Nikon Z 600mm F6.3 PF. The best one yet ? VS 500PF / Z 180-600mm / Z 400mm 4.5 / Z 800mm PF
Hey everyone
In this video we will take a first look at the new Nikon Z 600mm F6.3 VS S PF
We will take a look at the build and controls on the lens and then compare it to the
Nikon Z 400mm f4.5 VR S
Nikon F 500mm f5.6 PF
Nikon Z 180-600mm F6.3 VR
Nikon Z 800mm F6.3 VR S PF
Nikon F 600mm F4E VR
00:00 Introduction
01:57 600mm PF build, size & weight
03:42 Lens hood
05:17 600mm PF vs 800mm PF
06:20 600mm PF vs 500mm PF
07:20 600mm PF sample images
10:39 600mm PF vs f-mount 600mm f4
11:43 600mm PF vs 500mm PF
13:01 600mm PF vs 400mm f4.5 1.4TC
14:12 600mm PF vs 180-600mm
15:40 600mm vs 600mm Stopped down
16:31 600mm PF with 1.4TC
17:12 600mm PF vs 800mm PF
18:48 Focus breathing
19:06 Focus speed
19:32 final thoughts
if you are interested in my photography: instagram.com/nikonricci?igsh...
Thank you so much for watching
Good Bye
#nikon #nikonz #nikon600
Hey Everyone ! I certainly hope you find this video useful ! I tried to cover all the major areas in this initial video Let me know if you have any questions 😀
Wow, but a bit disconcerting the 600pf+TC might be sharper than my 800pf.
@@garfieldirwinIt’s impressive for the 600mm but the 800mm being a full stop brighter for a price difference of $1150 usd (compared to the 600 plus tc), I would take the 800 all day every day if I’m shooting at 800. But if you’re mostly using 600 and need 840 in a pinch this seems great. I’m not a fan of f9 for what I shoot though
Great to see you back!!
@@maldzy I shoot video so f9 is just fine for what I do. Anyway, based on Ricci's review I picked up a 600pf this morning. I'm super impressed just playing around with it in the backyard -- time to put it through its paces.
Thanks for this, would if be possible to rank all the tested combos (including with TCs) in order of sharpness? It would help compare not only against the 600 pf but against each other as well.. For eg I am looking to upgrade from my 500pf and would love to know which are the 'better' options.
Most Nikon lenses are very sharp and rich color but I thought Nikon would make a Z 500mm f5.6 S and the price would be same as the Nikon AF-S 500mm f5.6 PF. My Z9 + FTZ II + 500mm f5.6 PF work very well for me. Thank you so much for sharing.
Hello Ricci, What a lot of work went in to this. I have a friend with the 600mm F6.3 and it is an amazing lens. I am hopping one will get into my bag in 2024. You have an amazing festive time and a big thank you for all your work in 2023 and more.
This was really interesting Ricci, thanks for sharing it with us! What a stunning couple of years it's been for Nikon, absolutely knocked it right out of the park.
Really good to see you back Ricci, I always appreciate your thoughts and reviews, I was hoping you'd cover the 600mm 6.3
Always great to get your views on new equipment
As always very informative,accurate and useful Ricci!!
Thank you Ricci. I have the 400 4.5 and the 1.4 tc is on it full time. This helped me make the decision to stay with what is currently attached to my Z8.
Really great review!! I am contemplating buying one of these and this was very helpful!! Thanks for sharing this with us! 🙂
I got my 180-600mm this week. I'm loving it. It's really good, and I'm loving being able to get out to 600mm, and for 1/3 the price of the primes. Only things I wish nikon did was made it a 4.5-5.6 or a a 5.6 all the way through. And maybe made it a 200-600mm S line lens instead so that it matched with the 70-200mm 2.8. But it really is great.
Great video Ricci as always 👌 I’ve got the z600pf and love it , does everything I need 🙌🙌
Just got my copy of the 180-600 and just love how snappy the focus is with the Z9. Also like that your comparison with the 600PF show that they are reasonably close in focus. Thanks for all the comparisons great information.
glad you found it useful !
