With the beanbag and 20FBS bursts in Tanzania recently…I got about 15-20% sharp shots at 1/60 with the 600PF and 1.4. There was a little motion blur on the moving tongue of the lion drinking post sunset but the face and eyes were perfectly sharp. At 1/125 or 1/150 more than 50% sharp. Even handheld I think 1/125 would give some sharp images…but a lot depends on how steady one is or do you have a beanbag or monopod or tre or something (wife’s shoulder) to steady against.
600mm PF with 1.4x TC versus 800mm PF
- Thread starter Calson
- 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).
Please use English when participating on this site. If you are not comfortable using English, you can take advantage of translators to convert your comments to English if that will make you feel more comfortable.
Thank you,
Karen
glsmith9823
Active member
macwalter
Well-known member
I am new to the 600pf having just got it yesterday. However I can say that the bare lens is very sharp and also pretty good at 840mm. I have read articles claiming the 600pf with the 1.4tcz is as good if not better than the 800pf. I tend to doubt that, but the comments about size and weight and the ability to quickly get onto BIF are for me more important than the difference between the IQ of the 600pf with the 1.4tc and the 800pf. F9 is more of a concern but even there I don’t see myself trying long shots at 840mm in low light that often. I mainly handhold and don’t want to lug heavy gear around when the capabilities of the z mirrorless system is just so much better. I will also say anyone still using dslr gear for action photography are missing out in a big way. I resisted until last year until the z8 and I will never look back. The z lenses of the 400-600mm range are great and I have no dought the 800pf is as well but it along with the 180-600 are bigger than I want to use.
I think I must have a bad copy of the Z 1.4TC. I have tested it on my 600 PF and there was a very noticeable loss of sharpness as well as contrast. The 600 PF was much better just using DX and getting 900. I would never use it with the 600 PF. I have also tried the TC with my Z70-200 and again and I can notice a definite loss of sharpness. Because almost everyone's experience is not the same, I think I need to test the TC against a new one at a camera store.
This is a great and timely discussion! I am in the throws of trying to make the decision between the 600pf and the 800pf. Weight is a definite factor for my old frame and I do a lot of hand holding when I shoot. I know I would like the longer reach of the 800pf I am leaning to the 600pf and using the TC as necessary. Big $ decision for me on retiree budget!
I’ve had success (for my purposes) with the 600PF + Z8/9 in DX mode. I keep the f/6.3 and prefer this to shooting at f/9 with the 1.4TC. The 800PF is certainly the top performance option here but “needs vs. wants” might be worth considering. This nuthatch is fine for my use… 900mm in DX mode + large crop. It’s easy to get hung up on the 45MPs available in the Z8/9s. Look at the incredible images in this forum from D500s, D5&6s and other mid 20MP cameras.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Your comments are spot on. I also do not like the thought of lugging a longer heavier lens.
TomSavage
Member
One point about the use of either the 600PF or the 800PF - I don't have the 600 but I have the 800PF. To tell you the truth, for shooting small BOP (birds on perch) I almost always have the 1.4 TC attached to the 800PF. It is rarely too much focal length. BIF is another story - locating the target at 1120mm is tough to do and the autofocus seems a little slower. Sometimes you can get surprised. The attached picture of the Elegant Trogon is a vertical crop of a horizontal frame. I had to back up a few steps to get it all in but the Trogon is not a small bird. (I was too excited to remember to rotate the camera on the monopod.) Actually, I mostly stick with perched birds. If I'm going after BIF I take off the TC or use the 500PF with or without the 1.4TCIII. The Yellow-eyed Junco is a 3267x2178 crop out of 8256x5504 original before reducing for posting. The Trogon is a 3369x5504 crop before reducing. Both at 1120mm focal length and wide open (F9).
Attachments
ajrmd
Well-known member
I think you hinted at a couple of important points, namely choose the lens where you'll be shooting most of the time. Quite candidly, I don't want to be fumbling with TC's anymore, increasing the likelihood of dust, potentially taking a penalty on AF speed, loss of contrast, etc. To me, the 600 f/4 TC is a brilliant lens and it has the optical fortitude and aperture to effectively use the TC. I don't have that same opinion of the 600 PF and while it is an amazing lens, in terms of size, weight, IQ, etc. if I had to be shooting at a base of f/9 it wouldn't work in my location. Today, I was shooting osprey in mixed light and to achieve a Tv 1/3200, I was shooting wide open at ISO's beginning at 6400 and ranging between 2000-6400. Then I was shooting warblers and other passerines in the shade which is another ballgame. I would have much preferred the 400 f/2.8 if I were planning on a TC as it would have been useable (not that I could afford it.) For some, pushing another stop + is not always an option.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
macwalter
Well-known member
I had the same issues. I went with the 600pf. So far I love it. It does fine with the 1.4tc just remember you start at f9 so no doubt you can get a sharper image at 800mm with the 800pf but it is much bigger and heavier and you won’t be handholding it much. I mainly handhold and I am 76.
Marcepan
Well-known member
I'm thinking about a light combo - for use in good lighting conditions.
Could someone send me sample shots of birds with 600 PF + TC 1.4?
In RAW file format, of course.
Preferably in a private message, as a download link.
Thank you very, very much in advance!
Could someone send me sample shots of birds with 600 PF + TC 1.4?
In RAW file format, of course.
Preferably in a private message, as a download link.
Thank you very, very much in advance!
I owned both the 600mm PF and the 800mm pf. My impression is based on my personal experience with one copy of each of those lenses and is based on subjective impressions and not.`a scientific study of any kind.
For my two copies at one point I compared the 600 with 800 on a detailed subject a relatively short distance away. My perception was the 800 was significantly sharper when the images were magnified. I don't recall the details of the test but to me it was significantly enough different.
The big issue to me is that the 800mm PF is an f6.3 lens at 800mm. the 600 with tc is already out to f9. The most expensive prime lens at 800mm is the F mount 800mm and that one is f5.6 which is just a third of an F stop better than the 800mmm pf
In practice I much prefer the 800 to the 600 with tc for several reasons:
1. the 800 does a better job with backgrounds and bokeh. I think in addition to the wider aperture somehow they did something with lens design such that the backgrounds on the 800 tend to be more interesting.
2. The 800 does an excellent job with focus tracking. Of course I first have to get the subject into the frame, but I have found the 800 does an excellent job of grabbing on. My practice is to shoot distant subjects with bursts at 20 fps and sort the images out in post.
3. I found I can crop significantly with the 800 such that it now becomes a favorite technique for extending reach. If I go DX or crop equivalently I can get quite a bit farther out and I am still at f6.3.
4. Should I decide I need a tc to reach even farther I can use a 1.4x tc on the 800 and I am only out to f9. If you needed more reach for the 600 you will need the 2x and be out at f13. You are reaching the point where you might have problems with autofocus at that point.
5. My subjective impression is that my 800mm pf was natively sharper than the 600mm with tc at 800.
I know it is difficult to evaluate these long lenses. When shooting at 800mm there are many factors that can affect sharpness including atmospheric diffraction issues. In the end all I can say is after using these two lenses side by side for a few months I strongly preferred the 800. In the end I decided to sell the 600. I now shoot with the combination of the 400mm f4.5 and the 800. Where possible I try to use the 800 on a tripod and gimbal.
The final thing I will mention is that before I bought the 800 I rented it for a long weekend. I later went back and reviewed the images and compared them generally with what I was getting with my 800. They looked similar. My 800 was originally purchased by a NPS customer. It is also possible my 600mm might have had issues, I was one of the first to get it and I was not a NPS customer. Of course I am paranoid if I believe NPS customers get favored treatment.
For my two copies at one point I compared the 600 with 800 on a detailed subject a relatively short distance away. My perception was the 800 was significantly sharper when the images were magnified. I don't recall the details of the test but to me it was significantly enough different.
