less size and weight over 500mm f4's and 600mm f4. If I were starting from scratch, I would likely try and do what Steve's long lens plan calls for--add the 400mm S etc- as stated above.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
Ordinarily, renting is exactly what I’d do to try it out, but at $511 per week, that’s an expensive proposition!
Click to expand...
First, thanks for starting the thread and asking the question as I too have been interested in getting a 600 f/4. My approach would be to buy a used 600 f/4E lens and consider any loss on its sale as a “rental fee.” A two week rental from lensrentals.com is around $900. I see there are a few 600 f/4E lenses listed below $8000 now. For easy math purposes, let say one bought it at $7700, and then later sold it 6 months later for $7200 + shipping. They would pay a little less than $300 in card processing fees and walk away with roughly $6900. So basically they would have rented it for 6 months for $800 and paid less than the two week rental (if nothing conked out on the lens and required service).
 
Member's gallery
coachjohn57 said:
Steve, I'm curious...what advantages do you see to the 400 f/4.5 with TC (to get you out to 500+) over the 500 PF? I currently have the 500 PF as my long lens for the Z9 but have thought of selling it and getting the 400 f/4.5 (or keeping it and getting the 100-400 S for versatility). Thoughts?
Click to expand...
See post 24: :)

https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/is-telephoto-“fast-glass”-worth-it.20274/#post-226927
 
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
How do you feel it compares overall when used with the 1.4X to the 500mm PF in terms of AF and IQ? I keep going back to looking at the 400mm 4.5 and struggling to decide if I want to change out my 500mm PF for it. From what I have read, it seems most say to keep the 500mm PF if you already have it, but I think a 400mm 4.5 could have some advantages in lower light.
Click to expand...
I only just got the lens and shot it for the first time today. I just got home and haven't had a chance to download the images yet. On the camera, the 1.4X shots look incredible.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
I only just got the lens and shot it for the first time today. I just got home and haven't had a chance to download the images yet. On the camera, the 1.4X shots look incredible.
Click to expand...
Thanks. It would be interesting to hear your opinion after you have a chance to use it for a while. I don’t often use the TC on my 500mm PF but do use 500mm quite often so would be using the 400mm with TC Frequently.
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
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!
Click to expand...
Like you…I’m an enthusiastic amateur and while I could afford easily to spend the bucks for the 800PF, 400/2.8, or the new 600…for me it’s a banf for the buck vs weight/size vs where the output goes…for me it’s almost exclusively screen for the blog…and in my testing of the lenses I have…70-200, 100-400, and both TCs…there are minor differences between the various combos…but outside of the bokeh differences due to effective aperture I find that at my output sizes the differences are ‘just a little different’ rather than ‘better and worse’. Other people’s mileage may vary of course…but for me the lenses and TCs I have provide what I need at a lower size and weight cost so less to carry, a much less expensive rig, and flexibility due to the zoom capability. If I ever actually do an Africa safari…will rent a second Z9 for my backup body for ‘it works the same reasons…and would consider rental of one of the exotic primes…since that’s cheap compared to the cost of the trip anyway…but for everyday use the extra benefits of the expensive primes is outweighed by the cost in $$ as well as weight. If I was a pro making money at it and depreciating my gear…maybe they make sense…but that isn’t me.

I could see myself springing for the 400/4.5 and using both it and the 200-400 or 70-200 possibly depending on the trip…but the 400/2.8, 600/4 and 800 PF are just too much weight for me to be interested in carrying them because of limited utility in addition to weight. I could afford one or both of them easily…but I’m cheap basically and the bang for the buck just isn’t there for me. I could also see myself getting the 400/2.8 for the speed and just accepting the weight and $c cost…but it’s hi*ly unlikely…although a rental for something like a safari trip is more of a possibility.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
i'm coming at this from a bit different angle based on my subject matter, but during a recent workshop, i sort of got long/fast glass religion.

in particular, relating to two things. 1) background compression/bokeh, and 2) color depth relating to iso.

in the past, i kind of didn't think too much about lens length other than "is it long enough". but during the workshop we shot we talked about the effect of length, compression and bokeh, and i'm nodding, like yah, i know that. but then we shot the same sequence, most of us with 200s, and a few 300s, and i'm like.. ooohh!

the other thing is in the past, i tended not to worry about iso very much. i shoot shutter speeds needed to capture the action and don't worry about it. but during the workshop, it was pointed out the dramatic effect of iso on color depth.

