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?
---------------------------------------------
lukemeup wrote:
Help you understand what? Barely anyone who already has 400 + TC1.4 is buying this lens (at least not at MSRP).
I'm with Luke on this...
I will not be selling the 400 f4.5 and replacing it with the 600PF. If I did not have the 800PF, I might have considered adding the 600 PF so I could leave one camera at 400mm and another at 600mm. I prefer not to use converters, but never hesitate to add a 1.4x on my 400mm.
For someone who already owns the 400 f4.5, 800PF, and 1.4x, it makes little sense to buy the 600PF unless you find that your 800mm lens is too long for the type of photography you do.
cheers,
bruce
Oct 18, 2023 at 06:21 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I'm with Luke on this...
I will not be selling the 400 f4.5 and replacing it with the 600PF. If I did not have the 800PF, I might have considered adding the 600 PF so I could leave one camera at 400mm and another at 600mm. I prefer not to use converters, but never hesitate to add a 1.4x on my 400mm.
For someone who already owns the 400 f4.5, 800PF, and 1.4x, it makes little sense to buy the 600PF unless you find that your 800mm lens is too long for the type of photography you do.
cheers,
bruce
Hi Bruce,
This is very much my thinking too. I am planning to get the 400 f/4.5S and use that on one camera and since I don't have either the 600PF or the 800PF, I will probably start with the 600 PF and I will use that on another camera. If I decide I need the reach and can handle the weight of th 800PF I will add that later, but I will typically use a two camera system.
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?
I don't think the majority of people with a 400 4.5 are considering this swap. It seems all about what focal lengths you need most.
If you like 400 - 560, 400 4.5 is the way
If you like 600 - 840, 600 6.3 is the way
Most of the people I know who have preordered fell into the camp of "couldn't afford (or carry) one of the big Z TC lenses, the 800mm was still a bit too big/heavy, and the 400 4.5 was too short".
as much as I'd love to buy it for GAS, I think the 400 4.5 or the 180-600 is going to be the move for me
The only real limitation that compounds the decision matrix here is one’s budget and what can be conveniently be carried on the intended outing(s).
If you’re mainly photographing small to medium birds in the wild, that’s going to suggest the 800. And probably the 1.4x tc.
If it’s mainly big mammals in the wild, it could be the 600, but again as likely to be the 800 depending on where one shoots. And again plus a TC. This is the precise situation I see where the 600TC could reign for many; or perhaps make the argument to own (and carry) both the 600 and 800 pf’s. Cheaper than the 600TC by 1/3rd, about the same net weight, but in a bigger package and optically slower.
If it’s a game park or zoo, then for sure a zoom is going to be the best answer.
African Safari mixed birds and game, I would again think a zoom (and probably 2) is probably the choice, but I’ve never done one so will defer to those that have.
Sports is where I see the benefit of a good faster 400TC. But the size/weight of the 400/4.5 would be very attractive if one were weight or budget conscious, and same for the 600pf, though f6.3 is marginal IMHO.
Now comes the second lens carried if you’ve chosen only one of the above, and to my thinking logic would dictate the flexibility of a zoom — unless you absolutely have to have optical speed.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
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.
Thank you for that thorough explanation ilkka. That helps a lot as I am trying to understand how Nikon justified the price of the 600 PF in relation to the existing 400 + 1.4 which consensus seems to be quite good. Yes, 600 PF is likely to be "better" than the TC combo as almost every prime without TC is, but as you mention the PF brings in new characteristics and nuances to the image that some may like/not like. Many thought the 400 4.5 would have been a PF lens but Nikon surprised most with how light/small they could make a traditional design, PF element may be more expensive to manufacture which might also apply to the overall cost of the 600 PF but in contrast to the 500 PF there seems to be a larger gap than many were expecting. Yes, maybe Nikon realized their lens options have matured to the point that they now have a lot more to offer photographers than most of their competition so maybe they decided to start capitalizing on this, not sure it was the right time to do so but I guess time will tell.
lukemeup wrote:
Help you understand what? Barely anyone who already has 400 + TC1.4 is buying this lens (at least not at MSRP).
That is not the impression I got reading through all the responses prior to this. But what you say makes more sense to me, I would think most already with 400 4.5 and TC would stay there or at least wait to see how well this new lens performs before getting too excited about it. When the 800PF was released, nothing else like it, when the 400 4.5 was released, nothing else like it. But 600 PF has a couple of options "like it" so trying to figure out what is so unique to justify the cost of entry. If it was 600 f/5.6 PF then yes, and I hear all the arguments about how much bigger and heavier it would be but with the 400 4.5 + 1.4 it just doesn't seem to be enough of a step up from the 400 for the price they are asking.
wjmeyer wrote:
That is not the impression I got reading through all the responses prior to this. But what you say makes more sense to me, I would think most already with 400 4.5 and TC would stay there or at least wait to see how well this new lens performs before getting too excited about it. When the 800PF was released, nothing else like it, when the 400 4.5 was released, nothing else like it. But 600 PF has a couple of options "like it" so trying to figure out what is so unique to justify the cost of entry. If it was 600 f/5.6 PF then yes, and I hear all the arguments about how much bigger and heavier it would be but with the 400 4.5 + 1.4 it just doesn't seem to be enough of a step up from the 400 for the price they are asking....Show more →
ArizonaImage wrote:
Hmm I thought Nikkor was making their own 200-600, although the 180-600 fits the bill pretty good.
Yeah the rumors changed to say it would likely be 180 at the short end instead of 200 a few months before it was announced.
