Nikon 600m prime or 500mm prime?

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).

criegel

criegel

New member
Member's gallery
I am ready to jump up from a 200-500 Nikon telephoto lens to a prime lens. I was wondering what advise the group could offer. I travel quite a bit and am a little concerned about the size of the 600. The 500 seems much more manageable but I think I might need that extra length? Any input would be much appreciated.

Thanks
 
Member's gallery
The weight depends largely on which 500mm and which 600mm lens. I have a 600mm VR II that weighed over 11 lbs and replaced it with the new FL version that weigh 8.4 and is much easier to manage. I have had no issues with the 600mm f/4 with air travel. It fits easily inside my Gura Gear 32L backpack with room to spare (for a 80-400mm and two FX cameras, teleconverters etc.). There have been times in places like Costa Rica where 600mm was too much lens and I have seen photos taken at Haines of the bald eagles with this focal length and the subjects are over cropped as a result of the 600mm focal length.

With places like Yellowstone or Alaska with greater camera to subject distances or with very small animals the 600mm provides a 44% larger image size as compared to the 500mm lens and that does make a difference. The 500mm with the TC-14 III teleconverter does make for a very usable 700mm f/5.6 lens with most cameras.

With a D5 or similar camera I want a longer focal length in most situations as compared to using a D500 or D850 with their much higher resolution that allows for more cropping in post.

For me my travel kit includes the 600mm f/4, 500mm f/5.6 PF, and the 80-400mm f/5.6, and the TC-14 III teleconverter. It provides me with focal lengths of 80mm to 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, and 840mm, with apertures of f/5.6 which works relatively well in terms of autofocus performance. When I owned the 200-500mm lens I always had the 80-400mm with me as well as I wanted the 80mm to 200mm focal length range in many situations.

In terms of bang for the buck I see more return on putting money into a 500mm f/4, a TC-14 III, and a 80-400mm, as compared to putting that amount of money into a 600mm f/4 lens. The 500mm f/4 is at the weight where one should invest in a sturdy tripod and head as part of the deal.
 
Member's gallery
criegel said:
I am ready to jump up from a 200-500 Nikon telephoto lens to a prime lens. I was wondering what advise the group could offer. I travel quite a bit and am a little concerned about the size of the 600. The 500 seems much more manageable but I think I might need that extra length? Any input would be much appreciated.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Either lens can be a great choice depending on your main subjects. Personally I tried downsizing to the 500mm f/4 after years with a 600mm f/4 but in the end sold it and went back to the bigger lens. But I do a fair amount of bird photography and large mammals in Yellowstone and the Tetons where the rangers enforce some pretty big setbacks to subjects like Bears.

I'd say if you already have a 200-500mm lens then are you happy with shooting at 500mm? Does it cover most of your subjects without excessive cropping? If so, then perhaps the 500mm would fit your needs and it definitely travels a bit better. But if not then I'd recommend the 600mm and if you're like me you'll keep a TC-14 iii handy as even 600mm can be a bit short for smaller subjects.
 
Member's gallery
While I have previously owned a 500mm f4, I currently own a 600mm f4 and also a 200-500 f5.6 lens. What should be noted is that both of my long prime lens are of the older af-s "D" series, which, while built like a tank, are substantially heavier than the newer series of Nikon primes. When I owned the 500 f4 I almost always wanted more reach. Now that I have the 600mm f4 I like the reach but it comes at a cost of increased weight & length and makes me less prone to just go exploring for any length of time or distance. My field trips are more intentional and with a specific purpose in mind with the 600. My walk around lens is the 200-500. Its also the lens I will throw in my vehicle for random drive around shots from the vehicle. If money is not a limiting factor I would go with a 600, you will love it! If funds are limited the 500mm f4 is a super lens as well and compared to the 200-500 you will also see an improvement in your pics. Either way you can't go wrong.:)
 
Member's gallery
Owned the 500G, kept wanting more reach and wound up trading for a 600G. You didn’t mention what body you would be using. I found out a few too many times that the 500mm on the D500 was too much lens and found myself relying on the D850 or D4 depending on the lighting. With the 600G primarily is on the D850 or the D4, with the exception of a natural barrier that isolates the subject then I will use the D500. Either lens will require a very sturdy tripod with a gimbal head. To get a shot I’ve hand held the 500 for a couple of quick shots, wouldn’t think of holding the 600. The dealer that I purchased the 600 from warned me about the learning curve from moving up from the 500 did find him to be correct on that. As DRwyoming asked are you satisfied with the reach of a 500 ? Maybe consider a 1.4 teleconverter on the 500 ? You may also consider renting one or both to get a real feel of the lens and the weight. As for traveling for my wife and I we are full time RVers and our gear travels with us. If we did need to fly I will ship our gear via UPS or FedEx in two Pelican cases. Wife use to fly almost every week for work and to many problems over the years with carry on’s and the thought of TSA rummaging through our camera gear is scary. Did read about a time when TSA dropped a 600mm.
 
