fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2              4       end
  

Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?

  
 
1bwana1
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


suteetat wrote:
ISO 5.6 and 6.3 are not all that different though and in general, 1/3 stop of light is unlikely to be a break or make point.
Nowaday, sensor retain contrast and color so well at high ISO and denoising program is so much better. I don't see
1/3 of stop as big a deal as TCx2 degradation in resolution. All in all, 300/2.8 + TC as the best wild life lens ever, what a hyperbole. I took my 600/4s TC to Antarctica, to Africa, to 4500m altitude in -30C. If I am willing to spend that much and willing to go
...Show more



Suteetat,

Maybe I am misunderstanding. Lance said he shot those images at SS 1/100 sec ISO 4500. If he had to go to 1/2000 sec at the same aperture that would bump ISO 5 stops to almost ISO 100,000. For sure that would not be a usable image no matter what the post processing that was done. When compared to a f/2.8 lens you would have over 3 stops lower ISO of close to 12,500 which is back in the usable range.

Yes, and extreme example, but adverse for sure. Conditions requiring ISO 4500 I don't consider very adverse with today's sensors and software. Great usable images are normal is such conditions these days.



Jan 23, 2026 at 12:57 PM
suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


1bwana1 wrote:

Suteetat,

Maybe I am misunderstanding. Lance said he shot those images at SS 1/100 sec ISO 4500. If he had to go to 1/2000 sec at the same aperture that would bump ISO 5 stops to almost ISO 100,000. For sure that would not be a usable image no matter what the post processing that was done. When compared to a f/2.8 lens you would have over 3 stops lower ISO of close to 12,500 which is back in the usable range.

Yes, and extreme example, but adverse for sure. Conditions requiring ISO 4500 I don't consider very adverse with today's
...Show more

Steve,
Actually we are talking about 600pf vs 300/2.8 with tcx2 as earlier, I mentioned that 300/2.8 is unlikely to be the best wildlife lens because of its focal length despite how good it is. Then it was mentioned that many people are using it constantly with TCx2 as a very portable and light 600mm option. So it is f6.3 vs f5.6 package. Certainly f2.8 vs f6.3 is a big deal when we are talking about the same focal length, no argument there.




Jan 23, 2026 at 04:34 PM
bernardl
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


ilkka_nissila wrote:
The problem with built-in TC is that it typically increases the lens price by 2000-3000€ and the savings in lens weight of the modern technologies are partially lost if the TC has to be carried on the lens at all times.

I get it that if the 300 mm focal length is not what you want and would be often using it with a TC then it makes sense but for me the substantial extra cost and my lack of enjoyment of TCs would mean I would likely never buy such a lens if it comes with a built-in TC.
...Show more

That is only true if you need a super light lens. Young folks can easily carry a 10 years old 300mm f2.8 AF-S that works beautifully and has great image quality. We have been using those lenses with monopods forever with very little downside. Most of the people who have become obsessive about weight are some of the old folks of this forum (I am one of them) and those willing to promote Sony's priorities as the only way forward.

I don't think there is enough data to be able to claim with any degree of confidence that an internal TC always increases the cost by 2000-3000 Euro (only 4 lenses have been made with one which prevents any statistical significance by a huge margin). The Nikon 400mm f2.8 S TC is more expensive than the Canon and Sony competitors but that probably mostly results from it being a better lens and from Nikon having so far had a cheaper bodies higher priced super high end lenses strategy.

Cheers,
Bernard



Jan 23, 2026 at 05:32 PM
Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


ilkka_nissila wrote:
The problem with built-in TC is that it typically increases the lens price by 2000-3000€ and the savings in lens weight of the modern technologies are partially lost if the TC has to be carried on the lens at all times.

I get it that if the 300 mm focal length is not what you want and would be often using it with a TC then it makes sense but for me the substantial extra cost and my lack of enjoyment of TCs would mean I would likely never buy such a lens if it came with a built-in TC.
...Show more

I don't see that Nikon is particularly concerned with low paid photojournalists and freelancers, the Z lens system is going in the expensive direction if you want a fast lens of any kind. This is the same in the Canon world it seems as well and even the Sony 300 f2.8 GM is still a hefty approx. US$7,000. All lenses are hugely expensive nowadays, especially the professional fast lenses.