But essentially it is exactly what people were expecting and hoping for....a lens similar to the Sony 200-600...600/6.3 at the long end, internal short throw zoom. Bonus for Nikon is 20mm extra at the short end, better magnification at the long end and $300 bucks cheaper than the Sony. The only thing I really didn't like about Nikon's release is the lack of a dedicated control ring and dedicated MF ring. You have to choose one or the other function from the single ring.
arbitrage wrote:
Yeah the rumors changed to say it would likely be 180 at the short end instead of 200 a few months before it was announced.
But essentially it is exactly what people were expecting and hoping for....a lens similar to the Sony 200-600...600/6.3 at the long end, internal short throw zoom. Bonus for Nikon is 20mm extra at the short end, better magnification at the long end and $300 bucks cheaper than the Sony. The only thing I really didn't like about Nikon's release is the lack of a dedicated control ring and dedicated MF ring. You have to choose one or the other function from the single ring....Show more →
The 180-600Z performs well enough that I've decided to sell my (adapted) Sony 200-600G, but not without some remorse; the Sony is a tad sharper, the zoom throw is a bit shorter and lighter and allows zooming with one finger (better for shooting video) and I like the foot design better. But the Nikon is still very good in terms of sharpness and seems to take the 1.4xTC very well, has much better stabilization and doesn't focus breath nearly as much. Still, it was not an easy decision.
arbitrage wrote:
Yeah the rumors changed to say it would likely be 180 at the short end instead of 200 a few months before it was announced.
But essentially it is exactly what people were expecting and hoping for....a lens similar to the Sony 200-600...600/6.3 at the long end, internal short throw zoom. Bonus for Nikon is 20mm extra at the short end, better magnification at the long end and $300 bucks cheaper than the Sony. The only thing I really didn't like about Nikon's release is the lack of a dedicated control ring and dedicated MF ring. You have to choose one or the other function from the single ring....Show more →
Yes, I noticed that ring and I wished it was wider so it would be easier to find. I often search with my fingers for the focus ring while my eye is still to the viewfinder. But that's a small thing and we adapt; i.e. I'll learn to find it. I still use the old 200-500 for video and always on the tripod. Looks like it will be replaced by this 180-600.
Gary Irwin wrote:
The 180-600Z performs well enough that I've decided to sell my (adapted) Sony 200-600G, but not without some remorse; the Sony is a tad sharper, the zoom throw is a bit shorter and lighter and allows zooming with one finger (better for shooting video) and I like the foot design better. But the Nikon is still very good in terms of sharpness and seems to take the 1.4xTC very well, has much better stabilization and doesn't focus breath nearly as much. Still, it was not an easy decision.
What VR mode do you shoot in when shooting stills? I’ve noticed that my 400 f/4.5 is sharper when I either have VR off or have VR set to Normal. Sport mode noticeably softens the results when pixel peeping. I know that Sport mode seems to be prevalent in its use, and I’m wondering if that may be why the performance drops just a tad, but noticeable enough.
Archerscreek wrote:
What VR mode do you shoot in when shooting stills? I’ve noticed that my 400 f/4.5 is sharper when I either have VR off or have VR set to Normal. Sport mode noticeably softens the results when pixel peeping. I know that Sport mode seems to be prevalent in its use, and I’m wondering if that may be why the performance drops just a tad, but noticeable enough.
I only use sport mode, as the Normal VR is too jumpy and I find that you get fewer in focus images when shooting a burst.
I've not seen how sport mode reduces sharpness... Ideally, I'd shoot 100% of my pictures from a tripod and turn VR off, however, if I am tracking motion or trying to shoot through thick vegetation, VR is indispensable.
Archerscreek wrote:
What VR mode do you shoot in when shooting stills? I’ve noticed that my 400 f/4.5 is sharper when I either have VR off or have VR set to Normal. Sport mode noticeably softens the results when pixel peeping. I know that Sport mode seems to be prevalent in its use, and I’m wondering if that may be why the performance drops just a tad, but noticeable enough.
Normal VR mode is intended for singular stills, video, landscapes, etc. Basically whenever you need maximum stabilization or want to push the shutter speed as low as possible for a stationary subject/scene. The "jumpiness" you see in Normal mode is the VR mechanism resetting in-between every frame, as it's not intended for fast action or high speed continuous shooting.
Sport VR mode is intended for any kind of continuous shooting, panning, fast action, etc. where your shutter speed is likely to be high enough to stop the action regardless, and the primary benefit of the VR shifts to keeping the viewfinder stabilized to help you track the subject, rather than helping you get a sharp shot with the lowest possible shutter speed.
Neither mode should have any noticeable negative impact on image quality if they are being used as intended.
CanadaMark wrote:
Normal VR mode is intended for singular stills, video, landscapes, etc. Basically whenever you need maximum stabilization or want to push the shutter speed as low as possible for a stationary subject/scene. The "jumpiness" you see in Normal mode is the VR mechanism resetting in-between every frame, as it's not intended for fast action or high speed continuous shooting.
Sport VR mode is intended for any kind of continuous shooting, panning, fast action, etc. where your shutter speed is likely to be high enough to stop the action regardless, and the primary benefit of the VR shifts to keeping the viewfinder stabilized to help you track the subject, rather than helping you get a sharp shot with the lowest possible shutter speed.
Neither mode should have any noticeable negative impact on image quality if they are being used as intended....Show more →
I only shoot video, but use VR just like you would for stills -- I use "normal" for static or very slowly moving subjects and "sport" when panning. I never shut VR off even when on a tripod.
