Birding and wildlife: 400/4.5 vs 600/6.3

I am looking at picking up a Nikon Z8 and a birding lens, and wondering how people feel about these two lenses?

The 400 4.5 is wonderfully small and light. It's image quality is excellent, and it's AF performance is on par.

It is what a person can expect from a Nikon long lens.

I have no experience with the 600, so can't compare.

I feel like I can't afford them, but don't want to carry huge zooms either. Seriously, they are very good, you'll find helpful samples in the "weekly with your Z" threads in this forum.

They are both great lenses. How people feel about them will depend on which focal length is preferred. Which one might be more useful to you will depend on what kind of birds you shoot (small, big, a little of everything?).

You might want to check Thom Hogan's and Steve Perry's reviews.

When the 800 PF came out, I forced myself to stay at or above f/6.3 to see if I wanted that lens, and based on that, I decided I would never shell out serious cash for a lens I intended to shoot action with that had a minimum aperture of f/6.3. The reason being that the fowl I liked to shoot, at the location I shoot, show up in flight in low light. For me, f/6.3 was a limit I didn’t want to accept.



However, for many, (possibly most based on the pics I’ve seen posted), birding primarily entails taking pics of perched, wading, or swimming birds where 1/3200 and higher is not needed. If your style of birding is taking pics of subjects where you can get away with the “slower” shutter speeds, go for the 600 f/6.3.

I have the 400 f/4.5 and love it for many reasons, but I mostly shoot mammals with it. I also find it’s a good length for shooting geese and ducks coming into a pond, but if I was predominantly a birder and shot a lot of songbirds, I would choose the 600 over the 400.



Also, the 1.4 X TC works well with the 400 f/4.5, but I personally wouldn’t want it living there. The combo works well for me if I can get close enough to avoid too much of a crop, but I bet the 600 f/6.3 easily distances itself from the 400 + 1.4 TC when each require a crop.

travelinbri_74 said:

I am looking at picking up a Nikon Z8 and a birding lens, and wondering how people feel about these two lenses?

Click to expand...

You put birding and wildlife in your title but only mention birding in your post body.

There's a big difference between birds and wildlife in general. If you want a birding lens then 400mm is too short. In general, birding will tax even a 600mm lens. I use the 600mm f/6.3 and still find myself frequently cropping to less than 24 MP, sometimes down to around 15 MP.

If you don't want to spend the money on the 600mm then the 400mm plus a 1.4X TC will get you to 560mm. But as someone else wrote, I wouldn't buy the 400mm if the 1.4X TC was going to be almost permanently attached.

Having said that, large birds like egrets and herons can be too big for 600mm if you can find a way to get yourself close to them.

archerscreek said:

When the 800 PF came out, I forced myself to stay at or above f/6.3 to see if I wanted that lens, and based on that, I decided I would never shell out serious cash for a lens I intended to shoot action with that had a minimum aperture of f/6.3. The reason being that the fowl I liked to shoot, at the location I shoot, show up in flight in low light. For me, f/6.3 was a limit I didn’t want to accept.

Click to expand...

In these days, f6.3 is not a serious issue, as high-ISO noise reduction is very good now. However, 800mm is not very suitable for action because it is difficult to follow action with so much magnification. The other day, I used the 800 PF to capture some people riding jet skis on a lake. At 1/4000 sec, f6.3 and ISO 1100, I was happy with the results, but a jet ski is a surface vessel, not a bird that can fly in many directions, and I still had difficulty following it on a tripod for more than a few seconds.

archerscreek said:

However, for many, (possibly most based on the pics I’ve seen posted), birding primarily entails taking pics of perched, wading, or swimming birds where 1/3200 and higher is not needed. If your style of birding is taking pics of subjects where you can get away with the “slower” shutter speeds, go for the 600 f/6.3.

I have the 400 f/4.5 and love it for many reasons, but I mostly shoot mammals with it. I also find it’s a good length for shooting geese and ducks coming into a pond, but if I was predominantly a birder and shot a lot of songbirds, I would choose the 600 over the 400.

Also, the 1.4 X TC works well with the 400 f/4.5, but I personally wouldn’t want it living there. The combo works well for me if I can get close enough to avoid too much of a crop, but I bet the 600 f/6.3 easily distances itself from the 400 + 1.4 TC when each require a crop.

Click to expand...

If one is into birds, I would get the 600mm. I still own the F-mount 500mm/f5.6 and that lens is fine for birds in flight. The 600mm PF is a bit longer and a bit slower. 400mm is not going to be enough for a lot of birds, but I use the 400/4.5 for birds in flight a lot. For fast-flying birds, I prefer to have more room around the bird so that I can crop to a better composition later on. And the 400/4.5 works well with the 1.4x TC.

travelinbri_74 said:

I am looking at picking up a Nikon Z8 and a birding lens, and wondering how people feel about these two lenses?

