Nikon Primes - Choosing A Super Telephoto: So if you could choose between the latest generation of Nikon 400mm, 500mm and 600mm which would you choose? The 400 is an f2.8 while the 500...

Saleavitt10 Loc: Maine

So if you could choose between the latest generation of Nikon 400mm, 500mm and 600mm which would you choose? The 400 is an f2.8 while the 500 and 600 are f4's. The chosen one will be used on a D500 and D850 with or without a 1.4 TC III. While I won't say money is no object they are all within $2k of each other. I guess my main dilema is the 2.8 vs 4.

This lens will be used for wildlife; mammals and birds, mainly from a blind.

Thanks for any and all input.

old man 88 Loc: Palmview, TX when not on road

I will choose a 500 or 600 mm as most my photographs is a birds.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Saleavitt10 wrote:

So if you could choose between the latest generation of Nikon 400mm, 500mm and 600mm which would you choose? The 400 is an f2.8 while the 500 and 600 are f4's. The chosen one will be used on a D500 and D850 with or without a 1.4 TC III. While I won't say money is no object they are all within $2k of each other. I guess my main dilema is the 2.8 vs 4.

This lens will be used for wildlife; mammals and birds, mainly from a blind.

Thanks for any and all input.

I have not tried the latest FL versions of these, but I routinely shoot with a 600mmF4 AF-S II when the light is marginal - hard to beat a fast lens. From what I have read, the 400mm F2.8 with a 1.4X TC is just as sharp as my 600, and has the option of being used at F2.8 without the TC, which could come in handy.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Saleavitt10 wrote:

So if you could choose between the latest generation of Nikon 400mm, 500mm and 600mm which would you choose? The 400 is an f2.8 while the 500 and 600 are f4's. The chosen one will be used on a D500 and D850 with or without a 1.4 TC III. While I won't say money is no object they are all within $2k of each other. I guess my main dilema is the 2.8 vs 4.

This lens will be used for wildlife; mammals and birds, mainly from a blind.

Thanks for any and all input.

The one lightest in weight ....

..

Robeng Loc: California

Saleavitt10 wrote:

So if you could choose between the latest generation of Nikon 400mm, 500mm and 600mm which would you choose? The 400 is an f2.8 while the 500 and 600 are f4's. The chosen one will be used on a D500 and D850 with or without a 1.4 TC III. While I won't say money is no object they are all within $2k of each other. I guess my main dilema is the 2.8 vs 4.

This lens will be used for wildlife; mammals and birds, mainly from a blind.

Thanks for any and all input.

My experience is the 600mm f/4 is hard to beat for wildlife. I love this lens. My other long telephoto is a 200mm-400 f/4 with a tele converter. My only beef on the 600mm is it's a beast of a lens in size. If you could afford it I would get the 600mm.
I also use it on my D500 & D850.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

There is certainly a law of diminishing returns in telephoto.

A 400 2.8 with a 1.4X and a 2X would be an all around awesome combo.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

LWW wrote:

There is certainly a law of diminishing returns in telephoto.

A 400 2.8 with a 1.4X and a 2X would be an all around awesome combo.

Good but not excellent with the 2X, and AF speed and accuracy start to have a negative impact. I would not buy that lens planning to have an 800 F5.6, that can focus as close as the 400 without the TC. But it is still amazingly sharp with the 1.7X, a nice compromise.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Gene51 wrote:

Good but not excellent with the 2X, and AF speed and accuracy start to have a negative impact. I would not buy that lens planning to have an 800 F5.6, that can focus as close as the 400 without the TC. But it is still amazingly sharp with the 1.7X, a nice compromise.

Fair enough, but the weight savings of not carrying multiple heavy lenses was my greater point.

Saleavitt10 Loc: Maine

Thanks for the input everyone. I've spent some time watching youtube videos about super telephoto primes. Pretty sure I've eliminated the 400. I will be renting all three to try them out before I make my final decision.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Saleavitt10 wrote:

So if you could choose between the latest generation of Nikon 400mm, 500mm and 600mm which would you choose? The 400 is an f2.8 while the 500 and 600 are f4's. The chosen one will be used on a D500 and D850 with or without a 1.4 TC III. While I won't say money is no object they are all within $2k of each other. I guess my main dilema is the 2.8 vs 4.

This lens will be used for wildlife; mammals and birds, mainly from a blind.

Thanks for any and all input.

If it were me, and it is not, I would go with the Nikon 200-500 cause for my style of shooting, I want to be mobile and quick. You can be neither with the big boys. At least, not me. AND, the 200-500 will rival the big boys on MOST shots. Yes, it will.

Saleavitt10 Loc: Maine

billnikon wrote:

If it were me, and it is not, I would go with the Nikon 200-500 cause for my style of shooting, I want to be mobile and quick. You can be neither with the big boys. At least, not me. AND, the 200-500 will rival the big boys on MOST shots. Yes, it will.

Thanks billnikon. I have the latest generation Nikon 80-400 lens that I use often when I need some flexibility in focal length.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

Saleavitt10 wrote:

So if you could choose between the latest generation of Nikon 400mm, 500mm and 600mm which would you choose? The 400 is an f2.8 while the 500 and 600 are f4's. The chosen one will be used on a D500 and D850 with or without a 1.4 TC III. While I won't say money is no object they are all within $2k of each other. I guess my main dilema is the 2.8 vs 4.

This lens will be used for wildlife; mammals and birds, mainly from a blind.

Thanks for any and all input.

I know it's not a "prime", but how about the new 180-400mm. It has a built in teleconverter?

rts2568

Hi Hide shooter,

The relatively new 200-500 would be a quick suggestion, while not knowing the actual circumstances/location of the hide in relation to the most regular "hopping onto and off spots/branches" etc.
The faster giant lenses fall short on a number of fronts, size and manoeuvrability, depth of field and accurate focus, very sturdy tripod requirement.
Although the 200-500 is hefty enough, it can be used effectively hand held. This makes this a very versatile combination if the 500mm end gives you sufficient full frame enlargement and with its new VR you'll be surprised at its possibilities.
Only you will be able to assess if its reach is sufficient for your selected location & subject.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Saleavitt10 wrote:

Thanks billnikon. I have the latest generation Nikon 80-400 lens that I use often when I need some flexibility in focal length.

The 200-500 is sharper. You will like it.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I would use an on-line photography calculator to compute the field of view for a given sensor, focal length, and distance to subject from your blind. A 3' eagle in a field of view that is 40'x60' isn't gonna be very impressive. A pro I know says his 600mm on his FF sensor has a field width about equal to his outstretched thumb. Always think and plan ahead.