Exploring 600mm Lens

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).

M

Mommacat

Active member
Member's gallery
I have used the Sony A1 with the 2-6 for 2.5 years and have dreamed of getting a 600mm, ideally to be used with teles because I need more reach than 600mm. I've been dreaming of the Nikon 600 f4 TC for some time because that would be perfect for the birds I photograph. So I thought I would start with renting the Sony 600mm since I own the A1 and am familiar with that camera. I have confirmed that thankfully this is hand-holdable for me (within reason).

I do have a question about this lens. As a test, I was just standing on my porch while it poured and the lens was having trouble focusing on trees in the distance at 1600SS at F4. I was trying to get a feel for how well this would do while photographing in heavy rain and around water but it seemed to struggle. This wasn't the issue where a MILC gets "stuck" and you have to focus on something close before it can aquire focus again. I don't believe I was doing anything wrong and it seemed like a simple test. Any thoughts?

This is a huge investment for me so I want to make sure that this will do what I need.

Also, I would appreciate any thoughts from folks who have used both the Sony 600mm and Nikon 600mm TC. I've read several threads about this but am always open to more advice.

Nikon is where I began and fell in love with photography about 5 years ago but that was with the amazing D500. I would have to decide between the Z9 or Z8 with the Z8 with a battery pack being more similar to my A1 with a battery pack. Some folks who have used the A1, Z9 and Z8 have even said that the AF on the Z cameras is just as reliable as the A1 now and the continual fw updates from Nikon is appealing. That said I will miss the customizations and the zebras. If the AF is up to par with the A1 then one of those with the 600mm F4 TC would be ideal for me.

Thank you for your help!
 
Member's gallery
Yes, heavy rain or snow can create AF problems. I’ve had pretty good luck going to a small single point AF area in conditions like that but yes AF systems can latch onto large rain drops or snow flakes.

It’s not a lens problem but just a situation that can give the AF system lots of things at varying distances to latch onto.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
Yes, heavy rain or snow can create AF problems. I’ve had pretty good luck going to a small single point AF area in conditions like that but yes AF systems can latch onto large rain drops or snow flakes.

It’s not a lens problem but just a situation that can give the AF system lots of things at varying distances to latch onto.
Click to expand...
Thank you, @DRwyoming! I like to use Zone AF primarily and it did seem like it was trying to follow the rain as opposed to latching onto an obvious tree in the neighbor's yard. I just need to make sure that when an Osprey hits the water and makes their glorious splash, the lens will focus on the bird/eye and not the water droplets. That could be very frustrating.

The speed of the lens is FAR superior to the 200-600! Amazing!
 
Member's gallery
Yup, tracking a fast moving subject into water can be challenging but again that’s not really a lens problem but more of an AF system limitation as well as a test of subject tracking skills.

Following a diving Osprey, Eagle, Kingfisher or similar fish hunter into the water generally isn’t too hard on the AF system but most AF systems struggle a bit when the bird emerges with its fish often a few few away from where it entered the water. That can be hard for an AF system not just because of the splashing water but also the AF system can’t track the underwater bird and there’s often a change in distance between where the bird entered the water and where it comes back up. Tricky stuff for sure but that’s also what makes a well captured image like that so special.

But from a lens selection standpoint those problems aren’t really lens problems and purchasing a different super telephoto lens won’t fix problems with AF latching onto rain, snow or splashing water.
 
Member's gallery
I think that outside of Steve, not many will have used both the Sony 600GM ánd the Nikon 600TC.
These lenses are insanely expensive, and the Sony is still a relatively new lens, so anyone that has spent the 14.000,- on this lens (including myself) will have been serious about it, and will most likely still have it. Whether there is then place for another 600mm lens costing 17.000,- is doubtful.

But perpaps there are a few and they will chime in. Perhaps Steve will post his remarks. (I believe he thinks they are mostly equal performance wise, but he prefers the Nikon 600TC for the built in TC).
 
Member's gallery
Thank you again, @DRwyoming!

Thank you too, @ChrisM! I am serious about this. Since I currently don't have a large investment in Sony, now would be the time to return to Nikon esp to have the built-in tele on the 600 F4 TC. If I purchase the Sony 600 then I will pretty much be committed to Sony and will likely have to have the 1.4x tele on at all times. Not sure I want to be at 840 all of the time and carrying the 2-6 and the 600mm isn't realistic. Thanks!
 
