Which one: Nikon 500 f4 FL vs 600 f4 FL

For the few out there who chose the new 500 over the new 600:

I am curious what your reasoning was.  

I am setting my sights on either the 500 or 600 prime I think.

The 400 2.8 FL may be out of the running because I already have that length with my 80-400 AFS.   Yes, I know that the 400 2.8 is super sharp, so, there is no contest between it and my zoom.   But if I already have the zoom's versatility and it is really quite sharp alone (stopped down a little too), then I would tend to not use the 400 2.8 without a teleconverter on it.  And then I am right back into a 500 to 600 and…….

1.   Do you think that both the 500 FL and 600 FL primes are sharper than the 400 2.8 FL with a TC on ?    

2.   Does it make sense for me to focus on either the 500 or 600 prime ?  Yes of course…price is a consideration.  But I am 66 years of age now and weight is becoming a factor as well.  I never thought it would but that was the old ego talking to me   

We wildlife photographers are always in need of extreme focal length.  

3.  So because the 600 is longer than the 500, and both are comparatively light in weight,  what was your reasoning to purchase the new 500 over the new 600 ?

and Thanks

Robert King

http://itsaboutnature.net

Robert, I chose the 500 for two reasons, weight and size, especially for travel. I had the older version 500, so did not what anything heavier. Plus my travel bag fits the 500, with the 600 I would have had to get another size bag. Having now shot with the 500 for a month or so, I am thrilled with my chose! I can handhold it if I want, plus with the lighter tripod and Uniqball I got for traveling I am down 6 pounds overall. And with the new 1.4E TC Robert, I have most times all the length I really need, plus the quality holds up incredibly. My experience is with my D810.

since I shoot full frame canon, I really cannot speak to anything but focal length. I agree with everything flygirl has to say. For travel, the 500 is a lot easier to deal with. I find I only take the 600 if the trip is primarily for birds otherwise the 500. If you have a crop body, I'd definitely go with the 500. If you are full frame and primarily a bird photographer the 600.

The 600 gives 20% more reach and focal length is everything, Dont forget the 800mm, I have the 600VR but when it comes time i will stay with the 600, It weights about the same as the old 500mm

Dave

Robert,

I just got in my new 500 FL and have been working with it almost everyday for the last few weeks.  I also have the latest (non-FL) versions of the 400 F2.8 and 600 F4 which have been relegated to tripod use only.   For birds in flight I have been handholding my 300 2.8 both with and without TC's.   I felt the 300 with the TC's was just ever so slightly slower on initial focusing than without the TC's, so the obvious choice for me was the 500 FL as it weighs within ounces of my current 300 2.8.  I will say that my 500 FL is very sharp and has been a joy to handhold for BIF.  I feel my "Keeper" rate has increased mainly due to the additional focal length and faster initial focus.   I feel that each lens has it's own venue/purpose and therefore have no current desire to get rid of any of my other Tele-Primes.  I shot the new 800 a few weeks ago and while it's a great lens, I felt it was too specialized for the type of work I do day in and day out.

I can only suggest that if weight and handholding are a consideration, you cannot go wrong with the 500FL.

Good shooting


Chris

It's almost always weight and size that is the primary reason for choosing a 500/4 over a 600/4

Robert, the choice also depends a lot upon the type of shooting you do. For example, if you do a lot of setup photography or BIF photography, then IMHO the 500 is the obvious choice. Plus, with a 1.4x you get a 700mm. I have always been a firm believer that if you cannot get the shot with a 700mm lens, then perhaps you're in the wrong business. That being said, if you do a lot of field photography where there are no setups and the subjects are not as easy to get close to, then the 600mm is the obvious choice (assuming you don't mind the extra weight and size). With the 1.4x you get an 840mm. I opted for the 500mm because I do a lot of setup shooting and also hand held from the kayak. A 600mm would be nearly impossible to use from the kayak. There are times when I wish I had a 600mm, but also many times when I am glad I have the 500mm. So, think about what you want to do the most and how you want to shoot the most, and your decision should become fairly obvious.

The 600 has a 12x magnification vs 10x for the 500. From the same distance the 600 will get your 42% more of your subject in the frame.
To me the 600 and 500 are two different beasts. With the new 600 IS II from Canon weighting in at almost the same weight as my old 500 version I, the choice was simple. Replacing the same focal length would not have made a lot of sense, just too save a few pounds.

E.J. Peiker wrote:It's almost always weight and size that is the primary reason for choosing a 500/4 over a 600/4

And for me . . . .  cost  

Mike Veltri wrote:The 600 has a 12x magnification vs 10x for the 500. From the same distance the 600 will get your 42% more of your subject in the frame.
To me the 600 and 500 are two different beasts. With the new 600 IS II from Canon weighting in at almost the same weight as my old 500 version I, the choice was simple. Replacing the same focal length would not have made a lot of sense, just too save a few pounds.

Ah Mike, but a few pounds made ALL the difference to me.  I sold my older 500 for the new 500 for the 2 pounds.  Not only the 2 pounds but the better balance of the whole setup.  Now, I can go all day and handhold if I want to, or have the lighter tripod setup.  Even with the new Nikon 600, I would not be able to do that.  So it does depend on your own physical condition and size for sure.  

Weight and size, and for many i guess, the foresight to factor in the need to lighten the kit as one ages. (aka, what may be suitable now, may not be desirable in a few years).

Definitely depends on the sort if shooting you want to do, the 600 will help a lot on small birds and may be option if you don't cart it long distances. Otherwise the 500mm (plus a 1.4x) will likely do all you need. I settled on a 500mm even though I do a lot of small birds for both cost and weight.

Thank you all so much.  It seems you've covered all likely considerations and they come from you who have the experiences with these tools.  I'm impressed.

Robert King 
http://itsaboutnature.net

Are both these new lenses (500 FL and 600 FL)  sharp with the latest Nikon TC1.4?  I guess the old ones were not.  Is that true?

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote:Are both these new lenses (500 FL and 600 FL)  sharp with the latest Nikon TC1.4?  I guess the old ones were not.  Is that true?

Yes, and the old ones were sharp with the 1.4x, just not the 1.7x and 2x but AFMA was required to get them to be sharp, especially the 500 + 1.4x which requires a significant amount of adjustment in most cases.

I have been extremely pleased with the new 500 and new 1.4TC.  This is one example which I posted several weeks ago in the Birds forum.

Nikon D810, iso 800, 1/1000

Having shot the 500VR for six year as well as the 500 IS II, 800L and now the 600E, my own experience that if you have to ask this question, you're probably better off with the 500E. IMO the 800 is a very specialized lens, and to some extent so is the 600E. The 500E on the other hand is just a great all-rounder...works great with TC14EIII, light enough to hand hold regularly and for BIF, can be used successfully for larger mammals with FX bodies and provides excellent, sharp, reach w/1.4 TC on DX. It's also airline friendly. Really, it's hard to beat in terms of overall performance and versatility. Personally I went with the 600E because I'm mostly dedicated to shooting wild birds on FX, and don't fly anywhere. If/when I do start to fly to other locations I'll leave the 600 at home and pick up one of the new mid-range zooms.

Good luck!

Thanks to all for all of that…..very interesting to say the least.