400mm F/2.8 Vs. 600mm F/4 - Which Is BEST For Wildlife And Bird Photography?

[@backcountrygallery]

Quick note on the subject distance math to clear up confusion, In the video, I state that you need to be 1.5X closer to the subject for the same framing with the 400mm. So, if you are 60 feet away with the 600mm, you would need to be at 40 feet with the 400mm for the same framing. (60 / 1.5 = 40). However, you can also think of it as being 1/3rd farther back, since 20 feet is one third of 60. The math works either way.

[@Richard-i9t2k]

3/2 is 2/3 inverted, goes for all fractions, very useful in everyday math

[@m.maclean8911]

The Z 800mm is small and light and a fraction of the cost. It fits in a carry on bag as well. When shooting long I take 2 lenses (& TCs) … the Z 100-400mm and the Z 800mm . This gives me 100-1,600mm all handhold-able.

[@user-vj9qw6ok1b]

Yes, but he's talking about big glass, not about the many choices available.

[@TwickersMandM]

I have the same two lenses, and honestly they cover my needs, but I can’t help lusting after the two top-tier lenses. Simply to be able to say ‘I have the best’?!

[@m.maclean8911]

@@user-vj9qw6ok1b most people would consider 800mm big glass …

[@robguyatt9602]

I have the same. On trips I take the whole kit but almost never use anything other than the 800.

[@robguyatt9602]

@@TwickersMandM Yeah I get you. I forget the term but it was the same when I was a fisherman. Had to have the best brand reels. But having seen the minor differences in reviews, I have no desire to have either of the integral TC Z lenses. I'm very happy with the results of the lesser S line lenses. The 800 rarely comes off the camera. Only when doing the grandkids playing sport do I use the 100-400.

[@JohnPepp]

I love my 400mm f/2.8 because of the f/2.8 as I like not worry too much about lighting conditions.

[@ME2K23]

4:45 this is why I chose a 500mm F4. Still getting 700mm with the 1.4x tc if needed. It's also smaller et lighter than a 600mm + with today's high Megapixels camera, cropping in less an issue than it once was. If I ever need addition reach, I can still go with th 2x tc and / or my apsc camera.

[@backcountrygallery]

I WISH they would make one foe the Z series - it's the perfect in-between lens. I keep hoping for maybe a 200-500 F/4 zoom, with built-in TC :) Talk about the perfect wildlife lens!

[@Jessehermansonphoto]

@@backcountrygallery That would be Incredible

[@codebunnies]

@@backcountrygallery I keep waiting for that lens too. The Canon 200-400 f/4.0 TC was my favourite wildlife lens, having a Nikon 180-500 f/4.0 TC would be the one lens to rule them all expect for shore birds where I use the 800mm PF (often with the 1.4X TC). The 400 f/2.8 TC is a close second. The 600 f/4.0 TC really limited me when I had it since the animals where all too often far too close for it to focus on them.

[@Sooch900]

Man you’re the best! Love this type of content and info! Super useful and informative! Can’t thank you enough

[@gordonnorman8259]

Steve: Unquestionably, the definitive treatise on this topic I have seen anywhere - very nice job!

[@inkheart124]

Yes, what a superb job comparing these focal lengths, much appreciated!

[@user-vj9qw6ok1b]

I agree with your analysis, many KZbinrs dont understand about distances and wildlife. Yes, 600mm have an advantage by allowing to fill the frame easily.

[@mcr8759]

Great video, thanks for putting all the work into making it so informative!

[@mmzwang]

Great video and very informative. I shout BIF exclusively. Most of time, they are small birds, such as Kestrel, Say's phoebe or Swallows etc. So I use 800mm (Nikon 800mm PF) or 840mm (Nikon 600mm PF + 1.4x or 600mm TC +1.4). It depends on light to decide which lens to use. For small bird in flight, 600mm PF is the best. For BIF, the longer the better. Reach is just one aspect. Longer response time is another aspect. For example, given the same magnification for a bird from 25% of the frame to 50% (fly toward you). 600mm gives your 50% more time than 400mm.

[@marcusslade9804]

Having had my Nikkor 600 mm f4 (G) for eight years now, it has categorically been the right lens for me throughout that time and I still think it's fantastic...unfortunately, it hasn't got any lighter in the intervening time 🤣. Hats off for emphasizing the point about what native focal distance you spend the most time shooting at without a TC engaged and it's as true now (if not more so) as it was back then and you've always been consistent on that point. You are the best ambassador for wildlife photography itself. Many thanks.

