Is telephoto “fast glass” worth it?

[DRM]

Roberts Camera (usedphotopro.com) has a 600 f/4E listed for less than $6000. It’s listed with a note of “large coating marks on the front element,” but I wonder if those marks are actually on the front protective and replaceable lens element. Anyone with a history of replacing those front protective elements?

 

[EricBowles]

Roberts Camera (usedphotopro.com) has a 600 f/4E listed for less than $6000. It’s listed with a note of “large coating marks on the front element,” but I wonder if those marks are actually on the front protective and replaceable lens element. Anyone with a history of replacing those front protective elements?

They are honest and know what they are doing at Roberts/Used Photo Pro. You can just ask them. Get them to pull the lens and take a look. They can Zoom or FaceTime with you - after all, it's a $6000 lens.

My recollection (not personal experience) is the lens has a protective front element that just screws off and can be easily replaced, but that does not make it cheap. It could be $500 or more - and you can't use the lens without it because it is part of the optical formula. Oddly enough, Nikon probably would want you to send the lens in for service rather than just send you the replacement part, so I would have Roberts handle that on your behalf.

 

[Abinoone]

Roberts Camera (usedphotopro.com) has a 600 f/4E listed for less than $6000. It’s listed with a note of “large coating marks on the front element,” but I wonder if those marks are actually on the front protective and replaceable lens element. Anyone with a history of replacing those front protective elements?

Be sure to note that the lens is listed in only “fair” condition. I looked at the listing myself, but personally wouldn’t consider anything with that much wear. There‘s a 600E in “excellent” condition for $7250 from Allen Cameras in PA listed in Facebook now. Looks like a pretty good deal.

 

[splatbass]

I would love to have a 600mm f4, but 1, I can't afford it, and 2, I don't know how much I would actually use it due to health issues (rheumatoid arthritis). I often have to walk a bit to get to a location, and carrying it and the required tripod (I certainly wouldn't be able to hand hold it) would be near impossible. I am seldom in a position to get a good shot from near my car. For example I was at Logan Pass in glacier NP and heard that there was a grizzly a ways up the Highline Trail. I grabbed my 500PF on D850 and my wife and I headed up the trail and got some good shots. I wouldn't have been able to with a 600 f4.

But everyone is different. If you have the money and the physical ability go for it. I would if I could.

 

[lwan]

There are a couples on mpb, if you are in a area they serve. They're more expensive but one is "like new" and the other is "excellent".
I'm pointing to mpb because I sold them my sony 200-600 and they spotted lens cap front element micro scratches that I didn't notice myself, as an excuse to lower the price.
And also because everything I bought from them has been better than described (a7RIV, Z6, 400/2.8G and some other forgettable lenses and TCs), and you get a 6 months warranty which is not little for used gear (when you can get 3 months, you're lucky).

 

[markymark]

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

Steve, will you be keeping the 600mm f/4E now that you’ve just taken delivery of the latest 600mm TC lens?

 

[sh1209]

I was a long time Nikon shooter and had mostly zooms over the years. I bought a used 500mm f4 but sold it fairly quick because of the weight. I bought the 500mm PF which imo was leaps and bounds better than the 200-500mm. I switched to Sony a year ago and really love the 200-600 as well as the 100-400. Later in the year my wife found a great deal on a new Sony 600mm f4. That lens has been attached to one body just about the whole time I’ve owned it. The image quality of both zooms is fantastic but the image quality, lowlight ability and focus speed of the f4 is unbelievable. For someone like myself that goes out very early in low light conditions, it has given me the opportunity to take shots that weren’t possible before.

 

[Steve]

Steve, will you be keeping the 600mm f/4E now that you’ve just taken delivery of the latest 600mm TC lens?

It's already gone. I can't afford to keep both.

 

[Wapiti]

This discussion, while oft repeated, drives me crazy. The simple answer is this. If you have the money, and I don't, get the best, most expensive lens available. One thing that I have learned since becoming a hobbyist photographer is that most serious ones are wealthy. On occasion I manage to scrape up enough money to attend a photo excursion led by a well known professional photographer. Without an exception, excluding myself, all photographers attending have the latest, greatest, most expensive equipment. All of my equipment, and I mean all, is 10,15, even 20 years old. All has been purchased used. For many years, I was an avid hunter. No longer hunting, I now love to photograph and observe, big game animals, as well as birds. This of course requires big lenses. The latest technology in photography is, of course, an advantage. So, to sum up, my advice is this. If you've got it, spend it.

