Nikon 800 pf vs 600 pf

[Mark_Laidlaw]

I think I have read every thread on the internet and view all the videos on you tube and still can not make up my mind.. I reached the conclusion that there is no perfect set up. Too many options
I have no possibility to rent in the local stores the 800, so it would be a blind purchase. But I can tell that, when I shoot birds with 180-600, most of the time I crop. Also, with 1x4 TC the image is super soft.
I would really like a prime with spectacular IQ. The 800 seems maybe too specialized, the 600 a perfect lens for travel and a most versatile focal lens.

Is also true that, based on the reviews of 800 owners, they love the lens.

There's your answer: 800PF.

My wildlife/landscape 1-bag kit BTW is a Z9, Z30, DX 12-28, 16-50, 50-250, 400/4.5 and 800PF, Benro cyanbird tripod, a Benro monopod, some CPL's, a couple extension tubes, all in a Guragear 30L+ v2.

I can take that bag with me and shoot literally anything in nature with confidence, and it still fits in an overhead compartment. Am I cropping to 20mp when shooting below 400mm? Yes... but that's fine when I've got that kind of focal range covered + a backup body.

If I don't take the Z30 kit, I can kinda cram in the 24-70/4 and 70-180/2.8 in there instead and keep life at 45MP.

 

[fran85z]

I had the 180-600, and found it to be quite good when paired with the Z8. However, since I seemed always use it at 600mm, I swapped it for the 600pf when it came out. This decision was made easier since I already owned the 100-400 and TC14, otherwise I probably would have kept the 180-600. The 100-400 and 600pf make a good wildlife/bird travel combo. I also find the Z50ii to be quite capable as a second camera to the Z8 and typically use it with the 100-400. Maybe something to consider?

I’ve used the 600pf with the TC14 with good results in bright light, but find the results lacking detail in low light with high ISO. I had never considered the 800pf due to its size, but decided to order one during the current sale ($1000USD off, should arrive on Monday). I’ll be interested to see for myself how it compares with the 600+TC. I anticipate I will mostly use the 800pf locally (in Michigan) for small birds and shorebirds as it seems like I never seem to have enough reach. If I like the 800pf I will most likely sell the 600pf, and maybe add the 400/4.5. I used to own the 400/4.5 and found it to be excellent, but sold it to help fund the 600pf. Now I might do the opposite (lol!).

The Z 70-200 is excellent, but also quite large and I found myself leaving it at home most of the time. I also found the 100-400 to be better than the 70-200 with TCs. So I sold it and picked up the 70-180 that I can more easily add to my bag if I think I will need a faster lens.

I have not been to Costa Rica (on the list!), but imagine there would be times where fast lenses (70-200 or 400/4.5) would come in handy in the rain forest.

All of these lenses are excellent, you just need to decide what will work best for you. Good luck and happy travels!

Thanks! 600pf + 100-400 indeed covers a lots of situations and is a light set up.
How is your experience with 100-400?
Due to I would like to add to my setup the 70-200, thay may overlap a bit.

 

[fran85z]

The 600 of is an amazing lens. I take it everywhere when I fly in a Thinktank Backlight 18L (with Z8 and Z9 and 100-400mm). I also have the 800pf, and love it! But it is relegated to car trips. I will hike with either, depending on target species, but overall versatility the 600 wins due to size/weight.

Thanks. I have a Think Tank Glass Limo that can fit the Z8, 180-600, TC, 24-70.
Indeed my thought is to bring the 800 in car drives and only in some specifics travels abroad. The 180-600 give me lots of flexibility but with 1x4 TC do not provide good results.
The set up 100-400 + 600 looks amazing.
But I am not sure about the 100-400, I have never tried it.

 

[tegel]

Thanks! 600pf + 100-400 indeed covers a lots of situations and is a light set up.
How is your experience with 100-400?
Due to I would like to add to my setup the 70-200, thay may overlap a bit.

