Clash of the Titans! The 600mm f/4vs 400mm f/2 8 Lens Comparison, with Critical Differences.

In this video, I will compare what are arguably the top two wildlife or birding lenses from Sony, Canon, and Nikon. I will help you determine which of these monster lenses makes the most sense for someone fortunate enough to shop within this budget. Are there fundamental differences in quality? Will either really make a difference in the results?
I will compare the 400mm lens both with and without a teleconverter. As always, I will provide practical examples and highlight one critical difference between these lenses. Finally, I explain why the 400mm lens was my choice, even though both are excellent lenses and the 600mm outperforms in many situations.
Thanks for the lens rental B&H! Link to the Nikon 600mm lens below:
bhpho.to/3ZP3gCi
Shopping for any lens, use this affiliate link to help support the channel:
bhpho.to/41vuugj
Subscribe for editing tips and behind-the-scenes videos as well as community contests and free giveaways:
www.patreon.com/WildlifeInspired
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best noise reduction and sharpening software: topazlabs.com/...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MT FAVORITE GEAR
Nikon Z9: bhpho.to/3rM9O7A
Nikon 400mm 2.8 Z: bhpho.to/3tj806y
Nikon 105mm macro: bhpho.to/3NngzVI
Laowa 25mm ultra macro: bhpho.to/3F405g7
Leofoto monopod: bit.ly/46xfQYE
Robus Tripod: bhpho.to/46eAQn3
Promedia Gear Tomahawk (monopod gimbal): tinyurl.com/4v...
Promedia Katana Jr (tripod gimbal): tinyurl.com/yj...
Leofoto fluid head: bit.ly/3ZFtRB8
AK Diffuser: akdiffuser.com... (COUPON CODE skeys5 for more savings)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shopping for any of these brands? Use these links:
B&H (my online source with great delivery and service): bhpho.to/41vuugj
Promedia Gear: www.promediagear.com?aff=36
Leofoto: leofotousa.com...

[@djhbkdave]

Appreciate you taking the time create this video Scott. The best comparison video of 400 f2.8 vs 600 f4 I have seen so far.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Thanks, glad you liked it!

[@raleighmeade9104]

All of your graphic examples are great, but the DOF was such a good explanation for the effect of distance. Very neat comparisons!

[@WildlifeInspired]

Glad it was helpful!

[@darrenmctee2255]

I'm fortunate to own both the 400 and 600. Your statement "the 400 can become a 600 but the 600 can't become a 400" is very true and in many scenarios make the 400mm the more versatile lens. In my opinion the type subject and how close you can get is the biggest factor to consider if you can only own/use one of these lenses. Large, close animals sometimes make the 600mm too big. Forget that his video is comparing the 400mm to the 600mm, This video is overall outstanding! It's a MasterClass in explaining DOF and how Focal Length, Distance to Subject, and Aperture all play an important part to determine DOF. Aperture has less affect than than focal length and distance to subject. This remains true no matter what the aperture capability of the lens is. THIS is the key takeaway about DOF from this video. WELL DONE Scott!

[@WildlifeInspired]

That's so great to hear!!!

[@dennismurphy1937]

That's why I use the 180-600mm. It's not as sharp but very versatile without costing a fortune.

[@hwoccurrence]

I also use a zoom 200-600, but I rarely use less than 600mm. When I have the money I will without a doubt go for 600mm for wildlife. I just hope Sony will also make a 600mm with a built in converter.

[@frankcruz8068]

@@hwoccurrence The 180 -600 is a nice option if you don't mind the slower focus. For shooting birds, it is very noticeable. I shot the 180-600 and 800 PF for several weeks on a trip, and got used to them. Then, I came home and started using the 400 TC, and I could not believe the difference in focusing speed.

[@justonbrazda3846]

Just say it’s the price.

[@georgk255]

Are not compareble lenses. The most versatile is my phone. Great.

[@gkdunch]

@@_systemd if you have the budget for one of these, you almost certainly also have the budget for a separate body with a zoom lense like a 70-200, these lenses are made precisely for that situation for sports shooters, and wildlife almost always will crop in anyway.

[@OwenEDell]

This is a brilliant and very helpful piece of work. You put a lot of time and effort into this, and it shows. It clarifies a lot of things I have wondered about. Great job. Thank you!

[@WildlifeInspired]

Glad it was helpful!

[@drtushar]

Superb analysis!! Just what I was looking for. Thanks

[@richcower]

Very informative Scott. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

[@wismokey]

A very good explanatopn and comparison of these lenses. Now, if I could only win the lottery!

[@MeAMuse]

Thanks for making this. Probably the video with the most concise analysis I have seen. I have always thought I would lean to a 400mm but this cemented it. To me I think only photographers are going to notice the difference in quality at the same distance - and that’s only when side by side.

[@thomastuorto9929]

Most of the stuff I already known thru experience but did learn a couple of things like the magnification difference between the two lenses. Also thought the sharpness quality would of been better with the built in tele. That presentation on the distances with the tree is an excellent visual. Excellent, excellent, excellent vid for someone looking to make the big dollar purchase & especially for someone who never shot wildlife before. Great work. Edit, Very rarely do I get to shoot at minimum distance of at the lens for wildlife. Maybe something I need to work on, = stealth!

