ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.7 #15 · Official 600PF image and discussion thread | |
ChrisMak wrote:
The Nikon PF lenses, 500, 600 and 800mm, cannot really be compared to for instance the Canon 400DOII (which I had for some time), because the focal length is different.
I had the biggest issues with the 400DOII because of having to use a TC to get to the focal length I wanted. The combination of the DO design and the TC led to busy, messy bokeh, especially when the background was close.
When I switched to the Nikon 500PF, the background rendering was much less busy and messy, and the overall rendering was smoother.
Bút... when I got the Sigma 500mm f4S, whilst still having the Nikon 500PF, I was able to do some comparisons between the 500PF wide open, and the Sigma 500/4 stopped down to f5.6, and the Sigma definitely rendered smoother backgrounds at the same aperture.
This tends to get confusing quickly, but back in the days of shooting Zeiss mf lenses, I read a lót of discussions about the OOF rendering of lenses, and it was commonly accepted that all lenses are designed differently, and that some lenses render smoother backgrounds than others, and it is not all down to the f-stop only, it is also down to design choices. The Sigma 500/4S is known to have very smooth bokeh, as is the Sony 600GM. The smooth background rendering is designed into these lenses on purpose.
The PF lenses don't have the smoothest background rendering available, but that is not an issue for me at all, the 500PF was very decent. My reason for not jumping on the 600PF, is that f6.3 at 600mm is not something I personally get wild about.
I freely adjust the aperture on the Sony 600GM, and f5 is by far my favorite aperture, f5.6 is merely "ok", but f6.3 is just not that great i.m.o.
That doesn't mean you cannot get great images with it, but just not in all circumstances, and not optimally. And yes, I will admit that it is a subjective preference.
I am still waiting for a 600mm f5.6 lens myself (although I am getting a Sigma 500mm f5.6 for convenience), despite the general feeling that f5.6 and f6.3 are too close to be discernable, but then again, it is always in the eyes of the beholder, that will never change.
I will hang on to the Sony 600GM as long as I can suffer the weight and size, the only Nikon PF lens that I would switch for, remains the 800PF, that does have the optimal balance between focal length and aperture i.m.o....Show more →
If one mainly takes photos of birds at fairly short distances and high magnifications, the backgrounds tend to be so out-of-focus that bokeh issues do not distract from the overall impact of the photos. However, at longer distances the out-of-focus rendering of PF lenses (my experience is with 300 and 500 PF) can cause photos to be unpleasant to look at. f/6.3 vs. f/5.6 is indeed a small difference in a side-by-side comparison but having the larger aperture would make the lens more front-heavy and heavier overall. I am sure Nikon did thorough investigation of these options before committing to producing the current lens. Factors that can come into play include weight, handling and balance, cost, and percentage of manufacturing flaws in the PF elements (potentially further increasing cost).
Apart from PF lenses, zooms can also have sub-optimal bokeh and only the top primes really shine in this area of almost never resulting in unpleasant outcomes. I don't think I'll buy another PF lens as after several years of using them as my most frequently used lenses I couldn't get used to the harsh appearance of the images from the 500 PF (the 300 PF has a slightly different set of issues, with milky skin and contrast, and rather prolific rings in certain backlight situations). I currently have the 100-400 as my "long" lens and that too has its own issues as a zoom lens is expected to, but since Nikon doesn't make a Z 300mm lens I don't really have a choice and need the 100-400 for some subjects and situations if I'm not going to use an adapter (and the non-PF 300mm F-mount lens is the f/2.8 which is excellent but not that portable). The 400/4.5 by contrast appears wonderful bokeh-wise from the posted images but haven't gotten around to getting it as my priority is 300mm and I'm hoping Nikon will cover it sooner or later.
|
I know you shot with the 400 DO II (so did I!), and have never seen you mention its bokeh rendering as being problematic.
Maybe someone with access to both systems/lenses can chime in.