I find the 100-400 to be excellent. I mostly use it as part of my landscape kit (along with the 14-30 and 24-120), but it is no slouch for wildlife. Like I said, I preferred if over the 70-200 + TCs for that focal length range, and it is about the same size (minus the TCs, of course). I also like using if for closeups. Not quite macro (x0.38), but the Z8 sensor allows for quite a bit of cropping. I've been using the 100-400 a lot lately with the Z50ii, as it makes a nice compact 150-600mm (equivalent field of view) combo and have attached a few examples (for the last one I even used pre-release capture). I typically run my high ISO Z50ii files through DxO Deep Prime and I like the way they turn out.

 

[apakett]

I have the 100-400 and 600 PF. Both are easy to carry around with a Z8. For birds the 600 can be a little short, requiring a lot of cropping. The 800 PF or 600 TC would work better for that. I purchased a 1.4 TC and did some extensive testing on both lenses. The 100-400 did a little better, bare lens cropped than with a TC. With the 600 PF, I got the same results with and without a TC. I returned the teleconverter.

 

[fran85z]

I have the 100-400 and 600 PF. Both are easy to carry around with a Z8. For birds the 600 can be a little short, requiring a lot of cropping. The 800 PF or 600 TC would work better for that. I purchased a 1.4 TC and did some extensive testing on both lenses. The 100-400 did a little better, bare lens cropped than with a TC. With the 600 PF, I got the same results with and without a TC. I returned the teleconverter.

Thanks for your feedback. Why did you returned the TC if the results were comparable to the bare lens in the 600pf?

 

[Roy]

Hello, I recently bought the Nikon Z8 and 180-600 and 24-70 2.8.
I am thinking to upgrade my lens set up.

My option is:

180-600 (or 400 4.5) + 800 pf
This solution have more reach but is bulky and heavy for travels abroad.
100-400 + 600 pf
Lighter and less volume. Less reach.

I also would like to add the 70-200 which is a fantastic lens for landscape and close wildlife.

I am based in Spain where I can photograph birds, bears, elks..

My next trips in the next years could be Costa Rica for birds, Arctic for polar bears and Brazilian Pantanal.

A part of different other spots in Europe for mammals and birds.

Thanks!

Depending on distance and the size of the bird a 600mm lens usually is the most useful.
Since you have the 180 to 600 you may look at the 800 pf.
You may not use it all the time but its also a great birding lens...

 

[apakett]

Thanks for your feedback. Why did you returned the TC if the results were comparable to the bare lens in the 600pf?

Cropping 600 mm to 840 mm gave me the same results as using a TC. Why bother with the teleconverter? My testing method was to crop one of the photos until is was starting to fall apart. Crop the other to give me the same image size. Then compare. The camera was on a tripod and ISO set to 64. Real world shots would have motion and higher ISO, making any pixel advantage of the TC moot.

 

[fcotterill]

The Question of Cropping or TC is often discussed. Yes, it depends on how the variables interplay, especially with ambient light of the scene.

Too often, many of us are in less than ideal light = high ISO zone. This is particularly with a f5.6, f6.3, or f8 fastest aperture of the telephoto.

Filling the frame is usually the superior modus operandi.
Too often, Pixels per Duck matter the most in most situations.

@DRwyoming summarized the trade offs rather well :

Lowlight Sensor vs ISO

I am confused by lowlight performance as in more detail in lower light conditions from camera to camera or sensor to sensor My Nikon D-500 can get to ISO 50-1,640,000 (Boosted) according to the DPReview, while the Nikon Z8/9 is ISO 32-102,400 and is said to have better low light performance. I...

bcgforums.com

Ray Hennessy: Are Teleconverters Necessary for Wildlife Photography

Have been considering adding the Nikon 1.4x tele for extended reach on my 400 f/4.5 lens. Came upon interesting video from Ray Hennessy, in his opinion teleconverters on high resolution cameras such as the Nikon Z8/Z9 do not offer much of an advantage vs cropping as far as image quality is...

bcgforums.com

 

[fcotterill]

The OP should also consider the 1.2kg 400 f4.5S, 300g lighter than the 600 PF and the ideal (Larger) mammal lens. It handles both TC's well