[@davidhenderson4875]

What a fantastic indepth review so much time and effort must have went into this thank you

[@mm8276352]

I own the 400TC, never really tested the 600, but used to own the 800PF too. I don't see as much degradation with TC engaged as you do. In fact, I can't tell the images apart. The sharpness disadvantage might have come almost entirely from upscaling the 560mm image to the 600 size, which interpolates pixels and thus introduces blur. Also, one of my favorite images is of a crab at 800mm and close to minimum focus of the 400 (with TC20). Also not possible with either the 600 or the 800.

[@riyazahamed1141]

Nice Video Scott, Very detailed and informative. Looking for more videos in the New Year. Loved the mirroed comparision and the attention to detail you give when viewers see it on youtube resolution. Cheers!!! Also if you at any point of time get a chance to lay your hands on the Canon RF 800mm f5.6 lens do give us a video review if possible. That lens is a totally different beast with a minimum focusing distance of 2.6m and 0.34x magnification you might have a fun time with it.

[@jdsd771007]

That little video diagram was worth the watch 😂 Great video, and explanation. Really clarifies the differences!

[@WildlifeInspired]

dont make me do more..... i think i will scribble on a white board next time.

[@mstorey83]

I enjoyed your analysis of these two amazing lenses Scott. You are an amazing photographer and love your videos, thank you for giving all of us detailed and practical information. I shoot the 600 TC lens with the Z9 and I really enjoy it as it fits my use case better and I can't afford both of these! I do own the 400 4.5 lens and I enjoy using it and pairing it with the 1.4 TC it is an amazing walk around lens especially for dragonflies as well. Best wishes for a happy and prosperous 2025!

[@WildlifeInspired]

thanks !

[@PhillipJ]

Mr Keyes, this is a great scientific approach to both lens! Thankyou for taking the time for sharing your findings for both of these lens.

[@WildlifeInspired]

I'm glad you like the video!

[@AlKnightbird432]

Great video. Appreciate your time and effort. I get the same magnificent results with my 300 2.8 ii with 2x iii , but at the ability of being only 6ft away.

[@WildlifeInspired]

I like the 300 with a 1.4 I used to use it for songbirds up close.

[@KarthikAthreyas]

Great Video. Perhaps the only video in KZbin which has covered the difference. Thank you.

[@frankcruz8068]

Excellent work! I own the 400 TC, and I completely agree with your findings, several friends own the 600 TC, and I have made the same comparison. The 400 with the 2X TC does a good job, and allows me to go even longer enabling the internal TC, clearly not as sharp. When shooting far away subjects I may keep the external 1.4X on the lens all the time and only engage the internal when absolutely necessary. The results are satisfactory for me. I shot at 400 2.8 very often, where the lens shines way above all others. I also own the 180-600 and the 800 PF, I do notice the 800 to be sharper, but I miss more bird shots because the 180-600 and the 800 PM do NOT focus as fast! You may not notice how slow those lenses are until you try the TC lenses. The Z9 is so much better with TC lenses.

[@ivorgottschalk6432]

Fantastic analysis, 400mm is king if one can get close (not always possible). The stellar performance of the 2x extender does mitigate when shooting small subjects. Also the larger aperture is helpful for blue hour when light is low but can be the most interesting.

[@johnkavc2487]

Excellent explanation of these lenses and the emphasis on close focus magic!

[@WildlifeInspired]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@georgemeimaris]

Great Video once again! As someone who cant spend the money for 400 2.8, does the same things can be said for the 400 4.5? As narrow depth of field and bigger magnification is concerned??

[@WildlifeInspired]

Its a super sharp and light lens that I like a lot. Not sure I understand the question. But it will have a wider DoF as it is controlled by the aperture opening and focal length. The 600 and 400 2.8 would both have shallower DoF when wide open.

[@georgemeimaris]

@ I mean that compared to the 600 f4 I can get closer with almost the same magnification as the 400 2.8, so probably I can get even better results from the 600 f4 that I have to be less close to the subject due to the bigger minimum focus distance

[@traviswyocam4230]

Scott you're the man. Dude those animations are really good. I hope you dont mind but I shared your video with my camera stores instagram.

[@WorldOfWild.Manmohan]

This was a very informative video! I recently bought the Canon RF 400mm f/2.8 and primarily use it with a 1.4x teleconverter for bird photography, while keeping it bare for mammals and big cats. My decision was influenced by several factors: the advantage of f/2.8 in low-light conditions, my shooting style (which leans towards habitat and environmental shots), the lens's minimum focusing distance, and the flexibility to shoot handheld. While the weight difference between the 600mm and 400mm isn’t huge, the weight distribution of the 400mm makes a significant difference when shooting handheld. I’m absolutely loving it so far.

[@JayWasserman-v5e]

Really depends on what you are shooting. Most of my shots of birds in flight require long lenses. The 400 doesn’t work as well. The birds don’t get close enough. There is almost always the need to crop. You can buy the 600 and the 400 f4.5 and have both.

[@WildlifeInspired]

or the 800 6/3? 9 grand cheaper

[@Capcity44]

This is a great video. I’d love to own either of these awesome lenses - even the FL VR versions would be great.

[@WildlifeInspired]

They are both fantastic lenses.

[@victorlim5077]

Very insightful, Scott. Great video.

