600mm PF with 1.4x TC versus 800mm PF

[Calson]

When I owned the f-mount 500mm f/5.6 lens I used it on rare occasions with the TC-14 teleconverter. The VR was marginal with this setup. The in-camera IS is a good deal better and so I have been wondering whether the 600mm PF lens could be used with the 1.4x teleconverter in place of the 800mm PF lens. Has anyone come across images taken with this combination?

I know that I would lose an f-stop but the ability to use it on a boat is appealing. It would be an alternative to my 180-600mm with the 800mm PF and save nearly 6 lbs of lens weight in my bag.

 

[MatthewK]

I have tested my 600PF + 1.4TC against my 800PF, and they're pretty much equal in terms of IQ.

This is a shot with the 600PF + 1.4TC, and the 100% crop.

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.

 

[PhotoLover]

When I owned the f-mount 500mm f/5.6 lens I used it on rare occasions with the TC-14 teleconverter. The VR was marginal with this setup. The in-camera IS is a good deal better and so I have been wondering whether the 600mm PF lens could be used with the 1.4x teleconverter in place of the 800mm PF lens. Has anyone come across images taken with this combination?

I know that I would lose an f-stop but the ability to use it on a boat is appealing. It would be an alternative to my 180-600mm with the 800mm PF and save nearly 6 lbs of lens weight in my bag.

I'm looking forward to that future day when I can see how a Z8 or Z9 works with both existing lenses I have (like the 500 pf) and something like a 600 pf.

I've had reasonable luck using the 500 pf with a 1.4; I routinely go down to a shutter speed of 400 with that combination for perched birds and such in lower light. 320 if I have shots with faster shutter speeds in the bag (this is the 1.4 III converter). I've also been pleased with the IQ using that setup. AF suffers a lot, especially if the light is not excellent. I do use this combo a lot for songbirds (perched!) some parts of the year.

I have tested my 600PF + 1.4TC against my 800PF, and they're pretty much equal in terms of IQ.

How low a shutter speed can you use with the 600 pf + TC on the Z8? The Z8 of course has better low light capabilities than my crop sensor dSLRs, so maybe the need to drop low is reduced.

I like that shot.

 

[nmerc_photos]

Same as Matthew.

In my testing, the 600PF + 1.4x were almost indistinguishable from the 800PF, other than that one stop loss of light. If you can make due with F9, it's a great option.

RE: how slow of a shutter you can use, I've done 1/6s multiple times handheld with the 600PF no extender. I would think you'd easily be able to do 1/25s with the 1.4x attached.

 

[valmofab]

Pareil que Matthieu.

Lors de mes tests, le 600PF + 1,4x était presque impossible à distinguer du 800PF, à part cette perte de lumière d'un seul coup. Si vous pouvez vous en sortir avec F9, c'est une excellente option.

RE : quelle est la lenteur d'un obturateur que vous pouvez utiliser, j'ai fait 1/6 s plusieurs fois à main levée avec le 600PF sans rallonge. Je pense que vous seriez facilement capable de faire 1/25s avec le 1,4x attaché.

J'ai le 800 pf et le 400 f4.5, je pense que ça dépend si tu photographies souvent à 800 mm ou pas ? Je pense que pour les sujets en mouvement, le 800 seul sera bien meilleur et donnera un meilleur bokeh. Maintenant si vous photographiez principalement à 600 mm le 600 pf sera plus adapté.
Fabien

 

[nmerc_photos]

J'ai le 800 pf et le 400 f4.5, je pense que ça dépend si tu photographies souvent à 800 mm ou pas ? Je pense que pour les sujets en mouvement, le 800 seul sera bien meilleur et donnera un meilleur bokeh. Maintenant si vous photographiez principalement à 600 mm le 600 pf sera plus adapté.
Fabien

J'ai possédé tous les téléobjectifs Nikon Z. Tout dépend de ce que vous appréciez le plus. Focale, ouverture, poids, taille, MFD, etc. J'ai vendu mon 600PF et j'ai gardé le 800PF. Mais je pense que pour les sujets en mouvement, le 600 mm est un bien meilleur choix que le 800 mm. 600 mm facilite la mise en place du sujet dans le cadre. le 600 est également nettement plus court et plus léger, ce qui facilite sa prise en main et la poursuite de sujets plus rapides.

