Hey Tin Man, you make all good points.... however, every trip I have been on where someone is shooting with a large prime, I hear the complaint, " I have TOO much lens now". While i am able to zoom out and continue shooting, the prime lens shooters are getting all head shots or worse. So they do miss shots too. Its not as cut and dry as you make it sound. I think the versatility of a good zoom makes great sense for many of us. For many, the advantages of lower cost, lighter weight and ability to frame our subjects to achieve a variety of different images trumps the advantages you speak about. As photographers, we all have our own style and priorities. We don''t all fit one mold. I, for one, as an exclusive wildlife shooter have NEVER owned a fast prime long lens. The closest thing I have to a fast prime lens is the Nikon 500 PF which I love but I use my zooms the most and certainly plan on getting the 180-600.
his perspective as a lifelong photographer is, since you’ve “missed” the shot you wanted, you’ve been given the opportunity to take a shot you didn’t think u wanted. and to do so with more subject separation (in wider aperture primes). which delivers incredible moments. the ones that win competitions. not because u bought the gear that gave u control, but because u bought the big clunky gear that gives you less control but makes diamonds
Hi Tin man. The reason we bought 2.8 lens years ago was because of slow films speeds. We have eliminate slow film speeds. We can boost the ISO to make up for the loss of light. I have been photographing for over forty years. this is my opinion of course. Also, if you shoot at the hours you mentioned that would mean the other 10 hours of the day would be sleeping time. There are good photos all day if you look and use the light as you also mentioned.
I’m glad to hear your ideas. I agree good pics can be taken in harsher light. Black and white helps a bit. Maybe for architecture. But for wildlife it’s more difficult. My 500 5.6 couldn’t focus in low light. Or much slower and I miss shots. The other ten hours for me is to enjoy observing the birds and wildlife and prepare when good light is coming. It kind of sucks because I became much more picky for my shots but it’s also fun. Really appreciate your input and glad to see you started from the film days.
I think the Tin Man has made a great point. Yes, you can make images any time of the day. But, those images are not going to be the award winners on a national or international stage. If you are just plinking around for yourself, sure any lens will do. You are the photographer and the judge so you've always got winners. Tin Man is offering us his experiences to let us know that the absolute best photos require the absolute best equipment.
@@formerpilot thank you so much. It’s interesting. Many people would object to what I say. But i rarely hear anyone who actually has rented or used the primes to object to me. Rather they just thank me for saving them years.
Tin Man thank you for this excellent video. While I agree with everything you said about image quality, and the relationship to apertures, shutter, speeds, and ISO, the reality is that for the cost of the f/2.8 or f/4 super telephoto lens, most of us could probably plan three or four trips to a wonderful location where we have an opportunity to photograph magnificent wildlife. Lenses like the Sigma and Tamron 150 to 600 mm lenses, Sony 200 to 600 mm lens, and the new Nikon 180 to 600 mm lens provide a much more budget friendly access to these focal lengths with the full recognition that they will not be as well-suited for low light environments.
I have owned both the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f /4 primes for years and will absolutely agree with you in regards to the benefits of faster glass, however, I have since transitioned to the smaller and lighter 400mm f/4.5 and have the 800mm f/6.3 on order. At 65 years old I find that the big primes are just too big and awkward to handle for any situations that require long hikes and/or mobile shooting. With the improved low light AF and higher ISO noise handling of the newer mirrorless cameras, the usability of the smaller kit, in anything other than shooting from a blind, frequently outweighs the benefits of the bigger glass. For me, being much more nimble opens up photo opportunities that I just can’t take advantage of with the big glass, and the excellent IS allows hand holding down to ridiculously slow shutter speeds. With my Z9, the 1 1/3 stop difference of the 400mm f4.5 hasn’t been nearly as much as a hindrance as what my original concerns were, and the 6lb reduction in weight is the difference between an enjoyable day and drudgery when out in the field for an extended period of time.
@@TinManLee Lol can't be more than I get for my average story :). Seriously though it's a great and simple breakdown of how focus actually works, and why the primes are what they are. There is room for all these lenses but yeah, when it comes down to a differentiator what you state is absolute fact.
Very helpful video Tin Man! You simplify complex topics and make it much easier to understand. Question - on Sony lenses - 400GM w/tc or worth getting the 600GM. I know the 400GM is very versatile and am interested in the upcoming 300GM F28 (e mount) (I shoot sports in addition to birds/wildlife) but have wondered about the 600GM (I currently use the 400GM w/tc for birds/wildlife with a1). Thanks for any input.
I have listened to way to many youtubers talk about noice over the years. In actual practice I have found autofocus and reach to much more important. You can reduce noice but there’s nothing you can do with a blurry photo with a tiny subject in it. 300 mm is just not enough reach for any wildlife photography, unless you are getting too close to animals.
9:09 very interesting and insightful. What about 70-200 2.8? Is there such a big difference between 200 to 300? DX mode (cropped sensor - logical) with AF
The thing is that you are the professional photographer. Your needs, yoyr budget is completely different than needs and budget of people who want to photograph birds near to home. The 180-600 lens is dedicated to amateur photographers. They do not need wide aperture because they shoot different subjects at diffefent day time. However I understand your arguments and I agree with them. But let's remember that not everyone wants to sell his home to buy a lens 🙂
The Nikon Z 180-600 is NOT dedicated to Amateurs .. I am Pro and use it on my Z8 for African Wild Life >> It KILLS the canon RF 100-500 F7.1 (Thats DARK) The 180-600 is longer at the Long end , Faster Max Aperture , No Telescoping in Zooming , Shorter Zoom Throw , Better IQ and Chaepaer by a Lot of $$$
Hi Tin man Excellent learning lesson from your video and easy to decide glass for wild life photography I have D500 and thinking to purchase 400 mm f 2.9 do you think I should try z9 some time I have a difficulty to get correct focus. With z9 this problem solved easily?
Where in this video do you say on how to choose a zoom lens. This lens isn’t aimed for professionals like yourself; it’s aimed at enthusiasts who mainly photograph birds. Nowhere in your video do you talk about if the lens is sharp or not. Obviously a f/6.3 is not going to let in as much light as an f/2.8, and I’d argue about not being able to use images at ISO 16,000. Today’s sensors are more than capable of this. You’ve even said in past videos to not be afraid of pushing ISO really high. You seem to change your mind a lot. First you said to shoot wildlife no slower than 1/800 of a sec for animal walking (which is ludicrous) now you’re saying you can get away with 1/320 of a sec (which I agree with). Also, you swore by Manual with auto ISO; and now you say to shoot full manual. Shooting manual with Auto ISO is fine for most situations. I get it you’re still learning, but putting this information out there isn’t conducive. This is coming from someone who always uses the lowest ISO possible. Personally, f/6.3 is too slow for me, and I wouldn’t buy this lens, but lots of people will, and lots of people are coming to your videos to get a good, honest review. Basically you’re saying the f/2.8 and f/4 primes are better. That’s all you’re saying. Not everyone has hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to the perfect destinations with a guide to get the best shots in the light you’re talking about, and certainly most people don’t have 20 grand ($9,500 for an older used one) Canadian to spend on a super telephoto. Love your work, but this information isn’t really informative. You could’ve elaboratedon why the lens can be good.
That’s a very good question. I heard that some lower mega pixel cameras have better noise performance in low light so maybe at iso 10000 it’s better than higher mega pixel camera but I remember peta pixel or some other sites did a test and found out it didn’t make much difference.
I understand your argument but I remember you really liked the 500mm pf. I know this is a prime but it’s still a f5.6. Have your tried to use it in early light ?
