Nikon Z 400mm/4.5 vs. 600mm/6.3 PF

[Larry S.]

I’m considering the purchase of the 600PF. I have the 400 and really like this lens. I occasionally use the 1.4TC which bumps it to 560mm which also brings max aperture to f/6.3. Not sure the hefty price tag of the 600mm is worth the extra 40mm… I’m aware that with the 600+1.4TC=840MM which would really extend reach.. Opinions please as to expectations of performance.

 

[DRwyoming]

I’m considering the purchase of the 600PF. I have the 400 and really like this lens. I occasionally use the 1.4TC which bumps it to 560mm which also brings max aperture to f/6.3. Not sure the hefty price tag of the 600mm is worth the extra 40mm… I’m aware that with the 600+1.4TC=840MM which would really extend reach.. Opinions please as to expectations of performance.

The lenses you're comparing are both top quality but if the goal is to get close to 600mm and you need somewhere around that focal length most of the time and budget isn't the big limiter I'd go with the native 600mm f/6.3 over a 560 f/6.3 achieved via a 1.4x TC. Basically if the TC will be needed most if not all the time to achieve your desired focal length then I'd go for the longer native glass.

That said, if budget is a limiter the 400 f/4.5 with a 1.4x TC is a heck of a good setup and similarly if you shoot a variety of subjects and have need for 400mm fairly often then that may be more versatile for your uses. Of course if budget is really not a limiter and you shoot a variety of subjects that could make use of 400mm through 840mm then keeping both lenses plus the TC is a great way to go.

Assuming the question is just between keeping one of the two lenses I'd say it comes down to budget and whether you have frequent need for a 400mm lens or whether you'll mostly shoot at 600mm or longer. If you use Lightroom a Quick Look through your image libraries using LR's metadata filter on focal length is a great way to figure out what focal lengths you've used most often or had the most success with.

 

[Larry S.]

The lenses you're comparing are both top quality but if the goal is to get close to 600mm and you need somewhere around that focal length most of the time and budget isn't the big limiter I'd go with the native 600mm f/6.3 over a 560 f/6.3 achieved via a 1.4x TC. Basically if the TC will be needed most if not all the time to achieve your desired focal length then I'd go for the longer native glass.

That said, if budget is a limiter the 400 f/4.5 with a 1.4x TC is a heck of a good setup and similarly if you shoot a variety of subjects and have need for 400mm fairly often then that may be more versatile for your uses. Of course if budget is really not a limiter and you shoot a variety of subjects that could make use of 400mm through 840mm then keeping both lenses plus the TC is a great way to go.

Assuming the question is just between keeping one of the two lenses I'd say it comes down to budget and whether you have frequent need for a 400mm lens or whether you'll mostly shoot at 600mm or longer. If you use Lightroom a Quick Look through your image libraries using LR's metadata filter on focal length is a great way to figure out what focal lengths you've used most often or had the most success with.

Thanks Dave, I do plan on keeping the 400. I sold my F/500PF although I was using it on the Z8/9. I’m leaning toward biting the bullet and getting the 600 to go with the 400… I appreciate your input.

 

[DRwyoming]

Thanks Dave, I do plan on keeping the 400. I sold my F/500PF although I was using it on the Z8/9. I’m leaning toward biting the bullet and getting the 600 to go with the 400… I appreciate your input.

I bet you'll love that combo!

 

[ricardo00]

I’m considering the purchase of the 600PF. I have the 400 and really like this lens. I occasionally use the 1.4TC which bumps it to 560mm which also brings max aperture to f/6.3. Not sure the hefty price tag of the 600mm is worth the extra 40mm… I’m aware that with the 600+1.4TC=840MM which would really extend reach.. Opinions please as to expectations of performance.

I assume the 800mm PF is out of the question? On my last trip (a trip to the Serengeti), I loved having the 800mm on my Z8 and the 400mm on my Z9. But that was on a safari so not having to carry the two. Also for driving around (ie. Pt Reyes), the 800mm gives me the extra reach. Have considered the 600mm PF myself but think (for now) will just use my 400mm with the 1.4TC for hikes.

 

[Garfield]

"occasionally use the 1.4TC" is the biggest clue to keep your 400; I don't have the 400 f4.5, but the reason I'm considering the 600pf is because if I had the 400 the 1.4TC would be glued to it, which means it's the wrong lens (for me).

 

[Anjin San]

I have both…and am keeping both. Which or both goes is on an outing basis as to what I need that day. I normally only carry one of the two and have the 100-400 on the other body for flexibility. I also thought about the 800PF as well…but for most of my shoots down here in FL it’s too long a lot of the time…and the 600 with TC is darned near as good, smaller and lighter, and cheaper overall.

