NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: JKoerner007 on February 12, 2018, 02:58:29
-
What is better and why ...
I realize that the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8E FL ED vs. 600mm f/4E FL ED are each superb lenses.
One is faster than the other, the other has superior reach.
On the short end, the 400mm has closer minimum focusing distance than the 600 E.
On the one hand, at first blush, the 600 E appears to have longer reach ... but if you factor-in the ability to utilize TC extenders, the advantage suddenly becomes more ambiguous, as the 400 f/2.8 E can take a 2x while the 600 appears more limited at 1.4x.
400 x 2x = 800mm
600 x 1.4x = 840mm
(both @ f/5.6)
The 400mm is reputed by every source to be sharper than the 600 mm ... as well as more versatile.
The 400mm is reported to be as sharp with the 2x extender on it as the 600 mm is with the 1.4x extender on it.
If one wishes to add 1.7x and 2x extender on the 600mm, of course the reach advantage becomes undisputed in favor of the 600mm, albeit quality/AF will not be quite what the 400mm is capable of with same TCs.
I would be curious to hear a "bottom line" comparison by those who have actually owned/shot with each lens as to which they would keep overall, and quiet, if forced to make a decision between the two.
Thanks for any insights.
-
On the short end, the 400mm has closer minimum focusing distance than the 600 E.
That is to be expected since the focal length is also shorter. Perhaps the more important criteria is the maximum magnification, which determines how tightly you can frame a subject. The 400mm wins here, getting to 1:5.9 at 2.6m, vs 1:7.1 at 4.4m for the 600mm.
The 400mm is reputed by every source to be sharper than the 600 mm
I think you would be splitting hairs to really see the difference at this level.
The 400mm is reported to be as sharp with the 2x extender on it as the 600 mm is with the 1.4x extender on it.
But the 400 with 1.4x (560/4) will be less sharp than the straight 600/4.
I think the bottom line is which focal length you really need. If it's mostly 600mm and longer, then the 600/4 is the obvious choice.
If you need 400mm with the option to go up to 800mm with extenders, the 400/2.8 is certainly the best option.
I wouldn't buy one or the other based on hearsay about which is sharper, get the lens you need and enjoy it.
-
Also consider the 500/4 E FL, which at 3.1kg is lighter than the 400/2.8 or the 600/4 (both at 3.8kg).
-
Also consider the 500/4 E FL, which at 3.1kg is lighter than the 400/2.8 or the 600/4 (both at 3.8kg).
Yes a familiar dilemma - the lighter 500 fE Nikkor or 500mm f4 Sigma Sport or the versatile 400 f2.8E Nikkor?
Given the IQ of all these exotic teles is universally excellent; perhaps, one learns from reading the few to be trusted IMHO the 400 does indeed have the unique IQ. Including bokeh. As we read, this superb IQ stable definitely includes the 600 f4E, but I would prefer the closer minimum focus distance of the 400 or a 500. It goes without saying the 600 f4E or 800 f5.6E are the optimum choices for the ornithological theatre.
TC Factor is the combined sum of benefits of added FL and practicable widest aperture - down to f5.6. Payoff diminishes in lower IQ and speed contingent on speed of the prime and its IQ. As is commonly known, with the D500/D5/D850, we can get f6.7 (with TC17) or f8 but suboptimal. This gives all 3 lenses extra clout. The 600 gets to 1200 f8. But for me too challenging to handhold even at very high shutterspeeds.
Optimal TC Factor - 400 f2.8E, 600 f4E, both 500s in tight 3rd, with the Sigma running behind until Sigma release a TC1701
Luggability Index - 500 fE Nikkor, 500mm f4 Sigma Sport, 400 f2.8E, 600 f4E
Affordability - 500mm f4 Sigma Sport, 500 fE Nikkor, 400 f2.8E Nikkor twins with the 600 f4E in 3rd
Ideal World? - 400 f2.8E and 500 f4E - Yes, Both :-) And / Or 600 f4E if birds and small mammals etc are priority subjects
Single Lens? 400 f2.8E for edge on IQ and TC Factor; 500mm f4E runs a very close 2nd but wins if Luggability is important criterion
Tightest Budget? - 500mm f4 Sigma Sport
And next month I will take the plunge - either 400 f2.8E or 500 f4E. v hard decision for a single lens
-
If it's mostly 600mm and longer, then the 600/4 is the obvious choice.
If you need 400mm with the option to go up to 800mm with extenders, the 400/2.8 is certainly the best option.
This is the dilemma right here. Both statements are true.
-
Yes a familiar dilemma - the lighter 500 fE Nikkor or 500mm f4 Sigma Sport or the versatile 400 f2.8E Nikkor?
Given the IQ of all these exotic teles is universally excellent; perhaps, one learns from reading the few to be trusted IMHO the 400 does indeed have the unique IQ. Including bokeh. As we read, this superb IQ stable definitely includes the 600 f4E, but I would prefer the closer minimum focus distance of the 400 or a 500. It goes without saying the 600 f4E or 800 f5.6E are the optimum choices for the ornithological theatre.
TC Factor is the combined sum of benefits of added FL and practicable widest aperture - down to f5.6. Payoff diminishes in lower IQ and speed contingent on speed of the prime and its IQ. As is commonly known, with the D500/D5/D850, we can get f6.7 (with TC17) or f8 but suboptimal. This gives all 3 lenses extra clout. The 600 gets to 1200 f8. But for me too challenging to handhold even at very high shutterspeeds.
Optimal TC Factor - 400 f2.8E, 600 f4E, both 500s in tight 3rd, with the Sigma running behind until Sigma release a TC1701
Luggability Index - 500 fE Nikkor, 500mm f4 Sigma Sport, 400 f2.8E, 600 f4E
Affordability - 500mm f4 Sigma Sport, 500 fE Nikkor, 400 f2.8E Nikkor twins with the 600 f4E in 3rd
Ideal World? - 400 f2.8E and 500 f4E - Yes, Both :-) And / Or 600 f4E if birds and small mammals etc are priority subjects
Single Lens? 400 f2.8E for edge on IQ and TC Factor; 500mm f4E runs a very close 2nd but wins if Luggability is important criterion
Tightest Budget? - 500mm f4 Sigma Sport
And next month I will take the plunge - either 400 f2.8E or 500 f4E. v hard decision for a single lens
You are struggling with the same dilemma :D
For me, though, the 500 is not an option, especially not the Sigma.
I really, really like the look of Nikon's FL ED Nikkor super-telephoto lenses.
If I am going to spend $10-$12.5K on a lens, it is going to be the very best, most refined example ... not a crude version.
The Sigma lens just looks crude to me by comparison.
I would not be happy looking at it at the end of my camera, knowing that I could have got what I really wanted, just by waiting a few more months.
The Nikkor 400 / 600 FL ED lenses just appear so much classier IMO. And, though Sigma is getting closer, the Nikkors still perform better too.
After I plop my money down, I want to be 100% happy with my decision ... which will only be satisfied with one of the two aforementioned Nikkor FL ED lenses :)
-
The 400 mm f/2.8E FL is probably the best lens Nikon made. As the new 300 mm is still not coming, I might go for the much more expensive 400 mm; the 600 mm is not an option for me, as I absolutely need the "shorter" focal length. A TC is my solution for the longer end shots.
-
The 400 mm f/2.8E FL is probably the best lens Nikon made.
According to LenScore, it's the best lens (of any kind) made by anyone, save one of the three Oti.
As the new 300 mm is still not coming, I might go for the much more expensive 400 mm; the 600 mm is not an option for me, as I absolutely need the "shorter" focal length. A TC is my solution for the longer end shots.
My conundrum.
We differ in that the 600 mm definitely is an option for me. But if I were a sports photographer, I would definitely go for the 400 mm.
However, for tiny birds, 400 mm is often not enough, even with a 2x Ext.
All the 400mm FL ED does eclipse the 600mm version, it's only by a hair:
-
This is the dilemma right here. Both statements are true.
It seems you mostly intend to shoot birds, so you need to consider how much you really need the shorter focal lengths, 400mm is really too short. I would say the 600/4 is the best choice.
If you need to cover the shorter focal lengths, maybe the new 200-400/4 if it's affordable, or the AFS 300/2.8 + 1.4 TC. The 300 has not been upgraded to Fluorite glass (yet?) but is still one of the top performing lenses, and is definitely more "luggable" than other options.
If you don't want/need 300mm focal length, and want the best IQ, how about 400/2.8 (with TC) and 800/5.6?. That gives you good options from 400mm up to 1000mm. A lot of cash any way you look at it ... :o
-
Resale is better on the 6 and 5. The 4 has less applications so unless you really need it or intend to keep it forever I would get the 6. I have both 5 and 6 for wildlife mostly birds.