Interesting, I can't afford it but if I ever had to decide 600mm F4 or 400mm F2.8 the 400mm seems like the sensible decision, you can always add focal length with teleconverters but you can't take away focal length or let in any more light than F4 with the 600mm lens. I never rule out mid day shooting at least that is for my song bird photography, I can still take nice images with overcast light or I can use trees to filter and diffuse light, obviously the lighting isn't special but I have pulled off some pleasing images during the middle of the day.
Thank you! Understanding "lighting" is such a critical element in photography. I take photos on static subjects, such as building structures, landscapes and flowers. The requirements for dramatic lighting is less demanding than wild life photography. However, lighting is still the key to a successful photo with these subjects. Once again, thank you for remaining us about the importance of "Maximum Aperture" in choosing lenses!
It's all about the light gathering...all of the whiz bang tech is attached to you having enough. I bought a Tokina 300mm f/2.8 APO five years ago. It's a beast...it's a tank...but it sure lets me gather the light...and the optics are stellar...she's just slower. The lens has actually upped my manual focus techniques when I have a great angle...it can be done. Nice video.
@@TinManLee I would be up for replacing my Tokina with either the Minolta or the Sony...just not sure how much I'd be gaining. Difficult to find out comparisons on some of these older big primes. You have a great channel...keep up the good work!!
If you can’t afford 2.8, is let’s say 400 4.5 a better idea than the 180-600 f5.6-6.3? It is a prime with better max f stop, but is it enough reach 400???
Hi Tin Man, thanks for your insights. I'm more of a landscape photographer, but I am slowly getting more and more into wildlife photography. Your channel has provided me with a wealth of information and help when choosing a specific lens for wildlife photography.. I have a 100-400 Canon that is adequate for bright day shots. I have been looking to see if I can get hold of a 600 F/4 Canon rather than buy a zoom lens. I agree it's an infinitely more superior lens for low light shooting and sharpness, but at quite a cost. My biggest concern with buying a used version 1 Canon lenses is the risk of the lens motor and IS not working. You are left with a door stop as Canon will no longer service these lenses or provide parts. I am looking at a used version II which I think is a better lens and gives me the peace of mind of knowing it can be fixed if something goes wrong. I am tempted to get a 400 F2.8, but I do hear that it doesn't handle teleconverters as well as the 600 F/4. The wildlife experiences I've had in Canada tend to favour a longer lens. Who wants to get that close to a cougar and bear anyway! Thanks Tin Man, I love your channel.
Hi, I just came across your video, and what you say is true, but I am a wildlife videographer, and a fixed focal length is just too inflexible for me to film. You also want to capture the whole habitat around the animal. The only alternative to the inexpensive 180-600 or 200-600 is the Canon CN20 50-1000mm for 70,000 euros. That's a bit too expensive for me. 😅
What you say Tin Man Lee makes a lot of sense. I have experienced exactly the same with my 150 - 600mm lens on my recent trip. Thanks for reinforcing my thought. I am now going in for 400mm f/2.8.
Is the version ii lighter? My only experience was a first generation 500 f4 and a second gen 600 f4. Other than the weight I didn’t see any difference in image quality and Af speed.
I find it very advantageous to use a zoom over a prime for places I don't know. I have missed a lot of opportunities with my 600 F4 and 800 F6.3 because the bird got too close, of course when the animal is at a distance, then a prime is best. It seems that many of my favorite shots are with the Tamron G2 150-600, something about having the right focal length when hiking. If you have a guide or know where you will be shooting, then you can take the exact lens you will need, using primes is the best way to go. That said, I will buy the 180 to 600, and buy the 400 2.8 TC next.
I always value your opinion Tin Man!! But my problem is affordability and also justify purchasing a 2.8 400 lens :-). Hence I am using the Nikon Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR S for now, but now you have taught me something I didn't know. Thank You.
It’s a great lens. The 100-400 I heard. The key in this video as you understand is the understanding of the limitation. A lot of my students thrive at using the zoom lenses and eventually they mastered the techniques and are able to sell prints and eventually they get the 400 2.8.
I think I remade your point above in my comment. I completely understand where TML is coming from, but it only takes into account those with the resources and time - which is not the majority of folks. To me, it's sort of like telling the benefits of traveling all over the world and staying at the best accommodations. We all realize there is some benefit there, but it's not something most people - even if they wanted to - could afford. I'd love a Lamborghini, but I can't afford it. The other thing TML neglects to mention is that the newer lenses are less weight - which is great - but if you buy an older f/2.8 (400mm) or older 600mm f/4 - they are heavier - and less portable - and not handholdable. Again, very limiting. So again, you are talking newer lenses - which are again more expensive. As to the benefits? I can tell you first hand that when I bring an 200mm f/2 lens into Ice Hockey, I get better sharpness, color rendition, and subject separation then when I shoot with a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. The difference is noticeable. That said, you give up flexibility, long hand holding, and lots of money (even though the lens was purchased used).
Thank you very much for posting this video. This is my first time watching your video and it's truly inspiring. Subscribed right away! However, I don't quite understand why sharpness is affected by autofocus speed - I thought a slower autofocus speed simply means that it takes slightly longer for the camera to autofocus on the subject, which should be a difference of milliseconds? Would be very nice if you could elaborate that :)
I love your videos Tin Man! I dont have any 2.8 lens, but I consindering now to take off my x1.4 extender from my 500 f4 lens (canon), and to shoot more at f4. But, there is one problem as the extender "welded" to the lens 😊. I almost never take it off, as birds are always too far, especially with full frame camera (R5).
I put the 1.4x on my 500 f4 for many years. Never taking it off. It’s ideal for birds in flight. But these days I don’t use teleconverter much and I found that the image is a lot more contrasty. It seems the tc takes contrast away. The images are still sharp but with lower contrast it’s less interesting. Lately the game is to find places where I can be closer where the animals are still comfortable.
For people with limited budget, nikon 200-500 and tammy 150-600 were the most value for money and versatile lens, some shoot wildlife for pleasure... Not for awards..Nik 180-600 will continue to fulfill this category..
I'm a noob (one year amateur shooting) and I cannot deny your arguments. But your target audience for this video must be people that are either pros, or investing to become pros, or need not worry much about the money they spend. Others have to compromise. I can't get frequent decent pictures if most times to get close enough I'm scaring the animal away, disturbing its peace. Reach is essential for me, any time of the day. To avoid non-photos, as you call them, I need to be at 5m from a bird with my DX 50-250. In any case, even if we disagree on this topic, let me thank you for so many valuable videos! You really made me rethink my approach to wildlife photography, pushed me another step further. So, many thanks!
Love the fstop zones diagram I shoot silver gelatine film photos typically iso 400. Was very happy with my recent £200 lens purchase 180mm f2.8. Takes fantastic pictures. Olympus zuiko lenses from the I presume the 1970s are amazing value for money
I think of tele-zooms, or any variable aperture/small aperture lenses as "fair light lenses". Even f4 lenses push into this territory, but for mid daylight/controlled light photography, they're fine. You get little to no benefit with larger glass elements/wider apertures in those instances. They're just not for capturing that earliest and latest daylight, which, if that's what pays the big bucks, requires the big glass.
Nothing wrong with zooms like the nikon 180-600! Majority of folks cannot justify expensive primes...and we learn to work around available light. For some people this is more than good enough to get great photos.
Tin Man, I agree with you. I was using Sony 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Zoom and was not satisfied with the results due to the grainy pictures I was getting in poor light and difficulty with AF, particularly for birds in flight in low light situations. So last year I invested in the Sony 400 GM F2.8 and despite the high cost, I have never regretted the purchase, my photos are so much better, and although only 400mm, even cropped the resolution is better than 600mm with the zoom and I always have the option of adding teleconverter if I want more reach, but rarely do. For me the Sony A1 and 400 GM are the perfect combination for wildlife photography. I have considered the 600 GM, but do not want to lose the F2.8 for F4 and think that may sometimes be too tight, particularly on safari in Africa. BTW I justified the high cost of the prime by the fact that if I am spending thousands each year travelling for wildlife photography, as I do, it is worth investing in the best equipment to take full advantage of the photographic opportunities.
