Which Nikon 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).

Matt N

Matt N

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I’m currently a Canon shooter but I’m not particularly happy with the camera and lenses for wildlife. I have a R6 mark II, RF 100-500, 1.4 extender, and 800 f11. I’m looking for a stacked sensor, higher mp, and better glass, so Nikon sounds like a a good choice, particularly with the anticipated release of the Z8 and the primes: 400 TC, 600 TC, and 800 PF. I primarily target birds (raptors and wading mostly) but do have interest in mammals.

Unfortunately, Those lenses aren’t rentable and there isn’t anything comparable to the 800 6.3. I just returned from several wildlife refuges on the eastern shore using mostly my canon 100-500 with 1.4x where I walked 8+ miles a day. F10 is horrible when the light is nice for photos and the RF 800 f11 that I have is a toy/joke, hence the desire to switch to Nikon system. My gut tells me to hold out for the 600 TC because 800 will be too long some of the time and I’m concerned about the F6.3 on the 800, but I worry about the weight. Is the weight/size difference between the 600 TC and 800 PF that substantial? Obviously I can read the specs, but I’m curious to know from someone who has used both. I don’t want to discount the 400 TC either because I do like larger subjects. I can only preorder one and wait and unknown amount of time for it. Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Matt
 
Member's gallery
I don't think you will be hiking 8 plus miles with a 600 f4 of any brand. (Though I don't know you - maybe you are much more buff than the average person). What you really need to ask yourself, since you are used to the 100-500, is can you really live without a zoom? If you shoot at the 500mm end the vast majority of the time, then the answer is probably yes. But if not, you may not like a 600 f4 in spite of its amazing performance. I owned a Nikon (F mount) 500 f5.6 PF for about a year and it was great but I finally decided I could not live without a zoom. I replaced it with a Sony 200-600 f5.6-6.3 (though I still use Nikon F for all my other lenses). However you are correct that the smaller f6.3 aperture is at times limiting. Sadly it is physically impossible to build a lens that is lightweight and has a large aperture and a reach of at least 600mm. If you can afford it, maybe the best solution is stick with Canon and get the new 100-300 f2.8 with a 2x teleconverter?
 
Member's gallery
It’s funny because immediately after I posted I wanted to add a comment that walking 8 miles is not the norm despite the fact that that’s what I was doing the last couple of weeks. Most of the time it’s 1 mile or less to get to a spot to wait for sunrise. I almost always have the Tele converter on my 100-500 and shoot at 600 mm to 700 mm, but then still crop a little. I have no problem with a prime lens over zoom. My wife and I do photography together and she’s planning to inherit the R6 and 100-500 lens. So we will have a wider zoom lens at the ready anyway. The reason that I’m considering switching to Nikon is because I’m looking for a silent camera it doesn’t have any rolling shutter and I’m considering the lenses with TC’s. Sony is not really an option because I’ve been able to get my hands on several models and I hate the ergonomics. If I got the new canon lens 100–300, I would have a two times extender glued to it which makes me think that’s just not the right lens.
 
Member's gallery
Not sure which Sony models you have tried, but on the lastest - A74 (which I use) and A7r5 they made the grip deeper because people were complaining. I still need the battery grip attached to make it tall enough (I have large hands), but the same would be true if I got a Nikon Z8 or Canon R5/6. However given your description of your needs, I think the Nikon 600 f4 TC would be the best fit (since the Canon and Sony 600 f4 do not have a built-in teleconverter, which is one of the best inventions in the history of photography).
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for your quick replies. I tried the A74 in my hands at a store, but not in the field. Not sure if I’d get used to it over time. I think I’m going to rent the canon 600 prime just to hike around with it. If that works okay, then The Nikon 600 TC might just be the route I take. What subjects do you shoot? Do you find that you are all over the range on the 200-600?
 
Member's gallery
Welcome to BCG.
There are a few options, particularly if you use a FTZ adapter to leverage the Greater Nikon Ecosystem for the lightest telephotos for hiking on the Z9. The 500 f4E and' the even lighter 500 f5.6E PF are still unique in their reach/weight ratios particularly the 500 f4E with a TC14 III.
There're even more options with the new Z Nikkors you list, with the built-in TC advantages. And the 400 f4.5S is one of Nikon's best primes yet made and only 1.2kg. It pairs well with a ZTC14. The latter and a 800 PF cover most demands out in the wilds.
Check the embedded links in linked thread, above, for the evolving solution described by long time Nikon pro Brad Hill in a talk he gave last year, and more recent blog post.
His recent updated Gear Summaries link into a great resource of reviews and context etc in his many posts... Notably in his Destination versus Commando Kits

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Stuff I Use Part II: Lenses

Camera gear and related accessories regularly used by Brad Hill in the field. Part II - Lenses I currently use or have used.
www.naturalart.ca www.naturalart.ca
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Those are great suggestions! The 400 f4.5 and 800 pf is definitely something to consider as an alternative to the 600 TC. I haven’t looked at the 500 f4E, but will now.
 
