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.
I laugh everytime someone tries to cite test shots for sharpness. Nobody is taking pics of a printed image on a wall 10' away in real life.
If you look at any of the feedback between people who have actually used the 186 and 600PF in the real world - you'll see it's close enough to indistinguishable.
billsnature wrote:
So, I was in a similar situation with the question of sticking with the Sony 200-600 and an A1, buying a 600 GM or trying a Z8 with either the 600PF the 800 PF or both. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I bought a Z8 and 600PF and have no regrets. I toy with the idea of adding an 800PF as I frequently still use a 1.4X TC on the 600PF. So, I have a few observations and questions.
1_ The 3.25 Lb of the 600PF feels like a bigger difference in weight than the 1.2ish pound difference compared to the 180-600 or 200-600 than you would expect. It really is huge. The size difference is big too if you are trying to pack small for airline travel. I think some mentioned the "absence of a magic 3 lb lens" if they went with the zoom and they are correct. There is a magic handhold ability of the 600PF that you need to feel to appreciate.
2- The 200-600mm and 180-600mm are great for the money and very good lenses. They are sharp in the center, but give up a lot as you move off access. If all you do us post here, Flickr and Instagram, they are more than adequate. They are not the same as the primes. It is a color, contrast and fine detail difference that is quite visible when you compare images. Like comparing a Leica prime to a Tamron zoom. Both will provide "adequate pictures", but not the same.
3- Whether the benefits of the better background separation of a 600mm f4 or 800PF f6.3 are worth the money and weight vs using the 600PF (with/without 1.4) is going to be highly dependent on the background type and distance in your typical shooting. If the background is sky or distant, the value is low. If it is close and complex the value is high. Only you know your shooting locations.
4- I could never go with the 400mm f4.5 vs the 600mm PF. I would always be using TC and the difference between 4.5 and 6.3 is not large enough to matter in a world with AI based noise reduction.
My question is... For people with both the 800 PF and the 600PF with a 1.4XTC is the difference between 800mm f6.3 and 840mm f9 worth the cost and weight? I am sure it is a touch sharper and more contrast, but is the loss of 40mm and 2 punds worth the 1 stop? I am so happy with the 600PF that I am thinking it just isn't worth it. Thoughts?
My opinion (although ever changing) is that the 800PF is worth the cost and weight. I don't find 840mm f9 very usable in the real world. Granted I live in dark, gloomy Michigan. f6.3 is just about as slow as I would ever want to use.
I've been doing some testing recently with the 400TC, 800PF, and 600PF all using TC's which takes me as slow as f13, and while I can get decent enough static shots - BIF or action shots are out of the question fast f6.3
If I lived somewhere like Florida or South Carolina, I'm sure my opinion would be different.
Apr 06, 2024 at 02:44 PM
Previous versions of nmerc_photos's message #16517611 « Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ?? »
we wouldn't be having these types of discussions.