500mm vs 600mm

[Woodpecker]

I don't mean that I'm disappointed that it's not as sharp as a $15,000 lens, or even a $3500 one like the 500pf. I mean that too often I take a photo and it's just way too soft, even compared to my old 200-500.

Of course the 180-600 doesn't have the biting sharpness compared to the big primes other S line lenses or top primes from the F-mount era and the imatest figures taken from the lens prove that there must be a visible difference, especially on hires sensors and especially at 600mm.

What I find pretty amazing is that you seem to have some sort of incosistency in your results. If you can get sharp images this means that the lens is de facto capable of delivering sharp images, so it is the question what coud be the reason. To be honest, I didn't have this on the radar, but some trustworthy sources have told me that even with Z body plus Z lens they have come in situations where deactivating VR all together produced sharper images. I can only guess why this can happen, but it could be an explanation. Different generations of VR and lenses behave differently and are able to cause this kind of effect. People changing from 500 f4 G to E are just one some that can sng this song.

I uee the 180-600 mostly for its flexibility and in a walk-about type of scenario. Shooting handheld there can be lots of things happening that affect IQ. If I am after optimum quality I have to pay tribute to physics, take the bigger and/or more expensive and/or heavier stuff and try to work more stationary .

Nevertheless I started already to regret having traded my 500PF. But I still have my 500 f4 and I had to make some compromise to get the money together for changing to mirrorless and if I had the money I'd really fancy the Z 400 f4.5 and the Z 600 6.3 ...

 

[joe43]

I have a Z9 and both the 500mm pf and the Z mount 600mm pf, which I got about a month ago. I prefer usinng the 600mm pf as it is better balanced on my Z9 than the 500mm pf and if a 1.4x tc is added to the 500mmpf. Since I still have a D850 and D500, I am keeping both lenses. If I were only a Z mount shooter, I would be selling my 500mm pf.

 

[ssheipel]

Haven't used the combo since I got my 600 f4, but I shot A LOT with the Z9 and 500 pf (with the 1.4 attached much of the time) and loved it a lot. Light and easy to handle, great lens, period, even with the TC atached, and sure there's the aperture and bokeh thing, but you're going to get the same results in that regard I suspect with the 180-600. Other consideration if the joy of having a zoom, but I got over that pretty quickly when the choice was the anchor weight of my 180-400 tc or the featherweight 500 pf Also you can also of course add tc on the 180-600. There, I've been no help whatseover Tough decision -- answer rests in having both lenses

 

[SCoombs]

Of course the 180-600 doesn't have the biting sharpness compared to the big primes other S line lenses or top primes from the F-mount era and the imatest figures taken from the lens prove that there must be a visible difference, especially on hires sensors and especially at 600mm.

What I find pretty amazing is that you seem to have some sort of incosistency in your results. If you can get sharp images this means that the lens is de facto capable of delivering sharp images, so it is the question what coud be the reason. To be honest, I didn't have this on the radar, but some trustworthy sources have told me that even with Z body plus Z lens they have come in situations where deactivating VR all together produced sharper images. I can only guess why this can happen, but it could be an explanation. Different generations of VR and lenses behave differently and are able to cause this kind of effect. People changing from 500 f4 G to E are just one some that can sng this song.

I uee the 180-600 mostly for its flexibility and in a walk-about type of scenario. Shooting handheld there can be lots of things happening that affect IQ. If I am after optimum quality I have to pay tribute to physics, take the bigger and/or more expensive and/or heavier stuff and try to work more stationary .

Nevertheless I started already to regret having traded my 500PF. But I still have my 500 f4 and I had to make some compromise to get the money together for changing to mirrorless and if I had the money I'd really fancy the Z 400 f4.5 and the Z 600 6.3 ...

I have definitely been messing around with VR because I have suspected at times it is causing issues. Certainly with my 180-600 I came to the conclusion after some testing that it experiences the phenomenon where VR use seems to contribute to soft images at higher shutter speeds. With older VR lenses this was pretty widely understood to be the case, but you haven't heard much about it in more recent times, and for instance I specifically tested this out with my 200-500 and found I could leave it on all the time without a problem.