We have been waiting for this video for a long time and it has finally arrived and I have no doubt that it is the best and I have found someone to prove this Thank you ❤
This was a very useful comparison of excellent lenses. I think the choice depends on budget, what subjects one may be photographing, and which lenses you already own.
Thanks so much Ricci great assessment enjoy your presentations
Hi Ricci, a great test in the field of large lenses. It is very amazing what the 600 mm 6.3 delivers with the Teleconverter 1.4. I find that extremely interesting. I personally prefer the 400mm 4.5 with the Tele Converter 1.4. A perfect combination for me. but your test was very, very informative. Thank you.
I have this lens now and before I used the 500 PF , which is an epic lenses It’s a brilliant upgrade and with my Z9 I just love the combination It brings a smile to my face every time I venture out with it. Cant recommend it highly enough
This Len’s is such a fab all round wildlife solution! Thanks Ricci for the review 👍
Another excellent video thanks Ricci.
Thank you Ricci, this was immensely helpful. Can I ask what de-noise software you used on those high-ISO images of the small bird? They are incredible!
Hey Ricci, thanks for the review. Just for interest, what focal lengths don't you get on with?
Brilliant, thank you!
Wonderful as always sir. The 400mm f/4.5 and the 600mm PF certainly intrigue me but I've found the 180-600mm to be borderline perfect for what I need in long telephoto. I have the 800mm if I need some more reach so can't bring myself to buy either at this time. Maybe in a year or two when they are plentiful in the second hand market but just can't justify it. Nikon keeps nailing it. Hopefully we get another video soon with another fun surprise of a new lens, camera or firmware. Cheers!
Fantastic shots with the 600mm. I was looking at the Z 180-600 vs the 600mm prime, and I went with the 180-600mm and the cost savings paid for half of my Z 800mm. Sweet.
That's a very interesting solution... I'm having trouble deciding between the same lenses, but that may be a good option. 180-600 today, and perhaps the 800 in the future instead of the 600 with the 1.4 TC.
@@thefly373 so FYI - I have upgraded from the 180-600mm and now use the 100-400mm instead. This lens is smaller, lighter and at the same time a sharper S lens. For me it is a better fit with the 800mm. It has close focusing and is wider at 100mm so can be used for landscape and portrait work as well as telephoto … and with TCs can reach 800mm. The 100-400 and 800mm can both be stored in a single carry-on bag. The 180-600 is a great lens but for my needs the 100-400 is superior in many ways.
Thankyou Ricci for this comparison video of the 600mm PF with other telephoto lenses in the Nikon lineup. I really appreciate the work you have put into making this video. However, I do agree with the comment below that you skipped to show us the comparison between the 600mm F4 TC and the 600mm PF. I do hope you can show us a comparison between these two lenses in a future video. Also, As you mentioned, a detailed comparison between the 600mm PF with TC-1.4x vs 800mm PF would be interesting to see. Hope you can make a video on the same. Keep up the amazing work.!
Great review and comparison(s).
Thank you. Great as always. Best YT channel for Nikon users.
How close was the test subject in the comparison shots? Because I assume it's probably closer to the 800 PF's minimal focusing distance than to the 600 PF's minimal focusing distance. A lot of lenses lose sharpness the closer you get to minimum focus, a comparison of a subject like 10-12 Meters away, then shot from the same position would be interesting to see what images you can expect in the real world.
Thanks Sir, I was waiting for this exact video from you. I own a 500 PF which I mostly use with my z8. I am considering my 500 PF to sell off to upgrade to this lens but my worries are is it worth specially if one is just an enthusiast from the IQ, Performance and ease of use for the 6.3 lens vs the cost of upgrade when one is little tight on budget. Had it been 5.6 it would have been a no brainer.
He’s finally back!