-
The 800 FL is a bit sharper than the 400/2.8 FL in Mansurov’s tests:
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-400mm-f2-8e-vr
I suspect this differs from lenscore’s results because Mansurov uses flash in his imatest work. The flash does a good bit to reduce the effect of shutter and other types of vibration from the picture. Of course it could be due to sample variation as well but my guess is the flash.
-
It seems you mostly intend to shoot birds, so you need to consider how much you really need the shorter focal lengths, 400mm is really too short. I would say the 600/4 is the best choice.
I shoot a lot of lizards, though, too ... snakes ... as well as butterflies and insects that are beyond the reach of a macro lens.
If you need to cover the shorter focal lengths, maybe the new 200-400/4 if it's affordable, or the AFS 300/2.8 + 1.4 TC. The 300 has not been upgraded to Fluorite glass (yet?) but is still one of the top performing lenses, and is definitely more "luggable" than other options.
I already have the 300 f/2.8 VR II and it is indeed a superb performer. However, I always have a 2x TC III on the end of it.
(I would like to get the same reach, without the image-quality hit of the TC.)
While quite satisfied with its performance, it is very heavy, and (more importantly), it is front-heavy, and not well-balanced.
I have read reports from people who state, although the 400mm/600 mm are physically heavier ... they are balanced better ... and consequently don't feel as heavy as the more primitive G design (even the 300G).
If you don't want/need 300mm focal length, and want the best IQ, how about 400/2.8 (with TC) and 800/5.6?. That gives you good options from 400mm up to 1000mm. A lot of cash any way you look at it ... :o
If money were no object, I would purchase the 200mm f/2 'Chubby', the 400mm f/28 FL ED, and the 800mm FL ED ... since I try to operate my "The Rule of Doubles" (or "Rørslett's Rule" :P)
However (when I wipe the stardust from my eyes) ... my financial reality mandates I use the CV 125, the 300 f/4 PF (that I am selling my 300 VR II to get), and I'm pretty sure I'm going to culminate my decision with the 600 f/4 E FL ED.
Further, even if I won the Powerball, lol, I would NOT want to lug the 200mm f/2 'Chubby', the 400mm f/28 FL ED, and the 800mm FL ED around on a hike :-\ ??? :o
But I very much can handle 3 cameras, one with a CV 125, the other with a 300 f/4 PF (both holstered on a Cotton Carrier (https://www.cottoncarrier.com/collections/all/products/new-grey-camera-harness-2)), with the 600 f/4 E FL ED mounted on a tripod, slung over my shoulder 8)
-
Resale is better on the 6 and 5. The 4 has less applications so unless you really need it or intend to keep it forever I would get the 6. I have both 5 and 6 for wildlife mostly birds.
Thanks for your input, Bob.
I think that 400mm actually has more applications, though perhaps not for small birds exclusively.
For general wildlife, however, including reptiles/nearby butterflies, it most definitely has more application.
However, I am leaning more towards the 300 f/4 PF for this type of shooting.
It's small, it's light, and I can carry it on a chest holster (https://www.cottoncarrier.com/collections/all/products/new-grey-camera-harness-2) and not even feel the weight. It's just there if I need it.
For birds, given that I think the 300 f/4 PF is more than adequate to handle the closer distances, I agree that the 600mm is the long-range choice.
Thanks again.
-
The 800 FL is a bit sharper than the 400/2.8 FL in Mansurov’s tests:
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-400mm-f2-8e-vr
I suspect this differs from lenscore’s results because Mansurov uses flash in his imatest work. The flash does a good bit to reduce the effect of shutter and other types of vibration from the picture. Of course it could be due to sample variation as well but my guess is the flash.
Thanks, but I think 800mm is too extreme.
It's going to be enough of a pain to lug around a 600mm. With the D500 +1.4x, I will get the equivalent focal length of 1260mm.
In good light, I can even use my 2x TC for 1800mm. That is more than enough reach, IMO.
I have been quite happy with an equivalent 900mm reach with a 300mm + 2x TC, and can't imagine needing more than double the level of closeness.
(Even though I would not enjoy the same AF accuracy on an f/4 optic as an f/2.8 optic.)
-
I think that 400mm actually has more applications.
my data on resale comes directly from a camera store which does high volume - of course the application changes the equation if it is the right lens for the task.
-
my data on resale comes directly from a camera store which does high volume - of course the application changes the equation if it is the right lens for the task.
Does this data include resale of FL versions? Resale data on the previous 400/2.8 versions may not accurately predict how the 400/2.8 FL will be received in the second hand market, as the FL is much more manageable in terms of weight. The 500 and 600 of course also experienced weight reductions as well but since the 400 has the greater weight / focal length it is a bit more sensitive on the issue.
-
Does this data include resale of FL versions? Resale data on the previous 400/2.8 versions may not accurately predict how the 400/2.8 FL will be received in the second hand market, as the FL is much more manageable in terms of weight. The 500 and 600 of course also experienced weight reductions as well but since the 400 has the greater weight / focal length it is a bit more sensitive on the issue.
The 400/2.8 and the 600/4 are pretty close in weight for both versions FL etc. The exact quote to me when I was thinking of buying a 400/2.8FL and they had them in stock was “used 400/2.8’s sit here for a long time but we move 500/4 and 600/4 very quickly”. Of course back then all the used equipment were of the “G” type
-
The 800 FL is a bit sharper than the 400/2.8 FL in Mansurov’s tests:
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-400mm-f2-8e-vr
I suspect this differs from lenscore’s results because Mansurov uses flash in his imatest work. The flash does a good bit to reduce the effect of shutter and other types of vibration from the picture. Of course it could be due to sample variation as well but my guess is the flash.
important difference that is too often overlooked
-
I shoot a lot of lizards, though, too ... snakes ... as well as butterflies and insects that are beyond the reach of a macro lens.
I already have the 300 f/2.8 VR II and it is indeed a superb performer. However, I always have a 2x TC III on the end of it.
(I would like to get the same reach, without the image-quality hit of the TC.)
While quite satisfied with its performance, it is very heavy, and (more importantly), it is front-heavy, and not well-balanced.
I have read reports from people who state, although the 400mm/600 mm are physically heavier ... they are balanced better ... and consequently don't feel as heavy as the more primitive G design (even the 300G).
If money were no object, I would purchase the 200mm f/2 'Chubby', the 400mm f/28 FL ED, and the 800mm FL ED ... since I try to operate my "The Rule of Doubles" (or "Rørslett's Rule" :P)
I'm also in the same situation - the 300 f2.8G VRII is one of Nikon's best lenses, and mine is nearly coupled with the TC2 III :-)
The Fatman has the edge in its IQ over the 300 though. Lab tests concur on this I recall -and with IQ using TCs. The 200 f2G VRII works very well with TC2 as a heavy 400 f4. These fast 200 and 300 Nikkors almost weigh the same. Being shorter and more balanced than my 300 f2.8 I find the 200 that much easier to handle including with TCs. Whichever of the 400 f2.8 or 500 f4 I commit to, it is the 300 I may have to sell on but the 200 f2G is one of my treasured primes.
-
Oh just noticed this new 400 f2.8 :-) Albeit Sony
https://www.dpreview.com/news/4861125245/sony-s-huge-400mm-f2-8-gm-oss-lens-spotted-at-the-2018-winter-olympics?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018-february-14&ref_=pe_1822230_272426610_dpr_nl_299_20
-
The 200 f2G VRII works very well with TC2 as a heavy 400 f4. These fast 200 and 300 Nikkors almost weigh the same. Being shorter and more balanced than my 300 f2.8 I find the 200 that much easier to handle including with TCs.
While I also use the 200/2 II, I no longer use it with TCs since I have the 300 PF. In my brief testing the 300/2.8 VR II does give a sharper image with 1.4X than the 200/2 I/II does with TC-20E III, but others have noted there is variability from lens + TC sample to another, so my results may not match everyone else's. I consider the 300/2.8 to be a more TC-compatible than the 200/2 in terms of results based on the lenses and TCs I tested. The 200/2II image needs to be stopped down to f/8 with either TC-14E III or TC-20E III to get a perfect image in terms of individual pixel level detail (on D810, so 36MP). Of course without TC the lens is great already wide open.
A shorter lens is a bit easier to handle and without TC you have less camera shake to contend with and the larger aperture, but the subject needs to be closer or is framed wider then.
-
Oh just noticed this new 400 f2.8 :-) Albeit Sony
https://www.dpreview.com/news/4861125245/sony-s-huge-400mm-f2-8-gm-oss-lens-spotted-at-the-2018-winter-olympics?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018-february-14&ref_=pe_1822230_272426610_dpr_nl_299_20
Sony makes the ugliest super-teles of anyone.
