The Z800 PF is the first I have encountered with built in rear filter holder that does not include that notice and no filter clear or other wise comes with the lens.
Is the Nikon 600 f6.3 a full 600mm?
- Thread starter Matt N
- 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).
Thanks for sharing this, Ken. It is interesting information to know. Now to find out why Nikon's Optics people did this, or why it is now the case for this lens.
macwalter
Well-known member
I’m just curious if anyone has had problems with focus Breathing on this 600 f6.3 lens. The reviews I’ve seen claim it has a substantial amount and wonder how that plays in terms of real world conditions. I don’t do video but wonder if you are getting a “real” 600mm at close range where I understand is the area where you will see it. I have just ordered it and otherwise like all the specs. I do wish it were a 5.6 but it sounds like it is not a big deal. I have 400 f4.5 and find myself use in the 1.4tc a lot and am looking for a compliment to this lens for greater reach in a fast sharp light lens.
Focus Breathing is the normal effect of focusing a lens by moving it closer and further away from the image plane. It's only lenses with internal focusing elements that do anything about it. Except for maybe movies why would anyone care?
I’ve had a 600PF about a month. I don’t know if the lens has a focus breathing issue, and whether it provides actual 600mm magnification and field of view.
It focuses more quickly than I thought it would. It produces sharp images. Bokeh is pleasing to my eye. The 1/3 stop difference from 5.6 to 6.3 is irrelevant, as far as I’m concerned. It’s light. It’s an excellent performer!
Yup, I think the real T stop is around f/6.3 or less. Vs, the 180-600 is probably f/7.1+
macwalter
Well-known member
I guess there is no way to really know what the actual t stop is. I never really knew that much about it but just curious. I had a friend tell me once that the new 70-200 f 2.8 z mount was actually a bit brighter than the older fl f model. i am excited to get the new 600 f6.3 and it sounds most of you guys are satisfied with it. I’ll need to sell my d850, 500pf and 300pf i guess.
What do you mean by "full"?
The answer can be longer than several pieces of string.
I speculate what you want to know is do you get a 6 wide or 12 inch wide subject at minimum focus distance – often important with bird photography.
Going back around 60 years most lenses focused by getting physically longer.
A 50 mm angle of view at Infinity was likely to change to 55 mm or more by minimum focus, and so on.
The narrowing of the angle of view by minimum focus effectively changed the size of the aperture relative to infinity focal length - and a little less light was transmitted to what was then film.
Around 40-45 years ago, Canon introduced internal focus telephoto lenses which focused much closer than helicoid type but significantly widened their angle of view by minimum focus distance.
I recall buying a 400 mm IF around that time and being most unhappy when at a similar close focus distance it covered a wider angle than my 300 mm Olympus helicoid at the same close focus distance
About 20 years ago in the era of lenses like the Nikon 18–200 mm, angle of view could sometimes widen to double by minimum focused distance – accompanied by around one stop change in effective aperture!
With the Z lens range Nikon has set out to reduce or eliminate focus breathing, implying what you get at minimum focused distance is a similar or the same angle of view as at infinity.
Overall I find this to be true.
Trying to answer your question!
What seems to be true from many reports is that you get more magnification (a narrower angle of view) at minimum focus 600mm with the Nikon 180-600 than with the Sony 200-600 at a similar focus distance.
Nikon usefully quote a maximum reproduction ratio of 0.25 at 600 mm for the 180-600mm you mention.
For those who do not know, dividing the FX format size of 1.5 inches wide by the 0.25 maximum reproduction tells you how wide the subject will be – with an answer of 6 inches wide.
As an owner of this lens, I confirm 6 inches wide is right.
Nikon quote the maximum reproduction ratio for the 600 mm f6 .3 as 0.15 - a 10 inch wide subject.
Note the MFD for the prime is almost double the MFD of the zoom - still indicating a close to equal angle angle of view at each lens MFD despite the difference in image size.
IMPORTANT for the relatively inexperienced - minimum focus distance differences can significantly affect the maximum reproduction ratio (magnification) possible with different lenses even when the angle of view is close to the same.