I bought the 600 and 800 pf z mounts with intention of returning one. I kept the 600 due to size and my opinion the 600 worked well with the 1.4tc. Thanks for confirming i made the right decision 😊
Really helpful review. Thankyou
Great stuff, as always. I'm hoping you didn't include the 600 f/4 tc in the comparision because you still found the 6.3 pf to be the best of the bunch -- would just be my luck given my 600 tc just arrived a couple weeks ago after a 13 month wait (and I'm still in denial over the price) LOL Thanks for this great video -- have just shared it with a friend who is shopping for a long Z lens. Merry Christmas!
Hmmm... The first image is a bit of click-bait! What happened to the 600 TC comparison?? Instead we get it compared to an older 600 FL? Hopefully that's coming with a follow up of 600 PF, 600 TC, 400 TC, and 800 PF 🤓 We know you tried that!
Thanks for a wonderful comparison, Ricci. I've got the 100-400 and the 1.4TC. I'm going to go back and see your reviews on that combo. My 1.4TC does live on the 100-400, so maybe at this time the 600 would have been better for me. No matter. I've really enjoyed shooting at 540 with the combination I have.
I would love to see the comparison with another 800mm PF. Can’t believe this result is representative for the 800mm PF in general.
I would assume that the 800mm takes the lead again for further distant subject like 50-100m. Most teleconverters seem optimized for close focus range as done in this test. Would be a really interesting battle between the two lenses
Thanks Ricci really enjoyed the video. I am very interested in your next comparison between the 600 PF with the 1.4 tele converter comparing to the 800 PF. Was really surprised to see the results and very interested to see if they hold up, since I am currently considering the 800 PF. Thanks again for all you do for the photography community!
The first thing to say is that f6.3 vs f9 in a sports action wildlife situation is a giant chasm, especially very early or very late in the day. Second, the only lens currently available from any manufacturer that can beat the Z 800 PF in sharpness at 800mm or beyond is the Nikon F 800 f5.6E FL ED. The Z 600 f4 with TC engaged (840mm f5.6) is less sharp vs Z 800 PF, and the RF 800 f5.6 is considerably less sharp than all these mentioned lenses. To claim that the Z 600 PF with 1.4 TC is sharper than the Z 800 PF is indeed a mighty claim, because basically you would be claiming its around the same sharpness or sharper than the $16300 F 800 f5.6E FL ED at 1/3 the price. Good luck with that. I've had my Z 800 PF since April 2023, and I can tell you that $6500 is a steal deal for what you get. Nikon could have charged $8000 for it and it still it would be underpriced. The Z 600 PF (which does not bring the $300 bag) is overpriced, IMHO. Lots and lots of 600mm f6.3's out there, regardless of how sharp it may be.
In Ricci’s test shot comparison there are two things that favourably differentiate the 800 from the 600 + teleconverter in terms of quality - the 600 shows chromatic distortion in the lines and as expected the brightness is less. A more thorough comparison would include the sharpness across the frame which is difficult to assess in the test card shots.
@@peterorr999 Two main things here, and the second one is difficult to articulate. First, distance to target matters. You can make any super tele lens look sharp when shooting at targets at close distances, and vs one another differences in sharpness will appear trivial. But when shooting at further distances those minor differences in sharpness get magnified quite a lot. Two lenses that seemed close in sharpness turn out to not be very close at all at real world distances. The second thing is that not all lenses are created equal in terms of how it renders in lower light conditions. In this conversation, near sunrise and sunset. There is no spec for that. I can tell you the Z 800 PF is a good performer near sunrise or sunset despite being an f6.3. The Z 180-600, also an f6.3, is a poor performer in the same exact scenario. I have shot these side by side at the same time, at the same birds, etc., one on Z8 and the other on a Z9, and the difference in overall IQ near sunrise and sunset is enormous despite having the same maximum aperture.