If you are not getting good images with the R6ii and the 100-500 you should perhaps look to your choice of settings and shooting conditions before blaming the brand and switching brands. Not trying to offend, but that is a solid combo. The 400 2.8 would be a step up, even with the 1.4x or 2x. But the 100-500 weighs less. There should be a R5 mark ii next year if you can hold out. If you need more pixels now the current r5 is only $3200.
 
Member's gallery
Matt N said:
Obviously I can read the specs, but I’m curious to know from someone who has used both. I don’t want to discount the 400 TC either because I do like larger subjects. I can only preorder one and wait and unknown amount of time for it. Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

Hi Matt -- welcome to BCG. Well I owned and used the Z800/6.3 and currently own the Z400/2.8TC and Z600/4.0TC. I also used to own the AF-S 500/PF and 300/PF and a host of other lenses too. But I sold all bar my z mount last year.

If you go to the albums page on my flickr site you can see shots and test shots taken with all 3 lenses on a Z9.

OK -- so walking past the internal TC - functionally these three lenses all work the same and are superb. Much lighter than their f-mount predecessors, but since the flange depth on the Z-mount bodies is very small the lenses are 20+mm longer than previous versions (ignore the 800/6.3PF). All have buttons, control rings and Lens function rings. All have great weather seling and good hoods -- I bought and use Karl Zemlin's slightly shorter lens hood for each of mine - because I am rough on them when on Safari and did not want to face having to replace a Nikon one (these are not cheap). AND I use replacement feet made by Zanelli on all 3 lenses.

I sold my 800/pf when my 600/4.0TC arrived. I could not justify keeping this lens in a cupboard when so many were waiting for it and I got my money back, well most of it. However, you REALLY have got to want to use 800mm FL - it has a minimum focussing distance of 5m, which is just a little bit longer than the 600/TC 4.4m. F/6.3 is not a problem EXCEPT when it is too dark and if you want to add a ZTC14 or ZTC20 the lens gets very very dark -- 1120mm f/8 and 1600mm f/13 -- which is wee bit brighter than the lens you quoted. On the hole there is no loss of performance when using the ZTCs on these lenses -- but obviously the loss of 1 or 2 stops of light has an effect, particularly while one should also increase the shutter speed to reflect the use of a longer effective focal length.

As you can see by my Flickr site - I primarily shoot Big Cats when on Safari - so lots of pre-dawn/dawn lions, and action around sunset. AND lots of fighting heat haze while stalking cheetah hunting etc... So I "need" f/2,8 and f/4.0 for the bulk of my shooting. The 400/2.8TC is a "stupid" lens and the ability to punch into 580/4.0 is wonderful. Well the same is true for the 600/4.0 - where one can punch into 840/5.6 with the "flick" of a lever (please gently move the lever don't flick it).

If you watch Steve's review or read my posts - he and I both believe one should let your historical use and planned use guide your future lens choices.
For me in 2015/2016/17 - 60%+ of my shots were at 600mm of longer. 35% were at 400mm and 560mm -- YES I was carrying a 400 and 600, but also shorter focal lengths.
But these lenses with built in TC's make this a little harder. During the 3 week trip I made in March the at 66% of the 20,000 shots I took the 400/2.8TC was by far my most used lens. Followed at 29% by the 600/4.0TC. Then the 24-120 and the 100-400 in last place -- for the whole trip the first two lenses each lived on a Z9 and the last 2 on a Z7 -- this may have influenced my choices -- the Z7 is NOT a Z9. Also shot many hours of 8.3K 60p Video on both lenses.
So I will be using these 2 lenses from here on. Hopefully with a Z8 for shorter focal length.
The Z9 and these longer lenses balance very well on a panning plate, gimbal, acratech long lens head etc.... We will see how they work with a Z8.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
If you are not getting good images with the R6ii and the 100-500 you should perhaps look to your choice of settings and shooting conditions before blaming the brand and switching brands. Not trying to offend, but that is a solid combo. The 400 2.8 would be a step up, even with the 1.4x or 2x. But the 100-500 weighs less. There should be a R5 mark ii next year if you can hold out. If you need more pixels now the current r5 is only $3200.
Click to expand...
I do believe this comment was made with good intentions, so I'll try not to take offense. =). I agree that this combination is "solid" and the pictures I get where the 100-500mm focal length is appropriate are sharp. Most of my subjects are more appropriate for 600-800mm, so I present the following question: with Canon, what camera/lens combination will yield the best results at 800mm at sunrise when you don't want to use a massive amount of noise reduction? If the answer involves a 400 F2.8 or 600 F4, each well over $10,000, does it not make sense to evaluate other brands before making such a huge investment, particularly when there is a brand that offers a 800mm F6.3 lens and lenses with built-in teleconverters? I'm not blaming Canon for any bad shots, but a 700mm f10 lens does not seem appropriate for low light and it is my opinion that the Nikon glass has more options.
 
