Nikon 500 F4 or 600 F4 in addition to 200-500mm

N

NIKOND500

Messages
22
Name
Oliver
Edit My Images
Yes
I’m currently saving for my next telephoto lens and I’m after an input as to which to go for next.. I currently own a 200-500, which I’m very happy with as a walk around bird photography lens with my D500.

The only limitation I find it’s not very good with a 1.4 TC. The extra reach the 600mm or 500mm with a 1.4TC would be useful.

Most of the information on the internet suggests the 200-500 is very similar optically to the 500 F4, which I find astounding, so not worth upgrading for the 500mm image quality alone..

Is the inconvenience of the 600mm worth the extra money over a 500mm with a 1.4TC. I very much doubt I can stretch to the vibration reduction lens on the 600mm, but could on the 500mm. It’s going to take several months to save and sell other items to pay for it, so don’t want to buy either and regret it..

Any past experiences would be welcomed, as I'm sure others have upgraded from the 200-500 to 500mm or 600mm.
 
I would always recommend saving and waiting for the 600 F/4. I am sceptical that the 2-500 5.6 is similar optically to the 500 F4. The super primes from any of the manufactures are superb, however, you will lose image quality using the 1.4 TC which, if you know you'll be using the extra reach, the 600 F4 is the one to go for. Watch out though, the older lenses make look like good value, however, both Nikon and Canon, do not support the older lenses anymore and things like a faulty AF motor can render these lenses as inoperable.

Unless you're planning on using this lens a lot, I would consider renting the lens for when you know you'll be using it. That way, you'll get the latest version etc. and no worries about reliability or depreciation etc.

I'd also mention, that these big lens, from a practicality point of view, are simply a pain. I love using them for the image quality, however, the size and weight of them can make air travel a real pain with hand baggage limitations. They're also awkward to move about with, without practice. Nothing to put you off, however, do consider how often you'll be using the lens, and how you envisage getting it to where you want it to be etc.

The newer Nikon lenses cut weight dramatically, the older ones weigh loads.
 
Last edited:
toohuge said:
I would always recommend saving and waiting for the 600 F/4. I am sceptical that the 2-500 5.6 is similar optically to the 500 F4. The super primes from any of the manufactures are superb, however, you will lose image quality using the 1.4 TC which, if you know you'll be using the extra reach, the 600 F4 is the one to go for. Watch out though, the older lenses make look like good value, however, both Nikon and Canon, do not support the older lenses anymore and things like a faulty AF motor can render these lenses as inoperable.

Unless you're planning on using this lens a lot, I would consider renting the lens for when you know you'll be using it. That way, you'll get the latest version etc. and no worries about reliability or depreciation etc.

I'd also mention, that these big lens, from a practicality point of view, are simply a pain. I love using them for the image quality, however, the size and weight of them can make air travel a real pain with hand baggage limitations. They're also awkward to move about with, without practice. Nothing to put you off, however, do consider how often you'll be using the lens, and how you envisage getting it to where you want it to be etc.

The newer Nikon lenses cut weight dramatically, the older ones weigh loads.
Click to expand...
Thank you for taking the time to reply, I will certainly research the issue regarding nikon support as will pay extra for the peace of mind & as you suggest might look at renting one before spending over £2.5k..
 
The 200-500 is not close to the 500/4, or even the 500/5.6 PF. And the 500/4 with a TC will have less resolution than the bare 600/4 (assuming comparing the same gen).

I have gone through all of the lenses, to include the 800/5.6... and I have gone back to using the 400/2.8, with 1.4 or 2x TC's when needed. Yes, there is a notable hit w/ the 2x compared to using the prime 800/5.6; but that tradeoff is worth it to me.

I will say that the biggest issue with long lenses tends to be technique, settings, and fieldcraft... I am seeing plenty of poor images from people using the latest Z9 w/ the Z-800mm PF.
 
Because your using Nikon you can consider the 500mm f5.6 PF. I have seen some really good results with that lens. It's so light it easy to follow birds in flight unlike a 600mm f4.