As a Z 9/Z 800PF user I was surprised at Ricci's initial feelings on how the 180-600 performed by comparison, but have never used one side by side so your comment is interesting. It would be very useful to get a Nikon design engineer's view on the physical differences either from the theory or practice but sadly that's a very rare occurrence. I hope Ricci publishes some more detailed comparative analysis before basic optical physics has to be re-written. @@free-qe6wx
Great video. I’ve been fairly happy with the 600 more so than the 800. I bought these to get me along whilst I waited for the 600f4 to show up. And - I put in my ordered upon the announcement of the 600tc and it finally shows up tomorrow! So - I’ll see if I need to keep the 600 and 800 - due to their light weight - which I’ve grown addicted to. Cheers…
Thank you Ricci for the comparisons. It really helps us Nikon users decide which lens works for our needs. My early Z set-up for wildlife was the Z 70-200 mm f/2.8 S and the two TCs. With the 2.0x TC to go to 400 mm, the image quality is not as good. I then got the Z 400 mm f/4.5 VR S and used the 1.4 TC for more reach. I'm very happy with the results. If I didn't have the Z 400 mm f/4.5, I'd go with the Z 600 mm f/6.3 pf like you said. I just recently ordered the Z 100-400 mm f/4.5-6.3 to complete my landscape trinity - Z 14-24 mm f/2.8 S, 24-120 mm f/4 S, and the Z 100-400 mm f/4.5-6.3 S. For wildlife, my lenses would be the Z 400 mm f/4.5 S, and my next purchase will be the Z 800 mm f/6.3 pf. It's amazing how the Nikon Z lens portfolio progressed throughout this Z system journey. Cheers!
Nice analysis.
I was hoping that you would have done a follow-up on the Z 50 mm Maco lens on what F stops worked the best. I will be coping slides etc. and will be using this lens. Thank-you.
I ordered the 600mm PF lens this morning. It was a hard choice between it and the 180-600mm, but the size/weight and image quality were worth the extra cost to me.
Good for you. I had the 180-600 ordered and canceled it two months ago. Been using the Z600pf for a little over a month and absolutely love it!
This lens is really superb. Hope updating on Z8 firmware will come soon to detect bird@@myketripp3838
yes, it is useful. Thank you, keep posting!
Just got my 180-600 a week ago for my Z8 and they seem to be working together great!!! I know you can't answer this but how is the beta testing going on the Z6III? and the Z9 and Z8 new firmware ???
Great comparison! I hope this triggers a Morton Holmes video.
Thanks for the comparisons. When you compare the new lens at f6.3 against the older lenses, why do you not use the same aperture? For instance when comparing to the old 600/f4 you compare to that lens at f4. It would be interesting to see how the results compare at f6.3.
Hey Ricci, do you have anything comprehensive like this comparing the 400 tc at 560 f4 vs the 600 f4?
Very interesting Ricci. For my needs the 400mm f4.5Z is a great and large enough lens. I must say that the 400mm with a 2x converter is impressive too ! I can see the attraction and great benefit of the 600mm if my main photography is in the natural world area (then I'd look to obtain)
Great comparison..I miss the sometimes described less good stabilisation.
Great review as always Ricci! Was really interested in the 600PF but I feel the price is a bit higher relative to pricing of the other lenses like 800PF/4004.5. Nikon should’ve either priced this lens a bit lower considering it’s an f6.3 lens or made this an f5.6 lens for this price.
you should be thankful that Nikon priced it the way it did. because it means the havent cheaped out on anything. sure it could be 4000 or even 3500$ but at what cost?
Hi mate. Deepak here from Australia. Just wondering if the images from 600mm PF (without tele) are sharper compared to 800mm PF. Thanks
What an interesting and usfull comparison between most of the Nikon super tele lenses. Job well done. Now go tell Nikon, we need more prime in the portfolio, in the short tele, wide angle and ultra wide angle segment, please.
Hi Ricci, great comparisons, thankyou..Ive the 500pf/z8 combo with a 1.4 tele attached 90% of the time and a serious birder, which works quite well for me and i even hit DX at times with still relatively good results, but as you say, the 500 is wearing on a tad, so looking at the 600pf as a replacement with i guess the 1.4z TC as well, my question being, do you think the 600 will make a noticeable amount of difference in image quality over my current gear...Cheers from Downunder..Wayne
It's not true that stopping the aperture down on Z lenses doesn't make them sharper. They are sharp wide open. But most of the fast Z lenses have their sweet spot at f4 and f5.6. The 600 PF with the 2x teleconverter is not sharper than the 800m. To compare them you have to stop down the 800mm to f8.
