# Matts Thoughts - Lens Options: 600mm F4, 500mm F4, Samples Photos Included



## matthewo

Well last Saturday I had the pleasure of getting a chance to shoot with some long glass.  I thought I would make a post with how everything  went and my thoughts.
  Well first of all I would like to thank my friend for letting me try out these lenses.  

The line-up for the day included:

  my D800
my 300mm F2.8 AF-S version II
his 500mm F4 AF-S version II
his 600mm F4 AF-S version I - AKA = The Beast....
my various teleconverters (tc14e ii & tc20e iii)


  Anyways let's get on with this.  I had the glass, I had about 8 or 9 hours and plenty of egrets and herons, and a few eagles... the majority of the day was very cloudy and white cloudy backgrounds where a problem sometimes.
  I started off with the 500mm F4, I just love that lens, will most likely be the replacement for my 300mm, with the af-s II version the weight is only 7.5 lbs, only 1 lb heavier then my 300mm f2.8, but is a bit longer.  it's still very hand hold able, but of coarse doesn't take long before you need some support of a monopod or tripod.  I shot a lot with it wide open at f4 and it did great, also shot a little with the lens with my tc14e on it, and stopped down to F8 and it was still just as sharp, no difference noticed even at 100% crops.  I just love the lens, it seems like the perfect super telephoto.  long reach and works well with a 1.4 converter for 700mm, also tried the 2x converter on it, and it auto focused most of the time, even in the low light of a very cloudy day.  Sharpness at F8 was "OK" but didn't really improve much stopping it down to f10 or above.  also it was hit and miss with sharp photos.


  Now I switched over to the 600mm f4 AF-S version I,  let's just say this lens is not just massive in its size but also its weight.  we all know the I version of all these super telephotos, on average weighs a few lb more and the 600 is no different.  weighing in a 12.5lb it is pretty much the heaviest super telephoto made by Nikon, of course there are crazy lenses like the 1200-1700, but I am taking somewhat common lenses.  just to be a retard, I hand held the lens for a few shots just to say I did...  But getting back to the size and weight,  I was using my monopod all day with this lens and it was a hand full, not so much as a problem with balance or being unsteady, but just moving it on a fast moving subject was somewhat challenging, but I still got 95% of the shots I wanted after a little practice.  If you plan to let the lens rotate on the tripod collar while using a monopod to make up for your angle, if you know what I'm saying, let's just say that's rather hard to do, and takes a good firm grip and a workout.  I found a few of my shots needing to be twisted a little to fix the horizon.


  Getting back to it, If you really need the 600mm reach, and plan to get around 900mm with good quality using a tc14e ii, then you really don't have much choice then to get a 600mm lens.  I will tell you this, it's amazing.  If you are a photographer who is into wildlife and have never tired these super telephotos, I would say rent one or find a friend and talk nice to him/her, and try it out for a day.  it's really a new experience, and one you will not forget.  The reach and quality of the 600mm lens, and what it does to the background is just amazing.  it's really a reach out and touch something lens, that turns the background to mush, and makes the subject tack sharp.  I used the 600mm most of the day wide open at f4, and it was very sharp.  I would also like to say that its built like a tank.  I hiked a little ways with it through some woods, and set it up multiple locations on my monopod, removing and mounting it many times, and a few times shooting over my head with it.  It gets rather taxing on a monopod with a tilt head, but is completely doable, but of course if you own the lens, get a gimble/Wimberley head.
  I would also like to compare the lenses and give you the "what I thought" about them.

I just love the 600mm lens, it feels like it's in a class by itself just because of it reach while keeping a large F4 aperture.  you can actually tell a difference in photos shot with the 500mm and the 600mm, because the background is noticeably more out of focus and it gives more emphasis on the subject.  I noticed little to no difference in autofocus speed and performance when used with my d800,  the 500mm af-s II may have been slightly more consistent with locking on focus the first time.

