Nikon 600 PF Test: Sharpness, Bokeh, AF Speed, VR, Focus Breathing & More

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).

Member's gallery
Nice job Steve.
I don't have any of those lenses you tested other than the 600 PF but I'm not surprised by your findings (maybe a bit with how well it compares to the 600TC). From my use it's apparent this is a serious telephoto with great optical performance. In some ways it beats my 500/4E at half the price. There is a lot to like with this lens as your tests show.

Please tell your Nikon rep thanks for such fine optics...and to keep 'em coming....:)
 
Member's gallery
Photographer_Bill said:
Thank you for clarifying on the distance, your field experience is invaluable here.

I agree, I find TC's (on/off) to be a hindrance with the potential to miss a shot while switching. I would love to see Nikon include built in 1.4 TC into some of the more affordable options, but I suppose the more affordable also means smaller/lighter and including built in TC would hinder this formula.

I agree, however if 400 and 560 are both usable for you does the 600 still make sense? And if 800mm is also of benefit then wouldn't the 800 PF along with 400 4.5 and TC make more sense? Obviously this is a decision each individual will make based on their needs, the good news is we have multiple options now from Nikon.

Thank you for this reminder, the TC does tend to slow everything down and with the native 600 PF already being faster AF wise vs. the 400 4.5 then this does make for compelling consideration. You did not do a AF speed test with the 1.4 TC attached but would be curious how much AF is affected by TC's with both 600 PF and 400 4.5, but maybe more importantly is performance in the field and it definitely sounds like you are saying you have noticed a difference with 400 + TC that is worth noting. One thing I was also surprised to see in your review samples was how well the 600 PF does with the 1.4x TC, even though it was at f/9 the sharpness didn't seem to fade as much as I thought it would with the TC.
Click to expand...
There is an advantage in flexibility with the 400 and tc - however - since I am usually at 600mm, I'd want the 600PF instead. FWIW, most of the time TCs don't affect AF speed much or at all with mirrorless. I might test down the road, but I'll bet it turns out really close :)

One side note on the 400 4.5 - it does focus closer and offers slight more reproduction without the TC. So, add a TC and it would be much better for closer range targets than the 600PF, at least from a reproduction ratio standpoint.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
Same here - they really do hold up well - at least at that distance. It might be different from different ranges too (but my basement is only so long LOL). FWIW, in the field and at the computer, I do notice the differences in sharpness between them. It's close to be sure, but still noticeable (of course, I like to zoom into 200%).



Everyone has different needs. I tend to favor lenses where I don't always need a TC attached. For me, I always have gone by the idea that you should purchase the focal length you'll use the most without a TC attached. So, if mostly at 400mm, then the 400 4.5 is the way to go. However, if you're mostly in that 600mm range, then I'd prefer the bare lens. It's not just about sharpness, either - often, I find that lenses with TCs attached do not focus as consistently as their bare counterparts, even given the same F/stop. For example, and this is a Sony example since I don't have a 400 TC (yet :) ), although the 400 2.8 and 1.4 TC work well together, I find I get more consistent AF results if I just use the straight 600 GM - despite the fact that they are the same F/stop with the TC not eh 400. I've found, overall, the same seems to apply to Nikon.
Click to expand...

100% agree with the TC comments. There is no doubt that AF suffers. I think that is why I steer clear of TCs more these days than just the RAW IQ.
600GM bare is way more consistent AF than 400GM/1.4TC. 400GM on its own is about the same as 600GM.
I never found the 500PF with TC or 400/4.5 with TC to get as reliable results as the bare lenses.

Thanks for doing the comparisons. I think it is difficult to see the differences in some of the lens test charts on YouTube even watching at the best 4K setting. I could see the differences you pointed out in some of them but others were so similar I couldn't see the difference. I'm sure it is a little more obvious in person.

I'm still not sure if I'd purchase the 600PF if I was buying a Nikon setup. Still leaning towards a 400TC and 800PF combo. But even then I could see adding the 600PF just for the times I don't want a large lens with me.
 
Member's gallery
My copy arrived today…ordered Friday afternoon from B&H…and my initial tests at 60l and 840 wide open show excellent sharpness..it was only some signs and trees and a turtle yard sculptire out by the pond in the back…but I’m impressed. I switched my order from the 180-600 for weight purposes…for screen output it’s more than good enough from all the shots I’ve seen here and elsewhere and I don’t get the folks that say it isn’t sharp. The zoom is more versatile but it’s heavier…and I decided the 600 and 100-400 with the TCs in my pocket made a better (I.e. lighter) double carry with the Z8 and Z9. I’m going to head out to the nature preserve in the mornong a2 miles down the road and see if I can find some better subjects to test with In low morning light.
 
Member's gallery
Many thanks @Steve for the review. It is very nice to have the choice from Nikon , but gee have I struggled to decide which to go for between the 400 f4.5 (with a teleconverter) and the 600PF to replace my 500 PF. Especially as the 400 f4.5 is on offer at the moment. On balance the 600 PF is the way for me, and I hope to see some of the exotic f mount zooms available in the Z mount to replace my 100-400 zoom.
 
Member's gallery
Great review Steve. While sharpness is important to me, background rendering can be just as important. My F mount 500mm f4 outperforms my 500mm f5.6 pf in that regard. But the 500mm f5.6 pf is so much easier to use especially if you substitute no support for a tripod or a mnopod for a tripod. I never used my 500mm f4 without a tripod. And often use my 500mm pf hand held,or with a monopod.