However if I had to guess I'd say the most likely candidate might be AF inconsistency. I believe (but can't recall definitively) that Steve has commented, and I know for sure that I have seen other notable experts (e.g. Thom Hogan) talk about having found that with consumer grade lenses rather than the higher end professional (in Z terms, the S-line) stuff that they have found that there can be more inconsistency in terms of where the AF actually lands for any given shot. I believe the theory has been that it comes down to tolerances, meaning that one 180-600 might be a lot tighter and tend to land on good focus most of the time while another might be more prone to being just off.

EDIT: I should add, by the way, for the greater purposes of this thread, that especially because of what I've found with the VR that the 180-600's lack of a physical VR switch is one point against it for me and my decision between the two lenses. If I keep the 180-600, I am going to need to be able to swap VR on and off quickly if I need to go from a static shot to a bird flying or something. With the 180-600 the best I have been able to work out for that is to put VR on the i-menu or on the top of the "my menu," which I have set to the movie record button. Either way, it's not nearly as efficient as I would like it to be and will cost shots. I wish there were a way to program a button to toggle VR, but there isn't right now.

 

[Woodpecker]

I have definitely been messing around with VR because I have suspected at times it is causing issues. Certainly with my 180-600 I came to the conclusion after some testing that it experiences the phenomenon where VR use seems to contribute to soft images at higher shutter speeds. With older VR lenses this was pretty widely understood to be the case, but you haven't heard much about it in more recent times, and for instance I specifically tested this out with my 200-500 and found I could leave it on all the time without a problem.

However if I had to guess I'd say the most likely candidate might be AF inconsistency. I believe (but can't recall definitively) that Steve has commented, and I know for sure that I have seen other notable experts (e.g. Thom Hogan) talk about having found that with consumer grade lenses rather than the higher end professional (in Z terms, the S-line) stuff that they have found that there can be more inconsistency in terms of where the AF actually lands for any given shot. I believe the theory has been that it comes down to tolerances, meaning that one 180-600 might be a lot tighter and tend to land on good focus most of the time while another might be more prone to being just off.

Yup, there are certainly more differences betwenn pro grade and consumer lenses beyond IQ and less strict tolerances - in mechanics as well as QA testing thresholds - will be certainly one ofd the main aspects here. I know that they have put serious effort in overcoming the sample variartion issues they had form time to time with some models, but it can still happen. Fortunately until now (knocking on my wooden head) I was on the lcky side and never had to return a lens copy for this kind of reason.

May be you'll find the reason. Perhaps even a service at Nikon could help. My 500 f4 G showed similar symptoms some time ago and the Nikon engineer found out, that the VR unit in gthe lens itself was working outside the tolerance thresholds. After adjusting the problem was gone and I got consistent shapr images again. In the end this kind of lens cn be called a precision instrument, so that in my case the problem didn't (yet ?) show up with the naked lens or the first TC, but with the second the problem was there.
So as an end user you get the feeling of a wobbly contact type of error. Sometimes there, sometime not ...

 

[SCoombs]

Yup, there are certainly more differences betwenn pro grade and consumer lenses beyond IQ and less strict tolerances - in mechanics as well as QA testing thresholds - will be certainly one ofd the main aspects here. I know that they have put serious effort in overcoming the sample variartion issues they had form time to time with some models, but it can still happen. Fortunately until now (knocking on my wooden head) I was on the lcky side and never had to return a lens copy for this kind of reason.

May be you'll find the reason. Perhaps even a service at Nikon could help. My 500 f4 G showed similar symptoms some time ago and the Nikon engineer found out, that the VR unit in gthe lens itself was working outside the tolerance thresholds. After adjusting the problem was gone and I got consistent shapr images again. In the end this kind of lens cn be called a precision instrument, so that in my case the problem didn't (yet ?) show up with the naked lens or the first TC, but with the second the problem was there.
So as an end user you get the feeling of a wobbly contact type of error. Sometimes there, sometime not ...

