Nikkor 600mm f/4 or Nikkor 500mm F/5.6 PF

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).

PAUL50

PAUL50

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I’m upgrading my equipment in anticipation of traveling the National Parks and have sold my Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 with the thought of upgrading to either the 500mm f/5.6 and using a 1.4 teleconverter to get 700mm at f/8 or dump my savings into the 600mm f4 And a 1.4 teleconverter to get 720mm at f/5.6. I’ve read great reviews of both lenses but I’m leaning towards the 600mm, despite the huge cost differential, because the reviews Seem to indicate the 600 has better bokeh and is sharper wide open. Would appreciate views of folks who have used both and particularly like to hear from Steve. Thanks
 
Member's gallery
PAUL50 said:
I’m upgrading my equipment in anticipation of traveling the National Parks and have sold my Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 with the thought of upgrading to either the 500mm f/5.6 and using a 1.4 teleconverter to get 700mm at f/8 or dump my savings into the 600mm f4 And a 1.4 teleconverter to get 720mm at f/5.6. I’ve read great reviews of both lenses but I’m leaning towards the 600mm, despite the huge cost differential, because the reviews Seem to indicate the 600 has better bokeh and is sharper wide open. Would appreciate views of folks who have used both and particularly like to hear from Steve. Thanks
Click to expand...
Paul,
I've owned and shot with all the lenses you mention and currently own the 500 f/5.6 PF and the 600mm f/4 G lenses. Every lens you mentioned can capture stunning images but if I had to keep only one it would be the 600mm f/4 hands down. Not only can you achieve better subject isolation and have a better chance at blurring backgrounds, you can also run teleconverters and retain a much better AF experience. Add to that the stop of extra shutter speed, or ISO if you prefer and the big glass f/4 lenses really do earn their keep.

Sure you won't hand hold a 600mm f/4 very often or for very long and it's a much bigger monster to squeeze into tiny airline luggage compartments and of course it really begs for sturdier supports than the smaller, lighter and shorter focal length lenses but all of that is worth it for the images it can produce.

If the 600mm f/4 is too big a step from a weight, handling or cost standpoint I'd even recommend a 500mm f/4 G or E lens as a substantial upgrade that still offers most of the features, still takes teleconverters wonderfully but is a bit lighter on both your back and your wallet. I tried that route for a while after selling an older 600mm f/4 AF-S lens but eventually returned to the 600mm f/4 G lens as I just missed the reach of the longer lens. But that depends a lot on what you'll photograph and the bigger the animal the less you might need that extra 100mm of reach though in the national parks they're enforcing pretty stringent distance rules for bears and wolves so again that 600mm is pretty handy.

Don't get me wrong, any of the lenses you're considering are fantastic lenses but if big glass is in your budget I'd go with either a 600mm f/4 or a 500mm f/4 depending on your overall shooting interests and lean heavily towards the 600mm if birds are among your more common subjects, especially smaller songbirds.
 
Member's gallery
Both lenses are great, but they serve different purposes in my opinion.

First, though - sharpness wide open. The 600mm is better along the edge areas, but in the "business" area of the frame I can't really tell my 600 E from my 500PF. Plus, both lenses are weather-sealed really well, are fully featured with function buttons, and in my tests AF speed was the same.

Also, the 600 + 1.4 TC is 840mm :)

The 600 F/4 is going to give you another stop of light of course, and that's huge - it can sometimes mean the difference between having enough shutter speed to get the shot or not. When I use the 500 PF, it always seems like I'm running into ISO and shutter speed limits, the 600 F/4, not so much. The F/4 also gives you better TC performance. Not only is it a stop faster than the 500 PF + 1.4, you can also still use all of you AF points as well. At F/8, even the best cameras only have 15 points that Nikon says are reliable and only one (the center) is cross-type (and that's even on the D6). If you're planning to use TCs, this is a big deal. When I was reviewing the 500PF, I actually stopped using the TC due to poor AF performance on my DSLRs - and F/8 is tough to swallow when you're in dim conditions.

