If you had the choice.....

Chris_911

Chris_911

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,485
Name
Chris Tarling
Edit My Images
No
If money was not an issue which would you buy......?

500f/4?
600f/4?
or 400f/2.8?

I'm talking Nikon but that's not really important in the context of this question.

I have a 300f/2.8 VR1 which I love and don't intend selling but I hanker after a 'long' lens. I also have the 200-500 Nikon.

On the face of it the 600f/4 would seem to be the one to go for as it has the longest reach - but with a size & weight penalty.
Use would be for wildlife and sports.
I'm genuinely interested in the thoughts of those that have been lucky to use long Nikon glass.
 
does this assume that you don't already have one / some / all of the above?
 
If you're considering buying. How about the nikon teleconverter - TC-14E II instead?

I think it works with both the 300 f2.8 and the 200-500 (the 200-500 + TC auto focus only works with D5, D500, D4/D4S, Df, D800/D800E, D810/D810A, D600/ D610, D750, D7100 and D7200)
 
If you have the 300f2.8 then the 600 is perfect for focal length. I have a Sigma 120-300 and a Nikon 600 f4 which are a great combo but its not all about focal length. It depends on how you plan to use it as well. Im selling the Sigma 120-300 and 1.4tc to get a Nikon 200-500 and the 300f4 E PF.
 
•


I would go for (in fact I did!) the 600 f4.
 
Which camera is it to partner? The reason for my question is that if you have a high MP camera you could get away with the 500mm f4 and crop to save a bit of weight. The difference in framing between 500mm and 600mm isn't 'that' much.
 
I loved my 400 f2.8, the image quality was superb but for wildlife I had a number of issues.
Generally speaking 400mm was too short for the wildlife opportunities I have, although it worked pretty well with TC's ... I also found that it was heavy and the large front element was often just to large to give access through hide windows etc. Having sold the 400 f2.8 I had the decision to make whether to go longer with the 600 f4 or the 500 f4, whilst my heart said 600 f4 it would have given me two of the same problems I had with the 400 f2.8 i.e. weight and the large front element, so I went with the 500 f4 and I haven't regretted that decision.
The 500 f4 gave me the extra 100mm, which does make a difference, and it works well with all three TC's, especially the 1.4 and 1.7 if I need to go longer on my DX bodies. It is significantly lighter that either of the other two and the lens element is smaller so I am not restricted in any of the hides I visit.
All that having been said, the 500 f4 is now getting heavy for me (I'm feeling my age!) and I will probably be looking to go the opposite to you and get a 200-500, which I recently had on test. :)
 
400mm f2.8 here, some of my reasons are:-

- at f2.8 you can get double the shutter speeds you can with f4

- it takes the teleconverters very well, meaning that with the 1.4iii and 2.0iii I can get from 400mm with the D810 to '1200mm' with the D500

- Minimum focussing distance is half what the 600mm f4 is, great for small birdies and stays the same with converters, so you get an 800mm f5.6 with a MFD of just under 3 metres.

- Portraits! Fully intend to do those shallow depth of field shots with our little boy when the bluebells are out etc.!

- More light coming in means the auto focussing can work better and my aim is for more moving targets this year.

@gramps has highlighted the cons, so no need to repeat them here but I can only suggest trying them out if you can, you're more than welcome to have a play with mine if you're ever in my direction. :)
 
Not sure how the AF matrix works on Nikon but on Canon some points either dont work or have a more restricted ability i.e. they may go from cross to either horizontal or vertical types depending on the lens/body combination being used, so if Nikon are the same, that may be something you need to take into consideration?
Matt
 
I made a similar choice a few years ago and bought a used 500mm. I came to the conclusion it was the most usable of the three, a 500mm is just about light enough to hand-on, works well in hide (i.e. it fit through the window) and I can carry it all day in a rucksac all day. If small birds are of interest the minimum focus distance on a 600mm might be a limiting factor. I sometime wonder if a 400mm f2.8 might be nice (the grass is always greener), but am but off by the price bump and huge front element.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top