Member's gallery
Hello Andy, thank for your for comments. They are very helpful and your flicker site is a good resource to look at. I'm definitely concerned that the 800 PF will be too much FL some of the time and I won't be happy with that limitation. Your comments about how they compare are helpful, so I guess I just need to figure out whether I want to carry 2 lenses when I'm out on my own, or one big lens. Every time I've had to change lens in the field, I've missed the shot, so in reality, the options are 2 cameras and lenses vs. 1 big lens. =)
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
Welcome to BCG.
There are a few options, particularly if you use a FTZ adapter to leverage the Greater Nikon Ecosystem for the lightest telephotos for hiking on the Z9. The 500 f4E and' the even lighter 500 f5.6E PF are still unique in their reach/weight ratios particularly the 500 f4E with a TC14 III.
There're even more options with the new Z Nikkors you list, with the built-in TC advantages. And the 400 f4.5S is one of Nikon's best primes yet made and only 1.2kg. It pairs well with a ZTC14. The latter and a 800 PF cover most demands out in the wilds.
Check the embedded links in linked thread, above, for the evolving solution described by long time Nikon pro Brad Hill in a talk he gave last year, and more recent blog post.
His recent updated Gear Summaries summarize a great deal of reviews and context etc in his many posts... Notably in his Destination versus Commando Kits

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Stuff I Use Part II: Lenses

Camera gear and related accessories regularly used by Brad Hill in the field. Part II - Lenses I currently use or have used.
www.naturalart.ca www.naturalart.ca
Click to expand...
I just spent the last hour or so reading over Brad Hill's website and it is a fantastic resource. Thanks for pointing me to that!
 
Member's gallery
I shoot with a Nikon Z9 and the F mount 500mm f5.6 pf. That being said, I just had a chance to see a friend of mine, an excellent wildlife photographer, use her new Olympus camera and long tele lens. While it is Micro 4/3s, The zoom lens has a built in 1.25 x tc and the resulting max focal length (35mm equivalent) is 1000mm. She was a former Canon shooter.

Check out the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO Lens on a Olympus body of your choice. The lens has internal zoom so it does not extend when focala length is increased.

www.naturettl.com

Olympus 150-400mm f/4.5 Lens Review for Wildlife Photography –...

Read our field review of the Olympus 150-400mm lens by David Tipling. This lens if ideal for wildlife photography by MFT users.
www.naturettl.com www.naturettl.com


If smaller/lighter/ longer is needed, this might be an option. Joe McDonald has switched to OM too.
 
Member's gallery
The OM-1 has one of the best AF systems out there. The 150-400 with the built in TC is probably the most flexible/versatile lenses out there.

The only limitation with that setup is the equivalent aperture you deal with because of the small sensor. This challenges the DOF and is difficult to get the look to one's images that one would be used to shooting a 600/4 type lens on FF.

You get a 400mm f/4.5 lens which gives you an 800mm FOV but that also gets you the DOF/look of an 800 f/9 lens on FF.

If you are considering the OM-1 there is a very long thread on these forums discussing it in detail: https://bcgforums.com/index.php?thr...he-olympus-om-1-for-birds-and-wildlife.13925/
Also this thread has some good discussion: https://bcgforums.com/index.php?thr...0-400-pro-zoom-system-swap-to-z9-or-a1.20649/

Getting back to the original question, the 600TC is surely the dream lens...maybe the 400TC if you feel that 400 would be useful more so than 800+. The other option is to explore the 800PF and 400/4.5 combo or the 800PF and 100-400 combo. Those combinations would cover a lot of situations and allow a lighter setup overall. Throw in a 1.4TC to add even more flexibility.
 
Member's gallery
Matt N said:
Is the weight/size difference between the 600 TC and 800 PF that substantial?
Click to expand...
I do not own enough equipment or specialise sufficiently in bird photography to comment overall with authority.

The 600 f4 S and 800 f6.3 S are supplied in the same quite decent shoulder style carry bag.
There are some size and lens handling differences though fitting in the same bag the size difference is moderate.

