600 f/4 TC & 800 pf

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).

S

sdloeffler

Member
Member's gallery
Greetings, anyone here have the 800pf and the 600 f/4 TC? I ordered the 800 pf when it was released, and Bedfords called me Thursday to tell me I was next in line, and it was in, and asked if I wanted it. I ordered the 600 f/4 TC a minute after it was released. I have ordered at 2 stores and am #5 at 1. I ordered the 600, well, because I've always wanted one, and it's like having two great primes in one. i realize it's a couple of pounds heavier. So, question, do you have both, and do you use your 800pf now that you have the 600 TC?
 
Member's gallery
Barbara said:
That thread seems to be primarily about the 600 FL. The OP here is asking about the 600 TC. Not to hijack the tread, but in addition to the OP's question, can anyone comment on an IQ comparison between the 600 TC at 840 and the 800 PF? Sharpness, certainly, but also overall rendering . . .
Click to expand...
Oops. OTOH a lot of the "comparison" issues are the same, that is, a single, lighter 800 vs a heavier 600 w/teleconverter. I doubt the optical differences between the 600 FL and 600 TC are significant.
 
Member's gallery
sdloeffler said:
Greetings, anyone here have the 800pf and the 600 f/4 TC? I ordered the 800 pf when it was released, and Bedfords called me Thursday to tell me I was next in line, and it was in, and asked if I wanted it. I ordered the 600 f/4 TC a minute after it was released. I have ordered at 2 stores and am #5 at 1. I ordered the 600, well, because I've always wanted one, and it's like having two great primes in one. i realize it's a couple of pounds heavier. So, question, do you have both, and do you use your 800pf now that you have the 600 TC?
Click to expand...
I’m not really interested in either because of the weight…but could possibly get the 800 but the cost/benefit of the 600TC makes it really not interested. That said…if I were to make a choice ignoring the weight and cost issues…I think that 600 and 840 is more versa than 800…and if I were willing to carry that much weight then 7 vs 5 pounds is not a big deal…if one can handhold the 600…if not and it makes a tripod/monopod mandatory then it’s a bigger weight difference but still a more flexible option.
 
Member's gallery
I have the 800mm PF and when the 600mm TC arrived at the store I instructed the owner to sell it to another of his customers. With the 600mm f/4 I need to use a tripod and a gimbal head 100% of the time. With the 800mm PF I can shoot hand held and move around a great deal more and with greater speed and get shots I would have missed with a 600mm f/4 lens.

The old Group f/64 had a saying of f/64 and be there. If I am limited by the size and weight of a lens and the need to use a tripod that is an impediment to my own efforts. I found this to be the case when I first acquired the remarkable Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF lens that weighs only 3.21 lbs or 8 lbs less than my 600mm f/4 lens at the time. It changed how I photographed wildlife when freed of the need for a tripod and gimbal head. The PF lenses are real game changers and this is not fully appreciated in the commentary about them.
 
Member's gallery
800pf is perfectly handholdable.
Just replace the huge Nikon hood with a smaller Zemlin, get a Zemlin cap and your set.

The 400/4.5 in DX is 600mm… and it’s feather lightweight.

The 400/2.8 is on my eye balls though. Its a pound heavier from the 800pf. But, mount it on a Z8 which is 1 pound lighter from the Z9, and your in business!
 
Member's gallery
Barbara said:
That thread seems to be primarily about the 600 FL. The OP here is asking about the 600 TC. Not to hijack the tread, but in addition to the OP's question, can anyone comment on an IQ comparison between the 600 TC at 840 and the 800 PF? Sharpness, certainly, but also overall rendering . . .
Click to expand...
Steve has video comparing them. Bottomline - both are great and hard to find any real differences
 
Member's gallery
I need to clarify my question. I have the 600 E and it gives me an overall rendering that's superior to any other Nikon lens I've owned -- but I don;t know how it compares in that regard to the 800 PF. I realize "rendering" is a pretty vague concept -- maybe it's contrast, maybe color, maybe depth of field, or some combination. I'm trying to figure out whether the 800 PF has the same mystical qualities (but not including sharpness, which Steve has covered quite well). Anyone comments on this aspect of the lenses?
 
Member's gallery
Barbara said:
I need to clarify my question. I have the 600 E and it gives me an overall rendering that's superior to any other Nikon lens I've owned -- but I don;t know how it compares in that regard to the 800 PF. I realize "rendering" is a pretty vague concept -- maybe it's contrast, maybe color, maybe depth of field, or some combination. I'm trying to figure out whether the 800 PF has the same mystical qualities (but not including sharpness, which Steve has covered quite well). Anyone comments on this aspect of the lenses?
Click to expand...
In most measurable ways the two lenses are very close with the exception of shooting straight into bright light sources where the PF lens can lead to some artifacts.

If you're considering purchasing the 800mm PF I'd strongly recommend renting one first as only your eyes will be able to discern if the 'rendering' differences you see with your 600mm f/4 lens are comparable with the 800mm PF. The trouble is, there are a lot of factors that go into the overall visual results you'll get from a lens, in addition to sharpness folks key into different things like micro contrast, color casts, bokeh and the like and it's hard to guess which of those or other things are what you really like with your current lens that may or may not be the same with the 800mm PF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top