500 or 600 Nikon.

[Tony Whitehead]

I currently use my 200-400 (with or with 1.4x or 1.7x) with D300 or D700 for bird images and work handheld 90% of the time (other 9.9% with a monopod or groundpod). I am considering a 500 or 600mm as in some situations more reach would be nice (this will remain the case with either option :)) . I think I could still manage the 500 handheld but the 600 would require a complete change in style and need a tripod. I would definitely keep the 200-400 for it's versatility and use for general wildlife and BIF. Any thoughts or suggestions from those that have experience with both/either lens in comparison would be appreciated.

[Jared Gricoskie]

Tony,

I shot with the 500 AFS non-VR, with the 1.4 and 1.7, and before I bought it I seriously considered the 600. Due to the weight of the 600 I went with the 500, and have not been happier. The 500 + 1.7 is nearly the same length as the 600 + 1.4 as long as you step down a bit. Taking into account the lower weight, handheld you probably are going to get close to the same image quality. Sure the 600, or 600+1.4 would be slightly sharper on a tripod than the 500 plus 1.7 but you have to match your situation to your needs.

To me the question is how many pounds is .5 stop extra light, and the max of 35mm equiv of 170mm worth?

[Dave Mills]

I own a nikon 500F/4 + a 1.7 and it's far from easy to hand hold that lense!!! I can see it with a 200-400.

[Desmond Chan]

Somehow I always think it makes more sense to have a 600 to go with a 200-400, even though the 600 weighs more than a 500. Just my opinion.

[Alfred Forns]

Tony hand holding the 500 on a regular basis is not such a good idea. Would do it according to need. I know Axel has a 500 and doesn't own a tripod but you should see how he bends and uses his elbow for support. I was impressed with this technique.

I have the 200-400 and went for the 600 VR To me it makes more sense than the 500 along with the zoom. They will be very sharp without having to stop down. Availability is a problem, don't think there are many around.

[Doug Brown]

I own a Canon 500 and 600. I rarely use a tripod and do mostly flight with both lenses. I'm a pretty big guy, but I can hand hold the 500 all day long doing flight photography. The 600 is doable for me also, but it's substantially heavier. Most people simply can't hand hold the 600. If you enjoy freedom from camera supports, go with the 500. It's not as long but it's much easier on the back and it's easier to travel and hike with. It'll also save you a big chunk of change.

[Juan Aragonés]

I have been testing the 500VR for a couple of weeks and I it is very handholdable. Of course, my 300Vr or a 200-400VR is more easy to handhold. A 600mm is very tempting due to the extra reach but forget to handhold that piece of glass for more than a few seconds ;-)

[Arthur Morris]

Yes, the 600 with the 2-4 makes more sense (than the 500 and the 2-4), but only if you meet my requirements for owning a 600:
1: be strong (and young) enough to carry it.
2: be able to afford it.
3: need the extra magnification (who doesn't).
4: have actually lifted the lens on a tripod with camera body attached up onto your shoulder.

I have actually seen folks who owned a 600 who could not get around in the field with it without either straining terribly or suffering acute pain.

For Canon folks the new hot combo is the 500 f/4 along with the 800 f/5.6.

[Mike Gallo]

I have owned both but sold the 500VR, neither one is hand holdable for me, so if you need to go the tripod route, might as well get the extra reach (which you will find that you need the first time you use the 500) . Both are quality lenses, both very sharp. The 600VR is a little heaver, but if you can carry the 500 you most likely can carry the 600.

[Arthur Morris]

I have owned both but sold the 500VR, neither one is hand holdable for me, so if you need to go the tripod route, might as well get the extra reach (which you will find that you need the first time you use the 500) . Both are quality lenses, both very sharp. The 600VR is a little heaver, but if you can carry the 500 you most likely can carry the 600.

Most folks can handhold the 500 lenses if they use proper rest-position techniques as advocated by Jim Neiger. As for a "little heavier," 2.6 pounds is more than a little for me. In addition, it is the sheer bulk of the 600s that makes them difficult to travel with and handle (especially on the ground or in the car).

[Thonnaksar NOP]

I own both, the 200-400 VR and the 600 VR.
The 600 VR is much lighter than the 600/4 AI-S and 600/4 AF-I (5kg vs 6.3kg).
About 50% of time I use my 600 VR handheld, with elbow or knees support techniques.
About 40% of time I use this beanbag attached to my Dietmar Nill (or directly fixed to the lens leg), on the ground, on a branch of tree or on a rock :


And the rest of time I use my tripod or monopod.

[ChasMcRae]

I have owned the 600mm since I switched from Nikon buying it when it first came out(and could afford it) which was a good while ago.
I have never hand held it and have never even thought of it since at my age I know it would be impossible. I love the lens but know eventually will have to go to a lighter lens, but not yet.
Before you buy 500 or 600 pick one up attached to the camera and tripod and walk a mile. You will know whether you actually really want it. On a level situation I can do well with this for that kind of distance, especially boardwalks,etc. Uphill or irregular ground for get it. I will unpack everything and put in backpack lens bag for longer walks,etc.
It is not that much of a problem shooting from vehicle with bean bag,propped tripod,etc.
I have not seen the new 800mm lens ,but sounds like a third option.
Whichever supertelephoto you settle on you will be happy with most of the time.
Chas.

[ChasMcRae]

Whoops, I just noticed you were a Nikon user ,but think the same general discussion about weight still applies.
Chas.