LOL, they should send me a commission!
Nikon 600 TC Sharpness Tests!
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
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).
LOL, maybe later. The thing is, they're all so close. The truth is, I almost didn't post the video when I saw the results - there's just no point in trying to base a purchase decision on top-line lenses based on differences in sharpness.@Steve thanks for a great video. Of course the invents other request for additional tests
600 + TC
600 w/ eternal 1.4
600 + TC + external 1.4
600 + external 2.0
600 + TC + external 2.0
Give us an inch and we ask for light year
But thanks again for a great test
Alistair
Well-known member
Thanks for doing these tests, your time invested is very much appreciated. In particular the comparison between Nikon lenses and how close the cheaper lens is.
Between brands is a little more difficult to draw conclusions of lenses as sensor difference and demozaicing difference within LR come into the equation.
Would love to see a comparison between 200-600 and 600/4 on the Sony system as that 200-600 looks very good from what I have seen.
Between brands is a little more difficult to draw conclusions of lenses as sensor difference and demozaicing difference within LR come into the equation.
Would love to see a comparison between 200-600 and 600/4 on the Sony system as that 200-600 looks very good from what I have seen.
I'm getting some request for that test, so I may do it in the future. I'm getting some new equipment to help with these kind of tests, so that may be my first one
Garfield
Well-known member
Indeed, if I buy back into Nikon, the (future) 200-600Z and 800PF would be the perfect kit for my video interests. I really like what Nikon is doing with their lenses.
IainD
Well-known member
It shows that you get to a point where equipment really is good enough. When you have to measure photography this closely to find any difference, the lenses really are good enough! Atmospheric disturbance, unnoticed shaking of the tripod and even somebody coughing will make more difference than the lens!
I was going to say something other than coughing but I thought better of it!!
I really enjoyed the video. Excellent work.
I
I was going to say something other than coughing but I thought better of it!!
I really enjoyed the video. Excellent work.
I
Can't say I'm surprised. I'd imagine the Canon 600 would be virtually indistinguishable as well. I feel like, at pretty much all price points, we're living in a golden age of wildlife photography gear capabilities.
Knowing that are not significant or even noticeable differences is important. Sort of like a doctor tell your tests indicate you are in good health. No follow up, but important to know.
It's like @Steve said in the video, sharpness isn't a deciding factor if comparing them. Other things like weight, integrated TC, etc are what differentiates them.
Agree. But until we had the test, it was uncertain if sharpness was really a non-factor
I was referring to his comment that now the test has shown that sharpness isn't a meaningful difference.
ElenaH
Well-known member
to be honest, I always thought that such famous or known photographers like you who are active in social media cannot tell very bad things about one or other brand becasue they can be accused in business-damaging or something like that. There is a difference if I tell something or if you tell something. Everybody will be listening of what you are talking about. It is also a responsibility towards followers and brands. But maybe I am wrong, just a thought.
On the other hand the new 10K+ lenses are all sharp. How much is 600TC? 17K? What we can await of such lens? Of course, it will be sharp. A company cannot demand 17K for the lens which are not sharp or not so sharp as the equivalent of the other brand.
So, I fully agree with you that it all depends on photographic technics! And this is what we shall concentrate on.
I saw excellent pictures shoot with consumer lens (even winning photographic awards) and so oh-la-la pictures shoot with expensive professinal lens. I'd rather like to encourage people who cannot afford expensive lens to develope the creativity and technics because your photos can be great!
In any case, thank you very much for your video! I personally make the tests myself as well. Sometimes I rent the lens and make a test. I made a test of Sony's 400/2.8 against Nikon 400/2.8 FL and cannot distinguish between them. They were both excellent. I made a test of 800PF against 400/2.8 FL + 2xTC and 800PF was much better.
The sharpness of new prfessional lenses is simply ourstanding. There is rather a difference in consumer class.
ElenaH
Well-known member
There is a chart in Amazon (at least in Europe), a smaller one under "Enjoyyourcamera Test card". You can buy for example, 5 small charts and put them on the billboard in 4 corners and in the middle.
You can also google on "Camera Test Charts to print at home" and print it in some print shop, for example. Or google for "ISO 12233 Resolution test chart", download and print.
You can even use some poster and paper money. The paper money are excellent, especially if your have some from other countries (like Swiss, Botswana, etc) becasue they have not only very fine lines but also very interesting colours.
Some photo-stores, exhibitions and photo-evens also have charts (sometimes as a gift).
As I posted on the vid -- I agree great review --
Brand loyalty or budget concerns might drive one to want different conclusions, but your comment "there all perform about the same" is the right answer.
No system is better or worse than any other -- the best thing to do is to go out and shoot and stop trying to look for the "best" which is always transitory as new and "better" gear keeps being developed and released. What is interesting is that all the main systems now have a full line-up of long lenses and each system is building out supporting and cheaper players.
Thanks for your reply !!
Some folk get bogged down in this lens "cost more than a car" -- so what -- I am sorry they worry about what others spend their resources on. The top lenses are all very pricy and thankfully there are more affordable long lens options in each system -- yes but these are slower.
