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

[Steve]

In this follow up 600 PF review, I pull out all the stops and put the 600PF through the wringer! We'll scrutinize sharpness, AF speed, background rendering, focus breathing, VR performance, and I'll even share the ARCA-SWISS foot I'm using with it!

But it doesn't stop there - we gotta see how it stacks up against other popular glass! We'll pit the 600PF against other popular lenses like the 400 F/4.5 (with TC), 500PF, 180-600, the Sony 200-600, and we'll even take on the titan: the 600TC!

This 600 PF video is loaded with surprises - some of these tests blew me away! Just wait till you see 'em!

Here’s the foot I mention in the video. It’s not strictly for this lens, but it works fine:
https://bhpho.to/3SpxQR4
(Note the above is an affiliate link and I earn a small commission if you click it and purchase)

 

[Jerry Watson]

Thanks Steve. I am curious as to how much 400 to 500 milliseconds slower in AF speed affects focusing in the field.

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

Unsurprising results, but good to hear ones .
Thank you for getting to it so quick, Steve.

 

[ajrmd]

It's difficult to want a 180-600 after seeing the sharpness tests. I expected to see some differences in the corners between these two lenses though was impressed by how much sharper the 600 f/6.3 was overall. If it is this distinct on youtube, then the differences in real life must be all the more impressive.

 

[RichF]

Looking forward to viewing it after my class is over

 

[Doug Herr]

A better stress test for background rendering includes twigs in front of specular highlights.

 

[Steve]

Thanks Steve. I am curious as to how much 400 to 500 milliseconds slower in AF speed affects focusing in the field.

Like the difference between the 180-600 vs the 600 PF? If you're locked on, it's really not a factor. If you're trying to pick up a target or the lens is hunting, it's noticeable.

 

[Steve]

It's difficult to want a 180-600 after seeing the sharpness tests. I expected to see some differences in the corners between these two lenses though was impressed by how much sharper the 600 f/6.3 was overall. If it is this distinct on youtube, then the differences in real life must be all the more impressive.

It's noticeable for sure.

 

[Steve]

A better stress test for background rendering includes twigs in front of specular highlights.

True, but my time and weather is limited. I only had about ten minutes of sunlight and had to take advantage as best I could. I'm looking at a week of cloud cover at the moment if the weather channel is to be believed. The idea was more to just give an idea, I can't cover every scenario

 

[PhilM]

Yet another great video. Thanks again for all you do Steve.

In very limited time with the 600PF, my observations echo your findings.

 

[Dancogan]

Thanks, Steve. Very impressive performance, in my opinion, by the 600 PF. Appreciate how quickly you got this second video out!

 

[gdecamp]

Very comprehensive and well worth the watch. That 600pf looks like it will be a huge success! Thanks again Steve!

 

[jwr50]

Thanks, Steve! You answer a lot of questions there.

 

[bleirer]

Excellent comparison video, I don't shoot Nikon but I still watched to the end ( at 2x in some spots I admit). I was wondering what we were looking at in lightroom. Was it the embedded JPEG? The 1:1 preview? You probably mentioned and I missed it.

 

[Steve]

Excellent comparison video, I don't shoot Nikon but I still watched to the end ( at 2x in some spots I admit). I was wondering what we were looking at in lightroom. Was it the embedded JPEG? The 1:1 preview? You probably mentioned and I missed it.

1:1 preview for all of them.

 

[EricBowles]

It's difficult to want a 180-600 after seeing the sharpness tests. I expected to see some differences in the corners between these two lenses though was impressed by how much sharper the 600 f/6.3 was overall. If it is this distinct on youtube, then the differences in real life must be all the more impressive.

Just keep in mind you were viewing a lot of test results at 100-200%. At normal viewing and modest cropping, there is a benefit from the flexibility of a zoom for many photos. I see the lenses as being for different purposes - if you really need 600mm or longer, the PF is a great choice. But for large mammals, I've found using too much focal length leaves you with a bunch of head shots without the benefit of environment or context. That becomes boring very quickly.

The nice thing is there are at least five lenses (including teleconverters) that cover 400mm, six lenses that cover 600mm, and four lenses that can cover 800mm. That leaves a lot of flexibility when building a kit. I'm using a 70-200, 400mm f/4.5 and 800mm PF right now - with an F-mount 600mm f/4 for occasional use. Others would have a very different kit.

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

It's difficult to want a 180-600 after seeing the sharpness tests. I expected to see some differences in the corners between these two lenses though was impressed by how much sharper the 600 f/6.3 was overall. If it is this distinct on youtube, then the differences in real life must be all the more impressive.

Interesting - would agree for a landscape lens; for wildlife how often do you have an uncropped image, and between Smart Sharpening, High Pass Details Actions, or Topaz, I would guess you easily fix the edges sufficiently even for printing.

For the use cases where a zoom is needed or those looking at cost, nothing in @Steve's video seemed terribly concerning. Only time will tell as people use them all.

 

[EricBowles]

Excellent testing and good feedback on what you were seeing.

That 600mm PF looks like a terrific lens.

 

[Jerry Watson]

Just keep in mind you were viewing a lot of test results at 100-200%. At normal viewing and modest cropping, there is a benefit from the flexibility of a zoom for many photos. I see the lenses as being for different purposes - if you really need 600mm or longer, the PF is a great choice. But for large mammals, I've found using too much focal length leaves you with a bunch of head shots without the benefit of environment or context. That becomes boring very quickly.

The nice thing is there are at least five lenses (including teleconverters) that cover 400mm, six lenses that cover 600mm, and four lenses that can cover 800mm. That leaves a lot of flexibility when building a kit. I'm using a 70-200, 400mm f/4.5 and 800mm PF right now - with an F-mount 600mm f/4 for occasional use. Others would have a very different kit.

Its also a $3000 price difference.

 

[Photographer_Bill]

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!

 

[Steve]

Interesting - would agree for a landscape lens; for wildlife how often do you have an uncropped image, and between Smart Sharpening, High Pass Details Actions, or Topaz, I would guess you easily fix the edges sufficiently even for printing.

For the use cases where a zoom is needed or those looking at cost, nothing in @Steve's video seemed terribly concerning. Only time will tell as people use them all.

Agree 100% - there are a LOT of ways to enhance sharpness as long as a shot if properly focused.

 

[Steve]

Excellent testing and good feedback on what you were seeing.

That 600mm PF looks like a terrific lens.

It really has surprised me. It's a lot like the 500PF in that respect (you'd think I'd learn). I wasn't sure about it at first, but the more time I have with it, the better I like it

 

[Steve]

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.

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%).

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.

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.

 

[Charles Loy]

This is fantastic, well done. So much better to watch and hear you detail than to read comments by the other reviewers.
Some are/may be pounding the 180-600 zoom now, but we (really try to) shoot the subjects in the center of the frame where it is at it's best.
And thanks for head up on the LP-70 foot

 

[Photographer_Bill]

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%).

Thank you for clarifying on the distance, your field experience is invaluable here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.