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

[Activert]

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

Thank you. Now I am happy to have the 600 mm tc. Your opinion is so important to all of us because you are honest et you always give us the correct arguments. I appreciate that a lot.

 

[Steve]

I love the video, but the thumbnail is a bit hardcore.

it‘s such a tragic shame that the YouTube thumbnail has become such an important factor in the industry of making money.

I agree. "Normal" thumbnails - and titles for that matter - don't get enough attention and the effort in making the video is wasted. If your thumbnail and title don't stand out, the video withers and dies. And we're all trying to one-up each other. It won't be long before we're all using psychedelic neon to stand out.

 

[Steve]

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.

I agree - from an optical standpoint, the 600 F/4 is tough to beat.

Some thoughts:

As for ISO and modern software- keep in mind there is a point where noise will overwhelm detail and that detail is lost. No software can recover detail that you didn't actually capture. When the light is falling, that point happens 1.3 stops earlier with the 600PF.

Still, you gotta use what works well for you most of the time. The 600 F/4 is fantastic, but it's huge, heavy, and an awkward travel companion. Plus, there are times the flexibility of the PF can get you into physical spots that are tough with the 600 F/4. Give and take.

 

[Steve]

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

After the tests, those were my thoughts as well.

 

[MatthewK]

I agree - from an optical standpoint, the 600 F/4 is tough to beat.

Some thoughts:

As for ISO and modern software- keep in mind there is a point where noise will overwhelm detail and that detail is lost. No software can recover detail that you didn't actually capture. When the light is falling, that point happens 1.3 stops earlier with the 600PF.

Still, you gotta use what works well for you most of the time. The 600 F/4 is fantastic, but it's huge, heavy, and an awkward travel companion. Plus, there are times the flexibility of the PF can get you into physical spots that are tough with the 600 F/4. Give and take.

I always say that the lighter lenses allow me to get into more difficult yoga poses than the big glass

 

[Steve]

I always say that the lighter lenses allow me to get into more difficult yoga poses than the big glass

If you can't get the shot in a Camel pose, then what are you even doing?

 

[TCzPhotos]

Thanks again for all you do... My kit is now the 24-120, 100-400 and 600PF. I am still impressed with what a difference the bokeh of the F4 makes on the overall image. When you compare the image quality of two lenses wide open (f6.3 vs f4), do you float the ISO or the shutterspeed?

 

[alanlwilder]

I curious how the 800/6.3 PF compared to the 600/6.3 PF. Did the 800/6.3 test out as well as the 600/6.3 PF?

 

[macwalter]

As always, stunning review with great information that helps with decisions for the field, this is what drew me to your videos years ago and great to continue to see you keep contributing to the community in such an informative and professional manner.

Regarding the test itself, to be honest, I was surprised at how well the Nikon 180-600 and Sony 200-600 hold up, while I agree the 600 PF was doing better I did not feel these two consumer zooms were too far off, for those who can't afford the S lenses, this really shows the zooms are viable performers.

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out the cost justification of the 600PF over the 400 4.5 + TC. Your comparison was helpful and it was clear the 600 PF was the sharpness and bokeh winner over the 400+TC combo (which was to be expected), but was it enough of a difference to invest in considering the fairly large price gap? For me it makes sense to do the 400 f/4.5, Z 1.4 TC but instead of the 600 PF I would think the 800 PF offers more here (for not much more $$$), this combo gives you very good 400mm f/4.5, really good 560mm f/6.3 and outstanding 800mm f/6.3 - with that setup, I'm struggling to see the "need" for the 600 PF.... I realize this is me and my personal preference and clearly others will see the value in the 600 PF even with these others lenses but your review certainly helps to identify strengths and weaknesses.

I must be honest, the biggest surprise (probably shouldn't be) of your review is how amazingly good the 600 f/4 TC lens is!!! Might be worth saving up for the next few years for that lens, wow!

