Comparing the 800mm PF S with the new 600mm-S.

[johnehrenfeldphotography@gmail]

I would like any opinions based on what anyone has read or watched on comparing the 800mm PF S with the new 600mm.

Is the new 600mm optically better? Is it sharper? etc.

Aside from a f4.0 from an f6.3 and the built-in 1.4 TC is there any other substantive quality difference that would warrant a $9000 difference.

I can easily hand hold the 800 PF and I understand the new 600 is heavier.

Thank you!

 

[GrandNagus50]

Ok, I can't make a fully informed contribution to the discussion, but I will offer a semi-informed comment. I am guessing that Steve is the only one currently qualified to say something subtantive here, and even he really only had a limited time with the new 600mm. I am also guessing that strictly speaking, the 600 is "sharper," but there does come a point (increasingly often as equipment just keeps getting better) where we are talking pixel-peeping and nit-picking in terms of "sharper." That said, f4 vs f6.3 is still a big darned deal in terms of "faster" and shallower DOF for more pleasing backgrounds. Also, the 600 is surely more sturdily built, as is the custom with professional-level lenses.

I still have and use an "old" 600mm f4 VR G tele, now two generation transcended, and it sure seems sharp to me, even with the TC14eiii added on. I also really do not mind using an FTZ mount adapter, as the resulting difference in focusing speed seems to this amateur to be small. But the weight of this lens, over 11 pounds, is increasingly bothersome to a guy now firmly into his seventies. It remains a fabulous lens for close-to-the-lodge, in-the-blind," or "out the car window" photography, but when I have to take the rig out on the trail, I surely would appreciate a lens that weighs almost four pounds less. The price tag is pretty staggering, though, even were I to sell my older lens to help finance the switch.

Doug Greenberg

 

[johnehrenfeldphotography@gmail]

Doug that is helpful thank you. I still have my older 600 f4 (the lighter version) and love my new 800mm PF.

(It's hard for me to imagine the 800 PF being any sharper.)

The 600 f4 is strictly a tripod lens for me while the 800 PF I can hand hold.

Always try to gather as much info as possible before I make a substantial buying decision.

 

[Anjin San]

The 800 is expensive enough and has all the gee whiz bang coating words that my guess is that outside of the f4 and built in TC there might be a very slight difference in sharpness and IQ one would be hard pressed to see any difference…and even if there is a difference it might be more of a not quite the same difference rather than a better or worse difference. Steve’s the only on e here with experience with both…but both of his were pre product versions and he didn’t do a full battery of tests or IIRC any head to head comparison tests since they were not production, so any comparison is subjective at best. It is true that f4 gives better bokeh in some situations and the TC is handy…but they’re not enough for me to spend that much…but then I wouldn’t spend the 800 price either as it is overkill for my needs.

 

[johnehrenfeldphotography@gmail]

Excellent perspective I thank you.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

I would like any opinions based on what anyone has read or watched on comparing the 800mm PF S with the new 600mm.

Is the new 600mm optically better? Is it sharper? etc.

Aside from a f4.0 from an f6.3 and the built-in 1.4 TC is there any other substantive quality difference that would warrant a $9000 difference.

I can easily hand hold the 800 PF and I understand the new 600 is heavier.

Thank you!

Why — it is a pointless thread until both are in the hands of trusted testers. Otherwise folk are just comparing specs dandy theoretical charts. And it all comes down to budget appetite and use case. BTW I have / will have all these lenses hopefully very soon. And while one of these lenses cost more than the cost of a cheap car none cost more than 10% of a more expensive one - each to there own

 

[NorthernFocus]

I would like any opinions based on what anyone has read or watched on comparing the 800mm PF S with the new 600mm.

Is the new 600mm optically better? Is it sharper? etc.

Aside from a f4.0 from an f6.3 and the built-in 1.4 TC is there any other substantive quality difference that would warrant a $9000 difference.

I can easily hand hold the 800 PF and I understand the new 600 is heavier.

Thank you!

"Substantive quality difference" is purely subjective. No one can answer this question for you. What is "substantive" to you and how much is $9k to you? There's little doubt that it is technically a superior lens. And the flexibility of the built in TC is cool. Whether it's meaningful to any given individual and their needs is pretty hard to quantify.

But since you asked for opinions.... with unlimited funds I'd certainly upgrade the 600 E to the Z 600. Shaves over a pound and has the built-in TC.

 

[fcotterill]

There's been a couple of similar threads along the lines of this choice earlier in the year. And basically we have more telephoto choices in the Greater Nikon Ecosystem than there's time enough for most photographers to use fully, let alone carry around, not afford purchases (beyond a couple of models)

Question for Steve and every wildlife Photographer: Do we need both a Nikon Z 400 mm f2.8 with Tc and z 800 mm 6.3?

@Steve . I am a Nature conservation photographer. I sold all my DSLR cameras and all the lenses except the 300mm f2.8. I also kept my medium format gear for now to use for landscape and portrait. My main photography subjects are, like Steve and most of you Wildlife: goes from the tiny insects...

bcgforums.com

To add my 0.02c,
The 600 f4S TC - basically all we know is in Steve's preview and report, as well as the Nikon UK video (Ricci Chera and Morten Hilmer)

The 800 f6.3S PF is a truly unique telephoto. Handholdable being Remarkably light, nearly 1kg lighter than the new 600 Z mount, and over half the weight of the 800 f5.6E FL.
The image quality of the 800 PF is excellent, and slightly below the 800 f5.6, although the rendering and crispness of the latter is outstanding - with the 400 f2.8E FL which are just ahead of the rest ;-)

The key questions are firstly (1) how often you need 800 or if 840 using TC will suffice?