 

[valmofab]

J'ai possédé tous les téléobjectifs Nikon Z. Tout dépend de ce que vous appréciez le plus. Focale, ouverture, poids, taille, MFD, etc. J'ai vendu mon 600PF et j'ai gardé le 800PF. Mais je pense que pour les sujets en mouvement, le 600 mm est un bien meilleur choix que le 800 mm. 600 mm facilite la mise en place du sujet dans le cadre. le 600 est également nettement plus court et plus léger, ce qui facilite sa prise en main et la poursuite des sujets plus rapides.

d'accord avec toi je parlais du 600 f6.3 avec le tc pour les sujets en mouvement, le tc va ralentir l'autofocus et l'objectif natif 800 pf sera meilleur

 

[PhotoLover]

Same as Matthew.

In my testing, the 600PF + 1.4x were almost indistinguishable from the 800PF, other than that one stop loss of light. If you can make due with F9, it's a great option.

RE: how slow of a shutter you can use, I've done 1/6s multiple times handheld with the 600PF no extender. I would think you'd easily be able to do 1/25s with the 1.4x attached.

I should try and see how low I can get with the 500 pf + 1.4 on my dSLR. I'm generally taking a picture of an animal with that rig, so I want some shutter speed even if the critter is "still."

 

[nmerc_photos]

d'accord avec toi je parlais du 600 f6.3 avec le tc pour les sujets en mouvement, le tc va ralentir l'autofocus et l'objectif natif 800 pf sera meilleur

oh oui, désolé, je t'ai mal compris. Je suis d'accord que le 800 natif aura un autofocus légèrement meilleur que le 600 + 1,4x. Mais cela ne me semblait pas être une grande différence. Je n'ai eu aucun problème avec aucune des deux configurations.

I should try and see how low I can get with the 500 pf + 1.4 on my dSLR. I'm generally taking a picture of an animal with that rig, so I want some shutter speed even if the critter is "still."

if you're mainly shooting handheld, I think there's a significant difference between the DSLR + 500PF vs a Z8/Z9 + 600PF in terms of how low you can get the shutter to be.

I often take pictures of owls which are possible to use a 1" (1 SECOND) shutter and they won't have moved in that time. So I have lots of practice both handholding and on tripods with slow shutter speeds.

 

[PhotoLover]

oh oui, désolé, je t'ai mal compris. Je suis d'accord que le 800 natif aura un autofocus légèrement meilleur que le 600 + 1,4x. Mais cela ne me semblait pas être une grande différence. Je n'ai eu aucun problème avec aucune des deux configurations.



if you're mainly shooting handheld, I think there's a significant difference between the DSLR + 500PF vs a Z8/Z9 + 600PF in terms of how low you can get the shutter to be.

I often take pictures of owls which are possible to use a 1" (1 SECOND) shutter and they won't have moved in that time. So I have lots of practice both handholding and on tripods with slow shutter speeds.

A second? That's impressive. I could certainly see the benefits of being able to use such a slow speed in some situations. I was pretty happy with a 320 shutter speed using the 500 pf + 1.4 on a crop sensor camera (FF equivalent of 1050 or so).

I put some of your other remarks into google translate. Have you tried the AF of the 600 pf + 1.4x with BIF versus the 800 pf? That would be a key factor if I was deciding between the two. Well, the f 9 would be a problem for me as well. Obviously the 500 pf + 1.4 on a dSLR is not ideal for BIF, though I actually have some good BIF shots (of larger birds ...) taken with that combo, but I've no idea how well the 600 pf + 1.4 works on the Z8/9.

(Not that I mind especially, but I imagine that the vast majority of people reading this thread do not read or speak French).

 

[nmerc_photos]

A second? That's impressive. I could certainly see the benefits of being able to use such a slow speed in some situations. I was pretty happy with a 320 shutter speed using the 500 pf + 1.4 on a crop sensor camera (FF equivalent of 1050 or so).

I put some of your other remarks into google translate. Have you tried the AF of the 600 pf + 1.4x with BIF versus the 800 pf? That would be a key factor if I was deciding between the two. Well, the f 9 would be a problem for me as well. Obviously the 500 pf + 1.4 on a dSLR is not ideal for BIF, though I actually have some good BIF shots (of larger birds ...) taken with that combo, but I've no idea how well the 600 pf + 1.4 works on the Z8/9.