I happen to agree that at least for me having the added flexibility of a lens that has f4.5 for low light then add a tc for more reach is a good combo. I use the 400 4.5 with a tc and find it to be quite sharp. I’m sure the 600pf is better but I’m not convinced it is that much better in the real world, handholding and fast reaction to events etc. 600mm can be tough to handhold and get all the sharpness the lens has to offer. I also am not crazy about the minimum focus distance. 8.5 feet on the 400mm is bad enough. Time will tell for me and 5k is a lot to spend on a lens with a minimum of f6.3.

 

[Steve]

Thanks again for all you do... My kit is now the 24-120, 100-400 and 600PF. I am still impressed with what a difference the bokeh of the F4 makes on the overall image. When you compare the image quality of two lenses wide open (f6.3 vs f4), do you float the ISO or the shutterspeed?

I'm pretty sure it it was ISO. (I'm away at the moment)

 

[Anjin San]

Thanks again for all you do... My kit is now the 24-120, 100-400 and 600PF. I am still impressed with what a difference the bokeh of the F4 makes on the overall image. When you compare the image quality of two lenses wide open (f6.3 vs f4), do you float the ISO or the shutterspeed?

I agree…that’s pretty much going to be my kit now and the short one might get replaced by or added to with the 14-30 dep ding on weight and needs…but at this point I’m keeping the 400/4.5 as well because it and the 24-120 and DX and the TC are a pn excellent light kit although TBH if 400 is enough reach the 100-400 instead of 5he 400 is only slightly heavier and more flexible if that is needed…but the 3 lens combo…or only the long 2 and the 14-30 is an attractive combo weight wise depending on what/where/needs. And while it’s not quite the same…the new lens blur tool in LR helps with bokeh a lot, particularly combined with selecting the BG and adjusting lighting/contrast/highlights, etc.

 

[jpawlan]

I could not get the Z600 f/4 TC anywhere including the Nikon store and I have been trying for 9 months. I also appreciated the huge difference in price for the new Z600 f/6.3 PF. So I got that one this week. I found that it is quite comfortable in weight and balance for handholding but in the future I will try it with a gimbal on a tripod

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.

when using it with a tc1.4 and trying to photograph small birds that are around 100ft away. My few hours of trying it showed that the new Z9 firmware 4.10 does not usually recognize the eye of shorebirds with black eyes. I found that when the bird is a long distance away (perhaps 100ft) then the camera is more likely to find the eye when I use a TC on the lens So size of the subject seems to be important to eye detection.
I notice that the eye detection is not perfectly accurate when the bird is 100ft away but it is excellent with closer subjects.
I will attach a few photos to illustrate. One is a black crowned heron (around 30-40ft), one is a black necked stilt (around 100ft), one is a Northern Shoveler (around 80ft). The heron was close enough that I did not need to use a TC.

 

[sparadise]

New to this forum but long time Sony Nikon Canon bird shooter. You Tube subscriber to Steve's channel. My previous rig was the Sony A1 200-600 600f4 (for a while) Just don't want to carry it around. Moved on to Nikon when the Z8 was released. Love the ergonomics vs the A1. Started with the Z 400 4.5 and picked up the 180-600. My copy seemed soft at 600mm compared to the Sony 2-6 so I sent it back. Was not user error . I checked it on a tripod and a still subject as well. Can anyone here confirm it should be pretty close to the primes. My Sony 2-6 was. I decided for what I do the 600 pf would be a better fit . I need reach far more than I need zoom. It is much better to me as the 1.4X degrades the PF lenses more than a standard lens IMHO. Again observations ae welcome. I know I am late to this party but just my two cents worth

 

[McStamp]

