p.15 #1 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
I've been convinced for the past 2+ years that my 600PF is the sharpest lens I've ever used and that there's no way that the 600TC could be better. Well, now that I have my 600TC and have shot them both profusely, I can say that the 600TC does, somehow, get even sharper. With some images, I've had to for the first time reduce sharpness (from the defaults in LR) due to details looking overcooked.
As Wezre stated though, sharpness is pretty far down the list of reasons to buy the 600TC over the 600PF. As far as I'm concerned, they're completely different tools for different approaches to shooting in the field. I love both.
Got to use both side-by-side during Spring migration here recently. 600PF delivered, as usual.
p.15 #2 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
I know Steve Perry tested both, and the difference between these lenses was negligible. I wouldn't use sharpness as a reason to choose between them.
Wezre wrote:
The 600TC is the sharpest supertele that Nikon makes. The 600PF is very sharp, but not quite in the same league as the 600TC. Realistically though, the difference in sharpness isn't something that most people can/will notice. The differences really come down to features (built in TC, extra buttons, better AF motors), build quality, light gathering, and out-of-focus rendering. The 600PF is a great lens and is the 600mm prime that most people should be getting, but there are some key things the TC lens brings to the table that professionals need and will pay for. Even with the 600PF, if you don't need the ultra light weight and small size, the 180-600 is probably a better choice for most people since it gives you 95% of the optical performance plus the flexibility of a zoom at a much lower price....Show more →
p.15 #3 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
Maxxus46 wrote:
I know Steve Perry tested both, and the difference between these lenses was negligible. I wouldn't use sharpness as a reason to choose between them.
That's essentially what I was saying. Thom Hogan, Photographylife, and others indicate that the 600TC is sharper, but in actual use most people can't or won't notice the difference. The other qualities of the lenses are more important when deciding between them.
p.15 #5 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
Finally found some time to take the 600mm PF out. Absolute stunning lens, crazy sharp, lightweight and kinda small still. Only negative point might be the minimum focus distance of 4m which forced me to backup quite a bit sometimes. On the other hand this was sometimes also beneficial to stand behind the crowd and still get the shot.
p.15 #6 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
The 600PF seems very sharp, but from my experience with it, it seems to be another one of those Nikkor lenses that emphasizes contrast at the expense of resolution - ideal for social media posts, but somewhat less so for making large prints. You can't beat the wonderfully small size and light weight, though.
Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus)
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S lens600mmf/6.31/1000s8000 ISO0.0 EV
p.15 #7 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
Cliff L. wrote:
The 600PF seems very sharp, but from my experience with it, it seems to be another one of those Nikkor lenses that emphasizes contrast at the expense of resolution - ideal for social media posts, but somewhat less so for making large prints. You can't beat the wonderfully small size and light weight, though.
I don’t know what your baseline for acceptable resolution is, but a few review sites have performed measurements for this lens and resolution is very high. Take into account, at an aperture of f/6.3 diffraction is starting to impact resolution and is more noticeable with high resolution sensors.
p.15 #8 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
An interesting remark on the 600PF being high contrast but low(ish) resolution.
I a way I can understand it when you are comparing the 600PF to a 600mm f4 lens, much like when I compared the 500PF to the Sigma 500mm f4 sports.
The small front element simply has to be a hard limitation from a physics point of view. With the 500PF, it was not as much a lines on a test chart limitation, but the Sigma simply lifted the subject out of its background in a much more pronounced way, and that adds a lot to the perception of high definition.
In the same way, the Sony 200-600G may come close to the 600GM when shooting a test chart (well, not really..) but can never add the perception of high definition and fine detail. For that you need a larger front element that gives you a faster f-stop.
I am positive that Cliff is comparing the 600PF to some big f4 lenses, not using test charts but subject in the field.
p.15 #9 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
ChrisMak wrote:
I am positive that Cliff is comparing the 600PF to some big f4 lenses, not using test charts but subject in the field.
Yes, I went from the Nikon 600 PF to the Canon RF 600 f4L. The difference in the character and rendering of fine detail is noticeable, but I do miss the form factor of the PF lens.
p.15 #10 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
Cliff L. wrote:
Yes, I went from the Nikon 600 PF to the Canon RF 600 f4L. The difference in the character and rendering of fine detail is noticeable, but I do miss the form factor of the PF lens.
Ah, makes sense. I wonder if the RF 600/4 loses a bit of resolution stopped down to f/6.3. The Z 600 TC is at its sharpest wide open.
p.15 #11 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
Cliff L. wrote:
The 600PF seems very sharp, but from my experience with it, it seems to be another one of those Nikkor lenses that emphasizes contrast at the expense of resolution - ideal for social media posts, but somewhat less so for making large prints. You can't beat the wonderfully small size and light weight, though.
Looking at this shot compared with those of rico-rico above, it seems to me the issue lies firmly with user choices.
p.15 #12 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
Cliff L. wrote:
The 600PF seems very sharp, but from my experience with it, it seems to be another one of those Nikkor lenses that emphasizes contrast at the expense of resolution - ideal for social media posts, but somewhat less so for making large prints. You can't beat the wonderfully small size and light weight, though.
Which other Nikkor lenses did you find were designed in this way? Isn't it also possible that the lens was designed to have high contrast and high resolution, but the resolution just isn't as high as the super exotic 600 f/4s from Nikon/Sony/Canon? Photographylife tested the 600PF as the third highest resolution among Nikon lenses in its focal length class, coming very close to the 600 f/4E FL and a bit lower than the Z 600 f/4 TC. Personally, I've found the resolution to be pretty outstanding and the lens is capable of resolving fine feather detail quite well. And keep in mind that we're comparing it to lenses that are 3 to 3.5 times the cost (maybe more like 2.5 times now that tariff pricing has raised its MSRP).
p.15 #14 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
Cliff L. wrote:
I suppose the key part of that is "among Nikon lenses"...
I doubt the Sony or Canon 600 f/4s are capable of meaningfully out-resolving the Nikon 600 f/4 TC. Outside of that, what 600mm lens from another manufacturer comes close to or exceeds the resolution of the 600PF?
p.15 #15 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
A few from the last 6 months or so and some from the zoo. A good place to go if you want to test a camera and lens, when it is raining and when the wild birds are not cooperating.
p.15 #20 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
I have the 600 PF and use a 1.4X TC with it quite a bit as do many others in this thread. What I didn't see was any shots with the 2X TC. I know f13 is not great and may present a real challenge, but has anyone here tried it and how well/poorly did the work? If I had a 2X I would try it and report, but I don't own the 2X TC.
