Which Supertelephoto and Why?

[Marsha Jane]

TLDR; 400 TC

I started out shooting wildlife with Canon, and then moved to Nikon. I've owned every single RF and Z telephoto lens that has been released. Some of the lenses I've owned multiple times as I goldilocks'd my way through. Admittedly I forgot this forum has shooters other than just Nikon... so my essay at the bottom is Nikon-centric.

if I were shooting Canon again, the choice is easy. RF 100-500 and RF 600 F4 and done. With Sony it is a bit more complex. I'd probably go 300 F2.8, 600 F4, and the 200-600. With Nikon, it's a whole different world with so many more attractive lenses.

I live in lower Michigan where we have few large mammals, so the majority of my local shooting is birds of prey (owls, eagles, herons, etc.) This is important, because somewhere like out west where you have bears, elk, moose, etc. will require a very different set of lenses. I do however go to the Tetons/Yellowstone at least once a year, and recently I've also been going to Hawaii/Iceland at least once a year. I will be going to Alaska in September 2025 to shoot the bears. So with a decent amount of travel - size and weight are important.

I'm 27 years old, 5'10" and about 205lbs - not in athletic shape. This matters, because I definitely prefer to handhold, and I prefer lightweight lenses.

The majority of my shooting is done near sunrise/sunset, where aperture is king. I would almost always prefer 600/800mm or longer, but I often have to make do with shorter focal lengths because even F2.8, 1/10, and 8000 ISO is quite normal.

Currently I have the Z 400TC, 600PF, and 800PF. I can't decide which zoom to pair with them, and also which PF lens to sell.

here is my quick summary of each Z lens:

Z 70-200 f2.8 - probably the most impressive zoom of the bunch. handles TC's great. generally a bit too short for my uses - really only valuable on destination trips (Puffins in Iceland, African Safari, Bears in Alaska, etc.)

Z 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 - probably the least impressive zoom of the bunch. has the worst performance of any lens I've tested with TC's. generally it is too short for my uses, especially given the TC situation. I really only value it when I am on trips involving whale watching - where even 100mm can be too long. it is a nice compact, lightweight lens, and if you are more into quasi-macro or landscape - I've heard high praise. good lens to have for travel or if weight is a significant concern.

Z 180-600 f5.6-f6.3 - for new wildlife photographers, I would call this a must have. the price to performance of this lens is outstanding. size/weight are the main downsides, but people have been using and loving the Sony 200-600 for almost 5 years now at similar size and weight. similar optical quality (in the center) as the 600/800PF. handles TC's decently well (better than many expected)

Z 400 f4.5 - another outstanding lens, at a great used price these days. often debated whether people should go for the 400 4.5 or 100-400. does the 2/3rd stop make a big enough difference to give up zoom functionality? this is a favorite walk around lens for me, as I find it to be a great 400 f4.5 or a pretty good 560 f6.3. a great option to replace an old 500 f5.6 PF. it's my 2nd in line to the 400TC for when walking local woods looking for owls in low light.

Z 600 f6.3 - this is the most fun telephoto lens I've used from any brand. if you have good light, this lens will not disappoint. to have 600mm at the size and weight of a 70-200 is incredible. it handles TC's very well, with the only downside being the f9/f13 apertures. it rivals IQ of the 400/600TC, and 800PF.

Z 800 f6.3 - another outstanding lens. the fact that it can rival the Sony 600GM F4 + 1.4x or Canon RF 600 F4 + 1.4x while being 2lbs lighter, 5" shorter, and almost $10,000 cheaper is insane value. biggest downside is the MFD. size/weight can also be an issue as it is larger than the 400TC. the undisputed small bird king. although I don't use it often, I can't seem to part with it. 800 f6.3, 1120 f9, and 1600 f13 are too versatile.

Z 400 TC f2.8 - I think this is the best lens in the line up. consistently the sharpest in tests and real world. produces amazing photos, and the flexibility of 400 f2.8/560 f4 is awesome. when I shot Canon, I never used my RF 400 f2.8 because it was often too short. the built in TC changes that completely for Nikon. It is like having both the RF 400 F2.8 and RF 600 F4 in one lens. when I see my own photos, and especially photos from better pros - this lens always stands out and can produce jaw dropping images.