Over-sized, under-performing, "Copy-Canon" white ... I would never buy one :)
(Why would anyone want a white lens for wildlife? :o)
May make you stand out at a sporting event, but 'standing out' for wildlife photography is not what anyone wants to do ...
Nikon has the most elegant-looking super-tele lenses of anyone, IMO, made even better that they're also the best-performing 8)
-
I'm also in the same situation - the 300 f2.8G VRII is one of Nikon's best lenses, and mine is nearly coupled with the TC2 III :-)
The Fatman has the edge in its IQ over the 300 though. Lab tests concur on this I recall -and with IQ using TCs. The 200 f2G VRII works very well with TC2 as a heavy 400 f4. These fast 200 and 300 Nikkors almost weigh the same. Being shorter and more balanced than my 300 f2.8 I find the 200 that much easier to handle including with TCs. Whichever of the 400 f2.8 or 500 f4 I commit to, it is the 300 I may have to sell on but the 200 f2G is one of my treasured primes.
Yes, the "Chubby" is a special lens ... the rendering at f/2 can be jaw-dropping :)
I am waiting for the FL ED upgrade ... something I am hoping for next year 8)
-
While I also use the 200/2 II, I no longer use it with TCs since I have the 300 PF.
This is going to be my move as well, especially for local/casual hikes.
In my brief testing the 300/2.8 VR II does give a sharper image with 1.4X than the 200/2 I/II does with TC-20E III, but others have noted there is variability from lens + TC sample to another, so my results may not match everyone else's.
Kind of unfair, though.
Every lens is better-performing with a 1.4 TC than it is with a 2x TC.
I consider the 300/2.8 to be a more TC-compatible than the 200/2 in terms of results based on the lenses and TCs I tested. The 200/2II image needs to be stopped down to f/8 with either TC-14E III or TC-20E III to get a perfect image in terms of individual pixel level detail (on D810, so 36MP). Of course without TC the lens is great already wide open.
I like the results of my 300mm II @ f/5.6, but f/8 is its best aperture with the 2x TC as well (concurred by Photography Life (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f2-8g-vr-ii)).
I am wanting the 600mm because I will get the same equivalent 900mm reach on a D500 as the 300 + TC III ... without the IQ hit of the TC.
I am considering the 400 because it's reputedly even sharper. F/4 is its sharpest aperture, whereas f/5.6 - f/8 are the sharpest on the 600.
Super-sharp wildlife images, with the separation of f/4, will always look better than sharp images @f/5.6-f/8.
A shorter lens is a bit easier to handle and without TC you have less camera shake to contend with and the larger aperture, but the subject needs to be closer or is framed wider then.
Yeah, and the entire magic of the 200 f/2 "Chubby" is removed by a 2x TC putting it @ f/5.6 :(
-
Sony makes the ugliest super-teles of anyone.
Over-sized, under-performing, "Copy-Canon" white ... I would never buy one :)
(Why would anyone want a white lens for wildlife? :o)
May make you stand out at a sporting event, but 'standing out' for wildlife photography is not what anyone wants to do ...
Maybe because white is blending best in with the enviroment…
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7052/26792753693_9e5cfe2da2_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GPzSec)
Rupehøne (https://flic.kr/p/GPzSec) by Asle Feten (https://www.flickr.com/photos/afoton/), on Flickr
-
Maybe because white is blending best in with the enviroment…
Touché ;D
-
see this capture
Nikon D5 | AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR | ISO 2000 | 1/2000s | F4 Photo by Matthias Hangst/Getty Images
http://blog.iamnikon.com/en_GB/pyeongchang-2018/winter-sports-freedom-to-be-creative-behind-the-camera-with-matthias-hangst/
-
Please excuse my interjecting but the 800mm in image 5, the cartridge case is very slightly not sharp... >:(
-
Please excuse my interjecting but the 800mm in image 5, the cartridge case is very slightly not sharp... >:(
Impressive images!
I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to be sharp the cartridge.
-
That's OK then. I go back to sleep! ;)
Actually I'm re-celling an EN-EL4. ;D
-
Picture #2 Skeleton is my preferred. This 70-200 mm f/2.8E FL is really outstanding.
-
Hi all,
I'm fairly new to NikonGear. Today was my last day of employment and now I'm officially retired! I've been agonizing over what "gift" I wanted to give myself for the last few months. I knew I wanted a very good telephoto lens. I already have the 300mm pf and the 200-500. My initial thought was the 600mm f4, then I changed my mind and was planning to get the 500mm f4, mostly due to it's lower weight. After settling on this lens for a month, I thought that it really wasn't going to give me a lot over the 200-500. What frustrates me with the 200-500 is the slow speed in low light and cranking up the ISO. A few days ago, I shifted gears again and decided on the 400mm f2.8. To my surprise, B&H had a used, mint condition 400mm f2.8 E FL! I ordered it a few days ago and it arrived this afternoon! It's a beauty! Tomorrow, I'll work on the autofocus fine tuning and head to the local wildlife refuge! The eagles are returning to their nests!
Bob
-
Hi all,
I'm fairly new to NikonGear. Today was my last day of employment and now I'm officially retired! I've been agonizing over what "gift" I wanted to give myself for the last few months. I knew I wanted a very good telephoto lens. I already have the 300mm pf and the 200-500. My initial thought was the 600mm f4, then I changed my mind and was planning to get the 500mm f4, mostly due to it's lower weight. After settling on this lens for a month, I thought that it really wasn't going to give me a lot over the 200-500. What frustrates me with the 200-500 is the slow speed in low light and cranking up the ISO. A few days ago, I shifted gears again and decided on the 400mm f2.8. To my surprise, B&H had a used, mint condition 400mm f2.8 E FL! I ordered it a few days ago and it arrived this afternoon! It's a beauty! Tomorrow, I'll work on the autofocus fine tuning and head to the local wildlife refuge! The eagles are returning to their nests!
Bob
Fine that you got your 400/2,8 FL, I assume it is not too comon to get it used. I agree it gives more added value to your 200-500 than the 500/4 would have brought. 600/4 is a different story
Enjoy!
-
Just a try to contribute my few cents
I have shot (amongst others) the 800mm f/5,6 FL the 600 mm f/4 G VRII and the 400 mmf/5,6 FL, I have no experience with the 600 mm FL
I am not a systematic tester but rather give the impressions I have got from my shootings - effects of potential sample variation have to be kept in mind because I have not experienced a larger sample of lenses of each type but just one.
The FL lenses are rather modular - comparing the 800-400 they share the same front lens diameter, the identical lens shade and tripod mount , same design just that the 400 is built shorter. What i found remarkable is the reduced front lens diameter of the 400/2,8 FL compared to it sprecedessor, together with the lighter FL lens element it makes it more hand hold capable. I dont know if the 600 FL shares this qualities.
In terms of image quality i see them all competitive (including the older 600 mm lens) and they are all fast lenses (relative to their focal length) so you better chose your preferred focal length, 800 mm (i know it was not proposed here) will be too long for many purposes (and is the most expensive)
Which one is the sharpest? Lenscore ranks the 400/2,8 at the top and that has some foundation as it is razorsharp and the only lens I needed to adjust my usual sharpening settings. That does not say that it is the best solution for all because each lens renders in a different way (I am tempted to compare the situation with the 85 mm/1,4 D which is razorsharp but sometimes too much for portrait, whereas the 105 mm f/1,4E is very sharp but has more benign portrait rendering). the sharpness of the 400/2,8 has some kind of supernatural touch, the 600/4 VR appears very sharp but does not have that attitude, the 800s sharp but smooth rendering gives the images a very special and different impression. Under practical shooting conditions IQ differences derived from tests do not count as much as other factors, such as proper stabilisation (see below).
I only know one TC that does not affect the IQ in a clearly visible way, that is the TC-800
The 400/2,8 is the best lens I have ever seen to handle the TC14 and 20E III converters, but the good quality does not compete with the 600VR or the 800 without converter, all other superteles I have experienced give significantly decreased IQ wiht TCs. Dont know whether the 600 FL is as good as the 400 FL in handling converters. But If I'd need the range I'd buy the 600 instead of the 400 plus TC.
it is easier to lug the 800 around (not significantly longer but reduced lens diameter) than the 600 VRwhich is more true with the 400 (the new lens case is a night mare btw) and can be expected to be similar for the 600 FL
Another factor one should not forget: All Nikon superteles badly need replacement feet, the FL series has a more robust design but does not make an exception. Worse the mounting point position is significantly disadvantagious in terms of vibration prevention that appears to be valid for the whole FL series-the 600 VR has advantages here when used with a proper replacement foot.
