Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
p.1 #1Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
When I got into birding a few months ago I was lusting after that silky smooth bokeh that is often difficult to get with the the 180-600. Having a champagne taste on a beer budget I eliminated the 600/4 TC Z immediately, and went for the 500/4E FL ED AFS, which can be had used in great condition at surprisingly attractive price these days.
But I have found myself mostly using the 500/4 with 1.4 and 1.7 TCs on a Z8 + FTZ2 to give me more reach at reasonable apertures. I occasionally still use it as a straight up 500/4 wide open, but not that often. It is also heavier than I expected, and I find it difficult to track subjects hand held, particularly with the 1.7 TC.
I am contemplating selling the 500/4 AFS and replacing it with the 800/6.3 PF Z, as I seem to be living at 700 and 850mm most of the time. I cannot afford to have both. What would be some considerations for keeping the 500/4 + TCs instead of going for the 800/6.3 PF Z? A few things come to mind
1) I am probably going to take a few hundred dollar bath on the swap. The demand for F mount lenses is not that high so I may have to trade it in.
2) The 500/4 + TCs offers more flexibility - wide aperture when you want it, reach when you need it
Not asking for advice on a decision, just some examples of how others would think through a similar decision to make sure I am considering the tradeoffs better.
Thanks
But I have found myself mostly using the 500/4 with 1.4 and 1.7 TCs on a Z8 + FTZ2 to give me more reach at reasonable apertures. I occasionally still use it as a straight up 500/4 wide open, but not that often. It is also heavier than I expected, and I find it difficult to track subjects hand held, particularly with the 1.7 TC.
I am contemplating selling the 500/4 AFS and replacing it with the 800/6.3 PF Z, as I seem to be living at 700 and 850mm most of the time. I cannot afford to have both. What would be some considerations for keeping the 500/4 + TCs instead of going for the 800/6.3 PF Z? A few things come to mind
1) I am probably going to take a few hundred dollar bath on the swap. The demand for F mount lenses is not that high so I may have to trade it in.
2) The 500/4 + TCs offers more flexibility - wide aperture when you want it, reach when you need it
Not asking for advice on a decision, just some examples of how others would think through a similar decision to make sure I am considering the tradeoffs better.
Thanks
Feb 17, 2026 at 11:36 PM
p.1 #2Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
GroovyGeek wrote:
Not asking for advice on a decision, just some examples of how others would think through a similar decision to make sure I am considering the tradeoffs better.
I often think that people have "fear of missing out" when they think about the potential flexibility of lenses + teleconverters.
If you almost never use the bare 500mm lens, then you probably don't need that focal length very much. I'd focus more (pun intended) on the focal length you actually use most of the time (i.e. ~700-850mm) rather than the theoretical flexibility of a focal length that you almost never go for.
An 800mm lens is definitely more limiting, so I don't want to disregard flexibility as a feature, but it should be more like, "I want a 500mm option because I find myself using the wider aperture or shorter focal length 20% of the time," rather than, "I want a 500mm option because some time in the future I might need 500mm and I won't have it."
Not asking for advice on a decision, just some examples of how others would think through a similar decision to make sure I am considering the tradeoffs better.
I often think that people have "fear of missing out" when they think about the potential flexibility of lenses + teleconverters.
If you almost never use the bare 500mm lens, then you probably don't need that focal length very much. I'd focus more (pun intended) on the focal length you actually use most of the time (i.e. ~700-850mm) rather than the theoretical flexibility of a focal length that you almost never go for.
An 800mm lens is definitely more limiting, so I don't want to disregard flexibility as a feature, but it should be more like, "I want a 500mm option because I find myself using the wider aperture or shorter focal length 20% of the time," rather than, "I want a 500mm option because some time in the future I might need 500mm and I won't have it."
Feb 18, 2026 at 06:05 AM
p.1 #3Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
Depends on your logistics...I'd miss 500 f4 more than I need 800. If I do need 800...I have other ways to get there. Personally, I consider the images on the wall more than the 100-200% crops on the screen. I also am able to get pretty close to most of my subjects. If it's far enough for atmospherics, I don't expect a positive result.
That's strictly my process.
Good luck with your decision!
That's strictly my process.
Good luck with your decision!