I have 600mm f4 and hardly keep it on a puffin in flight. A 500mm f5.6 PF can easily.
 
toohuge said:
I would always recommend saving and waiting for the 600 F/4. I am sceptical that the 2-500 5.6 is similar optically to the 500 F4. The super primes from any of the manufactures are superb, however, you will lose image quality using the 1.4 TC which, if you know you'll be using the extra reach, the 600 F4 is the one to go for. Watch out though, the older lenses make look like good value, however, both Nikon and Canon, do not support the older lenses anymore and things like a faulty AF motor can render these lenses as inoperable.

Unless you're planning on using this lens a lot, I would consider renting the lens for when you know you'll be using it. That way, you'll get the latest version etc. and no worries about reliability or depreciation etc.

I'd also mention, that these big lens, from a practicality point of view, are simply a pain. I love using them for the image quality, however, the size and weight of them can make air travel a real pain with hand baggage limitations. They're also awkward to move about with, without practice. Nothing to put you off, however, do consider how often you'll be using the lens, and how you envisage getting it to where you want it to be etc.

The newer Nikon lenses cut weight dramatically, the older ones weigh loads.
Click to expand...
Where has this information come from that Nikon do not support older lenses?

I know Canon don't.
 
shapeshifter said:
Where has this information come from that Nikon do not support older lenses?

I know Canon don't.
Click to expand...
If it's not on the list, they aren't supporting it... I just had my 400/2.8 G repaired (AF motor) and it took them 2 months to get the parts and do the work.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-1.jpg
    Untitled-1.jpg
    202.4 KB · Views: 29
shapeshifter said:
Where has this information come from that Nikon do not support older lenses?

I know Canon don't.
Click to expand...
I called them about a lens a while ago and as @sk66 says, their list is what's serviceable or not. It's a shame, but the older af-s / af-i lenses can be a problem. It's a shame they never made a fast af-d super tele over the 300 2.8
 
Thanks for the replies, I can’t see the 500 pf, offering that much over my 200-500 though granted it might be a little sharper as the weight of my 200-500 doesn’t bother me. Just the 500mm and 600mm F4 in the running. The budget im on will almost certainly be a G series which thankfully are still on that Nikon supported products list..
 
Having owned 3 200-500’s
1 x 500f4
And have a mate that shoots the 500pF

All I can say is, once you shoot either of the other two you won’t use the the 200-500 again :) it’s not even in the same league. I would suspect the 600/4 wil be the same all though not shot the Nikon version.

Had the Sigma 500/4 on loan as well. It’s 99% as good as the Nikon.

If it’s ultimate reach your after and weight is no issue. Go 600/4
 
NIKOND500 said:
Thanks for the replies, I can’t see the 500 pf, offering that much over my 200-500 though granted it might be a little sharper as the weight of my 200-500 doesn’t bother me. Just the 500mm and 600mm F4 in the running. The budget im on will almost certainly be a G series which thankfully are still on that Nikon supported products list..
Click to expand...
If you're into the G-series lenses, then try and go for the 600 F/4 or.... go for a 400 2.8 - the extra stop can be really useful, and although awkward with the TC if you need it - letting in the extra light is invaluable imo.
 
Rob Sims said:
Having owned 3 200-500’s
1 x 500f4
And have a mate that shoots the 500pF

All I can say is, once you shoot either of the other two you won’t use the the 200-500 again :) it’s not even in the same league. I would suspect the 600/4 wil be the same all though not shot the Nikon version.

Had the Sigma 500/4 on loan as well. It’s 99% as good as the Nikon.

If it’s ultimate reach your after and weight is no issue. Go 600/4
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, as I’ve only reviews on you tube to go off it’s interesting to know your experience. I better get start doing some overtime
 
NIKOND500 said:
Thanks for that, as I’ve only reviews on you tube to go off it’s interesting to know your experience. I better get start doing some overtime
Click to expand...