I'm sitting out at a pond right now with ducks and geese and both lenses and another few thoughts are occurring as I swap back and forth.

1) The 180-600 is much heavier, and with the need to turn VR off at high speeds even at those high speeds in some situations, at some angles, etc. I may be holding it with enough shakiness to introduce some minor blur that comes across as softness. This would make sense as it wouldn't be consistent.

2) The 500pf has better contrast and this could be leading to slightly more accurate AF performance in less than perfect light.

3) The 500pf has a variety of lens coatings the 180-600 doesn't have which help in specific lighting scenarios. It's possible I am getting good shots out of the 180-600 I'm situations where those coatings are less important while losing sharpness to the various things the coatings are designed to deal with, so again it wouldn't very consistent and it wouldn't always be obvious why a shot was a bit soft in some situations.

 

[Woodpecker]

I'm sitting out at a pond right now with ducks and geese and both lenses and another few thoughts are occurring as I swap back and forth.

Well, I know what it's like wanting to solve a problem and not getting the right idea, but the scenry at this pond must be very boaring if mother nature cant't get you away from these thoughts

1) The 180-600 is much heavier, and with the need to turn VR off at high speeds even at those high speeds in some situations, at some angles, etc. I may be holding it with enough shakiness to introduce some minor blur that comes across as softness. This would make sense as it wouldn't be consistent.

Good point. This is also something Steve is coming up with regularly in his videos, where he classifies himself as "not the steadiest person on earth in terms of handholding"
And it is something that varies not only from person to person, but can well vary from hour to hour for anyone of us.

2) The 500pf has better contrast and this could be leading to slightly more accurate AF performance in less than perfect light.

Never thought about this, but yes. That said this will probably be a difficult one to anaylyze.

3) The 500pf has a variety of lens coatings the 180-600 doesn't have which help in specific lighting scenarios. It's possible I am getting good shots out of the 180-600 I'm situations where those coatings are less important while losing sharpness to the various things the coatings are designed to deal with, so again it wouldn't very consistent and it wouldn't always be obvious why a shot was a bit soft in some situations.

Again, never thought about this, but also a valid possibility. Maybe easier to prove compared to no. 2 though.

All in all I think, it is also a question of the requirements and demand. And that's where often a gap opens between hobbysts, enthusiasts and pros.

If I had had te money I wouldn't have sold the 500PF and the DSLRs when finally switching to mirrorless, but it is as it is now.
And at least for me I can say that for sure the primary reason for not getting the shot or not getting it in the quality I desire is ... myself

 

[bleirer]

I think someone would have to demonstrate to me that a higher contrast score on a mtf test meant better autofocus. I don't know yes or no, but is there evidence?

 

[SCoombs]

I think someone would have to demonstrate to me that a higher contrast score on a mtf test meant better autofocus. I don't know yes or no, but is there evidence?

Let's be clear that I was only mentioning this as an "I wonder." I guess in its favor is the fact that Hogan and some others have mentioned that increasing sharpening in picture controls for the Z9 can improve AF (since the AF works off of the EVF feed), so by the same reasoning if the image that the EVF feed is seeing has somewhat better contrast I can imagine it possible for it to work a bit better.

The main reason I thought of it was that as I swapped between the two lenses back and forth and saw a clear difference in the results for certain subjects but not others, I also noticed the noticeably better contrast in the photos from the 500pf and started to wonder if there could be a connection.

 

[Capmike]

Been there done that. Started with the Z9 and my trusty 500PF, which at the time I believed to be the best lens in the world. Never felt focus was as quick or sharp with the 1.4, but used it occasionally. When the 600PF came out, I ordered it immediately. It is all the 500PF was, and more. No more FTZ. Sold the 500, and IMHO, the value of this and every F lens will only decrease in value. You will, without question, eventually get the 600. The sooner the better.

