Direct comparison 800mm f6.3 vs 600mm f4 FL

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

F

foxysport

Active member
Member's gallery
I have now acquired an 800 f6.3 lens to be used with Z9--especially with the idea of going on longer photo expeditions--as opposed to a heavier 600mm f4 FL.

This is a very early check of relative performance--for the same subject in exactly the same lighting and weather conditions, and from the same spot. The post-processing included the same settings (a minor boost to shadow protection) in Studio NX followed by Topaz where very small sharpening was applied. Both photos are in DX mode. No teleconverters were in use. The crops are approximate but very close to each other. In both cases, the camera found the top of the head with the eye as the focus. The 600mm (top) photo was taken 8 minutes later and, therefore, closer to sunset. Both photos taken handheld with Sport VR.

I suppose my 1M$ question (not really 1M!) is whether I keep or return the 800mm lens while I can. Have I done anything wrong? Any other observations or thoughts? Mine is that the quality of 800mm one gets with all extra noise considered is potentially a significant issue.

Thanks!

_ZSC6968-topaz-sharpen-zzz.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

_ZSC6893-topaz-sharpen-zzz.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
foxysport said:
I have now acquired an 800 f6.3 lens to be used with Z9--especially with the idea of going on longer photo expeditions--as opposed to a heavier 600mm f4 FL.

This is a very early check of relative performance--for the same subject in exactly the same lighting and weather conditions, and from the same spot. The post-processing included the same settings (a minor boost to shadow protection) in Studio NX followed by Topaz where very small sharpening was applied. Both photos are in DX mode. No teleconverters were in use. The crops are approximate but very close to each other. In both cases, the camera found the top of the head with the eye as the focus. The 600mm (top) photo was taken 8 minutes later and, therefore, closer to sunset.

I suppose my 1M$ question (not really 1M!) is whether I keep or return the 800mm lens while I can. Have I done anything wrong? Any other observations or thoughts? Mine is that the quality of 800mm one gets with all extra noise considered is potentially a significant issue.

Thanks!

View attachment 86512
View attachment 86514
Click to expand...
If your priority is shooting in low light, than maybe the 600 is your best option. Honestly, if i’m comparing the two lenses, I would also be shooting both lenses under optimal lighting conditions as well. You also have to consider noise reduction software in your equation and distance from the subject. Shooting a distant subject which fills the frame for the 800 vs cropping the subject with the 600. In the comparison above (Close range) the 600 would obviously have the advantage.
 
Member's gallery
Ralph said:
If your priority is shooting in low light, than maybe the 600 is your best option. Honestly, if i’m comparing the two lenses, I would also be shooting both lenses under optimal lighting conditions as well. You also have to consider noise reduction software in your equation and distance from the subject. Shooting a distant subject which fills the frame for the 800 vs cropping the subject with the 600. In the comparison above (Close range) the 600 would obviously have the advantage.
Click to expand...
Thanks! It is a DX mode and considerable crop though, for about 25 meters distance.
 
Member's gallery
I would perhaps consider setting up some controlled tests in your backyard or so (a tripod with a figurine or a stuffed toy or whatever you have lying around), shoot from a more reasonable distance (so you don't need to crop) and see which output you like best. Your current test shots aren't really going to tell you anything, since there's not much detail to look at in either.
 
Member's gallery
I have the 800 6.3 and, as the bird is sitting quiet, I would try to go 1 or 2 stops lower in shutter speed. If you use a high frame rate you will definitely have several sharp images , even at 1:250 or a bit lower. The VR of the 800 gives amazing results. Going down in shutter speed will also bring down you ISO accordingly which will sure help as you did a considerable crop.
Last but not least as you indicate yourself there is a significant weight difference (2.385g versus 3.810g + the FTZ ) which is a great benefit if you shoot handheld (which you did in these shots)
 
Member's gallery
The 800 PF is not lacking in image quality, provided the atmospherics are kind. I've found it very hard to distinguish images between the 800 PF and 800 f5.6E FL, which is rated amongst the very best of Nikon's optics.

EDIT to add: The lighter 2.3kg of the 800 PF is a significant advantage compared to the 3.8kg 600 f4E FL. The Synchro VR we get with S Line telephotos on the Pro Z MILCs is the other huge advantage. I find it is often a game changer handholding the 800 PF in low light.

Comparisons: 800mm f5.6E FL and 800mm f6.3S PF Nikkors

Here follow a selection of images taken over the past several months with both lenses, with/without their respective teleconverters. I have built up a sizeable database since mid 2022, when time and conditions permitted. I took all these primarily with the aim of trying to define the...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
You're comparing:
  1. 800 ISO versus 4000 ISO : more than 2 stops gap
  2. f4 versus f6,3 : 1,3 stop gap
  3. 600mm versus 800mm : 1,33 focal length difference
  4. And, on top, you add post-processing
Apart from these differences which, cumulated, distort the comparison, as indicated by @IngeKJ the 600mm f4 will always be better than the 800mm, even at 6.3.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for all your comments, they have been helpful!