Great comparison Ricci, very useful data too. Thanks for your hard work and uploading this.
thanks for watching it !
Great video, but where is that STUNNING hoodie from?
Nice comparison. How does the 400mm f4.5 compare with the 600mm f6.3 without any Tc ? 600mm becomes a lot of lens for Bigcats in India & Africa as a 70-200mm most often is an ideal lens.
@riccitalks I would love to see a comparison in the field when shooting birds or wildlife between the Z 400 4.5 with TC and the Z 600 pf as well as the Z 600 pf with TC and the 800 pf. It would be interesting to see feather detail you can achieve with each under less than ideal circumstances. I.e. with higher shutter speeds and higher ISO. I expect the difference would be more noticeable and it would certainly help me decide which way to go.
I see what you did there with the gold ring on the... wrist! 😂
great review ! however, I did not see that you spoke about minimum focus distance on each, there is where the 600mm Pf has issues, I think.
Very useful video! I own 300 pf, 400 f4.5, and 500 pf....wanting a 400 2.8 badly..but the expense is staggering. this video has encourage me. to use 1.4 converter with my 400 4.5..but at same time encouraged me to get the 600pf...I'm 78 and weight is consideration for me in shooting sports...moving over to all Z stuff eventually ..any additional thoughts from you on the items discussed?? Dave
There are a couple of reviews out showing that the sweet spot of the 800 pf is slightly stopped down. The same is true with the 600 mm F/4. I personally find a bit disappointing that the only bright lenses Nikon brings to the market are 15 k and more. So in addition to the 180-600 I got a 500 F/4 from Sigma as this offers more flexibility in low light and works great with Tc's. I compared it to the 500 pf and it is much sharper also with respective Tc. So with the 2 times you are at 1000 mm f8 stop it down to f/9 it's very sharp. It is much heavier of course -but bright lenses come with a weight tag.
Where’s Morten🤔
Ricci, Great review and comparisons. I absolutely love my 600 PF and it rarely leaves my camera. I have used it with both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters and i'm blown away by the results. I had a chance to briefly use an 800PF and thought the results were extremely good but I would agree with your findings that the 600PF with the 1.4x is just as good if not better than the 800PF. I was considering a 800PF in the future for the extra light gathering but now I'm definitely not going too.
You are looking at a single picture, taken in the very centre of the image. While the 600 PF is the sharper lens of the two without the TC, at 800 (or 840 for the 600 PF +TC), the 800 PF is clearly superior in other, more through comparisons, like that done by Steve Perry. Plus, in the field, you're looking at a 2x ISO difference. If you get ISO 4000 with the 800 PF, you'll be at ISO 8000 for the same exposure on the 600 PF.
@@cy9nvs Adding a 1.4 TC is only a 1-stop ISO increase, not 2x. Math-wise, yes, 4000 x 2 = 8000, but in photography terms that's not a 2-stop increase in ISO.
@@jackjericho 1 stop = 2x the ISO, if everything else stays equal. What I wrote is correct.
I would caution saying the 600pf + 1.4xTC is as good or better than the 800pf alone when all that was shot were color grading cards. I own the 800pf and recently was loaned a 600pf for a few weeks and my results weren’t close. I shot BIF and wildlife portraits with the 600pf + 1.4TC and 800pf one right after the other so conditions were the same and the 800Pf was better IMO. Fine detail in feathers and around the eyes was visibly better with the 800, again IMO. Thanks for all the great unbiased content !
Thank you for this video. My primary goal is weight and wildlife. I have the 400 4.5 and the 1.4 but find myself wishing for more reach for smaller birds. I still cannot decide if I will regret selling the 400 4.5 for the 600 6.3 Help me decide Ricci?
Thank you Ricci for the video. Very informative. I just wished the 180-600 was an S lens. Not sure why it's not. Do you think it would've made a huge difference in pic quality? Thanks.