(Not that I mind especially, but I imagine that the vast majority of people reading this thread do not read or speak French).

to be clear, the 1" shutter was on tripod. I haven't been able to do that handheld yet haha. I was just emphasizing that with owls, I do often use really slow shutter speeds when handholding. 1/6 is about the slowest I've gotten desirable results while handholding.

I didn't find the 600 + 1.4x AF to be significantly slower than the 800PF, but I am definitely not an AF snob like some people. I find most of the Z lenses to be close enough together that it's not really a measurement I take much consideration to.

the other guy started the French, I was just carrying the conversation along

 

[Marcepan]

It's strange, but in several tests (Ricci, PL) there is information that the 600 PF + TC 1.4 is optically comparable or even slightly better than the bare 800 PF.
It's hard for me to understand it when comparing lenses from the same class. I also once tested 800 PF vs 500 FL + TC 1.4 - and the set with TC was better than the bare glass. I thought I rented a weaker or damaged copy, but online tests confirm this.

Of course, the advantage of the F6.3 over the F9 is overwhelming, there is no doubt about it.

Here are some numerical comparisons with PL:

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.

 

[PhotoLover]

to be clear, the 1" shutter was on tripod. I haven't been able to do that handheld yet haha. I was just emphasizing that with owls, I do often use really slow shutter speeds when handholding. 1/6 is about the slowest I've gotten desirable results while handholding.

I didn't find the 600 + 1.4x AF to be significantly slower than the 800PF, but I am definitely not an AF snob like some people. I find most of the Z lenses to be close enough together that it's not really a measurement I take much consideration to.

the other guy started the French, I was just carrying the conversation along

Well the tripod is cheating . But for some subjects, being able to drop down to even 1/100 or 1/50 in very low light would be interesting.

For the AF, it's not so much snobbery as "can this lens combo do birds in flight." Going back to the 500 pf + 1.4, on my dSLRs I can do larger birds with that combination. AF is far from good, but it can be made to work using the center points with enough light and reasonable expectations. It's my understanding (haven't tried it as I lack the cameras) that the 500 pf + 1.4 AF works better on the Z8 and Z9 than it does on dSLRs, but I don't know how much better.

I have no idea how well the 600 pf + 1.4 does with BIF; apparently the 800 pf is solid there. That would be a critical factor for me. Though obviously, someone going with the 600 pf + 1.4 could simply say "well, if I need BIF, I gotta take the 1.4 off," which of course is what I do if I need better BIF with the 500 and 1.4.

 

[Charles Loy]

When I first exposed a few yard birds with the Z600 + 14xTC I realized I will never own a Z 800mm lens. I don't need it.

 

[Nature Files]

As Steve has said before, "there's no free lunch". Slapping a TC on any piece of glass will always be a compromise. Whether the results are up to your personal standards is a completely subjective thing.

 

[nmerc_photos]

Well the tripod is cheating . But for some subjects, being able to drop down to even 1/100 or 1/50 in very low light would be interesting.

For the AF, it's not so much snobbery as "can this lens combo do birds in flight." Going back to the 500 pf + 1.4, on my dSLRs I can do larger birds with that combination. AF is far from good, but it can be made to work using the center points with enough light and reasonable expectations. It's my understanding (haven't tried it as I lack the cameras) that the 500 pf + 1.4 AF works better on the Z8 and Z9 than it does on dSLRs, but I don't know how much better.

I have no idea how well the 600 pf + 1.4 does with BIF; apparently the 800 pf is solid there. That would be a critical factor for me. Though obviously, someone going with the 600 pf + 1.4 could simply say "well, if I need BIF, I gotta take the 1.4 off," which of course is what I do if I need better BIF with the 500 and 1.4.

I would think the 600 + 1.4x beats the 800 for BIF just for flexibility in itself. It's much easier to maneuver a 3lb 11" long lens than a 5.25lb 15" lens. Any small lack in actual AF is mitigated.

When I first exposed a few yard birds with the Z600 + 14xTC I realized I will never own a Z 800mm lens. I don't need it.

As long as you have enough light, it's a great combo!

Canon's closest competitor is the 800mm F11, and I had a lot of fun with that lens. but the IQ is significantly worse than the 600PF + 1.4x. As it should be since it's like a $600 lens vs $4000 lens (used).

