turbodude wrote:
How does the 60-600 compare to the 80-400 afs2?
Shooting the 80-400 was fine until I got the 200-500. I then added the
150-600 Sport before getting a deal on a 500 f4 VR. The 80-400 was
the first one I sold to recoup some of the funds, then the 150-600 S.
Missed having a native 600mm so when this uber zoom materialized
I lept. Couldn't be happier. FWIW I also have a 100-400 C that rivals
the 80-400 I sold that cost 1/3 the price. So I'd have to say it doesn't
What are the real-world consequences to auto-focus performance on the d850 with the 60-600's maximum aperture of f/6.3 at 600mm?
Based on this book, it seems as if there's a dramatic reduction in usable focus points as the aperture gets smaller than f/5.6. If you are truly limited to just the central 25 cross-type points and a single row of standard focus points, I assume tracking or other advanced AF options are out of the question. Anyone care to shed some light on this? Thanks!
trenchmonkey wrote:
Shooting the 80-400 was fine until I got the 200-500. I then added the
150-600 Sport before getting a deal on a 500 f4 VR. The 80-400 was
the first one I sold to recoup some of the funds, then the 150-600 S.
Missed having a native 600mm so when this uber zoom materialized
I lept. Couldn't be happier. FWIW I also have a 100-400 C that rivals
the 80-400 I sold that cost 1/3 the price. So I'd have to say it doesn't
kimballistic wrote:
it seems as if there's a dramatic reduction in usable focus points as the aperture gets smaller than f/5.6. If you are truly limited to just the central 25 cross-type points and a single row of standard focus points, I assume tracking or other advanced AF options are out of the question. Anyone care to shed some light on this? Thanks!
It doesn't quite work like the books/charts indicate. There's a transition between apertures where the AF points are becoming masked/vignetted, but they are not completely blocked. And f/6.3 is only 1/3 stop beyond f/5.6... I expect there is pretty much full f/5.6 point availability but the 5.6 points are probably not quite as effective as they should be.
The problem is that there is almost no way to know for a fact. And there are so many variables that subjective opinions/impressions are also highly variable/questionable.
turbodude wrote:
How does the 60-600 compare to the 80-400 afs2?
-20 & +200...
TBH, my 80-400 VR2 is one of my least used lenses, and I haven't gotten an opportunity to use the 60-600 in anger yet... so I can't really say much specific.
My impression is that the biggest difference is going to be the weight... if 400mm is long enough then the 80-400 is probably preferable for carrying around all day.
I tested it with the Sigma 1.4APO. It's not supposed to be firmware compatible but seemed to work fine. Performance with TC's is very similar to other lenses of this type. Resolution held up well but the reduction in contrast caused the AF to struggle even more.
IMHO, you are much better off cropping rather than trying to use a TC.
sk66 wrote:
It doesn't quite work like the books/charts indicate. There's a transition between apertures where the AF points are becoming masked/vignetted, but they are not completely blocked. And f/6.3 is only 1/3 stop beyond f/5.6... I expect there is pretty much full f/5.6 point availability but the 5.6 points are probably not quite as effective as they should be.
The problem is that there is almost no way to know for a fact. And there are so many variables that subjective opinions/impressions are also highly variable/questionable.
I did some tests with it on my D850 yesterday while out looking for Harriers/SEO's... I put the AF point selection to auto and placed high contrast objects at various locations w/in the scene. Below ~200-300mm zoom the camera would happily/quickly/accurately use any/all of the 153 focus points. Beyond ~300mm the accuracy/speed began to drop off. And by 600mm it would not use/select points beyond the central ~72 AF point area at all, other than the odd momentary wander. Trying to force it to focus using AF points outside the central area was abysmal, resulting in nothing but hunting and failed focus.
I'm not saying it absolutely can't use the outer AF points at 600mm... in optimal (studio type) test conditions it might have some success.
