p.3 #3 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
Dbltfarmer wrote:
The more I shoot with this lens the more I like it. In my opinion it beats the 500 pf. Faster AF, better background renderings, sharper and better with a 1.4 tele. Here is a few i took today.
I'm not sure if it's my monitor but every single one of these photos looks like they're suffering from heat shimmer (or maybe diffraction when shooting at F16?). Might be just my 4k monitor that makes it look underwhelming.
p.3 #5 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
suteetat wrote:
If you already have 400/4.5, 600PF is somewhat of a tough sell.
If you don't have either then it comes down to whether you need 400-560 more or 600-840 more.
For birds, in the past, I used 600/4e FL about 50% of the time with TCx1.4 so for my use 600PF
is definitely more useful and that's what I would prefer as long as cost is not prohibitive.
.
In my experience, perhaps because of the latitude I live at, I find lens speed as important as the focal length and size/weight.. and for much of the year at the best light of the day I find f/6.3 f/7.1 is as slow as I want, especially with rapidly moving wild life out on the river… and coupled with preferring not to shoot above 2500 ISO so as not to loose finer details. I guess this becomes more important when using TCs on primes that are a little slow to start with at f/6.3. My 800 f/6.3 pf wouldn’t be that useful for me if it was a stop slower, the same with a 600 f/6.3.. although occasionally I can capture fast moving wildlife shots in good light at f/9 .. but very much relies on my panning technique.. so I have quite a few more missed shots, and I detest overly sharpened images in post to try and compensate even with some of the more recent so called AI plug-ins, it looks so artificial.
I guess as they say there is no such thing as a free lunch…
p.3 #6 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
Sbatley wrote:
In my experience, perhaps because of the latitude I live at, I find lens speed as important as the focal length and size/weight.. and for much of the year at the best light of the day I find f/6.3 f/7.1 is as slow as I want, especially with rapidly moving wild life out on the river… and coupled with preferring not to shoot above 2500 ISO so as not to loose finer details. I guess this becomes more important when using TCs on primes that are a little slow to start with at f/6.3. My 800 f/6.3 pf wouldn’t be that useful for me if it was a stop slower, the same with a 600 f/6.3.. although occasionally I can capture fast moving wildlife shots in good light at f/9 .. but very much relies on my panning technique.. so I have quite a few more missed shots, and I detest overly sharpened images in post to try and compensate even with some of the more recent so called AI plug-ins, it looks so artificial.
I guess as they say there is no such thing as a free lunch…...Show more →
That's why I ended up with 400/2.8S TC, 600PF and 800PF and I pick and choose depending on when, where and what I am shooting. There is no one lens that is best for everything. I probably ended up using 400/2.8S TC more than 600PF but
when I need something light that I can handhold for a long time, 600PF looks like a winner for me.
p.3 #7 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
>That's why I ended up with 400/2.8S TC
I am envious… alas my resources cant justify such a lens at present.. I make use of my 400 f/4.5 which I do find rather excellent anyway,.. and it is hand holdable light and capable even with TC 1.4
p.3 #8 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
lukemeup wrote:
I'm not sure if it's my monitor but every single one of these photos looks like they're suffering from heat shimmer (or maybe diffraction when shooting at F16?).
p.3 #11 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
Same here.
lukemeup wrote:
I'm not sure if it's my monitor but every single one of these photos looks like they're suffering from heat shimmer (or maybe diffraction when shooting at F16?). Might be just my 4k monitor that makes it look underwhelming.
p.3 #13 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
I may have missed it but has anyone compared this to the 500 PF? I’m using the 500PF adapted. Other than the small field of view difference I’m wondering if it’s worth updating? Of course if I had unlimited funds I’d have 600 f4 TC, lol.
p.3 #14 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
They're pretty much neck and neck IQ-wise, so you're not missing out there. Otherwise, it's just an ergonomics question: whether or not you want to do away with the FTZ, and do you want the extra functionality of the Z lens (control ring, function buttons, etc).
p.3 #15 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
MatthewK wrote:
They're pretty much neck and neck IQ-wise, so you're not missing out there. Otherwise, it's just an ergonomics question: whether or not you want to do away with the FTZ, and do you want the extra functionality of the Z lens (control ring, function buttons, etc).
I kind of suspected it would be similar. Having the extra speed of the Z mount is tempting but the price differential is enough to make me rethink that. I’ve got a Z6ii right now so I’d probably apply that kind of differential to a Z8 before going with a small improvement.
p.3 #16 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
These are a couple from a walk in the park during lunch last Friday, in a lightly canopied area. These were the first Yellow-Bellied Sapsuckers I've seen this season.
I was on auto iso so instead of dialing down EV, I accidentally bumped up EV instead in the heat of the moment, ouch so unfortunately the sun blew up
Anyhow, 600PF seems to have no problem with strong light source in the background much.
Very annoying, when I came to this lake in the past, there were hundreds of swallows buzzing by our boat doing all kind of things.
Yesterday, I think I saw may be 10-15 swallows at best that came within 20m of the boat. If I only have 800PF, there will be plenty of swallows within an arm reach from the boat
p.3 #20 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread
I own the Z400 f/4.5 and about a week ago added the 600 pf. My primary interest is bird and nature photography. I often hike and have to carry equipment for several miles. I frequently shoot without a tripod or monopod. I shoot primarily with the z9.
I have found the 400 is an excellent lens but sometimes subjects are out of reasonable reach. I have used it with 1.4x tc and used DX or severe crop and have gotten acceptable images. But still some subjects need more reach.
I am finding the 600 pf at 600mm does notably better than the 400 with tc. The 600's reach can also be extended with cropping, dx and/or tc with acceptable results.
I have tried the 800 pf but I find it to be too big and heavy for more than brief handheld work. I would also not want to pack the 400 and 800 plus tripod/monopod for very far. Too much gear.
HOWEVER, I can comfortably carry the 400 and 600 plus a monopod with Wimberley mini gimbal long distances.
The 600 pf also seems to work well on the z9 at much higher iso settings. I have gotten some surprisingly sharp images that way.
