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).

Member's gallery
foxysport said:
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.
Click to expand...
Shooting at 20frames per second really helps at the low shutter speeds. Don't expect all images to be sharp at 1/125, but you should find some.
Steve also did a good video comparing sharpness of the exotic Nikon super-teles, and from what I can recall, they were all pretty close in that department. Of course the 600 f/4 will have a little better IQ than the 800pf IF you can fill the frame.
 
Member's gallery
Took this a few days ago. 840mm f/5.6, 1/1000, hand-held, ISO 2500, minimal cropping, some LR NR. I was shooting through some branches.

Attached is a 100% crop of the eye.
 

Attachments

  • 20240409-_Z914548-Enhanced-NR.jpg
    20240409-_Z914548-Enhanced-NR.jpg
    788.6 KB · Views: 54
  • owl-eye.jpg
    owl-eye.jpg
    871.6 KB · Views: 50
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
As others have stated, your comparison is very flawed.

If you mostly shoot at 800mm, I think the 800PF wins hands down. Cheaper, lighter, shorter, sharper.

If you mostly shoot at 600mm, the 600mm obviously wins as 800mm can never be 600mm.
Click to expand...
I do not _yet_ see how 800mm f6.3 "wins hands down" if my photos show it does not--so far. The 800mm f6.3 photos are pretty awful and I was asking for ways to improve on that but only got back an idea to lower the shutter speed. It is a good idea but it often does not apply at all because I need to have that high shutter speed--either to be ready for action or continuously. Furthermore, as I have indicated, I've seen numerous examples, on flickr or forums, where I am not blown away by their quality--at all, while having seen truly amazing photos with supertelephotos.

Also, cheaper, shorter, and lighter are not my criteria. I need bulletproof quality assurance I get the best shot possible under pressure of very rare events. Having said that I would be a fool not to make use of these equipment qualities if the photo quality was also comparable.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
foxysport said:
I do not _yet_ see how 800mm f6.3 "wins hands down" if my photos show it does not--so far. The 800mm f6.3 photos are pretty awful and I was asking for ways to improve on that but only got back an idea to lower the shutter speed. It is a good idea but it often does not apply at all because I need to have that high shutter speed--either to be ready for action or continuously. Furthermore, as I have indicated, I've seen numerous examples, on flickr or forums, where I am not blown away by their quality--at all, while having seen truly amazing photos with supertelephotos.

Also, cheaper, shorter, and lighter are not my criteria. I need bulletproof quality assurance I get the best shot possible under pressure of very rare events. Having said that I would be a fool not to make use of these equipment qualities if the photo quality was also comparable.
Click to expand...
I have used both the 800/5,6 and now the 800/6,3 for a long time. Ever since I got the Z9 I have used one function button to switch between the lowest the shutter speed suitable for perched birds (to get iso approx 100) to a suitable shutter speed for BIF. Don't remember what function is called but #Steve uses it to switch between birds and animal detection.
Maybe that can help?
 
Member's gallery
grnqvst said:
I have used both the 800/5,6 and now the 800/6,3 for a long time. Ever since I got the Z9 I have used one function button to switch between the lowest the shutter speed suitable for perched birds (to get iso approx 100) to a suitable shutter speed for BIF. Don't remember what function is called but #Steve uses it to switch between birds and animal detection.
Maybe that can help?
Click to expand...
It's simple to setup using Recall Shooting Functions
 
Member's gallery
Nature Files said:
Are you seriously trying to compare a ISO 800 image vs a ISO 4,000 image? LOL!

Of course the high ISO image will have more noise....regardless of the lens.
Click to expand...
He is trying to compare how he would have to shoot the lenses in a real life scenario. So although not well controlled or equalized it is a valid way to test.
If he goes out in those cloudy conditions and handholds because that is what he wants to do then this is the stuff he will deal with....higher ISO on the 6.3 lens, bigger crop on the 600mm lens.
Now maybe if the subject isn't moving much he could take advantage of the better VR in the 800PF and gain back ISO. But if he shoots movement then the SS will be dictated by that and you will have to up ISO on the 800PF.

Setting up on a tripod at close range in good light and shooting low ISO on both lenses tells one nothing about real life shooting. Who cares if the 800PF is just as good as the 600FL in those controlled, good light scenarios. Almost nobody will shoot in that type of condition.
 
Member's gallery
Hello, a while ago I did my own test, just with the intention of seeing how the background representation compared between the Z800 F6.3 and the 600mm F4.. the quality of the details in the subject was not something to see for Well, I consider that the two lenses have, in that area, a high rating. I've had the 800 for quite some time and I'm very happy with its use. I still have the 600 f4, before the FL, heavier, but it is a spectacular lens too. I leave you the link in this forum of what was published. Greetings

Nikon Z800 f6.3.. vs. Nikon 600F4g + tc1.4x. background blur.

.. simply to see the background blur, which for me is an important part when photographing nature and how much it competes with the foreground, or standing out .. I am not comparing quality, detail, color, or other virtues or defects of both lenses , which both have their own.. The files are...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
 
Member's gallery
foxysport said:
I do not _yet_ see how 800mm f6.3 "wins hands down" if my photos show it does not--so far. The 800mm f6.3 photos are pretty awful and I was asking for ways to improve on that but only got back an idea to lower the shutter speed. It is a good idea but it often does not apply at all because I need to have that high shutter speed--either to be ready for action or continuously. Furthermore, as I have indicated, I've seen numerous examples, on flickr or forums, where I am not blown away by their quality--at all, while having seen truly amazing photos with supertelephotos.