 

[ButlerKid]

There are a couples on mpb, if you are in a area they serve. They're more expensive but one is "like new" and the other is "excellent".
I'm pointing to mpb because I sold them my sony 200-600 and they spotted lens cap front element micro scratches that I didn't notice myself, as an excuse to lower the price.
And also because everything I bought from them has been better than described (a7RIV, Z6, 400/2.8G and some other forgettable lenses and TCs), and you get a 6 months warranty which is not little for used gear (when you can get 3 months, you're lucky).

Most of these lenses are well used - even if the outside is in great condition. I just had a new SWM motor put in mine and it took Nikon Repair 4 months to get a replacement motor. Look for a lens that has been recently serviced by Nikon to assure yourself that you are getting the best possible lens. You don't want trouble with the lens soon after buying it when you are spending big bucks.

 

[Ken Miracle]

As you probably remember I am a bird ID photographer and hand hold 99% of the time ... as I get older ... will be 75 in August that may change

I owned and used a 500pf, 600 f/4E and now Z800 PF. For my purposes the 500pf was not enough focal length most of the time even with the 1.4TC on a Z6II where it worked better than on my D850 which was not bad. The 600 f/E was a fantastic lens but still shorter focal length than I wanted and just bigger, and tougher to manage in and out of vehicles in tight spaces etc. etc. and got even more ungainly with the 1.4III TC on it. It was in all respects but portability better than the 500pf except when 600 mm was to long ... which for me was pretty close to never

I no longer own the 600 f/4 E that I got at a great price as a refurbished lens from Nikon USA on sale no less ... I sold it for a good price when I saw Steve's release video on the Z800 PF. For me the birder I have not missed the 600 f/4 E at all.

If I was a "making money with it pro" like @Steve I would have ordered a Z600 TC as soon as it was available. In his comparison video Steve pointed out the IQ between the Z600 TC with TC engaged and the Z800PF is so close it is not something that would be noticed one way or the other when it was used on line or printed. So for f/5.6 (with TC engaged on the Z600) vs f/6.3 on the Z800 PF the smaller form factor and the BIG $ difference I am sticking with the Z800 PF. And for now I have the Z100-400 with or without the 1.4TC the lens that got me to sell my 500 PF or I can borrow my wife's Z400 f/4.5 if I do want or need something shorter than 800mm.

 

[jadewolf]

I would love to have a 600mm f4, but 1, I can't afford it, and 2, I don't know how much I would actually use it due to health issues (rheumatoid arthritis). I often have to walk a bit to get to a location, and carrying it and the required tripod (I certainly wouldn't be able to hand hold it) would be near impossible. I am seldom in a position to get a good shot from near my car. For example I was at Logan Pass in glacier NP and heard that there was a grizzly a ways up the Highline Trail. I grabbed my 500PF on D850 and my wife and I headed up the trail and got some good shots. I wouldn't have been able to with a 600 f4.

But everyone is different. If you have the money and the physical ability go for it. I would if I could.

This is also my worry and for the exact same reason (I also have RA). Nevertheless, I almost pulled the trigger on putting an order in for the 600mm f4 Z this month after my year-end bonus hit, but I opted instead to upgrade my 2.8 trinity to Z glass instead for now.

I'm on the list to rent the new 600mm Z for a couple trips this coming year, though. I love my 500PF, but I've definitely had moments where more light and more reach would have made a difference. After renting, I think I'll have a better idea of whether the weight is manageable and if it's worth the cost for me. If so, it might be on the agenda for next year's bonus. If not, I may go for the 800PF.

 

[Roy]

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 love the 600mm f4 and although vey heavy it seems to be the optimal focal length for BIF.
Its not just the fast aperture or the sharp images that made me buy this lens.
Especially on the Z9 - the Autofocus is stunningly fast and that really helps the keeper rate.
I've also just bought a 400mm Z lens only because it's light enough to carry for long periods but its not the 600mm f4 ...

 

[Ken Miracle]

I love the 600mm f4 and although vey heavy it seems to be the optimal focal length for BIF.
Its not just the fast aperture or the sharp images that made me buy this lens.
Especially on the Z9 - the Autofocus is stunningly fast and that really helps the keeper rate.
I've also just bought a 400mm Z lens only because it's light enough to carry for long periods but its not the 600mm f4 ...

The 600 f4 E is a great lens and Steve's tests with the Z600 w/ TC show it to be outstanding but more expensive. Out here in the wild wild west 600mm is unfortunately frequently to short for BIF and why I sold mine 600 f/4 E . 800mm is not for everyone every where for sure but for me and my bird ID sitting, in the brush and flying needs here in Idaho it works better for my needs that my great 600 f/4E did. More reach and much more portable.