[@GaryKFroehlich-jh5mm]

Well done, and your observations are very well explained. They also happen to agree with my own observations. In over 40 years of shooting (Nikons) I’ve used the flagship bodies and both the 400mm f/2.8 and the 600mm f/4-in the film era, the DSLR era, and now the mirrorless era. The 400mm is great for larger mammals and environmental shots, while the 600mm (especially the Z version!) is better for smaller mammals and almost all birds. If forced to choose only one (travel restrictions), the 600mm TC wins every time!

[@DreamingOfReality]

Cant express how helpful your videos are love it!

[@dwv1900]

I've been very happy with 100-400 zoom plus 600mm f4 TC for 100-840mm range. Looks like some photos from Chobe National Park, Botswana. Great to meet you there.

[@NikCan66]

Another great video to show what you actually need in focal length that one uses the most compared to what one thought was required

[@robguyatt9602]

I can tell you I have become expert at running backwards since purchasing the 800mm F6.3. LOL. Seriously though, it took a time to get used to the MFD but I have not looked backward (bad pun) since upgrading from the 100-400.

[@garrywatters1140]

I'm a canon user and abuser and use the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM with 2x and 1.4x converter on an R5 body and I am extremely happy with my results. With the large MP sensor I can crop in post and still get very usable pictures for printing up to A3.

[@Dan.gibson.photographer]

Big fan of the Sony 300mm f2.8 but I use mine with 61mpx. It’s and extremely lightweight lens!!! But anyway 300mm is cheap compared to a 400 or 600😉

[@curtislewis3555]

I shoot Canon. I sold my 400 f2.8 and bought the 600 f4. I just didn't get enough reach with the 400. I photograph a variety of birds, so keeping my distance is important to me. Great video.

[@jerjaws]

After owning both. I do miss my 400mm 2.8. I did sell it to buy my 600mm. But since I own the 600mm I’m gonna add the 300mm to the line up

[@BillFerris]

Steve, another thorough, balanced and objective presentation. Well done and thank you! I don't know if this was something you intended but your discussions of noise and subject separation do a great job of illustrating the usefulness of entrance pupil diameter when comparing different focal length lenses. The 600mm f/4 has a (600mm/4=150mm) 150mm diameter entrance pupil when wide open. The 400mm f/2.8 has a (400mm/2.8=143mm) slightly smaller 143mm entrance pupil. It is the size of the entrance pupil (the lens's aperture) that determines how much light is collected from the subject in the frame, the depth of field in the scene, and the size of bokeh balls. The 600mm has a slight advantage in light-gathering, a skosh more shallow depth of field, and introduces a bit more background blur, all due to its slightly larger 150mm entrance pupil.

[@backcountrygallery]

Thanks Bill :) I had actually thought about discussing physical aperture size for DoF and light gathering, but I was afraid it would take the video a little too far off track. In fact, at once point in the original script I mentioned the slightly larger physical aperture, but ended up cutting it, not wanting to jump into a whole explanation about it. That, and I figured they'd get the idea with the examples anyway and that's the main thing. :)

[@BillFerris]

​@@backcountrygallery plus, there are geeks like me who'll bring it up 😂

[@backcountrygallery]

@@BillFerris Meh, you keep me sharp :)

[@biwageezer]

Great video, Steve! Happy New Year to you and Rose. I bought the 600TC first and was just going to live with my 100-400. Then, Nikon had a refurbished 400TC listed for $10K...

[@PhilFowler-Jones]

I use a 400mm f2.8 f mount + 1.4 TC when necessary. My option if I need to go further, which isn’t often , I just flick into dx. It usually gives me something acceptable. It also works if I don’t have time to put the converter onto the lens. As you say, most wildlife doesn’t understand the command to sit still ! Happy new year from Colombia.

[@vanmeter-photography]

I really enjoyed this video. I've been on the fence on getting a 600mm. After watching this, I am no longer on the fence. Your comparisons of each lenses quality were great. One of my reasons for going with the 600 weren't in the video though. At 66, I can't get as close to subjects as I used to. I'm not very stealthy anymore. Plus, some of the things that I shoot tend to bite or attack if you get to close. I'm like you, I want to fill the frame and I really don't like cropping unless I absolutely have to. You also did a good job of persuading me to take a look at teleconverters. I've never owned one, but after watching this video I may get a 1.4. Thank you for a great video.

[@t.k.1448]

Thanks for the very enlightening and comprehensive comparison. I definitely fall into the 600mm camp, now there is just the small issue of the 15 or so thousand to cover the price of admission. What surprised me the most however, is how well the 400mm performs with all the different TCs. That sort of performance was unthinkable a few short years ago and only because we now have access to even better performing alternatives does it look "bad".