  I will say that Nikon really tried to make all these lens as consistent as possible.  It's funny to say, but the only real difference that sticks out with these lenses is: Size, Price, Weight, and Focal Distance.  Nikon really did a good job at making the build quality, image quality, and autofocus, as constant as possible between their super telephotos.  But that is what should be expected when we are talking about lenses that can cost as much as a used car.
  If I was to pick a clear winner for IQ and AF-S  it would be the 300mm F2.8,  it is the sharpest wide open, even comparing F2.8 on the 300 and F4 on the 500mm and 600mm, and at all apertures. The difference is minimal at best, and hardly noticeable, only when you examine multiple raw files at 100% do to actually notice any difference.  also AF Speed on the 300mm is slightly faster and more accurate, this is most likely down to the 2.8 aperture and the amount of light available to help it focus.  Once again only minimally different.  saying the 300mm is slightly better is really irrelevant anyways because we buy these lenses based on our needs.  The focal distance of the lens we need determines which lens we buy and we will not have to compromise quality, because all 3 of these lenses excel.


  So buy the lens based on the focal distance you are going to be using the most.  the 300mm is extremely versatile, but if you constantly have a 2x converter on it, you will be much better off with a 500mm lens.  while the 300mm 2.8 works good with a 2x converter, it just is not anywhere near what a 500mm f4 is on its own or even with a tc14e ii converter.  if 420mm is more then what you need, then I would say the 300mm is a great option, its flat out amazing at 300mm wide open, and does very well with a tc14e ii converter.  Now for those where 700mm isn't enough, or subject isolation is wanted, I would say the 600mm is the must have.  It's not a walk around lens,  I tried some of that, it feels like a brick after a mile or so.  this is a tripod lens, but works fine on a heavy duty monopod.


----------



## matthewo

500mm F4 - AF-S II

1) NIKON D800    700 mm(500mm + tc1.4)    f/8.0    1/1250 sec    280 ISO    -0.3 EV  






2)NIKON D800    500 mm    f/4.0    1/1250 sec    140 ISO    0.0 EV  





3) NIKON D800    500 mm    f/4.0    1/1250 sec    125 ISO    -0.3 EV





4) NIKON D800    500 mm    f/4.0    1/1250 sec    110 ISO    -0.3 EV  





5) NIKON D800    700 mm(500 + tc1.4)    f/10.0    1/1250 sec    900 ISO    -0.3 EV  (a bit noisy due to more of a crop and higher iso)







600mm F4 AF-S I

6)NIKON D800    600 mm    f/4.0    1/1250 sec    100 ISO    -0.3 EV  





7) NIKON D800    600 mm    f/4.0    1/1250 sec    100 ISO    -0.3 EV  





8) NIKON D800    600 mm    f/4.0    1/1250 sec    220 ISO    0.0 EV  





9) NIKON D800    600 mm    f/5.6    1/1250 sec    100 ISO    -0.7 EV





10)  NIKON D800    600 mm    f/10.0    1/1250 sec    400 ISO    0.0 EV


----------



## matthewo

11) NIKON D800    600 mm    f/4.0    1/1000 sec    100 ISO    0.0 EV  





12) NIKON D800    600 mm    f/4.0    1/1250 sec    180 ISO    0.0 EV  








13)Me shooting with the 600mm on my monopod





14) NIKON D800    1200 mm    f/10    1/1250 sec    500 ISO    0.0 EV  - Here is a full frame example that was downsized and sharpened, this is the 600mm with a 2x teleconverter for 1200MM, not too bad, it is a bit soft at 100% though.  to be expected thought...







A few more with the straight 600mm, sorry no data

15) this bald eagle flyby is a pretty heavy crop





16)





17)





18)





19)





20)


----------



## matthewo

saved for sample photos 3.


----------



## Aloicious

I posted in your other thread, but I'm debating some changes too...I need to keep my 300 for various reasons other than wildlife. but I would really like more reach than the 300 or 300+1.7x...though I've been happy with the IQ and performance of the 300 with the 1.7x on it, its basically a 510 f4.8....I was thinking about getting a 2x TC, but the more I think about it, the more I'm wanting to put that money into savings for just a straight up longer lens....

Right now, I'm debating between the 600 f4, or maybe a 400 f2.8 (which coupled with a 1.4x would be 560mm f4, with the 1.7x would be 680 f4.8, and with a 2x would be 800 f5.6)....I'm kindof torn between them because I assume the 400 would do equal (or better) than the 300 does with TC's, and would provide more flexability than the straight 600 which I probably wouldn't consider using a 2x on mainly for light loss, but the 600 would end up being a 840mm f5.6 with a 1.4x on it, which is about as slow as I really would want to go for the most part...though running the 1.7x on it for 1020mm f6.7 would be tempting, I'd really only want to do that in excellent lighting....lots of stuff to mull over, and my second job allows me alot of time to read and research...sometimes thats not as good of a thing as it sounds....heh

of course this may be all moot since knowing me, my mind will probably change several times in the next 50 years or so while I'm saving up for one of these monsters....