Also, cheaper, shorter, and lighter are not my criteria. I need bulletproof quality assurance I get the best shot possible under pressure of very rare events. Having said that I would be a fool not to make use of these equipment qualities if the photo quality was also comparable.
Click to expand...

so far your photos are very bad, I agree. I can only imagine it is user error, as I've never personally seen pictures that bad from that lens lol. If you look around flickr, FM, this forum - you will see excellent images with the lens.

it's also as though you are purposely making your testing as flawed as possible - in order to make the 600 look better. you need to take the advice others have posted if you truly want to see how the lenses stack up.

at the end of the day though, if cheaper, shorter, and lighter are not concerns to you - then you are looking at the wrong lens. you should *only* be looking at the 600E, 800/5.6 or the z 600TC.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
so far your photos are very bad, I agree. I can only imagine it is user error, as I've never personally seen pictures that bad from that lens lol. If you look around flickr, FM, this forum - you will see excellent images with the lens.

it's also as though you are purposely making your testing as flawed as possible - in order to make the 600 look better. you need to take the advice others have posted if you truly want to see how the lenses stack up.

at the end of the day though, if cheaper, shorter, and lighter are not concerns to you - then you are looking at the wrong lens. you should *only* be looking at the 600E, 800/5.6 or the z 600TC.
Click to expand...
I certainly did not do anything on purpose!

Anyway, back from a small run in a reserve and will post some photos. It is a crop in Microsoft Photos after Studio NX to JPEG. ISO 64, SS 1/200, f6.3.
_ZSC7340.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.



_ZSC7249.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
The above photos are OK but the keepers rate was very low. However, this one below is difficult to explain: the black-headed gull was right in front, the focus found the eye 100% of the time, and this is the "best" result. Pretty awful. Nuthatch is pretty poor as well.
_ZSC7461_01.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.



_ZSC7627.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

_ZSC7931_01.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

And finally, this buzzard was pretty high, about 75 meters perhaps, but this is the _best_ photo above. All of about a 100 focused on the bird with no issues.

I'm 5% close to returning this lens tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I'm really beginning to believe that there is an issue with your lens/body or technique. Assuming that you didn't hit the MF ring accidentally, shoot in AF-S, etc. or some other snafu, there's no reason you should be obtaining images like. That. As an aside, there is no reason you should be shooting at ISO's of 64 with a Tv of a moving subject using a 800mm primary at 1/320 sec.
 
Member's gallery
There were admittedly a few cases where slow SS was uncalled for, but I was mainly following that advice to stay low SS and erred too much but look at that gull above--it is very static, nothing is happening, the focus is dead on the eye, and I get 0% success? About the technique, if I get sharp photos with a 600mm f4.0 FL that is 1.5 kg heavier, why would I struggle with the lighter and shorter lens like this 800mm f6.3?
 
Member's gallery
_ZSC4846.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

The above is about 200 meters with a TC1.4 with a 600mm, not the best but it is far from frame filling and is entirely hand-held.
 
Member's gallery
foxysport said:
I agree, but I was making a point that it is much better than the hot mess from earlier with the 800mm lens. And again: what's up with the gull?
Click to expand...
Since nothing on the gull is in focus, so I would bet that it's a thermal distortion issue. A normal occurrence when the sun comes out and you are shooting a high magnification lens at a distant subject.
 
Member's gallery
Nature Files said:
Since nothing on the gull is in focus, so I would bet that it's a thermal distortion issue. A normal occurrence when the sun comes out and you are shooting a high magnification lens at a distant subject.
Click to expand...
I have never experienced a distortion from about 12 meters max, sorry, I cannot write this off so easily. Correction: my estimate would be 8 meters max.
 
Member's gallery
foxysport said:
The above photos are OK but the keepers rate was very low. However, this one below is difficult to explain: the black-headed gull was right in front, the focus found the eye 100% of the time, and this is the "best" result. Pretty awful. Nuthatch is pretty poor as well.
View attachment 86599


View attachment 86601
View attachment 86602
And finally, this buzzard was pretty high, about 75 meters perhaps, but this is the _best_ photo above. All of about a 100 focused on the bird with no issues.

I'm 5% close to returning this lens tomorrow.
Click to expand...
I may be in the minority but I feel you are shooting way too slow, With my 500pf and a 1.4 tc I almost never go below 1/1250 . An d even at that shutter speed I still use some kind of support whether it is leaning against my car window, a tree or my knee.
In that last photo there looks like a haze of some sort. It doesn’t appear out of focus.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks again to everyone who contributed and offered advice. This lens is now packed and ready to go back tomorrow. I'm going to assume it was a bad sample but may consider renting one in future to see if there is a difference or I can figure this out. For the moment, it has left a bit of a bad taste sadly, but onwards and upwards, it is just a hobby and we get to live another day.

Stay healthy and safe, and have fun when possible and appropriate!
 
Member's gallery
Ralph said:
I may be in the minority but I feel you are shooting way too slow, With my 500pf and a 1.4 tc I almost never go below 1/1250 . An d even at that shutter speed I still use some kind of support whether it is leaning against my car window, a tree or my knee.
In that last photo there looks like a haze of some sort. It doesn’t appear out of focus.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to the buzzard taken with a 600mm lens, for sure there was atmospheric distortion present. The distance was around 200m and a warm clammy day as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top