Hi Bill -- if you go to the Albums section on my Flickr pages you can see the testing I did of both the 400 and 800 with various TCs. I will try to do the same with the 600 when it arrives as well.
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).
Dan I guess it depends on which sports one is shooting.
Association Football and Rugby (both types) - the 400mm with TC is perfect for coverage from a shooting position near a corner and covering the midfield to opposite goal line, when paired with a 70-200 when play comes towards one. International Cricket needs more reach.
BUT it all depends where the shooting positions are and just how much light there is.
Watching the Qatar World Cup the shooters seem to be much closer than I was expecting -- basic behind the advertising boards/hoardings -- and not right up under the stands. My guess is Nikon/NPS will have a collection of 400/2.8TC and 600/4.0TC for the shooters they are supporting -- I will have to ask Rob when he gets back. Let us see if he will be persuaded to participate in an interview or live chat.
I agree that the 180-400TC seems to be a great lens and ideal for a Z-mount version. Most of the sport shooters I know use the 100-400 when there is enough light - it being far more affordable for freelancers.
What lens do you need when shooting Polar Bears -- or does one just need a way to get away quick?
Perfect 3:0 England vs Wales the cherry on my cake today.
Last edited:
400 2.8s are great when you can use them as 400 2.8s, otherwise, the 600 is the way to go. My rule of thumb is to pick the lens you can use most of the time without the TC. Of course, everyone has different needs, but it's worked for me
ChrisM
Well-known member
The sharpness test is great, albeit perhaps predictable..
But the real question is, what lens produces the best looking images in the field in various circumstances> From low contrast light to very high contrast light, from soft light to strong light, from back lighting to front lighting, from dawn to high noon to dusk?
People álways pick and post their favorite images in ideal light to show off a lens, but if you shoot these lenses in all possible scenarios, which then comes out on top?
Perhaps Steve is one of the véry, véry few who can answer that question, because us mortals will only ever own óne of these lenses.
But the real question is, what lens produces the best looking images in the field in various circumstances> From low contrast light to very high contrast light, from soft light to strong light, from back lighting to front lighting, from dawn to high noon to dusk?
People álways pick and post their favorite images in ideal light to show off a lens, but if you shoot these lenses in all possible scenarios, which then comes out on top?
Perhaps Steve is one of the véry, véry few who can answer that question, because us mortals will only ever own óne of these lenses.
well done review. Clear, concise and good info. Thank you for putting this together.
Jeff
That is a great question. One of my absolute favorite lenses is my 105mm Micro F2.8. It isn't the absolute sharpest lens ever made but the quality of images it produces with my D500 body just has "that something". It would be interesting to see Steve's impression of which of these lenses has "that something" or maybe they all do which would mean there is absolutely no wrong choice here and that would be a good thing.
Jeff
ChrisM
Well-known member
I am absolutely sure all of the lenses Steve compared in this test have this extra "something" that puts them apart, but I have found that sharpness when choosing between very good lenses is the least critical thing. Like when I chose between the voigtländer 35/2 apo and the Sony 35GM, or the Zeiss Loxia 25mm f2.4 and the Sony 24GM. At these focal lengths, the rendering of high end lenses can be vastly different, and it is infinitely more important that you like the images that they produce, then it is how their mtf charts look.
I accept that 600mm f4 lenses will not show the same huge difference in rendering, but still: color rendition and contrast are two very important qualities that can have a far greater impact on the images than pure sharpness.
I hope Steve will make a video one day to really get serious about how these lenses (the modern 600 and 800 lenses) render and what really sets them apart. But I can understand that would not be an easy task...
PDP
New member
I can see one more reason Steve hestated before posting his video. He knew it might lead to more "assignments".
Just kidding. I would love to hear his impressions, even though there is inherently more subjectivity to this than the focus testing. And the rendering comparisons need not include the "too short" Z400Z TC;-)
Just kidding. I would love to hear his impressions, even though there is inherently more subjectivity to this than the focus testing. And the rendering comparisons need not include the "too short" Z400Z TC;-)
Alistair
Well-known member
Don't forget to include extended coverage of 3d properties of each lens. I'll get the popcorn in.
Not sold out. A search on ebay shows many of the same chart available listed for other camera models,.
