I've had the A1 since it was first released , still use it with the 200-600 . I wanted a faster sharper lens (mainly faster focus) but been holding off the 600mm f4 GM until I'm sure I'm sticking with Sony . It's rare I use lower than 600mm so the prime makes sense , it's just soo expensive . Now with the release of the latest Z9 firmware now the 600mm PF lens I'm really tempted
I'm not here to brand bash but would find peoples findings thats used A1 200-600 and Z9 (latest fw) 600mm PF really useful so will regularly check on here . Living in the UK I'm used to poor light , f6.3 is obviously far from ideal but I manage
bs kite wrote:
Why haven't competitors brought out their own PF's?
Without doubt it takes time to develop this technology and especially the efficient manufacturing of high-quality PF elements.
Canon does offer DO (which is similar to PF) lenses and in the EF system they had the 400mm f/4 DO II and in the RF system they have the 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11 DO's. However, these are relatively inexpensive lenses with small apertures.
Vento wrote:
Maybe Nikon will sponsor a caddie to carry your equipment as a bonus, if you buy all the lenses.
Pass me the 400/2.8 iron please, or maybe rather the 600/4 wood.
Oh yes, and you can also prepare the 135 Plena for the putt.
I was opting for a sherpa. I hear they also cook and pitch tents! For the win!
I’ve been mostly an A1 +200-600 shooter, but I added a Z9 + 500pf when it came out. The 500 is hardly ever off the Z9, and the A1 is now my 100-400 and UW body (really like the new 16-35 GM). Just seen Gordon Laing with a 10-20 F4 L. Yeah no.
What you have is great. I love the 500 and the 600 pf looks great but too much too soon. Wait until it’s freely available at least. Sony have that 300 2.8 too coming …soon?
multibit wrote:
I've had the A1 since it was first released , still use it with the 200-600 . I wanted a faster sharper lens (mainly faster focus) but been holding off the 600mm f4 GM until I'm sure I'm sticking with Sony . It's rare I use lower than 600mm so the prime makes sense , it's just soo expensive . Now with the release of the latest Z9 firmware now the 600mm PF lens I'm really tempted
I'm not here to brand bash but would find peoples findings thats used A1 200-600 and Z9 (latest fw) 600mm PF really useful so will regularly check on here . Living in the UK I'm used to poor light , f6.3 is obviously far from ideal but I manage ...Show more →
Thanks Adam , I still like the A1 body I’d just like to upgrade the 200-600, unfortunately there’s not much choice . The 600mm PF optics will definitely be better it’s the focusing I’m not sure about yet . I did try a Z9 but it was a while ago with older fw and 100-400 and 500pf
AdamLT wrote:
I’ve been mostly an A1 +200-600 shooter, but I added a Z9 + 500pf when it came out. The 500 is hardly ever off the Z9, and the A1 is now my 100-400 and UW body (really like the new 16-35 GM). Just seen Gordon Laing with a 10-20 F4 L. Yeah no.
What you have is great. I love the 500 and the 600 pf looks great but too much too soon. Wait until it’s freely available at least. Sony have that 300 2.8 too coming …soon?
The AF of the Z9 has progressed a lot and Steve Perry has measured the AF of the 600mm of to be as fast as that of the super teles that are best in class.
arbitrage wrote:
Dear Nikon,
Please stop tempting me with these non-stop releases.
Sincerely,
Sony shooter
Geoff...
I was wondering if you were going to eventually show up on this thread
While this is not the mythic Canon 600 f4 DO you've been pining for, it is a close second. With the improvements in the Z9, which will certainly appear in the Z8, the Z 600PF might now be the ultimate kayak lens.
While I am tempted by this one, my 400 f4.5 (w/ or w/out 1.4x), 800PF, and my soon to arrive 180-600 are more than enough wildlife optics for me.
My burning question... are you going to buy and try ?
George OwlsEyes wrote:
Geoff...
I was wondering if you were going to eventually show up on this thread
While this is not the mythic Canon 600 f4 DO you've been pining for, it is a close second. With the improvements in the Z9, which will certainly appear in the Z8, the Z 600PF might now be the ultimate kayak lens.
While I am tempted by this one, my 400 f4.5 (w/ or w/out 1.4x), 800PF, and my soon to arrive 180-600 are more than enough wildlife optics for me.
My burning question... are you going to buy and try ?