i've always been aware of af speed of every given lens, but it was also pointed out to me the af speed of the 100-400 vs say the 70-200 is enough to matter in our subject matter.

based on the first two points in a recent dock diving competition, i decided to use the 70-200 instead of the 100-400 and see how low i could push the iso. on that particular day, i compromised a bit on shutter speed and was able to push the iso to 64, base iso. and the results were pretty dramatic in terms of color. basically, just a lot more image fidelity, the images really "popped" as they say.

that kind of pushed me over the edge. since there is no 300 2.8 that i'm willing to buy right now and since i can't quite justify the 400 2.8 TC (this is just a hobby for me), after a test shooting only at 400 with my 100-400, i ended up picking up a 400 f/4.5s even though i own the 100-400 which is a great lens because 1) about a stop faster so lower iso at same lighting conditions, 2) faster af. and if i could swing it, i'd totally go for the 400 2.8 tc.

is it dramatically better than the 100-400? no. is it better? yes. at some point you start looking for every trick you know to get the images you have in your head realized and longer, faster glass are some of those tools.

Dugan catching with flare on an overcast winter day
View attachment 51077
Click to expand...
I think you just sold at least one Z400 f/4.5 with this photo! It's likely that you sold more than one of them.
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
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!
Click to expand...
Probably everything in favor or not of buying a larger aperture lens has been said but I'll share my own experience and pov anyway :)
Before buying a old 400/2.8 lens, my fastest telephoto ever has been a Canon 400/5.6L.
In my own hobbyist experience, the difference has been dramatic, mostly as the main times of the day I can "afford" to take some time for photography is near sunrise or sunset.
And that's where a larger aperture shines, mostly. Even at an f4 equivalent with the 1.4 TC that's attached most of the time, suddenly you realize you can shoot at sunrise or sunset between 1/1000 and 1/2000 while keeping the ISO to acceptable values. At f2.8 and say 1/125th, you can shoot while it's almost too dark to really distinguish colors of a distant subject with certainty with the naked eye.
But the main difference has been the number of keepers I got simply because I could pump up the shutter speed. Critters "micro-movements" have ruined a ton of otherwise perfectly good shots for me, because I had to use a too low shutter speed to get a reasonable ISO. And although noise reduction software have become incredibly good, I've never saved a very slightly motion-blurred shot, even with the latest specialized software for that matter. Like Steve says, you can always save a noisy shot but not a blurry shot. With a larger aperture, your noisy shot is either less noisy or equally noisy but with much less chances of motion blur.
I don't regret my choice, but it certainly has changed the way I approach photography since carrying and shooting such heavy lenses is very much not the same as shooting sub 2000grams lenses!
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
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!
Click to expand...

I actually think IQ is the last reason to upgrade when you already have high quality glass like the 500PF. Modern lenses like the 500PF, Sony 200-600 have IQ that is close enough to the big exotics I don't think it's worth it just for that.

I do think it is worth it for 2 reasons...
  • Being able to push the time I can shoot earlier in the AM or longer in the PM.
  • Reach because they take TCs so well
  • Depending on what you are comparing to AF quickness (not so much with the 500PF but lenses like the 200-600 or Nikon 200-500 there is a noticible difference)
For those reasons I decided it was worth it for me to get a Sony 600F4 but everyone will have to decide for themselves. That being said, If I had still been shooting Nikon (I had the 500PF) I may not have gone for the 600 F4 E because of the weight (and not wanting to invest in anything but Z lenses). The Sony is so well balanced and light for what it is I can hike for miles without a problem (and handhold without issues).
 
Member's gallery
This thread has got me thinking about long lens options more seriously again. I haven’t been in a rush as I have the Z100-400mm and 500mm PF and a 1.4x TC for both. I intend to buy the 200-600mm when released because it should be a great, convenient zoom. Then I planned to evaluate what made the most sense for primes. I am thinking the 400mm 4.5 and 800mm PF would be a great combination and would be entirely native. But looking at the value of some of the F mount options has me thinking a bit more. For example, a single 500mm F/4 with my 1.4x TC might be a better bargain to get close to the same results and being at 700mm F5.6 would be a lot more useful than 700mm F8.

Does anyone have experience with the 500mm F/4 E vs the 500mm F/4 G? The G seems like an incredible bargain, but maybe there is a reason for its low prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top