Question for the 600 f4 Experts

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).

Jbear

Jbear

Active member
Member's gallery
Hey All,
So...I'm still in the DSLR world, and I am 100% happy there. With the falling prices of F-mount glass, I am going to add a 600 f4, and I have a question. Considering IQ at f4 and tc performance only (not weight, balance, potential for repair)...are there significant differences among the following:
-AFS
-AFS II
-G VR
Not interested in the Fl lens...that's just not in the budget regardless of how much better it is.
I'll be shooting with a D5, D850, and D500 primarily. I was considering a 400 2.8, but I have a 200-400VR and it is apparently a good one, as it is as sharp at 400/4 as my 300 2.8VR at 2.8...at any distance...and it's great with the 1.4III and 1.7.
Yaso...whatchoothink?
Thanks folks!
 
Member's gallery
Jbear, From someone who owns a 600G. I’ve used my copy on the D4, D500, D850, and Z9. I’ve been pleased and happy with my results but, I will recommend not to shoot it wide open. My recommendation is to step it down to 5.6, especially when used on the D850 or the Z9. I do realize that the E version is not on your list but, it is superior to the G. You might try the link that I’m going to attempt to attach. https://search.app/j3dDj1yKqCPZs1Vm6
 
Member's gallery
Thank you. Yes, I have read that, and of course everything else I can find out there. I know Steve suggested in the past to stop down a third or half. There are an awful lot of users who say it's just as sharp wide-open, and I suspect a lot comes down to the individual unit. Case in point, we all know the reputation of the 300 2.8's. I think over the years I have owned the AIS, AF-I, AFS II, VR (twice) and VR II (twice). All sharp as you could imagine, except one VR and one VR II. Those two, for whatever reason, exhibited a weird ghosting/halo at 2.8 that nobody (including Nikon) could explain or remedy. Stopped down...amazing. Same happened with a 500 f4 AFS...f4 no...f5 great, but who buys a several thousand dollar f2.8 or f4 lens that isn't sharp opened up. I've also had numerous tc's (same model) at a time and one would be great on a certain lens and the other not so much. That's why I am inclined to purchase from a place like MPB, Roberts, or KEH, as they have warranties and return policies. I grabbed the 200-400VR from KEH with a warranty that will replace it or refund my purchase price if it fails and they can't source a part.
I do greatly appreciate your take on it!
 
Member's gallery
Another thought regarding resolution...my 200-400 at f4 is stellar on the D850...even with the 1.4 and 1.7 (I have not taken enough shots with the 20eIII to have an opinion at this point). I am thinking there's no way that a 600/4 prime isn't better than that...is there? I wonder how many folks are shooting for reach rather than magnification????? I do assume (perhaps I shouldn't) that people spending on and shooting with a fast 400/500/600/800 are knowledgeable regarding atmospherics.
 
Member's gallery
FWIW, I shot the 600mm f/4 G lens for several years before swapping to the E FL. I found the bare lens plenty sharp wide open but often stopped it down a third or two thirds of a stop when using a 1.4x TC if light allowed. YMMV
 
Member's gallery
I think the VR will be the best cost/benefit option for me. Thanks to all who responded. I know we're all after the best possible optical results, and so we (at least I) perseverate over the highest performance available. In the past I think I've neglected the "real-world" benefits of some of these differences in performance versus how much more they cost. I look at my body of work (on the wall, a screen, a friend's home...wherever), and realize that I was pretty successful with film and MF lenses, and then with a D200 and some consumer-grade glass. Once I digested the educational material (mostly for me that was everything that I could get my hands on by John Shaw), the more basic gear did a great job. I still love trying new gear, and I don't dismiss stuff I can't afford just because of that. I'm just more mindful of adding stuff now. Anyway...now the hunt begins.
 
Member's gallery
All-in-all, I just can't help myself in saying you should really open up your search to include the FL E version of the 600mm. I purchased the latest G version of this lens about three years ago, and if I had it to do over again, I would have purchased the FL E version. For the increased AF speed and the lesser weight of the lens.

Don't get me wrong, I love my AF-S G 600mm lens, but sometimes wish it had just a little more on the one hand, and a little less on the other.
 
