Direct comparison 800mm f6.3 vs 600mm f4 FL

[wotan1]

My three suggestions/questions:

1. Put it on a tripod/gimbal
2. Shoot in bursts 20fps to see if this isn't an aberration
3. Try to find a bird that is relatively close and will fill the frame. Closer subjects tend to have less atmospheric issues.

Also, are these heavily cropped and how are you doing focus?

Something is really wrong here.

 

[IngeKJ]

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.

What technique are you talking about? 1/1250s on a perched bird should be sharp no matter how shaky you are. His technique suddenly sucks on the 800 but not with the 600? Please. This is right about my experience with this lens. It is not up to par with the 600 or 400 supers, and it has no reason to being almost one third of the price.

 

[Doug Herr]

View attachment 87006

Tried adding sharpening plus denoising. The focus is right on the eye. About 12 yards to it.

I've often seen atmospheric distortion at that distance (using a stratospheric-priced 600mm f/4, not a PF lens). I haven't read the entire thread but I'd try to eliminate the atmospheric distortion variable before drawing any conclusions. FWIW if the two photos in the initial post were the best possible from either lens I'd return both of them.

 

[wildpics]

View attachment 87006

Tried adding sharpening plus denoising. The focus is right on the eye. About 12 yards to it.

There's something wrong somewhere with your kit. The 800mm is not as sharp at the edges and contrasty as the 600 PF, but delivers great images.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Similar bird at 11 M or so, just opened in DxO, cropped to around the same as your size, saved as jpeg. No other adjustments made. Handheld, warmer weather than in UK when taken. Heron was in the shade. Let me know if you want the NEF file.

 

[foxysport]

Many thanks to all who responded. Very busy today, I will be sending through some photos to Nikon guys to examine, with the aim to exclude any issues with my Z9 copy's and otherwise, investigate. If the camera _is_ fine, most likely I'll be makign a move on 400mm or 600mm Z. For the RAW file above, if you could DM me, would be great, if there is a way.

Also, if anyone had some swallows in flight photos with this lens, please do share.

Thanks again everyone!

 

[froolk]

View attachment 87006

Tried adding sharpening plus denoising. The focus is right on the eye. About 12 yards to it.

Instead of creating four pages on the forum, please get up earlier to take photos - Your problems will probably disappear

 

[ARClark]

View attachment 87006

Tried adding sharpening plus denoising. The focus is right on the eye. About 12 yards to it.

Looks like it may have focused on the stem in front of the eye. However, this photo and several others, posted above, all have the appearance of softening from atmospherics/refraction. I’ve run into it countless times with focal lengths ranging from 300mm to over 800mm. Very common to see these conditions at this distance.

 

[froolk]

Looks like it may have focused on the stem in front of the eye. However, this photo and several others, posted above, all have the appearance of softening from atmospherics/refraction. I’ve run into it countless times with focal lengths ranging from 300mm to over 800mm. Very common to see these conditions at this distance.

I fully agree, that's why I suggested getting up earlier to take photos

 

[arbitrage]

The latest round of images shot with the 2nd copy of the 800PF all look like garbage. But they also all look like typical atmospheric distortion. The egret seems to be a combination of atmospherics and it focused on the blade of grass cutting across the image...2 strikes.

Can you post the uncropped image for the swallow shots? I'd like to see what amount of crop we are dealing with. Shooting swallows at 800 is a recipe for disaster 95% of the time. I shoot them at 300 and 400mm and get them fairly large in the frame. This is the way to get crisp detail. Shooting one at 800mm and cropping it to death is going to look bad even if there isn't atmospherics in play.

 

[nmerc_photos]

What technique are you talking about? 1/1250s on a perched bird should be sharp no matter how shaky you are. His technique suddenly sucks on the 800 but not with the 600? Please. This is right about my experience with this lens. It is not up to par with the 600 or 400 supers, and it has no reason to being almost one third of the price.

I suspect you're one of, if not the only person in the world with that opinion.

The IQ of the 800PF is so good that many shooters have given up their bulky 600 f4s all together. When looking at 800mm vs 840mm, many show the 800PF sharper.