 

[MatthewK]

When I first exposed a few yard birds with the Z600 + 14xTC I realized I will never own a Z 800mm lens. I don't need it.

I’m almost at that point myself. Trying to decide whether or not to let go of my 800PF and just lean on the 600+1.4 when I need maximum reach.

 

[fcotterill]

Besides the advantages of f6.3 versus f9, the 800 PF holds up better over longer subject distances - atmospherics permitting. It works well with ZTC14 and also ZTC2 but this 1600mm f13 combo requires careful usage and kind conditions. Admittedly, I have yet to use the 600 PF but I suspect that its performance concurs with other TC combinations. Thus, image quality with the ZTC14 will drop off with distance, and quality of cropped images.

It is instructive to read through the Comments section of the PL review of the 800 PF, notably the earlier comments. I'm in the camp that the latest 800mm PL results do not agree with those of many experienced photographers, and their example images do questionable justice to both the 800 f6.3S PF and 800 f5.6E FL. Spencer Cox further admitted their test bed cannot test optics of FL > 800mm. All considered, long telephotos are hyper sensitive to the slightest vibrations in the Imatest measuring apparatus. According to LensRentals, and also described in detail by Nasim Mansurov (bench testing the 800 f5.6E), obtaining robust MTF data of long lenses (focal length > 400mm) is very challenging and highly sensitive to the slightest interferences of the test bed. So, all considered, be wary of published MTF comparisons of the exotic telephotos - they are a rough guide at best IMHO.

Nikon 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR Review - Page 2 of 7

photographylife.com

My long term tests with/without TC's, confirm image quality of the 800 PF is close to the 800 f5.6E FL, which is rated as one Nikon's best lenses. Today based on sharpness only, it is challenging to justify the exotic telephoto Nikkor primes (E FL and S Line) as superior, compared to the 500 PF and 600 PF, and also the best of the telephoto zooms (100-400 S, 180-600, 180-400 TC14). These are all high quality optics - producing excellent images in suitable conditions. All factors considered - there's more to consider besides pixelpeeping to rate the candidates, particularly for bird photography. Above all, I rate extra reach as essential - not only 1000mm but often 1120mm for birds in south-central African savannas. Weight of the rig is also a major factor, obviously, and here I find the 800 PF + Z9 is the ideal trade off.

 

[PhotoLover]

I would think the 600 + 1.4x beats the 800 for BIF just for flexibility in itself. It's much easier to maneuver a 3lb 11" long lens than a 5.25lb 15" lens. Any small lack in actual AF is mitigated.



As long as you have enough light, it's a great combo!

Canon's closest competitor is the 800mm F11, and I had a lot of fun with that lens. but the IQ is significantly worse than the 600PF + 1.4x. As it should be since it's like a $600 lens vs $4000 lens (used).

The 600 + 1.4 beats the 800 for BIF if and only if the AF and f 9 is good enough when you need more reach. I often wish I had more reach than the 500 pf alone gives me on a crop sensor -- and that's 750 FF equivalent. Of course, with the FF you can crop a lot more. But the need for more reach is why I put the 1.4 on the 500 sometimes.

That said, one of the things I love about the 500 pf is the light weight.

 

[EricBowles]

I don't think the 600mm PF + 1.4 TC is as good as the 800mm PF. The bare lens is a little better, but once you start cropping to 800mm proportions or adding a teleconverter the situation reverses. I do find the 600mm f/4 - all recent versions - with TC14E III is slightly sharper than the 800mm PF, but you are really splitting hairs and it's a lot more expensive and heavier combination.

So it's back to the idea that you should choose the lens for the focal length and subject matter you need most often. The TC is for part time additional reach, but carries tradeoffs. I also think considering the rest of your kit is part of making a good decision. In my case, I have compelling use cases for both the 800mm PF and 400mm f/4.5. The 600mm PF is not long enough for small birds, and redundant or too long for butterflies, dragonflies, and similar insects. I don't think there is much difference between the 600mm PF and 800mm PF, so I would only choose the 800mm PF if you photograph a lot of birds rather than mammals. I found the 800mm PF a bit long for mammals although you can fill the frame.