F/4 also delivers better subject separation than F/5.6. It's subtle difference, but it's there for sure. I also tend to agree that the 600 F/4 has better bokeh as well. For my photography, backgrounds are just as important as the subject - so much so I'd list background separation and bokeh as my primary reasons for owning F/4 glass!

For me, the 500PF is great, but it's more of an addition - not a substitute - for faster glass.

All that said, you also don't want to underestimate the flexibility you get with the 500PF. The lens usually doesn't need a tripod, is easily hand-holdable, and can allow you to maneuver more quietly than a large lens / tripod / camera combo can. I'm often able to approach closer with the 500PF than I can with the 600 F/4. And the 500PF is just more fun to shoot too!

Still, if I were in your position and needed to choose, it's not even a contest - 600 F/4 all the way.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks Steve and DR. Sincerely appreciate the detailed information and advice. If all goes as planned, I'll be spending months in the National Parks around the country shooting at substantial distances. You've confirmed for me that the way to go is the 600 F/4. Can't wait to get going!
 
Member's gallery
William (Bill) Anderson said:
Why not also consider the Nikon 800mm f5.6e? I have owned the 600mm f4 but often found myself using a TC for more reach. My current kit includes the 800mm f5.6e with its dedicated 1.25 TC and the 500mm f5.6e pf for reach and versatility/mobility.
Click to expand...
Honestly, that's a killer combo. I've been thinking about an 800mm on and off a LOT lately because my TC is frequently attached to my 600. The 500 / 800 combo sounds like a really good way to go. LOL - if you see me do it, you'll know where I got the idea!
 
Member's gallery
IMO, price is the major obstacle to the Nikon 800mm 5.6e compared to the Nikon 600mm 4.0e. Both lenses will usually be used on a tripod; so, the minor differences between size and weight are not of much consequence. Therefore, if you find yourself adding a TC to the 600mm (as I did for bird photography, especially small birds), the 800mm ± its dedicated 1.25 TC is the better option. I actually use the 800mm with its TC more often than not. Also, you’ll get better use of 2 closely related fixed-focal length lenses if their focal lengths are ½ or 2X apart. With the 500mm 5.6e pf and 800mm 5.6e combo, you’ll have a prime lens and f-stop range of 500mm f5.6, 800mm f5.6, and 1000mm f7.1. Additionally, in my experience, the AF system of the Nikon D5/D6 works well at f7.1. I’ve even used the 800mm with the 2.0 TC (see the attached photo), though this requires manual focus.

Shot with the Nikon D5 + 800mm f5.6e + 2.0 TC

_WFA2141-PSedit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I have the 600 f4e and the 500pf. For me the 500pf is my go to lens. Easy to hand hold and allows me to move quickly into position for the shot. The 600 pretty much lives on a tripod or monopod. I’ll echo the previous comments about the better IQ of the 600, but if it prevents me from getting the shot it doesn’t matter that much. If I am at a target rich spot I’ll set up the 600 on a tripod and carry the 500pf on my hip with a Spyder Holster. If I was traveling and could only bring one lens, the 500pf would be it.
Frank
 
Member's gallery
Well…one is less than $4K and the other over $12K so there's a big difference there. Second…as Steve said the 600 will almost always need to be on a tripod or monopod while the 500 is handhold at 3.something instead of 8.something pounds. And then it depends on what body you will put it on…you didn't say but I'll assume one of the full frame bodies. My suggestion would be that unless you're willing to have it on a tripod pretty close to 100% of the time and you're independently wealthy…that unless you are planning on huge print enlargements you probably won't see the extra IQ the 600 would give you. An extra stop of speed is very nice of course…but then you get back to that $8K and 5 pound difference.
 