[@Interbeing_CDN]

Very well presented Steve.

[@frankcruz8068]

Excellent work, Steve. I own the 400 2.8 TC, and keep the external 1.4 TC on the lens 80-90% of the time. I find the loss of IQ and focus speed to be negligible, and I only engage the internal TC in extreme cases. I often think that I have the wrong lens, except for the 15% of the time when I use the 400 2.8, the results are always glorious at 400. I also keep the 800 PF for cases where everything is far and I need a lighter lens, while slightly slower focus the IQ is always great even with a 1.4 or 2X TC.

[@cynthiabonnes9717]

Always enjoy your reviews. It really depends on what you’re shooting and where and if you want to be able to easily take on trips. The 600 is still large IMO. Loving my 800 pf and 180-600. If I’m going to a trip of a lifetime I could rent a lens at those prices after eating the value selling a 500 f4 ii last year. Never again unless it’s for income.

[@mm8276352]

I had the Z 800 for a year, but finally bought a 400TC. The versatility of that lens is just incredible. It can even get me to 1120mm if I need to, with still decent image quality. Yes, I use it more at 560/4 than at 400/2.8. But I also shot quite a few images at either 400mm or at 800mm at very close distance that I love, and those just wouldn't have been possible with a 600/4.

[@davidgreener2070]

Thanks for another great video. I agonized over the 600mm vs 400mm choice for quite some time. I find the 600mm mostly better for North American wildlife and birds, while the 400mm is usually better for the closer-in large mammals in the non-plains areas of Africa. Always a tough choice though between two absolutely excellent lenses!

[@santoshmahalik]

Though currently I can not afford either of these lenses, I enjoyed the video. Fantastic video as always with a lot of learning. Keep sharing. Thank you.

[@uaebifvideo5472]

Thank you for the information!! 👍🏼👍🏼

[@CamillaI]

It largely depends what wildlife you shoot small birds go for the 600 mm f4 but for Larger subject mammals on Safari for example the 400mm is probably enough and a Stop faster . Here in the UK I was very pleased I chose the 600mm f4 over the 400mm f2.8 . You also get a very usable 840mm f5.6 with 1.4 TC

[@johnhjic2]

Hello Steve, There was a lot of work went in to making this video. Thank you. But I know that I will never have the budget to get any of these lenses. So I will stick to my 600mm Z f5.6, but it was good to see some honesty about the three manufactures lenses in that they are all very good. Have a amazing 2025.

[@ericsmith9777]

Steve, like usual, this is going to cost me money !!! Currently shooting a Nikon Z9 for wildlife/birds. Have the Z800mm and retained one F mount lens, the 180-400mm as it is an incredible lens. Thanks for what you do............

[@markachivers]

Great review as always Steve. I have the 400 TC as well as the 800PF. That gives me 400, 560 and 800 all on two bodies which I think gives the best range for my wildlife needs.

[@bmwohl]

Steve, this is one of my all time favorite discussions on shooting wildlife. I'm very amateur, and I use the Nikkor Z 100-400 with both the 1.4 and the 2.0 TC and with a 45 megapixel sensor. Until I have more experience, this will work for me.

[@simons9952]

Great video. Theres one more thing, which would also come into play and that is focusing at all in very dark/bad conditions. I guess the 400 2.8 also has an edge here, where the 600 maybe is going to pump. One more strange thing, which I noticed with my Nikon 400 2.8 TC: it is sharper in the center with an external 1.4 TC, than with the internal. Did you test this as well?

[@ralfpassing]

I choose to buy the 400/4.5, the 600/6.3 and the 800/6.3 - less available light ability but no TCs needed and together the spending amount is the same. After a while you can figure out which lenght is the most used and you can switch to the 2.8 or 4 - and in the end you have the other options too. By the way "Wildlife inspired" made a good comparison as well - with a different result

[@RVNmedic]

Great comparison. I'm using the EF 200-400 with built in 1.4 TC. Which is a great lens. I'm trying to decide on 400 2.8 or 600 F4 to get a stop faster (and of course 2 lbs lighter). Since I do mostly BIF I believe I'll go with the 600. Thanks for all the time you put in on this. Outstanding!