Going on 2 years later, there's no need to change my evaluation:

Anyone else disappointed with z 400 f4.5? UPDATED - VERY HAPPY NOW

I thought the 500 PF has more limited AF points mounted on a Z. This is my recollection from a video I saw. No dog in this hunt but curious on the point. No, you don’t lose access to any AF points when mounting a 500mm PF or other F mount lens on a Nikon mirrorless camera. You lose some...

bcgforums.com

Nikon Z 400 mm f4.5

Hi everyone. I would like to know, from those who has tried or own this lens, what it is your thoughts and impression about it for wildlife photography. I have the 600 tc for birds and I am looking for something at 400 mm. Your comments are very appreciated. Thank you .

bcgforums.com

Converters with z9

I’m also curious about Thom’s comment not to sell the 500pf for a 400+TC. Compared to the F-mount 500mm f/5.6E PF, the 400mm f/4.5 VR S with a 1.4x teleconverter (560mm, so not perfectly comparable) seems to do slightly worse in the center, slightly better in the corners. For most telephoto...

bcgforums.com

 

[Wanderer]

Cropping 600 mm to 840 mm gave me the same results as using a TC. Why bother with the teleconverter? My testing method was to crop one of the photos until is was starting to fall apart. Crop the other to give me the same image size. Then compare. The camera was on a tripod and ISO set to 64. Real world shots would have motion and higher ISO, making any pixel advantage of the TC moot.

My experience with the 400/4.5 and TC1.4X is that the combo is still sharp enough, so that even higher than 45Mpix resolution sensor would help to resolve more detail on a subject. When shooting with the TC shooting wide open (f6.3) it may still give moire effects on bird feathers, for example, which is a sign that the combo is sensor limited and not optically limited. So it is beneficial IMO to have more pixels covering the subject compared to shooting without TC.

The quality of images will likely limited by other factors than the optical quality. Adding the TC may make it harder to get sharp results like you mentioned, but I'm still surprised about the sharpness level when focus is correct and other factors are OK. Other benefit is the higher magnification at MFD.

 

[macwalter]

I have the 600pf,400f4.5 and the 100-400z. They are all good lenses imop. Lately when traveling I find myself leaving the 400f4.5 behind as the 600pf is superior for birds and the light advantage is less than I thought. The 100-400 is not as sharp as the 400 mm but it is way more versatile. I do use the 1.4tc on the 600pf at times but I do prefer the bare lens. For me having only 800mm with no option to go shorter does not work for what I tend to go for. I find I can get decent shots at 840 with the 1.4tc if needed. I handhold and 800mm is a bit much in terms of small fov and higher weight. If I were in a more static situation I could certainly see the 800pf being a good option.

 

[Lance B]

Only the OP can really decide what focal lengths he will need, and this generally means knowing what you have required in the past.

For the OP, I have the 600TC, 600PF, 180-600, 100-400 and 70-200 covering my long lens requirements. I also have the 1.4x and 2x TC. I did own the 800PF but traded it in on the 600TC as I needed it to help fund the 600TC. The 800PF was a fantastic lens and I wish I didn't have to trade it in, but I needed the funds and the 600TC covered the 800+mm area as good or better than the 800PF.

I am specifically a birder, but also shoot animals and landscapes/waterfalls etc.

There is no doubt that the 600TC is the premier lens in my line-up. The only drawback being weight, but this lens is obviously not part of your equation.

The 600PF is a fantastic lens given its size, weight and price point. It pairs brilliantly with the 1.4x TC for an excellent 840mm f9 and is very sharp albeit at a slowish f9. Some have stated that it is just as good to crop rather than use the 1.4x TC but that is only true if you only need to crop to 840mm. The issue is that even with the 1.4x TC, you may still need to crop and that is where the TC makes the difference. In other words, if you need longer than 840mm, then it is better to use the TC and crop a little than to use the 600PF bare and have a huge crop - you may even run out of pixels! Mated in your bag with the 100-400 you have a great combo from basically 100 to 840mm. Another option is to use the 70-200 f2.8 and add the 1.4x TC for a 70/100-280mm f2.8/4 lens. The 70-200 is idiotically sharp and can be handy for very low light wide open shooting for great isolation etc. The advantage of the 600PF + 1.4x TC is it is very compact and light compared to the 800PF and another lens for shorter focal length duties.