The big issue to me is that the 800mm PF is an f6.3 lens at 800mm. the 600 with tc is already out to f9. The most expensive prime lens at 800mm is the F mount 800mm and that one is f5.6 which is just a third of an F stop better than the 800mmm pf
In practice I much prefer the 800 to the 600 with tc for several reasons:
1. the 800 does a better job with backgrounds and bokeh. I think in addition to the wider aperture somehow they did something with lens design such that the backgrounds on the 800 tend to be more interesting.
2. The 800 does an excellent job with focus tracking. Of course I first have to get the subject into the frame, but I have found the 800 does an excellent job of grabbing on. My practice is to shoot distant subjects with bursts at 20 fps and sort the images out in post.
3. I found I can crop significantly with the 800 such that it now becomes a favorite technique for extending reach. If I go DX or crop equivalently I can get quite a bit farther out and I am still at f6.3.
4. Should I decide I need a tc to reach even farther I can use a 1.4x tc on the 800 and I am only out to f9. If you needed more reach for the 600 you will need the 2x and be out at f13. You are reaching the point where you might have problems with autofocus at that point.
5. My subjective impression is that my 800mm pf was natively sharper than the 600mm with tc at 800.
I know it is difficult to evaluate these long lenses. When shooting at 800mm there are many factors that can affect sharpness including atmospheric diffraction issues. In the end all I can say is after using these two lenses side by side for a few months I strongly preferred the 800. In the end I decided to sell the 600. I now shoot with the combination of the 400mm f4.5 and the 800. Where possible I try to use the 800 on a tripod and gimbal.
The final thing I will mention is that before I bought the 800 I rented it for a long weekend. I later went back and reviewed the images and compared them generally with what I was getting with my 800. They looked similar. My 800 was originally purchased by a NPS customer. It is also possible my 600mm might have had issues, I was one of the first to get it and I was not a NPS customer. Of course I am paranoid if I believe NPS customers get favored treatment.
macwalter
Well-known member
My main issue with the 800pf is the size and weight and less flexibility in terms of situations where 800mm is simply too long. No doubt the 800pf will do better at its native distance but for me the 600 is more versatile and easily handheld. Just got back from Brazil and will see how it does with the 1.4tc but most often I shot it bare. Much of the trip was up close in the forest. Also as I’m handholding I doubt I can get all the lens can offer
I have both the 600pf and 800 pf, only just got the 600pf a few weeks ago so it's early days yet. The 800 pf bare is very slightly sharper than the 600 + 1.4x TC but it is a small difference at best to the point that the only reason to use the 800 pf is for the f6.3 v f 9 of the 600 + TC - higher ISO can take the edge off. Having said all that, I generally am more than happy to use the 600 + 1.4x TC where I need to take other lenses with me and thus need less weight and less bulk. If I am only needing one lens on an outing, the 800 pf it is.
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in decent light, 1/320s f/9.0 at 840.0mm iso1100
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in decent light, 1/250s f/9.0 at 840.0mm iso140
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in decent light, 1/500s f/6.3 at 800.0mm iso360
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in lower light, 1/160s f/9.0 at 840.0mm iso2200 - underexposed by over a stop to preserve the iridescent blue highlights of the feathers which can blow out very easily.
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in lower light, 1/160s f/9.0 at 840.0mm iso2200 - underexposed by over a stop to preserve the iridescent blue highlights of the feathers which can blow out very easily.
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in decent light, 1/320s f/9.0 at 840.0mm iso1100
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in decent light, 1/250s f/9.0 at 840.0mm iso140
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in decent light, 1/500s f/6.3 at 800.0mm iso360
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in lower light, 1/160s f/9.0 at 840.0mm iso2200 - underexposed by over a stop to preserve the iridescent blue highlights of the feathers which can blow out very easily.
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in lower light, 1/160s f/9.0 at 840.0mm iso2200 - underexposed by over a stop to preserve the iridescent blue highlights of the feathers which can blow out very easily.
I understand that reaction and I had the same reaction before I ended up buying the 800.
I find the 800 works best paired with the 400mm f4.5. The 400 is very sharp and between dx/crop and a 1.4x tc it can cover between 400 and 800 pretty well.
