p.1 #1 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
Thinking to buy one of these as mentioned in subject, which one will get you sharper result and quick focus specially shooting inside forest with moderate light, how is your experience so far with both or either of them.
p.1 #2 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
I have both and I like both. I started with the 400 when it came out. With the TC IQ is a little less than the bare 600. So if you’re always at 600mm (or beyond, as I am) the 600 is the best choice. If not get the 400. I like the 400 just a little better as is is lighter, brighter and smaller. I use the 600 (+TC) the most.
This is what Thom Hogan says about both in his test about the 600PF results. https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/nikon-z-mount-lens-reviews/nikon-600mm-f63-pf-vr-s.html
“400mm f/4.5 VR S versus 600mm f/6.3 PF VR S: Here we have a different story. The minute you add the teleconverter to the 400 to get close to the same focal length (560mm), you've changed the optics equation. The 400mm is better optically than the 600mm barebones at its base focal length, but it isn't as good as the 600mm at 560mm with the 1.4x teleconverter. I still consider the 400mm f/4.5 to be the long lens of choice for most people, as long as they're not always photographing with a teleconverter on it. The teleconverter on the 400mm should be considered an emergency extension to get more reach, not something you rely on—e.g. on the lens most of the time—if you're looking for best possible.”
p.1 #3 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
I guess what OP wishes to know is how quick focus is when shooting in forest with moderate light. I bet @munzir.khan@@ is aware that a 600/6.3 mm prime has better IQ (and is slightly longer) than a 400/4.5 mm + 1.4X TC.
I see no reason why the 400/4.5 + TC should have better/faster AF than 600/6.3. I own a 24 Mpix body and would opt for 400 + TC combo only for its greater flexibility with respect to a 600 mm prime.
Even more so if I had a Z7/Z8 and could therefore also take advantage of the crop.
p.1 #4 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
I owe 400f4.5/tc14 combo, and I would recommend 600pf in case TC would be on 400f4.5 most of the time.
I'm thinking about switching to 600pf, or 180-600, but no decision yet.
The first option is a bit expensive for me, the second option is too big and heavy.
There is a bit of a trade off using TC on 400f4.5, af accuracy/speed, sharpness, and color contrast.
It's nowhere to be too bad, but it exists.
I haven't used 600pf, but I would love to have 600mm with image quality and af like 400f4.5 without tc. I think 600pf has no issues delivering it, as far as I can see on Flickr and here in this forum.
If you see 400f4.5 being used a lot without tc, go for it, it's a fantastic little lens.
p.1 #5 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
I think everyone summed this up well, but I'd like to add one more point...
** If you are shooting within a forest and you can work with 400mm, then the 400mm f4.5 will focus faster because of the increased available light. By engaging DX crop, you can then instantly produce a 20MP image at 600mm and retain the benefit of greater light transmission.**
I've owned the 400mm f4.5 and replaced it with the 400mm f2.8TC. Prior to doing so, the 400mm f4.5 was my favorite lens for its size, af speed, and optical quality.
If you intend to use a TC more than 50% of the time, then buy the 600PF.
With respect to the 180-600, I have the latter lens and the 100-400. Neither is as sharp as the 400mm f4.5 at 400mm, but I think the 180-600 beats the 400 f4.5 + 1.4x at the long end. The 400mm f2.8TC beats the latter combinations with the TC engaged, and is as sharp or sharper than the 600PF at 600mm f6.3.
p.1 #7 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
All depends of your subjects.
I opted for the combo of 400mm f/4.5 and 800mm f/6.3.
The reason is that the 400mm is enough for most wildlife except birds and can still be used for landscape abstracts. I don't think I ever used it with the converter.
For birds I was almost always using a 1.4x converter on my old 500mm f/4. I am sure the 600mm would have also ended up with the 1.4x stuck on it. On the other hand the 800mm works very well.
At a recent shot in the Sacramento Delta with the sandhill cranes I had the converted most of the day. I was quite pleased at the results.
p.1 #8 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
I have the 400 and like it quite a bit. Chose it over the 186 as I've seen too many images from that lens that look.....I dunno...over sharpened or manipulated. I don't know if that's an in camera thing or what.
