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 said:
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!!…)
Click to expand...
No problem, I doubt I will ever own the 800mm either but I think it would be a great lens for my area of interest. In the Western States we have immense space and a long reach would be great most of the time.
Come on powerball...lol
 
Member's gallery
OohMatron said:
DXO, the industry standard says it is and, owning both, my own experience confirms it:
www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-200mm-f2G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-300mm-F28G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-400mm-F28G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D810__404_963_478_963_1173_963

I didn't specify supertele - the original incorrect claim just specified "prime".
Click to expand...

Well you quoted me and I answered to the question of the OP..

“Which Supertelephoto and body to buy.”

Btw Who told you or made you belief DXOmark to be the industry standard????
 
Member's gallery
Markymark the 800 is a pretty specialist lens - fantastic for birding and paparazzi. The 600 is a great lens, I have used it in Africa on safari; South and Central America for wildlife; Otters and birds of prey in the UK, Snow Leopards, Tigers and Orang Utangs in Asia and rarely use a TC. Getting focus really nailed for the attached body allows hard cropping if you need it. More pixels do not make up for inferior glass so put your budget on the front end first. Have a blast, from what I have read you have earned the joy of owning such lenses!!!
 
Last edited:
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

Depends what you're shooting and whether handheld or not.

The D500 has a limiting sensor - around 2200 ISO. A FF sensor gives you more scope but requires 600mm as the price of admission to bird photography IMO. But many folk will have trouble handholding that rig for BIF so grab shots are restricted.

Whether a TC is a cheap way of getting more reach depends on the lens as Steve's piece on this showed.
I've used the 1.4 on the 200-500 and in good light it did OK but the IQ doesn't satisfy everyone.

There are several free methods of getting better shots of course: get close, get at eye level and wait for good light.
The D500 and 200-500 is capable of producing award-winning shots. It's mobile and versatile. The big primes aren't.
 
Member's gallery
I would recommend buying either a 500mm f/4 or a 600mm f/4 and the two III generation teleconverters. Both lenses are fast enough to be used with a teleconverter and still have a aperture that will not overly hinder autofocus performance. A 700mm f/5.6 or 840mm f/5.6 are quite usable in the field.

As image size was a key reason for getting a new lens it should be recognized that a 500mm lens provides a 56% larger image size than a 400mm lens. A 600mm lens provides an image size that is 44% larger than that from a 500mm lens.

I always have a tele zoom along with the super tele prime as one can be too close to subjects for a 500mm prime, much less a 600mm lens. My favorite combo is the 80-400mm along with a prime super telephoto. Currently I have the 500mm PF and the 600mm f/4E along with the TC-14 and TC-20 teleconverters. In a place like Yellowstone NP the 600mm is better than the 500mm, assuming I also have the 80-400mm available for the elk and bison. But in Costa Rica the 500mm f/4 with the option of adding a TC-14 teleconverter would be my preferred choice. On my last trip to Costa Rica I had the 500mm PF, the 600mm f/4, and the 80-400mm zoom and the lens I used by far the least was the 600mm f/4. From a boat the 600mm required having a tripod or monopod, and the lenes provided too narrow a field of view to be of use.

Another factor is the resolution provided by the camera. The D5 or D6 images if cropped at all can easily become those from a 8.9MP camera or less resolution to work with than a file from a D2x camera. I get roughly the same image size to work with when using a D850 with the 500mm lens as I would get using a D5 or D6 and a 600mm lens. For fast moving subjects going toward or away from the camera the D5 or D6 will capture more keepers but in any other situation, as a wildlife photographer, the D850 works better for my needs. The D5 or D6 may be more durable but I can buy two D850 cameras for less than the cost of one D6.

If you are considering going to a mirrorless camera like the Z 7II for example then it gets even more complicated as I would want to wait for Nikon to produce a Z version of the 80-400mm and the 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 and not invest in FX lenses, at least not in new ones but buy lightly used ones from people on fredmiranda.
 
Member's gallery
BillW said:
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.
Click to expand...
Again sorry for the delayed response.
I mainly shoot locally & if I do go out & about normally take the car then walk once I’m at the destination.
I used to have the 300mm f/2.8 VR lens which I rarely used without a tripod so if I were to get the 600mm f/4E would go back to using that.
I wouldn’t take it abroad unless at some stage in the future my finances allowed me to take a workshop or trip.
I’m also looking at shooting from the water & have been looking at the Trident 12v motorised kayak which has stabilisers at the back which enable someone using it for fishing to stand up & cast so assume it would be safe & stable enough to take a bigger lens out on the water with a tripod.
I wouldn’t take it for massive hikes but saying that can sometimes walk a few miles when I’m out, but try & find a spot & stay put.
 
Member's gallery
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...
Would you stick with the D500 on the 600mm f4?
If not what body would you use Steve?
 
Member's gallery
What with the new ‘Z’ releases recently & rumours of more to come with Nikon including more lenses it’s a sticky one. Do you go with what’s out there or wait a bit?
 
