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

[foxysport]

Just to update on this, I have approved now the following repairs of which the Z9 ones are the most important ones for this thread.

Nikon: Z 9​

There is an impact damage affecting the external unit. We need to set up and recalibrate, check & clean, replace parts as described and sensor clean full.

AF-S 600/4E FL ED VR​

There is an optical misalignment affecting the Focus System. We need to replace parts as described, set up and recalibrate and check & clean.

 

[foxysport]

Just to give closure to this thread. I have received my camera and lens from repairs. I think Fixation have done a good job but I am still uncertain about this Z9 copy's performance. The 800mm 6.3 is now returned. Instead, below photo (55% resized) is taken with my new lens: NIKKOR Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S Z at 840mm f5.6 1/1600 ISO 1250. I am going to also see how a brand new Z8 will work with this new lens and in the extreme case I am not happy, possibly return everything and go Canon R5 Mk2 or Sony.

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

 

[ajrmd]

Glad to hear you received your gear back and they were able to repair the issues. Hopefully, it wasn't too expensive and the equipment will perform to your satisfaction. I have a sneaking suspicion that this was one of the reasons behind your angst with the 800.

 

[foxysport]

Many thanks for your well wishes, I need those. The bewildering behaviour of my Z9 prior to the repairs was err frustrating. With this new lens and a new camera to collect tomorrow and check the day after, Nikon better deliver as for my much maligned technique it's been on the spot here for all to see.

 

[fcotterill]

Whilst not quite an apples to apples comparison, PL tested the 800 5.6 F mount against the Z800 6.3 & found the sharpness of the former to be measurably superior (see link below). Obviously, as you note, it’s always a compromise with these things & I hope things work out for you. I have an older 600 f4 g vr & a 500 pf, and I often find myself using the pf more often simply because it is significantly easier to carry around. However, there is a noticeable difference in quality/rendering between the two in favour of the former in my opinion (I cannot quite articulate it, but amongst other things the colour, the background & the sharpness).

https://photographylife.com/comparison/nikon-z-800mm-f-6-3-pf-vs-nikon-800mm-f-5-6e-fl

The review by Photography Life does not do justice to the high quality of the 800 PF, or the 800 f5.6E FL

Nikkor Z 800mm 6.3 VR S

Team Experts, Please guide me on Nikkor 800mm 6.3 VR S lense with Z 8 and Z 6 ii ? As this is a expensive. What will be TC will work with subject lense? Raju

bcgforums.com

Comparisons: 800mm f5.6E FL and 800mm f6.3S PF Nikkors

Here follow a selection of images taken over the past several months with both lenses, with/without their respective teleconverters. I have built up a sizeable database since mid 2022, when time and conditions permitted. I took all these primarily with the aim of trying to define the...

bcgforums.com

 

[wotan1]

I may be facing a decision.

When shooting birds I am pretty much always shooting at 800mm plus in my usual haunts. If I run into something shorter I can go to the 400mm f4.5 and I can crop with that lens.

I may soon be in the position to get a super prime. What I want to know is, if I get the 600 f4 tc, is it going to add anything significant to what I currently can do with the 800mm pf. More specifically is it going to add enough to justify spending 14 grand worth of better.

I know Steve Perry did a test comparison a while ago, and he concluded the 800 was slightly better optically at 800 than the 600 with tc engaged. On top of which the 800 is lighter and easier to handle.

Sure, the 600 is like two lenses, 600 and 840. But I really don't shoot 600 all that much and what little I do at that length can easily be handled with a 400mmn aided by cropping or dx.

So the comparison I want to see is between a 600mm f4 with internal TC engaged versus the 800 at its native 800.

When I am ready to act I will rent one and do a direct real world comparison.

 

[MarkB]

I may be facing a decision.

When shooting birds I am pretty much always shooting at 800mm plus in my usual haunts. If I run into something shorter I can go to the 400mm f4.5 and I can crop with that lens.

