Which Super Telephoto & body to buy?

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).

markymark

markymark

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I currently own & use the 200-500 f/5.6 & 70-200 f/2.8E lenses coupled with a D500, but shooting wildlife means I need more reach at times & quite often have to crop as I don’t always fill the frame as much as I’d like.
I’m due to retire in a couple of years & want to purchase one of the big telephoto lenses before I retire & still able to afford it, but am stuck on which one to buy.
I’ve narrowed it down to;
Nikon 600mm f/4
Nikon 500mm f4
Nikon 180-400mm f/5.6
Nikon 400mm f2.8

I always thought I’d go for the 400mm f/2.8 as could put a TC on that without losing too much quality, but have heard such amazing things about the new Nikon 600mm f/4 including from Steve, then the 180-400m came out & that too looks an amazing lens especially with the built in TC & it’s versatility.

I will at some stage to round off my bucket list get another body, but that probably won’t be for a little while.

So many on this forum own & use these lenses & I just wanted a little feedback as to which direction I should go including the body best suited to each lens.

Many thanks & look forward to your feedback.
 
Member's gallery
I bought a 500 EFL and within 6 months, bought the 600 EFL. I shoot mostly raptors and yo can never have enough mm's. Well, it does happen but it's rare! LOL! Just be sure you can handle the weight. Might be a good idea to rent first, it'll cost a little more in the end but a lot less than the loss you'll take if you change your mind. I have recently added the 500PF and it's really amazing if you have enough light.
 
Member's gallery
If price is a non factor like warren said I would go 600mm ( of course it‘s what I own now) there is no substitute for reach.) but Understand there is a limit as well.. my 600 will prove enough reach to photograph something very far away, but heat distortion makes them way to soft. What it does do is fill the frame for shots that are closer... And the focus is super fast.

I owned the 400 f 2.8 lens once... it a fantastic lens but I think its better suited for sports.. does it work for wildlife sure... but after owning both of these id have the 600 everytime as my #1 lens
 
Member's gallery
Thern said:
Okay you’re shooting with a 200-500 plus D500 rightnow and you need more reach.

That means only the 600mm on your list to be a real option providing 44% more magnification.

The 500 F/4
If you’re going to buy a Supertele to use it all the time with a TC is a bit of a ‘shame’
Same applies to a 400mm albeit in a lesser way, the 400mm is the sharpest prime out there, it takes TCs best of all other options and it’s the fastest lens too.
(Still, I don’t like the idea of shooting it constantly with TCs)

The 180-400 is a primelike zoomlens but since you say you need more reach this would mean you’d always use it with TC at its max focal length which is not why you’d buy a zoom.

So yup! Another vote for the 600E
Click to expand...
If the weight is a consideration ( as is the case with me) which one would be better out of 500/600 f4
I already own 500 PF and am pretty happy with my photos .Still I want to know whether it is worth upgrading to f4 ( money not bein an issue)
 
Member's gallery
gordon_g said:
If price is a non factor like warren said I would go 600mm ( of course it‘s what I own now) there is no substitute for reach.) but Understand there is a limit as well.. my 600 will prove enough reach to photograph something very far away, but heat distortion makes them way to soft. What it does do is fill the frame for shots that are closer... And the focus is super fast.

I owned the 400 f 2.8 lens once... it a fantastic lens but I think its better suited for sports.. does it work for wildlife sure... but after owning both of these id have the 600 everytime as my #1 lens
Click to expand...
I understand there was an issue with weight with the older version but the latest E version is supposed to be a lot lighter.
Did you own the first version on the 600mm f/4?
Just interested to hear some feedback on that issue.
 
Member's gallery
markymark said:
I understand there was an issue with weight with the older version but the latest E version is supposed to be a lot lighter.
Did you own the first version on the 600mm f/4?
Just interested to hear some feedback on that issue.
Click to expand...
I have the g version which is 178.5oz the E version is 134.4 oz. 2.75 lbs difference
 
Member's gallery
Gotta agree with some of the posts above, if subject size is your main challenge and you're currently shooting with a 200-500mm lens on a crop body camera then a 600mm lens is the most sensible choice unless you want to run a 500mm lens with a teleconverter all the time which doesn't make a lot of sense. And personally I find for birds I use a TC-14 iii fairly often even with the 600mm f/4 which gets back to the idea that we frequently want more focal length even with something like a 600mm lens.

