Wildlife Lens: 400 4.5 + 1.4/2.0 TCs vs 600 PF + 1.4 TC

[Wezre]

I’m soon going to be upgrading to a Z8 and am trying to decide on a super tele setup to go along with it. My primary use for the setup will be for birding, but also potentially other wildlife when I get the opportunity. I like the versatility that the 400 4.5 with 1.4x and 2.0x TCs could provide, but with my main subject being birds I’m wondering whether I’ll have the reach that I’m looking for with the bare lens and even with the 1.4x.

The 600 PF will obviously give me better reach without a TC and has the potential to get me to 840mm with the 1.4x, which I’m guessing will perform better than the 400 and 2.0x. I have a 70-200 2.8 that I could also pair with either/both TC, and have been happy with how it performed with a rented 1.4x. My concern with the 600 is that it would leave a large focal length range uncovered between 280mm and 600mm.

The 180-600 would be ideal from a flexibility perspective but I’m not thrilled with the size/weight. Finding a place to buy that lens is also an issue as I’d prefer not to wait several months with spring right around the corner.

Any suggestions or experiences with these lenses would be much appreciated.

 

[DeepCmonkey]

I recently got in to birding and general wildlife and had a similar dilemma.

I initially got the Tamron 150-500 but unfortunately the lens had an issue with the mount and had to be returned so I was back to the drawing board. (I Didn't want to try a second copy)

It was basically then a choice between the 400 4.5 or the 180-600. I didn't consider the 600 PF.

I went with the 400 (lightly used)

I like taking the camera out on walks , where the walk may often be the priority so having a super light lens was appealing.

Reach , I guess 400 is on the short end but it seems no matter what lens you have it's never enough so I resigned to the fact that for some shots I would crop or I wouldn't worry about taking a photo. I do have the 1.4 TC on order.

I would say if wide open wetlands are your main stomping ground then a bare 400 will be really short and maybe even with a 1.4tc it will be short.

The other factor was the aperture, I do shoot quite a bit in woodlands where light may not be the best so the 4.5 is welcome to help keep the ISO lower.

So far I am super happy with my choice, I haven't had an issues where I wanted less reach other than taking a few steps back. I can see situations where the extra versality of a zoom would be great but not for my use case at the moment. If on a vehicle based Safari with larger mammals then yea , zoom would be better I guess.

For the far end , as mentioned I do have the 1.4TC coming and for me that's enough. I can live with cropping or being SOL.

The lens is so light it can be used all day and if flipping the hood around can easily be placed in my bag.

Price is always a factor but I thought it was unwise to go for the 180-600 based purely on that. While its called a budget lens , it's hardly cheap so I figured spending the extra cash now for potentially a long term purchase was wiser. The 600 PF is above what I would want to invest really.

AF has been excellent on the 400 and that's on a Z6II so I would assume on a Z8 it will blazing.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

For the "other wildlife" you mention the 100-400 plus converters is a good option, including close up ability with a good working distance for many drogonflies and butterflies.

The 800mm is a very big and quite heavy lens not very convenient to carry in the field.

 

[ericlj007]

I've had this same dilemma. I own the 70-200 S and both TC's. I finally ordered the 180-600 from BestBuy a few days ago. I chose this because it's just a hobby to me and feel the versatility of a zoom would be nice to use.

 

[abc123brian]

It is best to have the lens in the focal length you’re going to be using the most. So if that means 600mm it is better to have a 600mm lens and not a 400mm + 1.4x. What focal length (or equivalent) have you been shooting birds at now?



I have the 100-400mm, 400mm 4.5, 180-600mm, and 1.4x TC. I do not like to use the 1.4x on the 100-400mm, just not happy with the images. On the 400mm I think it works very well, though for small birds you have to be very close to. I think the TC works fairly well on the 180-600mm as well. If birds were my primary subject, I think I’d want at least native 600mm. I do shoot birds during the winter and I think the 800mm PF would probably be ideal for it. The 600mm PF with 1.4x option would probably be my recommendation though. I may still buy one for myself as the 800mm may be too limiting for my other subjects. Also, the 180-600 does not feel as heavy or awkward as the 200-500 did. I like it a lot more than I expected to.

 

[ericbowles]

I’m soon going to be upgrading to a Z8 and am trying to decide on a super tele setup to go along with it. My primary use for the setup will be for birding, but also potentially other wildlife when I get the opportunity. I like the versatility that the 400 4.5 with 1.4x and 2.0x TCs could provide, but with my main subject being birds I’m wondering whether I’ll have the reach that I’m looking for with the bare lens and even with the 1.4x.

The 600 PF will obviously give me better reach without a TC and has the potential to get me to 840mm with the 1.4x, which I’m guessing will perform better than the 400 and 2.0x. I have a 70-200 2.8 that I could also pair with either/both TC, and have been happy with how it performed with a rented 1.4x. My concern with the 600 is that it would leave a large focal length range uncovered between 280mm and 600mm.