I may soon be in the position to get a super prime. What I want to know is, if I get the 600 f4 tc, is it going to add anything significant to what I currently can do with the 800mm pf. More specifically is it going to add enough to justify spending 14 grand worth of better.

I know Steve Perry did a test comparison a while ago, and he concluded the 800 was slightly better optically at 800 than the 600 with tc engaged. On top of which the 800 is lighter and easier to handle.

Sure, the 600 is like two lenses, 600 and 840. But I really don't shoot 600 all that much and what little I do at that length can easily be handled with a 400mmn aided by cropping or dx.

So the comparison I want to see is between a 600mm f4 with internal TC engaged versus the 800 at its native 800.

When I am ready to act I will rent one and do a direct real world comparison.

When I shot the D850 I owned the 800 f5.6 and it is an incredible lens, but when I moved to the Z8 I wanted something lighter and so moved to the 800 f6.3. The 800 5.6 is sharper and it has a matched 1.25x teleconverter to go to 1000mm f7.1. But it's big and heavy. I might be inclined to go back to that lens if I didn't mind the weight and was usually shooting at 800mm. To me it would be preferable to the 600 f4 TC and last time I looked you can still purchase a new one for less than the 600 and they are 7 to 8k on the used market.

 

[nmerc_photos]

I may be facing a decision.

When shooting birds I am pretty much always shooting at 800mm plus in my usual haunts. If I run into something shorter I can go to the 400mm f4.5 and I can crop with that lens.

I may soon be in the position to get a super prime. What I want to know is, if I get the 600 f4 tc, is it going to add anything significant to what I currently can do with the 800mm pf. More specifically is it going to add enough to justify spending 14 grand worth of better.

I know Steve Perry did a test comparison a while ago, and he concluded the 800 was slightly better optically at 800 than the 600 with tc engaged. On top of which the 800 is lighter and easier to handle.

Sure, the 600 is like two lenses, 600 and 840. But I really don't shoot 600 all that much and what little I do at that length can easily be handled with a 400mmn aided by cropping or dx.

So the comparison I want to see is between a 600mm f4 with internal TC engaged versus the 800 at its native 800.

When I am ready to act I will rent one and do a direct real world comparison.

If you don't value 600 f4, imo there's no reason to look at the 600TC. Bigger, longer, heavier, more expensive.

While the 600TC with TC engaged does offer better IQ than the 800PF, it isn't enough of a difference to justify the purchase based on IQ alone. The two benefits of the 600TC are the low light performance (f4 vs f6.3) and the smaller MFD 4.3m (14.10') vs 5m (16.41').

 

[wotan1]

If you don't value 600 f4, imo there's no reason to look at the 600TC. Bigger, longer, heavier, more expensive.

While the 600TC with TC engaged does offer better IQ than the 800PF, it isn't enough of a difference to justify the purchase based on IQ alone. The two benefits of the 600TC are the low light performance (f4 vs f6.3) and the smaller MFD 4.3m (14.10') vs 5m (16.41').

My understanding is that if you engage the Tc on the 600 to get to 840mm you are going to reduce the max aperture to f5.6 which is only about a third of an F stop better than the 800's f6.3. That small a difference is not going to be practically significant. Is that correct?

You are clearly saying the 600tc with tc engaged has better IQ than the 800. How do you reach that conclusion?

I am recalling Steve Perry's comparative test results which showed the 800mm pf was marginally better shooting at 800 when compared to the 600mm f4 with internal tc engaged.

I want to emphasize that I am looking for answers here that will help me make the best decision for me so I appreciate your feedback and want to understand it better.

 

[Bill Ferris]

I may be facing a decision.

When shooting birds I am pretty much always shooting at 800mm plus in my usual haunts. If I run into something shorter I can go to the 400mm f4.5 and I can crop with that lens.

I may soon be in the position to get a super prime. What I want to know is, if I get the 600 f4 tc, is it going to add anything significant to what I currently can do with the 800mm pf. More specifically is it going to add enough to justify spending 14 grand worth of better.

