armd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Hey Robert, I had to delete my response to your Loon photos with the clipped wings. I realized I was posting in the wrong Forum  This was my response if you're interested.
That's my whole point Robert. I'm in no way arguing the 180-600 matches the 600 PF in IQ. But, but, it's considerably more expensive. It's still a 6.3 lens. And most importantly, so often you hear people saying they would pair it with a 70-200 or 100-400. So that negates any weight savings because now you're carrying another lens and probably another body. Unless you're going to be switching lenses which to me would be a huge downside. Not to mention the added cost of the additional body and lens. And if you're pairing it with say a 100-400 you're now using a lens that doesn't even perform as well as the 180-600. All for an advantage in IQ that very few would even notice ?? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.
And you're right, Your Loon photo is gorgeous but I would much rather have all the wings exposed and that would have been easily done
I came upon this scene at the LA Arboretum one morning on my way to photographing Mergansers. Impossible to get at 600mm. I had to back up all the way to the very bank of the lake. It's no prize winner but it's nice to have these memories.
So I'm not begrudging anyone for picking the 600 PF. Everyone has different standards and uses. But as you can tell I love my choice ...Show more →
I think the decision points are predicated on the photographer's style, subject matter, and perceived needs. For example, for the type of WL photography that I do, 600mm is frequently inadequate as a FL. When I owned 600 f/4 lenses they were always mated to a 1.4x TC. As such, the 800 f/6.3 made better sense for me and my intended subjects than a 600 f/6.3. Along with that, the 186 is the perfect companion on a second body for zoom work. In my case, the 600 f/6.3 as fine as a lens as it is, made little sense. Now, if I tended to shoot subjects which were tame and could be approached, a 600 f/6.3, 400 f/4.5, 100-400, etc. would make a whole lot more sense. And yes, if I were on the Galapagos or on Safari, those other lenses might be better suited for that application. In my mind, it's less a question of which lens is better, rather which one(s) are better for the intended purpose. I am thankful that Nikon has provided so many good options for a wide array of situations.
|
