I've been shooting with 400/4.5 and 800/6.3 PF for a while and I'm happy with combo.
I use the 400 for BIF especially when I need extra stop of light. I got a refurbished copy of 400 and I think it's sharper than my first copy (there's a theory that when the lenses are refurbished, it'll be fine tuned better. Not sure if it's true). Many sites generally state that 400 is not so sharp including one of my favorite photographylife (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikor-z-400mm-f-4-5-vr-s). Anyway I'm happy with mine.
Same way many comments and reviews state that 600/6.3 is way sharper. Ricci (Nikon Europe ambassador?) even state that 600 with TC is equal or better than 800 PF. So I finally got one and honestly I can't see the magic.
Here's the center 100% crop of all three. Is it possible that I got a bad copy of 600? or got great copies of 800 and 400?
Below the screen shot from photographylife reviews. Am I missing something?
Hmm, may be my expectation was too high. I still think the difference should be visible. The difference to 800 is even smaller from my samples. If the sharpness is not visible with naked eyes, I'm not sure how people praise the 600 so much.
From the test shots you provided, the 600PF is slightly sharper and has slightly more contrast than the 400. The 600PF and 800PF look very similar to me. If I recall correctly, there was quite a bit of debate in the comment section of PhotographyLife's 800PF review, indicating that people (including Thom Hogan) had different opinions of the lens' resolving abilities. Owners that I've seen don't praise the 600PF because it's so much better than the 400 4.5 or 800PF. Owners (including me) praise it because it's very sharp while being relatively affordable and very light/compact.
That being said, all three lenses are very sharp, and more than sharp enough for most enthusiast photographers. The deciding factors between these three lenses should be: 1) focal length needs, 2) price, and 3) size/weight. I wouldn't let test charts or Imatest scores be the deciding factor.
Ripolini wrote:
I see nothing great in your 800 picture. It's the less sharp.
Am I missing something
It's supposed to be way worse than 600. What I'm saying to my eye they are very close. Yes, it's slightly worse, but unless you pixel peep you can't see the difference.
Jemini wrote:
It's supposed to be way worse than 600. What I'm saying to my eye they are very close. Yes, it's slightly worse, but unless you pixel peep you can't see the difference.
I see. However, I agree with @AcuteShadows@; 20% (just) less resolution doesn't imply the 800 is "way worse"; it's slightly less sharp, as your crops confirm.
Wezre wrote:
From the test shots you provided, the 600PF is slightly sharper and has slightly more contrast than the 400. The 600PF and 800PF look very similar to me. If I recall correctly, there was quite a bit of debate in the comment section of PhotographyLife's 800PF review, indicating that people (including Thom Hogan) had different opinions of the lens' resolving abilities. Owners that I've seen don't praise the 600PF because it's so much better than the 400 4.5 or 800PF. Owners (including me) praise it because it's very sharp while being relatively affordable and very light/compact.
That being said, all three lenses are very sharp, and more than sharp enough for most enthusiast photographers. The deciding factors between these three lenses should be: 1) focal length needs, 2) price, and 3) size/weight. I wouldn't let test charts or Imatest scores be the deciding factor....Show more →
Thanks for the reply.
I think you are right. I agree we shouldn't make decision based on test charts.
You must be right about the group of people praise it. If I want a one lens solution for wildlife, I'd get 600 PF. Yes, it's great. Somehow I got the impression that it's way better than 400 and 800. That's where the confusion came from.
I didn't see debate in photographylife's comment section. It's also possible he tested with a 'bad' copy. I was looking at 600 because I'd like to have little bit more reach during travel (when I can't take 800). But now I think if I get a 1.4x TC, 400 will be the right choice. Then I don't have to give up one stop (4.5 vs 6.3). I may have to stop down to get optimum sharpness.
For me the magic is never in the sharpness. I will take a modestly sharp f/4 or f/4.5 lens with decent bokeh over razor sharp f/6.3 any time of day. The ambiance of the images from the former is 10x nicer than the latter. The ability to pick out a single bird from a crowd, or elegantly smear out a near background enhances an image far more than being able to see every feather around the eye at 100%
GroovyGeek wrote:
For me the magic is never in the sharpness. I will take a modestly sharp f/4 or f/4.5 lens with decent bokeh over razor sharp f/6.3 any time of day. The ambiance of the images from the former is 10x nicer than the latter. The ability to pick out a single bird from a crowd, or elegantly smear out a near background enhances an image far more than being able to see every feather around the eye at 100%
I'm leaning towards this. I don't want to give up on the 400/4.5 for 600/6.3 even though it's sharper (not sure how much). That way I can have two lenses (400/4.5 and 560/6.3). 400/4.5 and 800 PF (which has bokeh very close to 600/4) & 1.4x will do for now. 600/4 may be later..
Jemini wrote:
Hmm, may be my expectation was too high. I still think the difference should be visible. The difference to 800 is even smaller from my samples. If the sharpness is not visible with naked eyes, I'm not sure how people praise the 600 so much.
What were the test distances and in your experience is it optimal? Did you compare the 600/6.3 with the f/4?
EB-1 wrote:
What were the test distances and in your experience is it optimal? Did you compare the 600/6.3 with the f/4?
EBH
I filled the frame with test chart which is about 8X11". So it's slightly above MFD. May be I should try farther (20-30' away). Anyway I don't think I want to spend more time on test charts. Just want to make sure I get 'enough' sharpness for me. I'm playing with 400/4.5+TC now. I already have 400/4.5 which is plenty sharp for me. Here're some sample pictures with the lens (without TC)
If I get acceptable result with 1.4x, I think that's a better choice for me since I already have 800 PF.
No, never tried 600/4. I shot with 500mm for a long time during SLR/DSLR days. Now I don't want to go back to tripod which limits the maneuverability. Also I don't shoot that much. So not feeling spending that kind of money for now. Otherwise 600 TC with 400mm would a great combo.
I'm dreaming about a 500/4 with TC which can be same weight as 800 PF. If any brand announce a lens like that, I'll preorder it and jump the ship (if it's not Nikon)
Jemini wrote:
I'm dreaming about a 500/4 with TC which can be same weight as 800 PF. If any brand announce a lens like that, I'll preorder it and jump the ship (if it's not Nikon)
Canon was supposed to be developing a RF500mm f4.5DO, but that was years ago, and Canon has not exactly been on a roll regarding RF super tele lenses.
Nikon is again the most likely candidate for a smallish (PF?) 500mm f4/f4.5 lens, and yes, it would be superb if it were to have a built-in 1.4TC. The Z8 would be an ideal body for it.
I had both the Z600 and Z800 for quite a while and was shooting mostly with the 800, but I finally sold the 800, not because it was not as sharp. I sold it because it is quite a bit heavier and a lot larger than the 600 and I was having a harder time acquiring and keeping flying birds in focus. Also due to its bulky size, ff I'm shooting from a car, its pretty hard to do it with the 800 again due to it length. I did a few test shots with the 600 and 1.4TC and the 800 was sharper. Another consideration is that the 800 is more prone to heat haze it seems. For me the 600 is an excellent compromise between focal length and size. Image quality of the 3 lenses is excellent (I also had the 400 for a short time), so one might consider the use case and distances.
It takes beautiful pictures