Large resolution test charts
Midway
Well-known member
I would love to photograph Polar Bears some day but there is a long list of what I would like to shoot and if I travel, I would like to go somewhere my non-photographer wife could enjoy. The reach of a 600 TC would come in handy though. It is more likely I'll take shorter trips to see Black Bears and Grizzlies and I'd prefer to keep a safe distance from them in the wild as well.
Association Football, the term the British came up with the acronym Soccer from and used until the USA used the term football for another sport
. I have shot more Soccer than any sport and still prefer the 600. When they travel to the States to name a few I've shot Manchester United, Chelsea, Brazil and other International sides. And of course the USMNT, USWNT including the Women's World Cup, and my local Seattle Sounders. I haven't shot sports since the Covid lockdowns started and while I may shoot sports again, for now I am excited to get involved in wildlife photography which is why I joined this forum to learn what I can from people like you. Thanks.
I might do it one day, but I haven't had nearly enough time with the new lens to make any kind of objective review. Plus, stuff like that is inherently troublesome due to the subjective nature of it. The biggest challenge is though that I'm not sure it would be very valuable to most. All of these lenses are just so good. I doubt there's any deal-breakers in the rendering that would make someone use a ditch the new 600 TC for their old 600 F4E or dump Nikon for Sony. I'm not sure the video would really be much of a benefit, other than to help people argue about who has the "best" toys. Plus, it's a hell of a lot of work to do it
Hi -- well of course the "real" football is Rugby Union football - a game for thugs played by gentlemen. As opposed to a game for gentlemen played by thugs (Oiks) - that would be association football. AND no one make derogatory remarks about Rugby League, unless one has access to a good dentist.Association Football, the term the British came up with the acronym Soccer from and used until the USA used the term football for another sport
Sounds like you have had a lot of fun shooting "soccer" -- Is the 600FL as a result of where you are shooting from?
BTW -- Have you looked at the coverage of the 2022 Qatar World Cup -- I simply could not believe just how many shooters were at the Ghana v South Korea game in the Education City Stadium -- the whole pitch is surrounded by advertising hoardings - about 15-20 feet from the edge of the pitch and, with the exception of the remote shooting stations behind both goal (and these are impressive) - there were photographers behind every inch and quite tightly spaced -- my guess is over 300 on the line and who knows how many 2ndary shooters and remotes. A predominance of White glass but a fair smattering of black glass as well. Anyone wondering why the cannot get lenses -- just look at the world cup.
My crew and I are all strengthening ourselves for this evenings pending joy or disappointment -- I suspect that Gareth Bale will not hold back. Sad to say that I hope E score 6 and let none in and HK is not injured. UPDATE - Perfect 3:0 England vs Wales the cherry on my cake today.
Last edited:
ChrisM
Well-known member
I can fully understand your apprehension, the threads on high end 24, 35 or 50mm lenses are neverending and mostly end up, if they turn out civil, with supporters for the various lenses fairly equally spread out.I might do it one day, but I haven't had nearly enough time with the new lens to make any kind of objective review. Plus, stuff like that is inherently troublesome due to the subjective nature of it. The biggest challenge is though that I'm not sure it would be very valuable to most. All of these lenses are just so good. I doubt there's any deal-breakers in the rendering that would make someone use a ditch the new 600 TC for their old 600 F4E or dump Nikon for Sony. I'm not sure the video would really be much of a benefit, other than to help people argue about who has the "best" toys. Plus, it's a hell of a lot of work to do it
However, with the right experience, one should be able to deduce which lens would be the right one for you, guided by an in-depth comparison that touch on some essential features like color rendering, contrast and OOF rendering, illustrated with images, while a pure sharpness comparison would not help me at all when lenses of this level are concerned.
Buth this is based on image rendering alone, and especially with birding wildlife equipment, other factors come into play that are equally crucial, like portability and AF performance, and yes, due to the immense magnification, images are going to look more similar than is the case with e.g. large landscapes containing a wealth of (color) detail on 5K screens or printed large.
