Imagemaster wrote:
Both Canon and Nikon 500 f4's far outsell the 600 f4's. And the reasons are perfectly obvious - greater cost, size, and weight. The very same reasons why very few wildlife photograhers use a 400 f2.8.
One certainly does not NEED a 600mm for wildlife; birds or otherwise. And one only has to view the Nature & Wildlife Forum regularly to see many excellent wildlife photographs, including ones of birds, that have been taken with lenses under 400mm.
The Canon 800 f5.6 wasn't exactly a great seller, was it? Longer is not always better.
The 800 is way too costly for most people, I can't afford it but I can afford the 400 f2.8 and a 600 f5.6 PF. The 500 f4 v 600 f4 is the same deal as far as cost, as many opt for the 500 due to cost and as you say a weight saving. However, a 600 f5.6 PF is not going to be heavy anyway, probably in the order of about 2kg. At 2kg, this is super light for this type of lens and will not stop the average hiker taking it with them on their bird outings. Hell, I take my 400 f2.8, but I would like something in the order of 2kg instead. This is the whole reason of going for a PF lens, to make a longer focal length like a 600 more reasonable in price and weight for most whereas previously people opted for a lighter 500 f4. As for many take photos of birds under 400mm, that is achievable, but not practical most of the time.
Imagemaster wrote:
I said it wasn’t a great seller, not unusual. Why do you think the 600 f4 II at only $1500 less and 200mm less outsells the 800mm?
Seems I recall a number of FM’ers dumping their 800’s and buying 600 f4 II’s. Just like a mint used 800mm will likely only fetch less than $3,000 less than the new $13,000 price.
Relative to the number of 500’s and 600’s out there, some would say it is unusual to see an 800.
When there is 15 or so people in a turnout along the Gibbon waiting for a sow and two cubs to work down to an opening and there are 3 or 4 800's in the group, saying that it is unusual to see one would sound strange to me.
I will make one admission. If this 500 f5.6 PF has close to or equal of the 500 f4E FL sharpness and AFing ability, weighs in at about 1.5kg and is in the realms of $4,000, I *may* be interested, especially if there will be no 600 f5.6 PF as I will have no choice in the matter. It will not be my ideal, but you have to use the cards dealt, unfortunately.
Lance B wrote:
I will make one admission. If this 500 f5.6 PF has close to or equal of the 500 f4E FL sharpness and AFing ability, weighs in at about 1.5kg and is in the realms of $4,000, I *may* be interested, especially if there will be no 600 f5.6 PF as I will have no choice in the matter. It will not be my ideal, but you have to use the cards dealt, unfortunately.
Lance, if all that is true and you are tempted to buy the 500mm version, just keep in mind that Nikon might not say anything about a 600mm until after your 30 day return period has expired on the 500.
RoyC wrote:
When there is 15 or so people in a turnout along the Gibbon waiting for a sow and two cubs to work down to an opening and there are 3 or 4 800's in the group, saying that it is unusual to see one would sound strange to me.
And when you go to Whiterock, British Columbia, and there are 20 or so people photographing Snowy Owls, and there is not a single 800 amongst them, I guess you would call the 800 a rare bird.
Lance B wrote:
At 2kg, this is super light for this type of lens and will not stop the average hiker taking it with them on their bird outings. Hell, I take my 400 f2.8, but I would like something in the order of 2kg instead. This is the whole reason of going for a PF lens, to make a longer focal length like a 600 more reasonable in price and weight for most whereas previously people opted for a lighter 500 f4. As for many take photos of birds under 400mm, that is achievable, but not practical most of the time. ...Show more →
Well if a 600PF would be super light at 2kg, that would mean a 500PF would be extra-super light.
And if one were to do a poll in Canonland as to the best lens for BIF for MOST people, I would bet the old & lowly Canon 400 f5.6 would come out the winner over any of the super-teles.
RoyC wrote:
Lance, if all that is true and you are tempted to buy the 500mm version, just keep in mind that Nikon might not say anything about a 600mm until after your 30 day return period has expired on the 500.
I think I will wait a decent amount of time before committing to the 500 PF anyway.
Imagemaster wrote:
Well if a 600PF would be super light at 2kg, that would mean a 500PF would be extra-super light.
And if one were to do a poll in Canonland as to the best lens for BIF for MOST people, I would bet the old & lowly Canon 400 f5.6 would come out the winner over any of the super-teles.
Well, we will never know as Canon doesn't have a 500 f5.6 or a 600 f5.6 for comparison anyway, so it is a moot point. In reality, Nikon has a similar lens, the 300 PF and use a 1.4x TC which is lighter and smaller than the Canon 400 f5.6. Unfortunately, you are arguing against yourself in this one because, in reality, if Canonland is so enamoured with the 400 f5.6 for BIF, then Nikonland would also want a similar lens and that is already provided by the 300 f4 PF + 1.4x TC and so, why would Nikonland be so enamoured with a 500 f5.6 PF? The 300 f4 PF + 1.4x TC will probably outsell the Nikon 500 f5.6 PF as well, but that is more to do with price than anything else. And I bet the Canon 100-400 is even more popular than the 400 f5.6 and yet, I bet Canon would love to sell a 600 f5.6 PF and they are working on a 600 f4 DO apparently but NOT a 500 f4/5.6 DO.
