LOL, they should send me a commission!Looks like they are sold out
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).
LOL, they should send me a commission!Looks like they are sold out
LOL, maybe later. The thing is, they're all so close. The truth is, I almost didn't post the video when I saw the results - there's just no point in trying to base a purchase decision on top-line lenses based on differences in sharpness.@Steve thanks for a great video. Of course the invents other request for additional tests
600 + TC
600 w/ eternal 1.4
600 + TC + external 1.4
600 + external 2.0
600 + TC + external 2.0
Give us an inch and we ask for light year
But thanks again for a great test
I'm getting some request for that test, so I may do it in the future. I'm getting some new equipment to help with these kind of tests, so that may be my first oneThanks for doing these tests, your time invested is very much appreciated. In particular the comparison between Nikon lenses and how close the cheaper lens is.
Between brands is a little more difficult to draw conclusions of lenses as sensor difference and demozaicing difference within LR come into the equation.
Would love to see a comparison between 200-600 and 600/4 on the Sony system as that 200-600 looks very good from what I have seen.
Indeed, if I buy back into Nikon, the (future) 200-600Z and 800PF would be the perfect kit for my video interests. I really like what Nikon is doing with their lenses.Really shows how much of a groundbreaking lens the 800pf really is (thinking about the weight and cost of getting to 800mm otherwise)
Knowing that are not significant or even noticeable differences is important. Sort of like a doctor tell your tests indicate you are in good health. No follow up, but important to know.LOL, maybe later. The thing is, they're all so close. The truth is, I almost didn't post the video when I saw the results - there's just no point in trying to base a purchase decision on top-line lenses based on differences in sharpness.
It's like @Steve said in the video, sharpness isn't a deciding factor if comparing them. Other things like weight, integrated TC, etc are what differentiates them.Knowing that are not significant or even noticeable differences is important. Sort of like a doctor tell your tests indicate you are in good health. No follow up, but important to know.
Agree. But until we had the test, it was uncertain if sharpness was really a non-factorIt's like @Steve said in the video, sharpness isn't a deciding factor if comparing them. Other things like weight, integrated TC, etc are what differentiates them.
I was referring to his comment that now the test has shown that sharpness isn't a meaningful difference.Agree. But until we had the test, it was uncertain if sharpness was really a non-factor
to be honest, I always thought that such famous or known photographers like you who are active in social media cannot tell very bad things about one or other brand becasue they can be accused in business-damaging or something like that. There is a difference if I tell something or if you tell something. Everybody will be listening of what you are talking about. It is also a responsibility towards followers and brands. But maybe I am wrong, just a thought.things I say are frequently misquoted
There is a chart in Amazon (at least in Europe), a smaller one under "Enjoyyourcamera Test card". You can buy for example, 5 small charts and put them on the billboard in 4 corners and in the middle.Looks like they are sold out
That is a very good idea. I'm about to become a Nikon user again. The very good new lenses are very attractive. I am thinking of the Z400 2.8 TC because of the quality and versatility. So I can use a comparison with the Z600 4.0 TC and Z800 6.3 PF for my thinking and decision processWell said. These lenses are closing in on indistinguisable from one another to the point where sample variation may have as big an impact as differences in design/manufacturer. Price/weight/versatility (e.g. built in TC) prioritization may be looming larger than ever in designing one's kit if image quality gap is shrinking. Very interested in how Z400 f/2.8 TC @560 f4.0 with built in TC and @800 f5.6 with 2.0 external TC stacks up against these others you tested. If in the same ballpark, certainly can make a case for that combination hitting the sweet spot covering high end 400-800 range.
That is a very good idea. I'm about to become a Nikon user again. The very good new lenses are very attractive. I am thinking of the Z400 2.8 TC because of the quality and versatility. So I can use a comparison with the Z600 4.0 TC and Z800 6.3 PF for my thinking and decision process
I suppose it's possible. 99% of the time if I say something, I can back it up with evidence though. I think that's the key. Not only does it have the handy side effect of keeping slanderous lawsuits at bay, but it also demonstrates to my viewers that I'm not just pulling stuff out of my bum.to be honest, I always thought that such famous or known photographers like you who are active in social media cannot tell very bad things about one or other brand becasue they can be accused in business-damaging or something like that. There is a difference if I tell something or if you tell something. Everybody will be listening of what you are talking about. It is also a responsibility towards followers and brands. But maybe I am wrong, just a thought.
QQQ -- I assume that for consistency you were shooting the other brand lenses on a Z9 using adapters OR were they on other brand cameras as well. I may have missed this in the vid.
I used the a1 for the Sony stuff for a couple of reasons.
First, I don't care enough about any of this to spend money on an adapter. I know they are all so close that I can use any of them and be thrilled with the results. The video was mostly to quell the constant questions I was getting about which was sharper.
Second, I think most people using a Sony 600 will use it on an a1 (or at east, another Sony). So, that is the result that matters IMO. It doesn't matter if it's as good, better, or worse on a Z9 because it's irrelevant for practical field work. The only how well is does on a Z9 matters is when people are arguing on forums or showing off gear in camera clubs and can claim "mine is better than yours" LOL
Obviously as a f/2.8 the 400 is most useable in ultra low light -- this is why it is most often used to shoot lions before sunrise and after sunset and sports. The Z400/2.8's TC makes it immensely more flexible than "just" a 400/2.8 - and this is particularly true whe shooting in dusty conditions or when one "just" has to reach further with the flick of a switch (560/4.0).