Member's gallery
William (Bill) Anderson said:
IMO, price is the major obstacle to the Nikon 800mm 5.6e compared to the Nikon 600mm 4.0e. Both lenses will usually be used on a tripod; so, the minor differences between size and weight are not of much consequence. Therefore, if you find yourself adding a TC to the 600mm (as I did for bird photography, especially small birds), the 800mm ± its dedicated 1.25 TC is the better option. I actually use the 800mm with its TC more often than not. Also, you’ll get better use of 2 closely related fixed-focal length lenses if their focal lengths are ½ or 2X apart. With the 500mm 5.6e pf and 800mm 5.6e combo, you’ll have a prime lens and f-stop range of 500mm f5.6, 800mm f5.6, and 1000mm f7.1. Additionally, in my experience, the AF system of the Nikon D5/D6 works well at f7.1. I’ve even used the 800mm with the 2.0 TC (see the attached photo), though this requires manual focus.

Shot with the Nikon D5 + 800mm f5.6e + 2.0 TC

View attachment 2412
Click to expand...
That’s a good point.
 
Member's gallery
William (Bill) Anderson said:
IMO, price is the major obstacle to the Nikon 800mm 5.6e compared to the Nikon 600mm 4.0e. Both lenses will usually be used on a tripod; so, the minor differences between size and weight are not of much consequence. Therefore, if you find yourself adding a TC to the 600mm (as I did for bird photography, especially small birds), the 800mm ± its dedicated 1.25 TC is the better option. I actually use the 800mm with its TC more often than not. Also, you’ll get better use of 2 closely related fixed-focal length lenses if their focal lengths are ½ or 2X apart. With the 500mm 5.6e pf and 800mm 5.6e combo, you’ll have a prime lens and f-stop range of 500mm f5.6, 800mm f5.6, and 1000mm f7.1. Additionally, in my experience, the AF system of the Nikon D5/D6 works well at f7.1. I’ve even used the 800mm with the 2.0 TC (see the attached photo), though this requires manual focus.

Shot with the Nikon D5 + 800mm f5.6e + 2.0 TC

View attachment 2412
Click to expand...
That's a great shot. What camera did you use and did you still have to crop?
 
Member's gallery
To really throw a wrench in the works I've also had the opportunity to shoot with the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 a few times and the thing is amazing and crazy versatile. I'm still a big fan of my 600mm f/4 with a teleconverter at the ready but the Sigma is a very good lens though huge. But it's often available on the used market very inexpensively compared to other big lenses and at least in my experience it's a very sharp lens. I haven't had a chance to shoot the Nikon 800mm f/5.6 but from what I hear it's amazingly sharp but I'd say the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 is pretty darn close to the IQ of my 600mm f/4 G lens with a TC-14 attached. I might give the nod to the 600 f/4 plus converter but I'm pretty biased since I already own that combo.

But while I'll occasionally hand hold my 600mm f/4 for short periods I don't think I'd ever hand hold the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6, it's just enough bigger and longer to make that a real challenge.
 
Member's gallery
Neil Laubenthal said:
Well…one is less than $4K and the other over $12K so there's a big difference there. Second…as Steve said the 600 will almost always need to be on a tripod or monopod while the 500 is handhold at 3.something instead of 8.something pounds. And then it depends on what body you will put it on…you didn't say but I'll assume one of the full frame bodies. My suggestion would be that unless you're willing to have it on a tripod pretty close to 100% of the time and you're independently wealthy…that unless you are planning on huge print enlargements you probably won't see the extra IQ the 600 would give you. An extra stop of speed is very nice of course…but then you get back to that $8K and 5 pound difference.
Click to expand...
I use both a D4s and an 850. I've just found time and time again being frustrated that when I'm in the field I'm looking for more reach. Very expensive yes, but I'm thinking it just may be worth it.
 