Member's gallery
Well, I'm on the side of go the full potato and get the 600mm if you're asking. That fact that you own the 200-500 and have the 600 in the mix would suggest that the reach is of interest. I got the 600E at the start of the year and have pretty much used it exclusively since even though i generally have the 200-500 in the car with me. I use it on a mono and walk up to 5km that way. I can hand hold it for periods of time if need be and I'm not a very big dude. If you need less reach you still have the 200-500 with excellent VR that will get the shot if needed.
 
Member's gallery
I've been using a Sigma 500mm f4 for general wildlife photography. While I like many aspects of it, I wish I had more reach. If I had the option, I would have chosen a 600mm (especially the Sony or the Canon that are so lightweight) or even a 800 but the Sigma was a bargain and I couldn't afford the other ones.

Keep in mind that the maximum focal length of the 200-500 is actually a bit less than 500mm as reported by many users.
 
Member's gallery
Tiago Cardoso said:
I've been using a Sigma 500mm f4 for general wildlife photography. While I like many aspects of it, I wish I had more reach. If I had the option, I would have chosen a 600mm (especially the Sony or the Canon that are so lightweight) or even a 800 but the Sigma was a bargain and I couldn't afford the other ones.

Keep in mind that the maximum focal length of the 200-500 is actually a bit less than 500mm as reported by many users.
Click to expand...

Have you tried a 1.4x teleconverter on it? I know Sigma do one for the 150-600, but can't work out if it is a general use one or specific to the 150-600 and there is another one for their other lenses.
 
Member's gallery
Basically as DR says, if you are wishing for more focal length than your 200-500 has the 600 is probably the way to go. I have a 500, 600 and 500pf. I got the 500 (EFL) first and thought it would be enough but always found myself wanting more mm so I got the 600. I recently got the 500 pf and if I had to start over, I'd get the 500 pf and 600. Both 500EFL and 600 EFL take a 1.4tcEIII very well and are sharpest wide open (the 500G is sharpest if stopped down 1/3-2/3 stop). I've never liked the results of using a tc on any f5.6 lens. YMMV.
 
Member's gallery
I agree with the other comments and add that focal length choice also depends on your use and your favourite subjects.
For birds or small subjects, 600 mm is perhaps the most obvious choice, while it is not mandatory for mammals.
It depends on the type of photography you generally do. If you shoot mainly in the hide with a tripod, a long and heavy lens like 600 mm doesn't affect the handling compared to a 500 mm. If you use it in the car, it is different because it is more bulky, inside a relatively small and less comfortable space.
If you move a lot on foot, the 500mm, even better than the PF, is probably the best choice.
Like many of those who have already answered you, I also went from 500G to 600 FL to have a longer focal length without necessarily having to use the multiplier, while for trips abroad not purely photographic, for hiking in the mountains or in the middle of the woods, where size and weight make the difference, I use the 500PF and I'm pleased.

Also, consider the learning curve required to go from a zoom to a fixed lens. Framing with the 200-500, which is quite light and in any case allows you to frame first at a shorter focal length and then zoom in at a later time, is not the same as immediately framing a subject with a handheld fixed 600mm. It takes some practice.
 
Member's gallery
criegel said:
I am ready to jump up from a 200-500 Nikon telephoto lens to a prime lens. I was wondering what advise the group could offer. I travel quite a bit and am a little concerned about the size of the 600. The 500 seems much more manageable but I think I might need that extra length? Any input would be much appreciated.

Thanks
Click to expand...
I am wondering why you are thinking of adding to your 200-500 mm lens. More reach? F4 for more light and subject isolation? Better optical quality than the 200-500 mm? Better behavior with teleconverters? Given you travel a lot (how? by vehicle? large plane? small plane? other?), how important is size and weight? What do you like to shoot and where? The answers to these questions might help choose between your options.
 
Member's gallery
I've always gravitated toward the 500 f4 lenses. I guess they just seem to fit my shooting style. If I could have both...that'd be nice, but I don't make a living with my gear, so...500 it is.
BTW...I LOVE the 200-500VR! I got very lucky with it I think, but it's been my most used lens for years! 500 f4...very different shooting experience for me. Hard to explain. Analogy...I'm a guitarist...I pick up a Strat or a Les Paul...I play a certain way. If I pick up an ES-175...I play in a completely different world. One isn't better...I'm just mentally in a different place. I enjoy both places.
 