 

[Larry S.]

"occasionally use the 1.4TC" is the biggest clue to keep your 400; I don't have the 400 f4.5, but the reason I'm considering the 600pf is because if I had the 400 the 1.4TC would be glued to it, which means it's the wrong lens (for me).

Your point is well taken. thank you.

 

[MatthewK]

All depends on what you shoot. If 400 works for you most of the time and you occasionally need 600, stick with the 400 4.5. If your subject matter starts at 600mm and you need 800mm sometimes, go with the 600.

My personal philosophy is to buy a prime for the FL I need most, and cover the “sometimes” ranges with a zoom. I know I need 600mm+, and rarely need wider, so instead of spending tons of money on primes I won’t use too often, I cover the range with an affordable zoom (180-600 in my case).

 

[Anjin San]

All depends on what you shoot. If 400 works for you most of the time and you occasionally need 600, stick with the 400 4.5. If your subject matter starts at 600mm and you need 800mm sometimes, go with the 600.

My personal philosophy is to buy a prime for the FL I need most, and cover the “sometimes” ranges with a zoom. I know I need 600mm+, and rarely need wider, so instead of spending tons of money on primes I won’t use too often, I cover the range with an affordable zoom (180-600 in my case).

That’s me…with the 400/4.5, 600PF, and both the 100-400 and 70-200 zooms I take the two that best fit my idea of what I will need today. Those are mounted and then I put either the 25-120, 24-70, or 14-30 in my vest pocket or backpack depending on which seems to make more sense today…and sometimes it’s none of those 3…and both TCs are also along.

 

[MrFotoFool]

If you are considering keeping both the 400 and 600 and using both, then wouldn't it make more sense just to get the 180-600 to replace the two of them? Sure the other two are a bit lighter on their own, but combined they will be more weight to carry. It's a personal choice, but I sold my 500PF after a while because I found a fixed focal length too limiting and decided I really need a zoom. (I currently have a 180-600 on order).

 

[Larry S.]

If you are considering keeping both the 400 and 600 and using both, then wouldn't it make more sense just to get the 180-600 to replace the two of them? Sure the other two are a bit lighter on their own, but combined they will be more weight to carry. It's a personal choice, but I sold my 500PF after a while because I found a fixed focal length too limiting and decided I really need a zoom. (I currently have a 180-600 on order).

I’ve considered the zoom option for the very reasons you mentioned. I too sold my 500PF which was a terrific lens. I’ve owned and worked with the 200-500 as well as the 80-400 that was excellent but heavy, both “F” mount lenses I used with my D500/850. The 180-600 option is certainly viable and the images posted here have been impressive. The $3,300 price difference is a head-scratcher for me. I don’t think Nikon skimped on the zoom’s build quality. But the high price of the 600PF just makes me curious what you achieve and have available for the price….. basically 3X the cost of the zoom….

 

[MatthewK]

That’s the quandary I’m in. Have both the 186 and 600PF. Do I need both? Probably not. The zoom is incredible, it nearly matches the prime IQ-wise, and the versatility is huge. The lighter weight is the 600PF’s meal ticket though, it’s truly a joy to use in the field; the 186, while not super heavy, is noticeably more fatiguing.

I don’t think it’s $3300 better for lighter weight and a miniscule IQ advantage, yet I can’t see getting rid of the 600PF, I really like using it. It’s the true successor to the 500PF.

 

[Calson]

I thought about the 600mm PF but based on my own experience with the 500mm PF and the 600mm f/4 I decided against buying it. Most of the time I have used a 600mm f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter and this would not be practical with the 600mm PF lens. 600mm by itself is too restrictive with its view angle in most situations and the result is images that divorce the subject from their environment and become ID shots. The one plus for the 600mm PF is its very light weight that allows it to be used without mounting it and the camera to a tripod.

In real world use I would need to carry a second lens that was a zoom lens like the 100-400mm. So I need to consider the utility and value of these two lenses as a field kit. For me the 100-400mm plus the 800mm PF provides more value. I lose 40mm as compared to the 600mm TC lens but have a lens that weighs 2 lbs less and does not require hauling around a 8 lb tripod and gimbal head for its use.

 

[wotan1]

I have both. The need for this or other lenses depends on your situation.

With these lenses the axiom holds true that primes are sharper than zooms and a prime with a teleconverter is not as good as the longer equivalent native prime.

The 400 is effective up to about 560mm with the tc. You can do some cropping at that level and can have effective images.

I would prefer the 600mm at 600mm over the 400mm at 560.

The 600 is effective with the 1.4x tc which gets you above 800. You can still crop there and have good images.