Z 600 TC f4 - the jack of all trades, master of none. at MSRP, and with the 800 6.3 existing - it's a hard pick. the 800 6.3 is significantly cheaper and lighter, and offers almost indistinguishable IQ as the Z 600 + 1.4x engaged, with only 1/3 loss of light. I'd really only suggest this to people who mainly shoot at 600 f4, and value 840 f5.6 more than 400 f2.8. the 600 is the longest and heaviest lens offered in the Z line. the 11% increased weight and 15% increased length over the 400TC makes it that more difficult to pack, carry, and shoot handheld. I wanted so badly to love this lens (my main lens when I shot Canon was the 600 F4) but with all the other great Nikon options, I just don't see it winning in any value propositions. its main strength would be to replace both the 400TC + 800PF, if you can stand giving up 400 F2.8 and having the increased length/weight. I will probably own it again some time in the future, just to double check my thoughts because it was so underwhelming for me.

fortunately with Nikon and these offerings, there is really no way to go wrong. no matter what you find most important (value proposition, size, weight, IQ, versatility, etc.), Nikon has something that will be a great fit for you.

Thanks for such a comprehensive review!

 

[ARClark]

True, and more generally I don't understand why a longer lens would make it more difficult to capture larger wading birds.

I’d call the linked photo a shorebird as opposed to a wading bird. Shorebirds are generally smaller birds that feed in shallows and shoreline margins. Because of their small size and skittish nature, long lenses are often used to capture them.

Wading birds, by contrast, are generally much larger and typically less skittish than shorebirds. They include groups of birds such herons, egrets, wood storks, cranes, and spoonbills. Often times, especially in rookeries or at favorite feeding areas, focal lengths in the 200 to 500mm range are desirable for capturing the whole body, especially when feeding or flying across the water.

Obviously there are situations where a shorter focal length might work for shorebirds and a longer length for waders. There are no hard and fast rules. But for those shooting wading birds a lot, they’d be well served to have a zoom lens or two in their bag covering a good portion of the 100-500mm range.

 

[EricBowles]

True, and more generally I don't understand why a longer lens would make it more difficult to capture larger wading birds.

Many times large wading birds are easy to approach. The issue with a long lens like a 600mm or 800mm is you can't fit the entire bird in the frame.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You have the same issue with large mammals - I could not make a photo of a bison cow with her calf.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

With 800mm, you can come back with nothing but tight portraits.

 

[SCoombs]

Many times large wading birds are easy to approach. The issue with a long lens like a 600mm or 800mm is you can't fit the entire bird in the frame.
View attachment 85021

You have the same issue with large mammals - I could not make a photo of a bison cow with her calf.
View attachment 85022

With 800mm, you can come back with nothing but tight portraits.

Just because theyay he easy to approach (the ones around here are absolutely not and will fly away as soon as they notice anyone even a large distance away) what's to prevent one from just photographing them from further away?

 

[PhotoLover]

Just because theyay he easy to approach (the ones around here are absolutely not and will fly away as soon as they notice anyone even a large distance away) what's to prevent one from just photographing them from further away?

I know what you mean, but I also know what Eric means. I usually use a prime for wildlife, a 500 on a crop sensor, sometimes (when looking for tight shots of small birds) also with a 1.4 teleconverter.

So you position yourself nicely for the focal range you have attached ... and something much bigger or much closer that is really cool presents itself. Sure, if you saw that same critter during positioning you could stop.

 

[nmerc_photos]

I currently own a 600/4, 400/2.8 and 100-400. In the past I've owned other focal lengths like 500/4, 500/5.6, 400/4, 300/2.8, 200-600 etc.

If I could only keep one I'd keep the 600/4. I just find that is my most used focal length. I sometimes will 1.4TC to 840 but most of the time I prefer to just shoot the bare lens.
I also do love my 400/2.8 as it has come in handy many times either for lower light or for larger owl subjects. But it would be sold before my 600 if forced to.

Do you think this would change if you were shooting Nikon instead of Sony?

Say you had the 400TC/600TC? If you mainly shoot at 600, would you favor the 400TC?

Just because theyay he easy to approach (the ones around here are absolutely not and will fly away as soon as they notice anyone even a large distance away) what's to prevent one from just photographing them from further away?

the main issue would be that the more distance you put between yourself and your subject, the more room you leave for elements like thermal distortion

and I think the general point is just that if you photograph large birds or mammals, an 800mm focal length probably isn't the right choice

 

[PhotoLover]

Do you think this would change if you were shooting Nikon instead of Sony?