Click to expand...

They're both fantastic lenses, for birds I'd go with the 600/6.3

Like others have said, for small birds the longer the better. But for me there is also the totability factor. Smaller and lighter lenses I tend to use more just because they are easier to tote around and use handheld. The 400 f4.5 really excels in this reguard. And then if you do need a little more reach the TC1.4 is just as easy to stick in a pocket just in case.

For $1000 less than the 600, you can get the 400 4.5 and 1.4TC, which gives you both 400 4.5 and 560 6.3. The TC combo won't be quite as sharp as the 600 6.3 by itself, but the 400 + TC combo is more versatile (more light gathering, more focal length options, and smaller/lighter, especially without the TC). That said, the 600 6.3 is a strong performer.

If budget didn't matter and I intended to shoot mostly smaller wildlife (i.e. birds), I would go with the 600. If budget and/or versatility were important, or I planned to shoot plenty of larger wildlife, I would get the 400 and 1.4TC, then spend the other $1k on another nice lens, such as the 105 2.8, 24-120, or a nice 1.8 prime (or just save the cash).

Don't forget that with a Z8 or similar, you'll have decent cropping ability to "extend" your range. Even DX mode still gives you a nearly 20MP file, and that makes the 400 a 600 (although, it also makes the 600 a 900). Just more to consider.

archerscreek said:

When the 800 PF came out, I forced myself to stay at or above f/6.3 to see if I wanted that lens, and based on that, I decided I would never shell out serious cash for a lens I intended to shoot action with that had a minimum aperture of f/6.3. The reason being that the fowl I liked to shoot, at the location I shoot, show up in flight in low light. For me, f/6.3 was a limit I didn’t want to accept.

However, for many, (possibly most based on the pics I’ve seen posted), birding primarily entails taking pics of perched, wading, or swimming birds where 1/3200 and higher is not needed. If your style of birding is taking pics of subjects where you can get away with the “slower” shutter speeds, go for the 600 f/6.3.

I have the 400 f/4.5 and love it for many reasons, but I mostly shoot mammals with it. I also find it’s a good length for shooting geese and ducks coming into a pond, but if I was predominantly a birder and shot a lot of songbirds, I would choose the 600 over the 400.

Also, the 1.4 X TC works well with the 400 f/4.5, but I personally wouldn’t want it living there. The combo works well for me if I can get close enough to avoid too much of a crop, but I bet the 600 f/6.3 easily distances itself from the 400 + 1.4 TC when each require a crop.

Click to expand...

Good points. As you note, it really depends on a specific users needs. Bird photography encompasses a wide range of situations such as bird size, BIF/action versus perched, distance to subjects, light conditions, etc., etc. If I shot wading birds a lot at relatively close range or bird in general in low light situations like yours, I'd consider the faster 400mm f/4.5. However, for songbirds and distant birds, 600mm may be the better option. I've shot birds for many years starting with a 70-200 and progressing through 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and above. Based on my experience, I know that 400mm is too short for me. 500mm with ability to add TCs has become my minimum focal length. So of the OPs two choices, if he could have only one, I'd lean him towards the 600mm, but, as you say, it really depends on his needs.

I'll add that I shoot mostly with the 800 PF these days and have been able to handle the f/6.3 quite well shooting with the Z8 and Z9. With today's sensors and improved noise reduction PP apps, I'll shoot at higher ISOs than in the past to counteract smaller lens maximum apertures. But I do keep a 500 f/4 on hand for lower light situations, and a 500 f/5.6 for lower weight situations.

--
Alan Clark
https://arclark.smugmug.com/

How close will you be to your subjects? If you can fill the frame with your subjects at 400mm, then the shorter but faster prime offers advantages in light-gathering, price, size and weight. Pairing it with a TC would allow you to apply a 560mm focal length from a distance of about 8 feet.

However, if you'll more typically be 13 feet or farther from your subjects, the 600mm PF has the upper hand. It will better fill the frame and capture more total light from the subject. It has a 95mm diameter entrance pupil compared with the 400mm's 89mm aperture. That gives the PF a slight edge in light-gathering. It may not be noticeable when comparing photos but, contrary to what one might assume comparing maximum f-stops, the longer, slower prime will be at least the equal of the shorter, faster prime when it comes to noise.

The 400mm is slightly more compact, weighs 1/2 lb. less and has a shorter minimum focus distance. Paired with a 1.4x TC, it has the potential to be better at pseudo macro work.

