p.12 #1 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
Lance, awesome images as always. Quick question: now that you have both the 600 6.3 and 600 TC, which one is getting more use, and which one do you enjoy more? I have the 600 TC on order, and also have the 400 4.5, curious to know how it’s working out for you between the two 600s. Thanks
Lance B wrote:
Thank you very much, Maxxus46. Much appreciated!
p.12 #2 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
sandy27000 wrote:
Lance, awesome images as always. Quick question: now that you have both the 600 6.3 and 600 TC, which one is getting more use, and which one do you enjoy more? I have the 600 TC on order, and also have the 400 4.5, curious to know how it’s working out for you between the two 600s. Thanks
Thank you very much, Sandy. Much appreciated!
The 600TC gets used more and is preferred due to it's slightly better IQ and the built in TC. However, I also love the 600 PF due to it's light weight and size. "Horses for courses" as they say.
p.12 #3 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
Just returned from a trip to Sedona, AZ, where I got to do a little birding in one of the most gorgeous places I've ever had the privilege to visit. There were birds everywhere; in any bush or tree, you could expect to encounter numerous species, and most were super tolerant of my presence. Add to that, nearly every perch was attractive: thorny shrubs, beautifully whorled dead wood, colorful rocks, evergreen junipers and mesquite. The clear, open shooting environment is a joy to work with compared to the hard wood deciduous forest I'm used to here in Wisconsin.
While it was a superb environment, it was quite the shock for someone coming from the Midwest. I knew the species to expect going on (thanks to eBird), but I didn't get nearly enough time to really learn the area and find the birds, learn the light conditions (only small windows of time at sunrise/sunset before it's super harsh), wait for birds to land on a nice perch, etc. I wish I had more time to develop the area and get into the groove.
The Woodhouse Scrub-Jay was a sweet bird to discover. They were all over the place, and weren't afraid to sit at the top of a tree/bush and pose (first shot is w/ 100-400 to capture environment):
One species I really want to see was the Canyon Wren, and I only encountered one. I was basically standing alongside the Oak Creek Canyon stream, and this guy was foraging along the red rock shoreline, oblivious to me.
It's super rare to have birds this friendly in Wisconsin. Every outing is a coin toss as to whether or not I even see a bird, yet in AZ (and FL), it was almost too easy. Very depressing. You all that live in places with easy birds don't know how good you have it.
p.12 #4 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
MatthewK wrote:
Just returned from a trip to Sedona, AZ, where I got to do a little birding in one of the most gorgeous places I've ever had the privilege to visit. There were birds everywhere; in any bush or tree, you could expect to encounter numerous species, and most were super tolerant of my presence. Add to that, nearly every perch was attractive: thorny shrubs, beautifully whorled dead wood, colorful rocks, evergreen junipers and mesquite. The clear, open shooting environment is a joy to work with compared to the hard wood deciduous forest I'm used to here in Wisconsin.
While it was a superb environment, it was quite the shock for someone coming from the Midwest. I knew the species to expect going on (thanks to eBird), but I didn't get nearly enough time to really learn the area and find the birds, learn the light conditions (only small windows of time at sunrise/sunset before it's super harsh), wait for birds to land on a nice perch, etc. I wish I had more time to develop the area and get into the groove.
The Woodhouse Scrub-Jay was a sweet bird to discover. They were all over the place, and weren't afraid to sit at the top of a tree/bush and pose (first shot is w/ 100-400 to capture environment):
One species I really want to see was the Canyon Wren, and I only encountered one. I was basically standing alongside the Oak Creek Canyon stream, and this guy was foraging along the red rock shoreline, oblivious to me.
It's super rare to have birds this friendly in Wisconsin. Every outing is a coin toss as to whether or not I even see a bird, yet in AZ (and FL), it was almost too easy. Very depressing. You all that live in places with easy birds don't know how easy you have it. ...Show more →
p.12 #6 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
I realized that with a 2.5yo toddler around I just won't have that much time to pursue wildlife photography in the next couple (?) years, so I 'downgraded' to the 600PF being my only 'birding' lens. Lets see how long that lasts.
p.12 #7 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
I went out to one of the local grasslands yesterday looking for raptors. I had hoped to see some short-eared owls, but "settled" for these two beautiful northern harriers. The overcast skies and fading light made shooting conditions difficult, but the snow flurries made for a great setting. The Z8 did a great job tracking these despite the low light and snow flakes. All taken with the 600PF + 1.4X TC.
p.12 #9 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
dragsd666 wrote:
This 600PF lens looks like a sharper lens than the 800PF?
From my experience, I think the two lenses are equally sharp. There is a perceived loss of sharpness with the 800PF because many people use this lens to bring distant subjects "closer," or said another way.. to fill the frame with more distant subjects.
