Direct comparison 800mm f6.3 vs 600mm f4 FL
- Thread starter foxysport
- 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).
fcotterill
Well-known member
I've encountered terrible effects of heat haze with 400mm lenses in tropical Africa, particularly across heated substrates, bare basaltic soil and floodplains are among the worst.
Simple to simulate by photographing across a hot engine of a car
Smoke from fires and temperature inversions cause similar adverse effects
These conditions trash images with any of the longer Telephotos, whether the 'reach' is gained with a native prime or using a teleconverter.
ChrisM
Well-known member
Yes, I am aware of this.
But the question here is, why is the susceptibility to heat haze mentioned as a specific downside to the 800PF in a comparison with the 600TC?
Does the 600TC suffer less at 600mm and 840mm?
Also, it remains a statistical fact, that since the launch of the 800PF, the posts about heat haze have multiplied, while I would have to search hard for posts on the 600PF or the 600TC which mention this phenomenon.
It is possible that it has to do with the users of the 800PF, being less experienced at long distance shooting than the average 600TC owner, but still, the 800PF has really put heat haze on the map.
I love the images made with this lens though, and am saving up to get one myself next to the Sony 600GM, and will then be able to compare.
When talking about atmospheric distortion (heat haze), all that really matters is the amount of atmosphere you're shooting through (regardless of which lens is being used). I think you're probably spot on about it being more related to more people getting access to long(er) focal lengths that they haven't shot with before. More focal length = targets become acceptably large in the frame from longer distances, while with shorter focal lenghts you would have to get closer to get an acceptable shot (hence less atmospheric influence).
foxysport
Active member
Hear me out with my thoughts on this (will get a new copy soon to experiiment more). I am theoretical physicist by education, having worked in multi-dimensional gravitation theory, quantum electrodynamics, high-energy astrophysics, and then moved to computer science. Optics is something I studied a long time ago. In essence, Fresnel approximation of diffraction patterns is not easy, if the normal Fraunhofer approximations do not work, we're in a weird and complex regime of very complex integrals (very nonlinear stuff).
My theory is that when the subject is, say, 1/3 of the frame or less, we have a chance that the light rays coming into the objective lens are arriving from scattered light irradiating the leaves, water, or even atmosphere in the heat haze or similar conditions. These rays are much more complex to account for, so even if the PF-including lens deals well with normally irradiated objects (in the best controlled case, stuffed toys come to mind), the tolerances the designers worked with hold well and the PF lens performs extremely well.
What happened with gull I posted before is potentially stray reflections on the water ripples cast extra rays into the objectve. What happens in this case is unpredictable potentially, when we are speaking about a busy bokeh, in the case of such scattered reflections a similar thing happens but within the subject itself, not just in the bokeh we normally care less about. This would explain why you absolutely _can_ get very sharp photos with this lens but equally, you _can_ also get unexpectedly and disproportionally bad photos with this lens.
In contrast, non-PF traditional design is much simpler where the majority of work is done by refraction through the dispersion of the lens bulk, it is very well understood optics from long ago. These lenses like Sony, Canon, or Nikon exotics are not really exotics, they are quite standard (at least theoretically) so they do not suffer from these stray rays phenomena as much or even to any significant degree. So another example was a raptor in flight, very small in the frame, the atmospheric distortion creates stray rays around the subject/bird, all hitting the objective and potentially, according to my theory/hunch above, affecting the resulting photo more than is the case for the really quite standard 'exotics'.
My theory is that when the subject is, say, 1/3 of the frame or less, we have a chance that the light rays coming into the objective lens are arriving from scattered light irradiating the leaves, water, or even atmosphere in the heat haze or similar conditions. These rays are much more complex to account for, so even if the PF-including lens deals well with normally irradiated objects (in the best controlled case, stuffed toys come to mind), the tolerances the designers worked with hold well and the PF lens performs extremely well.
What happened with gull I posted before is potentially stray reflections on the water ripples cast extra rays into the objectve. What happens in this case is unpredictable potentially, when we are speaking about a busy bokeh, in the case of such scattered reflections a similar thing happens but within the subject itself, not just in the bokeh we normally care less about. This would explain why you absolutely _can_ get very sharp photos with this lens but equally, you _can_ also get unexpectedly and disproportionally bad photos with this lens.
In contrast, non-PF traditional design is much simpler where the majority of work is done by refraction through the dispersion of the lens bulk, it is very well understood optics from long ago. These lenses like Sony, Canon, or Nikon exotics are not really exotics, they are quite standard (at least theoretically) so they do not suffer from these stray rays phenomena as much or even to any significant degree. So another example was a raptor in flight, very small in the frame, the atmospheric distortion creates stray rays around the subject/bird, all hitting the objective and potentially, according to my theory/hunch above, affecting the resulting photo more than is the case for the really quite standard 'exotics'.
