Nikon 600PF - Share Photos & Discuss!!!

[MatthewK]

I’d be hard pressed to pick between the 600 and 800, so I have both for the moment while I figure it out. Gun to head though, if I had to pick just one… 600PF + 1.4TC.

Had the 100-400 and 400 4.5 last year, both now gone in favor of the 180-600, which plays support role to the 800PF. That was before the 600PF arrived though, and I’m now contemplating adding one of them back in order to make a small kit w/ the 600, with the 400 4.5 most tempting me.

Overall though, I think my shooting would be most benefited by the addition of a second camera body rather than another lens. Changing lenses sucks. The idea that I have a shorter zoom to handle close-in birds, in practice, rarely pans out when shooting with one camera body because the very act of switching lenses scares that too-close bird away. If I had that zoom already mounted and at hand, it would be significantly better in those types of situations.

 

[Anjin San]

I‘m still on the fence between the 800 pf and the 600pf. I am leaning toward the 800mm but these photos are not making my any choice any easier.

It all depends on how much you would shoot at 800 vs what you lose in a slightly shorter lens…whether the 1.4TC introduces issues you can’t or won’t deal with (neither GC does this for me with the 600)…a bit on the cost and most importantly any physical considerations making lighter/smaller better, how much you travel with it…and what the larger/heavier lens forces you to leave behind when either hiking or getting on a plane. For almost exclusively screen output…the 600 and TCs wins for me pretty easily so far. Of the tC bothers you…then DX mode gives you 900mm…and while it does reduce the MP and introduce a little more noise…on any of the high MP bodies you’ve still got plenty MP and noise reduction today is pretty darned good. If I went on a hike with an 800…I would probably only have the 24-120 in addition unless it was a short hike. We don’t go out looking for a specific species, we go out to find what we find and although we have an idea on what we are looking for based on the area…we don’t head out saying “only shooting reddish egret white morphs today”. Some people do that…and if you were going solely after say skittish great gray owls…then taking only the 800 might be the correct pick for you on that day. For Connie and I though..lighter is almost always going to win the outing selection.

 

[Anjin San]

Had the 100-400 and 400 4.5 last year, both now gone in favor of the 180-600, which plays support role to the 800PF. That was before the 600PF arrived though, and I’m now contemplating adding one of them back in order to make a small kit w/ the 600, with the 400 4.5 most tempting me.

I’m actually considering selling one or both of the 400 and 100-400 in favor of the 180-600. For a lot of things it’s a better reach range…but while I’m happy with the 600, TCs, and 100-400…changing to a minimum reach of 180 would present some issues with birds down here in FL…and taking the heavier lens and then needling to also carry the 24-120 ups the weight. And to be honest…while all the pixel peepers say that the 180-600 is better than the 100-400…and they’re correct at 2:1 or 1:1…at screen output downsampled size I see no difference between the 60l, the zoom, the TCs on either, the 400, and my 500PF before I sold it. Once adjusted for the same size subject on screen…IQ and sharpness even on my 5K Apple Studio monitor is the same…bokeh varies a little based on aperture of course but none of them are ‘bad’.

 

[Anjin San]

I got a similar Eagle shot at Conowingo.
I’m curious about the position…
They interconnect through the back?

I’ve often wondered myself how birds make their respective cloaca connect. They’re on the bottom and having seen and photographed several matings and a lot of other’s images as well…the female isn’t really arching her back and he’s not reaching around past her tail. Obviously the connection gets made...but I do wonder how sometimes.

 

[Anjin San]

I am in the same boat. The reason I will keep the 100-400 is the close focus and the ease of travel vs the 180-600.

Yep…it’s my pseudo macro lens but I don’t do a lot of that. It would probably be the least likely to get sold and would go after the 24-70, 70-200 and 400/4.5. I don’t really need the cash I would get for them…but if they’re not getting used then there isn’t much use in keeping them when passing them along for others to use makes sense to me.