I know Steve Perry did a test comparison a while ago, and he concluded the 800 was slightly better optically at 800 than the 600 with tc engaged. On top of which the 800 is lighter and easier to handle.

Sure, the 600 is like two lenses, 600 and 840. But I really don't shoot 600 all that much and what little I do at that length can easily be handled with a 400mmn aided by cropping or dx.

So the comparison I want to see is between a 600mm f4 with internal TC engaged versus the 800 at its native 800.

When I am ready to act I will rent one and do a direct real world comparison.

Looking strictly at the numbers, the 600mm f/4 TC does have the largest entrance pupil (150mm) of any lens commercially available. In comparison with the 800mm PF's 127mm entrance pupil, the 600/4 TC captures 40% more light from a subject in the frame. That's noticeable but not necessarily a game-changer.

The 600/4 TC is also bulkier & heavier and costs twice what the 800 PF costs.

If your dissatisfied with the low light performance of the 800 PF and if portability & handholdability aren't high priorities, the 600mm f/4 TC could be worth the price of admission. That last 5% of performance potential sometimes costs twice what the first 95% cost.

If you're satisfied with the noise performance of the 800 PF and if its portability & handholdability are qualities you highly value, I might suggest you take the imminent windfall and treat yourself to a trip to a bucket list wildlife photography destination.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[Vincent_VdB]

It seems you are happy with a prime 800mm in the FL department. In that case can I wholeheartedly recommend the 800mm PF. I have both the 600TC and 800PF and the 800PF goes out when I do birding only and expect my birds to sit/fly at a distance.

 

[wotan1]

It seems you are happy with a prime 800mm in the FL department. In that case can I wholeheartedly recommend the 800mm PF. I have both the 600TC and 800PF and the 800PF goes out when I do birding only and expect my birds to sit/fly at a distance.

That is what I wanted to hear. I almost always encounter birds at the extreme range which means 800mm and then some crop. I am up against what the atmosphere will allow.

The question is whether to go for the 400mm 2.8 for general wildlife or just stick with the 400 f4.5.

 

[ARClark]

My understanding is that if you engage the Tc on the 600 to get to 840mm you are going to reduce the max aperture to f5.6 which is only about a third of an F stop better than the 800's f6.3. That small a difference is not going to be practically significant. Is that correct?

You are clearly saying the 600tc with tc engaged has better IQ than the 800. How do you reach that conclusion?

I am recalling Steve Perry's comparative test results which showed the 800mm pf was marginally better shooting at 800 when compared to the 600mm f4 with internal tc engaged.

I want to emphasize that I am looking for answers here that will help me make the best decision for me so I appreciate your feedback and want to understand it better.

I haven’t read through all the past posts in this thread, so perhaps this was already brought up, but just as another data point, you might want to review this Photography Life review of the 600mm f/4 TC and the comparison with various other lenses and TC combos. https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-600mm-f-4-tc-vr-s/3

PL found the 600 TC with either the internal 1.4x TC engaged, or with an external TC added (840mm @ f/5.5) to offer higher resolution than the 800 PF.

Contrast that with a review from Camera Labs which finds the 800 PF theoretically sharper than the 600 TC with converter engaged.

Nikon Z 600mm f4 TC VR S review | Cameralabs

www.cameralabs.com

I’ll just note that I use the 800 PF almost daily for bird photography and find it significantly sharper than the PL review of the lens. The only firsthand comparison I can make with another quality long lens is with my 500E Fl with a TC-14E iii (700mm & f5.6). Resolution is essentially the same, which in my mind says a lot as the 500E is incredibly sharp in my opinion.

 

[wotan1]

My impression of the 800mm is that it is incredibly sharp such that I would not want to let it go when shooting birds.

I previously rented the 800mm pf but at the time did not buy it because it seemed so big and I thought I would have problems managing it. I changed my mind later and gave it a try and I am very glad I did. After directly comparing the 600mm pf with the 800 I concluded the 800 clearly did a better job.

