Which Supertelephoto and Why?

[RikWriter]

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.

I'd have to see that for myself. First of all, it's not $10K cheaper than either of those. It's about $6K to the Sony's $13K, which would be $7K cheaper.
Second, while I have seen some very good shots from it, none have convinced me it's as good as the Sony 600Gm with a 1.4X TC, which is what I've been using for 3 years.

 

[nmerc_photos]

I'd have to see that for myself. First of all, it's not $10K cheaper than either of those. It's about $6K to the Sony's $13K, which would be $7K cheaper.
Second, while I have seen some very good shots from it, none have convinced me it's as good as the Sony 600Gm with a 1.4X TC, which is what I've been using for 3 years.

For pricing, you are correct with today's price drops. My prices were from when I purchased the lenses. The RF 600 F4 + 1.4x was nearly $15K, while the 800PF was $6K. I'll correct my numbers in future reposts.

You may be interested in looking at the Flickr albums of both setups, pictures from the FM forums, or YouTube reviewers of the lenses.

Steve has a good video on a bunch of them - granted it's bench test sharpness instead of real world - but the results are all similar from what I've seen with anyone who has used both (a 600mm f4 + 1.4x and the 800 PF).

Even the fact that this is being discussed at all is telling - no? it would be a completely different story if we could all objectively look at it and go "the 800PF doesn't come close to comparing to the 600 f4 + 1.4x" but that isn't the case. If I was spending $15K on a lens (the Z 600 in this case) I would want it to demolish everything around it. I wouldn't want to be in a situation where it was a toss up with a lens almost 1/3rd the price.

The fact that is as close as it is, while being significantly smaller, lighter weight, and cheaper - is an incredible feat.

And again, all of this is moot if 600mm if your main focal length. As the 800PF can never be a 600mm lens. it's also moot if you absolutely NEED F4.

 

[RikWriter]

You may be interested in looking at the Flickr albums of both setups, pictures from the FM forums, or YouTube reviewers of the lenses.

I have, for the 800. That's where I'm getting the examples I spoke of. Though I don't need anyone else's samples for the Sony since, as I said, I've been using it for three years.

 

[Archibald]

Have you thought about their new 200-800?

I hadn't really considered it because if its weight. It would really be too heavy for me except for short outings.

My experience with the 800mm f/11 taught me that resolution is important along with focal length. Bryan Carnathan's review suggests that the 100-500mm cropped will outperform the 200-800mm.

 

[RikWriter]

I hadn't really considered it because if its weight. It would really be too heavy for me except for short outings.

My experience with the 800mm f/11 taught me that resolution is important along with focal length. Bryan Carnathan's review suggests that the 100-500mm cropped will outperform the 200-800mm.

I've seen other reviews that disagree with that. But if it's too heavy for you, then it is. Only you can decide that.

 

[BLev65]

Not sure if I have anything to contribute here...
I tend to photograph more mammals and large birds more than anything else. I have owned and shot the 70-200 f2.8, 100-400S, 400 f4.5, 400 f2.8TC, 800PF, and 180-600.
My current telephotos include: 70-200S, 180-600, 400 f2.8TC. The 400 f2.8TC works for me because it is versatile. The 180-600 has been my workhorse for portability.
Since the 400 f2.8TC is my primary lens, I am actually considering a trade of my 70-200 f2.8S and 180-600 for a 100-400S and 2x converter. I shoot as much landscape as I do wildlife and believe that I would benefit from a lighter 100-400 more than the 70-200 + 180-600.
As for the 400 f2.8TC, this is my "bread and butter" lens and will not go anywhere.

bruce

 

[nmerc_photos]

I hadn't really considered it because if its weight. It would really be too heavy for me except for short outings.

My experience with the 800mm f/11 taught me that resolution is important along with focal length. Bryan Carnathan's review suggests that the 100-500mm cropped will outperform the 200-800mm.

I've seen other reviews that disagree with that. But if it's too heavy for you, then it is. Only you can decide that.