In my experience as a birder here in Australia and limited experience outside of Oz, you can almost never have enough reach in most situations. Having said that, around the 800mm mark is where I find that it is the longest focal length for most applications. This is due to the fact that the shutter speed/aperture/ISO tradeoff is near the limit for best results. Longer than 800mm and shutter speeds need to be upped to counter subject movement - not so much camera shake as IBIS/VR is so good these days - and then your ISO goes up. Having said that, I have shot the 800PF as low as 1/40sec unbraced and the subject is as sharp as a tack - a very cooperative little bird stood perfectly still for a moment! - but this is a specific example and not the norm. Apertures with 800mm lenses are in the realms of f5.6 (the F mount is huge and heavy), or the PF at f6.3 at a manageable 2.4kg or the 600PF + TC at f9 and only 1.8kg combined. In other words, you are upping ISO due to high aperture numbers and this can take the edge off an image. However, I have also used the 800PF and added the 1.4x TC at times with good results, but there are few times when this can be achieved. Longer focal lengths also get affected by heat haze more easily.

If I were to travel and there were birding opportunities, I would be taking the 600PF (+1.4x TC) and probably the 100-400 (or 70-200) as well as 14-30/14-24 and 24-120 f4. If I needed to have even less weight and bulk, I would just take the 180-600 and the wider zooms. Even if I still had the 800PF, I would never take it on my travels due to the size, it is just too large.

 

[macwalter]

I agree with all you say. The only issue I had was using the 70-200z with the 2x tc. I found the 100-400 did significantly better and that 200mm was just not long enough for birds which I mainly shoot. I love the 400f4.5 but when only 3 lenses travel I tend to defer to the 104 due to its versatility. I also have the 24-120f4 and it is great. The 600pf is easy to handhold even with the 1.4tc and if the object is too far for 840mm I tend to pass although one day I used the 2x on it and found that it could deliver in good light but handholding 1100mm is a stretch. I find f9 not too bad in good light I can usually keep the iso down with a slower shutter and use it for portrait shots although at Bosque last year I used it a lot for BIF. It worked pretty well. There is a noticeable difference between the tc and the bare lens though, partially the higher iso and partly the loss of IQ. The 600 bare is not only sharper but has better contrast.
maybe when I’m too old to get out and hike I will look into a more static way to photograph and look for an exotic but the 800pf will most likely not be in my closet. I’m not a professional but I do try for professional results. Sometimes I get close.

 

[fran85z]

Only the OP can really decide what focal lengths he will need, and this generally means knowing what you have required in the past.

For the OP, I have the 600TC, 600PF, 180-600, 100-400 and 70-200 covering my long lens requirements. I also have the 1.4x and 2x TC. I did own the 800PF but traded it in on the 600TC as I needed it to help fund the 600TC. The 800PF was a fantastic lens and I wish I didn't have to trade it in, but I needed the funds and the 600TC covered the 800+mm area as good or better than the 800PF.

I am specifically a birder, but also shoot animals and landscapes/waterfalls etc.

There is no doubt that the 600TC is the premier lens in my line-up. The only drawback being weight, but this lens is obviously not part of your equation.

The 600PF is a fantastic lens given its size, weight and price point. It pairs brilliantly with the 1.4x TC for an excellent 840mm f9 and is very sharp albeit at a slowish f9. Some have stated that it is just as good to crop rather than use the 1.4x TC but that is only true if you only need to crop to 840mm. The issue is that even with the 1.4x TC, you may still need to crop and that is where the TC makes the difference. In other words, if you need longer than 840mm, then it is better to use the TC and crop a little than to use the 600PF bare and have a huge crop - you may even run out of pixels! Mated in your bag with the 100-400 you have a great combo from basically 100 to 840mm. Another option is to use the 70-200 f2.8 and add the 1.4x TC for a 70/100-280mm f2.8/4 lens. The 70-200 is idiotically sharp and can be handy for very low light wide open shooting for great isolation etc. The advantage of the 600PF + 1.4x TC is it is very compact and light compared to the 800PF and another lens for shorter focal length duties.