The 180-600 would be ideal from a flexibility perspective but I’m not thrilled with the size/weight. Finding a place to buy that lens is also an issue as I’d prefer not to wait several months with spring right around the corner.

Any suggestions or experiences with these lenses would be much appreciated.

I strongly believe your primary choice needs to be made without using a teleconverter.

Adding a teleconverter should be the exception - not the rule. With a 1.4 teleconverter you lose a very small amount of image quality, but you also lose a full stop. With the 2.0 TC you lose more image quality, and you lose a total of two stops. For occasional use, that's fine, but I would not choose a good lens and expect to be satisfied with sharpness and backgrounds using a teleconverter most of the time.

Aperture with a TC is a big deal. It affects your effective aperture, your ISO, and your backgrounds. You're talking about combinations that are f/9 wide open - and may need to be stopped down slightly. That implies a need to increase your ISO by a full stop and pushing the limits of technique for such a long focal length.

In terms of sharpness, all of these bare lenses are sharp enough, and a 1.4 teleconverter still provides acceptable sharpness but with a small drop off. The longer focal lengths will put more emphasis on technique than gear - and you will probably have a lot of discards even if you think you have good technique. Technique required for 800mm is very different than for 400mm.

I'd consider where and what you photograph in making the decision. If you are photographing a lot of small songbirds, 800mm or longer makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, if your primary subject is wading birds, you'll more likely be in the 400mm-600mm range most of the time. Some of these subjects like shorebirds can be photographed with 600mm and good fieldcraft, or 800mm with average fieldcraft or less experience. Photographing in sunny, open deserts of Arizona is very different from wooded forests of West Virginia where you are almost always dealing with shade, so a faster lens setup is required in for shade.

My choice was the 400mm/800mm combination. I've found that those lenses work well for what I photograph, and give me a clear choice based on subject matter. If I need to travel light, the 400mm + 1.4 TC is used, while my preferred lens for small birds and shorebirds in flight is the 800mm PF. I sold the 500mm PF and decided against the 600mm PF. I felt the 600mm PF is slow compared to the 800mm PF, and most of the time the 800mm could be used without compromise. I still have an F-mount 600mm f/4 if I really need a fast 600mm combination.

 

[Wezre]

I initially got the Tamron 150-500 but unfortunately the lens had an issue with the mount and had to be returned so I was back to the drawing board. (I Didn't want to try a second copy)

I considered the Tamron but the slow aperture at 500mm and lack of TC compatibility make it less appealing.

It was basically then a choice between the 400 4.5 or the 180-600. I didn't consider the 600 PF.

I went with the 400 (lightly used)

I like taking the camera out on walks , where the walk may often be the priority so having a super light lens was appealing.

Reach , I guess 400 is on the short end but it seems no matter what lens you have it's never enough so I resigned to the fact that for some shots I would crop or I wouldn't worry about taking a photo. I do have the 1.4 TC on order.

I would say if wide open wetlands are your main stomping ground then a bare 400 will be really short and maybe even with a 1.4tc it will be short.

Yes, wetlands will probably be one of the main areas I shoot. Possibly also some grasslands looking for owls and hawks.

The other factor was the aperture, I do shoot quite a bit in woodlands where light may not be the best so the 4.5 is welcome to help keep the ISO lower.

So far I am super happy with my choice, I haven't had an issues where I wanted less reach other than taking a few steps back. I can see situations where the extra versality of a zoom would be great but not for my use case at the moment. If on a vehicle based Safari with larger mammals then yea , zoom would be better I guess.

For the far end , as mentioned I do have the 1.4TC coming and for me that's enough. I can live with cropping or being SOL.

The lens is so light it can be used all day and if flipping the hood around can easily be placed in my bag.

Price is always a factor but I thought it was unwise to go for the 180-600 based purely on that. While its called a budget lens , it's hardly cheap so I figured spending the extra cash now for potentially a long term purchase was wiser. The 600 PF is above what I would want to invest really.

AF has been excellent on the 400 and that's on a Z6II so I would assume on a Z8 it will blazing.

Thanks for the input. I'm likely leaning toward the 600 PF as the 400 will probably be short for what I need unless I have the 1.4TC on it nearly all the time.

 

[Wezre]

For the "other wildlife" you mention the 100-400 plus converters is a good option, including close up ability with a good working distance for many drogonflies and butterflies.

The 800mm is a very big and quite heavy lens not very convenient to carry in the field.

If I end up doing a safari in the future (something I would like to do) I would likely rent a second body and would use either my 70-200 or a rented 100-400. The 800 PF is out of my budget and not a consideration due to size and being too long for some situations.

