For wildlife photographers looking to capture small or elusive animals in their natural habitat, a supertelephoto lens with a focal length of 600mm is an excellent tool. Currently, Nikon has two 600mm primes in their Z Series lineup: the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S and the Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S.
These lenses have a major difference in price, with the f/6.3 lens costing $4,800 compared to the f/4 lens costing $15,500. For professional photographers or those with a lot of disposable income, is the price difference worthwhile? In this article, I will compare these two lenses and highlight their distinctions in the field.
Size and Weight
Here is a comparative table of dimensions and weights between these two lenses:
| Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S | Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S | |
|---|---|---|
| Weight | 1395 g (3.08 lbs) | 3260 g (7.19 lbs) |
| Length | 278 mm (10.9 inches) | 437 mm (17.2 inches) |
| Diameter | 109 mm (4.3 inches) | 165 mm (6.5 inches) |
And let’s make sense of this data with some comparative images:
For wildlife photographers who often traverse long distances, sometimes over rugged or steep terrain, equipment weight and dimensions are crucial considerations.
The Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S is a substantial lens. While Nikon has significantly decreased its weight compared to earlier F-mount 600mm f/4 lenses – to the point where I can often shoot handheld with this lens – it remains a telephoto lens that requires a monopod, tripod, or bean bag in most situations. Carrying this setup for hours in mountainous terrain can be exhausting and may limit your agility and creativity. For this reason, I only take it to the mountains if I’m certain the trail won’t be too technical or overly challenging.
The Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S, on the other hand, is a complete revolution in terms of portability for a 600mm lens. It is an excellent choice for handheld shooting and transport in less bulky camera backpacks. For photographers covering large areas or elevation changes, or moving quickly on foot to approach animals, the portability is a game-changer, reducing fatigue and increasing responsiveness.
It is worth noting that transporting the larger 600mm f/4 requires a special backpack, making air travel challenging with a full kit. Meanwhile, the 600mm f/6.3 fits in carry-on backpacks without any real hassle.
Maximum Aperture
Apart from the size, the most immediate difference between these two lenses is their maximum aperture. This is the primary reason why the 600mm f/4 costs over $10,000 more than the 600mm f/6.3.
An f/4 aperture gathers more than double the light compared to an f/6.3 aperture. Such a capability is particularly advantageous in low-light conditions, including dawn and dusk, times often preferred by wildlife photographers. For instance, capturing a deer in the dim forest light or at the first rays of dawn becomes more feasible with the versatility provided by an f/4 aperture.
The wider maximum aperture of the 600mm f/4 TC VR S also allows a shallower depth of field. Below is a series of images, each taken first with the 600mm f/6.3 and second with the 600mm f/4, at their respective maximum apertures. For the sake of maximum similarity between the photos, I chose to photograph a stuffed animal rather than moving wildlife:
As you can see, an f/4 aperture has the capacity to blur the background more than f/6.3, and this is a compelling advantage to the 600mm f/4 TC VR S. However, the difference may not be so significant that it’s worth paying $10,000 more to achieve.
In fact, background blur is less about your lens and more about how you position yourself and your subject. Because of the lighter weight of the 600mm f/6.3, it is conceivable that, at times, you will be able to maneuver it more quickly into the right position to capture the best bokeh.
Sharpness and Optical Performance
Both lenses are part of Nikon’s “S” lineup, which guarantees exceptional optical quality. Photography Life has conducted two lab tests of these lenses, available here and here. I encourage you to read those reviews if you want more detailed information on how the lenses perform, including with teleconverters. Below, I will reproduce the MTF tests of the bare lenses:
We can see from this test that the 600mm f/4 TC VR S holds an advantage in absolute sharpness. However, the 600mm f/6.3 VR S comes impressively close, offering high-level optical performance in a much smaller and less expensive package. So close that the sharpness difference may be imperceptible in 90%+ of the shots for most wildlife photographers. This is because if a lens is already sharp enough, the value that comes from using an even sharper one is marginal.
In short, both lenses are exceptional performers. Sharpness is not the primary reason to select one over the other.
Bokeh
I already demonstrated in a previous section that there is a difference between f/6.3 and f/4 in terms of background blur, and unsurprisingly, the f/4 lens had the advantage. However, some photographers may be wondering if either of these lenses has better bokeh in the shared aperture range.
Part of the concern is that the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 lens incorporates a Phase Fresnel (PF) optical element, which sometimes is criticized for harming a lens’s bokeh. However, based on my experience with Nikon’s 300mm f/4 PF, 500mm f/5.6 PF, and 600mm f/6.3 PF lenses, each successive iteration has demonstrated improvements in bokeh quality.