Feb 18, 2026 at 11:42 AM
p.1 #4Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
This is just me, but I would consider keeping the 500mm f/4 simply because it's got a 3.6m MFD versus 5m and an f/4 aperture. As for reach? I know every place is different but I think that a lot of the time, adding TCs all the time often implies not ideal locations, fieldcraft, etc. Not true everywhere though. I've done bird photography in quite a few locations (North America, Australia, Caribbean, Brazil) and I feel that 500mm is all around a more versatile focal length compared to 800mm. That's not to say that 800 WOULDN'T be useful in some cases - darn right it would! But for my own photography, 500 is likely to get a larger number of keepers than 800, even if 800 is superior in some cases like some North American songbirds.
And the 500E is good enough for a 1.4TC to get 700...not much different than 800.
The only point I share with you is weight. I like being very mobile, and the 500E is a BEAST.hahah. But that's why I got the 600PF.
And the 500E is good enough for a 1.4TC to get 700...not much different than 800.
The only point I share with you is weight. I like being very mobile, and the 500E is a BEAST.hahah. But that's why I got the 600PF.
Feb 18, 2026 at 12:17 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #5Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
I don't own an 800 but I do know what it's like shooting up to 840mm with a TC and how challenging atmospheric distortion can be.
While I like the idea of the 800 PF, I've always been concerned that I'd be frustrated by frequently encountering distortion and having no option to back off.
Like others have said, I have other ways to get to 800mm when the conditions are right, and those lenses are more versatile than a single PF prime at all other times.
While I like the idea of the 800 PF, I've always been concerned that I'd be frustrated by frequently encountering distortion and having no option to back off.
Like others have said, I have other ways to get to 800mm when the conditions are right, and those lenses are more versatile than a single PF prime at all other times.
Feb 18, 2026 at 12:22 PM
p.1 #6Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
It makes sense if you also have the 180-600 or something for less than 800mm.
800mm is often too long or the air is too bad for it.
EBH
800mm is often too long or the air is too bad for it.
EBH
Feb 18, 2026 at 12:29 PM
p.1 #7Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
JasonTheBirder wrote:
This is just me, but I would consider keeping the 500mm f/4 simply because it's got a 3.6m MFD versus 5m and an f/4 aperture. As for reach? I know every place is different but I think that a lot of the time, adding TCs all the time often implies not ideal locations, fieldcraft, etc. Not true everywhere though. I've done bird photography in quite a few locations (North America, Australia, Caribbean, Brazil) and I feel that 500mm is all around a more versatile focal length compared to 800mm. That's not to say that 800 WOULDN'T be useful in some...Show more →
In many of the wildlife areas in SoCal the ponds where the birds congregate are intentionally offset far from the publicly accessible areas. A 600mm+ is a must unless you want to overcrop... Or ignore the regulations to get closer.
Feb 18, 2026 at 12:58 PM
p.1 #8Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
Your point about limitations in ability to get closer to birds definitely can be a limiter. Are you shooting anywhere where you could get in boat/on water to be closer or are there any other locales you might be able to scout out for closer opportunities? I've spent a severl months combined all over the greater LA area but none in San Diego so I'm admittedly completely naive to what is available to you. Are you in an apartment or home where you could possibly make inviting habitat for birds via landscaping alterations (more flowers/native plants/etc.)?
Lots of very good advice already from other more talented photographers than I am. As a fellow 500/4 E FL + Z8 user (who also has the TC14E III) I personally find the 500 locally a much more flexible option and the practically cost effective lens for me.
I strongly considered the 600/6.3 and a possible Z TC1.4 myself when I bought the 500/4 (pre tariff times and refurbs got as low as just over $3000 pre-tax). As I usually have smaller children with me, it can be hard to excel in fieldcraft and the 800mm would definitely get me mor reach.
Definitely would echo the thoughts that if you go 800mm, you very well may find that you also want a 180-600 or 100-400 again to provide a wider option.
Don't know if you have any local birding/photography groups (or social media groups if you have any social media beyond FM) also that might be able to provide additional recommended shooting locations or give you ideas with what lens FL's are successful in your area/given regions. The central Texas birding groups I am in have proven useful for me to get ideas. and I've really stretched/worked to find additional locations in my area that are more ideal for birding even though the times I can go are limtied.
Lots of very good advice already from other more talented photographers than I am. As a fellow 500/4 E FL + Z8 user (who also has the TC14E III) I personally find the 500 locally a much more flexible option and the practically cost effective lens for me.
I strongly considered the 600/6.3 and a possible Z TC1.4 myself when I bought the 500/4 (pre tariff times and refurbs got as low as just over $3000 pre-tax). As I usually have smaller children with me, it can be hard to excel in fieldcraft and the 800mm would definitely get me mor reach.