QQQ -- I assume that for consistency you were shooting the other brand lenses on a Z9 using adapters OR were they on other brand cameras as well. I may have missed this in the vid.
Your comment - " ..... and should instead concentrate on honing our craft (or at least, just getting out and having some fun shooting)" -- leads me to ask "Steve" is it time for a Steve Perry how to use "long lenses" vid ?
I remember watching Moose's a long long time ago and it helped, but this was way before IBIS and Mirrorless bodies like the Z9, A1 etc.. 90+% of the time I am using mine on some form of support -- BeanBags/Panning Plate to full on Gimbal on very large tripod and lots in between. I always place my hand on top to dampen the lens when it is possible. AND I find my results are better when VR is on (Sport mode) to help me have a stable image while I am locking onto and tracking my subjects. But obviously the VR setting is ignored when the camera is actually taking an exposure and "it" has identified it is supported on a tripod/plate/bag. But this is what I do and probably not best Steve practice.
Brand loyalty or budget concerns might drive one to want different conclusions, but your comment "there all perform about the same" is the right answer.
No system is better or worse than any other -- the best thing to do is to go out and shoot and stop trying to look for the "best" which is always transitory as new and "better" gear keeps being developed and released. What is interesting is that all the main systems now have a full line-up of long lenses and each system is building out supporting and cheaper players.
Thanks for your reply !!
Some folk get bogged down in this lens "cost more than a car" -- so what -- I am sorry they worry about what others spend their resources on. The top lenses are all very pricy and thankfully there are more affordable long lens options in each system -- yes but these are slower.
QQQ -- I assume that for consistency you were shooting the other brand lenses on a Z9 using adapters OR were they on other brand cameras as well. I may have missed this in the vid.
Your comment - " ..... and should instead concentrate on honing our craft (or at least, just getting out and having some fun shooting)
" -- leads me to ask "Steve" is it time for a Steve Perry how to use "long lenses" vid ? I remember watching Moose's a long long time ago and it helped, but this was way before IBIS and Mirrorless bodies like the Z9, A1 etc.. 90+% of the time I am using mine on some form of support -- BeanBags/Panning Plate to full on Gimbal on very large tripod and lots in between. I always place my hand on top to dampen the lens when it is possible. AND I find my results are better when VR is on (Sport mode) to help me have a stable image while I am locking onto and tracking my subjects. But obviously the VR setting is ignored when the camera is actually taking an exposure and "it" has identified it is supported on a tripod/plate/bag. But this is what I do and probably not best Steve practice.
Last edited:
That is a very good idea. I'm about to become a Nikon user again. The very good new lenses are very attractive. I am thinking of the Z400 2.8 TC because of the quality and versatility. So I can use a comparison with the Z600 4.0 TC and Z800 6.3 PF for my thinking and decision process
I would not try to distinguish between the quality of images from these three lenses when shot in good light -- they are albut identical -- but the 400 and 600 are both a little brighter than the 800 and this has consequences as to their flexibility in the field. The AF speed in the 400 (and I believe 600 as well) is stupidly fast, but the 800 is no slouch either.
Obviously as a f/2.8 the 400 is most useable in ultra low light -- this is why it is most often used to shoot lions before sunrise and after sunset and sports. The Z400/2.8's TC makes it immensely more flexible than "just" a 400/2.8 - and this is particularly true whe shooting in dusty conditions or when one "just" has to reach further with the flick of a switch (560/4.0).
The 400 and 600 are optically and mechanically exactly the same. And as Steve's vid showed the internal TC in the 600 is optically matched to the rest of the lens, which provides more consistent image quality than "just" adding a ZTC14.
The 800 is fine but a little darker -- my comparison of the 400 -vs- 800 show that a 400+ZTC20 is within a few percent as sharp/clear as the 800, but optically 2/3rd of a stop brighter.
The 400/2.8TC seems to provide a tiny bit better results as a 784mm when the internal TC is engaged, and a ZTC14 is used when compared to simply adding a ZTC20 -- this could be entirely a result of my ZTC14 being an exceptional copy and perhaps the ZTC20 not being as on point for the rest of my gear.
My view is that (ignoring budget) your decision should be based on the focal lengths you tend to use most often and in what lighting conditions
This should be key input to your Use Case or business Case for selecting any of these lenses.
When shooting birds and wildlife action in Africa in good light I am often out at 600mm and beyond -- hence why I hope to receive the 600/4TC soon. BUT -- when shooting larger subjects, wildlife in very low light (typically lions) and UK based action/sports I "needed" the 400/2.8TC, with its flexibility to reach 580mm/4.0 with a flick of a switch.
The 800/6.3 is the lightest, smallest of the three - but also the least flexible. I bought mine in April to have a 2nd long lens and have used it over the summer, but will be selling it soon -- primarily because it is the least flexible in my bag.
A 2ndary consideration is how you will bridge the gap between the supertele you select and shorter focal lengths you carry. I find that a Z 70-200/2.8 + ZTC14 is a fantastic pairing to get to 280mm at f/4.0. I have the 100-400 but do not "like it as much" with any TC attached.