Member's gallery
Mommacat said:
Thank you again, @DRwyoming!

Thank you too, @ChrisM! I am serious about this. Since I currently don't have a large investment in Sony, now would be the time to return to Nikon esp to have the built-in tele on the 600 F4 TC. If I purchase the Sony 600 then I will pretty much be committed to Sony and will likely have to have the 1.4x tele on at all times. Not sure I want to be at 840 all of the time and carrying the 2-6 and the 600mm isn't realistic. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Not to further confuse you/the issue, a couple Sony shooters I know have bought the Sony 300mm f/2.8 and use it with the 2.0 TC. Lighter and cheaper than the Sony f/4. However if you want a built in TC to get to 840mm, then the Nikon is the only choice.
PS. I am a Nikon shooter and loving the 800mm f/6.3 PF lens, lighter and much cheaper than the 600mm f/4 TC.
 
Member's gallery
Thank you, @ricardo00! Yes, great recommendation! I'm also considering the Nikon 800mm PF! That would be paired with some other lens like the 400PF or 600PF. I also do a lot of low light shooting so an F4 would be ideal. I occasionally use the 1.4 on my 200-600 but it puts you at F9 so I prefer to only do this for perched views. That said, when I have to stop down for DOF then I'm even beyond F9. This summer my strategy was either have the tele on or off but not a lot of switching back and forth. It just isn't ideal and you end up losing views and end up wishing you had it on or off. Honestly, a 600PF at F4.5 with a built-in tele might be the ticket. :)
 
Member's gallery
Mommacat said:
Thank you, @ricardo00! Yes, great recommendation! I'm also considering the Nikon 800mm PF! That would be paired with some other lens like the 400PF or 600PF. I also do a lot of low light shooting so an F4 would be ideal. I occasionally use the 1.4 on my 200-600 but it puts you at F9 so I prefer to only do this for perched views. That said, when I have to stop down for DOF then I'm even beyond F9. This summer my strategy was either have the tele on or off but not a lot of switching back and forth. It just isn't ideal and you end up losing views and end up wishing you had it on or off. Honestly, a 600PF at F4.5 with a built-in tele might be the ticket. :)
Click to expand...
I also do a lot of low light photography (owls) so I have thought that if I decided to get one of the Nikon TC lenses, I would go with the 400mm f/2.8TC since often f/4 isn't enough (and it is lighter and somewhat cheaper than the 600mm TC). But haven't made that call yet (have a F mount 300mm f/2.8 which I still use for really low light situations). Nice to have so many choices! Good luck and enjoy your photography.
PS. Think a 600mm PF f/4.5 with a built-in TC would be a nice addition but don't see it happening anytime soon.
 
Member's gallery
If you are going to have the 1.4TC on the 600GM all the time I wouldn't recommend it. I think the lens is decent with the 1.4TC but I find it loses a good bit of its magic when you use the TC (the 2x is worse). I only use the 1.4TC 10-20% of the time with the 600GM. I much prefer the IQ and AF of the bare lens on the A1. I'd rather do a deeper crop and maintain the top AF performance than use the 1.4TC. I will sometimes use the 1.4TC for perched birds. But next to never for BIF.

If you really want an 800mm lens most of the time then I think Nikon is a better choice. If you have little to no use of 600 @ f/4 then I'd just get the 800PF...save some $, save some weight. Or if you do want 600 enough of the time, especially with the flip-in TC convenience, then the Z600TC is unbeatable.

I love the Nikon lens lineup but I can't give up the A1. I've owned the Z9 twice and then borrowed a Z8 to try the latest FW and I just can't get on with that camera for the stuff I shoot. So if you are going to go Nikon for the lenses I'd recommend giving the cameras a try first (rent, borrow) and make sure you are happy with them.

Also back to your rain issue...I find that all the cameras have big issues with AF in snow and heavy rain. It isn't really related to one lens or the other, it is just too tricky for the camera AF systems...they love the high contrast drops or flakes.
 
Member's gallery
Wow thank you so much @arbitrage! So much thoughtful advice! I will think very hard on everything you said esp about the 1.4x on the 600 f4 GM for bif.