Say you had the 400TC/600TC? If you mainly shoot at 600, would you favor the 400TC?



the main issue would be that the more distance you put between yourself and your subject, the more room you leave for elements like thermal distortion

and I think the general point is just that if you photograph large birds or mammals, an 800mm focal length probably isn't the right choice

I use a 500 on my crop sensor all the time for large birds (750 FF equivalent) and that's a pretty common setup (the old D500 and 500 pf is a great combo). I find it works quite well. Yes, you can get stuck too close. But for every situation where you are "too close" there tend to be 5 or 10 where you are happy to have the extra reach ... or wish you had more reach.

Really, the "right solution" here is to carry two cameras. Which is what sports photographers do. Across varying situations, no one lens is going to be right all the time.

 

[RikWriter]

Do you think this would change if you were shooting Nikon instead of Sony?

Say you had the 400TC/600TC? If you mainly shoot at 600, would you favor the 400TC?



the main issue would be that the more distance you put between yourself and your subject, the more room you leave for elements like thermal distortion

and I think the general point is just that if you photograph large birds or mammals, an 800mm focal length probably isn't the right choice

Then I'd totally disagree with the general point.

 

[nmerc_photos]

Then I'd totally disagree with the general point.

I can't tell which quoted thing you are trying to respond to, so I don't understand your response at all.

The general point of which focal length to choose?

The general point of having to backup when using an 800mm?

 

[RikWriter]

I can't tell which quoted thing you are trying to respond to, so I don't understand your response at all.

The general point of which focal length to choose?

The general point of having to backup when using an 800mm?

It's right there in your post: "I think the general point is just that if you photograph large birds or mammals, an 800mm focal length probably isn't the right choice"
I photograph mostly large birds (raptors) and mammals and 840mm f5.6, or my 600 f4 with a 1.4X TC, is what I use a majority of the time.

 

[EricBowles]

Just because theyay he easy to approach (the ones around here are absolutely not and will fly away as soon as they notice anyone even a large distance away) what's to prevent one from just photographing them from further away?

Have you tried that with 800mm? With a long lens moving back to double the field of view requires quite a bit of walking - often to places that are not accessible or no longer have a view of the subject. You'll find there are very few people and large mammal subjects that are photographed with an 800mm lens. 600mm is better - but still can be too long at times for mammals. In general large wading birds are very tolerant of people and quite easy to photograph. It doesn't mean every bird and every situation - but you'll find large wading birds are the most common subject in photo contests and on social media. Of course, with jumpy subjects, you find those same long lenses are better for getting close enough without spooking the subject.

 

[BillW]

Interesting thread. A couple of comments. Currently shooting a Z9 & Z8 with more Z telephotos than I should probably have.

I usually find the question for me is which two telephotos to take on an outing. I normally have a longer lens on one body (often a prime) and a shorter lens on a second body (often a zoom). Subject matter, size/weight, travel restrictions, shooting circumstances (hiking, in a kayak, in a blind, from a vehicle …), expected distances, the type of photos you want to take and the need for flexibility when you are not sure what you will see all are important in the choice. Nikon has given us a great set of alternatives.

I have found the Z 800 mm PF to be very useful. It works well with the 1.4x TC and decently with the 2x TC. And I find it is not just for small birds. I’ve used it to photograph marine mammals from a boat or zodiac, bald eagles, swans, great blue herons and great egrets in their nests and flying around an island rookery. I wish I had had it with me for a winter trip to Yellowstone before the Z 800 mm was out (I used the 500 mm PF + a 1.4x TCIII). I wish I had had it at Seal River for polar bears, arctic foxes and other arctic creatures. The trip leader said he thought it would be too much lens. So I brought the 500 mm PF and 1.4x TCIII; I think the 800 mm PF would have been better (I would have paired it with the Z 100-400). Of course, in many situations you would not want the 800 mm PF to be your only telephoto.

 

[Doug Herr]

... In general large wading birds are very tolerant of people and quite easy to photograph...

It depends on location. I find large wading birds much more approachable in south Florida than in California.

 

[JAS]

I shoot many places where water or fences prevent me from getting closer - such as Horicon NWR and other wet or swamy areas in Wisconsin. The 800mm is what I need to get any meaningful shots after cropping. I also have some mobility limitations so zooming with my feet is often not an option. The 800mm with or without the TC14 and a monopod or tripod work for me.