I suppose it's possible. 99% of the time if I say something, I can back it up with evidence though. I think that's the key. Not only does it have the handy side effect of keeping slanderous lawsuits at bay, but it also demonstrates to my viewers that I'm not just pulling stuff out of my bum.
jmurthy
Well-known member
@Steve I always look forward to your very interesting, high value and well presented/ produced videos. Thank you for doing this! Your website including the instructional videos, ebooks are a treasure trove of knowledge.
As a owner of 100-400z, 800pf Z and 500pf F mount glass, I am simply amazed by the quality of these optics and your validation of the same gives me confidence and peace of mind.
As a owner of 100-400z, 800pf Z and 500pf F mount glass, I am simply amazed by the quality of these optics and your validation of the same gives me confidence and peace of mind.
I used the a1 for the Sony stuff for a couple of reasons.
First, I don't care enough about any of this to spend money on an adapter.
I know they are all so close that I can use any of them and be thrilled with the results. The video was mostly to quell the constant questions I was getting about which was sharper.Second, I think most people using a Sony 600 will use it on an a1 (or at east, another Sony). So, that is the result that matters IMO. It doesn't matter if it's as good, better, or worse on a Z9 because it's irrelevant for practical field work. The only how well is does on a Z9 matters is when people are arguing on forums or showing off gear in camera clubs and can claim "mine is better than yours" LOL
I used the a1 for the Sony stuff for a couple of reasons.
First, I don't care enough about any of this to spend money on an adapter.
Second, I think most people using a Sony 600 will use it on an a1 (or at east, another Sony). So, that is the result that matters IMO. It doesn't matter if it's as good, better, or worse on a Z9 because it's irrelevant for practical field work. The only how well is does on a Z9 matters is when people are arguing on forums or showing off gear in camera clubs and can claim "mine is better than yours" LOL
Thanks and agreed -- I bothers me not that the A1 has 10% higher resolution than a Z9 -- the outputs you showed are so close that for the end user they are all but indistinguishable -- my guess is the result would be the same had you also shot an EOS R5 and the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM Lens.
Midway
Well-known member
Personally, I have always felt the 400 f2.8 was too short for field sports unless I was required to shoot in poor light under lights and that was rare. Professional and D1 college stadiums have plenty of light. I would also use my 400 f2.8 for down court basketball shots. Shooting with the early Nikon cropped bodies I seemed OK with a 400 but after Nikon started making FF digital bodies I wanted a 600 to get the same field of view.
Having a 200-400, now 180-400 TC on a second body has a lot to do with my preference for a 600 when shooting field sports and with the built in TC the 400 would be more acceptable to me but I would still prefer the 180-400 TC on one body and the 600 TC on the other vs. a 400 TC likely paired with a 70-200 on a second body. I see most sideline shooters with 400’s so you are likely of the majority opinion. Maybe that's why my images looked different enough at times to get picked up by publications.
On a side note did anyone see Steve Mathis sold his Nikon 400F2.8 Z lens last week? I bet he is moving to the 600 Z. Watching his videos he seemed to use the TC a lot which means you are better off using the 600.
Thanks Andy, everything you said is extremely helpful for me. It will be the Z400 2.8 TC because that was also my main candidate because of the seize, wight and versatility. Only curious to compare the different '800mm' variants but you also mentioned that. Thanks again !
Thanks for you thoughts and experience Andy. I’m enjoying the 800 mm PF, paired with a 500 mm PF, Z 100-400, and/or Z 70-200, depending on circumstances, sometimes with their respective 1.4x TC. I would love a built in TC, but do not want the weight of the Z 400 TC or Z 600 TC.
One question. The Z 400 f2.8 is f5.6 with the Z 2x TC attached (and the internal TC not engaged). The 800 PF is f6.3. Isn’t this a 1/3 stop difference in aperture? Or do you find the brightness difference greater than the difference in aperture, perhaps because a of a difference in transmission?
Technically true but not from a practical standpoint. If 800mm is needed then there is only a 1/3 stop penalty with the 800PF. Though one could argue that in extreme low light shooting at 600mm and 1 1/3 stop lower ISO and cropping in post might be preferable to shooting at 800mm and higher ISO. But then all of the arguments of downsampling, software, etc, come into play
"Ignoring budget" one could just buy them all and pull out the one needed on any given day for that particular shoot
But as stated the point is that focal length decisions should primarily be made around what FOV one needs most of the time. For example if small birds are the primary target species it makes no sense to buy a 400mm 2.8 and shoot it 90 percent of the time with a 2x TC(effectively at f5.6). There is the argument of having the flexibility for the rare occasions that the 800mm isn't needed. But there are less expensive/more convenient ways to fill the gap below 800mm."For practical field work" is the value of your work, Steve. There are plenty of other sites out there where they dive into the (for practical purpsoses)irrelevant minutia. I hope you stick to your script and let those guys compare these lenses against the Hubble
Last edited: