sparadise wrote:
I should have noted my previous system was the Sony A1 Sony 600mm f4 and the 200-600. I owned the 1.4 and used it some on the 600 f4 initially but I found lower iso allowed more cropping so wasn't much point in using it. The 600f4 was very nice but I am not a gimbal head guy. I just prefer hand held. the 2-6 was OK to carry. The F4 got to be a bit much.
I have owned several 100-400's but found I never used them much due to a lack of reach.
Would you vote for a 600mm pf and 180-600 ?? There are times when I could use the zoom. If you check my profile you will see many shots I posted in the Sony forum with the 2-6 . With that package in certain situations I would use the prime and in other situations the zoom . Or would you go with the 180-600 and keep the 400 4.5 for low light ?...Show more →
There is certainly an argument to be made for the 186 + 600PF combo. At one time I was considering the triple 600 route, 186, 600PF, 600TC. The 600TC being the best lens to use for "serious" work. The 600PF being the lightest for the most "fun" work. And the 186 being there for the zoom versatility as needed.
A good friend of mine, MatthewK has a lot of experience with the 186 + 600PF combo. He's currently trying to decide which of his 3 lenses (if any) he will sell: 186, 600PF, 800PF.
I think a better setup is the 186 + 800PF, as the 186/600PF overlap SO much. The 186 is better than the 600PF in just about every category except weight. It's cheaper, has zoom flexibility, significantly smaller MFD, etc. Some will say there are differences in sharpness between the two lenses - but I've not seen them in my own use, or the use of others who post on these forums. The only reason to pay the $2500+ premium for the 600PF is to save weight over the 186.
If you used the 200-600 before, the 186 is a great choice on the nikon side. I would strongly suggest going for the 800PF or one of the big primes instead of the 600PF though, if you go that route.
Looking at the photos you take, your subjects, and your focal lengths - I think the 186 + 800PF would be a no brainer for you. The 800PF is significantly smaller and lighter than the 600GM you were used to, and it gets you more reach when needed. If you need the zoom flexibility, you use the 186.
EDIT: just realized Matt already beat me to the post lol
sparadise wrote:
Birds are the only thing I shoot as in songbirds to ducks and hawks in flight.etc
Here are a few shots from the A1 mostly with the 2-6 .Every shot at 600mm .In fact almost all of my posted shots are at 600 so I guess that tells me where I need to be
Back before Nikon released the 186, I always wondered how a zoom of that range would alter my gear/kit selection and how I shot. As a Sony shooter, did you find that you used the 200-600 more/less/equal to your 600 f/4?
Back before Nikon released the 186, I always wondered how a zoom of that range would alter my gear/kit selection and how I shot. As a Sony shooter, did you find that you used the 200-600 more/less/equal to your 600 f/4?
The 600f4 is the bomb if you don't mind the size and weight. While the 2-6 is no slouch the background blur with the f4 is better.While the 200-600 zoom is very good there is a reason the f4 cost 13K. I can always tell the difference between f4 and 2-6 shots just by looking at them. For me the 2-6 is the max weight I am willing to carry around.
600f4 6.4 x 17.7" / 163.6 x 449 mm
6.7 lb / 3040 g
200-600 111.5 x 318 mm
Length at Maximum Extension
12.49" / 317.3 mm
Weight
4.65 lb / 2115 g
sparadise wrote:
The 600f4 is the bomb if you don't mind the size and weight. While the 2-6 is no slouch the background blur with the f4 is better.While the 200-600 zoom is very good there is a reason the f4 cost 13K. I can always tell the difference between f4 and 2-6 shots just by looking at them. For me the 2-6 is the max weight I am willing to carry around.
600f4 6.4 x 17.7" / 163.6 x 449 mm
6.7 lb / 3040 g
200-600 111.5 x 318 mm
Length at Maximum Extension
12.49" / 317.3 mm
Weight
4.65 lb / 2115 gwhy not keep the Sony gear and just grab the new Sigma 500 5.6 … you can always crop a little to get you the 600mm like photo.
nmerc_photos wrote:
There is certainly an argument to be made for the 186 + 600PF combo. At one time I was considering the triple 600 route, 186, 600PF, 600TC. The 600TC being the best lens to use for "serious" work. The 600PF being the lightest for the most "fun" work. And the 186 being there for the zoom versatility as needed.