In this case, the OP either keeps getting bad copies or has some significant technique flaw(s) that is present when using the 800PF but not when using the 600. Could be button placement. Settings. Trying for unrealistic shots (half a mile away, broad daylight, haze), whatever.

My guess is that the difference you (or anyone) sees in complaints from the 800PF vs 600s is because the 600 should be a significantly better lens (it's significantly more expensive afterall) and it can cover up many shooter's shortcomings. If you have any weakness in technique, a 600 may save you while the 800PF will illustrate those shortcomings.

Another explanation could be as simple as editing software. I haven't looked closely to see what OP is using - but I once owned an RF 800 F5.6 that was horrible. Turned out it was mainly because DXO didn't have the proper lens profile. Between a single Canon firmware and a DXO update - the images changed drastically.

I've never seen images this poor from the 800PF before.

 

[Ralph]

View attachment 87006

Tried adding sharpening plus denoising. The focus is right on the eye. About 12 yards to it.

Have you tried a rest shot inside your home?

 

[ChrisM]

I would simply dismiss the 600mm vs 800mm argument alltogether.
I routinely use the Sony 600GM with 1.4tc, and it is well known that Sony trails in lens OS.
Still, it is fairly easy to get perfectly sharp images at 840mm wide open handheld for static wildlife as well as BIF.

The first thing I would do, is get up at sunrise when circumstances allow, and take a decent amount of shots before any kind of thermal activity can set in.
That way you should be able to rule out a defective lens or defective camera body, and you will know just how susceptible the 800PF is to thermal disturbances and re-adjust shooting scenarios.
If the shots are still in any way soft, than there is something wrong with lens or camera body.

If you don't take the time to do this, you'll be going round in circles again and again.

 

[ajrmd]

I don't want to say that this thread has become annoying, but it has. The latest photo posted by the OP appears like the camera was kept in an AC environment, rushed outside in high humidity, and the image was shot through lens condensation. Either that, extreme atmospherics, or looking at the EXIF, it was severely overexposed (shot mid day) and then pulled back in PP'ing. The 800 PF is a high-quality lens almost on par with its f/5.6 brother and 600 f/4 cousin.

 

[foxysport]

I do not have time to reply to all the above today as I am getting up early tomorrow to go on a small shooting session, but quickly:

1. I stated clearly what distance approximately it was, like the egret was 8-12 yards at most. Egrets here do not allow one one to get any closer, so please stop talking about insane distances. It is not the case here at all.
2. Get up early. The photos were taken when the sun was near 20% elevation with +10C with no evidence of any shimmer in my Canon IS bins, so please stop making this up either.
3. Technique: I take a 100 or so photos in a continuous burst at high shutter speed with nearly all showing a small focus rectangle around the eye and each one of them is soft, so please do explain to me what technique exactly are you referring to.
4. Not doing things right with supertelephotos. Crossbills live here in canopies of extremely tall pine trees, so am I meant to fly up above and fill the frame with the bird? The do present an amazing target with interesting behaviour, poses and so on, should I just walk away? It is just an example of what the interesting subjects are here--most often than not completely outside of my control.
5. Adjusting for the environment. All the photos with the second copy were taken more than an hour after the equipment was outside.
6. Humidity, bah, there was no humidity to speak of, sunny day throughout with two sunny days prior with a small anticyclone settled. Also wrong assumption.

Will update you on my concrete findings tomorrow.

 

[Dawatm]

I can't believe we are still taking time out of the day to comment on this post. TGIF

 

[nmerc_photos]

I can't believe we are still taking time out of the day to comment on this post. TGIF

with the big influx of WFH and retirees coming out of COVID, lots of us can spend all day posting useless stuff on the internet. it's great

 

[wotan1]

I reread some of what is going on and I am trying to offer some common sense. I should mention that I am relatively new to wildlife photography but I have learned a lot recently.

First thing is that with longer lenses there Is a lot that can happen to rob a shot of sharpness and the longer the lens the greater chance of something going wrong.

fTo test a lens’ potential the causes of the problem need to be eliminated. This involves:
1. Shoot something that is very close so atmosphere will not be an issue. For my test I chose a moss covered bird bath within 15 to 20 ft of the lens. The subject should have a lot of fine detail And have a medium
2. Put the camera on a tripod. Eliminate any motion either in subject or camera.
3. Focus precisely on a single point and make sure the subject is evenly lighted and exposed correctly. Avoid EC for now.
4. Fill the frame with the subject
5. Shoot fx and do not crop
6. Examine in RAW and avoid introducing any Enhancement such as a sharpening or denoise
7. Make sure the camera temperature is equalized with the surroundings
8. Both lenses should be at roughly the same focal length. Compare the 800 against the 600 with tc engaged.