----------



## Rafterman

#16 is simply awesome. No other way to put it. Great stuff!


----------



## matthewo

although i have never used it,  the 400mm to me is kinda a speciality lens IMO, more then the 500mm or even the others.  i find it hard to justify less reach for a 2.8 aperture vs 4 and higher cost and weight.  with wildlife i rarely want to use f2.8 because dof is too shallow.  you could stop down for a sharper image,  but i still feel i would rather have the extra 100mm.  now when talking tc.  as expected the 500+14 = 700 and is going to be better iq and af then a 400+20 = 800, and a 500mm straight is better then a 400mm + 14.

but if i did sports photography the 400mm would probably be top on my list,  its super fast and correct focal distance for most sports.  its dof at 2.8 and 400mm make its photos look different then most ofters


----------



## matthewo

and again the 600 is a huge lens, even the new model,  i find it hard to justify for 100extra mm.  unless you just have to have 840mm with the 1.4 like you said,  im happy with 700mm,  your still ahead of the game with a d800 and its cropping ability, dx mode.  but it seriously comes down to convenance for me.  i rarely stand in one place all day.  usually im walking or hiking.  the difference in focal distance vs size and weight for me the 500mm is the winner.


----------



## Aloicious

matthewo said:


> although i have never used it,  the 400mm to me is kinda a speciality lens IMO, more then the 500mm or even the others.  i find it hard to justify less reach for a 2.8 aperture vs 4 and higher cost and weight.  with wildlife i rarely want to use f2.8 because dof is too shallow.  you could stop down for a sharper image,  but i still feel i would rather have the extra 100mm.  now when talking tc.  as expected the 500+14 = 700 and is going to be better iq and af then a 400+20 = 800, and a 500mm straight is better then a 400mm + 14.
> 
> but if i did sports photography the 400mm would probably be top on my list,  its super fast and correct focal distance for most sports.  its dof at 2.8 and 400mm make its photos look different then most ofters



yeah, I like the 400 2.8 for the more flexability since it'll take TC's better than f4, you can get really similar range as the 600, but also be able to go down to 400 as needed, but I doubt I'd get it, the massive cost just isn't too justified when I've already got a 300....but I'm really only trying to look at all options right now, any purchase is a LONG ways off, I kinda have to take things in from every angle with large purchases like this, its just how my brain works...I'm leaning towards the 600 at the moment though....currently I'm not really considering the 500mm too much since I have (and will keep) my 300 which covers both 420mm f4, and 510mm f4.8 with really good results, I don't think that 1/2 stop at 500mm is really worth the cost for me, I'd rather save up and get the length and speed of the 600 and have the option to go further with TCs...

I got to play around for a short time with a 600mm f4 VRII that another birder had when I was out shooting eagles so I have a good idea on size/weight, that really doesn't concern me that much. anything over the 300 I wont be getting to hand hold anyways, it'll live on a gimbal. which also opens up the possibility of looking at earlier AFS non VR versions as well...I'd be using the 300+TC on hikes and such....but who knows, I might change my mind before I am actually ready to make a purchase.


----------



## matthewo

you know sometimes its a good think Nikon doesn't make more lenses, we could think about them all day, trying to figure out the best.


----------



## jaomul

Excellent shots


----------



## Aloicious

Hah...its just because I have to keep my mind awake during my graveyard shift and stuff like this is often the subject. Heh


----------



## ceeboy14

Weird, but to my eyes, you got better detail and capture focus with the 500mm.


----------



## matthewo

possibly, I wouldn't be surprised if the 500mm focused slightly better, it probably did.  could also be that the 600mm was an af-s verison I, vs the 500mm was a version II, both use the SWM, but I think the motor is slightly different.  also remember most of the photos where done wide open at F4, 500mm @ F4 has slightly more DOF vs a 600mm @ F4 because of increase focal distance


----------



## matthewo

then again, I guess shooting wildlife as a comparison for lenses, seems pretty pointless as no situation is identical.


----------