Last edited:
I‘m with the school of thought(Chris & Jochen) that in general, the 800 is more accessible to many inexperienced photographers who are shooting subjects way to distant. Experienced owners of this lens would know their subject and use it to fill the frame when anything less (600 or less) would not meet their needs. Quite a few photos on flicker were subjects that were small in the frame and that would certainly degrade the photo.
foxysport
Active member
While this is true and I liked this message myself, in practice, having a gull in the range of 6-8 meters is entirely typical situation, so being 'wise' about these and somehow, knowing the subject would have resulted in no photos. Second to that, on the contrary, I know that a 600mm in those specific circulstances would have resulted in a stellar photo (albeit of a very common bird). So what's up with the 800mm making a hash of it? According to the Nikon guy, it is not normal, but how abnormal this is remains to be seen in some more experiments I'm intending to perform on a fresh copy.
I’m not debating that you have a bad copy. I am leaning in that direction as well. But I stand by my previous statement that many people are expecting too much from a super-telephoto, especially the 800. They are not using them in the intended way.
foxysport
Active member
I fully agree with this. Thanks!
foxysport
Active member
A fresh copy of 800mm f6.3 should be on the way here today. Hopefully, will have a chance to take it for a spin towards the end of the week.
StefanSC
Well-known member
Before you take it for a spin, maybe try a static test using a tripod and a stuffed toy? Manual focus, delayed release and such...
Just to have a baseline of what sharpeness you should expect from the lens?
Just to have a baseline of what sharpeness you should expect from the lens?
foxysport
Active member
We shall see ;-) Thanks!
I remember the warnings when the 36 mp D800 came out. Nikon advised new users of the need for proper handling technique with this high resolution camera. Now we have even more megapixels and longer lens.
In the gunny world "heat haze" is called mirage.
In the gunny world "heat haze" is called mirage.
Last edited:
StefanSC
Well-known member
But now we have VR in body and it syncs with the one in the lens and it is auto-magical... why worry about handling technique?
fcotterill
Well-known member
Nikon recommended a similar list for the D850, which I cannot find
This is the recommended list of Nikkors for the D810
D810 TIPS
nps.nikonimaging.com
With cameras like the D800E, which are suited to photography of visually complex subjects, maximizing lens resolution is vital. Though results will vary from lens to lens, the greatest contrast all the way to frame peripheries can generally be achieved at an aperture setting two to three stops down from maximum aperture. Some lenses that offer excellent resolution are listed below.
- AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
- AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
- AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED
- AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
- AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR
- AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR
- AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
- AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR
- AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
- AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II
- AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED
- AF-S NIKKOR 28mm f/1.8G
- AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G
- AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G
- AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G
- AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G
- AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G
- AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G
- AF-S NIKKOR 200mm f/2G ED VR II
- AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II
- AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
- AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR
- AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR
- AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR
- AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR
- AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED
- AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
- PC-E NIKKOR 24mm f/3.5D ED
- PC-E Micro NIKKOR 45mm f/2.8D ED
- PC-E Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8D
foxysport
Active member
I have worked with two supertelephoto's in the last one year and a half or so: a Sigma 500mm f4.0 Sport and a Nikkor 600mm f4.0 FL. I won't say my technique is excellent but I have been around with those and can handle and hand-hold these as well as use them with a Systematic tripod plus a Wimberley gimbal in a variety of ways without and with TC's. I've seen what works (for me) and what doesn't. I am also relatively familiar with a 400mm f4.5 that I use far less frequently but I know what's it's capable of as well. I have also used a 300mm 2.8 VR II and a 200mm 2.0 VR II and know their strengths and limitations.
With the above, going 1-2 down is not a bad option if it does not lower the ISO too much.
With the above, going 1-2 down is not a bad option if it does not lower the ISO too much.
Dinusaur
Member
This is a very plausible explanation - the scattered light is handled differently in a PF lens vs. the non-PF lens despite the surrounding conditions being the same for both, the difference is in internal lens elements. May be that's the reason why Nikon included 'PF Flare' correction in Capture NX-D.
foxysport
Active member
I would expect that the hood plays an important role especially for PF-lenses and a longer hood would be of extra benefit. I do not have a longer hood at this time but will check the same subject with and without the standard hood to see if I find any difference.
I don't have a 600mm f4. I do have the 800mm pf and I have also shot with the 600mm pf.
I have been extremely pleased with the 800 pf. I tend to shoot at higher shutter speeds than have been used by the OP here. I also shoot frequently in bursts at 20 fps.
It is my understanding, when shooting at 800mm even tiny twitches or blinks can affect sharpness. Shooting in bursts increases the chance that you will catch the bird when it was not moving, resulting in a sharper image. This is in addition to the atmospheric issues which are always more pronounced shooting at longer focal lengths.
It is very difficult to judge images that have themselves been reduced for uploading to a web site and being displayed on a computer screen.
This lens has done wonders for me and I have been very pleased with what I have been able to get. My reactions to this lens are similar to the reactions Steve Perry had with this lens when he first reviewed it. Many others who have used this lens have had similar experiences.
I have been extremely pleased with the 800 pf. I tend to shoot at higher shutter speeds than have been used by the OP here. I also shoot frequently in bursts at 20 fps.