One thing worth noting - a lot of how weight "feels" depends on how it's carried. for years I would handhold my lenses, strapless, and just carry them by the feet.

After a drop scare, I invested in the Peak Design system for all my gear, and having the 10lb setup of Z9+400TC hanging by my side makes it feel like it's not even there when walking for miles. It isn't until I hold it to my eye that I feel the weight.

Similarly the Cotton Carrier harness or Whistling Wings Speed Shooter allow a lot of weight to be carried without feeling it

 

[TurtleCat]

I have a 500pf that I bought because it was the only long prime I could afford. I wanted the extra length over the 400 4.5. I also have the 100-400 as a travel lens and general purpose. Since I had 500pf I didn’t need the 180-600 so the 100-400 was just dandy.

I mostly photograph smaller birds and mammals. When I get the opportunity I do try to photography larger mammals but that isn’t often. Otherwise I photograph people but with other lenses

 

[wotan1]

My magic mix starts with the 800mm pf. A truly magical lens.

For shorter I prefer the combination of the Z 70-200 and the Z 400mm f4.5. Both of those lenses take well to tc's which gives me flexibility up to the 800.

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

I live in the Pacific Northwest, Washington State. Frequent cloud cover and rain. Lots of forest which tend to be dark. wide apertures are a strong desire. I shoot a combination of mammals and birds so I want to cover a wide range of focal lengths from around 200 to 800 mm. I obviously can't meet both needs at the same time. My best choice is Z 400 TC 2.8 with a TC20 along in my pocket. I get 400, 560 and 800 mm at just about the widest apertures available. Drawback is I cannot carry the lens and camera more than about 1/2 mile. When I have to walk further, I use a Tamron 150-500 mm lens. I can only get to 500 mm but it saves more than 2.5 lbs compared to the 400 TC. I have to give up the low light capability and golden hour is mostly out of the question. In some situations where I expect to be very close to mammals in darker conditions, I use a Z 70-200 2.8' I'll carry the TC 14 and settle for f/4 if the scene is compelling. Mostly settle for animalscapes with wider background. Time of day plays a role in which lens I take but distance I have to carry equipment is the major factor. I hand hold 90% of my wildlife shots with any of these lenses.

 

[wotan1]

I should mention that I would be very interested in the 400 f2.8 tc but as of this moment I don't have permission to spend that kind of money.

I was hoping someone would feel sorry for me and help me to get one of those lenses but sadly no one has been willing to help.

 

[Jamie Baker]

I have the 500pf and a 600 f/4 that are my primary lenses. Used with my antique camera bodies, the D850 and D500. It’s a great combo for me. I really only photograph birds.

If I was starting from nothing and could only have one lens, the new Z600pf would be my pick.

 

[Drbobcameraguy]

I LOVE my D500 behind my 300-800 f5.6 on my gitzo tripod. Has the flexibility of range and is amazingly sharp.

 

[RickL]

I use the Tamron 150-600 g2 f mount lens that I used on my D850. My images are very sharp. I see no need to buy a Z lens

 

[EricBowles]

Lots of great comments here.

The good news is there are lots of very good long lenses. A lot of it boils down to what you photograph and where.

• If you photograph small birds, the 800mm PF, 600mm PF, and the long end of the XXX-600mm zooms make a lot of sense - with the sharpness edge to the prime lenses. These same lenses for large mammals or wading birds can be too long or make a variety of captures more difficult. In order to achieve lighter weight long lenses, these lenses give up a little with a slower aperture, but the tradeoff is generally okay.
• If you photograph common large mammals and wading birds, the 400-600mm range covers them well. Aperture selection can be important to control backgrounds and deal with low light levels. Occasionally you might use a teleconverter - and integrated TC lenses as well as 1.4 TC options work well.
• If you have just one long lens, or need flexibility over other factors, the zooms are remarkably good. All companies make very good xxx-500/xxx600 lenses right now. You give up a little sharpness and have a slower aperture, but you pick up flexibility.
• Only a few long lenses offer a short minimum focus distance required for insects and close up work. The 100-400, older 300mm f/4 lenses, and a few others provide more magnification than the typical telephoto. The typical telephoto is a 1:6 magnification ratio while the aforementioned lenses are around 1:4 - and work well with teleconverters.
• Weight is a common factor. While you can shoot handheld with the latest f/2.8 and f/4 telephoto lenses, most people are using those lenses on a monopod or tripod. You give up some mobility and gain sharpness and a fast aperture. The integrated TC on the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 can be a game changer.