Once you do all this you will gain a sense of the lens’ potential.

 

[StefanSC]

Just 3 things to add to what wotan1 said:

1) Try not to shoot to close to the lenses minimum focus distance (for 800mm PF should be about 16ft so 30ft distance would be better.

2) Disable VR when on a tripod.

3) Use manual focus with peaking and zoom-in for precise and repeatable focus.

 

[wotan1]

agree with stefan`SC

I would add use a subject with medium tonal range not too dark or bright.

i would also pick something like camera normal color balance when using Lighgroom.

I am not clear what was used for processing I would stick with Lightroom Classic for the test.

 

[foxysport]

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.

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.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

It is difficult to post here without some form of cropping, which sometimes destroys EXIF.

Big tit, ring-necked pheasant, whitethroat, and a song thrush are taken with the second copy of 800mm f6.3. All the others with my current lens. I've only managed to take the pheasant with both lenses. Will add that shortly.

I am not sure what to think, these results are better, and I think the close-up songbirds are comparable (the song thrush impressed me most--there were a lot of good keepers, but a bit of foliage light around the big tit--and the result was not too convincing) but for the far subjects, I would trust the 600mm to do the job better. Not saying this as a strong opinion--simply based on small sample so far.

 

[ajrmd]

Nearly everyone of your subjects are underexposed against overcast, bright backgrounds. That’s no way to assess a lens.

 

[foxysport]

Nearly everyone of your subjects are underexposed against overcast, bright backgrounds. That’s no way to assess a lens.

I'll definitely listen to the collective wisdom here, but consider the big tit above, the original histogram is filling the full range, so what do you propose I should do? The leaves in the raw file are completely natural and, for that matter, the bird is exactly as it was seen.

Whitethroat admittedly was 1EV less than should have been, you are correct!

 

[Calson]

The 800mm focal length increase image magnification and size by 77% and so is going to magnify and problems with the lens or subject motion blur. For me the alternative to the 800mm PF that I own would be either the 600mm PF at 3.24 lb or the 180-600mm 4.3 lb lens. The 600mm f/4 at 7.2 lb is not something I would consider where I shoot and the subjects at hand.

Many great shots I have taken were done from a small boat and a tripod was out of the question. I want lenses that I can use both on land and on the water. That was the case with the 80-400mm and 500mm PF combination and now with the 400mm f/4.5 2.7 lb, 100-400mm 3.2 lb and 180-600mm 4.3 lb lens. I can take any two of these Z lenses and have a lighter overall load than with the 600mm f/4 TC lens (and its tripod and gimbal head).

There is also the matter of shooting video where a zoom lens is optimum and so it becomes a decision which lenses are available and that one can afford. The Canon 50-1000mm that costs $69,000 for the lens itself is beyond my means or my needs.

 

[Doug Herr]

If this is how you expect to use the lens then this is an appropriate way to test how well it will work for you. However most of these photos will not show what the lens is capable of under better conditions, i.e., no overcast sky in the background, less cropping. For most lenses the overcast sky is a detail- and color-killer and cropping always softens detail, but if this is how you'll use the lens these photos are probably the results you can expect.

 

[foxysport]

If this is how you expect to use the lens then this is an appropriate way to test how well it will work for you. However most of these photos will not show what the lens is capable of under better conditions, i.e., no overcast sky in the background, less cropping. For most lenses the overcast sky is a detail- and color-killer and cropping always softens detail, but if this is how you'll use the lens these photos are probably the results you can expect.

Well, to be fair the only reason I cropped is to get the files be accepted by this forum! My files are normally much bigger in size. This admittedly skews you opinion as you cannot appreciate (sometimes) nice environment.

It was overcast today for the most part, beating the weatherman. Having said that, I'm preparing for a trip to Scotland and overcast is what I'm going to get in spades.