 

[PeterM]

I loved my 500PF, whether it was on my D850 or now my Z8. For what it is worth, I traded in my 500PF (and some other F-Mount stuff plus cash) for the Z 600PF a couple of weeks ago and do not regret it. The lens is very sharp, AF and subject recognition on my Z8 is fast, there is 20% greater magnification, and importantly, the size and weight makes it very "hand-holdable." Size and weight is becoming increasingly important to this 67 yo with shoulder issues, so the "Big Z Lenses" are not realistic for handholding. I intend to use it primarily for birds, and use my Z 100-400 S for large mammals. The Z 1.4 TC is excellent for those times I might need greater reach. For me, living in Colorado, 600mm is the sweet spot for birds and distant wildlife. Good luck with your decision.

 

[mjais]

I recently got back into photography and I have both the 600PF and the 800PF.
I have never used the 500PF but many years ago when I switched from a 4/500 Canon lens to a 4/600 EF II lens, that difference was noticeable, especially here in Germany where birds are shy.

So far I have not yet taken many shots with the 600PF (just got it a few days ago) but the first day out was great, it is super light and I am very agile with it, much more than with the 800PF (which is also crazy light for such a lens but still almost 1kg heavier than the 600 and that makes a huge difference).

I except to shoot a lot with the 800PF where I live but maybe bring the 600PF when traveling especially for upcoming city trips to Oslo and Madrid where there isn't that much time for photography but I want to bring a longer lens to photograph tamer birds in the city parks or at the harbour in Oslo.

Not sure if this is very helpful but I can definitely recommend the 600PF, Nikon has a winner here, I think. On a Z8 the AF seems to be very good, as well.

 

[macwalter]

I sold all my dslr gear over the past year and the last thing to go was the 500pf. It was and is a lovely lens and works well with the 1.4tc. However on the z8 with the FTZ for me somehow the magic in terms of balance and feel was lost especially with the 1.4tc. I felt there were too many connections and the lens stuck out in an unpleasant way. It was still sharp and fast. I agonized over the 6.3 aperture of the 600pf but finally decided to sell the 500pf and get the 600pf when it went on sale. All I can say is I’m really happy I did. Overall I feel 600mm is a sweet spot for wildlife and I use a second body with the 100-400mm zoom (or the 400mm f4.5). Also although you are at f9 the 1.4tc works quite well For 840mm. Occasionally I would wish for a wider field of view and would say the 500mm would be better but most times I prefer the extra 100mm reach. I handhold and the 600mm pf is a hand holders dream. I don’t think there is any other lens out there that can match it in this regard. Having the superb balance and usable control rings are just icing on the cake. The 800mm will no doubt be better at long distance but it is a beast to handhold. The 180-600mm is probably fine but it won’t work as well with a tc and it is big as well. In terms of IQ compared to the 500pf I think they are very close but the 600pf may be a bit better in the corners And if you are doing BIF like I do often, this matters.

 

[jhallettbc]

I sold all my dslr gear over the past year and the last thing to go was the 500pf. It was and is a lovely lens and works well with the 1.4tc. However on the z8 with the FTZ for me somehow the magic in terms of balance and feel was lost especially with the 1.4tc. I felt there were too many connections and the lens stuck out in an unpleasant way. It was still sharp and fast. I agonized over the 6.3 aperture of the 600pf but finally decided to sell the 500pf and get the 600pf when it went on sale. All I can say is I’m really happy I did. Overall I feel 600mm is a sweet spot for wildlife and I use a second body with the 100-400mm zoom (or the 400mm f4.5). Also although you are at f9 the 1.4tc works quite well For 840mm. Occasionally I would wish for a wider field of view and would say the 500mm would be better but most times I prefer the extra 100mm reach. I handhold and the 600mm pf is a hand holders dream. I don’t think there is any other lens out there that can match it in this regard. Having the superb balance and usable control rings are just icing on the cake. The 800mm will no doubt be better at long distance but it is a beast to handhold. The 180-600mm is probably fine but it won’t work as well with a tc and it is big as well. In terms of IQ compared to the 500pf I think they are very close but the 600pf may be a bit better in the corners And if you are doing BIF like I do often, this matters.

That is the same progression I had and had the same conclusions. Love the 600PF

 

[sinewsworn]

Hi folks.