In short words: take the 600 FL
P.S. For me the 400 might be the lens with the best IQ but is not the most useful lens (for bird shooting), it's focal lens is just too short. For other purposes it might be the optimal choice
-
Off Topic:
This wee operation might make for a useful thread once the operation has been completed and the "patient" has had time to make a full recovery. ;D
I have a couple of potential candidates that I have been pondering doing the same to. Will be interested in your thoughts about soldering verses spot welding, and tagged vs non-tagged cells and of course replacement cell choices.
.........................................................
Actually I'm re-celling an EN-EL4. ;D
-
Off Topic:
This wee operation might make for a useful thread once the operation has been completed and the "patient" has had time to make a full recovery. ;D
I have a couple of potential candidates that I have been pondering doing the same to. Will be interested in your thoughts about soldering verses spot welding, and tagged vs non-tagged cells and of course replacement cell choices.
I am on it! Watch the Nerds...
-
As a wildlife shooter (birder mostly) the 600E got my vote (and money). To me, the 400E is first and foremost a sports lens where the ‘need for speed’ in terms of light for night games and indoor sports can be an issue, as is the f/2.8’s ability defocus messy backgrounds in sports venues. No matter how well a lens takes TC’s I would never want to have to rely on them ... all they do is slow down the AF, soften the image and make fine tuning more complex. First rule of buying a supertele is buy the focal length that will allow you to shoot without TC’s most of the time. Also, f/2.8 is often too shallow a DOF, expecially using FX, for smaller wildlife up close so it may not be as much of an advantage as it might seem.
If 400mm +/- was the desired target range, the new 180-400 would be a better choice, I think, due to the flexibilty of the zoom and reportedly negligible impact when using a the integrated TC. My dream combo is the 600E and 180-400E.
JMO of course.
-
combining a 600/4 (or 800/5,6) with a 200-400mm f/4 lens indeed is a dream combo
If the announced 180-400/4 FL will prove to be what it promises (a significant quality improvement compared to the 200-400) then this is even more true.
BTW: It is NOT a dream combo for hiking, i can tell you that much ;-)
-
I appreciate everyone's time and input :)
BTW: It is NOT a dream combo for hiking, i can tell you that much ;-)
My thoughts exactly ;D
-
First rule of buying a supertele is buy the focal length that will allow you to shoot without TC’s most of the time.
Thanks, Gary. Words to consider seriously ...
For me, the 400mm will be an effective 600mm on a D500 ... which is all I really need + I have the added speed.
Still, a 600mm would give me and effective 900mm on a D500 ... which I do need as often as not :o
The trouble is, the 400mm FL ED is much sharper @ f/4 than is the 600mm:
(https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/nikon-400mm-26266/images/highres-Nikon400mmVRFLED_MTF_1411637000.jpg)
400mm f/2.8E FL ED Review (https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-400mm-f-2-8e-fl-ed-vr-lens-review-26266)
(https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/nikon-600mm-review-29033/images/highres-Nikon600mm-MTF_1457709969.jpg)
600mm f/4E FL ED Review (https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-600mm-f-4-e-fl-ed-vr-review-29033)
(Note: I wish they would stick to the same graph format, so the values could be more easily compared.)
Regardless, F/4 is clearly the 400mm's sharpest aperture, while f/8 is the sharpest for the 600mm ...
For a wildlife lens to be at its uttermost @ f/4 is so important, and even exceptionally-sharp @ f/2.8, really not much else needs to be said.
Meanwhile, being its sharpest @ f/8 is what landscape lenses are known for ... but is not really what anyone wants in a super-telephoto lens.
I would be willing to bet that, with these performance values, the 400mm with a TC 1.4x III would be equivalent in sharpness @ f/4 (equivalent to 840mm f/4 with a 1.4 TC III + D500) as the 600mm would be @ an equivalent 900 f/4 bare on a D500.
In other words where a lens is at its sharpest (f/4?, f/8?, or f/11?) is germane to how well it takes a TC ...
That said, here's a shot I took yesterday, with my 300mm VR II f/2.8 and a 2x TC III.
Keep in mind, the 300 VR II apparently has an even worse curve than the 600mm f/4E FL ED, with its sharpest being @ f/11:
(https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/nikon-af-s-nikkor-300mm-f-2-8g-ed-vrii-review-21465/images/highres-Nikon300mmII_MTF_1362131065.jpg)
300mm f/2.8G VR II Review (https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-300mm-f-2-8g-ed-vrii-review-21465)
Still, even though f/2.8 is its lowest sharpness point, at an equivalent 600mm f/5.6 (with a 2x TC III + D500) affixed to my 300mm f/2.8 VR II, the images are fairly sharp ...
Thus I think the much sharper (wide-open) 400mm f/2.8E FL ED will do even better with a 2x TC III on it ... and simply exemplary with a 1.4 TC III on it :)
-
Don't put too much emphasis on test results such as these, even if the tests are accurate, there is no point in buying the wrong lens because it is sharper. For example the Otus 85 might be even sharper, but you wouldn't buy it for your purposes. If you mostly need 600mm, the 600 FL is surely a better option than 400 + TCs.
Remember, most of these tests are done using a single sample of each lens, maybe they tested a good example of the 400 FL against a bad example of the 600 FL (at this level, QC is very high and I expect sample variation to be minor, but it is still possible one lens has been knocked and put slightly out of alignment). Other test sites could easily give different results. The only place which tests multiple copies of lenses is LensRentals, and they can't test lenses this long.
The Nikon MTF charts are outstanding for both lenses, they show the 600 FL is a bit sharper over most of the image but dropping off towards the corners, while the 400 FL is a tad less good but more consistent to the edges. For bird photography I wouldn't be concerned about edge sharpness since the images are usually part of the background and not in focus anyway. So going by that I would conclude the 600 FL is sharper! Going by the MTF charts, the 500FL is even better, see for yourself here: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/index.htm
These sites usually test sharpness at only one distance, and as we know, some lenses are better at far distances and others better at close range. Do the tests above correspond to the distances you will usually shoot at? Impossible to say.
I understand that you want to do your homework before making a big purchase, and it is useful to check these review sites but they can only say so much and you need to take their results with a grain of salt. It might be more useful for you to rent both lenses and get some hands-on experience with them. It might turn out that other factors might sway your decision one way or another.
-
shot today with the D5 + 600FL
Nikon D5 ,Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR
1/3200s f/9.0 at 600.0mm iso1100
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/167016884/original.jpg)
-
Beautiful shot, Bob.
Here are 3 I took yesterday with the 300 f/2.8G VR II + 2x TCE III on a D500 (all shots @ ISO 100, f/5.6, between shutter speeds of 1/800 to 1/2000):
Maybe not quite as sharp as yours, but hope you like them :)
-
aside the "E" "FL" lenses being lighter - the shot i posted above was "handheld" using a rapid strap.. i rarely even consider a tripod with my 600FL anymore. rare occasions only now; another point for an "E" lens.. if you shoot 12 fps like i do with the D5, you don't have to work that aperture mechanism on the "G" lenses which can fail in certain conditions which i have experienced leading to light/dark/light..etc..frame-to-frame.
-
aside the "E" "FL" lenses being lighter - the shot i posted above was "handheld" using a rapid strap.. i rarely even consider a tripod with my 600FL anymore. rare occasions only now; another point for an "E" lens.. if you shoot 12 fps like i do with the D5, you don't have to work that aperture mechanism on the "G" lenses which can fail in certain conditions which i have experienced leading to light/dark/light..etc..frame-to-frame.
Bob, you hit the nail on the head.
I am for the most part pleased with my G lens, but (@ 10fps with the D500), the G lens' manual aperture fails quite often for BIF shots (with the extender on). It is pretty reliable with it off.
Still, my 2x Ext is pretty much glued to my 300mm G and I am sick of the "fails" (invariably during the most important moments, lol), which is why I want to upgrade to an E lens.
-
In my experience the "E" aperture can fail to operate correctly in extremely cold conditions after prolonged exposure to low temperatures and high humidity (this happened using multiple lenses and cameras over the years, what was common was the lenses were "E").
I don't think the 400/2.8 will be satisfactory or cost-efficient for someone who really needs a 600/4. One should purchase the lens which allows most shots to be taken without TC, cost permitting.
-
Don't put too much emphasis on test results such as these, even if the tests are accurate, there is no point in buying the wrong lens because it is sharper. For example the Otus 85 might be even sharper, but you wouldn't buy it for your purposes. If you mostly need 600mm, the 600 FL is surely a better option than 400 + TCs.
400 is a lot closer to where I want to be than 85 :)
Remember, most of these tests are done using a single sample of each lens, maybe they tested a good example of the 400 FL against a bad example of the 600 FL (at this level, QC is very high and I expect sample variation to be minor, but it is still possible one lens has been knocked and put slightly out of alignment). Other test sites could easily give different results. The only place which tests multiple copies of lenses is LensRentals, and they can't test lenses this long.
