SHOWDOWN: Nikkor 400mm f/2.8E FL ED vs. 600mm f/4E FL ED

[Gary Irwin]

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.


For reference, this is the full frame reduced to 1600x1200 pix.

[JKoerner007]

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, 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

Time will tell ...

[JKoerner007]

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, 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:



D850 + 500mm f4 E FL ED + 1.4x III (Original 8256 x 5504 image had to be cropped to 2740 x 2192)



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:



D850 + 500mm f4 E FL ED + 2.0III (Original 8256 x 5504 image had to be cropped to 3766 x 3017)



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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[MILLIREHM]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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:

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 ...

[MILLIREHM]

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

[JKoerner007]

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 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

[MILLIREHM]

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

[jgould2]

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

[MILLIREHM]

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

[Erik Lund]

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

[MILLIREHM]

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

[bobfriedman]

its not going to help much if the subject is moving.. i'd rather shoot handheld for birds..