My current kit is a Nikon Z8 with a 500pf: However, like many people, I am always on the search for more reach. The simplest (and cheapest) option would be to buy a 1.4TC to use with my 500pf, but I'm also curious about the 180-600. My concern with the latter option is that it's "only" 100mm longer, and still won't give me the equivalent to the 500 + 1.4TC. The upside is that it will be f6.3, rather than a f8. Tbh, I don't need the zoom, so that seems a bit of a waste, but I can't afford the 600pf without selling the 500pf, and even then it's a bit of a stretch to make up the difference.

I live in British Columbia and therefore low light shooting is a consideration, so I'm a little skeptical on how much I would actually use a f8 lens (500 + TC).

My questions are:

1. Is there much benefit going from 500mm to 600mm?
2. Am I right in assuming that the AF of the 600pf would outperform the 500 + TC?
3. If I sold a kidney to replace my 500pf, is the 600pf a worthy replacement?

For reference, my subject matter preferences are fur > feathers, although I love shooting raptors (ospreys, eagles, owls etc). I'm not a birder and don't photograph songbirds, typically.

Sorry for the rambling musings and thanks for looking and input.

I have both lenses. I have used both on my Z9. I believe the 600pF is superior in every way to the 500pF. My only issue is f6.3, but the size/weight is wonderful for BIFs. I live just South of you in the Puget Sound area.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I owned the 500 pf, 600 f/4E and Z180-600. I have 2 Z9's and I am a birder but also photograph other things. My primary birding lens is now the Z800pf. 6-21-24 I got a Z600pf when they went on sale. 6-26-24 I added a Z6III to the mix. I also added a Tamron z mount 150-500 6-3-24.

Bottom line the Z600 pf is amazing and for me better all the way around than the 500pf (without or with the 1.4TC). The 500 pf was a very good lens used on my D850 and D6 before I went all Z's, with or without a TC. With my DSLR's I preferred the 600mm reach over the 500mm and used Tamron and Sigma variables at 600mm and my Nikon 600mm f/4E far more than my 500 pf.

So now my 3 lens wildlife line up in order of use Z800 pf, Z600 pf, Tamron z mount 150-500.

After getting the Z600 pf and using it in the field for 3 days I sold the Z100-400 and Z180-600 both good lenses but they were destined to just sit in my dry cabinet.

As an aside when my dad was still alive he lived in Courtney BC so I am familiar with the area.

 

[Doomrider74]

Thanks for your input everyone. I guess I have some saving up to do

 

[Neil H.]

In many discussions such as these, I believe becoming a better birder and/or animal stalker will get you MUCH closer to your subjects. This can take years by yourself or you can go with people who have years of experience. The difference gained here will blow away all the differences shown between long prime lenses. Bottom line is to get the longest prime you can both carry and afford particularly if you have not got the time to develop good field-craft.

 

[Ken Miracle]

In many discussions such as these, I believe becoming a better birder and/or animal stalker will get you MUCH closer to your subjects. This can take years by yourself or you can go with people who have years of experience. The difference gained here will blow away all the differences shown between long prime lenses. Bottom line is to get the longest prime you can both carry and afford particularly if you have not got the time to develop good field-craft.

I have been a hunter and stalker since I was a kid. I also lead field trips for our local Golden Eagle Audubon Society. A lot depends on where you live and the type of birding you do. I go looking for all types of birds and what ever shows up at any moment. I am photographing first for e bird ID shots (citizen science) and secondly for pretty pics. Our habitat is quite expansive in most cases here in Southern Idaho. Field craft is a bit limited in application if you do not know what, where and when a bird will appear. In my case the vast majority of my bird photos are taken with Z9 and Z800 f/6.3 pf, next would be Z9 or now Z6III and Z600 f/6.3 pf. If I am leading a field trip with a lot of people field craft is pretty much out the door When I am alone it kicks in as I pause and peek around a bush before stepping around it etc.. and usually wear camo if not in an urban setting where it seems to be a detriment since the birds are used to seeing non camo.