A good friend of mine, MatthewK has a lot of experience with the 186 + 600PF combo. He's currently trying to decide which of his 3 lenses (if any) he will sell: 186, 600PF, 800PF.
Never the less thank you for the comments. The only problem with the 800 and 18-6 is you end up with nothing in that magic 3 lb range.
I think a better setup is the 186 + 800PF, as the 186/600PF overlap SO much. The 186 is better than the 600PF in just about every category except weight. It's cheaper, has zoom flexibility, significantly smaller MFD, etc. Some will say there are differences in sharpness between the two lenses - but I've not seen them in my own use, or the use of others who post on these forums. The only reason to pay the $2500+ premium for the 600PF is to save weight over the 186.
If you used the 200-600 before, the 186 is a great choice on the nikon side. I would strongly suggest going for the 800PF or one of the big primes instead of the 600PF though, if you go that route.
Looking at the photos you take, your subjects, and your focal lengths - I think the 186 + 800PF would be a no brainer for you. The 800PF is significantly smaller and lighter than the 600GM you were used to, and it gets you more reach when needed. If you need the zoom flexibility, you use the 186.
EDIT: just realized Matt already beat me to the post lol...Show more →Never the less thank you for the comments. The only problem with the 800 and 18-6 is you end up with nothing in that magic 3 lb range. I may just end up with the 400 4.5 for low light situations with 6.3 simply won't work. As far as 800 for birds in flight it isn't that valuable unless the birds are large. Another thing to think about is if the bird is flying towards you the 800 can be limited due to minimum focus distance
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I have a very hard time understanding this rationale; ruling out the 180-600 because of the weight, but willing to carry two lenses to cover the focal lengths ?? If someone offered me a straight up trade right now - 180-600 for 600 PF I'd pass. If there is any difference in IQ, if, it's nowhere near enough to make up for the loss of flexibility. I thought I'd never get rid of my 400 4.5, it's so good, but I see no need for it anymore. This will be an unpopular opinion here, but if Nikon would have put an S designation on the 180-600, charged an additional $1000 for it, and changed nothing else, okay, maybe a decent tripod collar and add a control ring we wouldn't be having these types of discussions.
Gary...Show more →
I understand how some need a zoom but I was looking at over the100 best shots I have of songbirds ,hawks,etc and everyone of them is at 600mm.
sparadise wrote:
Never the less thank you for the comments. The only problem with the 800 and 18-6 is you end up with nothing in that magic 3 lb range. I may just end up with the 400 4.5 for low light situations with 6.3 simply won't work. As far as 800 for birds in flight it isn't that valuable unless the birds are large. Another thing to think about is if the bird is flying towards you the 800 can be limited due to minimum focus distance
what you are wanting is difficult to achieve with only a 1-2 lens system.
from your posts so far I gather:
you mainly shoot at 600mm
you want wide aperture
you also want lightweight
other than using a big prime, you're not going to get wide aperture at 600mm. the fastest you can get is f5.6 with the Sony 300GM + 2x, or f6.3 with the 400 4.5 + 1.4x or 600PF.
I think you either need to look at shooting wider, or narrower. IE. the 400 @ f4.5, or the 800 @ f6.3. both are lightweight options relative to their apertures.
If the 200-600 is the heaviest you're willing to use, the 800PF is great because it's very similar to your 600 F4 but only weighs about as much as the 200-600. I would think you could easily adapt your technique to use 800mm for BIF. I've never had any issues with it. And any MFD issues with the 800PF, would be nearly the same with the 600PF.
you can throw out the 100-400 due to lack of range as you mentioned, so the 186 is your only zoom option.
you just have to decide how many lenses you want, and your budget. 400 4.5 + 800PF would be great if you don't need a zoom. 400 4.5, 800PF, and 186 would be a great 3 lens setup. if you can't/don't want 3 lenses, I think the 400 4.5 + 186 may give you the best combination of budget/weight.
nmerc_photos wrote:
what you are wanting is difficult to achieve with only a 1-2 lens system.
from your posts so far I gather:
you mainly shoot at 600mm
you want wide aperture
you also want lightweight
other than using a big prime, you're not going to get wide aperture at 600mm. the fastest you can get is f5.6 with the Sony 300GM + 2x, or f6.3 with the 400 4.5 + 1.4x or 600PF.
