600pf vs 100-400

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).

ingweDave

ingweDave

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I was out photographing some local Kestrels this week. I had two Z9 set up, one with a 600pf, the other a 100-400. The intention was to use the 600pf for portrait shots and the 100-400 for flight shots, as the birds took off. I was using two cable releases, (I find my success rate when using a cable release is much better.) firing both at the same time on occasions. It wasn't my intention but I caught the two similar shots below, at the same time.
This was not a scientific test but it does seem to show a reasonable comparison. The settings are similar but the second image from the 100-400 has been cropped to a similar size as the 600.

Overall I am very happy with the rendering of the images from the 600pf. I have always favoured prime lenses but the zooms provide a good deal of versatility.
Z92_8033-Edit-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Z92_5593-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
I can't wait to see the discussion this generates :)
Click to expand...

At least we don't have to decide which one to buy!!

I own both of these lens.

You say the processing was the same - was that exactly the same in terms of key factors like exposure, contrast, detail?

If so I would say DON'T look at the bird. Look at the post on the left and the chain. The 600PF has stronger micro contrast. This is why some of the images from it just look stronger SOOC. This could just be processing.

Yes both lens do great work.
 
Member's gallery
ingweDave said:
I was out photographing some local Kestrels this week. I had two Z9 set up, one with a 600pf, the other a 100-400. The intention was to use the 600pf for portrait shots and the 100-400 for flight shots, as the birds took off. I was using two cable releases, (I find my success rate when using a cable release is much better.) firing both at the same time on occasions. It wasn't my intention but I caught the two similar shots below, at the same time.
This was not a scientific test but it does seem to show a reasonable comparison. The settings are similar but the second image from the 100-400 has been cropped to a similar size as the 600.

Overall I am very happy with the rendering of the images from the 600pf. I have always favoured prime lenses but the zooms provide a good deal of versatility.View attachment 92973

View attachment 92974
Click to expand...
Dave, A rare chance to see a field comparison of the 2 lenses. I do like the 600pf better but the 100-400mm is better than I would expect (especially considering the crop). Thanks for posting.
 
Member's gallery
Hooligans Imagery said:
At least we don't have to decide which one to buy!!

I own both of these lens.

You say the processing was the same - was that exactly the same in terms of key factors like exposure, contrast, detail?

If so I would say DON'T look at the bird. Look at the post on the left and the chain. The 600PF has stronger micro contrast. This is why some of the images from it just look stronger SOOC. This could just be processing.

Yes both lens do great work.
Click to expand...
I have not had a chance to spend any time processing these shots. TBH I never do spend much time and do not claim to be an expert at post processing. In this case they have been imported into Lightroom and auto adjustment applied, until I have time to look at them later. (It is almost certain that Lightroom has chosen to use slightly different adjustments on each.) I tend to "Try" and follow the path of a couple of pro wildlife photographers I know and leave them a few weeks before looking in detail.
It is quite possible that human error comes into play with either of these images. I tend to get quite obsessed with the backgrounds and that is where I find the primes are better.
(I have been playing with the Z135 Plena recently and that gives amazing backgrounds. I have been attempting to use it for semi macro subjects.)
 
Member's gallery
ingweDave said:
I have not had a chance to spend any time processing these shots. TBH I never do spend much time and do not claim to be an expert at post processing. In this case they have been imported into Lightroom and auto adjustment applied, until I have time to look at them later. (It is almost certain that Lightroom has chosen to use slightly different adjustments on each.) I tend to "Try" and follow the path of a couple of pro wildlife photographers I know and leave them a few weeks before looking in detail.
It is quite possible that human error comes into play with either of these images. I tend to get quite obsessed with the backgrounds and that is where I find the primes are better.
(I have been playing with the Z135 Plena recently and that gives amazing backgrounds. I have been attempting to use it for semi macro subjects.)
Click to expand...

Ah the Plena is my favorite lens of all. If you like backgrounds you have found a gem.

Yes if you applied auto I suspect that is part of it.

I find that of my Z lens, the Plena, the 105 and the 600 offer greater micro contrast, meaning, something like the chain or a block of cheese.... shows a bit more texture SOOC.

You have shown though that both lens are quite capable.
 
Member's gallery
Hooligans Imagery said:
Ah the Plena is my favorite lens of all. If you like backgrounds you have found a gem.

Yes if you applied auto I suspect that is part of it.

I find that of my Z lens, the Plena, the 105 and the 600 offer greater micro contrast, meaning, something like the chain or a block of cheese.... shows a bit more texture SOOC.

You have shown though that both lens are quite capable.
Click to expand...
Try the 1.2s. Very similar rendering.
 
Member's gallery
To me, the difference in the bokeh and background is the story emerging from this comparison. The Z 600 seems to have eliminated the background almost entirely, though it's also nice with the zoom, just more noticeable. Very helpful, and illuminating comparison! Thank you for posting these.