Ok, I get your point and, of course, ideally we would all have a 600 f4 BUT your example is missing something. Finding the subject with a 600 prime can take waaay longer than the the time you need focus and take the photo with a zoom lens and your bird can be already gone by that moment. A non-perfectly sharp photo is always better than a non-existing photo. Also carrying a 600mm prime can make you not move as much as you should or simply not arrive where you should. Even more: if your subject comes too close, you’re gonna miss that shot with the prime and not with the zoom. You are also constrain to one composition with the prime, while you have a big range of compositions with the zoom. And at last but not least: you have some old versions available if you shoot with Canon or Nikon (with an adapter that makes it slower) but you have no options but spending 13’000$ if you shoot with Sony and then you may not have enough money to visit that places where your favourite animals live. Soo…is a 600 prime great to have and the ultimate photo gear? Of course. Would you get better photos the times when you nail them? Absolutely. Do you need it as your best option? In my opinion: just in some precise cases but not in general. Most of us can quite often get better results with a good zoom than with such a big, ultra-expensive prime and even specialise in a kind of photos you would be able to take with a plime.
As someone who has started with a 150-600 and later upgraded to a 400 2.8, its definetly true that it's significantly harder to find a subject with a prime lens vs finding it at 150 and zooming to 600, the lighter lens also does make for easier mobility. However, in my experience these are both skills that overtime we can practice and get better at. The more we shoot with a prime the better we will get at finding subjects quickly, so that initial level of difficulty can be surpassed. Likewise, with the added weight overtime you get used to handling a bigger lens and are able to quickly change positions with it quickly and accurately. So while the two points can be improved upon with personal skill development, a camera not being able to focus due to lack of light is not something we can really control as much, as it relies on the technology in the camera. Long zooms are an amazing tool and highly recomended for anyone to use and practice with (I wouldn't recomend anyone go to a telephoto prime lense without ever even trying to shoot telephoto on an more affordible zoom first). But the jump in image quality, focus speed and potential for capturing moments in low light conditions is a total game changer when it comes to using primes! Which is of course, not to say you can't get some amazing photos with a zoom as well.
@@Sim_smi Hi Timmy, I’m not defending zooms to be a better tool than fast primes. I just want to point out that primes are not the only way to go for a good wildlife photography. Both have benefits over the other and overall, you’re gonna find yourself making a diferent type of photography with both options. I see primes more like a sniper tool. Yes, you get much better at finding your subjects with a prime just after a couple of weeks and you can even use a sight but you are never gonna be so fast like using a zoom lens. In some situations, it’s almost impossible to find some fast moving animals or in some busy background and it can be very frustrating. There’s also some tricks to focus a slow lens in low light, like pre-focusing or even using manual focus. You can also get used to the weight but you’ll never be so agile and reactive like with a lens half the size and weight and it can also make the difference between hiding the lens in your backpack or not. I mean, those are all bad solutions because you cannot completely solve either the downsides of primes or the downsides of zooms. I think we get so attracted to fast primes because the photos that come out of those things are just out of this world. So pleasent, so creamy, so nice…and the feeling when you focus and get the shot with them is just inexplicable. You cannot get that kind of photos with a zoom lens but there’s also a lot of photos that you get with a zoom and you won’t be able to get with a prime and man…you can do sooo many things with 13000$… So my whole point is that, in my opinion, you can perfectly have a great portfolio and make the best photos without a 600mm f4. BUT, if you are a pro, who get some good money from your business, you will want to get one of those, because it’ll allow you to explore new possibilities and make some photos that you wouldn’t with a zoom. It’s like unblocking a bonus level of a videogame. You can finish the game without it, but you WANT to play that level.
Couple of things here TML. I neither have the experience, nor the budget to test your theory - but I accept it on its premise. For indoor Ice Hockey - most working pros including US Olympic Ice Hockey photographer Jeff Cable - and other pros that shoot for NHL teams will tell you that a typical 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom and some shorter - some longer f/4s are helpful in shooting indoors. Now, I shoot mostly wildlife, but I took my 200mm f/2 in the arena for some sports work (knowing full well I was giving up flexibility). The speed of the AF, accuracy of the AF, and cutting my ISO in half provided some really nice images compared to the f/2.8. That said, the f/2 lens is heavier, less versatile, and more expensive. So where am I going with this? Your comments about times of day being f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6 - for wildlife shooting - I get it. That said, many photographers might never realize their passion if they have to wait to buy a 400mm f/2.8. Perhaps after years, they realize they are willing to spend that kind of money on it. Should they miss out on their hobby in the meantime? Perhaps they are on a fixed income. Point is, your recommendations are for people who know what they want, and have the resources to make those purchase decisions. One last point to this end: If you argue - buy an older 400mm f/2.8 or older 600mm f/4 - then the lenses tend to be several pounds/a kilo heavier and less transportable - especially for people up in age or with physical disabilities. People who will see a return on their investment - because they teach, run workshops to remote locations, and do not have a spouse or family to support will have an easier time accepting the thought that they need to purchase faster, lighter super telephoto primes. Again, I don't disagree, just think that if I told people the benefits of staying at luxury hotels when they do their world travel - I might be dead on, but my audience would be fairly limited. I would venture to say, this isn't the majority of folks. I do believe it would be interesting to survey the gear of of all the "Wildlife" and "Bird" photographers of the year. I think I saw in a poll a few years ago that many were still shooting DSLRs. Thanks, as always, for providing your insight. Always great to hear from you.
I feel you don’t have to spend big bucks to get 2.8 lens. Technically you can do it with f4 or f5.6 lens also as long as the lighting conditions are good enough and you are at right spot at right time. You might want to check Nikon Z 400mm f4.5 lens….it is an amazing lens as good as 2.8 Photography is really subjective, one person might like your photo but other might find flaws in it. I bet if you get a huge print of a 45mp photo taken with 400mm 2.8 and 400mm 4.5 and you keep it 6 to 8ft away …you won’t be able to distinguish which was taken with which lens if I don’t tell you the lens. Off-course you will need to reduce shutter speed a little bit on 400mm 4.5 lens to match the exposure with 400mm f2.8 but that’s not a big deal as long as you know what you are doing. Most of What you mentioned is correct but I don’t agree that someone need a expensive lens to get good photos. 😊
Awesome analogy. There is a saying which is unfortunately true when it comes down to photography: you get what you paid for No substitute for a high-end prime lens. Yeah, the overall quality of the zooms are getting better and better but still, at the end of the days it is all about physics. With the introduction of new Z mount superteles and as a side effect of photographers having GAS syndrome, the market is flooded with mint condition FL prime lenses for waaaay less money what they essentially worth. Camera bodies as well. It is a good time to be alive as an amateur photographer :D
I used to own a used Canon 300mm f/2.8....adapted to my Sony A9. Autofocus was 50% successful on the best of days :( I'm saving for a 400mm f/2.8 GM now but in the meantime I'll have to make due with my 100-400 GM.
You make a great case for primes using your charts. Nice job. For me it's more a question of weight and versatility BUT I will always admire the results that can be achieved with those big primes.
Good point. With less weight one can move a lot quicker. Lately I’ve been doing more with the 70-200 zoom and am having fun with it. More on part two of the video.
