Yes, 5.6 sounds better than 6.3 but in the overall scheme of things a small bump in ISO takes care of that with the added benefit of saving size, weight, and expense. Sounds like a good tradeoff to me...
Nikon 600PF First Look Field Review!
- Thread starter Steve
- 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).
I was able to get over the f/5.6 block when I traded my Canon 600 f/4 for the Nikon 500PF. Took a while to get comfortable with the thought of not having as much bokaaaay, but it all turned out alright if you were a little more careful with background selection & distance. With the 800PF, which obliterates backgrounds at f/6.3, I don't even think about f/4 or, heck, 5.6 lenses anymore. f/6.3 at 600mm won't be an issue at all. Maybe this is Nikon's way of subtly nudging photographers to stop-down, in an attempt to stem the rampant overuse of blurred backgrounds and promote acceptance of having subjects fully in focus for onceI think we're all stuck with a mental block of anything over 5.6 due to so many years of that being the AF limit for DSLR. Since shooting thousands of image with the 800PF and a few hundred with a 1.4x TC on the 400 4.5 I'm finally over it. As discussed above to go from 6.3 to 5.6 would likely have increased the weight by about 30 percent which would be the same weight as the 180-600. Personally I'll take the smaller/lighter lens.
That said... I've decided to pass on this one. Just not seeing $4800 worth of benefit vs the 400+TC or the 180-600
Now, if you were to ask me how I'd like to shoot a fixed 600mm or 800mm f/11 lens, I'd have some reservations. Everyone has their limits, you see
At ISO 6400 a 1/3 stop is nearing ISO 8000 which produces the psychological effect of turning the camera off and come back another day
eaj101
Well-known member
I still maintain that the real world difference between F/5.6 and F/6.3 is there but minimal. However, the difference between F/4 and F/5.6 or F/6.3 is far more noticeable and it's why we pay the big bucks for those lenses. I agree that the contextual rendering (I love that phrase) is absolutely better with the faster glass. Again though, there's a $15K option out there that'll make it happen
As far as the fast primes and the way they render, that's often a result of a number of things - not just the front element (which, I'm not sure the sheer size actually makes any difference). I think that the larger primes tend to have better coatings and use better quality elements all the way around. I'm not an optical engineer though...
And, as I said in the video, I agree 100% that the lens should have been an F/5.6 BUT I also think it's important to try to take the third of a stop difference in the proper context.
@Steve you raise an interesting question which has bothered me for a while. Regardless of what people consider to be 'sharp' I've found that images from the top-end f4 lenses (of which my only experience has been the 500f4, 600f4, and 200-400f4) just 'pop' better than those taken with anything else, and it's not just a matter of 'sharpness'. Color contrast, micro-contrast, light transmission... The images just have more punch. It's not something I see discussed much. I don't know what it is but the difference has never seemed subtle to me. The 200-500 didn't have it. I'm not sure the 500PF really has 'it', though it's close. The 300PF doesn't have it. I doubt the 180-600 has it.
There are times I wish I hadn't sold the 500f4, for this exact reason, and it's why I've kept the 200-400f4 for times I can justify the weight.
I've never used the 800PF but I would worry if the 600PF had those characteristics or not. Maybe i should buy a used 500f4G
This was recently discussed in another thread. Basically boils down to higher quality glass and better coatings.@Steve you raise an interesting question which has bothered me for a while. Regardless of what people consider to be 'sharp' I've found that images from the top-end f4 lenses (of which my only experience has been the 500f4, 600f4, and 200-400f4) just 'pop' better than those taken with anything else, and it's not just a matter of 'sharpness'. Color contrast, micro-contrast, light transmission... The images just have more punch. It's not something I see discussed much. I don't know what it is but the difference has never seemed subtle to me. The 200-500 didn't have it. I'm not sure the 500PF really has 'it', though it's close. The 300PF doesn't have it. I doubt the 180-600 has it.
There are times I wish I hadn't sold the 500f4, for this exact reason, and it's why I've kept the 200-400f4 for times I can justify the weight.
I've never used the 800PF but I would worry if the 600PF had those characteristics or not. Maybe i should buy a used 500f4G
Everyone has different needs and priorities
LOL, I gotta admit, you're not wrong! It does for me, even though it's just a third of a stop. In that case, I'd probably just drop a third of a stop in shutter speed and cross my fingers! Although, I have to admit, most of the time when the light is that low, it's not really all that interesting anymore so I tend to be on my way out anyway!
I was told by Nikon at a dinner that they regret underpricing the 500PF. I think they nailed the pricing for such an awesome little 600mm. I suspect you won't be able to get one for a while.
marlowtravelsoften
Active member
Again though, there's a $15K option out there that'll make it happen
Still waiting for that option to ship to me
LOL - Yeah, you're not alone, that's for sure.Still waiting for that option to ship to me
Okay, I see your point. You make me feel better.
You’re having dinner with the right people David
ChrisM
Well-known member
Hmmm, I am sure the price helped them sell a whole lot op copies, and got them a lot of new customers, amongst which myself.