[@Atrangi_chhap]

I'm eagerly waiting for your z50ii review with tips and tricks

[@selectiveimagery]

Steve as always a great detailed comparison, this should be a video that everyon watches just to understand how subject distance is a big factor. Getting off topic a bit, I know a few folks that have the Nikon 600 f4 with the built in 1.4x TC but they rarely use it and if they do it's predominantly on a tripod. They typically use the 600 or 800PF lenses due to the lighter weight and flexibility when walking around a bit. This could be an interesting discussion for another video. Take care - Jeff

[@ruiflores7672]

Great video. Thanks a lot Steve!

[@scottlewisphotography]

Hard to use focal length of an existing library to see which focal lengths of lenses you don't yet own you use most often .... I come at the same question a slightly different way by taking a sense of what percentage of my images I felt the need to crop and by how much. Not easy to analyze that from data unless you keep track of it as you edit but even a "feel" for it can help.

[@backcountrygallery]

It's tough - but I feel like most people have one of those super zooms before they get into something more expensive and it at least gives them a starting point. And I do mention that they need to think about how much they crop.

[@frederichore1890]

Hey Steve, your videos and tutorials are always exceptional! I enjoyed your analysis, tech breakdown and comparison of the various features of tele lenses you featured. If I may make one tiny suggestion, try other adjectives for "however" which you used a lot. Try... "on the other hand" or "another choice is..." Superb video otherwise with your usual dedication to detail. 5 stars! Happy New year to you and your loved ones. Cheers! Frederic in Montréal.

[@backcountrygallery]

I'd like to, however, I really like that word :) J/K - thanks for the suggestion. Now that you mention it, I think I did overuse it in this video!

[@michaelogle1315]

I have the Sony 400f2.8 and the 600f4 but now use use the 300f2.8 with TC's for most of my wildlife and bird shooting. About the same quality with all 3.

[@FitzMichael]

Steve when are you going to test the A1 MKII?

[@backcountrygallery]

I have it, just gotta get out and use it now :) I'm taking it to the Galapagos for a month and then to Africa for another month. I'll bet I have some thoughts to share after that!

[@FitzMichael]

@ cool awesome 😎

[@NAG3V]

Your mention of looking at Lightroom statistics for focal lengths gave me an idea for gathering more detailed stats. I've already written some scripts for looking and modifying xmp files. I'm guessing that LR catalog also contains similar data for all those photos, so it should be possible to write a program to scan catalog and generate some statistics that combine both FL and crop to see the most used angles of view.

[@backcountrygallery]

That would be really cool - outside of my wheelhouse - but cool!

[@BillFerris]

You raise an interesting point that reveals a missing feature of Lightroom. It doesn't allow you to filter images by size. For example, it would be really useful to filter images by camera (doable), lens (doable) or focal length (doable), and image size in pixels along an edge (not doable). That would paint a clear picture of the frequency and depth of cropping one typically does. Personally, I upgraded to a Z9 with 800 PF in May of last year. A big factor in my decision was mining the most commonly used focal length over 6 years shooting with a D500 & 200-500. In LrC, I found I was at the 500mm end of the lens 85% of the time. Being an APS-C system, that translated to using a 750mm angle of view 85% of the time. Applying a conservative fudge factor on the frequency I cropped shorter focal lengths to match that 750mm equivalent AOV, I upped the number to 90% That made upgrading to the eminently handholdable 800 PF a no-brainer for me and how I shoot. 😊

[@JayBlue2U]

After a quick skim of the video I still feel that the 400 f/2.8 is best for me, but there are times when I wish I had a 600 f/4. Such is life! Thanks for an informative comparison, Steve!

[@doriangray8007]

I'm a Nikon shooter, and I have a completely different opinion that I really like. I have the 300mm f2.8G VR II and the 500 f5.6 PF with the 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 TC's, all F mount. That gives me 300 f2.8, 420 f4, 510 f4.9, 600 f5.6, 500 f5.6, 700 f8, 850 f9.5, and 1000 f 11. With proper technique, tripod, and remote shutter, I get very good results; and these lenses are much cheaper and much smaller and lighter weight. I think the F mount has very little if any loss in quality to the Z mount in the super telephoto range. I lose one stop of light compared to these top of the line, but I can live with that.

[@jackjericho]

Excellent, timely video, thank you, Steve! Someday I will get either a 400 or 600 f/4, but every time I finally pick one, I second guess and then put off purchasing so I can continue researching/deciding. In a way, the analysis paralyses is saving me money, so I'll continue to be indecisive 😂

[@pjdilip]

Obviously need both! 🙄

[@backcountrygallery]

LOL, it happens :) FWIW, 90% of the time you'll be happy with either one, this video helps you whittle down that extra %

[@AlexandreLeG]

Nice comparison, just a little mistake when comparing DoF between the 400/2.8 cropped x1.5 and the 600/4, you need to adjust the CoC, as you're effectively shooting with an APS-C sensor, the result is that both should have the exact same DoF (at least by calculation)

[@richardbedford5558]

Great video again! I have to use a Nikon Z 600mm with 1.4x built in tc for my bif work here in the UK...birds always so far away.