[@barryscully1820]

One big advantage for the f/2.8 for me is the extra light gathering near dusk and dawn and in the shadow of trees. Much of my nature photography is in the rainforest and mountains where light can be a major challenge. The 400 f/2.8 and something like a 120-300 f/2.8 have some major advantages to getting action shots in lower light. Bears, owls, pine martins and other such creatures that I most often see active just before the light disappears are why I would choose those lenses. I am less worried about background blur in those cases as I am about stopping the action and without losing all the detail to high ISO noise.

[@WildlifeInspired]

So true. I used a graphic to make t nj is point but wished I talked about it more !

[@Drew-photo]

Hi Scott fantastic videos always great way of explaining I learned so much now I am looking for some help. I am a canon rf shooter just looking for your opinion on whether I should get an APS C camera for 800or 1.4 tel converter or should I just buy the R5 two with 45megapixels and just crop as it has pre-capture and I’ll be looking at the 400 2.8 . For context, I have a Canon r and approximately 8000 in RF lenses so I need to update my body as I’ve had the same body for the last seven or eight years I have the100-500 7.1 it gives me to reach but it’s too slow for small birds or birds in flight . Thanks for your help and wonderful videos.

[@LeoDodier]

There was a very detailed informative video, thank you. I learned a lot. I have the Canon 500 mm F4. It probably fits someplace mid range between the two lenses you reviewed I would guess. I also have the 200-800 Canon and I’m wondering how that might compare, I realize it’s not a prime lens and the f-stops are way different But would be interested to see the differences in sharpness, maybe in a future video :-) Thanks again and have a happy new year.

[@WildlifeInspired]

I usuall compare Nikon. If I venture into too many companies it get overwhelming for a PT youtuber

[@photobeast]

I came across my first white-throated Sparrow last year. It was Christmas Day and my wife and I for a walk thousand Acres of woods behind our house. We got pretty far back in the woods and I heard a bird chirping to what I like to think was the Close Encounters of the Third Kind soundtrack 😅😅😅 there must have been 20 of them playing and nesting in the thicket of the Woods. They were so far back in these Thorns so we pulled out the Merlin app and played a couple calls brought a few of them out from Curiosity. A lot of laughs and a few hours later as well as a few hundred pictures we decided to head back home only to realize that they were following us! Our house borders the edge of the tree farm which is the woods behind our house as well. After finding out where we lived and realizing that we have feeders all over the yard. We have a bunch of them nested right outside of our back door. In the mornings when we get our cup of coffee we're just stand in the door and we can hear them singing. The white throated Sparrow it is not only beautiful but curious in nature. I think that's one of the greatest things about birding is the adventures and the fact that you come across new Birds every year.

[@adammutolo5800]

Appreciate you discussing the real usable differences. People asking for sharpness comparisons between such lenses cracks me up. There may be an argument for sharpness comparisons when discussing a 150-600 prosumer zoom versus a professional 600 f/4 but even that's a stretch with how far gear has come. Yes, there's a difference but nothing noticeable when the primary outlet is social media viewed on a five inch screen, lol.

[@RussandLoz]

I've seen many lens comparisons, this method is by far the best. Can you make a 100-400 vs 180-600 and 600 6.3!

[@WildlifeInspired]

I will do my best lol, this is only a 1 day a week venture for me at this time

[@RussandLoz]

@ I know that schedule, let’s hope we both can make KZbin better for people 😊

[@don_sharon]

Thanks for the tech analysis. Good stuff.

[@WildlifeInspired]

I am glad you found it helpful!

[@timbliss8777]

Very interesting video. I've seen other reviews that flipping the TC in didn't affect the sharpness as much as your examples show. I'm getting a loaner 400 to check out next month so I'm even more curious now. Plan was to use my stand alone 1.4TC with the internal instead of a flat 2x. The F mount TCs were not great. The 1.4 Z has been outstanding so far. Very little loss in quality. But your examples have me a bit more worried that my plan won't work as I had hoped LOL. Keep up the great work.

[@WildlifeInspired]

I’m glad you are going to try the lens. The 1.4 1.4 works pretty well to be honest. I've done that. I'll do a side by side video about it soon.

[@timbliss8777]

@@WildlifeInspired Can't wait to see!

[@JonathanHoiles01]

Thank you for this comparison. Super valuable information.

[@WildlifeInspired]

I am glad it was helpful!

[@mustafakasapoglu]

I am using 600TC. Although if it is a fact that min focal distance brings a better magnification and sharpness for 400TC, I remain in the fact that the reason behind why we go to 600TC and even 840 is to be able to magnify the far distant objects with a narrow DOF. Otherwise even a 105mm macro lens could even come much closer and do the job even better. The target to use the min focal length distance in such super telephoto lenses should not be a priority or even a reason but use the best and optimal longer focal distance with a narrow DOF. Thanks for really helpful work, I appreciate.

[@georgk255]

@@mustafakasapoglu I use 600TC f4 with tripod. From hand I use 600 f6.3. Very light ans sharp. Dark as well, cannot have everything.

[@nealPhotography]

Completely agree - to keep distance from subject without disturbing the animals (birds), I much prefer the longer reach; in fact, I almost always shoot 840, as I did with the 600E with 1.4 TC before I got the Z version. Yes, the 400 is better for close, but my subjects don't wait for me to get close!!! (And, I got the old 200mm micro for the same reason - it is a macro from a longer distance, so disturbs the insects less)

[@johnsanderson9510]

I for one thought your explanation of the differences between the two lenses was fabulous, I own a Sony 400mm 2.8 plus both teleconverters. I use mainly for bird photography, I had considered part exchanging the 400 for the 600 but having watched your video I will be sticking with the 400mm 2.8, at 73 years old I was reluctant to carry the extra weight , even though minimal, just need my new Sony A1 mk2 to arrive so can see if Sony have improved image quality when fitted with the converters, Many Thanks for the insight Scott.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Thanks so much and good luck!