I'm the mate Rob mentioned with the 500 PF :)

Although on paper there isn't anything between the 200-500 and 500 PF reality is somewhat different. I've owned and shot with both (along with the 300 PF and TC's) and the 500 PF is a completely different animal to the 200-500. I couldn't recommend it highly enough if weight/cost are major considerations.

The 500 PF is about the same size and weight as a 70-200 2.8 and is very well balanced and handles really nicely (I found the 200-500 very front heavy when extended). Added to that the AF is massively quicker than the 200-500 and IQ is much better (especially in low light which is where I found the 200-500 really came up short). The other thing the 500 PF does really well is it resolves a lot better than either the 200-500 or 300 PF + 1.4x - I find you can crop in much more heavily and retain a useful image.

Hope this helps - I'd seriously consider the 500 PF, assuming 500mm is enough. There are some real bargains to be had at the mo with the bottom having dropped out of the DSLR lens market. It's useable with a 1.4x in good light, but AF speed takes a big hit. I wouldn't particularly recommend it with the 1.4x if you were intending to shoot that way regularly. If you need more than 500mm then you're into 400 2.8 or 500/600 F4 territory, but that's where cost and weight become much more of a factor. The one drawback with the bigger primes I've found is the MFD - I find it makes them a bit limited for close up work (Butterflies, Dragonflies, etc.) - for that I've kept the 300 PF + 1.4x
 
Last edited:
Son_of_Thor said:
The one drawback with the bigger primes I've found is the MFD - I find it makes them a bit limited for close up work (Butterflies, Dragonflies, etc,) - for that I've kept the 300 PF + 1.4x
Click to expand...
IDKW people are so willing to use TC's with long lenses, but almost never consider using extension tubes. I have a helicoid extension tube which adjusts from 46-68mm which I will use in the rare occasion where the MFD is too long.

A true 600/4 with a .135x magnification factor will have a MFD of ~5.7m, with 46mm extension it becomes ~4.1m, and with 68mm of extension it becomes ~3.8m. And w/ 68mm of extension the magnification factor increases to .65x (better than adding a 1.4x TC).

There are the same issues w/ extension tubes just like w/ a TC; reduced sharpness overall and loss of light. But the loss of resolution tends to be less with much higher resulting image detail. And the extension tube doesn't add any of its' own optical errors into the mix like TC's typically do (increased CA, etc). Plus, extension tubes tend to be much cheaper than a decent quality TC.
 
sk66 said:
IDKW people are so willing to use TC's with long lenses, but almost never consider using extension tubes. I have a helicoid extension tube which adjusts from 46-68mm which I will use in the rare occasion where the MFD is too long.

A true 600/4 with a .135x magnification factor will have a MFD of ~5.7m, with 46mm extension it becomes ~4.1m, and with 68mm of extension it becomes ~3.8m. And w/ 68mm of extension the magnification factor increases to .65x (better than adding a 1.4x TC).

There are the same issues w/ extension tubes just like w/ a TC; reduced sharpness overall and loss of light. But the loss of resolution tends to be less with much higher resulting image detail. And the extension tube doesn't add any of its' own optical errors into the mix like TC's typically do (increased CA, etc). Plus, extension tubes tend to be much cheaper than a decent quality TC.
Click to expand...

Slightly off topic, but - I do have a set of extension tubes and close up filters, but don't find either particularly practical for use in the field with the way I shoot and they usually stay at home as a result. That said, I didn't know that adjustable extension tubes were a thing so that's something I may well take a look into as it could come in useful :)
 
sk66 said:
If it's not on the list, they aren't supporting it... I just had my 400/2.8 G repaired (AF motor) and it took them 2 months to get the parts and do the work.
Click to expand...
Was that a repair via Nikon direct or via another repairer?
 
sk66 said:
If it's not on the list, they aren't supporting it... I just had my 400/2.8 G repaired (AF motor) and it took them 2 months to get the parts and do the work.
Click to expand...
I looked on the Nikon website and cannot find that drop down menu to see what is repairable.