 

[NorthernFocus]

You may want to do a review/analysis of your edited image files to determine what effective focal length you're typically shooting. If you use LR it is fairly simple to do by utilizing smart collections.

 

[EricBowles]

I had the 500mm PF and the 200-500 for F-mount but sold them both moving to Z-mount. I still have a 600mm f/4 VR for F-mount, but rarely use it. My Z kit includes the 70-200 f/2.8, 400mm f/4.5 and 800mm PF. The thought process is the 400mm f/4.5 is 2/3 stop faster than the 500mm PF, and it's not a PF lens so the bokeh is better. I disliked the bokeh of the 500mm PF - and had some discards simply because of the bokeh. The 800mm solves any issues about having a lens that is long enough - it is the long end for any kit and works very nicely. When the 600mm PF was announced I concluded I could always use the 400mm f/4.5 alone or with a 1.4 TC, and at the long end I already had 800mm covered, so there was no real need for a 600mm PF.

As far as the 180-600 is concerned, it is a very good lens and a step up from the 200-500. It also works with the Z TC. But for me, most of the time I have a better lens available for the focal length with the 70-200 and 400mm lenses. I have no problem carrying the right lens for the situation. There are certainly times when I might miss a shot because I have the wrong lens, but that's relatively uncommon. When I do use my current lenses, I'm very happy with the focal lengths and options.

 

[TurtleCat]

I have spent a lot of time on this question as I have the z8 and 500pf currently. I almost had the 180-600 but cancelled the order. The 600pf has been tempting. But as I look over every review and discussion and video and review images (mine plus from said reviews) I decided to stand pat. Sure there are some extra functions with the 600pf but I won’t really use them. Sure it’s native but the ftz has worked great. Sure its value goes down over time but it works great.

When I factor the replacement cost (differential between sale and acquisition of new lens) against the potential gain I really don’t see a compelling reason to change. Many thousands of dollars for no real IQ gain, a small performance boost, and a bit narrower field of view.

I decided that if I was to get anything meaningful it would have to be one of the fast big lenses (400 or 600 tc). But I’m holding out hope for a 500 tc even though many feel like it won’t happen. Maybe if the 180-400 tc migrates over and loses some weight and cost then I could sell the 500pf and 100-400z and just use the one?

Anyway my advice for anyone is to get a real sense of what gain they would realistically achieve with the new lens over the existing lens and calculate the cost to get there and then see if that cost justifies the gain.

Edited to fix autocorrect

 

[jhallettbc]

You may want to do a review/analysis of your edited image files to determine what effective focal length you're typically shooting. If you use LR it is fairly simple to do by utilizing smart collections.

When I am contemplating a new lens, whether a prime or zoom, thanks to LRC's fantastic data base, I always look to see how many photos I've taken at a particular length and sometime f stop, and where I took them, i.e. was I travelling, birding, taking shots of friends and family. For example, I keep reading about the 135 Plena being the ne plus ultra of lenses but when I look at my photos it is a focal length I rarely use. That would only be a vanity purchase if I could afford it.

 

[Doomrider74]

You may want to do a review/analysis of your edited image files to determine what effective focal length you're typically shooting. If you use LR it is fairly simple to do by utilizing smart collections.

All my photos are at 500mm as it's the only lens I have, other than the 24-70.

 

[NorthernFocus]

All my photos are at 500mm as it's the only lens I have, other than the 24-70.

I said EFFECTIVE focal length(EFL). IOW if you crop Z8/9 photos down to 6880px on the long side that equates to shooting at 600mm(8256/6880=1.2; 1.2x500mm=600mm). To see how often you shoot at EFL of 600mm or more all you have to do is create a smart collection of images shot w/500mm lens and image size of 6880px or less on the long side. LRC lets you search for either "image size"(i.e. final cropped dimensions) or "original image size". Of course you have to apply some judgement based on your own preference for extra canvas to work with when processing. I went through this exercise before buying the 800mm PF and was really surprised to see how many of my final edits from multiple camera/lens combos were at 800mm or more EFL.