Help me understand, before the 600 PF was announced everyone seemed to love their 400mm f/4.5 with 1.4 TC as a 560mm f/6.3 option, comparisons to the 500 PF were made and even 600 f/4 with very favorable results. I can’t imagine that the announcement of the 600 PF has changed any of that so tell me, what is the expectation of the 600 PF over the 400 + 1.4? Were the results of this combo inflated and if not how do you justify the additional cost of the 600 PF over the 400 + 1.4?
wjmeyer wrote:
Help me understand, before the 600 PF was announced everyone seemed to love their 400mm f/4.5 with 1.4 TC as a 560mm f/6.3 option, comparisons to the 500 PF were made and even 600 f/4 with very favorable results. I can’t imagine that the announcement of the 600 PF has changed any of that so tell me, what is the expectation of the 600 PF over the 400 + 1.4? Were the results of this combo inflated and if not how do you justify the additional cost of the 600 PF over the 400 + 1.4?
Help you understand what? Barely anyone who already has 400 + TC1.4 is buying this lens (at least not at MSRP).
Alistair1 wrote:
Steve Perry calls it a mini 600TC with better handling. This may be the best all-round wildlife lens made. If I were starting over I would buy this and a 100-400 and call it a day at the long end. Add a 24-120, 14-24, 1.4x and a specialty prime of choice. Probably under 6kg including body all up.
BUT… Steve Perry also stated that for him his 800 focal (pf) got used as much as his 600 focal (tc), so his primary reason for getting it was size convenience. And then in almost the same breath, he mentioned this lens isn’t significantly lighter or smaller or better optically than the 500pf. (Re 800, I know when I’m shooting birds and smaller mammals, a lot of my 800 images still get some crop, so a 600 isn’t going to replace it. Which then begs the question will the 600 with 1.4x be “good enough” and “fast enough” stand-in 800? I don’t think so.)
Regardless, it’s nice we have multiple options for tweaking gear selection to best suit our individual needs. My decision for this lens is going to be bag size vs the zoom convenience of the 180-600, against the added investment.
gear-nut wrote:
BUT… Steve Perry also stated that for him his 800 focal (pf) got used as much as his 600 focal (tc), so his primary reason for getting it was size convenience. And then in almost the same breath, he mentioned this lens isn’t significantly lighter or smaller or better optically than the 500pf. (Re 800, I know when I’m shooting birds and smaller mammals, a lot of my 800 images still get some crop, so a 600 isn’t going to replace it. Which then begs the question will the 600 with 1.4x be “good enough” and “fast enough” stand-in 800? I don’t think so.)
Regardless, it’s nice we have multiple options for tweaking gear selection to best suit our individual needs. My decision for this lens is going to be bag size vs the zoom convenience of the 180-600, against the added investment. ...Show more →
Totally, having all these options is a high quality problem.
I am VERY happy with my pairing of the 400/4.5, 1.4x and 800/6.3 and have no intention of changing. My comment relates more to those coming fresh to the Z system who now have the option of such a small, light 600mm with exemplary performance.
A longer lens without TC will almost always produce superior image quality compared to a shorter lens with TC (where the TC is used to match the focal length of the longer lens in the comparison).
People who consider portability and ease of hand-held use will generally use the lens that will best meet their needs, and this can change over time as new lenses come to the market. PF lenses have different characteristics from conventional lenses that only use refractive elements. PF tends to result in very high sharpness and low CA, but the results can appear a bit startling due to those characteristics out of a sudden. Out of focus rendering can be in some situations worse than with lenses that don't use PF. Flare can be different. AF may be affected by the use of a TC. The 400/4.5 IMO produces very beautiful images with nice out of focus areas and a more gentle character. One can take the TC off and use it as a 400/4.5 which can be useful for mammals and in low light. All of these factors can influence an individual's preferences when it comes to lens choice between these two options. Once images from production 600 PF become available for evaluation, people can then make educated decisions.
If there were no scenarios where one of the lenses produced better results than the other, and likely other scenarios where the order is reversed, Nikon would not bring both to the market. It's up to each photographer to make their preferred choice from what is available. The images will likely have quite different characters.
wjmeyer wrote:
Help me understand, before the 600 PF was announced everyone seemed to love their 400mm f/4.5 with 1.4 TC as a 560mm f/6.3 option, comparisons to the 500 PF were made and even 600 f/4 with very favorable results. I can’t imagine that the announcement of the 600 PF has changed any of that so tell me, what is the expectation of the 600 PF over the 400 + 1.4? Were the results of this combo inflated and if not how do you justify the additional cost of the 600 PF over the 400 + 1.4?
?