[@RussandLoz]

I've never been able to shoot at 100iso for wildlife, so really, do these charts makes sense? Very comprehensive and great video as always, thank you.

[@Capcity44]

US has lots of scenarios where it is feasible to shoot low ISO’s. Beaches, deserts and more.

[@RussandLoz]

@@Capcity44 Fair enough, Here in the UK its not so common, I've been taking wildlife for a year and never had anything that low

[@user-vj9qw6ok1b]

Understand, when comparing two things you have to minimize the effect of other factors, in this case ISO. So, you test in ideal conditions to avoid any interference due to noise, vibration or subject movement. And yes, there are people interested in this kind of analysis because they want to understand how the equipment works and that helps taking a better decision when buying expensive lenses.

[@codebunnies]

@@RussandLoz I've got wildlife shots at ISO 64 f/2.8 1/800s in Scotland... I can't image it is much darker down in England that it is up here.

[@TRobBrownPhotography]

100 ISO is f/4 at 1/1000 per the Sunny Day Rule. At f/2.8, you can shoot at 1/2000. Shooting at ISO 100 gives you a nice, tight, smooth image--rarely any artifacts/noise.

[@MikeWeeks]

Thing that no reviewer has covered is that at 2.5m f/2.8 on a 400mm you only have 1cm depth of field which even for the smallest songbirds means eyes in focus and beak out of focus For me this means 400mm f/4.5 which also is 2.5m minimum focus is totally suitable and then from 4.3 metres my Z 600mm tc takes over

[@backcountrygallery]

Great point.

[@MikeWeeks]

@@backcountrygallery realistically at 2.5m what f stop would be needed to get your little red bird all in focus? We really need to know what the useable f stop is

[@backcountrygallery]

@@MikeWeeks To get it ALL in focus? Probably in the neighborhood of F/11. However, most of the time if the eye is sharp and the beak isn't a distracting blur you're OK. I'd probably shoot it at F/5.6 ~ F/8. I don't care if the back tail feather are a little out. And I'd consider what it was doing to my background too :)

[@MikeWeeks]

@ hence why the f/4.5 fits that distance niche for me as it’s not being used at maximum aperture

[@user-markparker]

Great video Steve, when these two Nikon lenses (400mm f/2.8 TC / 600mm f/4 TC) were released the big question every potential buyer was faced with was, which one? I chose the 600mm which suited my type of photography & after watching your video just reaffirmed that I made the right choice. Lastly, I’m glad you have a strong table as you had an awful lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$ sitting on it during the video!!… 🤣🤣

[@backcountrygallery]

What I was really worried about was swinging my hands around and knocking something over! You can guess which system I'd be using then - the one with the missing lens (while my wife laughed at me).

[@user-markparker]

@ 🤣🤣

[@perryelder5045]

Excellent video

[@viv5964]

Excellent video, especially now we have a 300 F2.8 which one can hand hold with 1.4x all day! My request to Steve is to make a video on how he starts in the field i.e. with or without convertor as changing them in dusty outdoor is tricky

[@backcountrygallery]

LOL, I wish I had a good answer for that. With the TC lenses it's easy - I don't care! With the Sony gear, I try to anticipate what I think I'll need based on the situation. Sometimes you know you'll need a longer lens. However, my "default" if there is one is no TC.

[@AndrewPalmerJazz]

In photography math, 1.4 + 1.4 is supposed to equal 2. It made me say hmmm to see the 400mm with stacked 1.4x teleconverters shown as a 784mm equivalent, rather than 800mm. I'm curious if there is actually a difference in the field of view versus using a 2x.