 

[abc123brian]

It all depends on how much you would shoot at 800 vs what you lose in a slightly shorter lens…whether the 1.4TC introduces issues you can’t or won’t deal with (neither GC does this for me with the 600)…a bit on the cost and most importantly any physical considerations making lighter/smaller better, how much you travel with it…and what the larger/heavier lens forces you to leave behind when either hiking or getting on a plane. For almost exclusively screen output…the 600 and TCs wins for me pretty easily so far. Of the tC bothers you…then DX mode gives you 900mm…and while it does reduce the MP and introduce a little more noise…on any of the high MP bodies you’ve still got plenty MP and noise reduction today is pretty darned good. If I went on a hike with an 800…I would probably only have the 24-120 in addition unless it was a short hike. We don’t go out looking for a specific species, we go out to find what we find and although we have an idea on what we are looking for based on the area…we don’t head out saying “only shooting reddish egret white morphs today”. Some people do that…and if you were going solely after say skittish great gray owls…then taking only the 800 might be the correct pick for you on that day. For Connie and I though..lighter is almost always going to win the outing selection.

What you say here gives me a lot to consider. I’ve been thinking of getting the 800mm PF since it was announced, but am not sure how much I’d use the focal length. Prior to getting the 180-600mm the longest lens I had was 500mm. I did use that on the D500 for a while so a 750mm equivalent and don’t recall thinking it was too bad. It‘s been a few years since using that combo and I’ve been able to get much closer to wildlife since then. I have the 400 4.5 and the 1.4x tc already along with the 180-600 so really have the 600mm range covered, but maybe the 600mm PF would still actually be the better solution for me. I’ll have to put the camera in DX mode at just under 600 mm and see what I think of the focal length now and then decide if the extra weight is worth it for me.

 

[Ralph]

It all depends on how much you would shoot at 800 vs what you lose in a slightly shorter lens…whether the 1.4TC introduces issues you can’t or won’t deal with (neither GC does this for me with the 600)…a bit on the cost and most importantly any physical considerations making lighter/smaller better, how much you travel with it…and what the larger/heavier lens forces you to leave behind when either hiking or getting on a plane. For almost exclusively screen output…the 600 and TCs wins for me pretty easily so far. Of the tC bothers you…then DX mode gives you 900mm…and while it does reduce the MP and introduce a little more noise…on any of the high MP bodies you’ve still got plenty MP and noise reduction today is pretty darned good. If I went on a hike with an 800…I would probably only have the 24-120 in addition unless it was a short hike. We don’t go out looking for a specific species, we go out to find what we find and although we have an idea on what we are looking for based on the area…we don’t head out saying “only shooting reddish egret white morphs today”. Some people do that…and if you were going solely after say skittish great gray owls…then taking only the 800 might be the correct pick for you on that day. For Connie and I though..lighter is almost always going to win the outing selection.

I shoot with my 1.4 tc glued to my 500 PF. So I’m shooting 1050mm with the 1.5 crop factored in.(D500). That’s why I’m leaning toward the 800mm

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

I shoot with my 1.4 tc glued to my 500 PF. So I’m shooting 1050mm with the 1.5 crop factored in.(D500). That’s why I’m leaning toward the 800mm

So when you need that put the 1.4 on the 600 and use DX mode. There is a button on the lens you can program for that switch. It’s a hard decision and you should try to shoot with both first if you can. If the size and weight matter at least.

 

[nmerc_photos]

Here's a story about a lad with bad GAS....

I just purchased the 600 PF and the 180-600.

Currently have 2x Z9, the 70-200 2.8, 400 2.8 TC, and 800 6.3. have owned the 100-400 in the past but sold it, wasn't a fan of the external zoom or being capped at f8 to hit 500mm. but did like how small and light it was for airline travel.

still trying to find my perfect kit, and playing goldilocks to do it.

I was previously a Canon shooter, having the RF 600 F4, RF 800 F11, and RF 100-500. Also owned the RF 400 2.8, RF 800 5.6, and RF 1200 8 at certain points but not for long as they weren't worth the money.

my hope for the 600 PF is that it will be an improved version of the Canon RF 800 F11. at 5x the cost, I would hope so. but point being, I loved that lens and used it at 800mm F11 and 1600mm F22 often with fine results. it was my favorite Canon lens because it was so darn cheap and capable.

we'll see how the 600 PF and 180-600 go, but if it's how I expect - my 3 lens combo may end up being 180-600, 600 PF, 600 TC. alternatively I could see going 100-400, 400 PF, 400 TC, 800 PF. I'm a big fan of long focal lengths, but also find that if I don't have light lenses - my desire to go out shooting greatly reduces.