Hello Tin Man Lee, If we take your photo of the Snowy Owl, which must be a little dated given the sharpness of the image, I would say that a few years later with this Z180-600, given the quality and the progress made on stabilization, you could shoot the same image with much better sharpness with a Z8 or Z9 and a Z180-600 at 1/30 which will allow ISO to be managed very easily... Of course the light is important, of course having an F2.8 lens like a 400mm is interesting! Now if we take the contest that you often quote one of the winners chosen by the public managed to take a snow leopard very close with Canon EOS 5DS and a "simple" 24mm F2.8 at 1/200 at F8 ISO 400... To be at ISO 400 at F8 at 1/200 we are far from being in the first light of day. Another public choice "this leopardess had killed a monkey" 600mm F4 1/2500 at F4 here with a 1DX Mark III we are in the middle of the day... Brittany Crossman's 2 foxes: Canon 5D Mark IV 500mm 1/1600 at F7.1 we are in the middle of the day. So to say that the condition for winning a photo contest is to shoot in low light is a possibility and not an obligation but it is above all a form of elitism which will always make you spend more...
I think you don’t get my points here. One can still get good shots with 180-600 zoom. One can still get good shots in mid day. It’s just a lot harder because if the encounter isn’t special, the boring light won’t really help. For people with limited time to travel, one can instead focus on using dramatic light in sunrise and sunset which happens a lot more often than special behavior of animal, and by creatively using drama in light and composition with the light one can take better shots much easier. You can ask the photographer how long it took them to wait for that snow leopard. Or a leopard catching a monkey. Also, I’m talking about what I’m interested in most these days, which is to use dramatic light to evoke emotion that’s why I prefer those lenses and it’s been working for me and my students that’s all.
@@TinManLee Thank you for your reply ! I reacted because some comments announce that "you will never win a photo contest" if you don't shoot at daybreak with an F2.8 and I found this generalization disproportionate to the reality in 2023 of photographers who win competitions where by analyzing shutter speeds very few take their photo in blue hour or golden hour... Subscriber to your videos I will watch the next ones with pleasure. You once quoted Vincent Munier in one of your videos, I think I have the same approach to photography as him, maybe because I'm French and I was also born in 1976, I don't know... I wish you Mr. Tin Man Lee to flourish both in the field of photography and in all areas of your life. Thank you, Ludo
Seems like a lot of mixed emotions regarding this video. I think the key is that it’s really meant for folks who are interested in consistently producing images they could could build a career out of, for example. Or consistently place them high in prestigious photo contests, etc. Using that filter, everything he says is accurate. However, do the majority of folks out there, especially those watching UA-cam, have that goal… absolutely not. In that respect, I think his advice falls flat for many. My two cents… free of charge! 😂
The epitome of technological dependency. A bad worksman blames his tools. Surely a great photographer will find ways and more satisfaction in the efforts it takes to get a great photo. The few can pay their way to Everest.
While I respect your opinion, this strikes me as a serious case of gear acquisition syndrome. Your entire case hinges on the "need" to shoot at F2.8 ISO 6400, which you admit only arises for a few minutes each day. Outside of this admittedly niche application, my Canon RF 100-500 F4.5-F7.1 is a thing of beauty: The dual focus motors are exquisitely responsive, the OIS cooperates nicely with my R7 IBIS, and the image quality is stunning. Against this, you assume that everyone can justify the expense of an F2.8 prime, even if we are not professionals, and you casually dismiss the added weight of older primes. As someone with a serious handicap, doubling the lens weight essentially excludes me from a very gratifying hobby. Clearly, not everyone is the same, and yet your perspective leaves little room for those who struggle with physical limitations or even advancing age. While thought provoking, I am sorry to say that I think you missed the boat here.
I agree with your points that the RF100-500 is good. It’s sharp. It focuses quickly in bright light. It’s relatively light weight. What I was really trying to say is, for everyday people who are busy and don’t have a lot of time to travel and take photos, trying to wait for that once a lifetime shot in bright light is not feasible. Rather, one can be more creative and use dramatic low light to create photos that few people had done before. My goal is to take the best photos to move people to laughters and tears. I can do it more consistently by creative use of low light over the years and am just sharing that experience for people. It’s obviously different from most what people do. It’s not to say that these zoom lenses with big f-number are bad. It’s just a lot more difficult to create photos that move people. For documenting of photos of animals bright and sharp then yes it’s perfect.
I own 500 f4 prime lens myself still I do not agree with you . Primes are amazing and I love mine but… Its same as saying that Ferrari is better than Toyota But those who cannot afford Ferrari will surely go for Toyota which is smooth reliable and serves their need in their budget Comparing tomato with apple is not logical at all If we go by your logic then all camera manufacturers are not wise to make these lens and everyone should have been purchasing the two or three primes that are there . It’s far away from reality what you are suggesting and comparing it with as then camera manufacturers would have been making only two or three lens only Compare it with Sony 200-600 which is more logical comparison And let me put it this way that Nikon 180-600 will sell a lot more than Sony and will serve needs of majority of shooters
You have an interesting point. Thanks. I think it’s a better analogy on driving a Toyota Camry vs a Toyota 4Runner to off-roading. A Toyota will get stuck (compared to mediocre pictures in harsh light and crappy background) vs a 4runner that actually gets the job done. One can still get good shots with a consumer zoom lens but it’s a lot more difficult. Requires much better skill. I’ve had many students over the years who thought they were incapable because they bought in the hype of these new 150-600 zooms. They wanted to turn pro but didn’t know these lenses were limiting them. My video is trying to help those people. Of course one can always bring a f7.1 lens to an African safari and bring home some snapshots in harsh light and be happy but never realized what went wrong…
depressing, but a quick review of wildlife phot of the year shows few of them are the pricey prime lenses - in fact many are not and many are telephoto - tin man should be less dramatic here as if its the be all and end all
Okay, I see where you're coming from, and if I were a pro, trying to make money or get awards off my pics, I'd totally invest in 2.8 primes. That's the key word there, "invest." I think you would need that kind of quality to compete and make a name for yourself. Then again, would a pro be watching UA-cam videos comparing primes to zooms? I'm thinking no. I'm thinking your audience is mostly hobbyists who do this for love and have better places to park $15k. I've taken breathtaking shots with my Nikon 200-500 and I've been heartbroken with other shots I missed because of low light. But that's life. I'll be getting the 400mm 4.5 with a TC because it's so much smaller than the 180-600 and I do miss the creamy bokeh and the detail I get with my 300mm, but that's as far as I'll go. Well okay, the 70-200 2.8, but that's it. Honest. :)
Hey Tin Man, you make all good points.... however, every trip I have been on where someone is shooting with a large prime, I hear the complaint, " I have TOO much lens now". While i am able to zoom out and continue shooting, the prime lens shooters are getting all head shots or worse. So they do miss shots too. Its not as cut and dry as you make it sound. I think the versatility of a good zoom makes great sense for many of us. For many, the advantages of lower cost, lighter weight and ability to frame our subjects to achieve a variety of different images trumps the advantages you speak about. As photographers, we all have our own style and priorities. We don''t all fit one mold. I, for one, as an exclusive wildlife shooter have NEVER owned a fast prime long lens. The closest thing I have to a fast prime lens is the Nikon 500 PF which I love but I use my zooms the most and certainly plan on getting the 180-600.
his perspective as a lifelong photographer is, since you’ve “missed” the shot you wanted, you’ve been given the opportunity to take a shot you didn’t think u wanted. and to do so with more subject separation (in wider aperture primes). which delivers incredible moments. the ones that win competitions. not because u bought the gear that gave u control, but because u bought the big clunky gear that gives you less control but makes diamonds
Hi Tin man. The reason we bought 2.8 lens years ago was because of slow films speeds. We have eliminate slow film speeds. We can boost the ISO to make up for the loss of light. I have been photographing for over forty years. this is my opinion of course. Also, if you shoot at the hours you mentioned that would mean the other 10 hours of the day would be sleeping time. There are good photos all day if you look and use the light as you also mentioned.
