500MM or 600MM

Im looking at adding something longer to add to my lineup

I currently use the 400MM f/2.8 AFS VR with either a 1.7 or 1.4 TC on D3S.

I find i can handhold the 400MM with D3S and TC's.

So if you were in my situation would you go for a 500MM or 600MM?

For close up Hide work i'm saving for a 200-400MM but for longer distance stuff the 400MM doesn't really cut it, even with the 1.7TC.

I tried the D300S but didn't really get on with it so for the moment i'm sticking to full frame.

There's a lot of experienced people here who's work i respect so i would really value peoples experience shooting with 500's and 600's and if they would change lens if they had the chance.

At the moment i'm leaning towards the 600MM as for trips abroad the 400MM can be taken as hand luggage, i'm aware the 600MM can't

Hi andy, I had the same question, and have asked people in the know,
Most people with crop sensors use 500mm even with 1.4 TC.
So to get the same reach you need a 600mm on a FX camera. heavy lens i know.
but thats what i would go for if i had the dosh.

Cheers
Mark

Hi Andy. I am a canon user with a 300 2.8 and a 500 f4. I chose the 500 because it is smaller, lighter and sharper than the 600 plus I can take it as carry on in my Airport Antidote or Glass Taxi. My understanding is that the 600 is a great lens and as you have the 200-400 I am surprised that you are considering a 500. I put my 500 in the KLM hold for Tanzania last year, padded inside its case and surrounded by clothing it was fine.

Taking the wife this year so all good.

Bob

How far do you carry it (not in a vehicle)?

Do you want to pay for both the 200-400 and a second larger lens or just settle on one lens?

If you are only going to have one lens (and a lot of us choose this option for working practicality) I would suggest the 500mm (and you can get this on as Hand Luggage wrapped in a thinktank) but if you are going to buy and use the 200-400 for any distance travelled - I would suggest the 600mm for the hide, especially if you feel a 400 with a F1.7 is also too short.

FWIW I would see how you feel by using them.

I have owned a 600mm then a 500mm Nikon,; the when I switched to Canon a 500mm, a 600mm and finally a 500mm. For me its the ability to anticipate what the frame will look like - I was trained on a 600mm FF so on the F5 I had a 600mm, when I bought the D1 and S2pro I went down to a 500mm as it gave a similar frame- and I loved the lack of weight. Then in Canon had a D series with the 500mm, the a Ds so when up to the 600mm (and hated the weight), then currently a 1d4 so dropped down to the 500 again. (PS I have never sold a lens at a loss )


The weight of the 500mm is the key consideration for me as I do a lot of the work walking over the moors and hills - which I am strong enough to use a 600mm its too much of a ball ache to get it on a flight, to use it a lot in my hand, and to walk allday with it - I am getting older

T
T

i have the 600 and would certainly choose the 500mm if I had it to do over again. I switched from canon and their 500 and 600 were almost identical in size and weight. The same is not true in the nikons. The 500 is much more nimble and easier to pack....yes there is a big size difference on the front glass. The new III generations of tc's are very good and work well with the the big primes, but the same is not true with the older versions. Get a 500 , 1.4 and 2x III tc. I will most likely be doing the same and selling the 600.

There is no significant weight difference between the 400/2.8 and the 600/4.
I always travel with my 600/f4 as carry-on. When I went to Tanzania last year, I travelled with both the 600/f4 (Canon) and 200-400/f4 (Nikon) as carry-on; don't see the problem unless you are travelling a lot by Ryanair.
If you intend to buy a 200-400 in the future, then you should be thinking about the 600 in my opinion.
My 500/f4 (Canon) hardly gets any use and is still for sale.

Thanks for all the replies so far

Phil your thinking is along the same lines as mine at the moment, i'm not convinced it would make sense to have a 500/4 and 400/2.8 when i can bolt a 1.4 on and have a 520/f4

I don't have the 200-400 yet but am looking to get it before the summer for Sea Eagles in Norway.

One other point, I'm looking at the non VR versions as its likely to be tripod or monopod based.

Not sure how to quote posts on here, but thanks for the detailed response Tom

With the 600 i'd be likely to carry it a mile or two at most, i don't tend to do very much where i'm walking round to find the wildlife. For overseas trips its likely to be on guided workshops so again there shouldn't be a vast amount of walking round.

Craig, thanks for the link to the bag, i'll have a look at that

Bob, i've not bitten the bullet on the 200-400 yet, im trying to pick up the 500/600 first as they rare as rocking horse &*^% second hand

Anthony can i ask why you would pick the 500 over the 600? is it mainly the weight issue? i don't have any experience of the MKIII teleconvertors yet.

Ah yes Andy but you will do

Bob

I know :) just a good job im single :

I have used a 600mm f4 (Nikon) for nearly two years now, and whilst I think it a great lens, there are days when I am carrying it for a couple of miles. I can then either carry it in a rucksack reasonably comfortably, but have to take a realtively large amount of time getting it set up, or I can carry it in one hand and a suitable tripod in the other and get knackered. If I were starting again, I would probably opt for the 500mm purely for weight reasons.

David

Thanks for all the feedback guys :) I have decided to go for the 600MM F/4 i've located a copy of the Non VR AFS II. Having had a chat with that wiley old fox Mr Astbury today i can't see the sense of having the 400MM F/2.8 and a 500MM F/4.


Now i just have to take some images worth of the forum :D

Solid choice - get it bought, then I can look after it for you when you are off dodging pirates!

If you can teach me to edit in LR3 its a deal