Definitely would echo the thoughts that if you go 800mm, you very well may find that you also want a 180-600 or 100-400 again to provide a wider option.
Don't know if you have any local birding/photography groups (or social media groups if you have any social media beyond FM) also that might be able to provide additional recommended shooting locations or give you ideas with what lens FL's are successful in your area/given regions. The central Texas birding groups I am in have proven useful for me to get ideas. and I've really stretched/worked to find additional locations in my area that are more ideal for birding even though the times I can go are limtied.
Feb 18, 2026 at 01:29 PM
p.1 #9Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
The 800 pf is an amazing lens. There is no substitute for birding if you consider its combination of focal length, world class optics, ease of handling and price. You only lose 1/3 of a stop to a $15000 lens.
Feb 18, 2026 at 01:32 PM
|
p.1 #10Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
JasonTheBirder wrote:
This is just me, but I would consider keeping the 500mm f/4 simply because it's got a 3.6m MFD versus 5m and an f/4 aperture. As for reach? I know every place is different but I think that a lot of the time, adding TCs all the time often implies not ideal locations, fieldcraft, etc. Not true everywhere though. I've done bird photography in quite a few locations (North America, Australia, Caribbean, Brazil) and I feel that 500mm is all around a more versatile focal length compared to 800mm. That's not to say that 800 WOULDN'T be useful in some...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
GroovyGeek wrote:
And the 500E is good enough for a 1.4TC to get 700...not much different than 800.
The only point I share with you is weight. I like being very mobile, and the 500E is a BEAST.hahah. But that's why I got the 600PF.In many of the wildlife areas in SoCal the ponds where the birds congregate are intentionally offset far from the publicly accessible areas. A 600mm+ is a must unless you want to overcrop... Or ignore the regulations to get closer.
This is often the case in New York as well. At least of the places I've found and been to, there are often tight restrictions on where you can and can't go. Take short-eared owls as an example. The State and Federally owned properties where they overwinter have very strict rules on which areas of their properties can be accessed during the winter. Shawngunk Grasslands (owned by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) is a large property (https://maps.app.goo.gl/L9DLqHNYdP96Meeo9), but as soon as winter hits they close nearly all of it (winter map below). The same goes for the State-owned grasslands up in the northern part of the state. They close trails that go into the property, and nearly all access is either along adjacent roads or from limited trails that skirt the edge. All that being said, I think from a conservation/wildlife protection perspective this is absolutely the right choice. But it's not like I can get a camo suit or portable hide and set it up wherever I wanted to get closer to the owls. You need to get lucky finding a privately owned property where the wildlife is present and get permission to go on that property. Maybe other parts of the U.S. or other countries with vast expanses of public land are different?
This is just me, but I would consider keeping the 500mm f/4 simply because it's got a 3.6m MFD versus 5m and an f/4 aperture. As for reach? I know every place is different but I think that a lot of the time, adding TCs all the time often implies not ideal locations, fieldcraft, etc. Not true everywhere though. I've done bird photography in quite a few locations (North America, Australia, Caribbean, Brazil) and I feel that 500mm is all around a more versatile focal length compared to 800mm. That's not to say that 800 WOULDN'T be useful in some...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
GroovyGeek wrote:
JasonTheBirder wrote
This is just me, but I would consider keeping the 500mm f/4 simply because it's got a 3.6m MFD versus 5m and an f/4 aperture. As for reach? I know every place is different but I think that a lot of the time, adding TCs all the time often implies not ideal locations, fieldcraft, etc. Not true everywhere though. I've done bird photography in quite a few locations (North America, Australia, Caribbean, Brazil) and I feel that 500mm is all around a more versatile focal length compared to 800mm. That's not to say that 800 WOULDN'T be useful in some cases - darn right it would! But for my own photography, 500 is likely to get a larger number of keepers than 800, even if 800 is superior in some cases like some North American songbirds.And the 500E is good enough for a 1.4TC to get 700...not much different than 800.
The only point I share with you is weight. I like being very mobile, and the 500E is a BEAST.hahah. But that's why I got the 600PF.