The 800mm PF will be superior at 800mm to either of these lenses when pushed that far. This means the 800mm is sharper than the 400mm with a 2x tc, or the 600mm with 1.4x tc.

The 800mm is the first choice if you have to shoot well beyond 800mm.

The choice between a prima and a zoom is a tradeoff on flexibility and convenience against maximum image quality.

 

[Larry S.]

I have both. The need for this or other lenses depends on your situation.

With these lenses the axiom holds true that primes are sharper than zooms and a prime with a teleconverter is not as good as the longer equivalent native prime.

The 400 is effective up to about 560mm with the tc. You can do some cropping at that level and can have effective images.

I would prefer the 600mm at 600mm over the 400mm at 560.

The 600 is effective with the 1.4x tc which gets you above 800. You can still crop there and have good images.

The 800mm PF will be superior at 800mm to either of these lenses when pushed that far. This means the 800mm is sharper than the 400mm with a 2x tc, or the 600mm with 1.4x tc.

The 800mm is the first choice if you have to shoot well beyond 800mm.

The choice between a prima and a zoom is a tradeoff on flexibility and convenience against maximum image quality.

Thanks for your input. After much consideration I opted for the 600PF. I should have it by tomorrow and get after my local birds….

 

[MatthewK]

Good choice

I sold my 400 4.5 because I didn’t like the results I got with the 1.4 TC at 560mm, and I rarely if ever need 400mm for the (mostly) songbirds I’m after. I’m beyond happy with the 600PF, it’s the lens my 400 4.5 should have been in the first place.

 

[wotan1]

You will be very happy with the 600 pf.

It has been my experience that when you get to 600mm or above special attention needs to be paid to get the performance your lens is capable of rendering.

While there is a lot of talk about being able to hand hold these lenses with VR, getting full performance at these lengths requires special attention and VR does not mean you can shoot these lenses as you would a 50mm lens. You often have to use much higher shutter speeds and you may have to shoot bursts in order to get at least one good image.

Using a tripod and gimbal head where possible is highly recommended whenever possible.

Steve Perry in his Birds in Flight guide has a lot to say about what you need to do to get sharp images with these long lenses. Strongly recommend that book.

 

[Larry S.]

You will be very happy with the 600 pf.

It has been my experience that when you get to 600mm or above special attention needs to be paid to get the performance your lens is capable of rendering.

While there is a lot of talk about being able to hand hold these lenses with VR, getting full performance at these lengths requires special attention and VR does not mean you can shoot these lenses as you would a 50mm lens. You often have to use much higher shutter speeds and you may have to shoot bursts in order to get at least one good image.

Using a tripod and gimbal head where possible is highly recommended whenever possible.

Steve Perry in his Birds in Flight guide has a lot to say about what you need to do to get sharp images with these long lenses. Strongly recommend that book.

It is a very good book indeed! Caught it when first published and found it to be spot on with excellent recommendation.

 

[Chappy]

I’m considering the purchase of the 600PF. I have the 400 and really like this lens. I occasionally use the 1.4TC which bumps it to 560mm which also brings max aperture to f/6.3. Not sure the hefty price tag of the 600mm is worth the extra 40mm… I’m aware that with the 600+1.4TC=840MM which would really extend reach.. Opinions please as to expectations of performance.

First off I don’t own the 400 f4.5. I do/did own the 500 pf and always wanted a bit more reach. Before I had the 500pf I had the Sigma sport 150 to 600. Most of the time 8 shot at the full 600. When I got the 500 pf I found the AF faster in initial focus and tracking plus the IQ was better.

When I first got the Z9 I decided to buy the 100-400 for its versatility and focal lengths for sports. It fit a need and have used it a great deal. However, I used the 500 pf with the ftz adapter. It worked great and was fast with good IQ. Yes it had some problems but so did all of the Super zooms like the 200-500 which I was able to use extensively but never really liked it. Put a 1.4 tele on most lenses and I don’t like the output or the loss of initial af. 500mm pf was the best but still didn’t like putting the 1.4 on it. Instead I either crop in post or shoot in DX mode on the Z8 or Z9. I have the movie record button coustomized to toggle between DX and DX.

Finally the 180 to 600 s came out. I looked and looked at this lens, I made pro and con lists, I made lists of why I needed this lense. I waited a bit and lo and behold the 600pf was announced and I immediately ordered it the first few minutes of being able to order. For the next few weeks that high price bothered me. Maybe I should cancel the order, nah I will wait until I try it.

Finally the lens was delivered. I put it on my Z9 and knew I had to keep it. Faster AF than the 500 pf and the background was better. It was sharp across the frame. Since then I have gotten shots that stand out better and fit my needs better than the 500 pf. The size is great for my kind of shooting.

