Question for Nikon supertelephoto users

I'm looking to rent a lens this winter for a waterfowl trip (and hopefully purchase one in the next few years) and am trying to decide between the 500mm and 600mm f/4 Nikkor. I'll be shooting with a D700 and a D300 body, and I'm planning on bringing along a TC or two as well. I don't know that I've heard too much negative about either one, but I'm leaning towards the 500mm. It seems like it might be easier for someone not used to shooting a big lens to acquire the subject (birds in flight, dogs working) with the 500 mm. I do plan on renting them both at least once before I make a purchase. Any thoughts? Thanks.

Well, it is always easier to "find" the bird with a lesser telephoto than a greater one. I had a 500 and then bought a 600. It did take a while to get used to the smaller field of view, but once I gt used to it it became second nature.

If you need the reach of the 600 get that one. If not, the 500 is lighter and less expensive.

I've taken my 500mm in my think tank bag to Hawaii and it fits in the overhead on the plane. Not sure I could do this with a 600mm. I do use the 1.4 and 1.7 TC's with it.

Jason:

You have a good situation because of the two bodies you are using (same as my setup). If you only had FX, I would say, 600, but with the D300 and a TC as needed, the 500 should work well. The TC 1.4 works very well with the 500, but I have had mixed results with the 1.7. I have used the Lens Align system to set the microfocus on both bodies, and still am not really happy with the 1.7 most of the time.

If it were me, the natural progression would seem to be: rent the 500 first to get used to using the larger glass. Once you have some experience there, try the 600. There is no doubt that flying with the 600 can be more of a challenge. If you are renting, and have the right situation, you could have the lens shipped ahead to your destination, directly from the renting company, and ship it back before you fly home. I did that once and it worked well.

Good luck.

Cheers

Randy

Jason,

Be sure to take weight into account, the Nikon 500 weighs 8.6 lbs, the 600 weighs 11.2 lbs. After taking the BIF workshop from Jim Neiger and Doug Brown my wife and I could handle the weight of a 500 but not a 600 hand held. Even with a tripod the extra weight still has to be carried around. If you're serious about buying then do some reading about Nikon's production problems - http://www.bythom.com/2010%20Nikon%20News.htm - look for "Availability Predictions" then the last bullet "Exotic telephotos" - look up Nikon lenses at B&H, sort from most to least expensive, and count how many aren't available. If you're renting then no issue. But even the used market is tight because there are so few new lenses being made. Lest anyone think I'm anti-Nikon, my wife and I shoot D300 and D700, own a Nikon 200-400 and Sigma 300-800. Love what we have, are not happy about Nikon's long lens behavior. We're seriously thinking about jumping to Canon when it is time to replace our bodies, no availability problems and judging from the new 400 f/2.8 they are going to cut several pounds from the 500 and 600 next year.

I agree with Randy about shipping, both for rental and owned lenses. On a trip to Florida we shipped the 300-800 and tripods FedEx to a 24 hour FedEx Office (ex-Kinkos) that was near our hotel. You can set things up to have shipments held for you with both FedEx and UPS, FedEx has more places with late night hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Lillich

Jason,

Be sure to take weight into account, the Nikon 500 weighs 8.6 lbs, the 600 weighs 11.2 lbs. After taking the BIF workshop from Jim Neiger and Doug Brown my wife and I could handle the weight of a 500 but not a 600 hand held. Even with a tripod the extra weight still has to be carried around. If you're serious about buying then do some reading about Nikon's production problems - http://www.bythom.com/2010%20Nikon%20News.htm - look for "Availability Predictions" then the last bullet "Exotic telephotos" - look up Nikon lenses at B&H, sort from most to least expensive, and count how many aren't available. If you're renting then no issue. But even the used market is tight because there are so few new lenses being made. Lest anyone think I'm anti-Nikon, my wife and I shoot D300 and D700, own a Nikon 200-400 and Sigma 300-800. Love what we have, are not happy about Nikon's long lens behavior. We're seriously thinking about jumping to Canon when it is time to replace our bodies, no availability problems and judging from the new 400 f/2.8 they are going to cut several pounds from the 500 and 600 next year.

I agree with Randy about shipping, both for rental and owned lenses. On a trip to Florida we shipped the 300-800 and tripods FedEx to a 24 hour FedEx Office (ex-Kinkos) that was near our hotel. You can set things up to have shipments held for you with both FedEx and UPS, FedEx has more places with late night hours.

---

Alan, I appreciate your input. The weight is something to take into account, and the 600 is about a pound more than the 400 f/2.8 and the 500 is about 1.5 pounds lighter than the 400 f/2.8. A buddy of mine has the 400 f/2.8 and I've shot with it some, and can hand hold it for a while-but it can get to be a burden.

I've noticed the availability issue, and can't understand why that is the case. Seems like if you were wanting to buy a $10,000 lens they would at least keep them in stock at retailers. Hopefully they will have that resolved by the time I get ready to buy one (might be a year or two).

I had to wait a year to buy my 600, which is the hardest of the 3 to get. Nikon is not as large a company as Canon and they do not make as many of the expensive lenes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allanrube

I had to wait a year to buy my 600, which is the hardest of the 3 to get. Nikon is not as large a company as Canon and they do not make as many of the expensive lenes.

---

So I just looked on B&H and there is a couple thousand dollar difference in the Canon and Nikon supertelephoto lenses. I figured Canon had to be selling more of them. I figure there might be a better used market for the Canon glass too??

I know Canon is cheaper and last I looked you can have one delivered a day after you decide you want one. I don't know about the used market. It seems like if you want a Nikon 600 you should go after the first one you see - new or used (assuming it is the one you want - VR, AFS-1, or AFS-2.)

The way I've heard things about Canon prices is that the current super telephoto designs are older than Nikon's and thus more amortized. Canon has announced imminent revisions of the 400 f/2.8, 500 f/4, and 600 f/4. People seem to be expecting these to come out costing more than current Nikon prices, then fall back in a couple of years to match Nikon. And Canon might be working some real magic on weight. Their 400 f/2.8 will drop from 11.7 lbs, same as current 600 f/4, to 8.5 lbs, same as current 500 f/4. One can only hope they do the same for the 500 and 600 - a 600 weighing the same as the current 500, and a 500 weighing a little more than the current 300 f/2.8. Something we senior citizens will really appreciate, whatever the cost.

Sorry Allan, but I just don't buy an argument about Nikon being smaller excusing them for production problems. They are still a multi-billion dollar company and ought to be able to do better. Or end up being treated as a boutique brand, at least for those of us needing the big glass.

Has this availability problem always been the case with Nikon? I know it seems to have been around for at least the last few years anyhow. May look into renting a Canon and checking things out before I go to spending a lot of money on big lenses (assuming I could get them). And it looks like Canon has some intermediate options as well (the 100-400mm and the 400mm f/5.6 for instance).