This is often the case in New York as well. At least of the places I've found and been to, there are often tight restrictions on where you can and can't go. Take short-eared owls as an example. The State and Federally owned properties where they overwinter have very strict rules on which areas of their properties can be accessed during the winter. Shawngunk Grasslands (owned by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) is a large property (https://maps.app.goo.gl/L9DLqHNYdP96Meeo9), but as soon as winter hits they close nearly all of it (winter map below). The same goes for the State-owned grasslands up in the northern part of the state. They close trails that go into the property, and nearly all access is either along adjacent roads or from limited trails that skirt the edge. All that being said, I think from a conservation/wildlife protection perspective this is absolutely the right choice. But it's not like I can get a camo suit or portable hide and set it up wherever I wanted to get closer to the owls. You need to get lucky finding a privately owned property where the wildlife is present and get permission to go on that property. Maybe other parts of the U.S. or other countries with vast expanses of public land are different?
Feb 18, 2026 at 02:12 PM
p.1 #11Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
The sweet spot for the 800 PF for me is short birding hikes. I can comfortably hand-hold it and swing it to track birds in flight. If you're just shooting birds, it works great. If you're getting close to larger birds or other wildlife, not so much. The TCs are more flexible, more cumbersome and, of course, more expensive, but I use them frequently when I don't mind carrying a monopod and gimbal.
Feb 18, 2026 at 02:28 PM
p.1 #12Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
I'm sure you will get lots of comments. People love to talk about long lenses. I do too 
. My 2c
As someone used 500mm for a long time (more than 15 years between Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 500/4 AF-S and Nikon 500/4 VR) with cameras like D300, D4 and D500 and currently own 800 PF, I have no plan to go back. Actually where I live birds pretty tame. Still I find more birds at 800mm than I used to find with 500mm.
This is my statement to myself. "You will find more birds farther from you than closer to you". Also you can get pictures without disturbing them. With 500 I often had to get 'too' close that may bother them.
I checked my images from 500mm and more than 90% of images are cropped.
Almost 60% are cropped above 800mm equivalent (angle of view) and around 40 percent above 600mm
You might miss some birds/animals that are too close, but I might get more from farther distance.
One big surprise with nikon's latest Z lenses are their VR. I can get sharp images with 800PF hand held even at 1/25 seconds! For my strength 5.25 feels way lighter than 7LB. I also have 400/4.5 for low light and BIF shots (to achieve higher shutter speeds).
I don't miss many small bird shots. I can crop images with Z8, 800mm combo big time. I rarely find birds closer than 16'. But I do understand some people care about closer MFD
The third image is using 400/4.5 @ 1/5 second hand held
Hope this will help to make your move faster
GroovyGeek wrote:
When I got into birding a few months ago I was lusting after that silky smooth bokeh that is often difficult to get with the the 180-600. Having a champagne taste on a beer budget I eliminated the 600/4 TC Z immediately, and went for the 500/4E FL ED AFS, which can be had used in great condition at surprisingly attractive price these days.
But I have found myself mostly using the 500/4 with 1.4 and 1.7 TCs on a Z8 + FTZ2 to give me more reach at reasonable apertures. I occasionally still use it as a straight up 500/4...Show more →
Z8 and Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S @ 1/25sec, f6.3, ISO 1400, 38MP(7422X5089), Effective FL 890mm, Distance 48ft
Z8 and Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S @ 1/30sec, f6.3, ISO 160, 32MP(6889X4592), Effective FL 960mm, Distance 30ft
Z8 and 400mm f/4.5 VR S @ 1/5sec, f4.5, ISO 12800, 45MP(8256X5504), Effective FL 400mm, Distance 18ft
Z8 and Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S @ 1/250sec, f6.3, ISO 560, 11MP(4097X2731), Effective FL 1610mm
. My 2cAs someone used 500mm for a long time (more than 15 years between Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 500/4 AF-S and Nikon 500/4 VR) with cameras like D300, D4 and D500 and currently own 800 PF, I have no plan to go back. Actually where I live birds pretty tame. Still I find more birds at 800mm than I used to find with 500mm.
This is my statement to myself. "You will find more birds farther from you than closer to you". Also you can get pictures without disturbing them. With 500 I often had to get 'too' close that may bother them.
I checked my images from 500mm and more than 90% of images are cropped.
Almost 60% are cropped above 800mm equivalent (angle of view) and around 40 percent above 600mm
You might miss some birds/animals that are too close, but I might get more from farther distance.
One big surprise with nikon's latest Z lenses are their VR. I can get sharp images with 800PF hand held even at 1/25 seconds! For my strength 5.25 feels way lighter than 7LB. I also have 400/4.5 for low light and BIF shots (to achieve higher shutter speeds).