Have you got a link to it please?
 
I 'borrowed' a 500/4 G recently and thinking about getting that.

I own both 80-400 and 200-500, both of which have their good days and bad days....and don't want to use my TCs (1.4 and 1.7) on either to be honest..

Excellent 500/4 Gs are ~£2600 on MPB - so are 600/4s worth the extra outlay? Reason I am interesting in the f4 primes is that for birding the wider aperture renders backgrounds softer, most of the time with my f5.6s too much detail comes out and it is distracting. So, to me, 500/5.6PF would bring only some benefit, overall sharpness but not much else (AF speed on my 200-500 is adequate).

On the other hand, I am also considering the 200-400/4 to replace the 200-500 - good thing about this lens versus the primes it comes in a soft case than the big metal box...
 
welshwizard645 said:
I 'borrowed' a 500/4 G recently and thinking about getting that.
Click to expand...
I do most of my bird photography with a Sigma 60-600/6.3. I generally only use wide apertures when I need it for light (≤ f/4).

The difference in how an f/4 and an f/5.6 renders the BG is very minimal. But the difference in how a 400mm and a 600mm renders the BG is significant. That's because the longer FL includes less of the BG, and it magnifies what it does include more. So the separation tends to be much better with a longer FL lens, even though the DOF may be the same or more.

In terms of DOF, increased magnification (shorter distance/longer FL) has a much greater effect than aperture does... it's just that they cancel out when you keep the subject framing the same.
 
welshwizard645 said:
I 'borrowed' a 500/4 G recently and thinking about getting that.

I own both 80-400 and 200-500, both of which have their good days and bad days....and don't want to use my TCs (1.4 and 1.7) on either to be honest..

Excellent 500/4 Gs are ~£2600 on MPB - so are 600/4s worth the extra outlay? Reason I am interesting in the f4 primes is that for birding the wider aperture renders backgrounds softer, most of the time with my f5.6s too much detail comes out and it is distracting. So, to me, 500/5.6PF would bring only some benefit, overall sharpness but not much else (AF speed on my 200-500 is adequate).

On the other hand, I am also considering the 200-400/4 to replace the 200-500 - good thing about this lens versus the primes it comes in a soft case than the big metal box...
Click to expand...
Looks like we are both in the same boat
 
Any reason not to get a 500/4? Seems there is not much love for this lens compared to the 400/2,8 or 600/4...
 
welshwizard645 said:
Any reason not to get a 500/4? Seems there is not much love for this lens compared to the 400/2,8 or 600/4...
Click to expand...
Nope... it's a fine lens. Just kind of "in-between;" doesn't add much FL and is slower than the 400, the 600 is longer and just as fast. The 500/4 is lighter than both, but the 500/5.6 is even lighter and probably a better choice if that's a big concern.
 
Decision made…500mm, now just do I buy the older, AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED VR or keep saving another £3k for the FL .. it’s never simple…
 
Both are fantastic
When I was making the same decision, weight was the factor, the near kilo difference was huge in ability to walk & handhold. If your shooting style can stand support (mono pod best) then it may not be as big a factor. I shoot hand held 90% so it was no.1. Now it’s a few years later so need to add the consideration for parts and repairs. Also include balance in your thought for hand holding, the newer E weight is closer to the body so easier to use.

Dont discount the Sigma 500, it’s a super sharp & splits the weight difference. I had one on Loan fron sigma, loved it. Only the option for a ex demo E stopped me.

Whatever choice you will be impressed
 
Thanks for the input, I was only bothered which was optical better.. if very similar then not bothered about weight…

However, I’ve just taken a bag of flower out of the cupboard and realized 1kg is a lot, when you consider lugging it round all day..
 
Did you get a lens in the end Oliver?

I've been toying with the idea of a 500/4G and a Nikon rep told me in no uncertain terms 'Get the E'.

However, when I have narrowed down one lens on usedlens.com I ask them about the dreaded AF squeal, and even a vast proportion of 'E's squeal........so the search starts again....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top