New to this forum but long time Sony Nikon Canon bird shooter. You Tube subscriber to Steve's channel. My previous rig was the Sony A1 200-600 600f4 (for a while) Just don't want to carry it around. Moved on to Nikon when the Z8 was released. Love the ergonomics vs the A1. Started with the Z 400 4.5 and picked up the 180-600. My copy seemed soft at 600mm compared to the Sony 2-6 so I sent it back. Was not user error . I checked it on a tripod and a still subject as well. Can anyone here confirm it should be pretty close to the primes. My Sony 2-6 was. I decided for what I do the 600 pf would be a better fit . I need reach far more than I need zoom. It is much better to me as the 1.4X degrades the PF lenses more than a standard lens IMHO. Again observations ae welcome. I know I am late to this party but just my two cents worth

I was not happy with the 180-600 for similar reason as you describe it. Got the 600PF in exchange and with this lens I shoot a lot. It is very handy and gives an excellent sharpness. Yes, you might wish for more light, but generally I manage very well with this lens.

 

[EricBowles]

New to this forum but long time Sony Nikon Canon bird shooter. You Tube subscriber to Steve's channel. My previous rig was the Sony A1 200-600 600f4 (for a while) Just don't want to carry it around. Moved on to Nikon when the Z8 was released. Love the ergonomics vs the A1. Started with the Z 400 4.5 and picked up the 180-600. My copy seemed soft at 600mm compared to the Sony 2-6 so I sent it back. Was not user error . I checked it on a tripod and a still subject as well. Can anyone here confirm it should be pretty close to the primes. My Sony 2-6 was. I decided for what I do the 600 pf would be a better fit . I need reach far more than I need zoom. It is much better to me as the 1.4X degrades the PF lenses more than a standard lens IMHO. Again observations ae welcome. I know I am late to this party but just my two cents worth

I don't know if any of the zooms really compare to the prime alternatives. The primes are going to be sharper. But the question is, whether the zoom is sharp enough.

The 180-600 might be a little sharper slightly stopped down - to f/7.1 at the long end. It's very common for zoom lenses to be slightly soft in that last 50mm of focal length. The 600mm PF is very sharp - enough so that it's clearly better than all the zooms that reach 600mm. If you need that level sharpness, give up the zoom. I also found the 400mm f/4.5 was sharper than any zoom at 400mm, but if you add a 1.4 TC, the 180-600 might be as sharp.

 

[joe43]

My Z600mm f6.3 pf arrives next week. I will be checking it out soon. It joins my S100-400mm and my S 24-120mm. And my F mount lenses too including my 500mm pf.

 

[sparadise]

My Z600mm f6.3 pf arrives next week. I will be checking it out soon. It joins my S100-400mm and my S 24-120mm. And my F mount lenses too including my 500mm pf.

I too have decided upon the Z8 600mm pf 1.4 x and the z 100-400 I also own the Nikon Z 24-200 for family pics. After using the 400pf and 600pf I feel the 600 does better with the 1.4 than the 400. MFD of the 100-400 can be nice when you need it. I think your choices are spot on.

 

[macwalter]

I have had the 600pf for a week now and have been out several times both in my backyard bird sanctuary and to the local beach at Ft Morgan Alabama For BIF. I can say with confidence this lens is so sharp and quick that in any light from the gold hour on you will be fine. Dawn and dusk are more difficult as the ISO will go up. I also used to on a cloudy afternoon going into evening with the 1.4tc and was pleased overall. I was still able to photograph small fast birds like sanderlings in flight and although the hit rate diminished with 20fps I still got many keepers. As the light dropped my iso was going up to 12,800 and still sharp but noisy. For those who think the 600pf with a 1.4tc will be better than the 800pf, I tend to doubt this due to the minimum f9 aperture. In good light it is pretty good though, noticeably better the 400f4.5 with the 2x. I think the thing that impressed me most was the rich contrast, I was not expecting that, more like what you get get with the big boys.