Imagemaster wrote:
Both Canon and Nikon 500 f4's far outsell the 600 f4's. And the reasons are perfectly obvious - greater cost, size, and weight. The very same reasons why very few wildlife photograhers use a 400 f2.8.
One certainly does not NEED a 600mm for wildlife; birds or otherwise. And one only has to view the Nature & Wildlife Forum regularly to see many excellent wildlife photographs, including ones of birds, that have been taken with lenses under 400mm.
The Canon 800 f5.6 wasn't exactly a great seller, was it? Longer is not always better.
But a 600 f/4 is a beast and noticeably larger and less travel friendly than the 500 f/4. A 600 f/5.6 PF will be certainly smaller and lighter than a 200-500 which no body seems to complain about it’s size or weight. Sure a 500 f/5.6 will be even smaller but having a 600mm semi-fast option that weighs well under 3kg will open up that FL to a huge number of people IMO. I‘m finding for birding even 500mm on D500 is not enough. Having a 600mm prime which theoretically might take a TC even better is a of more use than having a second 500 f/5.6 option.
As a 200-500 owner I’d consider selling the zoom for the 500mm prime and getting a 100-400 to partner it, but would rather keep my 200-500 and partner it with a 600mm.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But a 600 f/4 is a beast and noticeably larger and less travel friendly than the 500 f/4. A 600 f/5.6 PF will née certainly smaller and lighter than a 200-500 which no body seems to complain about it’s size or weight. Sure a 500 f/5.6 will be even smaller but having a 600mm semi-fast option that weighs well under 3kg will open up that FL to a huge number of people IMO. ‘m finding for birding even 500mm on D500 is not enough. Having a 600mm prime which theoretically might take a TC even better is a of more use than having a second 500 f/5.6 option.
As a 200-500 owner I’d consider selling the zoom for the 500mm prime and getting a 100-400 to partner it, but would rather keep my 200-500 and partner it with a 600mm....Show more →
Lance B wrote:
Well, we will never know as Canon doesn't have a 500 f5.6 or a 600 f5.6 for comparison anyway, so it is a moot point. In reality, Nikon has a similar lens, the 300 PF and use a 1.4x TC which is lighter and smaller than the Canon 400 f5.6. Unfortunately, you are arguing against yourself in this one because, in reality, if Canonland is so enamoured with the 400 f5.6 for BIF, then Nikonland would also want a similar lens and that is already provided by the 300 f4 PF + 1.4x TC and so, why would Nikonland be so enamoured with a 500 f5.6 PF? The 300 f4 PF + 1.4x TC will probably outsell the Nikon 500 f5.6 PF as well, but that is more to do with price than anything else. And I bet the Canon 100-400 is even more popular than the 400 f5.6 and yet, I bet Canon would love to sell a 600 f5.6 PF and they are working on a 600 f4 DO apparently but NOT a 500 f4/5.6 DO. ...Show more →
I also bet the Canon 100-400 is more popular (looking at current sales numbers) than the 5.6/400, but that's first of all because the 5.6/400 despite its high optical quality is a legacy product (over 20 years old) without IS and basically without marketing. Canon has neglected the light and more affordable tele primes for many years and if people have no real choice they will often buy a much heavier and more expensive zoom or bright prime instead. At least Nikon offers some up-to-date high quality tele primes that in size/weight/price are more suitable to enthusiasts. I think such a market exists on Canon platform just the same, but maybe Canon figures the second hand market of legacy primes is big enough to make producing such lenses with current technology unattractive for them.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But a 600 f/4 is a beast and noticeably larger and less travel friendly than the 500 f/4. A 600 f/5.6 PF will née certainly smaller and lighter than a 200-500 which no body seems to complain about it’s size or weight. Sure a 500 f/5.6 will be even smaller but having a 600mm semi-fast option that weighs well under 3kg will open up that FL to a huge number of people IMO. ‘m finding for birding even 500mm on D500 is not enough. Having a 600mm prime which theoretically might take a TC even better is a of more use than having a second 500 f/5.6 option.
As a 200-500 owner I’d consider selling the zoom for the 500mm prime and getting a 100-400 to partner it, but would rather keep my 200-500 and partner it with a 600mm....Show more →
Generally agree, though the 600E isn't that much of a beast once you get used to it...I can handle the 600 as easily as I could the 500G which I shot hand-held for years. But as a birder my most used focal length is 850mm (600+TC14EIII) on FX. I *might* consider supplementing my 600E with a 600PF for when I only need 600mm and am not shooting action (f5.6 is too slow for that), but the 500PF really doesn't interest me....I'd rather put the money towards the 180-400E. I should add that I only shoot FX.
Gary Irwin wrote:
Generally agree, though the 600E isn't that much of a beast once you get used to it...I can handle the 600 as easily as I could the 500G which I shot hand-held for years. But as a birder my most used focal length is 850mm (600+TC14EIII) on FX. I *might* consider supplementing my 600E with a 600PF for when I only need 600mm and am not shooting action (f5.6 is too slow for that), but the 500PF really doesn't interest me....I'd rather put the money towards the 180-400E. I should add that I only shoot FX.
