Is telephoto “fast glass” worth it?

[EricBowles]

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!

As you know, one stop faster aperture is worth a full stop in ISO or more plus the shallower DOF. It is also worth the ability to crop 1/3 more of the image without the impact of noise (since every 1/3 you crop has the equivalent of 1 stop higher ISO). As Steve has described, when you are in high probability situations, a stop of shutter speed or ISO might not make any difference (it's the safety shot), but when you drop to lower probability settings - such as a 1/60 sec or slower due to low light - a full stop can make a big difference. Are you thinking about photographing the upcoming solar eclipse in 2024? If so, during totality you need a long lens and all the light you can get.

If you are unsure, the slightly older but still excellent 600 f/4 G VR (last made in 2015) is a good option and a lot less investment. It's going to be purchased used, but those lenses are quite reasonably priced. Watch for any squeak when you focus - a possible sign of an AF motor failing which is a $800-900 repair if you can find the motor. It's not a problem right now, but will be in the future. Performance on all of these lenses is excellent. My 600 f/4 G VR is still one of the sharpest lenses I own.

The 500mm f/5.6 PF is a very good lens, but these lenses are not really interchangeable. You would choose the 500mm f/5.6 when you need portability, you need to hand-hold, or you need a smaller kit for travel. The 600 f/4 requires a tripod, it's own bag or case, and is not the choice when you need a high degree of mobility or hand holding. But if you are looking for photos at dawn or dusk, the 600mm f/4 will be the choice.

 

[EricBowles]

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.

The 500 f/4 G VR is a terrific lens. Both are quite sharp and you probably can't tell the difference visually. The E version has a little better VR and is nearly a pound lighter, but diameter and length are about the same. At some point replacement AF motors and VR motors will be a problem for the G version since it was last produced in 2015.

 

[EricBowles]

Ordinarily, renting is exactly what I’d do to try it out, but at $511 per week, that’s an expensive proposition!

I'll loan you my 600 f/4 G when you are in the Smokies in the spring.

Just know that f/4 long lenses are a real treat. The backgrounds are terrific and the images are very sharp. I still remember my first shots with that lens on my D800E at St. Augustine Alligator Farm.

 

[abc123brian]

The 500 f/4 G VR is a terrific lens. Both are quite sharp and you probably can't tell the difference visually. The E version has a little better VR and is nearly a pound lighter, but diameter and length are about the same. At some point replacement AF motors and VR motors will be a problem for the G version since it was last produced in 2015.

Thanks Eric. That is good information. At less than $3k, it might be a great solution for me because a larger, heavier lens would see limited use compared to lighter lenses. I think picking up the Z400mm 4.5 and F500mm 4G and using both with and without the 1.4x TCs would give me reasonably fast long telephoto options at a great price. I would also less money reselling in the future when Nikon comes out with a Z option I think would be a better fit. I’ll wait until the CES announcements to decide what to do.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks Eric. That is good information. At less than $3k, it might be a great solution for me because a larger, heavier lens would see limited use compared to lighter lenses. I think picking up the Z400mm 4.5 and F500mm 4G and using both with and without the 1.4x TCs would give me reasonably fast long telephoto options at a great price. I would also less money reselling in the future when Nikon comes out with a Z option I think would be a better fit. I’ll wait until the CES announcements to decide what to do.

I had a 500mm f4G for several years. As @EricBowles pointed out the 500 E is a good bit lighter but he understated how much. The E is actually over 1.5 lb(27oz) lighter. Not only is it lighter but is better balanced with much of the lower weight being on the objective end due to the FL glass. So if you plan to shoot it hand held there is a huge difference. Also the G version still has the mechanical actuator for aperture control. That may or may not be a big deal but more moving parts is never a good thing.

Actually IMO one of the best values on the used market right now is the 600mm f4E. It actually weighs a couple of ounces less than the 500 G. In the US used market the 600 E is going for right around $7k.

IMO I'd not opt for both 400mm and 500mm primes.

 

[DavidT]

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!

Yes, yes and yes.

The F4 is better, I use the 600F4 for 90% of my wildlife photography, I often shoot it wide open at F4, it takes TC well, I have owned the 500PF and while it is handy it is not a 600F4. When buying a 500PF you really just have it as a lens. When you buy a 600F4 you have a 600F4, 840F5.6 and a 1200F8. Often I am shooting at F4 and still have higher iso than preferred, the extra stop is a big deal in early morning light we often shoot in.