I’m glad to hear your ideas. I agree good pics can be taken in harsher light. Black and white helps a bit. Maybe for architecture. But for wildlife it’s more difficult. My 500 5.6 couldn’t focus in low light. Or much slower and I miss shots. The other ten hours for me is to enjoy observing the birds and wildlife and prepare when good light is coming. It kind of sucks because I became much more picky for my shots but it’s also fun. Really appreciate your input and glad to see you started from the film days.
@@TinManLee You know you have manual focus when auto focus do not work well.
I think the Tin Man has made a great point. Yes, you can make images any time of the day. But, those images are not going to be the award winners on a national or international stage. If you are just plinking around for yourself, sure any lens will do. You are the photographer and the judge so you've always got winners. Tin Man is offering us his experiences to let us know that the absolute best photos require the absolute best equipment.
@@formerpilot thank you so much. It’s interesting. Many people would object to what I say. But i rarely hear anyone who actually has rented or used the primes to object to me. Rather they just thank me for saving them years.
Tin Man thank you for this excellent video. While I agree with everything you said about image quality, and the relationship to apertures, shutter, speeds, and ISO, the reality is that for the cost of the f/2.8 or f/4 super telephoto lens, most of us could probably plan three or four trips to a wonderful location where we have an opportunity to photograph magnificent wildlife. Lenses like the Sigma and Tamron 150 to 600 mm lenses, Sony 200 to 600 mm lens, and the new Nikon 180 to 600 mm lens provide a much more budget friendly access to these focal lengths with the full recognition that they will not be as well-suited for low light environments.
I have owned both the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f /4 primes for years and will absolutely agree with you in regards to the benefits of faster glass, however, I have since transitioned to the smaller and lighter 400mm f/4.5 and have the 800mm f/6.3 on order. At 65 years old I find that the big primes are just too big and awkward to handle for any situations that require long hikes and/or mobile shooting. With the improved low light AF and higher ISO noise handling of the newer mirrorless cameras, the usability of the smaller kit, in anything other than shooting from a blind, frequently outweighs the benefits of the bigger glass. For me, being much more nimble opens up photo opportunities that I just can’t take advantage of with the big glass, and the excellent IS allows hand holding down to ridiculously slow shutter speeds. With my Z9, the 1 1/3 stop difference of the 400mm f4.5 hasn’t been nearly as much as a hindrance as what my original concerns were, and the 6lb reduction in weight is the difference between an enjoyable day and drudgery when out in the field for an extended period of time.
OMG finally someone made a video on this...I have this discussion with people 2x a day. I will be sharing this.
Big thanks. Lol I’m expecting a lot of hate comments from this one :))))
@@TinManLee Lol can't be more than I get for my average story :). Seriously though it's a great and simple breakdown of how focus actually works, and why the primes are what they are. There is room for all these lenses but yeah, when it comes down to a differentiator what you state is absolute fact.
@@VinceMaidens took me ten years to learn lol
@@TinManLee hah my dad used to make me read about the zone system as a child, I could have told you a long time ago lol
Very helpful video Tin Man! You simplify complex topics and make it much easier to understand. Question - on Sony lenses - 400GM w/tc or worth getting the 600GM. I know the 400GM is very versatile and am interested in the upcoming 300GM F28 (e mount) (I shoot sports in addition to birds/wildlife) but have wondered about the 600GM (I currently use the 400GM w/tc for birds/wildlife with a1). Thanks for any input.
I have listened to way to many youtubers talk about noice over the years. In actual practice I have found autofocus and reach to much more important. You can reduce noice but there’s nothing you can do with a blurry photo with a tiny subject in it. 300 mm is just not enough reach for any wildlife photography, unless you are getting too close to animals.
9:09 very interesting and insightful. What about 70-200 2.8? Is there such a big difference between 200 to 300? DX mode (cropped sensor - logical) with AF
The thing is that you are the professional photographer. Your needs, yoyr budget is completely different than needs and budget of people who want to photograph birds near to home. The 180-600 lens is dedicated to amateur photographers. They do not need wide aperture because they shoot different subjects at diffefent day time. However I understand your arguments and I agree with them. But let's remember that not everyone wants to sell his home to buy a lens 🙂
The Nikon Z 180-600 is NOT dedicated to Amateurs .. I am Pro and use it on my Z8 for African Wild Life >> It KILLS the canon RF 100-500 F7.1 (Thats DARK) The 180-600 is longer at the Long end , Faster Max Aperture , No Telescoping in Zooming , Shorter Zoom Throw , Better IQ and Chaepaer by a Lot of $$$
nothing speaks louder than experience, thankyou for sharing and helping me to make up my mind.
Hi
Tin man
Excellent learning lesson from your video and easy to decide glass for wild life photography I have D500 and thinking to purchase 400 mm f 2.9 do you think I should try z9 some time I have a difficulty to get correct focus. With z9 this problem solved easily?
But how do I choose the best zoom lense as your headline is saying?
Where in this video do you say on how to choose a zoom lens. This lens isn’t aimed for professionals like yourself; it’s aimed at enthusiasts who mainly photograph birds. Nowhere in your video do you talk about if the lens is sharp or not. Obviously a f/6.3 is not going to let in as much light as an f/2.8, and I’d argue about not being able to use images at ISO 16,000. Today’s sensors are more than capable of this. You’ve even said in past videos to not be afraid of pushing ISO really high. You seem to change your mind a lot. First you said to shoot wildlife no slower than 1/800 of a sec for animal walking (which is ludicrous) now you’re saying you can get away with 1/320 of a sec (which I agree with). Also, you swore by Manual with auto ISO; and now you say to shoot full manual. Shooting manual with Auto ISO is fine for most situations. I get it you’re still learning, but putting this information out there isn’t conducive. This is coming from someone who always uses the lowest ISO possible. Personally, f/6.3 is too slow for me, and I wouldn’t buy this lens, but lots of people will, and lots of people are coming to your videos to get a good, honest review. Basically you’re saying the f/2.8 and f/4 primes are better. That’s all you’re saying. Not everyone has hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to the perfect destinations with a guide to get the best shots in the light you’re talking about, and certainly most people don’t have 20 grand ($9,500 for an older used one) Canadian to spend on a super telephoto. Love your work, but this information isn’t really informative. You could’ve elaboratedon why the lens can be good.
Ha ha, so many guys telling the fellow with an incredible portfolio that he's wrong.
Much truth spoken in this video. What impact do you believe lower megapixel cameras (20-24MP) have on the compromise with lower speed zooms?
That’s a very good question. I heard that some lower mega pixel cameras have better noise performance in low light so maybe at iso 10000 it’s better than higher mega pixel camera but I remember peta pixel or some other sites did a test and found out it didn’t make much difference.
I understand your argument but I remember you really liked the 500mm pf. I know this is a prime but it’s still a f5.6. Have your tried to use it in early light ?
Interesting, I can't afford it but if I ever had to decide 600mm F4 or 400mm F2.8 the 400mm seems like the sensible decision, you can always add focal length with teleconverters but you can't take away focal length or let in any more light than F4 with the 600mm lens. I never rule out mid day shooting at least that is for my song bird photography, I can still take nice images with overcast light or I can use trees to filter and diffuse light, obviously the lighting isn't special but I have pulled off some pleasing images during the middle of the day.
Hello, everything is correct, but wether the 1/2 hour is worth over 10.000euros......
Thank you! Understanding "lighting" is such a critical element in photography. I take photos on static subjects, such as building structures, landscapes and flowers. The requirements for dramatic lighting is less demanding than wild life photography. However, lighting is still the key to a successful photo with these subjects.
Once again, thank you for remaining us about the importance of "Maximum Aperture" in choosing lenses!
Thanks a lot. Architecture and black and white are always something I want to try on. Like Henri Cartier bresson style. I’m tempted to get a Leica Q3!
Tin Man, you hit the point, best explanation to why you will need a f2.8 Prime for wildlife
Appreciate your kind words. Yay.