But if weight is a major concern or you don't want to work from a solid support (e.g. tripod and gimbal mount) then even the new E version of the 600mm f/4 will be problematic as you won't do a lot of handholding of a lens this size.

Bottom line, if your shooting style and personal approach works with shooting from a tripod or other solid support then go with a 600mm f/4 lens for better optical reach. If you really want a lighter and smaller lens then consider one of the third party 150mm-600mm lenses like the Sigma or Tamron that can actually be handheld and is smaller and lighter when traveling.

If you're really set on a super telephoto and not sure about how you'll work with a bigger heavier lens then I'd second the recommendation to rent one and put in some field time with it before making a major investment as lugging around a 600mm f/4 with associated tripod and gimbal mount doesn't work for everyone. But if you can deal with the size and weight and impact on shooting style it's one heck of a lens in either the G or E versions. I shoot with the 600mm f/4 G lens and as others have posted it's an incredible piece of glass but it's not nearly as mobile as something like the 500mm PF or the 200-500mm f/5.6 and requires a different and somewhat less dynamic approach to wildlife photography.
 
Member's gallery
Hi, I think it depends on 2 things. If you are a mixed wildlife photographer who shoots larger mammals and birds vs shooting either birds or mammals. Secondly the type of places where you do your photography most of the time. Do you photograph often in dark forests or generally in open areas with plenty of light.

In my case , I shoot mammals as well as birds which made it difficult to decide. When I photograph birds I need at least 600mm whereas when I photograph mammals 600 is often too much focal length and also forests in India are dense where f2.8 is really handy.

So I decided to buy the 400 2.8 as I can use it for both mammals and birds. Plus, 400 with 1.4tc works as good as the bare lens. 1.7 and 2x tcs work very well too.
 
Member's gallery
If you really need more reach / magnification I agree with what was said above, then you need to go for 600mm or even longer. But I wouldn't underestimate the potential of the 500 f4 with a TC.
Even the old 500 f4 G is reknowned for excellent results with and without with a TC-14E (both II and III) and I can confirm that. So is the new 500 f4 E apart from the fact that it harmonizes much better with the TC-14E III - as all E lenses seem to do. Depending on how close you can get to the subject and how much headroom you have for cropping a 500 f4 plus a TC is certainly an option.

Regarding your question about weight, I would definitely got for an E series lens. The difference betwenn my 500 f4 G and the new E series counterpart with FL lenses is almost a kilo, plus the new one is much less front-heavy. I had the chance to shoot the 500 f4 E once for a couple of days and if I had the money I would swap my G against an E just for being almost this one kilo lighter and much better balanced. And the difference for the 600 f4 G and E is even bigger !

I cannot confirm that personally, as I don't own the 600 but I have read the recent review of the 600 f4 E FL at Photographylife and it was a pretty amazing to see that the 600 f4 seems not to harmonize as well with a TC as would have been expected from the experience with other E series lenses. But there should be people here that can give you input on that, also considering how relevant all the arguments around IQ are depending on the resolution of your sensor. If you do tests with a 45 MPixel sensor like the D850 the measured results may show quality issues that you would be able to see with this kind of camera but with let's say 24 MPixel you simply wouldn't see the difference.
 
Member's gallery
I gave up waiting for the 'pro' jump to mirrorless by Nikon, but now there's apparently a timeframe out there for the Z9 and a 400 2.8 Z lens 'reliably' predicted for the fall of 2021. So if you've got the patience, there's that....
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for all the replies, but just to be certain taking everything into account & said above I’m going to rent them first before making my purchase.
Has Steve done a review of any of these lense?
 
If you are going for reach and will need a tripod or monopod anyway, why is the AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR always overlooked?
 
It hasn't been mentioned, so I would say it is overlooked. Why is it not an option?
 
Member's gallery
I'd vote for the 600 F/4 as well if you can handle the size and weight. I had a 500 F/4 - loved it - but it was always a bit too short and had an ongoing monogamous relationship with my 1.4TC. The 600 still sees the TC, but more as a regular acquaintance than a lifelong parter. I too would recommend the "E" series as well - it can be much easier to handle for longer shoots.

