Nikon ED AF-I 600mm F4 D or Nikon AF-S 400mm F/2.8 D ED

[tjmeyer]

Hello everyone, I have been wanting to upgrade from my Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 to something in the prime category and of course I have a limited budget, I would say under $4000 to do it. I have found the 2 lenses in the title, both for about the same price ($3700), both come with Nikon TC 1.4E teleconverters. I do know these are both older models. Would anyone recommend one over the other or something else for that matter or should I keep saving my money. Thanks

 

[DRwyoming]

Would anyone recommend one over the other or something else for that matter or should I keep saving my money.

It depends a bit on your main photographic subjects but when faced with a similar decision I went with a 600mm f/4 and even then find myself using a teleconverter fairly often. But if your main subjects are larger mammals the 400mm might do the trick and of course it's one of Nikon's best lenses for taking teleconverters.

That said, I would not recommend investing in a Nikon AF-I lens today. The AF-I lenses were a generation before the first AF-S lenses and though they have an internal focusing motor they do not support full time manual focus override like the AF-S lenses and since Nikon's AF-I phase was short lived replacement motor parts can be hard to come by. Sure if it was a screaming deal I might still buy an AF-I lens as the optics are world class but I'd go into it with the assumption it might not be repairable if the AF-I motor fails.

If the 400mm f/2.8 AF-S lens is in good shape and you often work larger subjects or don't mind always running it with a teleconverter attached that could be a decent way to go or perhaps keep saving to get a newer 600mm f/4. And of course 500mm PF is right about the same price point and a stellar lens though of course not in quite the same class as the super telephoto primes like a 600mm f/4 or 400mm f/2.8 when it comes to light gathering and DoF control nor the ability to take a teleconverter.

 

[tjmeyer]

I like to film all kinds of wildlife but if I had to pick one subject I would say I probably photograph birds more than anything. I did some more looking around and found a Nikon Ai-s AF-S 600mm f/4 D ED IF for about $4200 in Mint condition but doesn't come with any extras. I think I can manage a few hundred extra if this would be a better option. Does VR make a big difference in these lenses? It looks like the price jumps to $6000 plus if you want one with VR. If VR is a real help I might just think about saving up some more money and go that route.

 

[DRwyoming]

Does VR make a big difference in these lenses?

Personally I don't use the VR function much on my 600mm f/4 G lens as it's pretty much always on a tripod, beanbag or other support. I've handheld the lens a few times but only in a pinch as it's a beast to handhold for very long.

FWIW, I owned the first generation 600mm f/4 AF-S D lens and it was a stellar lens that I used when I actively ran my photo business. I captured many of my best selling images with that lens and only sold it when I shuttered the business and then picked up the G lens about a decade later when the photo bug hit hard again.

With birds being one of your main subjects I'd strongly recommend the 600mm f/4 over the 400mm f/2.8 and I'd still save up for a TC-14 II or III to with it. Don't forget that a lens of this size and focal length will need a good tripod and head which adds to the cost. Maybe you already have that covered but that can add quite a bit to the total cost of the system.

 

[tjmeyer]

I do have a good tripod and a gimble head. Thanks for the info DRwyoming, very much appreciated.

 

[Frando]

Obviously (too) late to the party, but maybe for people who landed in this thread, because they have a similar question: The AF-I Lenses are more or less the "Older Brothers" of the "AF-S" lenses. That being said, there are basically two generations of AF-I lenses: The 300/2.8 AF-I and 600/4 AF-I (1st Gen) as well as the 400/2.8 AF-I and 500/4 AF-I (2nd Gen).

First things first: They work technincally with every camera that also works with first Gen AF-S lenses (meaning almost every F-Mount SLR and DSLR since the 90s, plus mirrorless Z-Mount Cameras using the F2Z Adapter). As far as I've read, only the D3400 is an exception for (to me) unknown reasons, but I also cannot confirm that incompatibility claim.

The first Generation of AF-I Lenses had (or was ) SLOW AF! Do not consider these, unless: You want AF, but Speed doesn't matter to you and you found a really great Deal sub 1000 $. Else: Don't buy them!

The second Generation is way more worth considering, because their AF Speed is almost on-par with the AF-S Successors.

That being said, IN GENERAL, for each focal length, this list should help you with your decision:

- 600mm f/4: AF-S(!) If you're fine with slow AF and find a really good deal, AF-I is okay. If you don't need AF at all, consider MF Version.
- 500mm f/4: AF-I If you find a good deal. For the Same Price and in the same condition, go for the newer AF-S Version obviously.
- 400mm f/2.8: AF-I if you find a good deal. For the same price and in the same condition, go for the newer AF-S Version obviously.
- 300mm f/2.8: AF-S(!); If you're fine with slow AF and find a really good deal, AF-I is okay,. If you don't need AF at all, consider MF Version.


Therefore, in this case (400mm/2.8 AF-S vs 600mm/4 AF-I) the answer is obviously the 400mm AF-S plus TC, as it delivers more versatility without giving up on ImageQuality, is one stop faster and has better AF. If you shoot a lot of small stationary birds though (99% of the time) a longer focal length can be better, even with slower AF, so your aimed usage of the lens of course also plays a role.

So in this case:
- Allround Wildlife Super-Tele: 400mm f/2.8 AF-S plus TC
- Only if mainly stationary small Birds: 600mm f/4 AF-I plus TC

 

[ssheipel]

I think Dave has nailed, above, nicely. I know I continue to lust for that 2.8 on the 400, often, but really with birds (which is all I'm shooting now, really) I'm more often at 840 on my 600 f4 so if I had that extra light of the 400 I'd be pining for the extra length of the 600 tc. Again, solution is to sell another kidney and own both lenses

 

[Charles Loy]

I owned the ED AF-I 600mm F4 - very well constructed and very heavy. There are no repair parts available to repair if it dies.
The 14x is junk, the 14II is acceptable.
BUY MODERN - worth it in the long or short run