I guess the required extra coatings + extra build quality to make it a S lens would have taken it over 2.k or maybe even 3k in price.
If the 180-600 was an S-lens, it would be way over $5k...completely different market.
If going from the 500mm to 600mm is great, then imagine how great it is going to the 800mm. When you compared the 600mm to the 800mm, you mention adding the TC to the 600mm to get to 840mm, so you should mention adding the same TC to the 800mm which would give you 1,120mm! The 800mm even with the 2x TC (1,600mm) can be used handheld which is amazing. Love it. So much easier to carry than my 300/2.8. The 800mm combined with the 100-400 for me is the ideal 2 lens combination giving me 100mm-1,600mm with TCs, and they will both fit in a carry-on bag. The 100-400 is the size of a 70-200mm, but has super close focusing so it can be used for close-up and portrait work as well, and with TCs even reaches 800mm. Such a flexible range … I have not used my 70-200/2.8 since I got it.
You have to wonder that with the 600PF +1.4TC being slightly sharper at 840mm vs. the 800PF if it's a matter of tolerances? As you say a fixed focal length lens has alway beaten a lower focal length lens that utilizes a TC to match the longer lenses focal length. Very interesting!!
At 10:41 there seems to be only 1/2 stop difference between the 600mm PF @ f6.3 (1/20s) vs the 600mm f/4E @ f4 (1/30s). Is that a typo?
Nice!
what would you take for a Columbia bird trip? like if you could take 2? z lenses? probably will be a lot off opportunity at feeders for photos there
Thanks Ricci: really informative video thanks. I have the 400 f4.5 and 800 f6.3 and love them both. However, if this lens had been available at the time I think I would just have bought it instead of the other two as I find, for what I do, the 600mm focal length is generally perfect. The size and weight will make it very versatile when one needs to be more mobile and agile on location and, as you say, will be very convenient to travel with. Disappointed that the 800 f6.3 didn't clearly differentiate from the 600 f6.3 with a 1.4 teleconverter.
Yeh I certainly want to revisit that 800mm of vs 600pf and see what’s going on there
@@RicciTalkswhen you revisit please compare them at the same f stop.
Exellent review Ricci, waiting for a revisit 600 PF + TC 1.4 vs 800 PF.
@@RicciTalks You really should do that, I think your test here is extremely misleading, because you only show a single picture of the centre. Other tests have shown, that the 800 PF is clearly superior the further you get from the centre. There are a lot of commenters here taking your findings as evidence that the 600 PF is going to be sharper than the 800 without, which just isn't the case. (See photographylife's test of the 600 PF or Steve Perrys comparison)
still rockin the f mount sigma 150600 adapted to z , still gives me a good image :)
Wish Nikon would make the price of this lens same as that of Nikkor F-mount 500mm f5.6 pf. Thank you for sharing.
Great review/overview! I have the 400mm F/4.5 and debated with myself for sometime over whether or not to buy the 600 pf F/6.3. I purchased it earlier this week and your review is simply reinforcement. I haven't had much (any) time with it yet. I also have the 500 mm pf F/5.6 F mount -- which I no longer use. I shoot mostly birds and am off to Ecuador for the 3rd time in March. While the 600mm F/4 with built-in TC is a great lens, its weight makes impractical for long jungle hikes -- not to mention my bank account. I shoot with the Z9 -- can't say enough about this camera. Michael
On What distance does one take the test shot picture
Great video, Ricci. My favorite lens for wildlife in one of my local parks is my 100-400 mm lens plus my 1.4 teleconverter on my Nikon Z8. Size and weight and flexibility are perfect for my use case. But when I was using my old Nikon D610 I rented the 500 PF a few times and loved it. I won't be able to justify buying the new 600 mm lens, but I certainly will be renting it on occasion, especially next spring when the wildlife is plentiful at a local nature preserve.
Is your 100-400 a z lens?
@@leniehulse1621 Yes. I should have mentioned that, I'm not using any F mount lenses now. Still have my D610 and a few lenses for it but not using them.