I think you either need to look at shooting wider, or narrower. IE. the 400 @ f4.5, or the 800 @ f6.3. both are lightweight options relative to their apertures.
If the 200-600 is the heaviest you're willing to use, the 800PF is great because it's very similar to your 600 F4 but only weighs about as much as the 200-600. I would think you could easily adapt your technique to use 800mm for BIF. I've never had any issues with it. And any MFD issues with the 800PF, would be nearly the same with the 600PF.
you can throw out the 100-400 due to lack of range as you mentioned, so the 186 is your only zoom option.
you just have to decide how many lenses you want, and your budget. 400 4.5 + 800PF would be great if you don't need a zoom. 400 4.5, 800PF, and 186 would be a great 3 lens setup. if you can't/don't want 3 lenses, I think the 400 4.5 + 186 may give you the best combination of budget/weight.
While I understand ideally more weight is the best option I am willing to compromise some for less weight. I am going to go to the local camera store and hold the 800 . With 600f4s it's not only the weight but the size matters for me
I have the Sony A1 with 600/4, I used the D500 with 500PF for two years prior to switching to the Sony combo because the Z9 was too big and heavy for me, and the 800PF was not yet available. I at first got the A1 with 200-600G.
There is a finiancial impact to switching, and I do like the 600GM, but if I were to start now, I would absolutely get the Z8 with 800PF and 600PF.
I am still contemplating whether I should take the financial hit and switch to this Nikon set-up, but in my view the 800PF is the perfect subsitution for the 600GM with 1.4TC with lower weight and smaller size, and the 600PF, although a bit too slow, would be a great light 600mm.
ChrisMak wrote:
I have the Sony A1 with 600/4, I used the D500 with 500PF for two years prior to switching to the Sony combo because the Z9 was too big and heavy for me, and the 800PF was not yet available. I at first got the A1 with 200-600G.
There is a finiancial impact to switching, and I do like the 600GM, but if I were to start now, I would absolutely get the Z8 with 800PF and 600PF.
I am still contemplating whether I should take the financial hit and switch to this Nikon set-up, but in my view the 800PF is the perfect subsitution for the 600GM with 1.4TC with lower weight and smaller size, and the 600PF, although a bit too slow, would be a great light 600mm. ...Show more →
If you look at my seller feedback you will see I am a camera addict who is fortunate enough to be able to switch systems if I want to. I would not have bought the Z9 but the Z8 was the game changer for me. While Sony is great in so many ways and there glass is terrific I was a huge fan of the ergonomics of any of the A bodies. A9. A9II , and the A1. The Z8 is a bit heavier but it feels so much better in my hand.
What I did was ordered the 600 and 800 from Amazon so I can hold them in my hand and then decide what to keep . I will admit that the 800 is very tempting but will only be able to judge once I can get my hands on it. Here in Phoenix the only local camera store left doesn't have any of these lenses in stock.
It's so great to have so many intelligent responses and I will be sharing my own opinion once the dust settles.
The 600pf arrived yesterday. The size ,weight, and IQ all seem desirable. I don't have a cat so need to get out and find some flying ducks to shoot. So far my impression is very positive. On another note I have begun the task of sorting through all my years of bird shooting and putting up the best shots on Flickr.
What's interesting is the photos were taken with several different camera systems from full frame,crop sensors,stacked sensors, and micro four thirds from Olympus.
I haven't shot enough with the Z8 but before that the A1 was at the top of the food chain for BIF . The other cameras were capable of some keepers but not with the frequency of of the Sony. So far the Z8 seems as good.
Have lots of wonderful shots there you may want to look at. All the camera info is listed. Some of the shots are as far back as the Canon 7D
sparadise wrote:
The 600pf arrived yesterday. The size ,weight, and IQ all seem desirable. I don't have a cat so need to get out and find some flying ducks to shoot. So far my impression is very positive. On another note I have begun the task of sorting through all my years of bird shooting and putting up the best shots on Flickr.
What's interesting is the photos were taken with several different camera systems from full frame,crop sensors,stacked sensors, and micro four thirds from Olympus.
I haven't shot enough with the Z8 but before that the A1 was at the top of the food chain for BIF . The other cameras were capable of some keepers but not with the frequency of of the Sony. So far the Z8 seems as good.