Nice pics.I have both the 600pf and 800 pf, only just got the 600pf a few weeks ago so it's early days yet. The 800 pf bare is very slightly sharper than the 600 + 1.4x TC but it is a small difference at best to the point that the only reason to use the 800 pf is for the f6.3 v f 9 of the 600 + TC - higher ISO can take the edge off. Having said all that, I generally am more than happy to use the 600 + 1.4x TC where I need to take other lenses with me and thus need less weight and less bulk. If I am only needing one lens on an outing, the 800 pf it is.
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in decent light, 1/320s f/9.0 at 840.0mm iso1100
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in decent light, 1/250s f/9.0 at 840.0mm iso140
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in decent light, 1/500s f/6.3 at 800.0mm iso360
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in lower light, 1/160s f/9.0 at 840.0mm iso2200 - underexposed by over a stop to preserve the iridescent blue highlights of the feathers which can blow out very easily.
Z8 + 600 pf + 1.4x TC in lower light, 1/160s f/9.0 at 840.0mm iso2200 - underexposed by over a stop to preserve the iridescent blue highlights of the feathers which can blow out very easily.
macwalter
Well-known member
Nice shots of beautiful birds.
Thank you very much, Jadiehl. Much appreciated!
Thank you very much, Macwalter. Much appreciated!
I will PM you a link for some. Wotan is right…the bare 800 is going to be somewhat better than the 600 and TC…if you’re looking at 2:1 in LR…but downsampled for output the sharpness difference gets downsampled away. The f9 vs f6.3 bokeh difference is there…but it comes down to an individual evaluation of wants, weight, cost to some extent, flexibility, and what else gets left behind with the 800. That calculus for me clearly came down against the 800.
Marcepan
Well-known member
Thank you very much.
I'd love to watch it.
The difference of F6.3 vs F9 is obvious for me. Background separation too. I'm just curious about the sharpness with TC, and mainly about how much I will be able to crop the frame in post-production.
macwalter
Well-known member
These days with post options like blur in lr bokeh becomes less important. F6.3 is still nowhere as clean as f4. Also there is the issue of good feather detail on the whole bird not just the eye. The main thing to me is iso and having to shoot at slower shutter speeds at times for decent results in lower light. For me the 800pf is simply too big and too limited overall for where I mostly shoot. In the wide open country out west it could well be another matter.
I agree with macwalter…for anybody but a pro the blur features that LR now has can overcome a lot of the f9 issue and for me even before that feature was added the bokeh at f9 wasn't ll the big of a deal for me and as I said the flexibility of lighter weight, being able to carry something besides the single ultra tele and flexibility of what I can shoot with the 600 and 840 as compared to just an 800 were just fine. On my recent trips to Serengeti and Costa Rica…I took about 50K or more shots in total and took the 600PF, 100-400, and both TCs although I only used the 1.4 one. About 70% of my shots were with the 600P and about half of those (more in Serengeti, a little less in Costa Rica) were with the TC and the remaining 30% were with the 100-400. I've got the 180-600 as well but for me that's more of the "I only want to take a single lens today" choice rather than pair it with the 600PF because here in FL sometimes 180 is just too much for the wildlife.
Last edited:
I have encountered a "bad" copy of two lenses over the last 15 years but I did not expect this possibility to apply to the much less complex TCs. Now I am not so sure. I have both TC14 and TC20. I used them to look at 800 mm using the TC20 compared to stacked TCs. The reviews indicate the TC20 should a better choice. I took several RAW photos taken at 80 to 100 meters using a Z9 + 400 TC 2.8 on a Gitzo series 3 tripod. Examining the photos on a 27 inch UHD monitor at 200% there was certainly some softening, particularly in the corners. I could not see any difference between the TC20 and stacked TCs. Maybe my TC20 is not as good as some others.
Side note - I changed the camera and external TC without moving the lens and tripod. I could not see any difference in FOV. I suspect that 1.4 is just rounded off from the square root of 2 or the difference between 784 mm and 800 mm is pretty small.
Side note - I changed the camera and external TC without moving the lens and tripod. I could not see any difference in FOV. I suspect that 1.4 is just rounded off from the square root of 2 or the difference between 784 mm and 800 mm is pretty small.