If you choose carefully, it's really picking the right tool for what and where you photograph. In the past month I've shot thousands of images of wildlife and everything has been at 800mm and cropped. I'm photographing small songbirds in a wooded environment and walking 1.5-3 miles or more with each outing. My next potential outing with my 600mm f/4 or 400mm f/4.5 will almost certainly be for the eclipse and for large wildlife (bison and elk) near Land Between the Lakes following the eclipse.

 

[Doug Herr]

• If you photograph small birds, the 800mm PF, 600mm PF, and the long end of the XXX-600mm zooms make a lot of sense - with the sharpness edge to the prime lenses. These same lenses for large mammals or wading birds can be too long or make a variety of captures more difficult. In order to achieve lighter weight long lenses, these lenses give up a little with a slower aperture, but the tradeoff is generally okay.

There are some very small wading birds too.

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

 

[Calson]

I always concern myself with which two lenses on two camera bodies work the best for any given situation. In Yellowstone it will be a 100-400mm and a 800mm. In a small boat it will be the 100-400mm and the 400mm f/4.5 with a teleconverter. Both are determined by the size of the subject and the usual camera to subject distances one will encounter.

With today's high resolution sensors I do not mind cropping in post but greatly dislike having overly cropped images of subjects at the time of exposure. The really powerful images to my eyes are ones that show the animal in their natural habitat and so there needs to be an adequate view angle to achieve this.

 

[ecycled]

The poll should allow multiple choices, as it's interesting to see the individual systems we use. The main reason is the majority of wildlife photographers need more than one telephoto to cover all subjects/scenes, unless their zooms meets these challenges.

Some of us describe reasons and respective uses of big glass here

Thank you for the link. Very interesting and informative.

 

[MarkB]

I want to flip this question from the way it's typically asked. Rather than ask which I should get, I'm curious what you have and why. Which species are you typically photographing? Are you in a hide or in/near your car mostly? Is there something about the light quality in your common areas that requires bigger aperture, or does it matter? Do you have mobility issues that make you choose lighter kit? Something else?

It depends on what you are wanting to photograph and it what conditions. I have the following:

• 100-400 with or without the 1.4x which I use for its versatility and its light weight for a hiking telephoto. When photographing black bears in May I plan to have my 400 f2.8 with and without 1.4x on a tripod and the 100-400 on my second camera hanging on a Spyder belt. The larger wildlife and even larger birds are often too close for a longer lens and that is where the zoom is handy
• 400 f2.8 is primarily for larger wildlife and the f2.8 is handy because many animals are out early and late in the dimmer light.
• 800 f6.3 is for distant subjects and smaller birds, I also use it with and without a 1.4x. I used to have the 800 f5.6, but as I've gotten older it became too heavy to carry along with my large tripod and Wimberley.

 

[nbelkind]

It's hard for me to see the 600mm TC as "master of none." It's sharp, versatile, and not all that heavy. As far as I can see its only drawback is that it is not consistently handholdable. For birds, especially, the advantage of 600mm over 400mm is HUGE. In fact, I cannot see why a bird photographer would choose the 400mm f2.8 over the 600mm f4, period. If I owned the 400mm TC I would be using the TC 90% of the time, which means it's the wrong lens for me.