With all of this said, you have to buy for what you think your needs are. If you shoot mostly at 400 then keep the 400. If you are always wanting mor reach then get the 600 or 800. 800 doesn’t work well for me due to its size and increased atmospheric distortion throughout the year. 800 would probably work well if I stayed within the range I use with the 600.

 

[Garfield]

That’s the quandary I’m in. Have both the 186 and 600PF. Do I need both? Probably not. The zoom is incredible, it nearly matches the prime IQ-wise, and the versatility is huge. The lighter weight is the 600PF’s meal ticket though, it’s truly a joy to use in the field; the 186, while not super heavy, is noticeably more fatiguing.

I don’t think it’s $3300 better for lighter weight and a miniscule IQ advantage, yet I can’t see getting rid of the 600PF, I really like using it. It’s the true successor to the 500PF.

Indeed, I have the Z9, 100-400, 180-600 and 800pf but want a lighter weight walkabout rig for my video shooting. The Z9+100-400 is too short and I find the z9+180-600 provides good reach but is a tad heavy when holding long periods shooting video and the Z9+800pf is just a tad too long/clunky for hand holding (and I find VR on the 800pf to be jumpy when shooting video).

So I'm leaning towards picking up the 600pf which is 1.5 lbs lighter than the 180-600. For a little less money I could pick up a Z8 and pair it with the 180-600 for a 1 lb savings, but I really don't need a second body so am leaning towards the 600pf solution. Of course the Z8+600pf combo would provide the biggest weight savings (2.5lb total) but is a little too expensive for all I'd use it.

My 180-600 is a keeper regardless though -- I need the zoom for videoing ospreys and raptors in flight.

 

[Larry S.]

First off I don’t own the 400 f4.5. I do/did own the 500 pf and always wanted a bit more reach. Before I had the 500pf I had the Sigma sport 150 to 600. Most of the time 8 shot at the full 600. When I got the 500 pf I found the AF faster in initial focus and tracking plus the IQ was better.

When I first got the Z9 I decided to buy the 100-400 for its versatility and focal lengths for sports. It fit a need and have used it a great deal. However, I used the 500 pf with the ftz adapter. It worked great and was fast with good IQ. Yes it had some problems but so did all of the Super zooms like the 200-500 which I was able to use extensively but never really liked it. Put a 1.4 tele on most lenses and I don’t like the output or the loss of initial af. 500mm pf was the best but still didn’t like putting the 1.4 on it. Instead I either crop in post or shoot in DX mode on the Z8 or Z9. I have the movie record button coustomized to toggle between DX and DX.

Finally the 180 to 600 s came out. I looked and looked at this lens, I made pro and con lists, I made lists of why I needed this lense. I waited a bit and lo and behold the 600pf was announced and I immediately ordered it the first few minutes of being able to order. For the next few weeks that high price bothered me. Maybe I should cancel the order, nah I will wait until I try it.

Finally the lens was delivered. I put it on my Z9 and knew I had to keep it. Faster AF than the 500 pf and the background was better. It was sharp across the frame. Since then I have gotten shots that stand out better and fit my needs better than the 500 pf. The size is great for my kind of shooting.

With all of this said, you have to buy for what you think your needs are. If you shoot mostly at 400 then keep the 400. If you are always wanting mor reach then get the 600 or 800. 800 doesn’t work well for me due to its size and increased atmospheric distortion throughout the year. 800 would probably work well if I stayed within the range I use with the 600.

Thanks Chappy……the 600PF is due here today via UPS..

 

[KP Birder]

If you love the 400mm f/4.5, you will also love the 600mm f/6.3! I have the 400mm and love its sharpness and contrast, but the reach is a little short for most of my birding. Got the 600mm and it is just as great! It stays on one camera for birding. The 500mm PF is also a great lens, but I didn’t like having FTZ-1.4TC-500 PF combo with all those connections. Enjoy the 600mm PF!

 

[Larry S.]

If you love the 400mm f/4.5, you will also love the 600mm f/6.3! I have the 400mm and love its sharpness and contrast, but the reach is a little short for most of my birding. Got the 600mm and it is just as great! It stays on one camera for birding. The 500mm PF is also a great lens, but I didn’t like having FTZ-1.4TC-500 PF combo with all those connections. Enjoy the 600mm PF!

The 600PF just arrived! I’m doing the “Snoopy Dance” on the roof! It’s so small and light!

 

[KP Birder]

The 600PF just arrived! I’m doing the “Snoopy Dance” on the roof! It’s so small and light!

My first reaction as well! And if you wish to use it on a tripod once in a while, though it is very easy to hand-hold, the Kirk LP-70 replacement foot works perfectly!