[@edriskhoushkam]

very interesting , do you think you could add extender to each lens and see when the min distance focus point when chenges how sharp each become? I think that would be a fun experiment .

[@frankhaugwitz8178]

Great work Scott ! Thank you! I own the 600/f4 TC and I wonder whether you have noticed issues related to heat distortion with your 400/f2.8? On a recent trip to India (desert and high mountain areas) I noticed how „sensitive“ my 600 is when it comes to heat distortion, i.e. the camera sometimes struggles to lock-on and image quality deteriorates. As well, if it’s foggy, same thing, the camera sometimes struggles to lock-on. Previously I used the 300/f2.8 and can not recall having run into such issues. Thanks!

[@WildlifeInspired]

That's a combination of distance and heat (and it more the difference in heat than just heat itself same thing can happen in cold days) its just a matter of how much of it you have to shoot through

[@cgan2013]

Thanks, Scott!! This was a much needed video - it made me realize that the 400 2.8, the lens I own, is the better lens for me. Most of my bird shooting is in my backyard at approximately 15-20 feet. I LOVE the versatility of the 1.4 TC with this lens (Sony). Do I wish I could also own the 600 f4? Sure, I crave it, but it's not practical for the "majority" of my subject material, locations and subject distance. For those once a year wildlife trips, I can get away with the same combo and crop a little in post to deal with it. Again, thanks for the hard work getting this together!! Very eye-opening!

[@WildlifeInspired]

Thanks!!

[@ravisub6396]

Thank you for making this video. It's very informative, the aspect of distance was something I had not understood and this helped me start thinking about that as well. It would be helpful if you could make a video about the distance aspect (DOF vs. distance), using examples from all 3 lenses (400, 600, 800) to drive home the understanding.

[@WildlifeInspired]

I have it on the list

[@zequiel4725]

Amazing work, well explained and nice animations that deserve more credit!. I would find it interesting to know the following, suppose we have a low light situation, in which you have on one hand the 400mm 2.8 let's say at ISO 6400 and on the other the 600mm f4 at ISO 12800, when cropping the 400mm to have both at the same size which one would have better image quality? The 600mm will have the subject naturally larger and therefore with more detail, but the noise in the image will eat up some of that detail, I don't know, any thoughts?

[@WildlifeInspired]

How about I make a video. Lol. My guess is the 600 might look better as cropping will make thr noise more evident and result in a loss of quality. But should be pretty close.

[@AlbertO-wl1te]

Nice video! One thing I don't recall hearing in your video is the acquisition speed is typically in favor of the lens without a teleconverter (not sure of the keeper rate difference, and some might be willing to trade off for the other benefits), which may be a preference for some that like to have action shots (BIF). Still useless if within the MFD of the 600mm though.

[@iantinworth8075]

Hey Scott, I have both the Nikon 400mm f2.8 FL and 600mm f4 FL..... love the 600mm and the images I get with it, but like you have found...I LOVE my 400mm FL.... awesome bit of glass ... perfect for sports, wildlife, and aviation....great lens with an awesome "useable " range..... and I sometimes run the TC14 and TC20 on them as well.... just a pain to get into the filed and home again with them thanks for the great videos ..Cheers Ian

[@WildlifeInspired]

Sounds like you have a great setup!

[@linhaixueyuan]

Another good video, thanks Scott！！ I could be wrong, I read somewhere that 400/2.8 has the same DoF with or without TC on? TC just magnify the image, the optical formula does not alter the DoF ? Thanks ☕☕

[@WildlifeInspired]

The DoF would be very close yes. Remember you go down one stop in aperture so even though its longer focual length the smaller aperture DoF pretty close

[@dcarson]

Nice vid. Adding in the MFD was insightful. Have you considered the F mount 180-400 4.0 with the internal TC1.4? It focuses even closer than the 400 2.8, at 6.56 ft, giving it a 0.25x magnification. Perhaps ~7ft is unreasonable for your subjects.

[@dcarson]

Also, the 180-400 4.0 with its internal TC1.4 engaged at MFD gives it roughly an 1/8” of DOF at f/5.6. Of course, you lose either one or two stops of light compared to the straight 400 2.8, depending if you have the 180-400’s tc engaged. But the .25x magnification doesn’t change… Unless THE 180-400 shortens it’s actual focal length when at MFD. Sony’s 200-600 does this, making it about a 550mm at MFD.

[@_benjimouse_]

Great video with an insightful point. I do feel you immediately discounted the 600 + 2x. Yes, it's difficult to get a decent shot at 1200mm f8, but in ideal conditions it is possible to get something decent.

[@WildlifeInspired]

I should have prefaced that a little. It's not unusable just much less practical and even with good technique and stabilization, a tripod is usually desired.

[@gamebuster800]

I learned something! How about using an extension tube on the 600mm?