To examine the differences in bokeh between these two 600mm lenses at a shared aperture, let us return to the scenes I showed you a moment ago. This time, the differences are small. I recommend clicking the images below to see them full screen, which allows you to flip between them more quickly:
I do notice a softer background on the 600mm f/4 TC VR S, even with both lenses stopped down to the same aperture value. However, it is only thanks to the nature of this comparison that any differences are visible. In isolated images that I have taken in the past, I have never noticed any reason to dislike the bokeh of the 600mm f/6.3.
Integrated TC: The 600mm f/4’s Ace
Here is where the 600mm f/4 starts to deliver better in an indisputable way. The integrated TC converts the 600mm f/4 TC VR S into an 840mm f/5.6 lens with high image quality. After capturing ten thousand images with this setup, I can say that the performance was consistently reliable. And it is possible to engage this teleconverter without the usual hassle of dismounting the lens and attaching an external TC, by which point, the subject may have vanished.
The 600mm f/6.3 VR S is compatible with Nikon’s external teleconverters, including the 1.4x TC that allows it to become an 840mm f/9 lens. However, f/9 is not ideal for wildlife photography, especially in low light. Additionally, the sharpness, according to the Photography Life tests, drops noticeably. It is still acceptable, but this would not be my go-to approach if I frequently expected to use 800mm+ focal lengths. (Instead, I would likely get the Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 for this purpose, which is not so much more expensive than the combination of the 600mm f/6.3 and the 1.4x teleconverter.)
Autofocus Speed
Autofocus speed and accuracy are vital parameters for wildlife photography, where subjects are often rapidly moving and unpredictable. I have extensively used both lenses paired with the Nikon Z9, and here are my impressions of how they compare in focus speed.
These two lenses use different motor technology. The Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S is equipped with Nikon’s highest-end Silky Swift Voice Coil Motor, while the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S is based on a stepping motor. However, practically speaking, both lenses offer top-tier AF performance with the Z8-Z9 generation cameras.
Thanks to its brighter maximum aperture, the 600mm f/4 has an advantage in extremely challenging lighting conditions, photographing at the edge of the day or in bad weather with low contrast. However, the 600mm f/6.3 VR S won’t disappoint wildlife photographers, delivering impressive speed and precision sufficient for capturing fast-moving actions in most conditions. I have had no trouble capturing fast-moving subjects like birds in flight with either lens.
Conclusions
For wildlife photographers, choosing between the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S and the Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S comes down to a balance of weight and price (which favor the f/6.3 lens) versus low-light performance and high-end features (which favor the f/4 lens). Even if optimized to different targets, both of these lenses represent the pinnacle of Nikon’s optical engineering today – so, buying one is a question of suitability to your style of photography.
Choose the NIKKOR Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S if:
- The high price does not rule it out given your budget or expected return from buying this lens.
- Exceptional brightness for low-light photography (or more background blur at f/4) is non-negotiable.
- The flexibility to engage the 1.4x integrated teleconverter without switching lenses is useful for you.
- You intend to work from a monopod or tripod a majority of the time.
- Your preferred wildlife activities and physical capability align well with the weight and size of this equipment.
Choose the NIKKOR Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S if:
- Price and budget are a factor (but not so much of a factor that the cheaper Nikon Z 180-600mm is the preferred choice)
- Portability and handheld shooting are priorities for your wildlife photography style, especially on long walks or challenging terrain.
- You will be able to make f/6.3 work for the lighting conditions that you shoot.
- You appreciate the flexibility of a lens that can be stowed in a smaller backpack, brought via air travel easily, and used with greater agility in the field.
As an owner of both lenses, I prefer the Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S for its ability to produce images with more background blur that complements my photographic style. This would undoubtedly be my choice if I could only select one. However, the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S offers significantly higher value and is an exceptionally good lens. I utilize it without hesitation for more demanding activities, such as strenuous mountain hikes and long-distance travel where the 600mm f/4 is impractical.
I hope you enjoyed this essay about these two outstanding Nikon lenses. If you found this comparison useful and intend to purchase either of these lenses, you can support our testing efforts at Photography Life by buying your equipment from our affiliate links, which costs you nothing extra but gives our website a small percentage of each sale.
- Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S at B&H
- Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S at Amazon
- Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S at B&H
- Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S at Amazon
Let me know in the comments if you have any questions. As someone who uses both lenses regularly, I will do my best to provide useful answers based on real-world experience.
A nice comparison. Especially apeciate the comparative photos at the same aperture. Thanks.