I also doubt that the addition of a TC to a lens adds a cost of 2000-3000€, the TC itself only costs around US$600 so, to incorporate it into a 300 f2.8 would not be that expensive, maybe US$1,000 to US$1,500 tops price addition. However, for these low paid photojournalists and freelancers, the 300 f2.8G VRII is readily available at a "low" US$5,500 at B&H. Then there is the 120-300 f2.8 on sale for US$6,650 at B&H. But, isn't a zoom a compromise also? A compromise basically the same as a TC added? In fact I would argue that a zoom is a worse compromise than a TC.

As for me, I won't be often shooting a 300 f2.8 with TC engaged, I would be shooting it at 300 f2.8 and sometimes with the TC engaged. I dearly want a 300 f2.8 bare as well as it being switchable, to be more versatile. I had the 300 f2.8G VRII and loved it and I wish I hadn't needed to sell it, but I needed the cash to fund my purchase of the 400 f2.8E FL VR. However, I wouldn't buy the 300 f2.8G VRII now as it is too heavy to be used as an adjunct to my Z 600 TC. The fact is, it was almost indistinguishable using the 1.4x TCII/III but the point is, you don't have to use it, but it is damned handy if you do need it.

Edited on Jan 23, 2026 at 07:15 PM · View previous versions



Jan 23, 2026 at 05:42 PM
DWOfPaul
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


At this point, a regular 300mm f2.8 probably would not interest me. A 300mm f2.8 TC may tempt me a bit, since with an external TC you should be able to hit 840mm f8 in a pinch, a 100-300mm f2.8 TC would probably tempt me quite a bit as a single telephoto lens that can cover a lot of situations. What I am really hoping for, though, is something like 200mm f2 TC, or a 100-200mm f2 that takes external TCs (for an f2 zoom I can give up the internal TC).

My thinking is 200mm f2 + TCs gets you 280mm f2.8 (almost a 300mm f2) and 400mm f4, and could pair very well with a longer lens like a 600m f4.



Jan 23, 2026 at 06:40 PM
Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


DWOfPaul wrote:
At this point, a regular 300mm f2.8 probably would not interest me. A 300mm f2.8 TC may tempt me a bit, since with an external TC you should be able to hit 840mm f8 in a pinch, a 100-300mm f2.8 TC would probably tempt me quite a bit as a single telephoto lens that can cover a lot of situations. What I am really hoping for, though, is something like 200mm f2 TC, or a 100-200mm f2 that takes external TCs (for an f2 zoom I can give up the internal TC).

My thinking is 200mm f2 + TCs gets
...Show more

I think the issue with trying to get to 840mm f8 with the 300 f2.8 + TCs is that you can't stack TCs. You would need a 2x TX and a 1.4x TC which can't be done without modifying one or both TCs.



Jan 23, 2026 at 07:18 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


Even so, the IQ will suffer unacceptably.

EBH



Jan 23, 2026 at 07:20 PM
suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


Lance B wrote:
I think the issue with trying to get to 840mm f8 with the 300 f2.8 + TCs is that you can't stack TCs. You would need a 2x TX and a 1.4x TC which can't be done without modifying one or both TCs.


I think he means like Nikon 400/2.8s TC or 600/4s TC where you can stack internal and external TC.
Certainly I have some success stacking TC with 400 and 600 mm with reasonable result.
Personally I still feel that as long as budget and physical fitness allow, I prefer bare lens without TC to be the most commonly use focal length for me and using TC as a supplement on occasion and not the norm.
I would definitely be interested in high quality 100-300 zoom as I can use that more readily than 300mm prime in general and
would not object to internal TC for added flexibility. After saying that, I am very happy with 100-400 to supplement my 400TC and 600TC and 100-300 has to be something special to consider that (100-300/2.8 potentially would be good but I have to see how big a hassle it is to take it along with either or 600s TC. I rarely took 400 and 600s TC together except on road trip for example.