I am also not a pro and just an enthusiastic amateur but I take my photography seriously. If you do as well than without a doubt buy the 600F4 (if buying an E buy a nice used copy). I look at it like folks who play golf, just because they aren't on the PGA tour should they only buy the Walmart special club set for $199? If a hobby brings you enjoyment and you like to be proud of the results you produce than the 600F4 will definitely be worth the investment. I would pair it with a Z9 and sit back and be blown away at how much better it is.

 

[Abinoone]

I'll loan you my 600 f/4 G when you are in the Smokies in the spring.

Just know that f/4 long lenses are a real treat. The backgrounds are terrific and the images are very sharp. I still remember my first shots with that lens on my D800E at St. Augustine Alligator Farm.

Wow, thank you, Eric! What a generous offer!

 

[abc123brian]

I had a 500mm f4G for several years. As @EricBowles pointed out the 500 E is a good bit lighter but he understated how much. The E is actually over 1.5 lb(27oz) lighter. Not only is it lighter but is better balanced with much of the lower weight being on the objective end due to the FL glass. So if you plan to shoot it hand held there is a huge difference. Also the G version still has the mechanical actuator for aperture control. That may or may not be a big deal but more moving parts is never a good thing.

Actually IMO one of the best values on the used market right now is the 600mm f4E. It actually weighs a couple of ounces less than the 500 G. In the US used market the 600 E is going for right around $7k.

IMO I'd not opt for both 400mm and 500mm primes.

Thanks for sharing that information as well. The extra weight and placement of it can certainly impact shooting. The idea of picking up a 600mm E is an option, but as I don’t have any F mount cameras, I go back to wondering if the 400mm 4.5 and 800mm PF is the best path. The 800mm is lighter and the 400mm with the 1.4x could be a good option for between the two.

 

[DavidT]

Thanks for sharing that information as well. The extra weight and placement of it can certainly impact shooting. The idea of picking up a 600mm E is an option, but as I don’t have any F mount cameras, I go back to wondering if the 400mm 4.5 and 800mm PF is the best path. The 800mm is lighter and the 400mm with the 1.4x could be a good option for between the two.

If you don't have an F mount body than I would either buy the new 600F4 for Z mount or if often shooting small birds the 800PF is a strong choice. If you think you will need to use the tele often then that isn't the best lens.

 

[abc123brian]

If you don't have an F mount body than I would either buy the new 600F4 for Z mount or if often shooting small birds the 800PF is a strong choice. If you think you will need to use the tele often then that isn't the best lens.

The Z 600mm is quite impressive, but also quite expensive. I used my Z100-400mm quite a bit this year, more so than my 500mm PF, but when shooting small birds neither is long enough. Looking back at how I shot this year, I really think the ultimate combo for me would be the Z400mm F/2.8 with built in TC and the 800mm PF. I shoot larger mammals quite often but tend to shoot birds during the winter months. The reality is the Z400mm 2.8 is over what I am willing to budget for, but the 800mm PF is doable (just unavailable for now). The Z400mm F/4.5 is available now and I already the Z1.4xTC. I get the point you made earlier about spending money on the hobby, but having other hobbies and I spend a lot on traveling per year too, so unfortunately need to limit spending.

 

[Calson]

At a place like Yellowstone a long lens like the 600mm f/4 is very much needed but a 800mm PF is much better with the ability to shoot without a tripod. For small birds the 600mm provides a 44% larger image than with a 500mm lens so more cropping is possible for subjects. But it is not as simple as when everyone was using 35mm film camers. A 45MP sensor as a DX crop provides 19MP as compared to a 20MP sensor that provides a 9MP image and so not filliing the frame is less important with a D850 than with a D5.

Often in places like Yellowstone and Costa Rica I would use the 80-400mm, often with a 1.4x teleconverter over the 600mm f4 lens. The lighter lens provided a great deal more mobility and greater ability to select the background for subjects. On a boat the 600mm was never used, although on a hard floor inflatable or skiff it might have been possible.

Always trade-offs but for me the weight of the lens now takes priority over image magnification. Now I use a tripod primarily for shooting video. The 800mm PF weighs two pounds less than the new 600mm f/4 S lens and that makes all the difference in the world for hand held shooting for me. I owned the 200-400mm f/4 lens that weighed 7.4 lbs and very seldom did I use it without a tripod. The 600mm 4/4 S lens is only 3 ounces lighter than the 200-400mm lens and I would be using it 100% of the time with a tripod and carrying an additional 10 lbs around in the field.

Overall I think a 500mm focal length works better when photographing large mammals or birds. The 600mm reduces the angle of view too much and one sees little of the animals environment or even the entire animal without parts outside the frame. What I like about the pictures of Thoma Mangelsen and Art Wolfe is that they show animals in their native environment which is very different from an animal ID shot.