True.
Another consideration is competence at Imatesting. At least one source seems to be in left field compared to other values given at other sources ...
One thing for sure is, they're all super lenses capable of delivering wonderful results.
The Nikon MTF charts are outstanding for both lenses, they show the 600 FL is a bit sharper over most of the image but dropping off towards the corners, while the 400 FL is a tad less good but more consistent to the edges. For bird photography I wouldn't be concerned about edge sharpness since the images are usually part of the background and not in focus anyway. So going by that I would conclude the 600 FL is sharper! Going by the MTF charts, the 500FL is even better, see for yourself here: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/index.htm
Interesting. I also agree edge-to-edge sharpness isn't that big a deal when you're framing animals, as everything in the background/foreground is going to be a blur anyway.
In the end, I would give more credence to Nikon's own testing than that of anyone else.
Nikon is the entity with the engineers, and the resources, to design and make these lenses ... which carries far more weight as to 'levels of competence' than a blogger who bought an Imatest ;)
These sites usually test sharpness at only one distance, and as we know, some lenses are better at far distances and others better at close range. Do the tests above correspond to the distances you will usually shoot at? Impossible to say.
True.
I understand that you want to do your homework before making a big purchase, and it is useful to check these review sites but they can only say so much and you need to take their results with a grain of salt. It might be more useful for you to rent both lenses and get some hands-on experience with them. It might turn out that other factors might sway your decision one way or another.
Good advice.
One of the elements that sways me in favor of the 400 f/2.8E is the fact that most (who have shot both) rate the 400 is sharper, and stellar wide-open, placing it at a level above other FL ED lenses.
Still, everyone with experience seems to favor the 600 f/4 (which would be ~900mm bare on my D500).
They're both about the same price (only ~1,000 difference), and about the same weight, so the money/weight isn't really the issue.
I tend to favor lenses that are fast wide-open ... but I do want the reach :-\
-
In my experience the "E" aperture can fail to operate correctly in extremely cold conditions after prolonged exposure to low temperatures and high humidity (this happened using multiple lenses and cameras over the years, what was common was the lenses were "E").
my experience is opposite yours with my 5 years worth of 600/4G in frigid temperatures ( less than 20degF/-6.7degC) compounded by working that mechanical linkage at 12fps - of course it used to be 10fps with the D4, 5 years ago.. at least i have not seen a problem with my 600FL yet.. could happen.. but i will keep my contacts clean and hope for the best!
-
by the way... the 400/2.8FL might very well be sharper than the 600/4FL but if you have to crop to frame the shot then you are losing pixels on target.. as i have said, if your application calls for a 400/2.8FL then that is clearly the best choice
-
by the way... the 400/2.8FL might very well be sharper than the 600/4FL but if you have to crop to frame the shot then you are losing pixels on target.. as i have said, if your application calls for a 400/2.8FL then that is clearly the best choice
That works both ways :)
A D5 (1x) with a 600mm = 600mm
A D500 (1.5x) with a 400mm = ~ 600mm (i.e., approximately the same framing).
If I shot a bare D5, like you, I would be more likely to get a 600mm (in fact, I am positive I would).
However, with the D500, I will enjoy the same framing as you with a bare 400mm as you would get with a 600mm.
If the 400mm really is significantly sharper @ f/4, then I can add a 1.4x TC to the 400mm/D500 combo and enjoy an effective 840mm f/4 framing.
Since I know you don't like to use TCs, this means if you need to crop-in from a bare 600mm/D5 combo to get the same 800mm framing that a D500 + 400mm + 1.4x TC combo will get, there will actually be less pixels from the D5/600 combo on the subject that the above D500/400mm/1.4 combo will produce.
-
i will also be using the D850 with the 600FL shortly after i get it focus-tuned to the 6.. so my 1.5 crop is still about the same resolution as the D5 albeit with lower ISO performance and 9FPS
the high ISO performance of the D5 is worth considering as a significant discriminator
-
i will also be using the D850 with the 600FL shortly after i get it focus-tuned to the 6.. so my 1.5 crop is still about the same resolution as the D5 albeit with lower ISO performance and 9FPS
the high ISO performance of the D5 is worth considering as a significant discriminator
There are some threads in other forums showing multiple D500/D850-crop comparisons, which (to my eyes) are indistinguishable.
However, everyone concedes the D500's AF acqusition and buffer are more reliable than the D850s (but not quite up to the. D5).
Your point is well taken on the D5's high-ISO supremacy, but here again the 2-stop advantage of the 400mm f/2.8, plus equal-framing of the D500 help.
A D500 1.5 crop, plus the f/2.8 of the 400mm will create a better low-light 600mm framing than a D850 and a 600mm f/4, since the D850 doesn't have the same high-ISo sensor advantage as the D5.
-
off topic but you "might" be able to do this with D500
Nikon D5 ,Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR
1/2000s f/8.0 at 600.0mm iso1250
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/164764938/original.jpg)
and the shot just before to show it was a landing and not a "take-off"
Nikon D5 ,Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR
1/2000s f/8.0 at 600.0mm iso1250
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/164764795/original.jpg)
-
Herewith a picture of the D4s with the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 VR (old version) and a TC20-E III
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4623/39615045784_4e06e64be2_b.jpg)
picture with same combo, but without TC
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4615/40326263071_6c6b2016c9_b.jpg)
I borrowed the lens from Nikon Switzerland. They had a stand on the AIR14 airshow.
-
i am not much on doublers since i feel that i have to sharpen the result.. case in point.
Nikon D4 ,Nikkor AF-S 600mm f/4G ED VR
1/2000s f/10.0 at 1200.0mm iso2500
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/152666010/original.jpg)
-
off topic but you "might" be able to do this with D500
Nikon D5 ,Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR
1/2000s f/8.0 at 600.0mm iso1250
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/164764938/original.jpg)
and the shot just before to show it was a landing and not a "take-off"
Nikon D5 ,Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR
1/2000s f/8.0 at 600.0mm iso1250
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/164764795/original.jpg)
Nice!!
-
i am not much on doublers since i feel that i have to sharpen the result.. case in point.
Nikon D4 ,Nikkor AF-S 600mm f/4G ED VR
1/2000s f/10.0 at 1200.0mm iso2500
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/152666010/original.jpg)
I get that "fractured ice" look with many of mine, but some also come out really nice and natural looking with a 2x on, case in point:
-
Herewith a picture of the D4s with the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 VR (old version) and a TC20-E III
How do you like the older compared to the new FL ED?
-
How do you like the older compared to the new FL ED?
The only 400mm f/2.8 I had the chance to shoot with was the older one. I guess the new one should be better and lighter, but never had a chance to shoot with one. And the old one was already outstanding.
-
i will also be using the D850 with the 600FL shortly after i get it focus-tuned to the 6.. so my 1.5 crop is still about the same resolution as the D5 albeit with lower ISO performance and 9FPS
That will be the next thing to find out for me. In the past the D800E replaced the D300 by proving its supremacy. I dont expect the same result as the D500 has some significant advantages but the D850 adds additional options.
-
Well there’s no denying the 400/2.8’s are always at the top of the heap as far as sharpness and resolving power is concerned compared to the rest of the superteles. Whether that’s just because Nikon takes more care in their design, or whether it’s because the larger objective translates to a more precise registration of the image I don’t know, but with Nikon’s E series at least, the resolution differences are very small: LenScore measures the resolving power of the 600E, for example, at 1387, and the 400E at 1466, or 5.6% higher. I seriously doubt anyone could actually detect that difference in real world use. I wager that by the time you start to add TC’s of any type (unless they’ve been “tuned” to the lens such as the 800E or new 180-400), they WILL degrade the image to some extent. The other thing with TC’s I’ve found, expecially with the TC20EIII, is that while it can perform reasonably well with f2.8 lenses at close range, it will take a toll on IQ at longer distances.
Anyway, I’m not trying to talk down the fantastic 400E...I’d love to own one myself as a backup/alternate to my 600. Choosing the “right lens” always comes down to what and how you shoot. All I do know is that primarily as a birder, the 400E is not the best choice for my longest lens. I actually don’t know of a dedicated birder that uses the 400E as their longest lens, but on the other hand there are many mixed wildlife shooters that prefer the 400E for good reason too.