Jan 23, 2026 at 07:39 PM
bernardl
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


DWOfPaul wrote:
At this point, a regular 300mm f2.8 probably would not interest me. A 300mm f2.8 TC may tempt me a bit, since with an external TC you should be able to hit 840mm f8 in a pinch, a 100-300mm f2.8 TC would probably tempt me quite a bit as a single telephoto lens that can cover a lot of situations. What I am really hoping for, though, is something like 200mm f2 TC, or a 100-200mm f2 that takes external TCs (for an f2 zoom I can give up the internal TC).

My thinking is 200mm f2 + TCs gets
...Show more

I share your views 100%.

To me a zoom or an internal TC is way more valuable than a few hundreds of grams less weight.

Why so? Because that directly impacts ability to capture images and has a direct impact on the result.

Weight can have an impact on the result beyond a certain level in terms of ability to track fast subjects, but I have zero issues working handheld for hours with my 400mm f2.8 S TC and I am very far from being a muscular guy. This is thanks to the perfect weight distribution of Nikon's super teles.

The focus on weight has frankly become way overblown. It sometimes feels that the weight of the gear has become more important than the photographic result.

Cheers,
Bernard



Jan 23, 2026 at 09:18 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


Some of the newer folks forget that there are tripods, which were invented thousands of years ago. Let the planet do the lifting.

EBH



Jan 23, 2026 at 09:39 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

fnzmf25
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


Lance really nice photos.

This video has a lot of example images for when the 600 PF falls apart, please take a look



Go to time stamp 19:25

Lance B wrote:
News to me. Broad-brush statement and I have never encountered any adverse conditions using the Z 600 PF.

Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso3200

https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175335511/original.jpg

Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500

https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174741585/original.jpg

Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso4500

https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174783523/original.jpg

Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500

https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175682106/original.jpg




Jan 24, 2026 at 07:39 AM
fnzmf25
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


You summed up the limitation of PF lens really well. This video at 19:25 timestamp also shows examples of what you describe



ilkka_nissila wrote:
Those all look like they were shot in very beautiful light with some directional and diffuse components. I would only be able to dream on such conditions in wintertime where I live.

I don't have the 600 PF but have used the 300 PF and 500 PF extensively, and I found both to work well in frontal/side directional, high quality light but in overcast, low-contrast weather, the contrast can be low and the results a bit muddy, whereas non-PF lenses can still produce high contrast. Backlit conditions where the sun is just outside of the frame but within the cone
...Show more



Jan 24, 2026 at 07:52 AM
Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


fnzmf25 wrote:
Lance really nice photos.

This video has a lot of example images for when the 600 PF falls apart, please take a look

Go to time stamp 19:25



Thank you for your kind comment on my presented photos. Much appreciated.

I do like this guy generally but, he is wrong on a couple of points. He stated that the 600 PF or PF lenses in general cannot focus as close as a normal lenses. The Z 600 PF = 4mts, my Z 600 TC = 4.3mts, old 600 f4E FL VR = 4.4mt, Canon 600 f4 RF = 4.2mts, Sony 600 f4 = 4.5mts. 500 PF = 3mts, 500 f4E FL VR = 3.6mts. 300 f4 PF = 1.4mts old 300 f4 G = 1.45mts which was heralded for it's close focus ability. 800 f5.6E FL VR = 5.6mts, 800 PF = 5mts. This shows that PF lenses actually focus *closer* than normal lenses! What he should be complaining about is that longer lenses do not focus as close as shorter lenses and no 600mm lens would have worked in the situations he talked about, only a zoom like the 180-600 may have worked. This is indeed an advantage for the 400 f2.8 TC as it focuses at the 400mm focal length even with TC engaged - an advantage I have always stated ever since I was using my 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 + TC's on F mount. If you need a very close MFD, put a TC on a short tele len s rather than using the longer tele lens - horses for courses. Anyway, he called it a drawback of the lens but it is not a drawback *compared* to any other 600mm lens as it actually focuses closer than any other 600mm lens other than a zoom.He then states that "even a 500 f4 prime can get you to 9feet", the only one that comes close is actually the 500 PF!! Not the 500 f4E FL VR.

