Lance B
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: 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
Lance B wrote:
fnzmf25 wrote:
Maybe you live in a bright location where the PF lens shines, it just fall apart so quickly in non ideal situations.
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
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso4500
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
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. 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.
|