Here’s a quick example of what the 600E can do....this is a 100% crop (1600x1200) from my D850+600E taken from a distance of 90m, default NEF conversion from Capture One Pro 10, no other adjustments applied.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4604/38647040270_d9dccbe9ca_h.jpg)
For reference, this is the full frame reduced to 1600x1200 pix.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4705/39747143444_a9a828c123_h.jpg)
-
Well there’s no denying the 400/2.8’s are always at the top of the heap as far as sharpness and resolving power is concerned compared to the rest of the superteles. Whether that’s just because Nikon takes more care in their design, or whether it’s because the larger objective translates to a more precise registration of the image I don’t know, but with Nikon’s E series at least, the resolution differences are very small: LenScore measures the resolving power of the 600E, for example, at 1387, and the 400E at 1466, or 5.6% higher. I seriously doubt anyone could actually detect that difference in real world use.
That's a great point, Gary.
"Splitting hairs" with "which is sharper" questions ... with two lenses firmly ensconced in excellence territory ... has dubious practical value.
The real question is what is more important to me: extra reach or extra light: 600mm f/4 vs. 400mm f/2.8.
Since I shoot with a D500, it must be remembered that I am shooting with an equivalent 600mm f/2.8. using a 400mm, and an equivalent 900mm f/4 using the 600.
For everyone shooting the D5, no one argues that a 600mm f/4 isn't enough reach for birding, so it should be remembered that a 400mm is really a ~600mm f/2.8 on a D500, which likewise should be plenty for birding.
While the D5 would have a high-ISO advantage, over ISO 1600, this also would be equalized somewhat with the 2-stop light advantage of a D500 with a 400mm f/2.8. Especially since the 400 is sharpest wide-open.
(In other words, rather than crank the ISO up, like I'd have to with a D5/600 4, I would widen my aperture. I'd have the same framing and would actually rather keep my ISO down.)
I wager that by the time you start to add TC’s of any type (unless they’ve been “tuned” to the lens such as the 800E or new 180-400), they WILL degrade the image to some extent. The other thing with TC’s I’ve found, expecially with the TC20EIII, is that while it can perform reasonably well with f2.8 lenses at close range, it will take a toll on IQ at longer distances.
Here again, though, I don't need a TC with a D500 + 400mm to equal the reach you're getting with a FX + 600mm ... I'm already there :)
What you say abount TCs though is absolutely true: they hold up exceedingly well when you nail the shot close (and can fill the frame or close) but they really deteriorate with distance shots that you have to crop heavily. That's my experience exactly.
Anyway, I’m not trying to talk down the fantastic 400E...I’d love to own one myself as a backup/alternate to my 600. Choosing the “right lens” always comes down to what and how you shoot. All I do know is that primarily as a birder, the 400E is not the best choice for my longest lens. I actually don’t know of a dedicated birder that uses the 400E as their longest lens, but on the other hand there are many mixed wildlife shooters that prefer the 400E for good reason too.
I would say I am more of a mixed wildlife shooter, who likes birding also.
For instance, I went whale-watching the other day, and even my 300mm (without the TC) was overkill there. I found myself in 50mm to 125mm territory more often.
Here’s a quick example of what the 600E can do....this is a 100% crop from my D850+600E taken from a distance of 90m, default NEF conversion from Capture One Pro 10, no other adjustments applied.
For reference, this is the full frame reduced to 1600 pix.
For some reason, I couldn't see your images.
Still, your points are well made and well taken.
In the end, for birding, I often find myself needing more than 900mm reach equivalent (which I am currently getting with a 300mm w/ 2x Ext x the 1.5x D500 conversion).
Using a 1.4x on a 400mm isn't what I will be doing, I'd likely be using my 2x extender on it.
So I'd really be using either a 400mm with 2x TC (for ~1200mm f/5.6) or a 600mm with a 1.4x TC (for 1260mm f/5.6).
I know for a fact a 2x ext. will degrade the 400mm image more so than the 1.4x will degrade the 600mm image, so I think this might be the difference, just thinking out loud here.
I would also have to buy an extra lens, if I choose the 600mm, to fill the gap between my CV 125mm Voigtländer.
To fill this gap, I am considering the 300mm f/4E PF.
In fact, I am so impressed with some of the birding images people are getting with the D500 + 300 f/4E PF combo that I may just stop there, save myself the cash, as well as the burden of the added weight when I hike.
If you take a look at the images on this thread (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1346257/39), the D500 + 300 f/4E PF combo produces wonderful images of even very tiny birds.
I would be delighted with this level of quality, and even more delighted not to have to lug any kind of super-telephoto lens around anymore :D
Time will tell ...
-
That will be the next thing to find out for me. In the past the D800E replaced the D300 by proving its supremacy. I dont expect the same result as the D500 has some significant advantages but the D850 adds additional options.
I agree.
Using the same lens, the D500 will always have the advantage IMO.
Borrowing from this thread (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1530334/1#14367553), I could see zero qualitative difference between D850 files shot with the same lens as with D500 files.
If anything, the colors were a little richer, and the detail a little greater, using the D500 over the D850 on the same super-tele.
Check out these images shot from the two cameras, of the same subject, out of the same 500mm f/4 E super-tele:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4661/25436356807_933e2d1fcf_b.jpg)
D850 + 500mm f4 E FL ED + 1.4x III (Original 8256 x 5504 image had to be cropped to 2740 x 2192)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4620/25436356457_7254f9619e_b.jpg)
D500 + 500mm f4 E FL ED + 1.4x III (Original 5568 x 3715 image only had to be cropped to 2818 x 2255)
The same thing obtained with a D850 versus D500 with a 2x TC III on it:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4715/26434957438_0212fd9f67_b.jpg)
D850 + 500mm f4 E FL ED + 2.0III (Original 8256 x 5504 image had to be cropped to 3766 x 3017)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4715/26434957438_0212fd9f67_b.jpg)
D500 + 500mm f4 E FL ED + 2.0III (Original 5568 x 3715 image only had to be cropped to 3930 x 3144)
I see absolutely zero advantage to the D850 for wildlife.
Again, with both crops, the D500's files are just a tad more detailed, a tad more color-rich, as well as a tad larger in the final result.
And, at the end of the day, the D500 gets you more pixels on your subject.
When I weigh the pros/cons of the D850 and the D500 for wildlife, the D850 + grip gives me twice the price so I can achieve ... what?
Slower speed, worse buffer, worse AF, HUGE files (that take forever to download) ... all so that I can have to trim more when when I crop-in?
And where I ultimately achieve a smaller (slightly-less-quality) final product as an image? No thanks.
Now, when used for landscape, or if I could actually fill my frame with the subject, then using the D850 make sense.
But if I am out of reach, and cropping most of the file, then deploying the D850 seems a wasted effort IMO ... and the D500 is what makes more sense.
-
There is no "two-stop" advantage with the 400/2.8; it is one stop faster than the 600/4.
What you gain with a D850 (compared to D500) is when the subject comes closer you can still keep shooting and not end up with cropped parts of the subject. So it's a bit like having a bit of extra zoom built into the camera, as you can be more flexible in how the image is used and the subject can be at different distances.
-
What I used to do with the D800E was to use it with MB-D12 (and EN-EL18) and crop it to DX format so i could get 6fps instead of 4 and more megapixels than the D300 I had used before for the same purpose. Sometimes it then proved to be useful to see in the viewfin what is going around around the effective frame and there were other opportunities where the moving subject became too narrow and I could quickly change to FX (I had setup the camera to be able to do so) and get the shot. But the camera still was rather slow.
When I got the D500 I ceized using the D800E in that way because the D500 got me 10 fps and a faster and better AF plus a large buffer.
With the D850 it might make sense to try that route again. D850 now has the newest AF gets 9 fps with MB-D18. Fps does not improve when switched to DX but buffer use will decrease and the DX crop has got the same Megapixels than the D500. So its not primarily thinking about quality differences (these have to be tested out if they are not too significant they are not primarily relevant for decisionmaking) but rather different appoaches for different purposes.
-
When I got the D500 I ceized using the D800E in that way because the D500 got me 10 fps and a faster and better AF plus a large buffer.
Yes.
With the D850 it might make sense to try that route again. D850 now has the newest AF gets 9 fps with MB-D18. Fps does not improve when switched to DX but buffer use will decrease and the DX crop has got the same Megapixels than the D500.
No it does not.
After cropping, the images from the D850 images (taken in DX mode) have less pixels than the D500 (revisit the final file sizes in the group posted above).
So its not primarily thinking about quality differences (these have to be tested out if they are not too significant they are not primarily relevant for decisionmaking) but rather different appoaches for different purposes.
There is no question the D850 is a nice camera.
If you're using it for landscape, portraiture, or (like Michael Erlewine) for macro, where you're filling the frame and using the whole image ... the D850 is pretty much a peerless tool in that capacity.
However, if reach is your goal, and if speedy AF prowess is too, the D850 becomes more akin to fool's gold, ultimately placing a distant second behind the D500 ... and pretty far behind the D5.