As a user of the Z 600 f6.3 (1.4kg) and the excellent AF-S 500 f4E FL (3.1kg) I use the Z 600 f6.3 90% of the time. Easier to pack, to handhold and to track a BIF. Pretty sure the same would apply to the Z 600 f4 TC.
Being able to pack a Z600 f6.3 + Z-TC1.4X + Z100-400 + Z24-120 for around the same mass as a Z600 f4 TC is something to consider.
The biggest advantage of the Z 600 f4 TC (and the 500 f4E) is the use of a 1.4x and still be at f5.6. The convenience of the built in TC is a game changer for sure.
If Nikon made a Z 600 f5.6 TC (with or without a PF element) and with a mass and cost between the two lenses in question, its sure to be a popular option.
Nice to read, though maybe predictable, still good to check the lists.
I own the 600pf and love it. I mainly use my lens hiking so weight is a major consideration but on darker days I often get close to or at 6400 iso, which is my chosen limit.
Then sometimes I dream of a faster lens …also for the more dreamy bokeh.
Was tempted to buy a second hand z 600 f4 recently but then got distracted by a second hand z 400 f2.8. Doubt got the better of me on how and if I should spend my savings…
In my considerations are also the common swifts that nest under my roof and form a welcome yearly challenge for bif. Often in the evening hours they come to feed the young. Dimmer light.
I owned a z 400 f4.5 before the 600 pf. Both lenses brought success with the swifts but would I gain from a faster but heavier lens?
Still in doubt, I ended up with a second hand z 100-400mm which is an excellent walk around lens ofcourse, and much more then a birding lens. But it also works good for me on the swifts. The focus limiter on this lens starts at a perfect 3m for my situation. With the wider view and excellent focus limiting, I get closer shots then with the 600pf. And bokeh is much less concern with bif against the sky.
So hapoy for now with an unexpected purchase and still saving, maybe till the moment I can buy both the 600 f4 and 400 f 2.8 and probably then Nikon comes with a z 500mm pf f3.5 ?
I ended up with 180-600 and a 600/4 TC . 180-600 is an excellent travel/hiking lens; I use the 600/4 for local birding and such. The TC comes very handy for that. The workout I get is a nice bonus.
I’d love to see an image quality comparison between the Z600 f6.3 and the Z180-600mm. I purchased the 180-600mm for wildlife and I’ve been very pleased with its size, weight, versatility, price, and image quality.
Hi steven, I don’t own a 180-600. I took just a few shoot using my friend one and my feeling was that is much less good in terms of optical quality. But, the main benefit form a wide range zoom is the flexibility and with 180-600 you get plenty of it.
Having said that, PL tested it and there are chart comparing these two in the review.
have a look here: photographylife.com/revie…6-6-3-vr/3
I decided on the 600PF for now after talking to Massimo, mainly for weight and maneuverability reasons. One of those main reasons was international travel, both temporary and permanent….as I’m not even sure I’ll be staying in Canada. hah. The 600PF ensures that I won’t have any headaches moving anywhere.
That being said, I think it’s a shame that Canon never developed their 600mm f/4 DO concept because they even showed an early prototype. That would have been a cool lens.
Eventually I plan to get an f/4 lens, maybe if Nikon comes out with a 500mm f/4. But for now the 600mm f/6.3 is a great lens to shoot and still produces great results with sufficient sharpness.
The 600 PF may not be “the best”, but it is a great lens. The combination of portability and image quality at that focal length is hard to beat. It easily fits into my smallest camera backpack and can come along even on air travel with the family without a hitch. 10/10 would buy again. :D
I’m really happy that you are happy with it!
The idea for the article came to me right after we talked about it, thinking that having a clear idea of the different qualities of these two fantastic lenses would be of general interest.
The 600mm f/6.3’s size and weight makes it significantly more useful any time you’re not going to be sitting in one place with a tripod. The 600mm PF seems like a better general purpose prime, if such a thing exists, due to its more practical size and weight.
I’ve thought about getting the 600mm f/4 TC (that teleconverter seems like a gamechanger!) but it’s just too large and too heavy to justify, even if I feel like I can swing the cost.
I envy the people that have a shooting style that can make use of the 600mm TC, because it’s one hell of a lens.
The 600pf is a better choice for BIF work, especially with smaller faster birds. The 600F4 quickly becomes too unwieldy and you will Miss shots. Fact, based on experience!
Strange. I have the 400/4.5 and 400/2.8TC combo. I’m not sure I have ever shot with the 400/2.8TC on any mount, always handheld. Allows for full flexibility. Have shot from safari 4×4’s and on hikes (2950g is a little lighter and smaller than 600/4TC) with and without external TC. In a 4×4 you isolate the lens from vibrations with your body. The weight of these new lenses opens up a world of possibilities. Had the 800/6.3 but that was too specialised, and almost the same size and weight of the 400/2.8TC.