Not much to regret from a business point of view I would say.
Nikon can drive the price up as much as they want, €5800,- for the Z600PF, it will not cost mé any sleep, but I would like to say that a lens like the 500/4E, great as it was, never sold a lot of copies, and that was not just because of its size and weight...
Let's see if Nikon will sell as many Z600PF lenses as they did 500PF lenses...
ricardo00
Well-known member
The important thing for a company is not how many copies they sell of a lens (or camera), but the profit they make on selling the equipment. Unfortunately we will never know the answer to that.
Based on the market response both the 500PF and 800PF were priced lower than they could have been. Based on comments I'm seeing here and elsewhere this one might be a tad on the high side. Which will work well for them also because they likely won't take the reputation hit for taking months to fill initial orders yet again. And if they have indeed priced it a bit high that's easily rectified with sale pricing a few months down the road.
You nailed it.
The 400/4.5 has it too
The 400/4.5 wasn’t unexpectedly priced lower like the 800pf. Above 3K it was very attractive because of the magic number “4” on the max aperture, and also because it wasn’t a PF (people have a negative attitude about it, because in certain conditions the PF creates funny effects) and the fact it was compact and light weight and wicked sharp and takes 1.4 TC very well.
To sum it:
f/4.5
No PF element
Compact
Lightweight
Wicked sharp
Fast AF
TC friendly
= Price is not a factor.
Vs. 600
f/6.3
PF
= Price becomes a factor
So my partner is not convinced about the 600 pf due to it not being a zoom lens. She wants a focal length range of 180-600 but with the size and weight of the 600 pf. All at f6.3 or wider aperture of course. Come on Nikon, make a zoom pf lens for her.
Cameron T
Well-known member
I don't think that's actually possible, but if it was possible, it'd probably be 10k or more.
Chris Weller
Member
I have the 500PF and the 800PF - This 600PF will likely replace my 500PF, if for no other reason than I want the better IBIS, especially for video.
I wasn't sure what to expect when I bought the 800PF, but after using it along side the 500PF on several trips I found that the 800 was less versatile than I had hoped for. Although it is very light for an 800, it's a little too heavy and long to hold for longer periods where you are waiting for something to happen and it's a bit cumbersome to maneuver around.
Secondly, I found that my ability to quickly bring the lens up and find my subject was severely hampered at 800MM vs. 500mm or 600mm. I could find and track moving subjects at 500mm instantly, but barely even find them at 800mm.
I ended up using my 500 PF most all the time and only broke out the 800 when I had a specific use case of knowing I needed the length and could support it on the side of a boat or on a Monopod.
So, moving forward I think the 600 PF will be the all arounder for (be ready for anything) lens. Then I'll actually put the 1.4 tele on the 800 pf and be at 1120 F9 on that. And then have the 180-600 6.3 available when I know I need zoom. That's the use case for the 800 for me, actually use it to go all the way out to 1120mm at F9 and really separate it from the 600mm. Since I'm not really going to be using it for flight shots or tracking, probably just enhance it's reach and take advantage of the fact that I'm starting at 800mm and can add 320mm instead of starting at 600mm and only adding 240mm.
Anyone have comments or thoughts on this?
I wasn't sure what to expect when I bought the 800PF, but after using it along side the 500PF on several trips I found that the 800 was less versatile than I had hoped for. Although it is very light for an 800, it's a little too heavy and long to hold for longer periods where you are waiting for something to happen and it's a bit cumbersome to maneuver around.
Secondly, I found that my ability to quickly bring the lens up and find my subject was severely hampered at 800MM vs. 500mm or 600mm. I could find and track moving subjects at 500mm instantly, but barely even find them at 800mm.
I ended up using my 500 PF most all the time and only broke out the 800 when I had a specific use case of knowing I needed the length and could support it on the side of a boat or on a Monopod.
So, moving forward I think the 600 PF will be the all arounder for (be ready for anything) lens. Then I'll actually put the 1.4 tele on the 800 pf and be at 1120 F9 on that. And then have the 180-600 6.3 available when I know I need zoom. That's the use case for the 800 for me, actually use it to go all the way out to 1120mm at F9 and really separate it from the 600mm. Since I'm not really going to be using it for flight shots or tracking, probably just enhance it's reach and take advantage of the fact that I'm starting at 800mm and can add 320mm instead of starting at 600mm and only adding 240mm.
Anyone have comments or thoughts on this?
Cameron T
Well-known member
Your plan with the 180-600 and 800 pf is what I basically plan to do eventually when I get the 800 pf (though I'll leave a tc on the 180-600 as well, cover 270 to 840 most of the time).
1120 at f9 is a hard thing to beat when you need it, and for distant wildlife/birds, it'll be a big help to have.
I think it’s priced well considering how over priced the 600TC is.
Well that’s when I still shot Nikon. Funny two weeks later the a1 was announced and that changed everything.You’re having dinner with the right people David
Considering how the 600TC is selling it's apparently not over priced. As crazy as that seems.