[@WildlifeInspired]

Possible. But its a lit of weight on the tube. You'd need a long tube and a super well constructed one

[@gamebuster800]

@@WildlifeInspired it only needs to carry the camera! hah. But yes, I suppose the standard 10-15-25mm might be a bit lacking. I wonder how much they help

[@gamebuster800]

@@WildlifeInspired According to ChatGPT, a 25mm extension tube would increase magnification from 0.14 to 0.18, and you would need a 516mm extension tube for 1:1 magnification.

[@NikCan66]

Another thoroughly enjoyable vlog

[@evenhandedcommentor6102]

I don't have one of these big primes. I have an older Nikkor film lens, the 500mm f/4 P, which I have adapted for use with my mirrorless cameras. So, what I do have besides the old manual lens is the Sony 200-600mm. Nice lens, but slower. One thing it does have is a closer MFD...maybe 7.4 ft or so. However, it does this at the loss of focal length. Yup. The 600mm number is only real when focusing at infinity. Focus at MFD and the effective focal length drops below 500mm!!! So....I have to ask what is the effective focal lengths of these big primes at MFD?

[@cammyfreed8112]

I have been looking at the Canon 400mm or 600mm for about a year now, and this is exactly why I finally landed on the 400mm. I had an idea/outline of why I wanted the 400mm but this video is really helpful in visualizing it. Awesome video and explanation. I nearly switched to Nikon over the built in teleconverter. Canon submitted a patent application (2024-149828) for the 400mm with the built in 1.4x converter, but that could be years away or never. I set a date for the end of Q1 to buy. If it is not out, I will just need to make a choice for the day if I plan to use the 1.4x or not. If Canon comes out with the built in converter I plan to do a trade in with B&H and hope I don't have to sell the car.

[@WildlifeInspired]

would be interesting, NIkon certainly beat them on this one!

[@AlexanderAskalsky]

Great video. I own 600 tc and this program helped me to understand the difference with 400 tc. Thank you

[@WildlifeInspired]

Glad to hear it helped!

[@StephenAkinlami]

Hi Scott just purchased the 180-600mm thinking of pairing it with a 70-200 and either 24-70 f2.8 or 24-120 f4 for aTanzanian safari in 2025 I have a z9 and a z8 any suggestions would be appreciated thanks

[@WildlifeInspired]

Those would all be great choices! my understanding is the 24-70 is super and really sharp. The 70-200 has always been stellar

[@johntoolan7243]

I’d like to see a video on how you get close enough for min focus to be an issue.

[@WildlifeInspired]

join my patreon and I actually show you the back ground scenarios. If you watch this channel you will constantly hear me say that my style relies on locations and behavior. if you know where a bird is going to be eventually, it's just a matter of patience and luck.

[@martinpilschek2301]

Thanks for the video. At the beginning I thought about whether I should buy the 400mm lens or the 600mm. In the end it was 600mm. The main reason for the decision was the very flexible use of the converters. No matter whether internal or external. I have the option to choose between 600mm and 1680mm. Even with 1680mm I managed to get very good pictures. But they are both definitely first-class lenses.

[@tundrarat]

You have me thinking of the 400mm in a whole new light now. I’ve been flip flopping on which one. Both is not an option. I was thinking of trading in my 800mm PF for the 600, but may the better option is to keep the 800 and add the 400mm 2.8.

[@WildlifeInspired]

i mean..... thats a good problem to have and that 800 is a stellar lens

[@ele4853]

The 400mm f/2.8 is an amazing and very popular super telephoto lens no matter what brand. For many reasons. Nice job in emphasizing the many characteristics of it. That’s why in all systems the manufacturers always launch the 400mm f/2.8 before the 600s. It also sells more compared to the latter. I love mine. It is the champion to low light producer of amazingly buttery cream bouquets 😊

[@WildlifeInspired]

It’s a killer lens and I’m glad to see you’re happy with yours.

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

you can blur the back/fore-ground in post with relative ease, adding information on the subject when none exists is much more difficult. For a variety of reasons (inc. the fact that I shoot megafauna and not just birds) I opted for a 500 f/4 which I use with 1.4 and 2x. And most of my subjects tend to be further rather than closer (most megafauna you should have several meters distance for your and the animal's safety). For closer things I have a 100--400 f/4.5-5.6 and 70-200 f/2.8 mounted on a second body.

[@JayBlue2U]

Scott, I bought the 400TC because, as you said, it’s three lenses in one. I don’t mind the slight loss of acuity at 560 because skillful use of Topaz AI can help with that, if needed. Also, I find I can shoot handheld with the 400TC when I want to and my friend’s 600TC is just a bit too much for me. However, my usual practice is to use a monopod or tripod. Thanks for creating such an informative video. Your guidance on MFD is something I hadn’t considered.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Thanks!!!

[@mikedavis1110]

Interesting to see the differences between the two Main Wildlife Primes!! Great explanation and graphics to show the difference of bokeh in an image based on the lens!! When I was shopping for my 500f4G, I read the 400 2.8 was the optical standard and the extra light was a strong advantage for early or late day shooting. It allowed one to add the “external” TC for the extra reach. Now that the new 400 2.8 TC has the built in TC it’s a game changer by Nikon. I like the flexibility of the 400 TC but I don’t usually shoot at minimum distances. It’s nice to know the money spent is worth the advantages of each lens!! The 500ff4 works great on the Z9 and I have the 180-600z for flexibility. Yes I know it’s comparing apples to oranges! The AF of the main Primes is amazing from limited testing and I think I would lean towards 400 TC and crop in post. Yet it depends on size of the subject, distance and personal style as you mentioned. Great work!!