As for the 800 that a few have mentioned. I've thought about that one myself. However, 800mm is often too long and the 600 gives you more versatility since you can add a 1.4TC and still get 850mm and completely acceptable results. It's not the same IQ as a straight 800mm, but it's not far off either. I know that far too often that I'm way too close for 800mm and I wouldn't want that to be my only choice.

In addition, the 600mm has a much closer minimum focus distance (that stays the same with a TC attached), is a stop faster for when you need it, and far less expensive. I think that's why I've always been tempted to get an 800mm but never pulled the trigger.
 
Thern said:
Hmm Off course you could be right, but reading the OP I guess he did his homework and decided against it for his personal reason(s)?
Click to expand...
I know, I am wondering why that is? Too much lens? Cost? etc?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve said:
I'd vote for the 600 F/4 as well if you can handle the size and weight. I had a 500 F/4 - loved it - but it was always a bit too short and had an ongoing monogamous relationship with my 1.4TC. The 600 still sees the TC, but more as a regular acquaintance than a lifelong parter. I too would recommend the "E" series as well - it can be much easier to handle for longer shoots.

As for the 800 that a few have mentioned. I've thought about that one myself. However, 800mm is often too long and the 600 gives you more versatility since you can add a 1.4TC and still get 850mm and completely acceptable results. It's not the same IQ as a straight 800mm, but it's not far off either. I know that far too often that I'm way too close for 800mm and I wouldn't want that to be my only choice.

In addition, the 600mm has a much closer minimum focus distance (that stays the same with a TC attached), is a stop faster for when you need it, and far less expensive. I think that's why I've always been tempted to get an 800mm but never pulled the trigger.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation
I know when I was using a Tamron 150-600mm on my D500 then switched to D850, 200-500mm it seemed like I could never fill the frame/sensor but I have adjusted to it for the most part.
If I ever pull the trigger on an expensive piece of glass, 800mm will be on my short list I think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Member's gallery
Mark —

There certainly are some trade offs between focal length, aperture, weight, size, zoom versus fixed focal length and cost. A few questions to consider in your choice —

What do you like to shoot? Large birds? Small birds? Birds in flight? Large mammals? Small mammals? Something else? Often a mix of things?

Do you expect to travel to places to shoot? By car? On regular sized jets? On regional jets or other small airplanes? On float planes?

Do you like to shoot handheld? From a monopod? From a tripod with ball head or gimbal?

Do you like to shoot walking around? From a canoe or kayak? From a boat or zodiac? From a vehicle? From a blind or other fixed spot?

I do a lot of shooting while walking around or from a canoe or kayak. So small size and weight is important to me. My most used long lens is the 500 mm PF (with or without a 1.4x TCIII) on a D500, D850 or Z7. I continue to consider the 180-400 mm lens and the 600 mm f4, as lenses that would add capability for me. But they are fairly large and heavy and probably not good in a kayak. I need to rent them to try them out.
 
Member's gallery
Thern said:
Okay you’re shooting with a 200-500 plus D500 rightnow and you need more reach.

That means only the 600mm on your list to be a real option providing 44% more magnification.

The 500 F/4
If you’re going to buy a Supertele to use it all the time with a TC is a bit of a ‘shame’
Same applies to a 400mm albeit in a lesser way, the 400mm is the sharpest prime out there, it takes TCs best of all other options and it’s the fastest lens too.
(Still, I don’t like the idea of shooting it constantly with TCs)

The 180-400 is a primelike zoomlens but since you say you need more reach this would mean you’d always use it with TC at its max focal length which is not why you’d buy a zoom.

So yup! Another vote for the 600E
Click to expand...


The sharpest prime is the 200 F2.
 
Member's gallery
Hut said:
It hasn't been mentioned, so I would say it is overlooked. Why is it not an option?
Click to expand...
Sorry for the late reply Hut but I’ve been away.
To be honest the reason I didn’t include the 800mm on my shortlist was mainly the cost of it.
The jump in cost between the lenses on the list & the 800mm f/5.6E is about £6000 with the nearest to it I think being the 600mm f/4E coming in at £11000.
I know that is still a lot of money for someone who doesn’t earn a penny from photography & is about to retire, but I’ve always wanted one of the big prime super telephoto lenses & convinced my wife that had worked hard enough over the last 40yrs to justify it.
(I apologise in advance because my next thread won’t be about photography, but I will be asking for suggestions on how to tell a loved one that they won’t be having a holiday for the next 10 years!!…)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top