600pf would undoubtedly be better for some things I do but in the used market it's about $1k more expensive and might be a bit long for some situations and I really like a faster lens. It could well be that the 400 at 4.5 on a 45mp body is a better tool in less light than a native 600 at 6.3.
p.1 #9 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
Every time I go down this road, I take the turn that always brings me back to the 500PF. It's sooo...everything and I already own it. If I didn't, I would give it a lonngg think. Short of an exotic, I haven't seen anything that leads me believe I'm missing anything. Just a thought.
p.1 #10 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
OwlsEyes wrote:
I think everyone summed this up well, but I'd like to add one more point...
** If you are shooting within a forest and you can work with 400mm, then the 400mm f4.5 will focus faster because of the increased available light. By engaging DX crop, you can then instantly produce a 20MP image at 600mm and retain the benefit of greater light transmission.**
I've owned the 400mm f4.5 and replaced it with the 400mm f2.8TC. Prior to doing so, the 400mm f4.5 was my favorite lens for its size, af speed, and optical quality.
If you intend to use a TC more than 50% of the time, then buy the 600PF.
With respect to the 180-600, I have the latter lens and the 100-400. Neither is as sharp as the 400mm f4.5 at 400mm, but I think the 180-600 beats the 400 f4.5 + 1.4x at the long end. The 400mm f2.8TC beats the latter combinations with the TC engaged, and is as sharp or sharper than the 600PF at 600mm f6.3.
p.1 #12 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
Photographing mostly songbirds the 400mm f/4.5 had the 1.4x TC attached 100% of the time. I sold it and bought the 600mm PF lens. I already had the 800mm PF and so knew what I was getting.
I do not want to deal with the weight of the 600mm TC lens and having to use a tripod and gimbal head 100% of the time so the 600mm PF is for my needs the best choice.
p.1 #14 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
For me, shooting mainly birds, the 600mm PF was the only choice possible. I have tried TCs in different brands over the years and always found the images softer with a TC on. I yet have to be convinced that a TC will not compromise sharpness.
I have owned the 600mm PF for only three months, but used it extensively in Costa Rica this November, many times in less than ideal light conditions. Super happy with the results. As a side note, I must admit I had some reserve about the f/6.3 aperture before going, but I realized that the stabilization of the Z system is so good that I could really use a very low speed to compensate in many situations.
p.1 #15 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
I sold my 600mm f6.3 PF after using it for a few weeks - the 4m MFD was the deal-breaker for me, since I photograph a lot of really small birds.
That lens has the lowest magnification ratio (0.15x) in its class; even Nikon's own marketing suggests using the lens in DX crop mode to get "closer" to your subject.
p.1 #16 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
Cliff L. wrote:
I sold my 600mm f6.3 PF after using it for a few weeks - the 4m MFD was the deal-breaker for me, since I photograph a lot of really small birds.
That lens has the lowest magnification ratio (0.15x) in its class; even Nikon's own marketing suggests using the lens in DX crop mode to get "closer" to your subject.
0.15x is a typical magnification for a fixed focal length 600 mm lens.
Canon RF 600/11: 0.14x
Canon RF 600/4: 0.15x
Nikon Z 600/4: without TC 0.14x, with TC 0.2x
Sony FE 600/4: 0.14x
I am not sure which 600mm lenses you are comparing to. Zooms that go to 600mm do feature greater maximum magnification factors but they do it by sacrificing focal length dramatically, so they can actually be more like 200mm or 300mm when achieving that max magnification factor. I think for most wildlife subjects the lack of working distance to not spook the subject then can become an issue. I've tried to photograph frogs with the 100-400 Nikkor and felt it was very clumsy to operate in that application and while the lens did produce decent outcomes I got better results with the 200 mm Micro-Nikkor. I don't have the 180-600mm but it is reported to give its maximum magnification of 0.25x at 180 mm.
I am not saying the longer minimum focus distance is never an issue, as I've run into that problem when photographing grebes: the bird once familiar with my presence (I was lying on my stomach for a long time repeatedly on many evenings) eventually swam so close that I couldn't focus on it using the 500mm PF which has 0.18x max magnification factor at 3.0 m distance. A 100-400 would have handled that particular situation better, but most of the time the distance to bird was greater and the 500mm (or the 600mm f/6.3 which didn't exist at the time) was a better fit. However, the 100-400 is not that fast focusing when it comes to close subjects and can often need manual intervention to achieve focus, and the primes tend to focus faster though they do not achieve such close focus. A VCM-equipped long macro lens would probably be ideal for such applications, but it seems the manufacturers are not interested in producing a dedicated lens for such a specialized market. The 105 MC is wonderful but its focal length is quite short. Perhaps Nikon will eventually make a Z MC 200mm f/4.
p.1 #17 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
ilkka_nissila wrote:
0.15x is a typical magnification for a fixed focal length 600 mm lens.