Used in that capacity, compared to the D500, the D850 offers twice the cost, a gimped AF/buffer system==and insanely huge files==most of which have to be cropped and discarded anyway ... just to get a slightly lesser result.
At optimal light, with static subjects, I can see the D850 replacing the need for the D5.
But if you need reach, and AF, the D500 is a better choice, by far, than the D850.
And if you're shooting over 1600 ISO, and needing superb AF (which you're pretty much going to be doing all the time in BIF photography), the D5 is a better choice as well.
I will eventually pick up the D850, at some point, but it won't be to use with my super-telephoto lens. It will be for macro stacks and landscapes.
-
There is no "two-stop" advantage with the 400/2.8; it is one stop faster than the 600/4.
Thanks for the correction.
How many stops superior ISO advantage does the D5 give over the D500, based on these values:
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/02-2018/SNR.jpg)
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/02-2018/DR.jpg)
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/02-2018/TN.jpg)
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/02-2018/CL.jpg)
What you gain with a D850 (compared to D500) is when the subject comes closer you can still keep shooting and not end up with cropped parts of the subject. So it's a bit like having a bit of extra zoom built into the camera, as you can be more flexible in how the image is used and the subject can be at different distances.
Makes sense.
However, having both the D500 and the same-reach D810, I rarely found the D500 "too much."
When I did, I just removed the TC.
At no time did I ever feel prompted to use my D810 over the D500 on a super-tele. I use it strictly as a macro/landscape tool.
It will be replaced by the D850 at some point, but I don't think I will use it instead of the D500. We'll see though ...
-
No it does not.
After cropping, the images from the D850 images (taken in DX mode) have less pixels than the D500 (revisit the final file sizes in the group posted above).
s
You are right, the D500 has got 20.9 Megapixels, which is actually more than the 19,4 Megapixels the D850 is offering when set to DX mode.
But it is approximately the same "order of magnitude" in a way that I consider using the D850 cropped but I would not use the D4S in DX mode
There is no question the D850 is a nice camera.
If you're using it for landscape, portraiture, or (like Michael Erlewine) for macro, where you're filling the frame and using the whole image ... the D850 is pretty much a peerless tool in that capacity.
However, if reach is your goal, and if speedy AF prowess is too, the D850 becomes more akin to fool's gold, ultimately placing a distant second behind the D500 ... and pretty far behind the D5.
Used in that capacity, compared to the D500, the D850 offers twice the cost, a gimped AF/buffer system==and insanely huge files==most of which have to be cropped and discarded anyway ... just to get a slightly lesser result.
At optimal light, with static subjects, I can see the D850 replacing the need for the D5.
But if you need reach, and AF, the D500 is a better choice, by far, than the D850.
And if you're shooting over 1600 ISO, and needing superb AF (which you're pretty much going to be doing all the time in BIF photography), the D5 is a better choice as well.
I will eventually pick up the D850, at some point, but it won't be to use with my super-telephoto lens. It will be for macro stacks and landscapes.
I see a potential use for D850 as said also in this field, no replacement for D500 nor for D5 but as an add on. So actually I need three bodies. Planned to wait for buying the D5S instead of a D5 but it is delayed so the D4S will continue to serve as #1 on this slot.
I just acquired a D850 and yes it will see a variety of uses besides Supertele-photography. I am not sure whether its the right body for Portraits or if the sensor isn't just showing too much of detail
-
You are right, the D500 has got 20.9 Megapixels, which is actually more than the 19,4 Megapixels the D850 is offering when set to DX mode.
But it is approximately the same "order of magnitude" in a way that I consider using the D850 cropped but I would not use the D4S in DX mode
True enough.
I see a potential use for D850 as said also in this field, no replacement for D500 nor for D5 but as an add on.
Agree with this as well. For example landscapes, or static shots, or situations involving mild movement ... where neither reach, nor low-light prowess, are affecting the result.
Honestly, the most incredible wildlife shots I've seen have been from the D5. The colors it's able to draw out of subjects at high-ISOs in tropical places (where a lot of the 'gold' is) are incredible.
So actually I need three bodies. Planned to wait for buying the D5S instead of a D5 but it is delayed so the D4S will continue to serve as #1 on this slot.
It is occurring to me that I may 'need' 3 bodies as well :-\
Do you use a Cotton Carrier (https://www.cottoncarrier.com/collections/all/products/new-grey-camera-harness-2) for your bodies? It's the only way I can envision carrying 3 bodies: (2 holstered, the third on a tripod slung over the shoulder).
I can't imaging going on a serious trek without it ...
I just acquired a D850 and yes it will see a variety of uses besides Supertele-photography. I am not sure whether its the right body for Portraits or if the sensor isn't just showing too much of detail
Congratulations :)
I've seen some incredible portraits with the D850 and 28mm f/1.4E, the 58mm f/4G, and the 105mm f/1.4E, especially in low-light situations.
The fast apertures keep the ISO down, while the quality glass + quality sensor really deliver some moving, atmospheric results.
Hope you enjoy your new toy 8)
-
Thank you :-)
No I dont use such a Cotton Carrier or similar gadgets
and I dont handle more than two camera bodies while walking or carry them outside Backpack or bag. It can be useful when placed stationary, in a hide or similar, Two cameras a longer and a shorter Supertele plus a spare body
-
Hi all.
Being a birder myself I use the 600 f/4 (sometimes with one of the three tc's) for most serious shooting if the hike to get there is not too long. That is because the 600 really requires a series 5 Gitzo tripod with a Wimberley gimbal. If I am hiking a long distance or setting up in many places I will shoot my 500 f/4 on a series 3 Gitzo since I can toss that rig over my shoulder safely. I never considered getting the 800 f/5.6 since with a 1.4 tc my 600 is an 840 f/5.6.
I currently shoot the D500. I don't use my 400 f/2.8 very much but will be taking it to Costa Rica since I will be in the dark rain forest.
The sharpness of any of these lenses will not be holding you back from making superb pictures.
JIM
-
Hi
I am wondering that most of the people are supporting their Superteles with Gitzos. I am preferring my Sachtler ENG 2 CF. I was using the Wimberley II for this purpose for years and thought it being the best alternatives. Since I have aquierd A Sachtler FSB8 I havent used the Wimberley anymore, the Sachtler head gives much better support and flexibility although it has more weight as a downside. Genereally i stopped using Gitzos and preferring Feisol equipment instead for the lightweight segment. I bought a Feisol "Heavy-Duty" tripod and the Acratec Long lens head to get a compact supertele-support-alternative to the Sachtler but it has not seen much use so far.
would interested to hear your experience how the gear (d500 plus 400/2,8) dealt with the humidity of the rain forest Jim
-
It depends on the shutter speed used,,, It can be everything from hand held, or monopod, to carbon-fiber contraptions with tree legs.
It is not the brand - it's the design and build quality where the best suitable materials are applied.
Gitzo series 5 tripod with Gimball or Byrzynski Ball head, monopod series 5 with RRS monopod head works according to my findings
If you want bullet proof you go Sachtler with a video head, without extending the lower single leg,,, or you risk twisting the whole set-up ;)
-
I agree Erik
But there are setups when even short shutter speed may result in problems,
and yes its not the brand per se - its just that I personally got annoyed by Gitzo gear of a specific era, they sure will have developed. Wind vibrations are also to be taken into account, here Gimbals show their disadvantages imho. Fluid heads support slower shutter speeds and are faster than Gimbals, when pursuing moving subjects because the gear does not need to be balanced
Burzynsky Ballhead is solid but rather static
And yes the lower single leg is the weak point (the ENG -2 CF HD solves that but with 4 kg instead of 2,4) but it works for a lot of situations, often enough I dont use it anyway
I have raised this up because I consider this to be of more important influence than the sharpness- smpremacy of lenses that are all stellar
As said by Jim, none of the lenses mentioned lacks sharpness in a way that would prevent you from taking superb pictures
-
its not going to help much if the subject is moving.. i'd rather shoot handheld for birds..
-
Hi
MILLIREHM
I will not be going to Costa Rica until July but will report back then. I do know that if I mount my 600 f/4 on a Gitzo series 3 with my Wimberley gimbal and tap the end of the lens hood it vibrates for about 3-4 seconds. Mounted on my series 5 it settles down in one second. As long as the effective focal length is less than 1200mm I am quite happy with the results as long as I am properly practicing my long lens technique. Longer than that you need to set it in concrete.
JIM
-
I understand the tap test, but does it matter when the camera is mounted on a gimbal that is not locked down? BTW, I have a 55 series Gitzo and a TVC-43 RRS, the Gitzo is not in the same league.
-
Most of the dealers here offer either Manfrotto or Gitzo products. So it does not wonder that these are the first choice for many people. It can be fruitdul thougfh to search for potentially better niche-products. Thanks RoyC for sharing the experience with the TVC-43 RRS BTW.