Having said that, the 400/4.5 comes in the kayak with TC mounted: The 400/2.8TC is a bit much to sit between my legs! And would be a shame to go for a swim with it!!
I really think it depends on the combination of the activities you do to photograph (car, hide, mountain hikes, walks next to a pond,…) and the subjects you photograph.
I am also using the 600/4 a lot handheld, much more for example than I could do with the 500/4FL that I had before.
But my evaluation of “a lot” is linked to the fact that it is a 600/4. In practice, if I have to stay under a net I always prefer a tripod and, more generally, if there are no natural supports or the possibility of using a beanbag or the backpack itself as a support, I find photographing for hours handheld too tiring and invariably I would like to have a tripod or monopod with me.
Another example. Trying to photograph from the shore of the lake at water level, I shot both freehand and with a beanbag on the shore and a tripod at minimum height. Here too, the tripod is better because once adjusted I was sure of always having the horizon on the water leveled in addition to not supporting the weight.
Just to compare, I attached the tripod foot to the 600/6.3PF to take the photos of the peluche owl I used for this article. Never ever used it other than handheld.
Great comparison article. I’m a tad bit confused about your comment above. The 600mm f/4S 1.4x TC is heavier than the 500FL, so I’m unsure what you meant. How is it that a bigger, fatter and heavier lens is more hand-holdable? I have the 500FL and it’s well balanced and I believes sits between the new 400mm TC and 600mm TC in weight. I’ve shot the two TC lenses myself and I preferred the 600mm. For once I think Nikon finally made a 600mm f/4, which is sharper than its 400mm f/2.8 counterpart. I was surprised to see very little if any gain in image quality with the new 400mm TC, over its predecessor the 400FL. Heck I’d go as far as saying it’s not even much better IQ wise than 400G. Though all 400mm f/2.8’s have been amazing for a long time, from all manufacturers.
I’ll personally be keeping my 500FL for now and if I get anything…it’ll probably be a 120-300mm f/2.8 or 180-400FL. I still adore my D6 and D500, so I prefer to stick mostly with F-mount lenses. The only Z-mount I’ve bought is the 24-120mm f/4S and it’s great. Thankfully though all of my lenses are E-type and they all hold up IQ wise to the newer Z-lenses in IQ. In fact the 28mm f/1.4E, 70-200mm f/2.8E FL and 500mm f/4E FL are all incredibly sharp. Nikon is yet to replace the 28mm with an f/1.2 S or the 500mm f/4FL with an TC. Plus I’m not sure how they’d best either of them, image quality wise. Both are near perfect optically and their MTF charts are insane! Nikon made some incredible lenses in the last 6-7 years before the Z-mount arrived. Though a built in 1.4x TC is an incredible feature which I’m very jealous of. Though to be honest I doubt I’d spend $10,000 to get one. As much of a game changer it can be to have, I don’t value the built in TC that much.
Thanks for your comment, lrcut.
I agree, the 600/6.3PF is not a specialized lens like the 600/4TC, and it makes its bigger brother a reasonable option only for those who clearly know if and why they need the extra stop. Otherwise, the 600/6.3PF is a much easier lens to use, much less expensive, and of adequate quality for any purpose. Which is the point of my article.
Nikon did a very good job in design and make both of them.
Photographers often confuse their tools with themselves and consider the possession of some particular lenses as a sort of “expert photographer’s license”. In reality lenses are and remain tools. A Phillips screwdriver is not better than a flat screwdriver, the best is the one that corresponds to the screw.
I’d say a Phillips is objectively better than a flat – it doesn’t slip out of the screw head so easily. That’s why I never buy flat-head screws.
If on the other hand you do buy flat-head screws … !?
I say nothing about the lenses – I’m maxed out on a used 500/f5.6 PF. And I mean in talent as well as £££.
Haha, maybe one day we’ll have a 7.19g 600mm F/4 lens :) But also, as an owner of the 500mm PF, its weight is seriously important. I happen to mostly take my toddler out in a baby strap when doing my wildlife photography and I’ve been still able to do 6km+ hikes on non-flat terrain, something I couldn’t imagine doing with even the 200-500mm. The weight benefit of these PF lenses is (or I guess was because they’ve been out for a while now) such a game changer.
Lucky toddler!
There is a typo for TC weight.
Fixed! That was my bad, I think it happened when I was changing the formatting of the table. Although 7.19 grams for a 600mm f/4 would have been very appealing :)