 

[KirstyM]

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!

Haven’t read all the thread, so somebody may already have mentioned this, but Brad Hill is just about to start his test of the 600 against the 2 400’s and the 800 pf, so it may be worth waiting for his initial views if you want “in use” thoughts.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Haven’t read all the thread, so somebody may already have mentioned this, but Brad Hill is just about to start his test of the 600 against the 2 400’s and the 800 pf, so it may be worth waiting for his initial views if you want “in use” thoughts.

Steve has already done that for us but not as extensive as he wants yet.

 

[ricardo00]

The 600 f4 E is a great lens and Steve's tests with the Z600 w/ TC show it to be outstanding but more expensive. Out here in the wild wild west 600mm is unfortunately frequently to short for BIF and why I sold mine 600 f/4 E . 800mm is not for everyone every where for sure but for me and my bird ID sitting, in the brush and flying needs here in Idaho it works better for my needs that my great 600 f/4E did. More reach and much more portable.

Yep, that is why to me, the 800mm PF pairs better with the 400mm f/2.8 (either Z version or E). When light is low (owl photography) the f/2.8 has the advantage over the 600mm f/4.

 

[Erik N]

One thing that is rarely mentioned is the MFD, something that I myself appreciate, although it may not happen often, the ability to shoot up close. Here the 400 2.8 (with or without TC) gives advantage over e.g. 600 4.

 

[O]

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!

My experience, Technically, once you really use the 600 F4E or other 600/500 F4/ 400 F2.8 glass as it should be used especially wide open you will like me not go back and tolerate size bulk or weight remarkably well if you have to LOL.

I am a 70-200 FL at F2.8, 300 2.8 VR II at F2.8 , 500 F4 at F4, 600 F4 at F4 lover, period.
Nikon is making new Z glass that is really exceptional, unfortunately these lenses all have a major issue, for most people............. Price, it seems almost extortionate compared to the cost of making them.

The 600f4 glass for me, i find Focus, speed, contrast, colour, micro contrast, sharpness especially was so noticeable, it reduces the need for higher iso, example in my case F5.6 F6.3 glass stopped shooting around 4-30pm, the F4, 600, 400, 300, marched on till 8pm happily especially on the D6, you can keep shooting in low light more a less when everyone else stopped.

You get amazing back grounds, it also has lots to do with you and how you shoot and what with.


In layman's term, The 600 f4 does basically what the 300 2.8 VR II does at F2.8 so to speak, only at 600mm if anything it will deliver even a shallower DOF so be careful.

If your going to shoot at F8 F10 F11 all the time you will still have an advantage but nothing like at F4.

If you like a 70-200 FL at F2.8 or the 300 F2.8 VR II at F2.8, you will love 600mm at F4.

Rent one for a week, it will be all telling if its a fit for you, myself i am madly in love with 600, 500, F4 glass especially on a good camera.

Adding a 1.4 TC III manually is simple....................

Again te new Z glass is amazing as is the price

There is some good used glass on the market.....its amazing what a notch or two in PS LR NIK Capture One can do for you and close the gap.

Only an opinion

 

[John Navitsky]

unfortunately these lenses all have a major issue, for most people............. Price, it seems almost extortionate compared to the cost of making one.

there’s the little issue of recouping r&d and tooling… oh, and making a profit

 

[O]

there’s the little issue of recouping r&d and tooling… oh, and making a profit

You make a good reasonable point, for me i feel these type of exotics are pretty much a monopoly in the industry with similar high pricing by other brands as well, these lenses mostly are for the dependent professional market, well healed buyers will happily drop the money as they can afford it, so price is simply pushed to the point the market can tolerate like.

Yes volume sales might not be high, and yes therefore command higher pricing, granted, but the price level being achieved year after year for these lenses are quite staggering.
I feel there is possibly more margin in the mix than cost recovery.

Only an Opinion

 

[abc123brian]

From the discussion here, I’ve decided to order the 400mm F/4.5 and plan to have it replace my 500mm PF. I have the Z1.4xTC already so if that combo is as close to the 500mm PF in IQ as it sounds from reviews, it should work really well as a replacement with more flexibility and it will give me the small, light long lens I want. I’m also taking into consideration that Nikon is expected to release the 200-600mm very soon, possibly less than two weeks from now, and plan to pick one up. Since the Z400mm 2.8, 600mm 4, and 800mm PF aren’t really available at this time anyway, it will give me some time to determine whether a 600mm F4 or 800mm PF is a better fit for me. Thank you to all who contributed to this thread.