Canon RF 600/11: 0.14x
Canon RF 600/4: 0.15x
Nikon Z 600/4: without TC 0.14x, with TC 0.2x
Sony FE 600/4: 0.14x
I am not sure which 600mm lenses you are comparing to. Zooms that go to 600mm do feature greater maximum magnification factors but they do it by sacrificing focal length dramatically, so they can actually be more like 200mm or 300mm when achieving that max magnification factor. I think for most wildlife subjects the lack of working distance to not spook the subject then can become an issue. I've tried to photograph frogs with the 100-400 Nikkor and felt it was very clumsy to operate in that application and while the lens did produce decent outcomes I got better results with the 200 mm Micro-Nikkor. I don't have the 180-600mm but it is reported to give its maximum magnification of 0.25x at 180 mm.
I am not saying the longer minimum focus distance is never an issue, as I've run into that problem when photographing grebes: the bird once familiar with my presence (I was lying on my stomach for a long time repeatedly on many evenings) eventually swam so close that I couldn't focus on it using the 500mm PF which has 0.18x max magnification factor at 3.0 m distance. A 100-400 would have handled that particular situation better, but most of the time the distance to bird was greater and the 500mm (or the 600mm f/6.3 which didn't exist at the time) was a better fit. However, the 100-400 is not that fast focusing when it comes to close subjects and can often need manual intervention to achieve focus, and the primes tend to focus faster though they do not achieve such close focus. A VCM-equipped long macro lens would probably be ideal for such applications, but it seems the manufacturers are not interested in producing a dedicated lens for such a specialized market. The 105 MC is wonderful but its focal length is quite short. Perhaps Nikon will eventually make a Z MC 200mm f/4. ...Show more →
I noticed your cherry-picked list doesn't include any other lenses that are 600mm with an aperture of f6.3... .
Your suggestion that a 105mm macro lens is a substitute for a 600mm telephoto for bird photography suggests you don't know a great deal about the subject, but nice try, though.
p.1 #18 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
Edit: I was late evening posting about something and deleted it as it was based on incorrect information. I'll repost a summary with corrections Sorry!
Long focal length primes typically hold focal length and while the non-macro ones don't focus as close as many long zooms, they do focus faster in the range of distances they can focus on. Many if not most of the long zooms lose a lot of focal length when focused to their closest distance and as a result they are not exactly comparable with nominal focal length primes at close focus. However, the 180-600 seems to be an exception and holds focal length well towards close focus and this was where I had been misinformed. I had used the 100-400 and felt it didn't give much of an advantage over the 200 AF Micro; the autofocus of the zoom works poorly at close distances and it is clumsier to operate than the macro. However the focal length does remain a bit longer but I preferred the images from the macro.
I totally understand how annoying it is to run into the close focusing limitation on a lens when having a good subject available. The zooms do offer the ability to continue shooting when the subject is quite close.
p.1 #19 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
400mm PF vs 600mm PF is the poor man's version of the old 400mm f2.8 vs 600mm f4 debate. In that debate, the 400mm f2.8 is more used in sports and the 600mm f4 wildlife. I don't think the answer is any different here. I have the 600mm PF (I'm poor-ish now - retired) and use it with a 1.4X frequently. I tried the 800mm PF and wound up returning it as for song birds, the ability to get closer with the 600/1.4X yielded better results on small songbirds. Over the years I have owned 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 400 f4, 500 f4, 500 f5.6, 600 f4, 600 f6.3, 800mm f5.6 and 800 f6.3.
If I could have only one, it would be a 500 f4 as the best combination of size weight and speed for wildlife. Sadly, nobody makes those anymore. The 600 f6.3 is a great second choice. If Nikon would make a 500 f4 with a built in 1.7X TC, I have a left testical I could part with to buy it.
p.1 #20 · Deciding between Nikon 600mm z 6.3 vs 400mm z 4.5 with TC1.4
Not meaning to nit pick but there is no Nikon PF 400 mm. The 400/4.5 is so light weight that I too would have guessed it to be a phase fresnel design but it's not.
billsnature wrote:
400mm PF vs 600mm PF is the ...
. 