The drawback to the 600mm TC is its absurdly high price, period. It's the lens I covet the most but don't own because my wife would hit the proverbial roof were I to buy one. It's sad that I could sell virtually

I concur with this. The RF 100-500 is a stellar lens. It's the only thing from Canon that I miss. Such a versatile wildlife, landscape, quasi-macro lens. and that extra 100mm makes a bigger difference than I'd ever imagined, over say the Z 100-400.

I really did enjoy the RF 800 F11 as well though. It makes a great "documenting" lens. In good light you can get good pictures, but most of the time I found I used it just as proof of life due to f11.



I agree, it's hard for me to say it as well. I just find that Nikon did such a good job with the 600/800 PF, that it diminishes the value of the 600TC. It should be seen less as a dig to the 600TC, and more as a nod to the outstanding PF lenses that have been produced.

You have 3 lenses that are all very similar and produce similar results (600TC, 600PF, 800PF). I could see the argument for the 600TC over the 600PF because it's 1.33 stops of light. But between the 600TC and 800PF, it's the 800PF almost every time. the 1/3 stop of light is negligible, but the 37% weight reduction and $9800 savings are not.

As for the 400TC vs 600TC, the 400TC can act like the 600TC - but not the other way around. The 400 + 1.4x + 1.4x is very similar to the 600 + 1.4x. So the 400 can double as a 560 f4 and 784 f5.6 as needed.

I heard somewhere that the framing difference between the 400/600 is 7'. meaning if you could get 7' closer to your subject, the 400 would have the same reach as the 600. no idea if it's true or not, but it seems to be the case. as I've gotten better at approaching my subjects, I've felt less need for further focal lengths.

I think it's important to distinguish what birds you are shooting. The majority of my birds are larger - so the 400 f2.8 is perfect. I use it at 400 about 80% of the time, and 560 about 20% of the time.

As a counterpoint to the bird thing, I have several friends who specialize in small birds (warblers, hummingbirds, etc.) and still use the 400TC as their main driver. if you can close the gap on your subjects, it works well. even if you cannot - you then have opportunity for environmental portraits.

To your last points, it depends in what environment you shoot. In a city, small birds (warblers) are quite used to people and you can shoot 400mm quite a lot and fill the frame. We have spots where kestrels are very close, but out in the country, you can't get near them so 600-800 is much more appropriate. I again agree, you can definitely get close to hummingbirds in many cases.

 

[SCoombs]

There are some very small wading birds too.

View attachment 84936​

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

 

[BLev65]

I responded to this thread earlier, but I'd like to add something.
As you consider your choice, think about how you like to "see the world" and compose to meet your goal. Many people associate the amount of real estate your subject occupies with a good to great picture. Specifically, if you capture a tight portrait that is super sharp, then that is a requisite for a good image. In contrast, others prefer to include more of the surrounding environment or want to produce an environmental image that conveys a story. Neither approach is wrong... however, they are different. As such, some lenses are better wildlife portrait lenses and other are better for implying the story.

cheers,
bruce

 

[O]

I want to flip this question from the way it's typically asked. Rather than ask which I should get, I'm curious what you have and why. Which species are you typically photographing? Are you in a hide or in/near your car mostly? Is there something about the light quality in your common areas that requires bigger aperture, or does it matter? Do you have mobility issues that make you choose lighter kit? Something else?

I use a 300 F2.8 VR II with a 1.4 TC as needed, the micro contrast and sharpness really keeps the ISO levels low, as to reach 300-420 mm is plenty for me, if not i rent a 600 F4 FL
used on a D850 D6 Z9 soon to be the Z8 replacing the sold Z9................i wouldn't buy the exotic 400TC 600TC i would rather rent as my needs are infrequent, also they are a high risk insurance item.

Only an opinion

 

[arbitrage]

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.

 

[CJC2]

I'm mostly a sports guy, so I have a 400/2.8TC whichis used for 50+% of my shots. I have a 100-400 as well, but not as heavily used, and used for things other than sports. Best of luck.