He then states that the lens falls apart due to the f6.3 and the PF elements with noise in low light and hence why I posted photos with low light. I really don't see noise any worse than my 600 TC at the same aperture in the same low light. Granted that backlit images may *sometimes* show a tad more ghosting due to the PF element, but I just avoid shooting where there is harsh backlighting, preferring to avoid it even with a non PF lens. That part is moot for me, I just avoid it.

As for bokeh, well we all know that a refractive lens will generally be better, but then it becomes a cost v trade-off as all lenses are. Again, I tend to avoid places where bokeh becomes an issue even for my 600 TC. In other words, I look for the best possible images and backgrounds not just getting a shot of a bird for the sake of it. Bokeh is also quite subjective and some of the examples shown looked actually good to me.

He talks about heat distortion and I can tell you from using my 600 PF and my 600 TC extensively, once you get heat distortion, they both suffer pretty much the same - images are basically unusable. I just don't use the images from *either* lens.

I have yet to take a photo with my 600PF where the I could say that the PF element has ruined the shot. However, I have the Z 600 TC as well and yes, it is a better lens in all departments - except weight, size and cost! - but much of the time if you are at equal aperture you'd be hard pressed to see a big difference. But then, who else makes a 600 f6.3 refractive lens? Who even makes a 600 f5.6 refractive lens? The 600 PF stands alone for size, weight and cost. I guess what I am saying is, if you want a 600mm prime lens, and can't afford a 400 TC or 600 TC what alternative is there? Yes, you can go the 400 f4.5, but you can use a 1.4x TC on the 600PF for a still very sharp 840 f9. I would not consider using the 400 f4.5 with a 2x TC. I will also add that I am very critical of IQ and want the achieve the best, I just don't see the 600 PF as a problem lens, it is a little gem, IMO.

I think what annoys me about Youtube presenters, and he is a little bit guilty of it although not as bad as most, he tries to make out pros and cons to be quite black and white, when they are way more nuanced and situation dependent. Saying a lens "falls apart" is a little bit over the top, IMO. Yes, it is not as good as my 600 TC, but falling apart? No. I guess this is why I would never be able to do a Youtube presentation because I would not try to be as polarizing in my opinion, every lens is horses for courses.

Edited on Jan 25, 2026 at 05:18 AM · View previous versions



Jan 25, 2026 at 02:26 AM
bernardl
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


Very true Lance. Besides the price difference with the 600 f4 S TC, or any other 600mm f4 for that matter, is simply huge. Enough to buy a Z9 and still get some change.

So comparing them would be like comparing a mid range Toyota to a higher end BMW... nobody does that.

Cheers,
Bernard



Jan 25, 2026 at 04:44 AM
duncangr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


suteetat wrote:
Steve,
Actually we are talking about 600pf vs 300/2.8 with tcx2 as earlier, I mentioned that 300/2.8 is unlikely to be the best wildlife lens because of its focal length despite how good it is. Then it was mentioned that many people are using it constantly with TCx2 as a very portable and light 600mm option. So it is f6.3 vs f5.6 package. Certainly f2.8 vs f6.3 is a big deal when we are talking about the same focal length, no argument there.



A9iii with 300 f/2.8 + 2xTC

having the option to use 300 f/2.8 or 420 f/4 is handy when the light is marginal.








300 f/2.8 + 1.4xTC - birds were feeding and moving about quickly so I had to increase the shutter speed to avoid motion blur on the head.








Jan 25, 2026 at 04:46 PM
suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


duncangr wrote:
A9iii with 300 f/2.8 + 2xTC

having the option to use 300 f/2.8 or 420 f/4 is handy when the light is marginal.

https://duncangroenewald.com/img/photos/2025-12/2025-12-31/DGB_20251231_1_4447_DxD.jpg

300 f/2.8 + 1.4xTC - birds were feeding and moving about quickly so I had to increase the shutter speed to avoid motion blur on the head.

https://duncangroenewald.com/img/photos/2025-12/2025-12-31/DGB_20251231_1_6172_DxD_16x9.jpg


It really depends on what is the most common focal length that you need.