 

[sparadise]

I have had the 600pf for a week now and have been out several times both in my backyard bird sanctuary and to the local beach at Ft Morgan Alabama For BIF. I can say with confidence this lens is so sharp and quick that in any light from the gold hour on you will be fine. Dawn and dusk are more difficult as the ISO will go up. I also used to on a cloudy afternoon going into evening with the 1.4tc and was pleased overall. I was still able to photograph small fast birds like sanderlings in flight and although the hit rate diminished with 20fps I still got many keepers. As the light dropped my iso was going up to 12,800 and still sharp but noisy. For those who think the 600pf with a 1.4tc will be better than the 800pf, I tend to doubt this due to the minimum f9 aperture. In good light it is pretty good though, noticeably better the 400f4.5 with the 2x. I think the thing that impressed me most was the rich contrast, I was not expecting that, more like what you get get with the big boys.

I made the journey from Sony to Nikon specifically for the pf lenses. I always shoot handheld which is why lighter lenses are appealing to me. Initially I purchased the Z8 and the 400mm pf. At the time the other pf's were not available. Subsequently I did try to 800 pf but it was in the too bulky and heavy category to walk around and handhold it. That's how I arrived at the 600 pf. It is the perfect weight and I can deal with the 6.3 just fine. Today was my first outing with it and I was extremely pleased. Pretty sure the focus is faster than the 400 pf . I have decided that the 600 pf and the z 100-400 is the perfect fit for my needs. Here is a shot this morning of a Black-tailed Gnatcatcher in always bright and sunny by 8 am Arizona.

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

 

[MatthewK]

I made the journey from Sony to Nikon specifically for the pf lenses. I always shoot handheld which is why lighter lenses are appealing to me. Initially I purchased the Z8 and the 400mm pf. At the time the other pf's were not available. View attachment 88868

Just to clear up any confusion, there is no 400 PF.

 

[sparadise]

Just to clear up any confusion, there is no 400 PF.

I prefer the term misinformed vs confusion. I just assumed it was but I stand corrected. Either way I think the 600 is a better performer in the AF department and it seems a bit sharper .

 

[MatthewK]

I prefer the term misinformed vs confusion. I just assumed it was but I stand corrected. Either way I think the 600 is a better performer in the AF department and it seems a bit sharper .

Right on, the 400 is so small it’s easy to assume it’s a PF

Bare 400 vs. 600PF is close, both are razor sharp. 600 is leagues better compared to the 400 + 1.4TC. I should have my 600 back early next week, and will def be running comparisons b/w it and my new 400.

 

[sparadise]

Right on, the 400 is so small it’s easy to assume it’s a PF

Bare 400 vs. 600PF is close, both are razor sharp. 600 is leagues better compared to the 400 + 1.4TC. I should have my 600 back early next week, and will def be running comparisons b/w it and my new 400.

I was somewhat disappointed in the performance of the 400 with the 1.4x attached. Have yet to try it with the 600. . Perhaps you can share your observations about the 1.4 with the Nikon 600

 

[MatthewK]

I was somewhat disappointed in the performance of the 400 with the 1.4x attached. Have yet to try it with the 600. . Perhaps you can share your observations about the 1.4 with the Nikon 600

My 600+1.4 is just as sharp as my 800PF. Wouldn’t hesitate to use that combo if light is good enough for f/9.0.

 

[macwalter]

I have both the 400 4.5 and now the 600pf. As said above the 600pf is the sharpest lens I own better than the 400 bare but not by a huge margin. Also shooting the 400 with the 1.4tc stopped down to f8 makes a noticeable improvement but the bare 600 is still sharper. I do think the 400 bare a slightly faster in terms of AF but not by much. No science here just trying them both in my backyard as I now have two Z8. The 600pf does a decent job with the 1.4tc but you have to be aware of the minimum f9 aperture so I highly doubt it will be better then the 800pf but as I handhold that lens is too big for me to Handle. In good light the 600pf and 1.4tc does a good job and can be sharp. Accuracy may suffer a bit but it is still good.