Btw...both are great images, well done!
 
Member's gallery
I owned the Z100-400 but sold it to get the 600 PF. I used the 100-400 with the 1.4 TC and the 600 is clearly better in my opinion. Someone mentioned micro contrast and that is probably what it is. I have gone birding with a friend who uses the 180-600 and I always prefer my photos.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Carmel Nikon said:
To me, the difference in the bokeh and background is the story emerging from this comparison. The Z 600 seems to have eliminated the background almost entirely, though it's also nice with the zoom, just more noticeable. Very helpful, and illuminating comparison! Thank you for posting these.

Btw...both are great images, well done!
Click to expand...
This is a fair point and I expected it to be raised. I had one compensation set for birds taking off into another area with slightly different light.
There is also the difference between 6.3 & 5.6 but if it had been the other way round on the lenses, I think that would be more relevant.
 
Member's gallery
The only differences I see between those two are color saturation (which most likely isn't caused by the lense), and the background rendering (most likely caused by a combination of different apperture, exposure and focal length). The latter being the only aspect being lense related.

Definetely nothing that would force a decision between those lenses, that would come down to flexibility, what I shoot more and price.
 
Member's gallery
jhallettbc said:
I owned the Z100-400 but sold it to get the 600 PF. I used the 100-400 with the 1.4 TC and the 600 is clearly better in my opinion. Someone mentioned micro contrast and that is probably what it is. I have gone birding with a friend who uses the 180-600 and I always prefer my photos.
Click to expand...

If looking at 600Pf versus 180-600 means comparing apples and orange, doing it with the 100-400 plus TC and the 600PF naked is comparing rosinas with coconuts :D .

Comparisons are always a question of prioritizing different criteria and no surprise the primes are normally always the winner in IQ.
Not always but In many cases flexibility comes at the cost of more or less IQ, on the other hand you win MFD.
And even the primes have to pay their price for flexibility, especially in terms of agility /handholdability, and the currency is stops of light.

In the end for everyone of us it is the question what we want to do and what could be the best tool for this.

There are a couple people that e.g. have both the 180-600 and the 600PF of even "the big one" and I can see why.
If I simply had the money I'd do the same and It could well be that I have the 600 f4 sitting on the big tripod with body 1 and the 180-600 with body 2 on ly laps in case something happens that I simply can't get with the big one or I can't afford to spoil the setup for the primary target. I used to do this in DSLR days with two primes, one shorter and one longer and fast, because I didn't have the proper zoom lens or - to be honest - I disliked the 200-500 so much for its handling and got the 500PF instead ...
... a bit similar decision in terms of zoom versus prime that you have taken in the Z age ;)
 
Member's gallery
I have both these lenses as well as the 400f4.5. I have noticed overall that the 600pf is not only the sharpest but also the richest in terms of color and detail. However the 100-400 having excellent close focus is a keeper as well. It handles well, gets good shots and is great when you need a zoom. For me the 180-600 would be OK but I would miss the better resolution of the 600pf and use the 100-400 on a second body and no longer use the 1.4tc on it. The 400f4.5 is my low light lens as I can’t afford exotics.
 
Member's gallery
What an interesting comparison! Both lenses are excellent, and while I agree that the 600PF provides better image quality, the 100-400 isn't far off. The difference in exposure compensation (-0.7 v. +0.3) makes a difference, too. I own both lenses, BTW, and use the 600 primarily for birds and the 100-400 for mammals or for its closer MFD. I continue to be impressed by both.
 
Member's gallery
ingweDave said:
I was out photographing some local Kestrels this week. I had two Z9 set up, one with a 600pf, the other a 100-400. The intention was to use the 600pf for portrait shots and the 100-400 for flight shots, as the birds took off. I was using two cable releases, (I find my success rate when using a cable release is much better.) firing both at the same time on occasions. It wasn't my intention but I caught the two similar shots below, at the same time.
This was not a scientific test but it does seem to show a reasonable comparison. The settings are similar but the second image from the 100-400 has been cropped to a similar size as the 600.

Overall I am very happy with the rendering of the images from the 600pf. I have always favoured prime lenses but the zooms provide a good deal of versatility.View attachment 92973

View attachment 92974
Click to expand...
I love this. I like this comparison. It is very helpful. I have both lenses and don‘t have a way to do such a comparison. Thanks.
 
Member's gallery
Just got back from safari in South Africa. Used the 600 f6.3 with the Z9 and 100-400 f4.5-5.6 with the Z6II. 600 for small birds and distant mammals and 100-400 for close to road mammals, large birds and landscapes. Killer combination. Had both next to me when we were in the Kruger. When hunting, I had the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 with the Z9 in a ThinkTank Digital Holster 50 V2.0. Didn't miss a shot. Went to DX to get 600 coverage at 19 mpx with that combination. Hard to tell the difference between the two lenses in the field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top