Tahnaks for this test. You said that the 800 PF have better image quality than the 600mm then you said that the 600 PF with tele have best image quality ?
As always a very good comparison. But I still do not know if should buy one. I have the 400, the 180-600 and the 800 - so I don't need it regarding the focal lenght - the only point is the weight and the quality difference between the light 500PF. But the 400 with 1.4x is so close and weight is not very different as well.
I am in the same boat. Are you missing something or just looking to consolidate? I have 180 600 and 400 (and tc) but not 800. I was thinking if I should get, or just consolidate to 600pf and 180-600. 600 when traveling light...but 400 4.5 i think is enough too considering the big price difference.
Thanks Ricci. Great review. I have, or have had, all of these lenses apart from the 600mm f4 and my experience with these mirrors your conclusions. For sharpness tests I use a graduated depth guage in the middle of a lake directly infront of a bird hide at a distance of about 50m. The 600mm PF with or without TC1.4 is truly outstanding from a sharpness point of view and does indeed give you a super sharp 840mm f9 lens with the TC. It certainly beats my copy of the 800mm PF lens when the 800mm PF lens is wide open at f6.3. If I close the 800mm PF down to f8, then the results are much closer, but then I'm losing most of the light advantage of the 800mm PF (800mm f8 versus 840mm f9). If however I use the 1.4 TC on the 800mm PF (so 1120mm f9) then that combination does not need stopping down any further than f9. It is at its maximum sharpness at f9 and provides an excellent very long super telephoto lens that I cannot match with the 600mm PF unless I use a 2x TC with the consequent big light penalty. There is a very good IQ test of the 800mm PF by Photography Life (July 16 2023) in which Imatest results of the copy used show that there is a fairly significant difference in sharpness between f6.3 and f8. The results therefore mirror my experience and may to some extent explain your test results.
The test of the 600mm PF on Photography Life also shows, that the 800 PF is sharper wide open, compared to the 600 PF + TC. And I wouldn't call the difference between f/6.3 and f/8 with the 800 PF significant, it's 7.51% in centre sharpness, I tested mine extensively, and couldn't see a difference.
Thanks. I strongly suspect there is sample variation on both of these PF lenses, particularly given that the manufacture of the PF lens element is reportedly challenging compared to conventional lens elements. So the comparisons I have given above are of my lenses and others may get different results depending on their particular lens samples. I'm now using the 600mm PF + TC pretty much all of the time.
@@chriskenyon8843 could be. Without TC, the 600 PF definitely is much sharper, but if someone is mainly shooting at 800mm, and weight/size is no concern, I think the 800 PF definitely is the better choice.
Careful shooting over open water (or open grass), you risk atmospherics interfering with your results, especially at these super-tele distances.
Those were all zoomed in to 200%, right? Considering the differences at 200% then at 100% they would be very minimal, I guess? I like the weight/size proposition of the 600mm f6.3, not that much bigger than the 100-400 and about same weight.
600 pf is a super lens but in my opinion 400 4.5+1.4 is also monster lens for its versatility and sharpness!!
I think for a lot of people the 400mm 4.5 is going to the be the best option for sure !
I compared 600mm TC with x1.4 internal, 800mm PF and 600mm PF x 1.4. Three lens are at either 840mm or 800mm. At the maximum aperture of 5.6, 6.3 and 9, they have the same sharpness cross the frame. The difference is negligible. I specialized in bird in flight, 600PFx1.4 is perfect for small bird in good light.
Can anyone tell why the minimum focussing distance with auto capture is 20x the focal length of the lens used? With the 800mm PF that is 16m whilst the close focussing distance is 5m. I use this lens for small birds mainly and at 16m distance they are not small but tiny in the frame. I understand that there might be a bit of headroom necessary but 3,2x the minimum focus distance seems to be way to much…
Excellent comparison. Still extremely happy with the 100-400mm, 800PF and TC1.4x
Surely the 600f4E is as sharp when stopped down, no?