Member's gallery
markymark said:
Ah man, can you imagine being chased up the beach by that with only a pair of budgie smugglers covering your brooch & earrings! 😮
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact people DO step aside for him.
Allthough he is very kind and nice to others.
His son Buddy is also nice and kind to others but somehow he loves to fight other (especially large black) dogs, so I need to keep an eye on him all the time.
I hate it when he does that
markymark said:
What with the new ‘Z’ releases recently & rumours of more to come with Nikon including more lenses it’s a sticky one. Do you go with what’s out there or wait a bit?
Click to expand...

I do use a Z7 for anything but wildlife and I think it’s a very nice camera.
The Z7II is promissing, but very likely still not what I want for wildlife ‘work’.
So I might buy one as an update of the current Zed but I’m holding my horses another 6 months or so.
I’m hoping Nikon will announce an action-mirrorless next year.
If they don’t I will buy a Sony A9II with the 200-600 zoom (and maybe just maybe I’ll switch brands eventually like some of my photogfriends already did.)

I did a minireview of the A9 against the D5 (based on a full week shooting with the A9) and I called it a draw back then, while neglecting the facts of no weathersealing, no superteles and a mixed feeling about the EVF (informative, hardly blackout, but an artificial feel)
Sony adressed these ‘minors’ (except the EVF feel) since then and I must confess IF I’d start now with photography I’d choose Sony. (Imagine I’m shooting Nikon for 50 years now)
 
Member's gallery
markymark said:
Would you stick with the D500 on the 600mm f4?
If not what body would you use Steve?
Click to expand...
That's a tough call - it depends how close you usually are to your subjects. There are times a 600mm on a D500 would be WAY too much lens, but there are other times it's not enough. It really does depend on how close you typically are to your subjects.

That said, a D850 is a way to get the best of both worlds. It has similar pixel density to the D500, so if you crop it to DX (in camera on later), you have pretty much the same shot you would get with a D500. However, you also have all the sensor real estate between DX and FX too :)
 
Member's gallery
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...

I have owned them all...including the 800. That lens was just too big and long for my type of shooting. Also it can create problems if you travel via plane, as you still have a big gap between 800mm and anything else you might want to carry on. So I sold it.

I've used a 500e fl as my primary wildlife lens for a few years. Superb lens, very easy to handhold. But I always wanted extra reach, so I recently bought a 600e fl vr. I thought it would be a great combo with my 500pf....which it is. But at this point the extra size/weight over the 500e was a fairly big negative for me. There is no discernible iq improvement, just a bit of longer reach which wasn't enough reason for the to sell the 500e. So after lusting after the 600e for years, I recently sold it. I'm back to my 80-400, 300pf, 500pf and 500e fl (1.4tcii as well) for wildlife depending on the day. These lenses are all trending smaller and lighter, my guess is nikon has new versions coming at some point. But for now, nothing can touch the pf lenses imo.

As far as price goes, if you look at the used market, things have gotten compressed....500e is about $6.5k, 600e about $8k and when they show up, the 800 is about $10k. So no huge price differences any more.
 
Member's gallery
cohenfive said:
I have owned them all...including the 800. That lens was just too big and long for my type of shooting. Also it can create problems if you travel via plane, as you still have a big gap between 800mm and anything else you might want to carry on. So I sold it.

I've used a 500e fl as my primary wildlife lens for a few years. Superb lens, very easy to handhold. But I always wanted extra reach, so I recently bought a 600e fl vr. I thought it would be a great combo with my 500pf....which it is. But at this point the extra size/weight over the 500e was a fairly big negative for me. There is no discernible iq improvement, just a bit of longer reach which wasn't enough reason for the to sell the 500e. So after lusting after the 600e for years, I recently sold it. I'm back to my 80-400, 300pf, 500pf and 500e fl (1.4tcii as well) for wildlife depending on the day. These lenses are all trending smaller and lighter, my guess is nikon has new versions coming at some point. But for now, nothing can touch the pf lenses imo.

As far as price goes, if you look at the used market, things have gotten compressed....500e is about $6.5k, 600e about $8k and when they show up, the 800 is about $10k. So no huge price differences any more.
Click to expand...
See, it's posts like this that make me start thinking about a 500 F/4 again!
 
Member's gallery
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...

I would follow @Steve with his arguments, but it has to be kept in mind that he is a priviledged person being able to shoot in very unique environments like NPs on a regular basis. In the normal world where caring about nature and creatures living in it has less priority it is not as likely that a lens could be too long. My friend has one of these 800mm guns and the 500 f4. He actually has the privilege to live inside a NP and claims that just moving out from the NP territory "costs" him 200 to 300mm reach that he would need to get ideal conditions, especially if he goes for more open landscape and particularly shy animals.

If I hadn't to worry about money the 800E plus 500E would certainly be my dream combo. Until then I am happy to stay an old guy living an old 500 f4 G with an old TC-14E II glued to it and attached to an even older D4S with blazing 16MP and try to get ready to be able to actually use this dream combo the way it should be ;). Maybe, depending on when I get the money problem sorted, I wouldn't even be able to carry my dreams around :D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top