It is my understanding, when shooting at 800mm even tiny twitches or blinks can affect sharpness. Shooting in bursts increases the chance that you will catch the bird when it was not moving, resulting in a sharper image. This is in addition to the atmospheric issues which are always more pronounced shooting at longer focal lengths.
It is very difficult to judge images that have themselves been reduced for uploading to a web site and being displayed on a computer screen.
This lens has done wonders for me and I have been very pleased with what I have been able to get. My reactions to this lens are similar to the reactions Steve Perry had with this lens when he first reviewed it. Many others who have used this lens have had similar experiences.
I also re-revuewed the testing done by Steve Perry:
In that video he directly compared the 6oomm f4 tc vr s with teleconverter attached with the 800mm pf. He reached the conclusion the lenses were practically identical in sharpness, He concluded that if anything the 800mm was slightly sharper, perhaps about 2 percent under these conditions.
The other thing to remember is the fastest 800mm on the market comes in at f5.6. The 800mm pf is only slightly narrower at f6.3, about a third of an F stop. The 600mm f4 with the 1.4x tc engaged is f5.6.
Of course the 600mm f4 has the ability to function both as a 600mm and 840mm lens at the flip of a lever. Those advantages will cost you $16 grand instead of $6500 for the 800 pf.
In that video he directly compared the 6oomm f4 tc vr s with teleconverter attached with the 800mm pf. He reached the conclusion the lenses were practically identical in sharpness, He concluded that if anything the 800mm was slightly sharper, perhaps about 2 percent under these conditions.
The other thing to remember is the fastest 800mm on the market comes in at f5.6. The 800mm pf is only slightly narrower at f6.3, about a third of an F stop. The 600mm f4 with the 1.4x tc engaged is f5.6.
Of course the 600mm f4 has the ability to function both as a 600mm and 840mm lens at the flip of a lever. Those advantages will cost you $16 grand instead of $6500 for the 800 pf.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Best Telephoto Options in the Z Mount | Thom Hogan
What's the best telephoto option for a Z camera at 200-800mm?
www.zsystemuser.com
Nikon 800mm f/6.3 PF VR S Lens Review | Thom Hogan
Review of the Nikon 800mm f/6.3 lens for the Z System
www.zsystemuser.com
I agree with this conclusion: "All of the above was suggested by Nikon's "flat" MTF charts. Someone dialed in the optical formula really, really well. This lens is about as good as I've ever seen at 800mm (or equivalent). Moreover, at the US$6500 price, I don’t know of another 800mm option that comes even reasonably close."
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
All of Nikon's phase-fresnel primes are outstanding optics. Each is a game changer in its own right. None suffers from lack of acuity nor contrast, and run a close second to the exotic" E FL Telephoto primes.
I'm one of the thousands of happy campers who've used both F-mount PF's over several years out in the wild with excellent results; the same applies to the 800 PF almost daily since early May 2022.
I've not seen data on the newest 600 PF, however the 300 PF and 500 PF pair very well with the TC14 III, and TC17 II in the case of the 300. Both the Z TC's deliver good results on the 800 PF, subject to careful technique and optimal atmospherics if photographing more distant subjects.
One can get cases of poor quality with a PF lens, particularly with glare and reflections, where a CPL can help. I don't hesitate to use the C-PL460 (image etc here) in the 800 PF when conditions dictate; it's essential to mitigate reflection off African savanna vegetation, such as mopane leaves.
I'm one of the thousands of happy campers who've used both F-mount PF's over several years out in the wild with excellent results; the same applies to the 800 PF almost daily since early May 2022.
I've not seen data on the newest 600 PF, however the 300 PF and 500 PF pair very well with the TC14 III, and TC17 II in the case of the 300. Both the Z TC's deliver good results on the 800 PF, subject to careful technique and optimal atmospherics if photographing more distant subjects.
One can get cases of poor quality with a PF lens, particularly with glare and reflections, where a CPL can help. I don't hesitate to use the C-PL460 (image etc here) in the 800 PF when conditions dictate; it's essential to mitigate reflection off African savanna vegetation, such as mopane leaves.
foxysport
Active member
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.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Quick grab and run at Posbrook Floods here with the new copy. Had to crop closely to be able to post.
Quick comments: I did not like that Egyptian goose, it was about 30-35 yards, but I am positive my 600mm would have nailed it, not to mention that really busy grass behind.
Last edited:
Nature Files
Active member
I think it's clear that the 800 just isn't a good fit for you. The chances of you having tried two "defective" 800s are really slim, so the only other conclusion is that it's something with your technique.
Defending the merits of a lens that has proven track record with countless exceptional images is also getting long in the tooth. We've now spent 4 pages trying to figure out why you can't get acceptable results with this lens. While I've enjoyed the thread, I think it's time you put the 800 to bed.
Defending the merits of a lens that has proven track record with countless exceptional images is also getting long in the tooth. We've now spent 4 pages trying to figure out why you can't get acceptable results with this lens. While I've enjoyed the thread, I think it's time you put the 800 to bed.
foxysport
Active member
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Tried adding sharpening plus denoising. The focus is right on the eye. About 12 yards to it.