sum1sgrampa
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ?? | |
ingekj wrote:
sum1sgrampa wrote:
sparadise 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
ingekj wrote:
The 600PF is close to 50% sharper than the 180-600. The zoom is not even close. The extreme corners of the 600PF is sharper than the 180-600 in the center.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-600mm-f-6-3-vr-s/3
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.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
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"
Haven't tried the 180-600 personally but have used the Sony 200-600 and the 600f4 extensively and from my experience the 2-6 performed very well in most situations. I would have no reason to think the Nikon version is not similar. I will say I can always pick out 600 f4 shots over the zoom if there is any kind of background involved . To think any 2K lens can duplicate a 13K lens is silly. I haven't shot much with my Nikon 400 pf but my guess it's somewhere in between the zooms and the full size F4's
I had a situation yesterday where it got cloudy here (Gilbert,Az) so I decided to go out to look for the rare Streak-backed Oriole which has been reported at the Gilbert Riparian Preserve over the last month or so. I knew the light wouldn't be that good so the f4.5 saved the day and gave me a better shot.While the 6.3's have longer reach doesn't lower iso allow for more cropping so you end up with the same result ? Keep in mind I only shoot small song birds,Ducks and the like. Here is the best shot Z8 Nikon pf 4.5
 Streak-backed Oriole by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
I would agree with everything you've said and I can see your logic. The 180-600 is F6 at 400mm. I'm getting rid of my 400 4.5 because that little bit of difference is not nearly enough to make me want to take the 400 instead of the 180-600 on an outing. Nor is the IQ advantage enough to overcome the zoom flexibility. And carrying an extra pound or so is ridiculously inconsequential for me. I need to lose 30 lbs, does that mean I should stay home
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and I'll most likely regret it, but here's my theory on why we have so many of these discussions; It used to be, 10-15 years ago, that if you owned one of the exotics, a 600 f4, 500 f4, 400 2.8, your images would be head and shoulders above the average user if you were a competent photographer. The introduction of the Nikon 200-500, Sigma 150-600 S, and the Sony 200-600 changed all that. Of course there's still a difference, but that gap is getting smaller and smaller and some folks that have spent big money on exotic lenses are struggling with that reality. There are still a number of photographers, the proof is on these forums, that believe simply owning one of these exotic lenses is enough and they scoff at the "lesser mortals". Like the poster above who says a $2000 lens is okay for web use but that's it. Or the poster saying the 180-600 IQ is "not even close" to the 600 PF. Absolute rubbish and a perfect example of gear snobbery.
I'm not begrudging anyone for owning the best glass, If I thought it made any kind of sense for me to do so to take pictures of birds that no one but me cares about I'd do the same. But there's a number of folks here who would do well to "bring it" as they say, instead of just trying to bolster their ego and purchase decisions by putting other people down. And I'm not only referring to this thread.
Gary
The images you posted show great composure skills, and are tastefully edited. But they are not of the sort where critical sharpness of a lens would matter. The pics you posted would look exactly the same if they were taken with a 600F4. That does not change that the 600PF is capable of resolving fine lines 50% further than the 180-600. But you will not see that unless you crop heavily. That is all I am trying to say. Nobody is looking down on anyone for using cheaper lenses. And nobody needs to post pictures they have taken to make a point about lens sharpness because that is frankly irrelevant unless it is a direct comparison as ordinary pictures compressed to web use are not capable of showing sharpness.
Talk about moving the goalposts. Now there's only a difference if one crops heavily. Hmmm... To be clear, I posted those photos in a direct response to your claim that the IQ from the 180-600 is "not even close" to that of the 600 PF. I then called you out by asking you to point to any one of 9 pages of the 600 PF thread that proves your point. Obviously you're unable to do so because your claim is inaccurate. Your claim that "ordinary pictures compressed to web use are not capable of showing sharpness" is a common excuse people use here when things like this come up. What you fail to realize is that it's all relative. In other words, if the 600 PF images are compromised by web algorithms then the 180-600's would be also. Apples to apples. Cropping heavily is an exercise in futility unless you simply want an ID photo no matter what lens you're using. Don't fault the lens just because I'm using it correctly.
|