If you'll be 10-feet or less from your subjects and if the weight savings is of value to you for portability, get the 400mm f/4.5. If you'll more likely be 15-feet or greater distance from your subjects, I'd recommend the 600mm f/6.3 PF for better reach and a skosh better light grasp.

I posted on this same topic two months ago: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4749379. I ultimately chose the 600mm PF and am really happy with my purchase. The 600 is really light weight and very much hand holdable with good technique. I also got the Z8 at the same time as well as the 1.4x TC. The lens is great on it's own and still very good with the TC if you have enough light.

Below are two posts I made with photos taken with my new kit.



And a shot of the moon:

I haven't used the 600 but I do have the 400 + 1.4TC, like many have said wildlife and even birding can be very diverse.

The 400 + 1.4 TC is getting you too 560 at 6.3 , if this is gonna be short then in reality so is the 600.

The Pros for the 400 combo would be;

Price , size and a little bit of extra versatility in as much you can take off the TC and be at 400 which could be good for sports and airshows etc.. and larger mammals.

It really is a great lens and when you flip the hood for transport it's very compact.

I have no doubt the 600 will be marginally sharper than the 400 combo but I also doubt unless the images are side by side with extreme pixel peeping anyone would notice the difference.

Obviously you could slap a TC on the 600 but it depends on where you shoot and how much light there is.

I have both of these lenses and they are excellent. I have no problem with hand holding either of these. I suspect that the longer focal length of the 600mm might be of more use to you.

travelinbri_74 said:

I am looking at picking up a Nikon Z8 and a birding lens, and wondering how people feel about these two lenses?

Click to expand...

What kind of birds and what environment?

I have a 400mm f/4.5 and the 800mm PF. For songbirds, the 800mm PF gets all the work. From a canoe, the 400mm f/4.5 - sometimes with a TC - is chosen because it is smaller and I can approach subjects. For wading birds, normally 400mm to 560mm is enough - so the 400mm lens and optional TC are chosen. For shorebirds my choice is the 800mm PF to control backgrounds and isolate subjects.

Both are good lenses, but if I had to pick one, it would be the 600mm PF. IF I was looking at a 2 lens kit, the 400mm and 800 are my preference. I chose not to get the 600mm PF - the aperture is not fast enough to have the edge over my 800mm and the 400mm + TC is 560mm at f/6.3 and almost as sharp, but gives a bare lens aperture of f/4.5 for mammals and wading birds.

If you're focused more on songbirds go for the 600mm. If you want versatility get the 400mm and the 1.4 TC. I have the 400mm and I use it for small birds with and without the TC. Even without it at 400mm you can use it for small birds with cropping and I find u still get satisfactory results. But if I can ever manage to save the money I'd like to get the 600mm at some point.

travelinbri_74 said:

I am looking at picking up a Nikon Z8 and a birding lens, and wondering how people feel about these two lenses?

Click to expand...

It's less about "feel" and more about what best fits your shooting needs?

The decision here is predicated on your subjects, distance, and settings (light). The 400 is a fantastic lens, faster (better in lower light) and takes the 1.4 (and even 2x) really well. I think it offers more utility than the 600 because, having owned 600 mm f/4 lenses, I rarely shot them without TC's. The only exception was for large mammals and then it was either too short or too long. Unless you live in FL and/or shoot only large birds, a 600mm could be ok, though again, in certain circumstances it would be too long. I'm thinking spoonbills landing at Stick Marsh where one needs FL between 300-500mm. A better choice for a paired combination which would cover a variety of FL's includes:

100-400 f/4.5-5.6 + 600f/6.3,

400f/4.5 (+-1.4TC) + 800 f/6.3,

180-600 f/5.6-6.3 + 800 f/6.3

IMHO #2 or #3 are the better combinations and #2 affords the greatest utility because one has an f/4.5 lens for first/last light (wish nikon had a 100-300 f/2.8 +TC, or a 300 f/2.8 w a built in TC) though it is a pain to swap TC's on/off in the field. #3 is less expensive than #2 and affords the greatest range though the 180-600 is not as sharp as the 400, is relatively larger/heavier, and is a tad slower. The added benefit of the 186 is a closer MFD. #1 is insufficient on the long end IMHO and plopping a TC on a 600 f/6.3 makes it less desirable. The 100-400 is a highly useful lens and offers a shorter MFD.

I'm just back from Costa Rica where I carried the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and 600mm f/6.3. I used the 600mm for over 90% of my bird images.

John W McCormick said:

I'm just back from Costa Rica where I carried the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and 600mm f/6.3. I used the 600mm for over 90% of my bird images.

Click to expand...

I was in Costa Rica in November 2023, and I had the 100-400, 400/4.5 and 800/6.3 PF. Likewise, the majority of my images were captured with the 800 PF. Generally, for birds, you want focal length.