[@WildlifeInspired]

Thanks for the feedback! I am glad you enjoyed the video.

[@PeakedHill]

Well explained differences between the 2 lenses. Both of which I’ll never own unless I win the lottery 😂

[@WildlifeInspired]

Lol

[@mpg3960]

An excellent video. I'm sure you and others will know the old syaing "Horses for courses" :-) Having recently retired I am unlikely to ever have the means to afford either of these lenses. However having watched your video I think if I lived in the States and if my main interest was walking around parks or hiking in the forest looking for wildlife I would go for the 400. Then if someone said "Hey do you fancy going down to the lakes to shoot Loons and Grebes ?" Then I would rent a 600 just for the trip.

[@WildlifeInspired]

makes sense!

[@jackbrumby1892]

Why do have to live in "the States"?

[@stevenlui8105]

Great and informative video! I shoot wildlife with both Nikon Z and Canon Z systems. I have bought a RF100-300mm f/2.8 recently to compliment my RF800mm f/5.6L and am considering to do the same with my Nikon Z600mm f4 TC. I couldn’t justify adding a Z400mm f/2.8 TC due to its high price tag and hefty weight/ bulk. I think I could only go for a Z400mm f/4.5 as there isn’t really any other choices.

[@desf8433]

Very good and interesting. Thank You Scott

[@WildlifeInspired]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@simons9952]

The funny thing is, that my external TC1.4 on my Z 400 2.8 TC is sharper than the internal TC1.4 :O (at least in the center). The image quality is comparable as to your tests. Did you also have the 1.4 and experienced this?

[@WildlifeInspired]

I didn't do it side by side. But when editing pics I didn't see much of a difference. Would be an interesting test.

[@gunny2044]

Great video, Scott. You should take your 400mm TC up the Canada for the GGO's... Inside baseball

[@DanielWray-z7m]

Absolutely right! I use the 400f2.8 from 400-800mm with great results, often for wildlife video. It is fantastic. I see no need to add the 600f4 to my kit. Very creamy backgrounds.

[@oasean]

Thank you for this masterclass.

[@abhinandansharma1]

Thank you

[@Gabriecielo]

Great explanation on disctance vs DOF, use cases on 400/600. Thanks a lot for sharing!

[@WildlifeInspired]

Glad it was helpful!

[@john32712]

I have the FL400 (last version of the f2.8 before they went to the Z), I was wanting to trade it in on the Z 600mm f4 with built in tele. But since the non Z 400 f2.8 has depreciated so much, maybe I keep it and still add the Z 600mm f4 with built in tele? Thoughts on this Scott? Best of both worlds?

[@WildlifeInspired]

Its a lot to work with. Another option. Is the 800 6.3 for a dedicated super long lens that is really sharp

[@nageswararaokoneti1411]

Excellent demonstration of both lenses. I feel 400 has a wider range compare to 600 -narrow range only for long distance bird photography.

[@Skye_the_toller]

Dream setup? This 400 and the 800pf!

[@tomespinoza9809]

I own the Z400 f/2.8TC, and with the teleconverter engaged, it really sharpens up at f/5

[@ambrosechiu2338]

great video as usual, thank you. hope Nikon will have one 180-800mm or 200-800mm up to f/7.1 in the near future.

[@RichardUpstanding]

I can’t even imagine being able to afford either one 😂 Or getting within 9ft of birds here in Ireland. I have a 400mm 4.5 and a 1.4tc but they don’t even get used since I got the 800 6.3; so I guess the 600 would be the pick for me.

[@David_Tibbals_Photography]

I own a Sony 400GM and 600GM and for birds I use the 600GM 98% of the time. Often with a TC. I have never encountered wild birds that I can take pictures at 9’. Even in a blind I’m never that close. Both lenses have their place but I’d bet the vast majority of song bird photographers if using a 400mm lens have a tele on more than they don’t. That means they really should be using a 600. The 600 also same distance has a better background. I suppose anyone can argue their logic but a prime is always better without a TC so use the lens that allows you to use it without TC the most.

[@WildlifeInspired]

I think I am in a more unique position where I often capture small songbirds at 9-12 feet. And even if that's 10% or the time, it makes the MFD a factor. I also like a little looser composition sometimes.

[@mike320319]

Outstanding video

[@WildlifeInspired]

Thanks!

[@MattTrevett]

More realistic for the average person is comparing 100-400 to 200-600mm lenses as they're 1/5th~ of the cost. And much of what the video covers -still applies-. For example, I have Sony Sony FE 4.5-5.6/100-400 GM OSS - MFD 0.98 meters (3.2ft) - Magnification 0.35 Sony FE 5.6-6.3/200-600 G OSS - MFD 2.4 meters (7.8ft) - Magnification 0.20 The minimum focus will change with focal length since they're still both zooms. However, notice the magnification and wider aperture of the 100-400 still holds true, just like you said in the video. And the benefit continues when you apply a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter (on Sony it's debatable whether this gives you any greater reach). Such an excellent video because it shows how nuanced it can be to purchase and use a lens. Some of the other pros/cons to consider with my options are: 100-400 extends as it zooms, and requires more physical effort to zoom. 200-600 is 1/4 turn for the full zoom range, does not extend. 100-400 is much lighter (1601g) and smaller compared to the 200-600 (2427g), 100-400 uses smaller filter threads (77mm vs 95mm), 100-400 is shorter (275-353mm vs constant 402), and finally, in a direct comparison the 100-400 has better image quality. One final comment is in the case of the 200-600 it has very bad "focus breathing" - in other words, the closer you get, the more the focusing elements decrease the focal length meaning you end up with sub 600mm (this is why the magnification is lower). You only see true 600mm at greater distances. The topic also demonstrates how 1) being closer means better image quality, 2) more light means better image quality. Thanks for the video!