Your Canon 100-500 probably weighs around 3-3.5 pounds. Nikon quote 5 pounds 4 oz for the 800 and 7 pounds 2 oz for the 600 - an obvious weight penalty.
If you take a tripod, gimbal, camera gear back-pack, water supply etc on your 8 mile hikes the 2-4 pound weight increase of a Nikon lens choice might be a relatively small percentage of the total weight you carry.
You could experiment with some more 8 mile hikes carrying an additional 5 pound in weight to find out how you cope.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks to everyone who responded. After looking at it and reading comments about it, the OM system sounds lighter but I don’t think it’s going to give me the image style I’m looking for. So I’ll be sticking with full frame cameras that I’m used to. My plan is the rent a 600 f4 and hike around with it. If that feels okay, I will go with that. Otherwise, I think I’ll go with the 800 6.3 and 400 4.5 combo. Interestingly that combo would weigh more than the 600 f4 when I’m alone (though distributed better). When I’m with my wife, she would have the canon 100-500 to cover that range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gov
Member's gallery
Matt N said:
I’m currently a Canon shooter but I’m not particularly happy with the camera and lenses for wildlife. I have a R6 mark II, RF 100-500, 1.4 extender, and 800 f11. I’m looking for a stacked sensor, higher mp, and better glass, so Nikon sounds like a a good choice, particularly with the anticipated release of the Z8 and the primes: 400 TC, 600 TC, and 800 PF. I primarily target birds (raptors and wading mostly) but do have interest in mammals.

Unfortunately, Those lenses aren’t rentable and there isn’t anything comparable to the 800 6.3. I just returned from several wildlife refuges on the eastern shore using mostly my canon 100-500 with 1.4x where I walked 8+ miles a day. F10 is horrible when the light is nice for photos and the RF 800 f11 that I have is a toy/joke, hence the desire to switch to Nikon system. My gut tells me to hold out for the 600 TC because 800 will be too long some of the time and I’m concerned about the F6.3 on the 800, but I worry about the weight. Is the weight/size difference between the 600 TC and 800 PF that substantial? Obviously I can read the specs, but I’m curious to know from someone who has used both. I don’t want to discount the 400 TC either because I do like larger subjects. I can only preorder one and wait and unknown amount of time for it. Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Matt
Click to expand...
I have the Z600 tc and for me, it is the best lens I have ever used. Very sharp and fast. I can handhold it for a while with no problème. It balances well in the hand. Last weekend I went three days photographing snow geeses and swallows. I did a lot of hiking and I did not have any problem carrying it. The build in Tc is amazing and quick to use when needed. Most of my photographies are around 600 mm focal, that is why this lens suit my need. I don’t own the 800mm 6.3 , but I can guess that the 600 tc is much sharper and faster even when the Tc is on.

However, the difference in price between the two lenses is big and it is something to consider. Good luck and you will be happy with any telephoto you choose.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks Activert. I've been saving up and I can afford either, but just not both. I pre-ordered the Z8 so I'm excited for that to come in. I rented the Canon RF 600 f4 (still have it for a few more days) and I've been hiking around with it on a sling. Hiking around with it hasn't been a problem, but hand holding it has been a struggle, not because of the overall weight, but because the weight is so front loaded on the lens. Have you used other 600 f4 lenses that were front-heavy? It's my understanding that the new Nikon lenses are balanced better, but of course I can't rent them to try because they just aren't available.
 
Member's gallery
Matt N said:
Thanks Activert. I've been saving up and I can afford either, but just not both. I pre-ordered the Z8 so I'm excited for that to come in. I rented the Canon RF 600 f4 (still have it for a few more days) and I've been hiking around with it on a sling. Hiking around with it hasn't been a problem, but hand holding it has been a struggle, not because of the overall weight, but because the weight is so front loaded on the lens. Have you used other 600 f4 lenses that were front-heavy? It's my understanding that the new Nikon lenses are balanced better, but of course I can't rent them to try because they just aren't available.
Click to expand...
I used before the F mount 500 mm f4. It felt heavier and like the sonny 600 you rented it, it felt the weight on the front of the lens. The new Z 600 feels lighter and more balanced than the old lenses.
whatever you choose between the 600 or the 800, you will get good lens. I have not used the 800 Pf but I heard a lot of positif things about it .
 
Member's gallery
I can easily move around through the woods and shoot hand held with my 800mm PF lens. I could never do that with my 600mm f/4 lens and although the new TC version is lighter it still weighs 2 lbs more than the 800mm PF lens. Most of the time I shot with the 600mm f/4 with the TC-14 attached for 840mm f/5.6 so going to a 800mm f/6.3 that is only 1/3 stop slower, but significantly lighter has been a great experience overall.

The 400mm TC is far more appealing with its weight of 6.5 lb, but it is still more than I can comfortably handle for shooting hand held. I shot with the 200-400mm lens that weighed 7.4 lb and found I needed a monopod at the bare minimum and preferably a tripod with a gimbal head.
 
Member's gallery
Based on all of the feedback, I've ordered the 800 PF and will be getting the 400 f4.5 and extender. I think that will cover the ranges I use most and be a good compromise between weight/size, cost, and performance. Thanks to everyone who responded!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top