 

[Vincent_VdB]

That is what I wanted to hear. I almost always encounter birds at the extreme range which means 800mm and then some crop. I am up against what the atmosphere will allow.

The question is whether to go for the 400mm 2.8 for general wildlife or just stick with the 400 f4.5.

On the 400mm range question I can't help you with that. I have the 600mm PF, 600mm TC and 800mm PF.
The PF lenses are in my case used when I want to travel with 1 body and 1 lens. The 600mm TC is usually accompanied by the 100-400mm. If Nikon in their infinitive wisdom decides on releasing a 120-300 f/2.8 Z (with or without TC) shall I place that order immediately. Arrived yesterday in Japan, maybe I should drop by Nikon HQ and plea my case

 

[wotan1]

On the 400mm range question I can't help you with that. I have the 600mm PF, 600mm TC and 800mm PF.
The PF lenses are in my case used when I want to travel with 1 body and 1 lens. The 600mm TC is usually accompanied by the 100-400mm. If Nikon in their infinitive wisdom decides on releasing a 120-300 f/2.8 Z (with or without TC) shall I place that order immediately. Arrived yesterday in Japan, maybe I should drop by Nikon HQ and plea my case

Pick one of those 120-300’s up for me as well pretty please.

 

[nmerc_photos]

My understanding is that if you engage the Tc on the 600 to get to 840mm you are going to reduce the max aperture to f5.6 which is only about a third of an F stop better than the 800's f6.3. That small a difference is not going to be practically significant. Is that correct?

You are clearly saying the 600tc with tc engaged has better IQ than the 800. How do you reach that conclusion?

I am recalling Steve Perry's comparative test results which showed the 800mm pf was marginally better shooting at 800 when compared to the 600mm f4 with internal tc engaged.

I want to emphasize that I am looking for answers here that will help me make the best decision for me so I appreciate your feedback and want to understand it better.

1/3 f stop can be the difference between getting a keeper or not. it's all about how much you're willing to pay for that.

Yes, the 600TC with TC engaged has better IQ than the 800PF. I reach that conclusion through hundreds of thousands of shots with both lens, and looking at all other available feedback.

Steve's videos have lots of great info, but his comparative test results are rather useless for wildlife. He's taking test chart shots in the basement of his house. I forget how long his longest shot is, but it's not indicative of reality in the field. Yes - if all you care about is reading letters from 20' away, the difference between 800PF and 600TC is not as big. But if you're shooting 100', 200', etc. you're going to notice the improvements of the 600TC much more.

I've read a lot of your posts, and I don't think you will see the value in a 600TC. You're just letting GAS get to you.

 

[ajrmd]

1/3 f stop can be the difference between getting a keeper or not. it's all about how much you're willing to pay for that.

Yes, the 600TC with TC engaged has better IQ than the 800PF. I reach that conclusion through hundreds of thousands of shots with both lens, and looking at all other available feedback.

Steve's videos have lots of great info, but his comparative test results are rather useless for wildlife. He's taking test chart shots in the basement of his house. I forget how long his longest shot is, but it's not indicative of reality in the field. Yes - if all you care about is reading letters from 20' away, the difference between 800PF and 600TC is not as big. But if you're shooting 100', 200', etc. you're going to notice the improvements of the 600TC much more.

I've read a lot of your posts, and I don't think you will see the value in a 600TC. You're just letting GAS get to you.

You’ve touched on a very interesting point. As much as I like the 600 and 800 PF, in terms of optical resolution over distance and in certain lighting conditions, the 600 TC wins out in a big way. And rightly it should. Nonetheless, the PF lenses are lightweight, can be hand held, and are more affordable for many of us mortals.

 

[fcotterill]

Last year, many thoughtful posters in this thread discussed the pertinent factors that determine IQ using long focal length telephotos outdoors on wildlife subjects. This covered challenges at the margins of suitable conditions. Hint - read the thread in full

Over many months I compared my 800 PF against a copy of what many pros rate as the best in class of the E FL exotic primes - the 800 f5.6E FL. I was particularly keen to evaluate the performance of the respective Teleconverter combinations.