It's all about the light gathering...all of the whiz bang tech is attached to you having enough.
I bought a Tokina 300mm f/2.8 APO five years ago.
It's a beast...it's a tank...but it sure lets me gather the light...and the optics are stellar...she's just slower.
The lens has actually upped my manual focus techniques when I have a great angle...it can be done.
Nice video.
Fantastic to hear. I heard the tokina 300 2.8 is very sharp. Yea it’s all about the light gathering. Thanks for your kind words!
@@TinManLee I would be up for replacing my Tokina with either the Minolta or the Sony...just not sure how much I'd be gaining. Difficult to find out comparisons on some of these older big primes. You have a great channel...keep up the good work!!
If you can’t afford 2.8, is let’s say 400 4.5 a better idea than the 180-600 f5.6-6.3? It is a prime with better max f stop, but is it enough reach 400???
Hi Tin Man, thanks for your insights. I'm more of a landscape photographer, but I am slowly getting more and more into wildlife photography. Your channel has provided me with a wealth of information and help when choosing a specific lens for wildlife photography.. I have a 100-400 Canon that is adequate for bright day shots. I have been looking to see if I can get hold of a 600 F/4 Canon rather than buy a zoom lens. I agree it's an infinitely more superior lens for low light shooting and sharpness, but at quite a cost. My biggest concern with buying a used version 1 Canon lenses is the risk of the lens motor and IS not working. You are left with a door stop as Canon will no longer service these lenses or provide parts. I am looking at a used version II which I think is a better lens and gives me the peace of mind of knowing it can be fixed if something goes wrong. I am tempted to get a 400 F2.8, but I do hear that it doesn't handle teleconverters as well as the 600 F/4. The wildlife experiences I've had in Canada tend to favour a longer lens. Who wants to get that close to a cougar and bear anyway! Thanks Tin Man, I love your channel.
Hi, I just came across your video, and what you say is true, but I am a wildlife videographer, and a fixed focal length is just too inflexible for me to film. You also want to capture the whole habitat around the animal. The only alternative to the inexpensive 180-600 or 200-600 is the Canon CN20 50-1000mm for 70,000 euros. That's a bit too expensive for me. 😅
I wonder if you cropped for close-up pictures if you were using 400mm or 500mm?
What you say Tin Man Lee makes a lot of sense. I have experienced exactly the same with my 150 - 600mm lens on my recent trip. Thanks for reinforcing my thought. I am now going in for 400mm f/2.8.
Thank yu Tin Man, I have been thinking of getting a EF300mm f2.8 II but what so you think of a Mark I of this same model. Thanks
Is the version ii lighter? My only experience was a first generation 500 f4 and a second gen 600 f4. Other than the weight I didn’t see any difference in image quality and Af speed.
@@TinManLee Thank you so much with your input. I think II is lighter.
@@peterb.7437 lighter makes a huge difference :) how much is the price difference?
I find it very advantageous to use a zoom over a prime for places I don't know. I have missed a lot of opportunities with my 600 F4 and 800 F6.3 because the bird got too close, of course when the animal is at a distance, then a prime is best. It seems that many of my favorite shots are with the Tamron G2 150-600, something about having the right focal length when hiking. If you have a guide or know where you will be shooting, then you can take the exact lens you will need, using primes is the best way to go. That said, I will buy the 180 to 600, and buy the 400 2.8 TC next.
I always value your opinion Tin Man!! But my problem is affordability and also justify purchasing a 2.8 400 lens :-). Hence I am using the Nikon Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR S for now, but now you have taught me something I didn't know. Thank You.
It’s a great lens. The 100-400 I heard. The key in this video as you understand is the understanding of the limitation. A lot of my students thrive at using the zoom lenses and eventually they mastered the techniques and are able to sell prints and eventually they get the 400 2.8.
@@TinManLee Yeah!! Thank You.
I think I remade your point above in my comment. I completely understand where TML is coming from, but it only takes into account those with the resources and time - which is not the majority of folks. To me, it's sort of like telling the benefits of traveling all over the world and staying at the best accommodations. We all realize there is some benefit there, but it's not something most people - even if they wanted to - could afford. I'd love a Lamborghini, but I can't afford it. The other thing TML neglects to mention is that the newer lenses are less weight - which is great - but if you buy an older f/2.8 (400mm) or older 600mm f/4 - they are heavier - and less portable - and not handholdable. Again, very limiting. So again, you are talking newer lenses - which are again more expensive. As to the benefits? I can tell you first hand that when I bring an 200mm f/2 lens into Ice Hockey, I get better sharpness, color rendition, and subject separation then when I shoot with a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. The difference is noticeable. That said, you give up flexibility, long hand holding, and lots of money (even though the lens was purchased used).
Thank you very much for posting this video. This is my first time watching your video and it's truly inspiring. Subscribed right away!
However, I don't quite understand why sharpness is affected by autofocus speed - I thought a slower autofocus speed simply means that it takes slightly longer for the camera to autofocus on the subject, which should be a difference of milliseconds? Would be very nice if you could elaborate that :)
Tim Man , thank for all the great information. Your explanations were really helpful. Happy 4th of July
I love your videos Tin Man!
I dont have any 2.8 lens, but I consindering now to take off my x1.4 extender from my 500 f4 lens (canon), and to shoot more at f4.
But, there is one problem as the extender "welded" to the lens 😊.
I almost never take it off, as birds are always too far, especially with full frame camera (R5).
I put the 1.4x on my 500 f4 for many years. Never taking it off. It’s ideal for birds in flight. But these days I don’t use teleconverter much and I found that the image is a lot more contrasty. It seems the tc takes contrast away. The images are still sharp but with lower contrast it’s less interesting. Lately the game is to find places where I can be closer where the animals are still comfortable.
Thank you Tin Man for this reply. Its interesting.
Maybe you should make a video about your experience with teleconverters...
@@OfirLotan that’s actually a part two of this video I’m doing final editing now. Stay tuned ;)
😊 I will
For people with limited budget, nikon 200-500 and tammy 150-600 were the most value for money and versatile lens, some shoot wildlife for pleasure... Not for awards..Nik 180-600 will continue to fulfill this category..
Thank You for reminding me about 'The Light'...Its what photography is all about.
I'm a noob (one year amateur shooting) and I cannot deny your arguments. But your target audience for this video must be people that are either pros, or investing to become pros, or need not worry much about the money they spend. Others have to compromise. I can't get frequent decent pictures if most times to get close enough I'm scaring the animal away, disturbing its peace. Reach is essential for me, any time of the day. To avoid non-photos, as you call them, I need to be at 5m from a bird with my DX 50-250. In any case, even if we disagree on this topic, let me thank you for so many valuable videos! You really made me rethink my approach to wildlife photography, pushed me another step further. So, many thanks!
Love the fstop zones diagram
I shoot silver gelatine film photos typically iso 400.
Was very happy with my recent £200 lens purchase 180mm f2.8. Takes fantastic pictures. Olympus zuiko lenses from the I presume the 1970s are amazing value for money
Hmm... I don't love this news, but I really do appreciate your honesty. Thank you!
Just telling my own experience of what I found out. ;)
I think of tele-zooms, or any variable aperture/small aperture lenses as "fair light lenses". Even f4 lenses push into this territory, but for mid daylight/controlled light photography, they're fine. You get little to no benefit with larger glass elements/wider apertures in those instances. They're just not for capturing that earliest and latest daylight, which, if that's what pays the big bucks, requires the big glass.
Hi tin
Can you make more videos on shooting techniques on field pls
Nothing wrong with zooms like the nikon 180-600! Majority of folks cannot justify expensive primes...and we learn to work around available light. For some people this is more than good enough to get great photos.