 

[ToRemembertheStory]

Natural Art Images: Galleries: Latest Images

Gallery of Latest Additions - Brad Hill, Natural Art Images

www.naturalart.ca

Brad Hill has lots of information on his blog and in his latest photo's that may help you.

I have the 400 4.5, its' size and weight were factors as I have back issues and I do travel regularly.

As for me, 400 (560) works better than 600(840) as I shoot large





to small





and everything in-between











I also like to stalk subjects in the woods. I have also found by chance the 400 works well for sports.

I recall Steve Perry discuss this on his site. No easy answer.

 

[Wezre]

I've had this same dilemma. I own the 70-200 S and both TC's. I finally ordered the 180-600 from BestBuy a few days ago. I chose this because it's just a hobby to me and feel the versatility of a zoom would be nice to use.

The convenience of a zoom is certainly appealing, but 180-600s are very hard to find without waiting several months and the weight/size (along with increased weight and size from upgrading to a Z8) isn't ideal.

 

[Wezre]

It is best to have the lens in the focal length you’re going to be using the most. So if that means 600mm it is better to have a 600mm lens and not a 400mm + 1.4x. What focal length (or equivalent) have you been shooting birds at now?

My birding to date has been pretty limited as I haven't been in the position to buy a super telephoto lens until now. I spent two weeks in the Galapagos last year and used my 70-200 and a rented 1.4TC. I have a series of posts with those photos on Fred Miranda: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/recent/Wezre. Of course, in the Galapagos you can get much closer to the wildlife so a 200-400mm lens is adequate.

I have the 100-400mm, 400mm 4.5, 180-600mm, and 1.4x TC. I do not like to use the 1.4x on the 100-400mm, just not happy with the images. On the 400mm I think it works very well, though for small birds you have to be very close to. I think the TC works fairly well on the 180-600mm as well. If birds were my primary subject, I think I’d want at least native 600mm. I do shoot birds during the winter and I think the 800mm PF would probably be ideal for it. The 600mm PF with 1.4x option would probably be my recommendation though. I may still buy one for myself as the 800mm may be too limiting for my other subjects. Also, the 180-600 does not feel as heavy or awkward as the 200-500 did. I like it a lot more than I expected to.

I tried out the 100-400 and 400 4.5 when I was at B&H this past weekend. The 100-400 was a bit awkward to use handheld as the zoom ring was fairly stiff. Unfortunately they didn't have the 600 PF on display but it seems like it's only slightly larger and heavier than the 400 4.5. Thanks for the input, I think I'm leaning toward the 600 PF and 1.4TC.

 

[Wezre]

I strongly believe your primary choice needs to be made without using a teleconverter.

Adding a teleconverter should be the exception - not the rule. With a 1.4 teleconverter you lose a very small amount of image quality, but you also lose a full stop. With the 2.0 TC you lose more image quality, and you lose a total of two stops. For occasional use, that's fine, but I would not choose a good lens and expect to be satisfied with sharpness and backgrounds using a teleconverter most of the time.

Aperture with a TC is a big deal. It affects your effective aperture, your ISO, and your backgrounds. You're talking about combinations that are f/9 wide open - and may need to be stopped down slightly. That implies a need to increase your ISO by a full stop and pushing the limits of technique for such a long focal length.

In terms of sharpness, all of these bare lenses are sharp enough, and a 1.4 teleconverter still provides acceptable sharpness but with a small drop off. The longer focal lengths will put more emphasis on technique than gear - and you will probably have a lot of discards even if you think you have good technique. Technique required for 800mm is very different than for 400mm.

I'd consider where and what you photograph in making the decision. If you are photographing a lot of small songbirds, 800mm or longer makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, if your primary subject is wading birds, you'll more likely be in the 400mm-600mm range most of the time. Some of these subjects like shorebirds can be photographed with 600mm and good fieldcraft, or 800mm with average fieldcraft or less experience. Photographing in sunny, open deserts of Arizona is very different from wooded forests of West Virginia where you are almost always dealing with shade, so a faster lens setup is required in for shade.

Thanks for the detailed response. My main shooting locations will be wetlands and some grasslands in New York and New England. I have family in Florida so that's a possibility as well but not a frequent opportunity.

My choice was the 400mm/800mm combination. I've found that those lenses work well for what I photograph, and give me a clear choice based on subject matter. If I need to travel light, the 400mm + 1.4 TC is used, while my preferred lens for small birds and shorebirds in flight is the 800mm PF. I sold the 500mm PF and decided against the 600mm PF. I felt the 600mm PF is slow compared to the 800mm PF, and most of the time the 800mm could be used without compromise. I still have an F-mount 600mm f/4 if I really need a fast 600mm combination.

I wish I could afford the 800 PF but it would be stretching my budget too far. I think the 600 PF is probably the right choice with the 1.4TC for scenarios where the light allows. I appreciate your insights.