I fully agree with you, that both systems with the various lenses will give you everything you need and more. I am a few months away from a Sony 600GM purchase, and even though I expect Nikon to be ahead on contrast (which is usually very high) and arguably also on color neutrality (Sony tends to be a bit too rich and warm), this plays only a minor part in my decision. The price of the Nikon 600TC, the limited versatility of the 800PF, and the bulk and weight of the Z9 have been the real deciding points.
harinderjaidka
New member
great review Steve .. Thanks
I double dare you to do it.
fcotterill
Well-known member
I agree that Bokeh and rendering are intangible concepts - as there are no hard statistics. Well, at least outside of 21st century optical testing labs, where the R&D is carried out. Some of these involve multivariate modelling of the optical character of candidate optics - quantifying the Seidel's five aberrations, using wavefront aberrations i.e the deviation from the 'perfect lens'. About 12 years ago, Nikon acknowledged their use of OPTIA to compare the 3D rendering of highend primes. It's no surprise Nikon design and produce their own instruments to analyse lenses, as they have been doing this for decades.
This entailed looking into their earlier successful portrait primes, including the 85 f1.4AFD aka 'The Cream Machine'. Back in 2013, on the occasion of releasing the 58 f1.4G, aka the Neo-Noct, the responsible Nikon's engineers stated they how they rely centrally on OPTIA to develop the 58 f1.4G and more recently the to develop the marvel that is the 105 f1.4E. They continue to use this technology with the Z Nikkors, as the 50 f1.8S is listed as a recent example; but there's been no mention of if they use OPTIA in R&D of their recent telephotos.
Nevertheless, way back in the late 1980s-1990s, Nikon's Susumu Sato developed some of the best quality telephotos ever made in the AF-I and AF-S primes eg 300 f2.8D and the G and E revisions that followed; such that the "Sato's design concept forms the basis of today's telephoto and super-telephoto NIKKOR lenses..". However, it would be fascinating to learn more about these Z telephotos. Susumu Sato did not appear in public in two recent interviews about the 400 f4.5S and 800 f6.3S. Shinseshi Suzuki and Tokuyasu Kotani are acknowledged in the design of both these.
Nevertheless, it's fairly straightforward to get reliable insights into how these new lenses render OOF zones. Look no further than the 100-400 S, 400 f4.5S and most recently the 600 f4S TC. Nikon's published advertorial images tell one a great deal, even before the likes of Steve and Brad Hill share their own images.
Last edited:
Good thinking!!!I'm not sure the video would really be much of a benefit, other than to help people argue about who has the "best" toys. Plus, it's a hell of a lot of work to do it
I'm interested to understand how you differentiate effects of the lens vs camera body when comparing one system to another. I currently shoot a Z9 with multiple different lenses and an A1/200-600mm. If I shoot the two systems side by side there is definitely a difference in the results. But how much is due to lens vs camera body I'd be at a loss to say. My assumption(perhaps erroneous) is that camera body has more to do with it than lenses.
My Z 600mm f/4.0 TC VR S-line lens arrived earlier today !!!! - here is hoping for a couple of days of good weather so I can get out and test it ahead of a shoot next week. AND then the difficult decision,do I keep the 800 or not....
- here is hoping for a couple of days of good weather so I can get out and test it ahead of a shoot next week. AND then the difficult decision,do I keep the 800 or not....
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Attachments
What a good-lookin' group!My Z 600mm f/4.0 TC VR S-line lens arrived earlier today !!!!
View attachment 50028
I feel less alone
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Wow. You guys should put your home addresses in you signature line
Agree -- Nikon needs more crazy folk like us.
I "just" could not justify the 400/4.5 -- but I did sell 50 f-mount bodies and lenses this year - including all the f-mount PF glass, 6 bodies, 2 400/2.8 and 2 600/4.0 and and and - I am now 100% mirrorless (plus 1 PC-E).
I can justify keeping the 800 -- but barely and not if there are folk in the UK that need it more than me.
I am hoping for a few days of good weather this week and I have an Owl and Hawk training shoot next week -- where I will put my body through it trying to handhold the 600/Z9 while tracking owls and then trying and missing falcons -- the only chance I have with a Shaheen/Peregrine Hybrids is when they hover/stoop just before diving -- normally I have to drop down to 150-200mm to track them as they dive and pursue the lure -- so my 70-200 will be on my 2nd body.
BUT -- I have to try with the 600/840... we will see how I go and what the guys are able to fly for me.
I will no doubt have a lot of nice portraits and less aerial shots if I try to over use the 600.
ChrisM
Well-known member
No doubt the camera body or rather the camera sensor also plays a major role. The Sony A1 has a very different look with the same lenses than does e.g. the A7RIV that I also owned, so even within brands there are clear differences. You may well be right that the A1 will way in heavier than the 600GM itself when comparing that combo to the Z9+600TC combo.