Member's gallery
Jbear said:
Another thought regarding resolution...my 200-400 at f4 is stellar on the D850...even with the 1.4 and 1.7 (I have not taken enough shots with the 20eIII to have an opinion at this point). I am thinking there's no way that a 600/4 prime isn't better than that...is there? I wonder how many folks are shooting for reach rather than magnification????? I do assume (perhaps I shouldn't) that people spending on and shooting with a fast 400/500/600/800 are knowledgeable regarding atmospherics.
Click to expand...
Your experience with the TCs, both 1.4 and 1.7, are not atypical, according to those I've discussed this with. The step up to the 2.0 is often the one that causes people issues with IQ. I'm of the opinion that issues people encounter with TCs are mainly caused by imperfections of the lens being amplified by the TC. There are, of course, some imperfections introduced by performance of the TC.

My opinion is strongly influenced by the opinion of an old friend who was an optical engineer, working in the precision optics field, before he retired.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I really do value all the insight! Regarding the weight...I know I'm sorta weird, but it really isn't an issue for me. Faster AF and better VR would be wonderful (with any incremental IQ improvement), but I just don't see it as $2K wonderful. Still...if I happen across an offer I can't refuse (feel free to make that happen...👍😎
 
Member's gallery
I would rather save a little longer or part with something else and pay a little more for a better lens such as the E. For a lens like this I’d plan on keeping it a long time so for me I’d figure out how to swing it. Buy once cry once.
 
Member's gallery
Another suggestion to look hard at the E FL models. However, the optical quality of the earlier G exotic telephotos is excellent. They embody the impressive abilities and dedication of Susumu Sato at Nikon, who has designed all these exotics since the early 1990s

What are the best Nikon lenses one can own which are perhaps superior to thier competitors?

400/2.8E FL ED is definitelly a reference lens concerning the resolution (the image still has details when it is heavily cropped). Moreover it has a kind of crispiness no other lens has! No other of any brand, I mean. The other qualities to consider are: the bokeh (perfect by 400/2.8 but I am...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com

Brad Hill also compared the G and E FL telephotos in his earlier blog posts, but not sure if he tested a 600 G.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I regularly shoot with the 600 f4 G on a Z9 and have no issues with it. At the time I got a killer deal on it so couldn't say no....until I can't heft it around anymore, I have no plans on replacing it.
 
Member's gallery
I've used quite a bit the G version (on D4 and D5) and was amazed when I switched to the FL version (on a D6 and later on the Z9), it is so much lighter that makes everything so much easier (including the 1 piece hood).
With the G version, you're almost forced to use at least a monopod (or some sort of support) at all times, handholding it is a pain in the neck and forces you to use higher speeds than with the FL version....

Optically, there might not be enough difference to justify the price difference, but mechanically...maybe yes:

keep in mind that the SWM could become an issue in the long run... and that can set you back yet another $1k (ballpark).

I had to change a SWM on my 500/4 G before selling it (abt 2y ago), and it was not cheap. If you are trying one, make sure that there's no sound whatsoever coming from the focus motor (from MFD to infinite), the slightest sound (starts with a high pitched "whistle") is the first warning, and eventually will go worse until the SWM dies.

Krgds, Marcelo
 
Member's gallery
I hear all of you, and cycle back to the print on the wall...I really (for my purposes) can't see the benefit of the additional expense. Should that change (like if someone buys one of my Gibby 335's or Lesters)...I would revisit that idea.
Brad Hill was the reason I grabbed a 500 f4 OS Sport...phenomenal lens...just amazing.
 
Member's gallery
I know you aren't considering weight, but that 600 G is one really heavy lens at over 11 lbs. The 600 E is several pounds lighter plus exceptionally sharp even wide open. But I'm with the others in saving up for the 600E. Optically, it's IQ is pretty close to the current Z 600.
 
Member's gallery
Points taken. I've pondered this and thought...what are my subjects with a lens like this? For me, it's birds, small mammals, and assorted larger subjects. How likely am I to be printing these subjects large enough for a small (or even medium) improvement resolution to make a difference? Occasionally yes, regularly...not likely. I think the VR is the most prudent choice even if it isn't the best available lens.
 
Member's gallery
If you own 500f4 Sport and 200-400f4 I would consider selling 500E towards greater budget for 600E. The focal length gap between 400f4/500f4/600f4 is quite small and I guess that you could do with either croping a bit with 400 or using 600E instead, skipping 500 entirely. Or skip 600 and stick to sigma 500. It is a great lens and with some fieldwork 500 vs 600 mm should not make a day and night difference.
 
Member's gallery
Let me clarify...I sold the 500/4 because the 500PF was so good I wasn't using it. Over time, I realized I really did miss having a long f4 that would play nice with a tc. I'd get another OS Sport, but it's actually more expensive than the 600VR now...at least the ones I've seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top