I don't miss many small bird shots. I can crop images with Z8, 800mm combo big time. I rarely find birds closer than 16'. But I do understand some people care about closer MFD
The third image is using 400/4.5 @ 1/5 second hand held
Hope this will help to make your move faster
GroovyGeek wrote:
When I got into birding a few months ago I was lusting after that silky smooth bokeh that is often difficult to get with the the 180-600. Having a champagne taste on a beer budget I eliminated the 600/4 TC Z immediately, and went for the 500/4E FL ED AFS, which can be had used in great condition at surprisingly attractive price these days.
But I have found myself mostly using the 500/4 with 1.4 and 1.7 TCs on a Z8 + FTZ2 to give me more reach at reasonable apertures. I occasionally still use it as a straight up 500/4...Show more →
Z8 and Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S @ 1/25sec, f6.3, ISO 1400, 38MP(7422X5089), Effective FL 890mm, Distance 48ft
Z8 and Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S @ 1/30sec, f6.3, ISO 160, 32MP(6889X4592), Effective FL 960mm, Distance 30ft
Z8 and 400mm f/4.5 VR S @ 1/5sec, f4.5, ISO 12800, 45MP(8256X5504), Effective FL 400mm, Distance 18ft
Z8 and Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S @ 1/250sec, f6.3, ISO 560, 11MP(4097X2731), Effective FL 1610mm
Feb 18, 2026 at 02:29 PM
p.1 #13Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
As you can see, we all have our approaches to FL application, so...just sleep on it (like...seriously...take your time) and see what works. Maybe rent it first?
Feb 18, 2026 at 05:51 PM
p.1 #14Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
Thanks to everyone for the useful feedback. A few comments:
In many of the local wildlife areas (Sonny Bono, San Jacinto, TJ River) the ponds are highly offset from the trails. And the birds tend to congregate on the far end of the ponds. Because these tend to be big birds 600mm is often enough.
The 800 is not necessarily mostly about reach, but about better frame fill and thus better AF.
Then there are the songirds. They are not too far away, so atmospherics are not an issue. They are just tiny (meadowlarks, flycatches, bluebirds), and usually skittish. If you don't get them reasonably sized in the frame you a) have to crop deeply and b) the AF is likely to miss.
And then there is the weight. I find the 180-600 (which I own) very hand holdable. The 800 is only slightly heavier. The 500/4? Not so much. With the TC and FTZ it clocks in at 7.5 lbs. That is tough to hold up steady for anything more than 30-60s.
I will probably list the 500/4 for sale, if I find takers at a reasonable price I may sell it. For now I will sit on it.
In many of the local wildlife areas (Sonny Bono, San Jacinto, TJ River) the ponds are highly offset from the trails. And the birds tend to congregate on the far end of the ponds. Because these tend to be big birds 600mm is often enough.
The 800 is not necessarily mostly about reach, but about better frame fill and thus better AF.
Then there are the songirds. They are not too far away, so atmospherics are not an issue. They are just tiny (meadowlarks, flycatches, bluebirds), and usually skittish. If you don't get them reasonably sized in the frame you a) have to crop deeply and b) the AF is likely to miss.
And then there is the weight. I find the 180-600 (which I own) very hand holdable. The 800 is only slightly heavier. The 500/4? Not so much. With the TC and FTZ it clocks in at 7.5 lbs. That is tough to hold up steady for anything more than 30-60s.
I will probably list the 500/4 for sale, if I find takers at a reasonable price I may sell it. For now I will sit on it.
Feb 18, 2026 at 10:06 PM
p.1 #15Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
GroovyGeek wrote:
Thanks to everyone for the useful feedback. A few comments:
In many of the local wildlife areas (Sonny Bono, San Jacinto, TJ River) the ponds are highly offset from the trails. And the birds tend to congregate on the far end of the ponds. Because these tend to be big birds 600mm is often enough.
The 800 is not necessarily mostly about reach, but about better frame fill and thus better AF.
Then there are the songirds. They are not too far away, so atmospherics are not an issue. They are just tiny (meadowlarks, flycatches, bluebirds), and usually skittish. If you don't get...Show more →
The 180-600 combined with the 800/6.3 sounds like a good kit for bird photography. I would, however, not be so sure that one can so easily use the 800/6.3 hand-held as the field of view is narrow and most things will be out of focus so finding the subject could take some time, and keeping the subject in the frame could be challenging even though the lens is not as heavy as previous fast 800mm primes.