The immediate lesson was Atmospherics was a big learning curve, despite my frequent encounters with its challenges here in Africa (400 f2.8E, 500 PF previously).

Long story short, Haze increased the sampling effort significantly, before I built up a representative database of images taken on the same active subjects at comparable distances, and swapping Z9 and TC's between the 2 primes.

Longer story short, my comparisons demonstrated that sufficient for my criteria:

• the 800 E is slightly sharper than the 800 PF. These differences are negligible in practice;
• All TC combinations deliver more than acceptable quality, subject to due diligence, at realistic subject distances especially;
• The 1000 f7.1 Pairing is Unique;
• Synchro VR stabilization of the 800 PF + Z9 pairing is far superior to the 800 E + Z9, let alone 800 E + DSLR. In practice, this influences slowest shutter speed that's feasible on a monopod;
• Bokeh and OOF rendering of both super telephotos is smooth but the 800 E has a discernable aesthetic advantage;
• 'Bad', Trashy backgrounds trash bokeh using either the 800 E or 800 PF;
• The 800E probably has a slight advantage in more challenging light conditions, but invariably the atmospherics in these situations trash the image quality in any case

post #7 page 1 refers https://bcgforums.com/threads/direct-comparison-800mm-f6-3-vs-600mm-f4-fl.34526/post-388821

I agree with Brad Hill's results. The 800 PF is a unique and indispensable tool in my wildlife photography, especially in a Commando Kit. He tested his 800 PF in detailed comparisons against the 400 f2.8S TC, and 600 f4S TC. He tests under realistic outdoor conditions at a range of subject distances. His 800 PF results are interesting to evaluate in the Gallery of his Portfolio

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Field Tests: 10 Days With the Nikkor Z 800mm f6.3 VR S

Field Tests by Brad Hill - Wildlife Photographer. Field test of the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. Nikon Cameras, Nikon Lenses, Nikon Accessories.

www.naturalart.ca

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Stuff I Use Part II: Lenses

Camera gear and related accessories regularly used by Brad Hill in the field. Part II - Lenses I currently use or have used.

www.naturalart.ca

 

[nhzen]

My impression of the 800mm is that it is incredibly sharp such that I would not want to let it go when shooting birds.

I previously rented the 800mm pf but at the time did not buy it because it seemed so big and I thought I would have problems managing it. I changed my mind later and gave it a try and I am very glad I did. After directly comparing the 600mm pf with the 800 I concluded the 800 clearly did a better job.

@wotan1 Do you find that the 800mm is suitable for birds in general, i.e. not only small ones but also larger ones like waders or GBHs? I'm trying to understand the relationship between how close one can get and the FL that gets used when one is not in a controlled situation for birds, i.e. out in the field. And for the record, I don't have much experience with this, and found that I had to crop even with the 800mm, which I'm guessing means that I was too far away. I did find out the hard way that 800mm was too much for mammals on the one occasion I had the chance to try it out. Thanks in advance.

 

[wotan1]

@wotan1 Do you find that the 800mm is suitable for birds in general, i.e. not only small ones but also larger ones like waders or GBHs? I'm trying to understand the relationship between how close one can get and the FL that gets used when one is not in a controlled situation for birds, i.e. out in the field. And for the record, I don't have much experience with this, and found that I had to crop even with the 800mm, which I'm guessing means that I was too far away. I did find out the hard way that 800mm was too much for mammals on the one occasion I had the chance to try it out. Thanks in advance.

I find the 800 is generally suitable for birds in general with of course some exceptions.

For viewing in the wild, where I live in the Pacific Northwest the birds tend to avoid human contact so I usually shoot 800mm and still have to reach through cropping or DX. I have used a teleconverter with the 800 but only rarely. It is the same for smaller birds.

Artificial situations can create exceptions where birds are brought closer. The 800 is too long for shooting at a zoo, and in some cases even a 400mm would be too long. I found the combination of 70-200mm f2.8 and 400mmm f4.5 work well in that environment, but I am considering adding the 100-400 for flexibility.

