sparadise
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ?? | |
sum1sgrampa wrote:
sparadise wrote:
ingekj wrote:
nmerc_photos wrote:
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
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.
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.
How much detail a lens can resolve is highly relevant in real life scenarios with birds and animals. If you are 15m away from a small bird you may not get a usable shot with the 180-600 compared to the 600PF because the resolving power difference is so large. And yes I have used both. What is so baffling about this? If this was not the case nobody would bother forking out for the 600PF or any prime in the 400-600 range because youre also giving up flexibility from the zoom.. Yet people are.
---------------------------------------------
sum1sgrampa wrote:
bs kite 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
 Thank you Gary. It's about time someone said this.
Yes Robert, have you ever noticed there's a direct correlation between the length of a photo description and the price tag of the equipment used ? How many times have we seen " shot with the Sony A1 and 600 F4 @ f4, ISO 400, Auto WB, 1/1600, April 2, 2024, hand held, wearing Fruit of the Loom underoos etc. Then you look at the shot and think; yeah, so what
My point, which is always lost in my incoherent blabbering, is that a poorly composed, too tightly cropped, pin sharp photo of a bird on a stick is just not very interesting anymore no matter what it was shot with. I'm struggling to make my work interesting on a daily basis. I'll probably never get there but the only thing holding me back is me, not the lens I use.
Gary
I do agree I have seen lots of shots taken with a Sony A1 and 600 f4 that are terrible.I hope most people here realize that equipment isn't what produces excellent bird photos but without it capturing fast moving ducks in the air is extremely tedious. I have been shooting ducks and hawks in flight for at least 15 years and wish I had a dollar for every out of focus shot no matter what brand or lens I was using. The first camera that changed that forever was the Sony A9.
Oh crap ! I deleted that post, or at least thought I did, right after posting it. You must have beat me to it I thought I came across as too snarky. Oh well, the cat's out of the bag
And to clarify, I'm 100% not singling out Sony shooters. I have great respect and admiration for a number of Sony users. I most certainly do not want to be the one that starts that war
No worries. I am the guy who walked into B&H photo in the year 2000 with a Fuji S1 digital camera in my hand and they didn't even have one yet. I was on the internet on day one. I forgot how many years it took before people admitted that digital would replace film. The next "big debate" was I'll never used a mirrorless camera.
|