600PF can be used with 1.4xTC or 2xTC as well. For bird and wildlife shooting, I have both 400/2.8s TC and 600/4s TC and used to have 800PF, along with 600PF, 100-400, the most used focal length is pretty much 600 and 800mm. 80% of the time.
I used to shoot 400/2.8s TC and 800PF and thought I have everything cover. Then I find that I ended up using 560 and 800mm the most so I eventually got 600/4s TC.
400mm is used only in specific situation and I still use it enough and I love the lens so I keep it but it does not get used nearly as often as 600/4s TC and I sold 800PF.
The situation where I used 400/2.8s TC the most is when I really need f2.8 as well. So 300/2.8 + TC1.4 is not ideal either.

600PF + TC1.4 is actually very good when the situation is right. Not something you can do with 300/2.8.
So pick your own poison, longer reach when neccessary or more light gathering at shorter focal length. One is not
an automatic winner for everybody.


I use it mainly when I need something light and small or when I travel where wildlife photography is not a priority and just have it there just in case.
I have 300PF at home and hardly ever touch it. Still a good lens in its own right but just not a focal length that I need and there are other much more suitable lens for me to use.

Also a lens that is married to TC almost all the time is never going to be my primary lens period.



Jan 25, 2026 at 08:45 PM
DWOfPaul
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


Looks like a 120-300mm f2.8 TC may be on the way:
https://nikonrumors.com/2026/01/24/nikon-rumored-to-announce-a-new-nikkor-z-120-300mm-f-2-8-tc-lens-by-the-end-of-the-year.aspx/

Also, yes, I was referring to getting to 840mm as the Internal 1.4x TC + External TC 2x. Persoanly I have not used a lens with an internal TC, but I have read about people being happy with the results of stacking internal and external TCs. I doubt that effectively putting a 3x TC on 300mm lens and being at 840mm f8 is going to get you as good image quality as, say, the 800mm PF. But if it gets you close in image quality to say the 180-600mm f6.3 + TC 1.4x I feel it would be a useful option to have at times. Especially when you unexpectedly need more reach.



Jan 26, 2026 at 10:52 AM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]
p.3 #18 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


Sony didn't even have anything fast tele until 400 2.8 came out in 2018. You had to adapt Canon EF, from those horrid DSLR'S that were so bad you had to use their lenses. No i dont really buy into Sony having more lenses, or throwing out and disregarding Nikon pf and saying Sony is better


Jan 26, 2026 at 11:41 AM
1bwana1
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?




suteetat wrote:
Steve,
Actually we are talking about 600pf vs 300/2.8 with tcx2 as earlier, I mentioned that 300/2.8 is unlikely to be the best wildlife lens because of its focal length despite how good it is. Then it was mentioned that many people are using it constantly with TCx2 as a very portable and light 600mm option. So it is f6.3 vs f5.6 package. Certainly f2.8 vs f6.3 is a big deal when we are talking about the same focal length, no argument there.




I know but I wasn't discussing lenses at all. I was just saying that if there is enough light, and the subject is moving slow enough, to have an aperture of 6.3, a shutter speed of only 1/100 sec, and a resultant ISO of only 4500 that I don't consider those conditions very adverse.

The light would have to be lower, or the subject moving fast enough to require a a high shutter speed then the conditions become more challenging for equipment and photographer.



Jan 26, 2026 at 01:52 PM
bernardl
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?


The only 300mm that would be close to a universal super tele would be a very high quality 300mm f2.0 TC2. tC2 meaning it would feature a built-in TC that has both x1.4 and x2.0 optical elements. Flip inside you go x1.4, flip the other side you go f2.0.

The TC elements could be fully ED glass for near native performance.

You would get a 420mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 in a single lens.

Considering everything we know I am 99% sure that Nikon must have studied this possibility very carefully and that they could probably design one weighting around 3kg.

It would be expensive though.

Cheers,
Bernard



Jan 26, 2026 at 04:20 PM
1       2              4       end






FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2              4       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account