I would say that I would be at 840mm 50-60% and 600 40-50%. Even though I photograph primarily raptors, I feel strongly about being extra careful to remember I am an observer so 600 mm is often just too short. Oh and many of my friends do amazing things that would be fantastic to document if I could just get a little closer like 840mm.

Thank you again!
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
I love the Nikon lens lineup but I can't give up the A1. I've owned the Z9 twice and then borrowed a Z8 to try the latest FW and I just can't get on with that camera for the stuff I shoot. So if you are going to go Nikon for the lenses I'd recommend giving the cameras a try first (rent, borrow) and make sure you are happy with them.
Click to expand...
Great advice from Arbitrage. This was exactly my experience, which proved to be an expensive mistake. Nikon lenses are great but make sure you like the way the cameras operate before getting any expensive glass.
 
Member's gallery
Robjwilli said:
Great advice from Arbitrage. This was exactly my experience, which proved to be an expensive mistake. Nikon lenses are great but make sure you like the way the cameras operate before getting any expensive glass.
Click to expand...
Thank you, @Robjwilli! I totally agree. Would you mind elaborating on what you felt was am expensive mistake in your case? Did you end up realizing you preferred one camera system over another? Thank you!
 
Member's gallery
I pulled the trigger on a 800pf before getting the Z8 assuming it would be an easy transition from Sony to Nikon but I struggled to adapt to the Nikon Z system and ended up selling the lens at a loss.
In an ideal world I would have my Sony A1 using the Nikon PF lenses.
I might revisit the Z system again at some point but will start with a more basic kit that will be easy to sell on if I decide not to keep it.
 
Member's gallery
Robjwilli said:
I pulled the trigger on a 800pf before getting the Z8 assuming it would be an easy transition from Sony to Nikon but I struggled to adapt to the Nikon Z system and ended up selling the lens at a loss.
In an ideal world I would have my Sony A1 using the Nikon PF lenses.
I might revisit the Z system again at some point but will start with a more basic kit that will be easy to sell on if I decide not to keep it.
Click to expand...
Oh boy! Sorry this happened! Thank you again @Robjwilli! Can't tell you how long I've hesitated and would like to make a purchase but it's so hard to know! I'm guessing I will need to spend quite a bit of money to rent a Nikon setup also before deciding. That said, @arbitrage comment about the 1.4 on the 600 GM has me concerned.

I totally agree, if I could reliably adapt Nikon z lenses to my Sony A1 that would be ideal or if Sony would make longer options like the new 300 2.8 that folks are raving about with a tele.
 
Member's gallery
I don't have any experience with Sony but I recently got the 600TC, 600PF and 800PF.

I use two Z8s, I've never used a Z9, but from an AF point of view, that should not matter.

Overall the 600TC focuses super fast. If there are problems, it's probably the camera, not the lens. The Z8 has a very good AF system but nothing is perfect. It sometimes looks onto the body and not the eye (especially with herons, I've found) and sometimes it stays stuck on the background or foreground. This can normally be fixed using the manual focus ring, using a focus preset or jumping to single-point AF (which I have currently on the Fn1 button but I will try a small custom wide-area as Steve suggested in a video and his book).

Optically the lens is basically perfect at 600 and very, very good at 840. Honestly, I can't really tell the difference from shots taken in the field, only when shooting test-charts as some reviewers do, can you tell.
It is also the most flexible long lens I've ever used.

Disadvantage is the weight: It is very light for what it is but when hand-holding it for longer, I wear out faster than with the 800PF and that is why I will keep the 800PF. I got the 800PF earlier and originally had no plans to buy the 600TC but for different reasons I ended up buying it and I love it. The 800PF will remain with me and I also use it regularly when I want the weight to be as low as possible, e.g. for longer hand-holding or when hiking. Recently I was shooting out of my window and I had to lean out and be in a rather uncomfortable position. The 600PF was to short and the 600TC was getting heavy fast. The 800PF allowed me to shoot for longer and get some nice shots.

When it comes to weight, the 600PF is in a different league and overall the most fun lens I've ever used. Not as flexible as the 600TC but so much lighter.
Maybe the combo 600PF + 800PF is interesting. Together, both with a Z8 attached, they are much heavier than a 600TC + Z8 but individually they are more fun to use.
That being said, the 600TC is also a lot of fun and if I could own only one long Nikon lens right now, it would for sure be the 600TC.