I prefer the 100-400mm, 800mm PF, and the two S teleconverters over any current options. The S 200-600mm might be useful but it is not available and the 100-400mm with a 2x TC provides me with 280-800mm that works well enough with the Z9.

 

[John Navitsky]

The S 200-600mm might be useful but it is not available

minor detail, but the 200-600 is not expected to be an “s” lens

 

[DavidT]

The Z 600mm is quite impressive, but also quite expensive. I used my Z100-400mm quite a bit this year, more so than my 500mm PF, but when shooting small birds neither is long enough. Looking back at how I shot this year, I really think the ultimate combo for me would be the Z400mm F/2.8 with built in TC and the 800mm PF. I shoot larger mammals quite often but tend to shoot birds during the winter months. The reality is the Z400mm 2.8 is over what I am willing to budget for, but the 800mm PF is doable (just unavailable for now). The Z400mm F/4.5 is available now and I already the Z1.4xTC. I get the point you made earlier about spending money on the hobby, but having other hobbies and I spend a lot on traveling per year too, so unfortunately need to limit spending.

I feel your pain I’ve got a couple others that are more expensive than photography. The 400f2.8 and 800pf is more than the 600. But if you have the 100-400 it and the 800pf would make a nice little combo.

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

A personal viewpoint. I used a 500 PF with my D850 and loved most everything about it. The only thing that limited my shooting was the 5.6 aperture. I live in the always cloudy Pacific Northwest. I continued using the 500 PF on my Z9 and it continued to work well. I took a big breath and bought the 400 TC 2.8 S The average ISO of my images is now 1.5 to 2 stops lower or better said it went from acceptable to not something I worry about. Sometimes I take advantage of a faster shutter speed. The 400 TC is heavier and can only be hand held (by me) for a few minutes at a time. With the built in TC, I often take only one camera/lens when hiking so travel weight is actually less now. A long way to say that low light performance made all the difference worth it for me.

 

[Larry Shuman]

Don't forget your lens support structure. A Walmart $29.95 tripod will work out at all. Then there is the cost of a gimbal head. I would not recommend a ball head in this situation.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks for sharing that information as well. The extra weight and placement of it can certainly impact shooting. The idea of picking up a 600mm E is an option, but as I don’t have any F mount cameras, I go back to wondering if the 400mm 4.5 and 800mm PF is the best path. The 800mm is lighter and the 400mm with the 1.4x could be a good option for between the two.

After much gnashing of teeth that's the route I chose. When I sold my 500 f4G my plan was to pick up a 600 f4E. For months I couldn't fine one. When the Z 400 2.8TC came out a bunch of them hit the market at around $8500. I hesitated pulling the trigger. Then the 800 PF was announced and a bunch more 600s hit the market and the price dropped on them. But due to how much I loved the 500 PF and the weight and price of the 800 I decided that was my path. Thought I'd just keep using the 500 PF but then the 400 4.5 came out. So here I am. The 400 and 800 are my only two Z lenses. And the 1.4x TC. It makes for an unbelievably light weight kit. Ironically with no comparable light weight body to go with them. Unless/until Nikon comes out with a complimentary body to the Z9 I'm shooting Nikon primes and Sony zoom in the form of the 200-600.

 

[RichF]

I had a 500mm f4G for several years. As @EricBowles pointed out the 500 E is a good bit lighter but he understated how much. The E is actually over 1.5 lb(27oz) lighter. Not only is it lighter but is better balanced with much of the lower weight being on the objective end due to the FL glass. So if you plan to shoot it hand held there is a huge difference. Also the G version still has the mechanical actuator for aperture control. That may or may not be a big deal but more moving parts is never a good thing.

Actually IMO one of the best values on the used market right now is the 600mm f4E. It actually weighs a couple of ounces less than the 500 G. In the US used market the 600 E is going for right around $7k.

IMO I'd not opt for both 400mm and 500mm primes.

I started out with a 500 F/4 (first Nikon and then switched to Canon). At the time it was much lighter, smaller and more manageable than the 600.

When I got my first 600, I left the 500s in my past. The extra reach is great. now with the 800 PF, well ... another 200 mm is nearly always welcomed

 

[FB101]

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!

I'll tell you what others have told me when I was considering my 600 f:4. Once you have it, no other lens will do. And it's true.
Just did 4 hours this morning, in the fog, photographing a Kingfisher. I nailed shots right at sunrise, with speeds of 1/400s and Iso 5000 - just to give you and idea of how dim it was, with no contrast due to the fog. No other lens would have actually nailed those shots (they are not print worthy, but they are in focus as the KF is emerging out of the water.)
The only caveat is that the E, as good as it is, is heavier than the newer versions and that takes its toll - and it's barely handhold-able whereas the GM, RF and Z versions are significantly lighter and easy to handhold.