Tin Man, I agree with you. I was using Sony 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Zoom and was not satisfied with the results due to the grainy pictures I was getting in poor light and difficulty with AF, particularly for birds in flight in low light situations. So last year I invested in the Sony 400 GM F2.8 and despite the high cost, I have never regretted the purchase, my photos are so much better, and although only 400mm, even cropped the resolution is better than 600mm with the zoom and I always have the option of adding teleconverter if I want more reach, but rarely do. For me the Sony A1 and 400 GM are the perfect combination for wildlife photography. I have considered the 600 GM, but do not want to lose the F2.8 for F4 and think that may sometimes be too tight, particularly on safari in Africa. BTW I justified the high cost of the prime by the fact that if I am spending thousands each year travelling for wildlife photography, as I do, it is worth investing in the best equipment to take full advantage of the photographic opportunities.
Ok, I get your point and, of course, ideally we would all have a 600 f4 BUT your example is missing something. Finding the subject with a 600 prime can take waaay longer than the the time you need focus and take the photo with a zoom lens and your bird can be already gone by that moment. A non-perfectly sharp photo is always better than a non-existing photo. Also carrying a 600mm prime can make you not move as much as you should or simply not arrive where you should. Even more: if your subject comes too close, you’re gonna miss that shot with the prime and not with the zoom. You are also constrain to one composition with the prime, while you have a big range of compositions with the zoom. And at last but not least: you have some old versions available if you shoot with Canon or Nikon (with an adapter that makes it slower) but you have no options but spending 13’000$ if you shoot with Sony and then you may not have enough money to visit that places where your favourite animals live.
Soo…is a 600 prime great to have and the ultimate photo gear? Of course. Would you get better photos the times when you nail them? Absolutely. Do you need it as your best option? In my opinion: just in some precise cases but not in general. Most of us can quite often get better results with a good zoom than with such a big, ultra-expensive prime and even specialise in a kind of photos you would be able to take with a plime.
As someone who has started with a 150-600 and later upgraded to a 400 2.8, its definetly true that it's significantly harder to find a subject with a prime lens vs finding it at 150 and zooming to 600, the lighter lens also does make for easier mobility.
However, in my experience these are both skills that overtime we can practice and get better at. The more we shoot with a prime the better we will get at finding subjects quickly, so that initial level of difficulty can be surpassed. Likewise, with the added weight overtime you get used to handling a bigger lens and are able to quickly change positions with it quickly and accurately.
So while the two points can be improved upon with personal skill development, a camera not being able to focus due to lack of light is not something we can really control as much, as it relies on the technology in the camera.
Long zooms are an amazing tool and highly recomended for anyone to use and practice with (I wouldn't recomend anyone go to a telephoto prime lense without ever even trying to shoot telephoto on an more affordible zoom first). But the jump in image quality, focus speed and potential for capturing moments in low light conditions is a total game changer when it comes to using primes! Which is of course, not to say you can't get some amazing photos with a zoom as well.
@@Sim_smi Hi Timmy, I’m not defending zooms to be a better tool than fast primes. I just want to point out that primes are not the only way to go for a good wildlife photography. Both have benefits over the other and overall, you’re gonna find yourself making a diferent type of photography with both options. I see primes more like a sniper tool.
Yes, you get much better at finding your subjects with a prime just after a couple of weeks and you can even use a sight but you are never gonna be so fast like using a zoom lens. In some situations, it’s almost impossible to find some fast moving animals or in some busy background and it can be very frustrating. There’s also some tricks to focus a slow lens in low light, like pre-focusing or even using manual focus.
You can also get used to the weight but you’ll never be so agile and reactive like with a lens half the size and weight and it can also make the difference between hiding the lens in your backpack or not.
I mean, those are all bad solutions because you cannot completely solve either the downsides of primes or the downsides of zooms. I think we get so attracted to fast primes because the photos that come out of those things are just out of this world. So pleasent, so creamy, so nice…and the feeling when you focus and get the shot with them is just inexplicable. You cannot get that kind of photos with a zoom lens but there’s also a lot of photos that you get with a zoom and you won’t be able to get with a prime and man…you can do sooo many things with 13000$…
So my whole point is that, in my opinion, you can perfectly have a great portfolio and make the best photos without a 600mm f4. BUT, if you are a pro, who get some good money from your business, you will want to get one of those, because it’ll allow you to explore new possibilities and make some photos that you wouldn’t with a zoom. It’s like unblocking a bonus level of a videogame. You can finish the game without it, but you WANT to play that level.
Couple of things here TML. I neither have the experience, nor the budget to test your theory - but I accept it on its premise. For indoor Ice Hockey - most working pros including US Olympic Ice Hockey photographer Jeff Cable - and other pros that shoot for NHL teams will tell you that a typical 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom and some shorter - some longer f/4s are helpful in shooting indoors. Now, I shoot mostly wildlife, but I took my 200mm f/2 in the arena for some sports work (knowing full well I was giving up flexibility). The speed of the AF, accuracy of the AF, and cutting my ISO in half provided some really nice images compared to the f/2.8. That said, the f/2 lens is heavier, less versatile, and more expensive. So where am I going with this? Your comments about times of day being f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6 - for wildlife shooting - I get it. That said, many photographers might never realize their passion if they have to wait to buy a 400mm f/2.8. Perhaps after years, they realize they are willing to spend that kind of money on it. Should they miss out on their hobby in the meantime? Perhaps they are on a fixed income. Point is, your recommendations are for people who know what they want, and have the resources to make those purchase decisions. One last point to this end: If you argue - buy an older 400mm f/2.8 or older 600mm f/4 - then the lenses tend to be several pounds/a kilo heavier and less transportable - especially for people up in age or with physical disabilities. People who will see a return on their investment - because they teach, run workshops to remote locations, and do not have a spouse or family to support will have an easier time accepting the thought that they need to purchase faster, lighter super telephoto primes. Again, I don't disagree, just think that if I told people the benefits of staying at luxury hotels when they do their world travel - I might be dead on, but my audience would be fairly limited. I would venture to say, this isn't the majority of folks. I do believe it would be interesting to survey the gear of of all the "Wildlife" and "Bird" photographers of the year. I think I saw in a poll a few years ago that many were still shooting DSLRs. Thanks, as always, for providing your insight. Always great to hear from you.
Excellent explanation. ❤
So glad to hear thanks for your support!
I feel you don’t have to spend big bucks to get 2.8 lens. Technically you can do it with f4 or f5.6 lens also as long as the lighting conditions are good enough and you are at right spot at right time.
You might want to check Nikon Z 400mm f4.5 lens….it is an amazing lens as good as 2.8
Photography is really subjective, one person might like your photo but other might find flaws in it. I bet if you get a huge print of a 45mp photo taken with 400mm 2.8 and 400mm 4.5 and you keep it 6 to 8ft away …you won’t be able to distinguish which was taken with which lens if I don’t tell you the lens. Off-course you will need to reduce shutter speed a little bit on 400mm 4.5 lens to match the exposure with 400mm f2.8 but that’s not a big deal as long as you know what you are doing. Most of What you mentioned is correct but I don’t agree that someone need a expensive lens to get good photos. 😊
Awesome analogy. There is a saying which is unfortunately true when it comes down to photography: you get what you paid for
No substitute for a high-end prime lens. Yeah, the overall quality of the zooms are getting better and better but still, at the end of the days it is all about physics.
With the introduction of new Z mount superteles and as a side effect of photographers having GAS syndrome, the market is flooded with mint condition FL prime lenses for waaaay less money what they essentially worth. Camera bodies as well. It is a good time to be alive as an amateur photographer :D
You won me over with the chart on the extra minutes a faster lens affords you. 👏
Now to find some money…
Love your content and analogies
Haha do you mean the fish in Whole Foods Market analogy?