This is all very specific to my situation but maybe there are some useful thoughts and experiences here.

I hope the Z8 will get a firmware update in the future to further improve the AF and maybe give use pre-capture with RAW.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
My experience with this lens has been nothing short of phenomenal, even with the 1.4 TC. In my opinion, the image quality with the 1.4 is indistinguishable from the bare lens. Having said that auto focus acquisition speed does suffer a tiny bit. I firmly believe in never buying a lens that you know you’re going to have to use a teleconverter on full-time, but that’s just my opinion. There’s no way you can go wrong with this lens even if you just crop in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Mommacat said:
... @arbitrage comment about the 1.4 on the 600 GM has me concerned.
Click to expand...
I don't often use the 1.4x with the 600 GM but I find it quite satisfactory for birds that are not especially active. For myself the limitation is more the very narrow field of view of an 840mm lens (600 + 1.4x) than the performance of the equipment.
siamex92.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


sphthy22.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


melfor13.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


melfor61.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Doug Herr said:
I don't often use the 1.4x with the 600 GM but I find it quite satisfactory for birds that are not especially active. For myself the limitation is more the very narrow field of view of an 840mm lens (600 + 1.4x) than the performance of the equipment.
Click to expand...
What you’re stating is exactly what I have experienced as well regarding the field of view. I think it’s far too narrow for birds and flight and honestly, I think 400 mm is a better focal length a lot of times for birds and flight.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
What you’re stating is exactly what I have experienced as well regarding the field of view. I think it’s far too narrow for birds and flight and honestly, I think 400 mm is a better focal length a lot of times for birds and flight.
Click to expand...

This may be location dependent. Here in Germany birds are often shy and I often use 800 or 840mm and in my DSLR days I often had a 2x on my EF 4/600 II.
I am always happy when my 100-400 or the 600PF without an extender are enough but often I need more reach.
Even in a local park in Munich I often use 840 because birds are not necessarily where I would like them to be. And there are species which are always shy, even in a park.

Ideally we would have a 4/200-800TC, but even although I am sure Nikon, Canon or Sony could build such a lens, no one would want to hand-hold such a beast or carry it up a mountain (or pay for it).

For larger mammals or in locations where birds are close, I agree that a 2.8/400TC is the more flexible choice but at least here in southern Germany, 4/600 is better for most situations.
 
Member's gallery
Between the two lenses, the Nikon TC is a hands-down winner for me. But ONLY because of the TC. Both lenses seems to focus equally fast, both are equally sharp, and the Sony is slightly less bulky (since it's doesn't have the TC). Take the built-in TC out of the equation and it's a tie on all counts.

The built-in TC though, mmm, I love that thing. It's literally game-changing to be able to flip in and out from 600 to 840 IMO. I shoot more of a 60/40 (60% @ 600mm and 40% at 840) mix and the built-in TC saves so much time. I can't tell you the number of shots I've missed over the years while messing with a TC - or shots where I had one on and didn't need it or needed one and didn't have it on - and couldn't risk changing so I had to compromise the shot. To flip it on and off like that has been fantastic.

FWIW, I like the Sony ergonomics and controls better and that at least partially makes up for the 600 without the TC, but even so, I find myself using my Nikon gear more simply because of that TC in the lens. Before I had the 600TC, I would use the Sony most of the time. It makes that much of a difference. If Sony ever comes out with a 600TC lens, I'l probably end up shooting more Sony than Nikon again.

Also, I'd echo what the others said about rain - AF will struggle. Keep in mind that AF systems, no matter how sophisticated, are still going to focus on the first area of useable contrast. With something like Zone, you're begging for it to struggle. A small Spot AF point usually works better but still isn't immune to grabbing something between you and the target (rain, in this case).
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
..., I think 400 mm is a better focal length a lot of times for birds and flight.
Click to expand...
I've used the 600 for BIF but the wider field of view of a 400mm lens makes tracking erratic birds much more manageable.

petpyr06.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


tyrver10.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


phanit14.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


numame05.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


xanxan24.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


​
I expect the 300+1.4x will be my preferred BIF lens

DH100514_web.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


​
 
Member's gallery
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top