Nikkor 600 TC or 800 PF?

[EricBowles]

While everyone is mired in the "controversial" video a point which is lost in the discussion is how the lens performs over distance and in different kinds of light. Again, I really appreciate my 800 for it's lightness, size, performance, etc., however at distance, IQ starts degrading compared to the 600 TC which becomes more apparent in strong side/backlighting. If money and weight were not considerations, the 600 TC rules every time.

I'd put this in terms of the size of the subject in the frame rather than distance. Small birds require a longer lens even at close range, while many common mammals can be easily photographed in the 400-600mm range with an occasional use of a TC. Western photographers tend to have a lot more large wildlife and eastern photographers photograph a lot more songbirds, shorebirds and small subjects.

 

[ajrmd]

I'd put this in terms of the size of the subject in the frame rather than distance. Small birds require a longer lens even at close range, while many common mammals can be easily photographed in the 400-600mm range with an occasional use of a TC. Western photographers tend to have a lot more large wildlife and eastern photographers photograph a lot more songbirds, shorebirds and small subjects.

It's both. The drop off in IQ is more noticeable with the 800.

 

[ricardo00]

The weights of the various lenses are as follows:
Z 800mm f/6.3 PF - 2385 g - 5 pounds
Z 600mm f/4 TC - 3260 g - 7.2 pounds
AF-S 600mm f/4 G - 5060 g - nearly 11 pounds
AF-S 600mm f/4 FL - 3810 g - 8.2 pounds
Z 400mm f/2.8 TC - 2950 g - 5.9 pounds
Z400mm f/4.5 - 1245 g - 2.5 pounds
Z 600mm f/6.3 PF - 1470 g - 3.0 pounds

Hi Eric,
Not sure where your weight for the Z 400mm f/2.8TC comes from. Doesn't 2950 g equate to 6.5 pounds, not 5.9 pounds? And aren't all of these weights without a hood?

 

[nhzen]

Perfectly summarized @EricBowles! Thanks for the clear assessment of all the relevant factors.

 

[mjais]

I have both. I first bought the 800PF and only a few months later the 600TC. I did not sell the 800PF after I got the 600TC (which, at the moment is almost 2.500 euros cheaper then when I bought it but who could have known that.)

The 600TC is hands-down the best bird lens ever made, thanks to the built in TC. It's optically as perfect as a lens can be at 600 and one of Nikon's best lenses ever made (rivalled maybe by the 400TC which I have never used and the 135 Plena which I own and I absolutely love.)
At 840 it is still crazy sharp and even with an extra external 1.4x, it delivers good results (if shutter speed is fast enough and there is no heat haze.)
If you get only one and weight, size and money are not objection, get the 600TC.

The 800PF is also a very sharp lens. Obviously it is less flexible than the 600TC and "only" 6.3 instead of 5.6 (and 40mm shorter).
But: the 800PF is less bulky, a bit shorter and almost 1kg lighter. That is great when carrying the lens. The smaller size can also be important when putting other stuff into your backpack. The 600TC takes up a lot of space. That's why I've kept the 800PF and I still use it regularly.
(I also have the 600PF and whenever the situations allows it, I actually prefer this one, because it is so small and light but often I need f4 or 800/840 mm).
I find both PF lenses to be very sharp, already wide open, and I got some good results when I used them with the 1.4x. I do not, at the moment, own the 2x.

So, from my point of view: If you can get both, maybe this is the best solution, otherwise go with the 600TC if you can live with the drawbacks, you won't be disappointed, it really is that good. If you rarely shoot at 600mm because it's too short and don't mind f6.3, the 800PF is a great choice. And for the money saved, you can get a few other lenses or an extra body or go on a long trip somewhere.

In the end every lens is a compromise. So far, I am super happy with both these lenses.
(I shoot both lenses with two Z8 bodies, I have never used another body with these lenses.)

 

[EricBowles]

Hi Eric,
Not sure where your weight for the Z 400mm f/2.8TC comes from. Doesn't 2950 g equate to 6.5 pounds, not 5.9 pounds? And aren't all of these weights without a hood?

Corrected

If anyone wants a 600mm f/4 G, it's a very cost effective option. They are selling for $2000 now - compared to the $11,000+ original purchase price.

 

[Calson]

With the 600mm f/4 TC lens I would need to carry and use a 8-10 lb tripod and gimbal head 100% of the time. I saw the gain in having a lens where I did not need a tripod with the 500mm PF lens and found I was using my 600mm f/4E lens a great deal less.

The vast majority of the time I used the 600mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC for 840mm at f/5.6. The 800mm PF provides nearly the same amount of image magnification and only a third of an f-stop less and weighs half as much as my previous 600mm f/4 lenses. If someone gifted me with the 600mm f/4 TC it would seldom accompany me on my wildlife photography time on land and never be a consideration when shooting from a boat.

 

[mjais]

With the 600mm f/4 TC lens I would need to carry and use a 8-10 lb tripod and gimbal head 100% of the time. I saw the gain in having a lens where I did not need a tripod with the 500mm PF lens and found I was using my 600mm f/4E lens a great deal less.

The vast majority of the time I used the 600mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC for 840mm at f/5.6. The 800mm PF provides nearly the same amount of image magnification and only a third of an f-stop less and weighs half as much as my previous 600mm f/4 lenses. If someone gifted me with the 600mm f/4 TC it would seldom accompany me on my wildlife photography time on land and never be a consideration when shooting from a boat.

I use a flex-shooter pro with the 600TC, it's small and light very stable and works very well with big lenses (but also for landscape/macro).
Search on youtube for reviews, e.g. by Jan Wegener.
I also have a Wimberley II but I don't use it much any more since I got the flexshooter pro.

I agree about the value of not having a tripod. The 800PF is easier to handhold for longer durations than the 600TC. For hand-holding, I think, nothing can beat the 600PF.

 

[ajrmd]

With the 600mm f/4 TC lens I would need to carry and use a 8-10 lb tripod and gimbal head 100% of the time. I saw the gain in having a lens where I did not need a tripod with the 500mm PF lens and found I was using my 600mm f/4E lens a great deal less.

The vast majority of the time I used the 600mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC for 840mm at f/5.6. The 800mm PF provides nearly the same amount of image magnification and only a third of an f-stop less and weighs half as much as my previous 600mm f/4 lenses. If someone gifted me with the 600mm f/4 TC it would seldom accompany me on my wildlife photography time on land and never be a consideration when shooting from a boat.

A monopod at least. For a long time, I used to carry and hand hold (albeit briefly) a Canon 500 f/4 IS II which weighed the same as the 600 f/4 TC. I can easily carry and hike a couple of miles with the 800 PF and hand hold it easily for slightly longer durations than I can with a 600 f/4 TC. Recently, I rented a 600 f/4 TC and while I drooled over the balance, performance, and utility of the lens, it was simply too big and heavy for me to use without a mono/tripod. I found that in the sitting position with a knee brace, propped against a tree/post, etc. it was entirely usable but less so in my hands in a standing or crouched position. Perhaps someone younger, stronger, etc. would have a different impression. Interestingly, my 800 though a half pound heavier than my 186 actually feels lighter when I'm carrying it probably because the weight is distributed more along the length.