(2) will you comfortable with handholding 600 at 3.5 kg + camera?

(3) an equally poignant question is how often you need 1120mm or even more 'telephoto reach' to1600 ? I often use 1120 and occasionally 1600 for rarer opportunities. ThisTrue-800 niche also distinguishes the heavy 800 f5.6E which is 2 primes in one with its bespoke 800TC125 ie 1000 f7.1 with almost no perceptible difference in image quality.

All our ideals and hopes of images taken with a Telephoto lens especially @800mm or longer can wilt in the outdoors..... Atmospheric Dust and especially heat haze.

 

[johnehrenfeldphotography@gmail]

I thank everyone above for sharing their perspective. Respectfully I dont think its a "pointless thread" people here are serious photographers and I value their opinions. I never know if someone has heard or read something that might enlighten me. Thanks again!

 

[Steve]

I intend to do some quick tests when I get my production copy at the end of the month. As one of a handful of people who have actually shot both, I still can't say with any certainty which is sharper.

However, I can say I'd worry less about overall sharpness and rendering and think more on how you'll use the lens. Optical quality form either lens is world-class and you won't be disappointed. I agree with @fcotterill - I think the big question is how much you'll use the 600 / 840 vs just the 800. For me, 600 / 840 is the way to go for sure. However, everyone has different needs and if the vast majority of your shooting can be done with 800mm, that's an easy decision.

 

[johnehrenfeldphotography@gmail]

Thanks for taking the time to answer. It makes perfect sense. Equipment is all about choices and what works for one photographer might not work for another and vice-versa depending upon what they shoot. I am a 95% wildlife/bird photographer and the 800 Z9 combo is perfect for me. I rarely use my TC 1.4, have not found the f6.3 speed of the lens to be an issue and the bokeh I can achieve is very pleasing to my eye. Thanks again.

 

[Calson]

For me I have come to realize the advantages of lenses that can be hand held for photographing wildlife. The 800mm PF that I have can be hand held and that was not the case with my 600mm f/4E and would not be the case with the new Z 600mm lens. The new 600mm while lighter than the 600mm f/4E lens is still 2 lbs heavier than the 800mm PF lens and that is a substantial difference for hand holding the lens.

Thom Hogan in his review of the Z 400mm f/2.8 described quiet well the problems with the control buttons on the lens when trying to shoot it hand held. The hand supporting the lens cannot reach the control buttons. I noticed this with other Nikon Z lenses where the memory button is on the right side of the lens barrel and so not accessible when holding the camera with the right hand. The cameras are all designed to be held with the right hand but the memory button on the 400mm f/4.5 is on the top right side of the lens and not well positioned to press it with the left hand.

If I was primarily shooting in situations where a tripod was not a problem it would be different but many times on boats or on land a tripod was a detriment to my getting the images I wanted. I have the 100-400mm, 400mm f/4.5, 800mm PF, and the two Z teleconverters. At most I might need to use a monopod but a tripod is only needed for shooting video.

I had the chance last week to buy the Z 400mm f/2.8 and received the priority order for the Z 600mm earlier in the week. Both are lenses that put me back to the situation with the 600mm f/4 lenses I have owned in the past where a tripod with a gimbal head were required. I took the time to use Bridge to look at the focal lengths used for my wildlife images and found that the great majority were in the 400mm to 500mm range. In those situations where I used the 600mm lens it was often with the 1.4x TC for 840mm at f/5.6. The 800mm f/4 is equally effective in those situations.

The 500mm PF lens was a revelation with the reach and image magnification of a super telephoto but the size and weight of a 70-200mm zoom lens. Even before getting the 500mm PF lens I often grabbed the 80-400mm with or without a 1.4x teleconverter instead of pulling out the tripod and 600mm f/4 lens. I got many shots that I would have missed with the 600mm lens and tripod setup time required.

Mobility is usually overlooked but whenever I see photographers with big lenses on tripods they tend to plant their tripods and then shoot from that spot at a comfortable height and never change until the subject leaves the area. A tripod is essential for landscape and asto photography but a detriment in ways when photographing critters.

 

[Mark Garfinkel]

I intend to do some quick tests when I get my production copy at the end of the month. As one of a handful of people who have actually shot both, I still can't say with any certainty which is sharper.

However, I can say I'd worry less about overall sharpness and rendering and think more on how you'll use the lens. Optical quality form either lens is world-class and you won't be disappointed. I agree with @fcotterill - I think the big question is how much you'll use the 600 / 840 vs just the 800. For me, 600 / 840 is the way to go for sure. However, everyone has different needs and if the vast majority of your shooting can be done with 800mm, that's an easy decision.

Have you used the TC2.0 and would you choice be the same?

 

[Steve]

Have you used the TC2.0 and would you choice be the same?

I don't own the 2X yet, but I'll probably get it. So, again, not sure

 

[Roy]

I would like any opinions based on what anyone has read or watched on comparing the 800mm PF S with the new 600mm.

Is the new 600mm optically better? Is it sharper? etc.

Aside from a f4.0 from an f6.3 and the built-in 1.4 TC is there any other substantive quality difference that would warrant a $9000 difference.

I can easily hand hold the 800 PF and I understand the new 600 is heavier.

Thank you!

Like all its predecessors the 600mm is much heavier.
600mm seems the sweep stop for birding.
The 600mm PF is sharper and doesn't have that PF funny bokeh.
But for versatility I would choose the 400mm TC instead...