[@imtiazakbar9795]

you do really hard work ,Nikon should pick you an ambassador 👍

[@backcountrygallery]

Thanks! We've actually talked about it, but I told them I think we're better off with our current relationship. As soon as you're an ambassador, people think Nikon is paying you to say good things about their gear, even if it's not true. I like to stay neutral. :)

[@Narwaro]

For me the 600f4 always was the most versatile. I shot birds for a long time and the 600f4, D850 and 1.7TC were a dream combo. The 1.7 is worlds better than the 2.0 imo, and turns the lens into a 1000mm f6.7 lens which is very reasonable. The 600f4 has enough reserves for the 1.7TC. If you need more than 1000mm, I think you need to look at the 800 or a telescope. The 2x is a little softer and mushy and the AF system really cant keep up with the light loss. But its very specific to what you do which lens is a better choice. If youre not extremely light-limited the 400 isnt that useful anymore I think. It was in film days and grainy digital days. In an emergency you can take a 70-200 with a 2x TC and be fine. With most animals youll have trouble filling the frame anyways. And if not theyre probably gonna bite your ass. 😂

[@Richard-i9t2k]

Great video as always, Happy New 2025🎉

[@MiguelACoronaDM]

Great video and comparison! Out of curiosity - what bag are you using to carry the lens (and camera). I've been looking for a good option in this regard. Thank you!

[@thebearpike]

I can answer that on Steve's behalf, as I have the same: It's a GuraGear Kiboko 30 (not sure if he has the one with Notebook slot or the one without, though).

[@laurencemoss8049]

Hi Steve, Did you fine tune the Nikon 400mm f2.8 tc lens to improve sharpness ? , Or will you ? .

[@rlast123]

Steve, thanks again for your great video. One idea: Rather than measuring focus speed from minimum distance to infinity (32.54min) isn’t measuring the speed for a fixed distance (eg 5 to 50 meters) difference a better indicator? The test procedure you use, depends a lot on what the minimum focus distance is, a lens with a shorter distance has a disadvantage. I’m most interested how fast a lens can follow my subjects in a reasonable range.

[@backcountrygallery]

I did an AF speed test video awhile ago where I discussed that - in short, most lenses can follow anything once the camera gets a lock. I think the video was called something like AF Speed - Do You Have It All Wrong (or similar). The reason I use minimum focus distance to infinity is because where AF speed really counts is when the camera misses and hunts - and this test does a good job measuring that issue :)

[@rlast123]

@ thanks, understand your point.

[@TheMrNeffels]

I just need canon to come out with that 200-500 f4 so then i dont really have to decide if i want a 400 or 600.

[@johnsanderson9510]

Great work as always, I wonder how many of your conclusions will be relevant when tested on the A1 mkii, regards John.

[@backcountrygallery]

Much of this was done on the a1mkii

[@brucesummers7448]

What sticks out is the number of images shot at 840mm with a 1.4x on the 600mm lens. This can be achieved with the less expensive and far lighter 800mm PF lens. Another consideration is what subjects are photographed. Many of Steve's subjects were large mammals photographed in Africa. This environment is found in the USA at Yellowstone NP and places with very large birds in Florida. Neither lens is well suited to photographing subjects from a boat as they require the use of a tripod.

[@backcountrygallery]

FWIW, I was tempted to add the 800PF to this mix, but Sony and Canon don't really have a similar lens and I wanted to keep it about the two big primes. I can tell you when I know I'm going to be at 800mm a lot, I take the 800PF and use it instead of the 600TC - so much lighter and I like the smaller size too. Great lens.

[@codebunnies]

@@backcountrygallery love my 800 PF. Though which it too had the flip in TC, though I usually know if I am going after subjects that need it.

[@saisparshan999]

I heard you mentioned 600mm is the way to go for tiger ? Please could you kindly explain this in detail. I have 180-600 F5.6-6.3 and considering buying 400 F2.8 Thank you

[@backcountrygallery]

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about - I never mention anything about tigers. I've never photographed them (although I am open to the idea :) )

[@saisparshan999]

@ my apologies I might have misunderstood

[@backcountrygallery]

@@saisparshan999 No worries at all. Although, I wish I had a good answer for your tiger lens question.

[@KurtisPape]

If I was with Nikon I would get the 400mm F2.8, if I was with Canon or Sony I would go the 600mm. For me it makes sense to use the Nikon 400mm with the TC engaged most of time and disengage it to shoot wider or let in more light.

[@jaimeduncan6167]

Easy, be rich, hire a Sherpa, buy both. AS always the pictures are stunning.

[@jbilly24]

Neither of those options are 'best". For the bird photography I do, 800mm is my happy spot. Why would I pay $8,000 more dollars (vs. 800pf) for a 600TC that I'll always shoot at 840mm? I can live with the 1/3 stop slower lens. Not to mention the fact that the 800pf, being so light for what it is, can offer me way more flexibility in the field where I can leave the tripod in the truck.

[@user-vj9qw6ok1b]

That's ok, but what's best for you may not be for others. Besides that, your lens is not the best option in IQ being a fresnel lens. Sorry to say that, $8000 USD more are for a reason.