Still cant make up my mind
I was thinking of getting the 180-600mm and pairing it with the 800 mm pf for when needing that extra reach, but from this video it looks like the 600 mm pf with a 1.4x teleconverter might be the way to go.
It's crazy how many people in the comments think that a single shot from the centre of the image says anything about the image quality you can expect in the field. I suggest you check the video of Steve Perry comparing the 600 PF to all sorts of other lenses. Without TC, it's absolutely outstanding, better than the 800 PF, with the TC, it just isn't. Performance in the centre is pretty much equal, but the further you get from the centre, the more the 800 PF pulls ahead. In addition to that, you'll have twice the ISO when shooting with the 600 PF + TC due to being f/9 vs. f/6.3. At least where I live, the 600 PF + 1.4 TC is even more expensive than the 800 PF, I'd definitely get the 180-600 + 800 PF combo.
I also have the 600PF, and w/ the 1.4TC it's at f/9, which in anything but ideal light is going to be a big ISO hit, and that's where the 800PF will give you an advantage. I never take the 600PF out with my 800PF; I use the 600PF (w/ 1.4TC, occasionally) for a 1-lens outing or when traveling light, but the 180-600 + 800PF when I'm going for flexibility. The zoom covers your up-close shots and general walk-around, and the 800PF is there for ultimate reach.
I paused the video in the comparison with the 180 600. That shows the prime in its own league. Hope the focus was spot on. Interesting
I zoomed in on the dust spec on top of the 2nd C in the bottom.
Thanks Ricci, very useful and helpful. Much appreciated, as always. Another useful comparison, along the lines of your comment re. the cheaper alternative with the 180-600+1.4TC to get to the 800 range, would be to compare the 600PF with the 100-400 using the 1.4TC to get to the 600 range. I struggle with deciding between a kit of either 70-200 and 180-600+1.4TC to cover all the way from 70 to 800, or 100-400+TC1.4 and 800PF. I shoot on the longer side so maybe the latter, but the comparison would be useful.
Sticking with 500 pf, although 600 may be a tad bit more sharp when pixel peeping I doubt there is a noticeable difference in most photos viewed at full size. Also, in my opinion the 600 is about $1000 overpriced…..too rich for my blood…..
I wish the 70-200mm 2.8 had a lens hood like this…to me this one looks better than the one that comes on the 70-200.
Very nice Video! Thanks alot.. a comparison with the z 100-400 and the 600 pf would so great...
the comparison with the 500pf is weird. I own the 500pf. it's an insanely sharp lens. barely any difference in sharpness between bare lens and the lens with the 1.4tc. in the test images in this video the text looks hazy on the 500pf. I never encountered such a thing. could you perform a specific test between the 500pf and the 600pf? im super interested. ive never shot text but from real world use, the 500pf is really incredibly sharp. that hazy text could be slightly out of focus image.
Fabulous comparison Ricci. I couldn’t help but think “how would a F mount 300 2.8 on a 2x converter stack up against these modern marvels
Not even close These new Z lenses are way sharper across the board. My 300 2.8 Vr1 with the 1.4tc wide open is softer than the 200-500 at the same focal length, Stopped down to F5.6 with the TC the prime now matches the zoom, maybe even a touch sharper but not by much.
Interesting video but I dont think it is a very technically accurate comparison of image sharpness as there are so many factors involved.
Right now the 400mm 4.5 is $250 off. Get that and the 1.5 teleconverter. $3500 for both vs. $4800 for the 600mm PF.
The aperture is good for Africa in daylight 6,3 But in forest at dusk it is useless. The weight is outstanding and the balance is great.
Well presented. But one observation I'd make is that you make the assumption throughout this that there is zero variation between ALL production examples of the same lens - that the 600 6.3 is identical in performance to ALL its brethren, as are all of the others. How valid is this assumption when you are drawing our attention to small differences in resolution between the lenses on your table? I don't know the answer, but the assumption should certainly be made clear and I would love it to be investigated, though of course only the manufacturer is likely to have the resources available to do this.