However, subjects photographed over long distances can lead to hazy appearance of the photos. Even images from 600 mm lenses often have this issue that although these lenses are extremely sharp, the distance subject + cropping results in images that are less vivid and clear than images of subjects photographed over shorter distances. Now, of course most birds will be further away so that capturing frame-filling images with any lens you might have is not possible most of the time. To me the important question is "How good are the best images that you can make over many years of active photography?" I aim to make my best images better, largely ignoring dreams of images of situations that I cannot get good access to. Networking can help find better locations and hides can help photograph subjects a bit closer without disturbing them, but of course, spending a lot of time in a hide may not be everyone's cup of tea. In my country (Finland), there are "everyone's freedoms" in the law, including walking in other people's lands freely to enjoy them (with limitations) and this means a lot of the country is accessible to nature photographers. A lot of people here choose to use a hide to get access to elusive and shy animals.
Still, since you have the 180-600, the 800 may complement it in a positive way, allowing you to enjoy more situations, and that may be the most important for you. Your plan to see if there are good offers for the 500 sounds good! Maybe over the longer term you can afford both lenses.
Thanks to everyone for the useful feedback. A few comments:
In many of the local wildlife areas (Sonny Bono, San Jacinto, TJ River) the ponds are highly offset from the trails. And the birds tend to congregate on the far end of the ponds. Because these tend to be big birds 600mm is often enough.
The 800 is not necessarily mostly about reach, but about better frame fill and thus better AF.
Then there are the songirds. They are not too far away, so atmospherics are not an issue. They are just tiny (meadowlarks, flycatches, bluebirds), and usually skittish. If you don't get...Show more →
The 180-600 combined with the 800/6.3 sounds like a good kit for bird photography. I would, however, not be so sure that one can so easily use the 800/6.3 hand-held as the field of view is narrow and most things will be out of focus so finding the subject could take some time, and keeping the subject in the frame could be challenging even though the lens is not as heavy as previous fast 800mm primes.
However, subjects photographed over long distances can lead to hazy appearance of the photos. Even images from 600 mm lenses often have this issue that although these lenses are extremely sharp, the distance subject + cropping results in images that are less vivid and clear than images of subjects photographed over shorter distances. Now, of course most birds will be further away so that capturing frame-filling images with any lens you might have is not possible most of the time. To me the important question is "How good are the best images that you can make over many years of active photography?" I aim to make my best images better, largely ignoring dreams of images of situations that I cannot get good access to. Networking can help find better locations and hides can help photograph subjects a bit closer without disturbing them, but of course, spending a lot of time in a hide may not be everyone's cup of tea. In my country (Finland), there are "everyone's freedoms" in the law, including walking in other people's lands freely to enjoy them (with limitations) and this means a lot of the country is accessible to nature photographers. A lot of people here choose to use a hide to get access to elusive and shy animals.
Still, since you have the 180-600, the 800 may complement it in a positive way, allowing you to enjoy more situations, and that may be the most important for you. Your plan to see if there are good offers for the 500 sounds good! Maybe over the longer term you can afford both lenses.
Feb 19, 2026 at 05:06 AM
p.1 #16Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
If I was considering the 800 Z I would PM George DeCamp
Feb 21, 2026 at 12:31 PM
p.1 #17Swap the 500/4 FL AFS for a 800/6.3 PF Z?
I did own the 800 PF and thought it a fabulous lens considering weight and price. Some of my best shots are from the 800 PF and I usually paired it with my 500 PF or Z100-400 and later with the 180-600. Some of my best shots are also from the 180-600, a very underrated lens and punches well above its price point, IMO. I now have the 600 TC and thus the 800 PF is redundant and sold it. If I didn't have the 600 TC, my combos would still be the 180-600 (or 600 PF) and 800 PF.
As you say you are more often than not at 700mm+ and as you already own the 180-600, I would get the 800 PF, a combo that I used and was extremely happy with and not all that heavy, just bulky in the backpack. I know you say you like good bokeh, like we all do, but the 180-600 isn't that bad, quite good in fact. None of my images have been ruined by poor bokeh from the 180-600, even in back light with highlights. The 800 PF has generally good bokeh as well.
As you say you are more often than not at 700mm+ and as you already own the 180-600, I would get the 800 PF, a combo that I used and was extremely happy with and not all that heavy, just bulky in the backpack. I know you say you like good bokeh, like we all do, but the 180-600 isn't that bad, quite good in fact. None of my images have been ruined by poor bokeh from the 180-600, even in back light with highlights. The 800 PF has generally good bokeh as well.
Feb 21, 2026 at 05:14 PM