[@stevenrapp2370]

what bag did you stuff that lens in?

[@thebearpike]

GuraGear Kiboko 30

[@backcountrygallery]

GuraGear Kiboko 30, as @thebearpike says

[@Jessehermansonphoto]

Best advice I probably ever got from Steve Perry and Tin Man Lee is to FILL THE FRAME. I never really understood why that was important until I started printing. I used to always shoot at 400mm or 300 but cropping to 500 or 600. I purchased a 500 F4 and just so much better IQ because I am not cropping as much. 600mm is in my future.

[@Attya-y2y]

300 + TC 2x? Cheaper, lighter, almost the same results as the 600 the only downside is that you can't TC your way over 600 but I hear a lot of people say you don't want to do that anyways, because over 600mm you'll often get things like atmospheric distortions that lower the quality of your photos

[@TRobBrownPhotography]

Part of it is also what you can afford. I already own a 400 2.8 G VR and 1.4x & 2x TC for F mount. Even though the Z9 is my main body, I see no reason to drop $13K on a new 400 2.8 TC Z plus buy a 2x TC for Z. I shoot as a professional (20-year photojournalist), but I'm now a professor of visual communication; so, my return on investment isn't strong for new lenses.

[@backcountrygallery]

If my wife and I didn't do this for a living, I'm not sure we'd have any of the big exotics.

[@DavidSchamis]

I feel like if I only did sports the easy choice is the 400; if I only did wildlife I would go for the 600; if I did both and could only buy one I would buy the 400; if I did both and could buy both I would. P.S. I went with choice D!

[@kennethmills5470]

With my Nikon D 500 I would say the 400mm 2.8. I need to rent one because the PRICE.

[@backcountrygallery]

For sure - with DX, 400mm all the way.

[@johnkola6475]

400mm f2.8 with built in 1.4x TC replace both 400mm and 600mm lenses?

[@SundayRacers]

I'm a big fan of the 500mm f/4 and have the old G lens, which is still incredible. Smaller & lighter than the 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4. It's also a massive bargain at the moment, used. I got an my 500G what appeared to be pretty much unused for the equivalent of about $3000 dollars a couple of years ago and it's even cheaper now. Also, I understand that Nikon still services them, although hard to know how long for

[@backcountrygallery]

I wish Nikon would make a 500F/4TC (or better yet, a 200-500TC).

[@JamedSeward]

So what you’re telling me I’d be better off with a high quality zoom!? lol! Unfortunately they don’t make that yet thereby make the primes with built in TCs the best option so far. great comparison, thank you! 😊

[@backcountrygallery]

I'd love to see a 200-500 F/4TC. Nikon and Canon have both done 200/180-400TC lenses, 100mm more and you have the ultimate wildlife lens.

[@jim9404]

Math problem for distance: The ratio of 600 shooter distance to 400 shooter distance is 1.5 in order for both to fill the frame so the 400mm shooter only needs to be 1/3 of the distance to the subject closer. IE: if the 600 shooter is at 150 yards, the 400 shooter would need to be at 100 yards to fill the frame.

[@backcountrygallery]

You're correct - and I suck at math LOL. I'll put a note above in the comments and pin it.

[@Lance_Magillicuddy]

I'm not sure this is really an either or except to the extent that if you can only afford one or the other. You really need both if you're a serious wildlife photographer because they're intended for different use cases. If it weren't for the little matter of my having three kids in college, I would definitely buy one of each. For me I can only have one or the other so I have a 600 F/4 and I just have to concede the use cases where there's not enough light for F4. Assuming enough light I can generally back up but I can't always move closer.

[@backcountrygallery]

I agree - that's why we have both and have them in Nikon and Canon. When we're out, sometimes we're both shooting 400 2.8, sometimes 600 F/4. However, most hobbyists only want to make a single purchase - and it's tough - because neither lens is always the right choice.

[@cyrilhamel8289]

One element where I'll disagree is on the number of pictures, where I much prefer to count the "best pictures", as it can vary a lot from the overall number of pics. Otherwise, as always, very interesting 😊

[@user-vj9qw6ok1b]

He's not taking into account the keeper rate, but the times he's needed an specific lens because of subject size or distance. Simply statistics to decide which focal length is used more.

[@backcountrygallery]

That's fair, although looking at those number just now, they are very similar.