Thera are a lot of viable support options for dast superteles, for the most critical point appears to be the tripod collar design of the lens and the possibility and qualitiy of replacements.
-
I understand the tap test, but does it matter when the camera is mounted on a gimbal that is not locked down? BTW, I have a 55 series Gitzo and a TVC-43 RRS, the Gitzo is not in the same league.
I think even with a gimbal head, it helps reduce mirror and shutter bounce to use better tripod legs (in my case going from 3 series to 4 series Gitzo CF made a noticeable improvement for 500mm focal length) and a better lens tripod mount (i.e. two-point support instead of a single point, or a more rugged tripod mount vs. a flimsy one). Although the gimbal head might not be the most vibration resistant, it still pays off to improve those other areas of the support system. Furthermore the specific camera used influences how much vibration there is due to shutter and mirror use.
-
FWIW I hand hold my 600E 95% of the time. The odd time I do use a tripod I have a Gitzo 3541 with a Wimberley II...I've never experienced any stability or vibration issues. I also leave VR on Sport mode virtually all the time in all cirucumstances, again without any issues.
-
FWIW I hand hold my 600E 95% of the time. The odd time I do use a tripod I have a Gitzo 3541 with a Wimberley II...I've never experienced any stability or vibration issues. I also leave VR on Sport mode virtually all the time in all cirucumstances, again without any issues.
i do the same.. almost.. i almost always have VR turned "off"... only on rare occasions where i absolutely need that kind of assist do i use it.
-
I vote for the 400 2.8 on the D500, that would be my next lens for birding.
You can read more about choosing a camera here http://fixthephoto.com/blog/tech-tips/trending-hdr-professional-cameras.html
-
Most of the dealers here offer either Manfrotto or Gitzo products. So it does not wonder that these are the first choice for many people.
At least where I live the shops display a variety of tripods (Manfrotto, Gitzo, Benro, Sirui etc.) but the models which I am interested in typically have to be ordered separately. I don't use Gitzo because it is widely available but because it has the characteristics I'm looking for at a price I can afford.
The price I found in Europe for RRS TVC-43 is £1498 = 1755 EUR, whereas the Gitzo 4-series I use cost about 1000 EUR. The Gitzo came with snow shoes as standard accessory (and spikes are built in as one feature that costs extra for the RRS), and above all its minimum height is around 9-10cm if I recall correctly (18cm for the RRS). I find it very stable and well made. I'm not saying the RRS cannot be better - I am sure it is excellent, but if equipped to the same level (spikes, snow shoes etc.), it costs about 2x of the price of the Gitzo 4 series, so it ought to be substantially better.
The one area where I find Gitzo to be weak is ability to cope with immersion of the locks to the water (which is to be avoided, as if it is very cold the water gets inside and freezes the locks) - but does the RRS handle this any better?
I think money also matters as many people seem to use undersized tripods for their long lens work and just turn on VR to compensate. I find this approach very unsatisfactory. My 3-series vibrates quite a lot with 500mm (VR OFF) unless I keep it to knee level and I don't use this combination any more. VR SPORT does alleviate the vibration but I find controlling the lens more pleasant and "free" when VR is OFF, then there is no drag, floating feeling or whirring sound due to the VR.
It can be fruitdul thougfh to search for potentially better niche-products.
I can't realistically carry multiple tripods in the field to cover situations where I may need to get low or high, one tripod has to be able to do it all. Obviously different people have different requirements, which is partly why there are so many tripods on the market. Someone who only uses long lenses would have different requirements than another photographer who shoots a variety of subjects.
Thera are a lot of viable support options for dast superteles, for the most critical point appears to be the tripod collar design of the lens and the possibility and qualitiy of replacements.
Yes, this is important, but fortunately Nikon have been improving their tripod collars in recent years from what they used to be. Unfortunately the price of the lenses has gone up as well. 8)
-
At least where I live the shops display a variety of tripods (Manfrotto, Gitzo, Benro, Sirui etc.) but the models which I am interested in typically have to be ordered separately. I don't use Gitzo because it is widely available but because it has the characteristics I'm looking for at a price I can afford.
The price I found in Europe for RRS TVC-43 is £1498 = 1755 EUR, whereas the Gitzo 4-series I use cost about 1000 EUR. The Gitzo came with snow shoes as standard accessory (and spikes are built in as one feature that costs extra for the RRS), and above all its minimum height is around 9-10cm if I recall correctly (18cm for the RRS). I find it very stable and well made. I'm not saying the RRS cannot be better - I am sure it is excellent, but if equipped to the same level (spikes, snow shoes etc.), it costs about 2x of the price of the Gitzo 4 series, so it ought to be substantially better.
The one area where I find Gitzo to be weak is ability to cope with immersion of the locks to the water (which is to be avoided, as if it is very cold the water gets inside and freezes the locks) - but does the RRS handle this any better?
I think money also matters as many people seem to use undersized tripods for their long lens work and just turn on VR to compensate. I find this approach very unsatisfactory. My 3-series vibrates quite a lot with 500mm (VR OFF) unless I keep it to knee level and I don't use this combination any more. VR SPORT does alleviate the vibration but I find controlling the lens more pleasant and "free" when VR is OFF, then there is no drag, floating feeling or whirring sound due to the VR.
I can't realistically carry multiple tripods in the field to cover situations where I may need to get low or high, one tripod has to be able to do it all. Obviously different people have different requirements, which is partly why there are so many tripods on the market. Someone who only uses long lenses would have different requirements than another photographer who shoots a variety of subjects.
Yes, this is important, but fortunately Nikon have been improving their tripod collars in recent years from what they used to be. Unfortunately the price of the lenses has gone up as well. 8)
As the Gitzo tripods are NOT waterproof, so I have the Sirui W2204, designed for amphibious habits. At least twice I have stood it for at least 1 hour in 1+ m of muddy freshwater with no ill effects. It also the silt and salt etc in water that clogs up the sleeves inside the joints.
While I can hanhold mine on a D850, I use the For hide work, I use the excellent Gimpro gimbal (S African made) on Gitzo 5531. For more mobile shooting I moved on from a heavier Sirui P324S (with feet) to a QR (Quick-release) "expanding" Manfrotto 985B. This works well, in those situations that amplify the need for fatigue free stake outs of a subject. The monopod has a light gimbal (Jobu Jr. 3 . But I replaced the original foot with a Gimpro one; longer plate and its QR lever works better for safety and speed.
Nearly all locking plates sold on gimbals and ball heads only have a thumbscrew release, which is not only too slow but dangerous IME. The danger is amplified on heavy rigs if the lens foot is not aligned properly. A properly adjusted well made QR lever mechanism (Gimpro or Acratech) will not close if the lens foot is not aligned properly. These are safer overall - besides advantages of speed with getting fleeting wildlife subjects. Considering the high costs of gimbals one would expect a QR plate
The other harsh lesson is a std monopod head under 5+kg of fast tipping telephoto works very well as a guillotine / knuckle crusher. This has the tendency to occur in an action situation when you change position/teleconverter/camera etc.... it only needs to hit once hard.
This Jobu works fine on its Stick, but it's typical of nearly every gimbal out there - zilch QR plate. So I modified a Gimpro QR plate + drop arm, sending the Jobu plate to aluminum scrap. This QR locking plate is almost 9cm long, better to position the Wimberley lens foot of my 400 f2.8E with a D850 or Z7 and/or TCs. the vertical adjustment is also much better than the Jobu to balance the gimbal properly
see Steve Perry's videos on optimizing a gimbal (and gimbal on your monopod etc)
https://youtu.be/OWAzwWOaXwc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wbQgQKqglc
There is also the new Steadify, a telescoping monopod that works of a hipbelt. I'm looking forward to trying this: https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/photography-gear/tripods-supports/steadify-be-the-tripod/
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1245624-REG/steadify_hjsy_steadify_1_steadify.html/?c3api=2572%2C113041916107&gclid=Cj0KCQiAwc7jBRD8ARIsAKSUBHJsYxnUrLAa4-E82TAJ_fg81LbHvhojt43usoHO4iVOA8mlTS3EySoaAqCDEALw_wcB
-
There is a consensus among appreciative owners that the sui generis of 400 f2.8E is its excellence performance with all 3 of the current Nikon Teleconverters. So it is a 400 f2.8; 560 f4 and 800 f5.6. It is rare for an optic to score such accolades for all three top scores of IQ, reach and AF.
The 2 compact Nikkor phase fresnel primes run close 2nds on IQ and both work very well with TC14 III. I have been shooting the 500 PF nearly daily and it's the first choice as a light walkaround, but the 400 f2.8 has the edge on all fronts, except haptics.