Member's gallery
EarthImages said:
I replaced my 200-500 with the 500 f/5.6 PF. I also got a 1.4 teleconverter. I am not able to autofocus with the teleconverter. I guess that my D850 autofocus can't handle f/8.
Click to expand...
My D850 will focus my 500mm f/5.6 PF lens with the TC-14 II or TC-14 III attached but only using the most central focusing points and only in decent light on a high contrast subject. It's definitely more hit and miss with the focusing with the TC attached but I've usually been able to get it to work, sometimes by manually focusing to get close and then hitting the AF-ON button to nail the focus.

But yeah, adding the TC to a Nikon 500mm PF does take you right to the edge of reliable focus even if you only use the most central focusing points, in poor light or with a lower contrast subject it might not achieve focus at all.
 
Member's gallery
I own both lenses and if I could have only one for use in the USA it would be without a doubt the 600mm f/4 lens. Where I love the 500mm PF is when shooting from a boat as I can shoot with it hand held for hours. I have used the 500mm PF with the TC-14 and it is very limiting, which is not the case with the 600mm f/4 lens where I can use even the TC-20 without significant issues.

Check the manual for your camera as to the autofocus sensors that are available (including the cross sensors) at different f-stops. By f/8 the number that are available for the camera's autofocus system is reduced by 90%. In the past I worried about the ISO setting needed but have come to realize that the AF sensor sensitivity is far more of a concern.

When I bought my first 600mm f/4 lens I quickly found that in addition to the cost for the lens that I also needed to buy a better tripod and a better gimbal head and this added $1500 to the effective cost of the lens (plus $200 for a LowePro 600 AW backpack). With the 500mm PF my only additional expense was for a longer plate to attach to the foot for better balance when using a monopod.

For me the perfect combination is the Nikon 80-400mm along with either the 500mm PF or the 600mm f/4. I also needed the 80-400mm as an option when using the 200-500mm lens so that I could have more of a subject's environment in the picture.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
My D850 will focus my 500mm f/5.6 PF lens with the TC-14 II or TC-14 III attached but only using the most central focusing points and only in decent light on a high contrast subject. It's definitely more hit and miss with the focusing with the TC attached but I've usually been able to get it to work, sometimes by manually focusing to get close and then hitting the AF-ON button to nail the focus.

But yeah, adding the TC to a Nikon 500mm PF does take you right to the edge of reliable focus even if you only use the most central focusing points, in poor light or with a lower contrast subject it might not achieve focus at all.
Click to expand...

I am also able to focus with the central point on a well lit, high contrast target. I wish more of my subjects would understand that and move to better light.
 
Member's gallery
PAUL50 said:
I use both a D4s and an 850. I've just found time and time again being frustrated that when I'm in the field I'm looking for more reach. Very expensive yes, but I'm thinking it just may be worth it.
Click to expand...

Paul…more reach is always a good thing…but then you have to think about the cost. For me…an additional 8K just doesn't meet the cost/benefit threshold. I could easily afford it but my wife and I are both thrifty and purchases have to meet both the want and need…as well as making sense from a cost standpoint. Look at it like this…assume you had the lens for 8 years and shot 50 slightly better keepers a year because of the extra reach…that would make each extra keeper be 8000 divided by 8 and then divided by 50…that works out to 20 bucks a shot which doesn't seem like much…but then you have to write that additional 8K check to begin with. For amateur needs that seems unwise unless you're independently wealthy or value those 50 extra keepers a year a lot more than I would.
 
Member's gallery
RecalcitrantRon said:
How is the Sigma on AF lock and tracking? That is often where the Nikkors excel beyond their competitors.
Click to expand...
Only got to shoot it a couple of times but once was a BIF setting and it locked and tracked just as expected. I'd actually swapped with the owner of the lens that was shooting with my 600mm f/4 and then we swapped back. I didn't notice any changes in acquisition or tracking between the two lenses in the same setting. But I haven't owned one nor had one in my possession for long enough to really run it through its paces so I won't claim to know how it might work across a wide range of shooting conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top