But in the field I would focus on central compositions. IMO that's not much of an issue because most wildlife/sports/action is central AF/composition. But it's going to struggle more with small/fast/hard to track subjects. It's also worth keeping this in mind because the Nikon AF system will allow you to select any of the AF points; whether they are usable/functional or not.
sk66 wrote:
I did some tests with it on my D850 yesterday while out looking for Harriers/SEO's... I put the AF point selection to auto and placed high contrast objects at various locations w/in the scene. Below ~200-300mm zoom the camera would happily/quickly/accurately use any/all of the 153 focus points. Beyond ~300mm the accuracy/speed began to drop off. And by 600mm it would not use/select points beyond the central ~72 AF point area at all, other than the odd momentary wander. Trying to force it to focus using AF points outside the central area was abysmal, resulting in nothing but hunting and failed focus.
I'm not saying it absolutely can't use the outer AF points at 600mm... in optimal (studio type) test conditions it might have some success.
But in the field I would focus on central compositions. IMO that's not much of an issue because most wildlife/sports/action is central AF/composition. But it's going to struggle more with small/fast/hard to track subjects. It's also worth keeping this in mind because the Nikon AF system will allow you to select any of the AF points; whether they are usable/functional or not....Show more →
sk66 wrote:
I tested it with the Sigma 1.4APO. It's not supposed to be firmware compatible but seemed to work fine. Performance with TC's is very similar to other lenses of this type. Resolution held up well but the reduction in contrast caused the AF to struggle even more.
IMHO, you are much better off cropping rather than trying to use a TC.
Thanks for the info.
I love the idea of a 60-600mm. I could pretty much do it all with one lens and not have to bring out the 70-200mm for wider photos. Currently I use either the 300mm f4 pf or 300mm f2.8 with TCs.
But I can't help but wonder if I would be better off putting the money towards something longer. A lot of the places for birds around me are over water and reach is almost always an issue. Do I really need 3 ways to get to 600mm?
I love the idea of a 60-600mm. I could pretty much do it all with one lens and not have to bring out the 70-200mm for wider photos. Currently I use either the 300mm f4 pf or 300mm f2.8 with TCs.
But I can't help but wonder if I would be better off putting the money towards something longer. A lot of the places for birds around me are over water and reach is almost always an issue. Do I really need 3 ways to get to 600mm?
It pretty much doesn't matter how you get to a tighter composition because you get caught up in what I call "the equivalence circle;" even with the most expensive/top-of-the-line gear.
TC's are arguably the worst choice by some small margin, but my preference is to use them with the 400/2.8. And a slower zoom like this is going to be some level below the most expensive options... everything is a tradeoff.
In your position I think the 300/2.8 +TC's is going to be a better choice when at the limits of reach or light.
kimballistic wrote:
What are the real-world consequences to auto-focus performance on the d850 with the 60-600's maximum aperture of f/6.3 at 600mm?
Based on this book, it seems as if there's a dramatic reduction in usable focus points as the aperture gets smaller than f/5.6. If you are truly limited to just the central 25 cross-type points and a single row of standard focus points, I assume tracking or other advanced AF options are out of the question. Anyone care to shed some light on this? Thanks!
I can't speak to Nikon because I only had a Sigma 50-500mm OS for a brief time when I had a D800 (it was good but I got greedy and wanted a 120-300 2.8 instead lol).
What I can say is on Canon, I had a 50-500 OS which also has that 6.3 aperture. I regret selling it but I needed money . Center points worked fine. Always. The outer points on a 6d didn't work very well (but that is true on the 100-400 as well). Was better off not even trying lol. On a 5d3 the outer points would still focus fast but it wasn't super reliable--would back focus a lot leading to throw away pics where the eyes were too blurry. If you are trying to use the farthest points for birds or something it's probably not going to be the best choice--I doubt that any of the 5.6 lenses are either though.
Does anyone know at what focal length the 60-600mm changes to 6.3? On the 50-500 OS it was pretty early, in the 200's if I recall correctly...like 250 or so. Be curious to know what the new one is.
Compared these with shots using the 300 f4 PF/TC 14 III
AF was quicker with the zoom and the IQ = to or slightly better.
The prime combo (2xTCIII) can't touch it at 600mm f6.3 or f8 either.
. Center points worked fine. Always. The outer points on a 6d didn't work very well (but that is true on the 100-400 as well). Was better off not even trying lol. On a 5d3 the outer points would still focus fast but it wasn't super reliable--would back focus a lot leading to throw away pics where the eyes were too blurry. If you are trying to use the farthest points for birds or something it's probably not going to be the best choice--I doubt that any of the 5.6 lenses are either though.