I can see how some might need both the 180mm to 600mm Z mount and the 600mm pf Z mount lens. Or the 100mm- 400mm Z mount and the 600mm pf S lens.

And some might need the 600mm f4 with the tc and the 180-600mm.
 
Member's gallery
Another very informative review and comparison.

As a side note, I noticed that a cropped 400 f/4.5 without a TC did better than the 400 with a TC against the 600 f/6.3. It would be interesting to compare the other lenses with and without a TC. You already have the images to do that. It is also much easier to switch to DX mode than attach a TC in the field.
 
Member's gallery
Thank you Steve for this Video.
i was so surprised to see how good this lens is and how it is close in focus and sharpness to the 600 tc. Since i have the 600 tc, so what are the advanges in keeping it and not switch to the 600 PF other than shooting in low light situation?
 
Member's gallery
Activert said:
Thank you Steve for this Video.
i was so surprised to see how good this lens is and how it is close in focus and sharpness to the 600 tc. Since i have the 600 tc, so what are the advanges in keeping it and not switch to the 600 PF other than shooting in low light situation?
Click to expand...
To me the big one for keeping a good 600mm f/4 lens over a slower 600mm f/6.3 lens is background rendering as demonstrated in the video.
 
Member's gallery
Activert said:
Thank you Steve for this Video.
i was so surprised to see how good this lens is and how it is close in focus and sharpness to the 600 tc. Since i have the 600 tc, so what are the advanges in keeping it and not switch to the 600 PF other than shooting in low light situation?
Click to expand...
The main things are the background rendering, low light capabilities, and the TC. The truth is, as much as I like the 600 PF, you just can't beat a 600 F/4 :)
 
Member's gallery
Thank you for the comparison, Steve.

Probably wouldn't change the results much and not add much value to most people, but for sharpness comparisons I also like to see the results with matching aperture when possible, which would likely make the 500 pf and 400 f4.5 look more competitive. Also, the 600 f4 when set to f6.3 would possibly pull ahead a little.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
100% agree with the TC comments. There is no doubt that AF suffers. I think that is why I steer clear of TCs more these days than just the RAW IQ.
600GM bare is way more consistent AF than 400GM/1.4TC. 400GM on its own is about the same as 600GM.
I never found the 500PF with TC or 400/4.5 with TC to get as reliable results as the bare lenses.

Thanks for doing the comparisons. I think it is difficult to see the differences in some of the lens test charts on YouTube even watching at the best 4K setting. I could see the differences you pointed out in some of them but others were so similar I couldn't see the difference. I'm sure it is a little more obvious in person.

I'm still not sure if I'd purchase the 600PF if I was buying a Nikon setup. Still leaning towards a 400TC and 800PF combo. But even then I could see adding the 600PF just for the times I don't want a large lens with me.
Click to expand...
The 800 PF is something special and I am really glad that I purchased this lens as my long telephoto. Most of my WL images are shot either near or far (700-840) and I nearly always had a tc on my 500 and 600 primes. For the near work, I’m hoping the 180-600 pans out but I’m likewise considering the 400 f/4.5. The 600 PF seems interesting but it might not see much use in my case. It’s great having all of these choices.
 
Member's gallery
Excellent video, the comparisons were exactly what we all have been waiting for.
Charlie Lasswell said:
Back long ago, when I got the 500pf, it had one side effect I wasn't expecting. It made my 600f4 get heavier and heavier and heavier, until it became house bound. Does the 600pf have similar side effects?
Click to expand...
haha too true.. my 500PF is what prompted me to sell my Canon EF 600 f/4 III. And now with this 600PF, I'm curious if I'll have the urge to use the 186 or 800PF again. Probably will at some point, but man I love this 600PF.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Steve said:
The main things are the background rendering, low light capabilities, and the TC. The truth is, as much as I like the 600 PF, you just can't beat a 600 F/4 :)
Click to expand...
It can, one just have to set proper comparison criteria :). (sorry for the distraction, I could not resist the urge)
 
Member's gallery
Excellent video, Steve! I just exchanged my 180-600mm to the 600 PF, still getting a very high prize for the zoom. The first shots with the 600mm are more than encouraging, I definitely like the handling better than with the zoom. Main reason for not keeping both was a check in my library: most of the shots with the zoom wered either done at 600mm or below 400mm, a distance I cover with the 100-400mm.
 
Member's gallery
I think comparing it with the 600 F4.0 the outcome will always be in favour of the 600 F4.0. I currently use the Z400 F2.8. I just love the lens but as I travel a lot by plane , I’m considering the 600 PF as it’s much easier to transport (less weight, compact) . The question for me is whether it will be too big a step backwards. Higher iso is nowadays hardly an issue with the sophisticated software that’s available like DXO. Food for thought for sure. Love the detailed review Steve.
 
Member's gallery
Another great video Steve... I feel like I learned a lot from this one.
My take aways...
1. Nikon's telephoto options are diverse in price and offerings, but quality is not a concern. Even the least expensive option can deliver.
2. The 600PF is more than class leading, as it approaches the quality of one of Nikon's premier optics at a fraction of the price.
3. If you are using the 400 f4.5 + 1.4x to get close to 600mm, there is a sacrifice at the corners, but not as bad as it might have been in the F-Mount days.
4. There is a consistency between like optics... the bare 400 f4.5 is nearly as sharp as the more expensive 400 f2.8S and the 600PF is nearly as sharp as the more expensive 600 f2.8S

If I were entering the Z system today, I'd have a hard time making a decision about optics... so many good choices out there.
regard,
bruce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top