Member's gallery
BillW said:
I am wondering why you are thinking of adding to your 200-500 mm lens. More reach? F4 for more light and subject isolation? Better optical quality than the 200-500 mm? Better behavior with teleconverters? Given you travel a lot (how? by vehicle? large plane? small plane? other?), how important is size and weight? What do you like to shoot and where? The answers to these questions might help choose between your options.
Click to expand...
Thanks - F4, improved tele use, plane, etc
 
Member's gallery
I have recently tried the 600e fl, and for me it just didn't wow me and I thought it was heavy. I've been using a 500e fl for several years now as my primary long lens along with a 1.4xiii tc. I don't like using tc's but this combo is ok in a pinch. I just find the 500mm to be much easier to handhold, which I like to do most of the time. I recently bought a canon 600mm iii lens and it is superb....All of the iq of the nikon e fl but it weighs just under what the nikon 500e fl weighs. The sony is supposed to be about the same. Not sure if I'm sticking with canon, but I can tell you that the 2 pounds of additional weight is a big deal. So if I stick with nikon it will be with the 500e fl. I also have both pf lenses for when I don't want to lug the big gun around...great lens, but using a tc does impact performance as you would expect.
 
Member's gallery
Depends...... What do you photograph? Were almost all your shots with the 200-500 at 500mm? And you still cropped on occasion? Do you shoot hand held most or on tripod? Not much difference when carrying a 500 f4 and a 600 f4. Or are you considering a 500 f5.6 PF? Only you can decide what is best for you......

I went through this with SteveP. LOVED my 500mm but felt it was time to get either a new, lighter 500mm or a 600mm for the same weight as my old 500mm. I even shot with his 600mm. I finally took the extra 100mm and am glad I did. Sometimes 600mm is too short for birds, Africa, etc. :giggle: @5'3" and "weak" I shoot on tripod or bean bag. I still carry all my gear myself, even onto planes. The 600mm fits in my ThinkTank Commuter bag and goes in the overhead. YMMV....
 
Member's gallery
I currently own the 600mm f/4 along with the 500mm f/5.6 PF and the 80-400mm f/5.6 lens so I have options from 80mm to 600mm or actually to 840mm using the 600mm with the TC-14 for a 840mm f/5.6 lens. If I had to choose between owning only the 500mm f/4 or the 600mm f/4 my choice would be the 500mm lens as there are times when 600mm is too much lens and subjects are cropped too tightly in the frame. I saw a series of shots of bald eagles taken in the Haines area in Alaska and they all seemed too tight on the framing and when I asked the photographer stated they had the 600mm lens and it was a mistake to have taken on this trip.

In Costa Rica I use the 80-400mm and 500mm PF for 95% of my shots and the 600mm f/4 often stays behind in my room at the lodges. If I need more reach with the 500mm f/4 lens the addition of the TC-14 III provides a very usable 700mm f/5.6 lens. Where I do want the 600mm is in a place like Yellowstone when photographing the bears at a safe distance. In Florida I would expect the 500mm would be more than enough lens but in California where camera to subject distances are often much greater the 600mm is what I use a great deal of the time.

Bottom line is that if I did not have the 500mm PF and the 600mm f/4 and needed a single lens to replace them it would be the 500mm f/4 with a 1/.4 teleconverter.

That aside I am tempted to buy a Canon camera to be able to use their new 100-500mm f/4.5~f7.1 zoom lens which would be an improvement over my Nikon 80-400mm lens.
 
Member's gallery
It's a tough call, I think. If you shoot birds, especially small ones, or places where you're limited to roads or single viewpoints (Denali or Katmai) you'll lean more to the 600. But! (I have both, and the comments here are based on the 'D' versions of both lenses) There's a major difference in size and weight between the 500 f/4 and 600 f/4. (the E versions are lighter but I can't afford them). The 500 is awkward. The 600 is a burden, and ends up being a 'work around the car' lens. Both lenses tolerate TCs very well and I don't have any reservations about using TCs when needed. I also have the 500PF and now reserve the 500 f4 for times when DOF or 'that look' is important. After nine months of this I'm selling the 500 f4 and going to the 500PF with the 600 reserved for those times I need more reach and I don't need to be highly mobile. Different strokes, as they say. But if I was shooting chickadees and finches all day I'd get the 600 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top