Comparing the Z 600mm f6.3 and f4 specifications Nikon quote 0.15 maximum reproduction at 4 meters MFD for the f6.3 - and 0.14 at 4.3 meters for the f4 - close to the same angle of view at their respective MFDs and - as with the 180-600 - close to 600mm angle of view at infinity.
Speculating on my part -
- it is probable some (as distinct from all) competitors longer focal length lenses with makes with less emphasis on "reduced breathing" become slightly wider angled than Nikon with less subject magnification by MFD.
Even so it is probable that my long gone Olympus 0M 600 mm f6 .3 helicoid focus had a little more subject magnification than the Nikons at the Olympus minimum focus distance of 11 m.
Summing up -
- when minimum focus magnification is important, once the relevant information has been established – which is not always easy – a better informed decision can be made.
I assume you mean f stop…but what’s your justification for either of those statements? I’ve seen nothing that indicates either lens has an incorrect aperture number or difference from the advertised focal length…which doesn’t mean such doesn’t exist of course.
I meant T stop.
Thom Hogen writes, as per the standards, no lens is perfectly in its focal length or f/stop, and lens makers can ‘round them up’ up to 20%
I remember reading here on BCG, people commenting the 180-600 eating more ISO as expected.
macwalter
Well-known member
Reading up on T stop it appears this is given for video lenses that cost way more but not for normal lenses on cameras. Just a quick mention the Nikon 600mm f6.3 is on sale for 500 bucks off.
Nothing to do with cost, even cheap Chinese cine lenses report T, not F. Because cine applications rarely use zoom lenses cinematographers rely on lens "sets" of 5 or 7 or 9 lenses to cover somewhere between 18mm and 200mm. They have to know the exact amount of light that hits the sensors, and ideally they are the same between 24 and 135mm, and T does that while F does not. The two are correlated, and you can approximate the relationship; F number is about 10-20% lower than T number (so an F 1.8 is likely a T 2.1).
Vincent_VdB
Well-known member
I have this gem of a lens and not give one bit if there is focus breathing (or not). It takes the pictures I am after, is now in my backpack on the Z8 and goes with me to the Saudi Arabian desert on Saturday. All the rest is, for me, really irrelevant. It is a 600mm f/6.3, good enough for me
And yes, I love specs and the technicalities on what my gear can do.
And yes, I love specs and the technicalities on what my gear can do.
I had to go google T stop to see what it is.
I agree…we (in general) spend far too much effort on spec comparison, pixel peeping and other minutia…and not enough time considering the myriad of other factors that go into any particular choice. Steve has said before that no deer ever sued him…and I’ve never had a blog comment that said the shot would have been better without the TC. We were talking in Africa a few weeks back about missing a leopard…and we all agreed that a month later we would not be talking about the shots we missed but loving the ones we got…I have this gem of a lens and not give one bit if there is focus breathing (or not). It takes the pictures I am after, is now in my backpack on the Z8 and goes with me to the Saudi Arabian desert on Saturday. All the rest is, for me, really irrelevant. It is a 600mm f/6.3, good enough for me
And yes, I love specs and the technicalities on what my gear can do.
And if it were a 5.6, we'd wish it were a 4!
Very true, Unless you’re at the shooting place feeling you don’t have the right tool for the job. Be it a lens or a camera body lacking AF.
Vincent_VdB
Well-known member
This very forum shows the capabilities of this lens and that despite or thanks to the T stop, F stop or focus breathing. I am not a Nikon fanboy as I know the shortcomings of my gear and what I like in other brands and always shake my head when I see posts started like this one. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and as I wrote here above, users of this lens show through pictures and testimonies how good this lens is.
macwalter
Well-known member
I dont worry too much about specs other than basic sharpness and focus speed as well as resolution on further subjects. Knowing the basic f stop is 6.3 I know it’s not gonna be great in low light. However being so sharp wide open will no doubt help. I’m also excited to have a really good 600mm lens that is light and reasonably affordable especially now that it’s on sale.