MatthewK
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #9 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ?? | |
Sitting here this morning, drinking my coffee, reading this delightful thread, my 180-600, 600PF and 800PF are arrayed on the tabletop before me, I contemplate “which of these lenses do I absolutely need, which would I be ok with not having, and could I actually bring myself to part with any of them?”. Also: “does a 400 4.5 make sense (again)?”.
Sharpness is already a settled debate, I would have long since gotten rid of any under-performers. However… in post, the images from the 600PF take a lot less to make sharp, usually a 15-20 on the sharpness slider in LR, while the 186 is up in the 40-60 range in order to match. The 600PF’s files have a certain “cleanliness” to them from the start, whereas the other two need a slight bit more work. Overall though, again, the end image from all three are equally sharp, so none of what I said really matters all that much 
TC use: the 600PF takes the 1.4 TC with aplomb, and in my tests it matches my 800PF. I’d be perfectly fine using the 600+1.4 in place of the 800 if the lighting conditions allowed. 186… haven’t even mounted the TC to it, so have no data on that one. Of course, the 800PF takes the 1.4 well and gets me to a fantastic 1120mm at f/9, something the 600PF requires the 2.0TC to achieve (at f/13, yikes) but no lens I’ve seen does well with the 2.0, so that’s not something I’d consider ever using.
AF speed and prowess: 600PF is easily the best of the three, the 186 is markedly slower but quite accurate, and the 800PF is quick, but it isn’t as surefooted, susceptible to getting thrown off target and getting stuck on the background.
Size and weight… as I pick up each lens in turn and spend a bit of time holding it and bringing it (mounted to Z8) up to my eye, almost instantaneously the 600PF stands out. Compared to the other two, it’s so feather light and breathlessly easy to drive. The other two are manageable, but their size/mass brings on that all too familiar fatigue within short order. More importantly, the balance point of the Z8+600PF is tough to pinpoint, meaning it’s probably closer to the camera mount and weight is spread better between both hands, while the other two are definitely front heavy. This contributed to the impression of more mass over the support hand, hence a heavier load to deal with as the day goes on. This would be a different feel if one were to use a Z9, as I think it’d balance things more rearward and lessen that feeling of bulk.
While everyone is hung up on price and sharpness, which are important, true, this is the 600PF’s meal ticket, and why I enjoy shooting with it more than the other two. Slung cross-body, I forget it’s even there, and that feeling of not being encumbered adds to my enjoyment of being in the field.
To answer my opening query:
600PF: would be the last of my lenses I’d part with. In overall shooting, it’s just a joy to use (super cliche I know, barf). I personally don’t feel that it has any weaknesses, and is well worth the monies I paid for it.
186: the versatility is obviously where this lens shines. In all my years birding with Canon and Nikon, I was always pining for a Sony 200-600, and now we finally have one. I could probably happily go the rest of my life using just this lens, yet… for whatever reason I never reach for it when I go out to shoot. I think the reason for that is that since I’ve owned it, there just hasn’t been that many situations where it would be better than my 600PF. Birding in the Wisconsin winter is absolutely terrible though, so with Spring arriving and the chance for more closer encounters increasing, the 186 may yet have its day in the sun. So, the 186 at the moment is a “maybe, maybe not”.
800PF: I’d be OK parting with it. It’s superb, but it’s a more challenging lens for me to use with how I approach birding. I think it’s more narrow window of application hinders it as a viable walk-around lens, requiring a “side-kick” like the 100-400 or 186 to cover anything under 16’. That equates to a massive increase in bag size and overall weight. Since the 600PF can be 840mm in a pinch, albeit at f/9, it kinda steals a little of the 800PF’s thunder.
400 4.5: already had/sold this lens last year, but that was before the 600PF and 186 were debuted. I think it’d make a great compliment to the 600PF as a bare 400mm lens, but the problem is this: 400mm is rarely the right FL for birds, at least here in crappy Wisconsin, and while the idea of the 4.5 is sublime (I actually made some beautiful images with it), most times it just sat in the bag, hence why I sold it. That, and with the 600PF now, using the 400 + 1.4TC is unnecessary. So, no, probably won’t buy one again.
I’m not making any moves in the near term, all three will be with me for this Spring migration, where I’ll audit each to see which serve me best and most effortlessly. Whichever help me best capture Warblers, will be the one(s) that stay on the island.
/book
Edited on Apr 06, 2024 at 11:17 AM · View previous versions
|
Thank you Gary. It's about time someone said this.