 

[Calson]

What applied to past lenses and non IS cameras is not going to hold true with cameras like the Z9 and lenses with VR Sync. I saw that with the Olympus E-M1 with its 5-axis internal image stabilization and the Olympus 300mm f/4 with this capability. I photographed a lizard at a distance of 6 feet and a shutter speed of 1/10s and the image was razor sharp. Not having a mirror results in removing mirror slap and also removes the inaccuracy of the autofocus fine tune adjustment that is set for a specific camera to subject distance.

Nikon's engineers have access to the teleconverter optical formulations and that of the new S lenses they are designing and able to minimize any aberrations. Having the image magnified by 40% is going to make any problems with subject movement or the photographer's technique roughly 40% more apparent.

Higher resolution images also show issues that might not be visible with a much lower resolution camera like the D5. I had to work differently with the D850 than the D5 with the same lenses and subjects to insure sharp images.

 

[ChrisM]

Based on experience with high end prime lenses of various brands, and TC's, I am inclined to believe that the Z600PF + 1.4TC will be virtually as good as the 800PF if the aim is to fill the frame with the subject.
If the aim is to gain more reach, so to get enough pixels on a subject not neccessarily nearby, then I am inclined to believe that the 800PF will get progressively better than the Z600PF + 1.4TC as the distance to your subject grows.
All TC's that I have tried, have their weakest performance at large distances with any lens.

F9 btw is very dim, so the Z800PF should also get progressively better as the level of light get's worse. So a proper daylight-only combo the Z600PF with 1.4TC.

I still see the Z800PF as one of the most desirable Z lenses made by Nikon, due to it's utterly unique balance of the right size, with the right weight, the right aperture/focal length compromise ánd the right price.
I don't see how I can avoid getting one myself at one stage...

The Z800PF would be the first Nikon Z lens I would get, over the Z600PF (with 1.4TC) because of the mentioned benefits. It's just far more allround than the highly specialized (for small size and featherlight weight) Z600PF. 800mm on a full frame sensor is not at all that long for a birder. The weight of the Z800PF means nothing to someone who has routinely shot a 600mm/f4 handheld only for the past years, meaning that for me it is absolutely a lightweight lens.

 

[Calson]

The 800mm PF in large part owes its usability to the fast autofocus with eye detection with Z cameras. With my DSLR cameras and lenses I nearly always needed to manually override the camera as it would not focus on the best part of a subject. I would focus on a foreground branch or a nose and not the eyes, etc.

The smaller the subject the more valuable eye detection becomes and it is the greatest advance in autofocus technology in the past 20 years. It needs to be seen first hand to appreciate how revolutionary it is for wildlife photographers.

 

[valmofab]

Désolé, j'utilise Google Translate car je suis français.

Quand je pense vraiment que le 800 pf sera meilleur que le 600 avec 1,4 pour le bif.

Avec mon 400 f4.5 et le tc 1.4 j'arrive à bien faire mais le 400 seul c'est vraiment mieux pas pour l'acquisition mais quand je compare la netteté et le nombre de photos ok c'est le jour et la nuit sur les oiseaux et c'était pareil sur le 500 pf avec le tc 1.4 iii.

Pour les oiseaux calmes, oui, le tc est très bien.

Fabien

 

[Anjin San]

When I owned the f-mount 500mm f/5.6 lens I used it on rare occasions with the TC-14 teleconverter. The VR was marginal with this setup. The in-camera IS is a good deal better and so I have been wondering whether the 600mm PF lens could be used with the 1.4x teleconverter in place of the 800mm PF lens. Has anyone come across images taken with this combination?

I know that I would lose an f-stop but the ability to use it on a boat is appealing. It would be an alternative to my 180-600mm with the 800mm PF and save nearly 6 lbs of lens weight in my bag.

Don’t have the 800…size and weight…but the 600PF with the 1.4 is just fine. Other replies indicate the IQ is the same…so I’m not missing the 800 at all. VR on the Z bodies is really darned good…and TBH the difference in final output resolution image is going to be so close that it likely won’t overcome the size, weight, to some extent cost, and relative focal length flexibility and usage IMO.

As to whether the bare 800 is better…depends on whether you’re at 2:1 in LR or whether the output is what you’re looking at…but the 600 and TC is more than good enough for me and is a lot fewer pounds and $$ although cost really didn’t have much weight in my decision.