[@WildlifeInspired]

I don't think the Nikon lenses suffer as much focus breathing though I know the 70-200 was notorious for that.

[@MattTrevett]

​@@WildlifeInspired That's really good to know. The sad thing is we're mostly stuck with mounts from a single manufacturer.. would I do it all over and get Nikon? Hard to say.

[@danielparent5512]

Sharpening software narrows the sharpness issue even more; no regrets about the 400 F 2.8

[@kerrygrim7934]

Excellent comparison. If I were to buy a super-telephoto (no chance of that), I would have gone to the 600 f4 and probably not considered the 400 f2.8. Your review is essential before deciding on a mega-bucks lens.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Thanks!

[@minusinfinity6974]

Can Nikon Australia please explain how a $1000US difference in price between Sony 400mm and Nikon 400mm in US, becomes $7000 in Australia. For the 600mm's it's worse, $2000 becomes about $9000 in Australia. $27K for the 600mm Nikon.

[@WildlifeInspired]

cheaper to buy one in the US and they fly back and forth to get it.

[@garfieldirwin]

I certainly agree that for anyone who doesn't need more than 800mm most of the time the 400TC is the easy choice for its versatility. For me, as a wild bird videographer with limited ability to crop in post, my typical capture focal range is 600-2700mm, so the 600TC is my choice. The 600TC is an amazing lens.

[@WildlifeInspired]

no doubt!

[@mikebrownhill4662]

Fo me, a 600mm prime is my go-to lens in most situations because I rarely encounter problems with the minimum focussing distance. I think it's a great lens for waterbirds and perched, nervous birds in the open, both of which I photograph a lot. I use Canon so don't have the luxury of built-in teleconverters, but even if I did then I think I'd still choose the 600 over the 400 because on a 400 I'd have the TC on almost all the time! That said, I am going to add a 400 prime to my gear in the next year or two because I also work with birds in woodland environments where light and backgrounds are issues. A lens that can knock out backgrounds by getting closer and at the same time use f2.8 is a clear winner here! Like everything in photography, which lens is better "depends". It depends what you use it for and what you want it to do... By the way - I've had some great success using an extension tube on my 600mm to get me closer to my subject. The only downside is the loss of infinity focussing but if I need a tube, I don't need infinity. People look at me like I'm mad when I put a tube on a 600mm prime - until they see what it can do. Instead of trying to explain in future - I''ll just point them to this video! Thanks!

[@kovyfra5987]

That's interesting. What kind of tube do you use ? What are the min and max distances you can shoot at with it ?

[@mikebrownhill4662]

@@kovyfra5987 I use a 12mm extension tube and that seems to buy me about two extra feet of minimum distance on my EF600 f4, maybe a bit less. I'm upgrading to the RF600 f4 so I don't know how much extra distance I'll get with a tube on that lens but I would imagine it'll be similar. I don't know what the maximum distance would be on either because the only reason I'd ever be using a tube is when I need to be closer to a subject than my lens will otherwise allow.

[@kovyfra5987]

@@mikebrownhill4662 Thank you ! I think I will try that :)

[@markbennett7283]

i put a TC14 on top of the 400 using the built TC14 and was shooting at 784mm f5.6 and OMG, it was so sharp!!

[@WildlifeInspired]

ive stacked a 1.4+ 1.4 and it performed as good as the 2x id say (and its more versatile!)

[@ScriptureToday]

For songbirds the 400mm might work, but for grizzlies I'll take the 600mm with TC engaged! ;-). Excellent comparison, Scott. Do you think an eventual Nikon Z-mount 500mm f/4 with come with a built-in TC?

[@GenX_in_the_wild]

Just get a small grizzlie baby robot and get close 🙂

[@WildlifeInspired]

I actually think they I'll not make one as the other 2 options cover the focal range well. We shall see.

[@colincarter3529]

I might be wrong but I think the 500mm is a dead focal length, none of the big 3 have shown any interest in making one.

[@ScriptureToday]

If they can sell them, they will make them. The 300mm f/2.8 has sold very well and the 500 has been more travel-friendly than the big 600s. I’m more convinced a 300 will come than the 500.

[@WILDALASKA]

Here in AK we would shoot the 400 or a 70-200 :) they gets close up here

[@angelawilkins3624]

I love my 400 2.8! It pairs well with the 2x tc even with the internal 1.4 engaged! I think the extra 3/4 pound would push me over being able to hand hold and I frequently shoot at 2.8 in low light. I have had really good results with my lens at 1120 mm f8 when I use a tripod and can fill at least 1/2 the frame with a subject like a screech owl.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Ill have to test that 1120 theres not much margin of error with extreme length like that.

