ingekj wrote: 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
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.
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"
ingekj wrote: 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
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.
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"
Apr 06, 2024 at 07:48 AM
Previous versions of sum1sgrampa's message #16517229 « Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ?? »
we wouldn't be having these types of discussions.