There is a tendency is to shoot an egret, eagle, or something at a distance with the 800PF and crop it into a 10-15MP file. When one does this, they magnify the dust, haze, and moisture in the air. All of the particulates are compressed and the result is a soft photograph.
If one shoots small subjects with their 800PF at a reasonable subject to lens distance, they will find the lens to be extremely sharp. Atmospheric conditions and subject to camera distance really matters when using super telephoto lenses.
p.12 #10 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
From my experience, I think the two lenses are equally sharp. There is a perceived loss of sharpness with the 800PF because many people use this lens to bring distant subjects "closer," or said another way.. to fill the frame with more distant subjects.
There is a tendency is to shoot an egret, eagle, or something at a distance with the 800PF and crop it into a 10-15MP file. When one does this, they magnify the dust, haze, and moisture in the air. All of the particulates are compressed and the result is a soft photograph.
If one shoots small subjects with their 800PF at a reasonable subject to lens distance, they will find the lens to be extremely sharp. Atmospheric conditions and subject to camera distance really matters when using super telephoto lenses.
p.12 #11 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
dragsd666 wrote:
What lens would you take if you only could choose one of them?
Cheers,
André.
This is completely dependent upon what you want to photograph, what type of environment you're photographing in, what your skill level/patience/ability to get close to subjects is, how much weight you can carry/hold (if using handheld), and many other factors. I personally got the 600PF as it was the most reach/best lens I could afford and I often end up pairing it with the 1.4X TC to get the reach I need. The 800PF would be better for me, but was more than I could spend.
Regarding which is sharper, I think they're both very sharp and that getting the right focal length is probably more important. But, Thom Hogan notes the following in his Z telephoto lens testing article:
Nikon 600mm f/6.3 PF VR S — For some reason a lot of folk overlook this lens. They shouldn't. It's the second-best 600mm option out there (the above lens is the best), and my only real issue with it is that the background isolation can get busy and distracting in some circumstances. The benefit of this lens, though, is its smaller and lighter nature than most of the other ways you can get to 600mm. I spent several days with this lens before I realized that 600mm shouldn't be that manageable when handholding. Using a 1.4x teleconverter gives you a more-than-acceptable way to get to 840mm, too.
Nikon 800mm f/6.3 PF VR S — Arguably the second best “native” result in the testing (400mm f/2.8 being best). I just couldn’t find any significant issues in this test. Top notch contrast and really good acuity. This lens is the best way to get to 800mm on the Z cameras.
In contrast to this, Photographylife found the 600PF to be slightly sharper than the 800PF. But, as soon as you add a TC to the 600PF the 800PF pulls ahead.
At the end of the day, get the right focal length for you. Either lens will be brilliant.
p.12 #12 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
dragsd666 wrote:
What lens would you take if you only could choose one of them?
Cheers,
André.
Hello Andre,
I am more of a mammal, large bird, animal landscape, and landscape photographer. I have neither lens any longer and carry a different kit (400 f2.8TC, 100-400S, 24-120S, 17-28 f2.8 or I go light with a 180-600 and 24-120).
However, for my type of shooting, were I not to own the 400TC, I'd carry the 600PF, 100-400, 24-120, and a TC14 for those rare times when 600mm is not enough. I have a number of friends who consulted me about gear, and they adopted the kit I described for its versatility and coverage. If you find that you need a faster lens at times, I'd replace the 100-400 w/ 70-200 f2.8 and use the converter to stretch the telephoto when necessary.
The 600PF is a marvelous lens, easy to hold, and small enough to take anywhere.
p.12 #13 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
Thank you both for your reply that makes a little more easy for me when it comes to choosing the right lens.
I personally already own the Nikon 600 PF (I love the lens) and I was more thinking about buy the 800 PF now but I can’t decide if I should go for it or maybe invest a lot more and take the 400 TC and use the times I need with the 2x teleconverter.
I own also the 400 4.5 and the 500 Fl and those I could sell it if I decide to invest on the 400 TC 2.8.
Hard to decide. I would save a lot on the 800 PF but then again the 400 TC or the 600 TC has the best autofocus
p.12 #14 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
dragsd666 wrote:
Thank you both for your reply that makes a little more easy for me when it comes to choosing the right lens.
I personally already own the Nikon 600 PF (I love the lens) and I was more thinking about buy the 800 PF now but I can’t decide if I should go for it or maybe invest a lot more and take the 400 TC and use the times I need with the 2x teleconverter.
I own also the 400 4.5 and the 500 Fl and those I could sell it if I decide to invest on the 400 TC 2.8.
Hard to decide. I would save a lot on the 800 PF but then again the 400 TC or the 600 TC has the best autofocus...Show more →
Focus: Surprisingly nimble. I’m tempted to say that the 800mm f/6.3 PF VR S is a little faster than the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S, but it’s really difficult to make any meaningful fruit-to-fruit comparison, let alone apples-to-apples. Let’s just say that I was very pleased with the focus performance.