[@angelawilkins3624]

@ it doesn’t work great for subjects at a distance, I think because of atmospheric distortion. But I have great luck with owls using a tripod. They usually sit pretty still😁

[@johnzhengphotographychannel]

事实上，我更关心的是，索尼640/428和尼康640/428的区别，如果能够看到相关的比较，我会非常感激，这对我的采购计划会有极大的帮助！

[@KungPowEnterFist]

Yes, but this is assuming you can consistently shoot at or near MFD, which in the real world with real wildlife subjects is a lot harder said than done without spooking subjects and then getting no shot. It is not unreasonable to say that what you are describing is a niche use case. Second, the Z 400 f2.8 TC is not very good at ~800mm wide open. It needs to be stopped down to f8 (2.0x TC or both 1.4x TC's) to get good (3/5) sharpness. For that you shoot with the 500/600 PF's with a 1.4x TC at f8/9 and get virtually the same results for a fraction of the size, weight and price. The Z 600 f4 TC with a 1.4x TC at 840mm f5.6 is exceptionally sharp at that focal length (sharper in the center than Baby Jesus, aka, 800 f5.6E) and a whole stop faster. This is going to be of a lot more benefit in a lot more situations than what the Z 400 f2.8 TC can do in those 6 feet of closer MFD. If you are going to count 800mm for the Z 400 f2.8 TC, then you should also acknowledge 1200mm for the Z 600 f4 TC, since it has similar performance characteristics at 1200mm like the Z 400 f2.8 TC has at 800mm. 1200mm may not be valuable to you, but it is valuable to some and the Z 600 f4 TC does get good (3/5) sharpness at 1200mm f8. The Z 400 f2.8 TC is quite poor at 1120mm. Also, what lenses can do at or near MFD in terms of sharpness does not tell the entire story of sharpness. Tiny differences at MFD get amplified the further away your subject is. So what appears at or near MFD to be merely a slight advantage in sharpness in the Z 600 f4 TC, is actually a larger and larger advantage the further out you get. Lots and lots of super tele's look decently good at or near MFD, but take them out into the real world and shooting real world distances and decently good turns to quite poor real fast.

[@jbilly24]

Fair points. I am of the belief that most 600mm shooters end up cropping past 800mm anyways. I chose the 800pf for this reason. Image quality is right there with the Z600 at 840mm albeit a 1/3 stop penalty. The price and weight savings are also significant.

[@JohnBall-NC]

I've been debating selling my 400mm f2.8 to get a 600 f4 but... Since I'm still on a D850, this video has me thinking keep the 400mm for now and just save up for a Z9. The minimum focus info in the video was food for thought. Maybe I will buy a lottery ticket and just do it all.

[@WildlifeInspired]

lol i love that 400 so much, but that suits my style just a bit. Either is awesome and so is the Z9!

[@PASquared]

Kinda insane how much sharper the 600 is versus a 400 + TC. Would have been nice to see a cropped 400 shot versus the 600 (unless I missed that)

[@TheMrNeffels]

Great video, just need canon to make the big primes with built in tc now lol

[@TheMrNeffels]

you did highlight a lot of the reasons why i like lenses like the 100-400 or in canons case 100-500. the minimum focus distance is just so good. I do want a prime for the fast aperture for lowlight though. going to try a 300 2.8 soon since i have a r7 so about 480 mm ff equivalent

[@MikeWeeks]

Would it be indecent to have both? I have the 600 but not sure if I need the 400

[@WildlifeInspired]

That a a major flex

[@MikeWeeks]

@@WildlifeInspireddid the cussed autocorrect cut in?

[@juantolentino4963]

I have both lenses. I use the 600mm 95% of the time.. 400mm is for mammals 😀... I got both because I got the 400mm first.

[@TheWildlifeGallery388]

is min focus still in affect when the lens is switched to manual focus?

[@WildlifeInspired]

no, the only thing that will change min focus is adding an extension tube. These are used more for macro lenses and very rarely used in long lenses.

[@Domer74]

I LOVE my 400 2.8!

[@michelebelotti2022]

I see this video and I continue to dream about the 400 TC... maybe a day I will win the lottery and I can do such comparison too, as for now, I can only dream about it. My "cheap solution" was to get the 100-400 and the 800 6.3... anyway, I liked the detailed comparison with the 600 TC

[@WildlifeInspired]

The 800 is not joke and that's a killer combo!

[@csc-photo]

I'm watching this vid about lenses I'll never be able to justify buying 😆 180-600 for me but man these are beauties!

[@WildlifeInspired]

They are !$

[@gkdunch]

I've always believed in the 400 for sports, and the 600 for wildlife, you usually want that extra 200mm for wildlife, but for sports you usually want that extra stop of light. Thats just my opinion, but I feel thats the sweet spot for me.

[@Anders_vB]

For nature photograhers the differences in closest focus range aren’t relevant in the wild. Futhermore you can’t make a fair comparison between lenses unless you have all but one parameter the same! Thanks for a clear analysis apart from this with closest focusing range.

[@WildlifeInspired]

This is not true. It depends on the style and while many will never shoot inside 14 feet, a percentage will. I shoot very regularly inside 14 feet and always in the wild. Generally I only shoot "set ups" when I am doing a test of something. Kinglets are 3 inches long, so shooting them at 10 feet is very practical and yes, if you have good field technique you can shoot songbirds at MFD. I have done this in the wild as close as 7 feet using a 300 2.8 lens and knowing areas. So to make a broad statement, that it isn't relevant is not accurate. It depends on the subject and the photographer.