Yeah I know the current 600mm's (Canon and Nikon) are basically same weight as last gen 500mm, but I found them a chore to hand hold easily. I could do it for a maybe 5 minutes max at a time, but the current gen 500mm's are much much nicer to hand hold at about 600g lighter than the current 600mm's, and I can usually last 10 minutes or more now. And I'd welcome something even lighter, say 300 f/2.8 weight and I have no doubt a 600 f/5.6 PF would actually be a fair bit lighter than a 300 f/2.8.
Gary Irwin wrote:
Generally agree, though the 600E isn't that much of a beast once you get used to it...I can handle the 600 as easily as I could the 500G which I shot hand-held for years. But as a birder my most used focal length is 850mm (600+TC14EIII) on FX. I *might* consider supplementing my 600E with a 600PF for when I only need 600mm and am not shooting action (f5.6 is too slow for that), but the 500PF really doesn't interest me....I'd rather put the money towards the 180-400E. I should add that I only shoot FX.
The phrase "I only shoot FX" doesn't tell us much in Nikon land these days. For bird and wildlife I envision people either have the D850 or the D5.....those are two different types pixel density and therefore I think the focal length required differs between them. That assumes one is okay with cropping down to DX or further with a D850 file.
I agree that I usually need 850mm on 20MP FX. But on 46MP FX I can take into account the 1.5x "pixel crop factor" and then 500-600mm can be enough.
That said, I've recently been using 850mm on DX and D850 to get enough reach for songbirds and warblers so sometimes there never is enough
To Whayne's point, I'm not sure if a 600PF will be smaller than a 200-500? Also not sure if it will be lighter? The 400DOII is about the same weight as the 200-500 but I think the 600/5.6 will need to be longer than the 400DOII and will have a slightly bigger front element. But even if it is getting close to the 200-500 that would be a deadly weapon for sure.
Here is a survey for all interested in these type of lenses....if you had the choice between a 400 f/4 PF and a 600 f/5.6 PF at the exact same price, the 600 being a little longer (yet no longer once a 1.4 is added to the 400) and just slightly heavier (but probably fairly close), what would you prefer??
I wouldn't be interested in either 400/4 PF or a 600/5.6 PF; the former would likely be too expensive for an image-quality compromised (due to use of PF element) lens and the latter would be too long for my typical needs and also likely very expensive. The most likely lens for me to purchase would be one of the following: (hypothetical but likely to appear soon) 300/2.8E FL, a used 500/4G VR, or the upcoming 500/5.6 PF.
I think Nikon have shown their hand quite clearly with the 400/5.6, 500/5.6, 600/5.6 PF patent. There are also patents on 200/2 FL and 300/2.8 FL. Those are the lenses that are likely to appear eventually, not a 400/4. If you want a 600/5.6 PF then wait for it to be launched. Don't buy the 500 if that's not the lens you want, you'll just end up selling it at a loss when the 600 shows up.
From Arbitrage... "Here is a survey for all interested in these type of lenses....if you had the choice between a 400 f/4 PF and a 600 f/5.6 PF at the exact same price, the 600 being a little longer (yet no longer once a 1.4 is added to the 400) and just slightly heavier (but probably fairly close), what would you prefer?"
I prefer to shoot mammals in their habitat and larger birds, as such, I'd take the 400mm f/4 pf and pair it with a 1.4x converter any day of the week. With my D500 I'd be at 800mm and with a D5 I'm at 600mm...
This would replace my 200-400 f/4, which does not like the 1.4x and is thus not paired with the optic... I would buy the 180-400 zoom but refuse to pay more than $12,000 for a lens.
bruce
Nikon could charge $8000 for a 400mm f/4 (just like Canon) and I think that they would have some willing buyer.
I don't think there is any objective testing anywhere that directly compares the 400 DO II to the rest of the super tele's. There is LensScore which is good because it puts them all on an even playing field, but they only have the older Canon DO which definitely is not in the same league as current crop of super tele's. Personally I'd be surprised if the 400 DO II could match Nikon's FL tele's, since it would also have to be better than Canon's current version II super tele's and typically the diffractive optics aren't quite as good as their counterpart.
The 300/4 PF is an amazing lens but it is (unsurprisingly) not as sharp as the FL super tele's costing 5X as much. The thing is though all these lenses are already in such a high performance category that image quality hasn't been a problem for quite some time now - however if you are chasing the very best, there are measurable improvements being made with the newer generation lenses. PF/DO lenses can also have issues with abnormal flare, but that is generally not a problem for most users as it's well controlled outside extreme scenarios. I welcome the 500/600 PF lenses, I just hope they aren't prohibitively expensive to most people.
Personally I don’t worry about any potential IQ differences when deciding which of my DO, ISII, FL or PF lenses to take out to shoot. That is probably because I don’t notice any IQ differences that affect my final image between them and I prefer to create a better image using the ideal focal length, aperture, size and weight lens for a given scenario.