I suppose a valid question is: can I get any photo in conditions I anticipate (moderately challenging, far from ideal) at all with this 800mm lens? If I can, I'm happy, basically, the photo in the original post is unrecoverable. I'll post here once I have tried "playing to the lens' strength" by reducing the shutter speed for static objects--although my concern remains for the BIF situations, I absolutely admire and cherish more than anything these latter and the shutter speed reduction is often not an option there. Even static birds take flight suddenly and you miss it completely if it's not high shutter speed. Anyway, I'll try to make some adjustments and learn how to play to its strengths and we'll see. Will keep you posted, thanks again for your kind help!
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
Something doesn't look Kosher here and the 800 f/6.3 should be resolving better. View attachment 86521
My experience mirrors the objective testing.
Click to expand...
I have been studying like a hawk the photos in forums and on flickr mainly using this lens and I have been overall very hesitant to acquire it. I have purchased it--already--because of its portability etc, I know all that. My doubts were: I get to a place to see something I really want to capture and it is rare and I get a picture that is sub-par. I will be very disappointed to say the least, I am not talking about a reserve where certain birds are part of the architecture, but something one of a kind.

My findings had not been super-encouraging--I really rarely see mind-blowing pictures made with this lens. I still went ahead and bought it and now have about 10 days left to prove to myself it won't disappoint me in the heat of the moment in the wilderness.
 
Member's gallery
I think your testing needs to be much more controlled. There appears to be far too much noise reduction in the images to see any detail - and the higher ISO levels make it even more challenging.

It's a given that the 600mm f/4 will be slightly sharper as a base case. In addition the faster aperture reduces ISO by 1 1/3 stops. But cropping will largely offset the advantage of the lower ISO so noise should be the same between the two if you are cropping. You could consider shutter speed as a variable, but if you are on a tripod and within reasonable apertures, you can drop shutter speed as needed and live with something in the 1/200-1/400 range.

DX cropping is okay as a base case, but it's still just cropping and has an impact on noise since there is less room to downsize to common output. At extremes of a long lens plus deep cropping, you may lack adequate detail. In addition, long lenses with deep cropping requires exceptional technique.

I see the two lenses as having two different use cases. I'd start with the focal length needed for the subject, the light level, and the importance of mobility.

I would expect the sharpest images to be in bright light at lower ISO levels. With a perched subject, you can drop shutter speed a lot lower with both lenses and reduce the impacts of ISO.

One valid test is to compare two images - the 600mm lens at f/4 and a lower ISO with the 800mm PF at f/6.3 with a 1 1/3 stop higher ISO. That will show you the difference you get from the faster lens. But if you are cropping to the same proportions, you should look at an image from the 600mm PF cropped and upsized to Z8 proportions and framing. Cropping has an impact on noise, noise reduction, and sharpening, so you should take the added step of cropping with common output size if that is your main criteria.

I'd test at a range of distances - 20 feet, 50 feet, and maybe 100 feet. All of these distances are reasonably frame filling. Take a lot of photos so you know you are comparing a sharp image.
 
Member's gallery
It's very difficult to make an assessment based on the OP's one photo, taken at distance (atmospherics?), under less than optimal lighting, cropped, and processed. My recommendation is to first shoot some targets on a tripod with a remote release with controlled lighting to assess. He indicates that the lens was purchased, and if there is any question about acutance, focusing, VR, etc. the lens should be returned/exchanged.
 
Member's gallery
I find the bokeh of the PF lenses to be somewhat wrinkled and distracting in a lot of photos, esp. with branches behind the subject. It's almost as if the bokeh on the PFs are 2 stops higher than indicated.
 
Member's gallery
I am just trying to get _any_ decent picture with an 800mm in my current weather conditions (realistic when going to an expedition later this summer).

Sorry for the not directly comparable pictures below but still indicative of what I can get with 800+1.4TC vs naked 600. This time it is direct export to jpeg from Studio NX with no explicit adjustments. The bottom one is 1/250 f9 ISO 560. Clearly, a TC is not helping so I'll discard this for the future.


_ZSC7115.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.




_ZSC7106.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
foxysport said:
Thanks for all your comments, they have been helpful!

I suppose a valid question is: can I get any photo in conditions I anticipate (moderately challenging, far from ideal) at all with this 800mm lens? If I can, I'm happy, basically, the photo in the original post is unrecoverable. I'll post here once I have tried "playing to the lens' strength" by reducing the shutter speed for static objects--although my concern remains for the BIF situations, I absolutely admire and cherish more than anything these latter and the shutter speed reduction is often not an option there. Even static birds take flight suddenly and you miss it completely if it's not high shutter speed. Anyway, I'll try to make some adjustments and learn how to play to its strengths and we'll see. Will keep you posted, thanks again for your kind help!
Click to expand...
You probably need to make up your mind about the shot you want to capture. The extremes of shutter speeds for perched subjects are different from flight. With perched subjects a shutter speed of 1/200 second is quite possible with good technique using an 800mm focal length. For small birds in flight, a shutter speed of 1/3200 or faster is often needed. A difference of 4 stops in ISO is needed to handle the difference. So in shaded trees, in the woods, or under similar low light conditions, you have to decide the camera settings, subject matter, and proximity required for the shot you can make. That may not be a flight shot but can be a perfectly good image of a perched subject.
 
Member's gallery
I really think you are addressing the wrong issues with these lens. Both provide excellent image quality. I don't think any one would be able to determine which lens took an image. With the 800 you get just that an 800 f6.3. For 2 pounds more you get a 600 F4 + 840 F5.6 (with the flick of a finger), well 2 pounds, and a few more thousands of dollars. Of course there is the possibility of adding a 1.4 to the 800 f6.3, but to me that really isn't of much value. That is the criteria that I based my decision on.
 
Member's gallery
Very nice owl photo! Have not tried 1/125 yet but yeah, that is an option to go a bit crazy (for me) on low shutter speed. Will try this tomorrow, weather permitting, we've been hammered here in England by bad weather since the start of Feb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top