In my experience as a birder here in Australia and limited experience outside of Oz, you can almost never have enough reach in most situations. Having said that, around the 800mm mark is where I find that it is the longest focal length for most applications. This is due to the fact that the shutter speed/aperture/ISO tradeoff is near the limit for best results. Longer than 800mm and shutter speeds need to be upped to counter subject movement - not so much camera shake as IBIS/VR is so good these days - and then your ISO goes up. Having said that, I have shot the 800PF as low as 1/40sec unbraced and the subject is as sharp as a tack - a very cooperative little bird stood perfectly still for a moment! - but this is a specific example and not the norm. Apertures with 800mm lenses are in the realms of f5.6 (the F mount is huge and heavy), or the PF at f6.3 at a manageable 2.4kg or the 600PF + TC at f9 and only 1.8kg combined. In other words, you are upping ISO due to high aperture numbers and this can take the edge off an image. However, I have also used the 800PF and added the 1.4x TC at times with good results, but there are few times when this can be achieved. Longer focal lengths also get affected by heat haze more easily.

If I were to travel and there were birding opportunities, I would be taking the 600PF (+1.4x TC) and probably the 100-400 (or 70-200) as well as 14-30/14-24 and 24-120 f4. If I needed to have even less weight and bulk, I would just take the 180-600 and the wider zooms. Even if I still had the 800PF, I would never take it on my travels due to the size, it is just too large.

Thanks for your clear and nice answer.
I agree with you, I will purchase tomorrow the 600pf and 100-400. And sell my 180-600.
Light weight is important, for me 180-600 is top heavy.
The 800 is very tempting but, if I have to choose, the 600pf is more versatile

 

[macwalter]

Assuming you are ok with a prime the 600pf is hard to beat. It handles well is light enough to handhold and is sharp with good AF. The 104 is a bit short for birds except large ones but it is very versatile.

 

[Calson]

I owned the 100-400mm and 1.4xTC and 800mm PF and more recently added the 600mm PF lens. The 600mm PF is easily shot hand held. With the 800mm PF I can use it hand held for an hour or less or make use of a monopod. The 800mm provides an image size that is 77% greater than the 600mm focal length. For small songbirds the 800mm is ideal. An advantage of the 600mm is that I can use it on a small boat and have access to subjects not available from land.

 

[macwalter]

I use the 1.4tc on the 600pf when I feel I need more reach and the light is decent. It works well enough in these situations. I have handled the 800pf and it is way larger and too heavy for me to handhold for any length of time. In many cases I just get a bit closer especially with small birds. I’m not a fan of monopods. I find them too restrictive but I do have. A friend who does and except for sudden BIF situations he is amazing, but he is younger and very very fit and can lug that thing around all day long,z9 with an f600 f4 prime.

 

[Calson]

I had two excellent monopods but with the 800mm PF lens I wanted something that could be adjusted for height with a single hand. I bought the iFootage 71" Cobra 2 C180-II for that reason. I can change the working height of the head without needing both hands free. That is important for subjects higher than myself from the ground.

 

[M R Opp]

Thanks. I have a Think Tank Glass Limo that can fit the Z8, 180-600, TC, 24-70.
Indeed my thought is to bring the 800 in car drives and only in some specifics travels abroad. The 180-600 give me lots of flexibility but with 1x4 TC do not provide good results.
The set up 100-400 + 600 looks amazing.
But I am not sure about the 100-400, I have never tried it.

I had to "grow into" the 100-400. I almost never shoot it wide open because it can be a bit soft below f/7.1 @ 400mm. The 400 f/4.5 on the other hand is amazing. So if you don't feel the need for a zoom, that would be something to consider as well.