Have lots of wonderful shots there you may want to look at. All the camera info is listed. Some of the shots are as far back as the Canon 7D
Starting the process of cleaning up my hard drives . A lot of these images have been long forgotten until recently. Some of them are at least 15 years old
sparadise wrote:
The 600pf arrived yesterday. The size ,weight, and IQ all seem desirable. I don't have a cat so need to get out and find some flying ducks to shoot. So far my impression is very positive. On another note I have begun the task of sorting through all my years of bird shooting and putting up the best shots on Flickr.
What's interesting is the photos were taken with several different camera systems from full frame,crop sensors,stacked sensors, and micro four thirds from Olympus.
I haven't shot enough with the Z8 but before that the A1 was at the top of the food chain for BIF . The other cameras were capable of some keepers but not with the frequency of of the Sony. So far the Z8 seems as good.
Have lots of wonderful shots there you may want to look at. All the camera info is listed. Some of the shots are as far back as the Canon 7D
I have the 400mm, the 180-600mm, and the 800mm PF. I consider all three to be lenses I can use hand held with the Z9 camera. When I have owned a 600mm f/4 lens I found that the majority of the time I used it with the 1.4x teleconverter attached for 840mm f/5.6.
When photographing small birds the 800mm is the bare minimum for me to get a usable image size with minimal cropping. If I focused primarily on large waterfowl or mammals then the 600mm might be enough. On the other hand in Yellowstone with the bears I wanted 800mm to be able to be the mandated distance from them and for my own safety, knowing how fast they can move.
A zoom and a prime are my combination of choice. Too often I need a different view angle to provide breathing space around a subject and I cannot move around to provide this. The notion that one can zoom with their feet is one of the dumbest comments that can be made in any situation other than maybe family pictures at a park.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I have a very hard time understanding this rationale; ruling out the 180-600 because of the weight, but willing to carry two lenses to cover the focal lengths ?? If someone offered me a straight up trade right now - 180-600 for 600 PF I'd pass. If there is any difference in IQ, if, it's nowhere near enough to make up for the loss of flexibility. I thought I'd never get rid of my 400 4.5, it's so good, but I see no need for it anymore. This will be an unpopular opinion here, but if Nikon would have put an S designation on the 180-600, charged an additional $1000 for it, and changed nothing else, okay, maybe a decent tripod collar and add a control ring we wouldn't be having these types of discussions.
Gary...Show more →
I would say if the sony 200-600 is max weight you want to handle then try the 800 6.3, about the same and less front heavy. There is nothing else at that weight which has the same light gathering at that focal length. In my opinion I think people are crazy for selling their 500 PFs at the rates they are going for. You can get them for less than 2k. It takes the TC so well that it matches the 800 6.3 bare in sharpness: https://photographylife.com/nikon-800mm-f-6-3-or-nikon-500mm-f56-with-teleconverter
Obviously you lose out on 2/3rds of a stop, 1.15x less magnification and VR but still. I do not think that a PF version of a 600 F4 or close to that will ever be made as long as they have the 600 TC to sell.
I would say if the sony 200-600 is max weight you want to handle then try the 800 6.3, about the same and less front heavy. There is nothing else at that weight which has the same light gathering at that focal length. In my opinion I think people are crazy for selling their 500 PFs at the rates they are going for. You can get them for less than 2k. It takes the TC so well that it matches the 800 6.3 bare in sharpness: https://photographylife.com/nikon-800mm-f-6-3-or-nikon-500mm-f56-with-teleconverter
Obviously you lose out on 2/3rds of a stop, 1.15x less magnification and VR but still. I do not think that a PF version of a 600 F4 or close to that will ever be made as long as they have the 600 TC to sell....Show more →
You can keep reading about how "the zoom is not even close", I'll keep shooting
There are 9 pages of wonderful photos on the 600 6.3 discussion thread, please point out the page that validates your statement that the "zoom is not even close"
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens600mmf/8.01/1250s1250 ISO-2.3 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens500mmf/6.31/2000s1000 ISO-1.0 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens600mmf/6.31/1600s1600 ISO-2.3 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens290mmf/6.31/12800s1000 ISO-2.3 EV
The rendering is pretty bad also :)
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens600mmf/6.31/1600s1600 ISO-2.3 EV
we wouldn't be having these types of discussions. 