When shooting birds and wildlife action in Africa in good light I am often out at 600mm and beyond -- hence why I hope to receive the 600/4TC soon. BUT -- when shooting larger subjects, wildlife in very low light (typically lions) and UK based action/sports I "needed" the 400/2.8TC, with its flexibility to reach 580mm/4.0 with a flick of a switch.
Thanks Andy, everything you said is extremely helpful for me. It will be the Z400 2.8 TC because that was also my main candidate because of the seize, wight and versatility. Only curious to compare the different '800mm' variants but you also mentioned that. Thanks again !I would not try to distinguish between the quality of images from these three lenses when shot in good light -- they are albut identical -- but the 400 and 600 are both a little brighter than the 800 and this has consequences as to their flexibility in the field. The AF speed in the 400 (and I believe 600 as well) is stupidly fast, but the 800 is no slouch either.
Obviously as a f/2.8 the 400 is most useable in ultra low light -- this is why it is most often used to shoot lions before sunrise and after sunset and sports. The Z400/2.8's TC makes it immensely more flexible than "just" a 400/2.8 - and this is particularly true whe shooting in dusty conditions or when one "just" has to reach further with the flick of a switch (560/4.0).
The 400 and 600 are optically and mechanically exactly the same. And as Steve's vid showed the internal TC in the 600 is optically matched to the rest of the lens, which provides more consistent image quality than "just" adding a ZTC14.
The 800 is fine but a little darker -- my comparison of the 400 -vs- 800 show that a 400+ZTC20 is within a few percent as sharp/clear as the 800, but optically 2/3rd of a stop brighter.
The 400/2.8TC seems to provide a tiny bit better results as a 784mm when the internal TC is engaged, and a ZTC14 is used when compared to simply adding a ZTC20 -- this could be entirely a result of my ZTC14 being an exceptional copy and perhaps the ZTC20 not being as on point for the rest of my gear.
My view is that (ignoring budget) your decision should be based on the focal lengths you tend to use most often and in what lighting conditions
This should be key input to your Use Case or business Case for selecting any of these lenses.
When shooting birds and wildlife action in Africa in good light I am often out at 600mm and beyond -- hence why I hope to receive the 600/4TC soon. BUT -- when shooting larger subjects, wildlife in very low light (typically lions) and UK based action/sports I "needed" the 400/2.8TC, with its flexibility to reach 580mm/4.0 with a flick of a switch.
The 800/6.3 is the lightest, smallest of the three - but also the least flexible. I bought mine in April to have a 2nd long lens and have used it over the summer, but will be selling it soon -- primarily because it is the least flexible in my bag.
A 2ndary consideration is how you will bridge the gap between the supertele you select and shorter focal lengths you carry. I find that a Z 70-200/2.8 + ZTC14 is a fantastic pairing to get to 280mm at f/4.0. I have the 100-400 but do not "like it as much" with any TC attached.
Thanks for you thoughts and experience Andy. I’m enjoying the 800 mm PF, paired with a 500 mm PF, Z 100-400, and/or Z 70-200, depending on circumstances, sometimes with their respective 1.4x TC. I would love a built in TC, but do not want the weight of the Z 400 TC or Z 600 TC.….
The 800 is fine but a little darker -- my comparison of the 400 -vs- 800 show that a 400+ZTC20 is within a few percent as sharp/clear as the 800, but optically 2/3rd of a stop brighter.
…..
Technically true but not from a practical standpoint. If 800mm is needed then there is only a 1/3 stop penalty with the 800PF. Though one could argue that in extreme low light shooting at 600mm and 1 1/3 stop lower ISO and cropping in post might be preferable to shooting at 800mm and higher ISO. But then all of the arguments of downsampling, software, etc, come into playI would not try to distinguish between the quality of images from these three lenses when shot in good light -- they are albut identical -- but the 400 and 600 are both a little brighter than the 800...
"Ignoring budget" one could just buy them all and pull out the one needed on any given day for that particular shoot But as stated the point is that focal length decisions should primarily be made around what FOV one needs most of the time. For example if small birds are the primary target species it makes no sense to buy a 400mm 2.8 and shoot it 90 percent of the time with a 2x TC(effectively at f5.6). There is the argument of having the flexibility for the rare occasions that the 800mm isn't needed. But there are less expensive/more convenient ways to fill the gap below 800mm....My view is that (ignoring budget) your decision should be based on the focal lengths you tend to use most often and in what lighting conditions...
"For practical field work" is the value of your work, Steve. There are plenty of other sites out there where they dive into the (for practical purpsoses)irrelevant minutia. I hope you stick to your script and let those guys compare these lenses against the Hubble...I think most people using a Sony 600 will use it on an a1 (or at east, another Sony). So, that is the result that matters IMO. It doesn't matter if it's as good, better, or worse on a Z9 because it's irrelevant for practical field work...