The other exception is locations where birds are frequently fed by hand. One example is the George Reifel bird sanctuary near Vancouver, BC. They protect the birds and encourage feeding with food they supply. At Reifel you may need a wide angle lens because the ducks will pursue you looking for handouts.

Yesterday I encountered another exception: snow geese. They are gathering in large flocks and I think they are getting ready to migrate.. The snow geese in this area winter in the Skagit Valley in Washington and migrate to Siberia for the summer.

Anyway they had gathered in an agricultural field next to the road. This was a large flock I estimate a couple thousand birds. They were not bothered by the flock of bird photographers that had gathered to watch them and mostly ignored us. I actually used my 14-24mm lens at one point.

I agree the 800 is not the best lens for mammals.

 

[nhzen]

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. I’m generally far enough away that cropping happens even with 800mm. I haven’t been using DX, probably should learn to do that more automatically.

 

[Frogger]

One consideration to which I hadn't given much thought before acquiring an 800pf a few months ago is maximum magnification and the ability to fill the frame with smaller birds. If you have full control over your subject distance (ie not limited in ability to get close), the .16x magnification of the 800pf leaves smaller songbirds somewhat small in frame at minimum focus distance. If my math is correct, the 600tc at 840mm results in a .2x magnification, meaning you can fill the frame better.

This has been noticeable to me on the 800pf after coming from using a 500pf with 1.4tc, which had a much closer minimum focus distance resulting in a .25x magnification.

 

[wotan1]

One consideration to which I hadn't given much thought before acquiring an 800pf a few months ago is maximum magnification and the ability to fill the frame with smaller birds. If you have full control over your subject distance (ie not limited in ability to get close), the .16x magnification of the 800pf leaves smaller songbirds somewhat small in frame at minimum focus distance. If my math is correct, the 600tc at 840mm results in a .2x magnification, meaning you can fill the frame better.

This has been noticeable to me on the 800pf after coming from using a 500pf with 1.4tc, which had a much closer minimum focus distance resulting in a .25x magnification.

For my wildlife shooting I normally have available either the 800mm pf or 400mm f4.5.

I have had situations where a small bird was too close for the 800mm pf. In those cases I used the 400mm f4.5 or something even shorter.

If I am far back enough to be able to focus on the bird, the magnification has not been a problem and I have been able to get a decent sized image. in addition if I did not fully fill the frame, cropping would easily handle the situation.

I have been able to photograph hummingbirds and they are pretty small.

As I understand it, magnification is a measure of how much of the subject's size can be translated to an image on the camera's sensor. 1:1 means if you shot an object the size of a 35mm slide it would appear exactly the same size on the sensor as the subject.

I never encountered an issue with a bird being too small for the 800mm to photograph effectively. Insects maybe, but not birds.

 

[Bill Ferris]

I use the 800mm PF for raptors (eagles to kestrels), large mammals (elk, deer, pronghorn) and occasional songbirds. To say it's not usable for any of these subjects overlooks a critical factor: distance to subject.

Any subject you can typically photograph from a distance of less than 5 meters is obviously not a good fit for the 800PF. The lens won't focus on subjects that close.

At 5 meters and beyond, the place I would start is to ask, what framing do you want? If anything tighter than the full body framed within the environment is too tight for your liking and the elk you photograph will often be 20-50 meters distant, I would not recommend the 800PF.

At the same distance range if your subjects are coyotes or foxes and your framing tastes are the same, the 800PF would be a perfect choice.

But if we expand our options to include portraiture framing - head & shoulders, waste up, full body, group shots, occasionally filling the frame with just hooves/paws - the 800PF becomes an incredibly versatile option. In the span of a few minutes, you might get environmental, full body & head shots of the same animal as it moves through a field.

Don't forget to account for the distance you'll be from a subject when evaluating a focal length's ability to meet your needs. It's essential to the task of identifying the best lens for what you'll photograph and the conditions in which those photos will be made.