Wildlife prime choice: 400mm f/2.8 vs 600mm f/4 on a crop body
Asked 3/13/2020
6 views
2 answers
0
I’m comparing a 400mm f/2.8 and a 600mm f/4 specifically for wildlife in northern Europe, using a Nikon D500 and sometimes a Micro Four Thirds video camera via a manual adapter. My subjects would include birds, owls, squirrels, wolves, moose, deer, and reindeer. I may also use a 1.4x teleconverter.
The 400mm appeals to me because it’s smaller, lighter, easier to pack, and offers a wider aperture. The 600mm appeals for its extra reach, especially for birds and smaller animals. On MFT, the 600mm may be extremely tight for video.
For people who have used these kinds of long lenses, how should I think about the tradeoff between reach and usability? Is the 600mm usually worth it for wildlife, or does the 400mm often make more sense because it’s easier to handle and frame with?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
6y ago
2 Answers
2
Sounds like you've definitely done your research here, and have clear criteria on which to evaluate your options! My recommendation: if it's an option for you before your trip, there's no better research than renting one or (preferably) both out for a weekend1, taking it out (ideally in a space you're familiar with), and just getting to know it.2 Like a date, but for lenses, and you can switch between them!
On-site, take note of whether one feels a little more "fun" to shoot, or conversely if you feel you're constantly just missing that perfect shot with another, even if it did manage to capture an image you're happy with. This might be one downside you find with the 600mm, for example — you've got that extra reach, but if that comes at the expense of making framing difficult make framing more difficult for very active subjects that you could have easily captured on the 400mm and cropped if necessary (maybe? especially since you mentioned the latter may have superior optics, which could make up for the loss in MP).
Last part: import your photos, do a quick reject/pick pass-through, then group by lens (Lightroom makes this super easy). Which lens did you use more? Which had a higher ratio of "picked" images? What about "rejected" images? (etc.)
1: (I know in NYC, many $2k+ USD lenses can be rented over the weekend for
2: There's no way trying to peer around a store with a 400mm on a crop sensor is going to give you an idea of what it's like out in the field :)
This is a technique I've been using for years before investing in new glass, and it lets me come away with a dataset I've compiled myself, specific to my shooting needs and preferences. Third-party reviews and DPReview forum posts are valuable data points, but you're the best authority on whether or not a lens is going to end up one that comes with you on every shoot, or one that ends up collecting dust.
Hope this helps!
Originally by user85832. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user85832
6y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
For small, skittish subjects like birds and squirrels, extra reach is usually very valuable, and 600mm is often preferred because even that may still feel short at times. For larger wildlife such as deer, moose, or wolves, a 400mm can be much more workable.
The main tradeoff is reach vs usability. A 600mm gives you tighter framing, but it can also make framing and tracking harder, especially if subjects move unpredictably. A 400mm is easier to carry, easier to frame with, and the wider f/2.8 aperture is a real advantage. Adding a 1.4x teleconverter to a 400mm is also a practical way to gain flexibility.
Since you also want to shoot video on Micro Four Thirds, the 600mm could be extremely tight, while the 400mm is more manageable.
Best advice from the discussion: try renting one or both before your trip. In practice, the right choice depends on whether you more often feel limited by not having enough reach, or by having too narrow a field of view to frame comfortably.
In short: 600mm tends to favor birds and small wildlife; 400mm is the more versatile, easier-to-use option.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI6y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Best budget way to reach 400mm+ for wildlife with a Canon 5D Mark III
Choosing a telephoto zoom for a Canon 60D: 70-300mm vs 70-200mm f/2.8 for wildlife
Canon 7D Mark II wildlife upgrade: EOS R7 or R6 Mark II for lighter birding and macro kit?
Which telephoto upgrade is best from a Canon 55-250mm for birds and nature on a Canon 700D?
Should I keep a Sigma 150-600mm for wildlife, or switch to a 300mm prime with a teleconverter?