[@KungPowEnterFist]

I would be a lot more attracted to the 400 f2.8's, especially the Z 400 f2.8 TC, if they were at their sharpest wide open. But they are not. You are having to stop down a full stop to get the most out of those lenses, and then with a TC you are at 560mm f5.6 to get what you can get from a 600 f4 at 600 f4. That's why I would rather have the F 500 PF than the Z 400 f2.8 TC. Comparable overall performance at 500mm+, except far cheaper, far lighter, far smaller. The F 500 f4 FL ED VR is another great option if you can get one in the used market in 10/10 condition for cheap. That lens actually works very well with the 1.4TCIII, and is still very much a viable option in 2025. Also, I find 400mm is too short too much of the time, but when its not you are probably in a situation where a zoom like the 100-400 is a better choice. That may sound weird, but that is how it plays out for me. I find the Z 100-400 is a great choice for those situations, but if I were willing to spend the bucks and felt I would get enough use out of it I would rather get a Z 100-300 f2.8 (when it comes out) than get a Z 400 f2.8 TC. If we are talking just birds, 500mm is the minimum focal length IMO.

[@dicekolev5360]

The best is my 800PF cus neither 400 or 600 are enough for some parts of the world. And yeah, the money for 600TC are another issue 😅

[@markzabo8988]

Fantastic video. I have the Sony 600, was contemplating the 400. I might go down to the 300 f2.8 now after watching this video (save some serious cash also). I think this might give me more versatility, i travel a lot (airline pilot) the 300 is much more compact. I feel if there is any doubt about reach you can’t go wrong with the 600. The 300 with a 1.4 TC would fill the gap if needed. This video does confirm just how great the 600 F4’s are, big investment but worth it. Now how about that 300 verse 400 f2.8 comparison ;-) lol

[@backcountrygallery]

I also own the Sony 300 2.8 and it takes TCs better than any lens I've ever owned. I'd seriously consider it instead of the 400 2.8 to pair with your 600mm. If it had been out back when I purchased my 400 2.8, I probably would have gone the 300 2.8 route instead.

[@markzabo8988]

@@backcountrygalleryThanks Steve I really value your opinion.

[@harperium_3276]

The IQ and bokeh of the fast aperture lenses wins for me. I'm not a fan of these super zooms with small apertures. The PF lenses have busy bokehs IMO.

[@francescopaolopalma4746]

Ciao Steve, perché non aggiungi il doppiaggio automatico ai tuoi video come molti altri Yutuber?, ti darebbero la possibilità di farti conoscere in tutto il mondo o quasi.

[@backcountrygallery]

I think KZbin auto-generates those. Looking at the settings, it says it can take some time, so try the video again later and see.

[@hsmphoto]

I like 24 mm close-ups of grizzlies, but did lose some limbs along the way.

[@njrtech]

Nikon 600 f6.3 Pf for me, small, lightweight, sharp as a tack

[@iamrlaxed]

Great Video! Conclusion: We need a 500/2.8 TC😂

[@scottwedell5072]

Does anyone's 600 tc make a weird clunk noise when you tilt it back and forth?

[@backcountrygallery]

Yes, normal. I think someone told me it was the AF mechanism sliding on its rails, no biggie.

[@scottwedell5072]

@backcountrygallery thanks steve.

[@robertgouverneur310]

Nikon please make a 300TC 2.8❤😇

[@uaebifvideo5472]

Choosing between 600f4tc or 400f28tc is not the problem!! The big problem is WHO'S gonna pay ?!!.

[@Peaceofwildlifetx]

I wish there was a 500mm 2.8 option.

[@MarilynPeacemaker]

Thanks for the breakdown! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How can I transfer them to Binance?

[@iemboyshostel]

I think best will be a 500 f3.5 with a built in TC😂

[@Tbonyandsteak]

2.8 everytime

[@Icekubby]

Great video, very helpful for me as I look to upgrade into big glass this year. Not super happy to see AI-generated garbage creeping into your videos however...

[@backcountrygallery]

The only thing was the little thumbs up / down guys we see for a few seconds - I don't see what that's a big deal - it saved a lot of time searching for them or creating them by hand.

[@Icekubby]

@@backcountrygallery Also the camera with the coke can for a lens, and the "I asked chatGPT" stuff.

[@patrickhoran2675]

Too late,I already have the 400 2.8 z

[@randomtalks1988]

I bought a 600 pf ...its cheaper and produces great result

[@backcountrygallery]

It's a fantastic lens, on par sharpness and speed-wise with the 600TC. I have it and use it all the time.

[@MandrakeCigars]

For me? You paying for it? This is not for the average person watching on youtube.

[@backcountrygallery]

I get the question all the time - easier to make a video than try to answer it individually. That, and based on views, it seems people are interested in this topic.