I used to own a used Canon 300mm f/2.8....adapted to my Sony A9. Autofocus was 50% successful on the best of days :( I'm saving for a 400mm f/2.8 GM now but in the meantime I'll have to make due with my 100-400 GM.
Great analogy. Fish. But I had to pass on the caviar and ordered the Cod. ;-)
Half the winning photos for Wildlife Photographer of the year (Natural History Museum) were taken with zoom lenses.
You make a great case for primes using your charts. Nice job. For me it's more a question of weight and versatility BUT I will always admire the results that can be achieved with those big primes.
Good point. With less weight one can move a lot quicker. Lately I’ve been doing more with the 70-200 zoom and am having fun with it. More on part two of the video.
Thank you !
Damn this is making a lot of sense - granted i still have my eye on the upcoming canon 200-500 f4.
I have a great idea, I'll cancel my pre-order of the Z 180-600 and you can give me the extra £14k I need to for a 600mm f4...
If i took the same picture of that lion early in the morning with my 50mm 1.8, i would not be typing this message right now.
I like your videos very much friend 🎉
Hello Tin Man Lee,
If we take your photo of the Snowy Owl, which must be a little dated given the sharpness of the image, I would say that a few years later with this Z180-600, given the quality and the progress made on stabilization, you could shoot the same image with much better sharpness with a Z8 or Z9 and a Z180-600 at 1/30 which will allow ISO to be managed very easily...
Of course the light is important, of course having an F2.8 lens like a 400mm is interesting! Now if we take the contest that you often quote one of the winners chosen by the public managed to take a snow leopard very close with Canon EOS 5DS and a "simple" 24mm F2.8 at 1/200 at F8 ISO 400... To be at ISO 400 at F8 at 1/200 we are far from being in the first light of day.
Another public choice "this leopardess had killed a monkey" 600mm F4 1/2500 at F4 here with a 1DX Mark III we are in the middle of the day...
Brittany Crossman's 2 foxes: Canon 5D Mark IV 500mm 1/1600 at F7.1 we are in the middle of the day.
So to say that the condition for winning a photo contest is to shoot in low light is a possibility and not an obligation but it is above all a form of elitism which will always make you spend more...
I think you don’t get my points here. One can still get good shots with 180-600 zoom. One can still get good shots in mid day. It’s just a lot harder because if the encounter isn’t special, the boring light won’t really help. For people with limited time to travel, one can instead focus on using dramatic light in sunrise and sunset which happens a lot more often than special behavior of animal, and by creatively using drama in light and composition with the light one can take better shots much easier. You can ask the photographer how long it took them to wait for that snow leopard. Or a leopard catching a monkey. Also, I’m talking about what I’m interested in most these days, which is to use dramatic light to evoke emotion that’s why I prefer those lenses and it’s been working for me and my students that’s all.
@@TinManLee Thank you for your reply ! I reacted because some comments announce that "you will never win a photo contest" if you don't shoot at daybreak with an F2.8 and I found this generalization disproportionate to the reality in 2023 of photographers who win competitions where by analyzing shutter speeds very few take their photo in blue hour or golden hour... Subscriber to your videos I will watch the next ones with pleasure. You once quoted Vincent Munier in one of your videos, I think I have the same approach to photography as him, maybe because I'm French and I was also born in 1976, I don't know... I wish you Mr. Tin Man Lee to flourish both in the field of photography and in all areas of your life. Thank you, Ludo
Seems like a lot of mixed emotions regarding this video. I think the key is that it’s really meant for folks who are interested in consistently producing images they could could build a career out of, for example. Or consistently place them high in prestigious photo contests, etc. Using that filter, everything he says is accurate. However, do the majority of folks out there, especially those watching UA-cam, have that goal… absolutely not. In that respect, I think his advice falls flat for many. My two cents… free of charge! 😂
The epitome of technological dependency. A bad worksman blames his tools. Surely a great photographer will find ways and more satisfaction in the efforts it takes to get a great photo. The few can pay their way to Everest.
Watching this after purchasing today 180-600 lol
While I respect your opinion, this strikes me as a serious case of gear acquisition syndrome. Your entire case hinges on the "need" to shoot at F2.8 ISO 6400, which you admit only arises for a few minutes each day. Outside of this admittedly niche application, my Canon RF 100-500 F4.5-F7.1 is a thing of beauty: The dual focus motors are exquisitely responsive, the OIS cooperates nicely with my R7 IBIS, and the image quality is stunning. Against this, you assume that everyone can justify the expense of an F2.8 prime, even if we are not professionals, and you casually dismiss the added weight of older primes. As someone with a serious handicap, doubling the lens weight essentially excludes me from a very gratifying hobby. Clearly, not everyone is the same, and yet your perspective leaves little room for those who struggle with physical limitations or even advancing age. While thought provoking, I am sorry to say that I think you missed the boat here.
I agree with your points that the RF100-500 is good. It’s sharp. It focuses quickly in bright light. It’s relatively light weight. What I was really trying to say is, for everyday people who are busy and don’t have a lot of time to travel and take photos, trying to wait for that once a lifetime shot in bright light is not feasible. Rather, one can be more creative and use dramatic low light to create photos that few people had done before. My goal is to take the best photos to move people to laughters and tears. I can do it more consistently by creative use of low light over the years and am just sharing that experience for people. It’s obviously different from most what people do. It’s not to say that these zoom lenses with big f-number are bad. It’s just a lot more difficult to create photos that move people. For documenting of photos of animals bright and sharp then yes it’s perfect.
I own 500 f4 prime lens myself still I do not agree with you . Primes are amazing and I love mine but…
Its same as saying that Ferrari is better than Toyota
But those who cannot afford Ferrari will surely go for Toyota which is smooth reliable and serves their need in their budget
Comparing tomato with apple is not logical at all
If we go by your logic then all camera manufacturers are not wise to make these lens and everyone should have been purchasing the two or three primes that are there .
It’s far away from reality what you are suggesting and comparing it with as then camera manufacturers would have been making only two or three lens only
Compare it with Sony 200-600 which is more logical comparison
And let me put it this way that Nikon 180-600 will sell a lot more than Sony and will serve needs of majority of shooters
You have an interesting point. Thanks. I think it’s a better analogy on driving a Toyota Camry vs a Toyota 4Runner to off-roading. A Toyota will get stuck (compared to mediocre pictures in harsh light and crappy background) vs a 4runner that actually gets the job done. One can still get good shots with a consumer zoom lens but it’s a lot more difficult. Requires much better skill. I’ve had many students over the years who thought they were incapable because they bought in the hype of these new 150-600 zooms. They wanted to turn pro but didn’t know these lenses were limiting them. My video is trying to help those people. Of course one can always bring a f7.1 lens to an African safari and bring home some snapshots in harsh light and be happy but never realized what went wrong…
depressing, but a quick review of wildlife phot of the year shows few of them are the pricey prime lenses - in fact many are not and many are telephoto - tin man should be less dramatic here as if its the be all and end all
Okay, I see where you're coming from, and if I were a pro, trying to make money or get awards off my pics, I'd totally invest in 2.8 primes. That's the key word there, "invest." I think you would need that kind of quality to compete and make a name for yourself. Then again, would a pro be watching UA-cam videos comparing primes to zooms? I'm thinking no. I'm thinking your audience is mostly hobbyists who do this for love and have better places to park $15k. I've taken breathtaking shots with my Nikon 200-500 and I've been heartbroken with other shots I missed because of low light. But that's life. I'll be getting the 400mm 4.5 with a TC because it's so much smaller than the 180-600 and I do miss the creamy bokeh and the detail I get with my 300mm, but that's as far as I'll go. Well okay, the 70-200 2.8, but that's it. Honest. :)
Disappointing
ua-cam.com/video/mDgf0cEH2Bk/v-deo.html gold :)