 

[abc123brian]

After much gnashing of teeth that's the route I chose. When I sold my 500 f4G my plan was to pick up a 600 f4E. For months I couldn't fine one. When the Z 400 2.8TC came out a bunch of them hit the market at around $8500. I hesitated pulling the trigger. Then the 800 PF was announced and a bunch more 600s hit the market and the price dropped on them. But due to how much I loved the 500 PF and the weight and price of the 800 I decided that was my path. Thought I'd just keep using the 500 PF but then the 400 4.5 came out. So here I am. The 400 and 800 are my only two Z lenses. And the 1.4x TC. It makes for an unbelievably light weight kit. Ironically with no comparable light weight body to go with them. Unless/until Nikon comes out with a complimentary body to the Z9 I'm shooting Nikon primes and Sony zoom in the form of the 200-600.

Did you sell the 500mm PF? It is a great lens but seems sort of redundant if I get the 400mm 4.5. Any negatives you found with the 400mm compared to the 500mm PF? I’m trying to build a lightweight and simple kit that is easy to travel with. Right now I have the 14-30, 24-120, 100-400, and a 500 PF. Just need to figure out my telephoto side. I think I’d be happy with the 400 4.5 and 800 PF. Hopefully we get that lightweight body in a couple weeks.

 

[Anjin San]

Did you sell the 500mm PF? It is a great lens but seems sort of redundant if I get the 400mm 4.5. Any negatives you found with the 400mm compared to the 500mm PF? I’m trying to build a lightweight and simple kit that is easy to travel with. Right now I have the 14-30, 24-120, 100-400, and a 500 PF. Just need to figure out my telephoto side. I think I’d be happy with the 400 4.5 and 800 PF. Hopefully we get that lightweight body in a couple weeks.

I’m selling my 500PF…with the 100-400 and TCs it’s redundant and just isn’t getting used. It and my D7500 are on the market or will be going to MPB OR B&H or whoever after the holidays. I might…and it’s still slim at this point…add the 800PF but want to do a full bird season with the 100-400 and TC before deciding if more reach will be worth the $$…but the 400/2.8 and 600/4 are just not enough banf for the buck for my needs. I am hoping for a non grip body to replace my Z7II but it needs some of what the Z9 has and I would like banks instead of U modes…both are useful but they work differently and switching bodies is a muscle memory problem for me…but maybe I just need to get out more and shoot to solve that problem.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Did you sell the 500mm PF? It is a great lens but seems sort of redundant if I get the 400mm 4.5. Any negatives you found with the 400mm compared to the 500mm PF? I’m trying to build a lightweight and simple kit that is easy to travel with. Right now I have the 14-30, 24-120, 100-400, and a 500 PF. Just need to figure out my telephoto side. I think I’d be happy with the 400 4.5 and 800 PF. Hopefully we get that lightweight body in a couple weeks.

I haven't sold the 500 PF just yet. I'm satisfied with the IQ etc that I'm getting from the 400(including with 1.4x TC). But my kit has centered around a 500mm prime lens for almost my entire photography career. So before I get rid of it I want a little field time to get comfortable with the 400/800 combo. And as much as I hate to admit it there's an emotional component. That's been my favorite lens since the day I got it. But I'm also trying to retrain myself to take advantage of the Z lens controls. So that may ultimately be the nail in the coffin for the 500 PF.

 

[canyonlight]

At the risk of brevity...yes.

 

[Abinoone]

I'll tell you what others have told me when I was considering my 600 f:4. Once you have it, no other lens will do. And it's true.
Just did 4 hours this morning, in the fog, photographing a Kingfisher. I nailed shots right at sunrise, with speeds of 1/400s and Iso 5000 - just to give you and idea of how dim it was, with no contrast due to the fog. No other lens would have actually nailed those shots (they are not print worthy, but they are in focus as the KF is emerging out of the water.)
The only caveat is that the E, as good as it is, is heavier than the newer versions and that takes its toll - and it's barely handhold-able whereas the GM, RF and Z versions are significantly lighter and easy to handhold.

GM & RF versions? I’m not familiar with these. I thought the E version was the lightest F-mount.

 

[Ralph]

GM & RF versions? I’m not familiar with these. I thought the E version was the lightest F-mount.

I think the GM is Sony and the RF is Canon.

 

[John Navitsky]

was watching Hudson Henry’s year in review and noticed he did a few portraits with the 800 that i thought had a nice look to them