 

[Wezre]

I've watched Steve Perry's videos and read through some of Brad Hill's blog posts. All great information that helped me narrow down my choices to these two lenses. I'm leaning toward the 600 PF, and if I need something shorter I can always pair the 1.4TC with my 70-200 in a pinch.

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

Where are your images displayed; who sees them? Will you print them? How much Post are you willing to do?

As others stated I don't like TC's unless an exception and only in very good light.

I agree the 180-600 handles differently than the others.

I have kept the 100-400 for close work and mid range and the 600PF. I use them without filters and lens hood on (unless in a very rough environment like Yellowstone gases or windy/sandy).

Main driver for me is the ability to travel with them and mobility.

The 400 and 600 meet these. To me the 400 is too short for many birds and even mammals. So back to your light question - yes nicer to have the extra stops of light - how good are you with post. Steve Perry did an excellent video on Denoise. You have the 70-200 for low light and maybe that's your answer.

Tough decisions I know.

If you have a catalog of images, spend 30 minutes looking at them asking yourself if you had the range you needed. I recently did this for a friend asking about what to take to Africa. When I was there I didn't have 600. I wish I did.

 

[Wezre]

Where are your images displayed; who sees them? Will you print them? How much Post are you willing to do?

I post on forums, social media, and print for display in my home. I shoot RAW and post-process all of my photos.

As others stated I don't like TC's unless an exception and only in very good light.

I agree the 180-600 handles differently than the others.

I have kept the 100-400 for close work and mid range and the 600PF. I use them without filters and lens hood on (unless in a very rough environment like Yellowstone gases or windy/sandy).

Main driver for me is the ability to travel with them and mobility.

The 400 and 600 meet these. To me the 400 is too short for many birds and even mammals. So back to your light question - yes nicer to have the extra stops of light - how good are you with post. Steve Perry did an excellent video on Denoise. You have the 70-200 for low light and maybe that's your answer.

Tough decisions I know.

If you have a catalog of images, spend 30 minutes looking at them asking yourself if you had the range you needed. I recently did this for a friend asking about what to take to Africa. When I was there I didn't have 600. I wish I did.

My previous wildlife experience is limited to shooting in the Galapagos where you don't really need anything longer then 300-400mm: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1830092/0. Much different from wildlife in the U.S. I used my 70-200 and a rented 1.4TC for that trip.

 

[Bob A L]

I have not read all responses, but with a Z8 or Z9 why would you not first consider using the built in telephoto in the form of DX setting? This gives more telephoto without adding length or weight or cost to your camera.

 

[Wezre]

I have not read all responses, but with a Z8 or Z9 why would you not first consider using the built in telephoto in the form of DX setting? This gives more telephoto without adding length or weight or cost to your camera.

No, I don't consider DX mode to be a suitable substitute for a long lens. There's no point in buying a 45MP camera just to use it in crop mode all the time. Even then, it would only get me to 300mm with my 70-200 which is too short for most birds and wildlife. I personally don't understand the attraction to using the DX mode on the high MP cameras, with two exceptions: 1) smaller RAW file sizes, and 2) framing in-camera rather than having to crop in post. But personally I would rather have the freedom of cropping more/less in post than being stuck with the DX crop/framing at the time I took the photo. Plus, shooting without a crop gives more latitude when tracking birds, and can help capture the bird if it gets too close and fills/leaves the DX frame.

 

[Jeff Klofft]

I've watched Steve Perry's videos and read through some of Brad Hill's blog posts. All great information that helped me narrow down my choices to these two lenses. I'm leaning toward the 600 PF, and if I need something shorter I can always pair the 1.4TC with my 70-200 in a pinch.

Or I might suggest selling the 70-200 and getting a 100-400. My wildlife kit at the moment is the 24-120, 100-400 and 600PF and 800PF. I love my 70-200, but for me it's a people lens.

 

[Wezre]

I've watched Steve Perry's videos and read through some of Brad Hill's blog posts. All great information that helped me narrow down my choices to these two lenses. I'm leaning toward the 600 PF, and if I need something shorter I can always pair the 1.4TC with my 70-200 in a pinch.

Or I might suggest selling the 70-200 and getting a 100-400. My wildlife kit at the moment is the 24-120, 100-400 and 600PF and 800PF. I love my 70-200, but for me it's a people lens.

 

[michaeladawson]

Birding? You’ll be shooting most of the time at 600mm and still cropping. You want the 600mm. Even 800mm is often not too long. On the other hand, when shooting egrets and herons you often need something wider. Like 200mm.

The 180-600 is a reasonable compromise in terms of flexibility and price. But it’s big. My gear closet has the 100-400, 600, and 800mm lenses. Plus TCs. Serious bird photography is not cheap, unfortunately.