Allegedly the 600 PF has very similar IQ to the 600 TC, at only 1.33 stops slower light, half the weight, and no internal TC. Also allegedly the 180-600 has similar IQ to the 600 PF, for 1/3 the price, 50% more weight....

If all of these things are true, the choice of lens will mostly come down to size and weight.

thanks for coming to my Ted Talk

 

[MatthewK]

Here's a story about a lad with bad GAS....

I just purchased the 600 PF and the 180-600.

Currently have 2x Z9, the 70-200 2.8, 400 2.8 TC, and 800 6.3. have owned the 100-400 in the past but sold it, wasn't a fan of the external zoom or being capped at f8 to hit 500mm. but did like how small and light it was for airline travel.

still trying to find my perfect kit, and playing goldilocks to do it.

I was previously a Canon shooter, having the RF 600 F4, RF 800 F11, and RF 100-500. Also owned the RF 400 2.8, RF 800 5.6, and RF 1200 8 at certain points but not for long as they weren't worth the money.

my hope for the 600 PF is that it will be an improved version of the Canon RF 800 F11. at 5x the cost, I would hope so. but point being, I loved that lens and used it at 800mm F11 and 1600mm F22 often with fine results. it was my favorite Canon lens because it was so darn cheap and capable.

we'll see how the 600 PF and 180-600 go, but if it's how I expect - my 3 lens combo may end up being 180-600, 600 PF, 600 TC. alternatively I could see going 100-400, 400 PF, 400 TC, 800 PF. I'm a big fan of long focal lengths, but also find that if I don't have light lenses - my desire to go out shooting greatly reduces.

Allegedly the 600 PF has very similar IQ to the 600 TC, at only 1.33 stops slower light, half the weight, and no internal TC. Also allegedly the 180-600 has similar IQ to the 600 PF, for 1/3 the price, 50% more weight....

If all of these things are true, the choice of lens will mostly come down to size and weight.

thanks for coming to my Ted Talk

Welcome to the club, Nick, I did enjoy the Ted Talk

The ultimate lens would be the 600TC, but my arms hurt just thinking about it. Ultimate capability + IQ, but the gigantic chunk would get old so quick, and I’m right there with you, I'd begin to find reason to not take it out anymore. Heck, even with the 800PF now, I’m taking the 600PF twice as often for that very reason.

 

[nmerc_photos]

Welcome to the club, Nick, I did enjoy the Ted Talk

The ultimate lens would be the 600TC, but my arms hurt just thinking about it. Ultimate capability + IQ, but the gigantic chunk would get old so quick, and I’m right there with you, it’d begin to find reason to not take it out anymore. Heck, even with the 800PF now, I’m taking the 600PF twice as often for that very reason.

Nikon really has spoiled us with all these great lens choices.

And the fact that in the modern world, zoom lenses and "cheap" PF lenses can come close to the IQ of the big boy primes - is insane to think about.

In the good ole days the answer was always the big prime if you could afford it. No doubts about it. Best IQ. Best Aperture. Best Bokeh. Etc.

Nowadays they only offer 2 things - better aperture and built in TC. It makes the choice a heck of a lot harder.

The Z 800 was the lens that made me switch to Nikon. It offered as good of, if not better image quality than my RF 600 F4 + 1.4x (my most frequently used Canon setup) all while being 2lbs lighter, 5" shorter, and almost $10,000 cheaper. And yet, since owning the Z 800 I've only used it a few times, because I then got the Z 400 TC and found it to be magical for low light and given it's bokeh.

if I'm shooting on a tripod or monopod setup where I'm mainly stationary - the pick is easy. The 400 or 800 depending on subject distance. No questions about it.

but when I just want to go for a walk with the girlfriend, travel somewhere new on a plane, or kayak in a new place and don't want to risk drowning $10K - $20K of equipment, that's where these PF/zoom lenses come in.

The Z 600 TC really isn't that heavy, especially compared to prior versions. My issue with it is mainly length. The 400mm is so darn compact for a big prime. And the 400 also offers better bokeh than the 600 can, in exchange for less reach.

Maybe one day I'll pick a few lenses to keep... but I doubt that day is coming anytime soon

 

[marc]

Dang, I was going to guess 500PF and 70-200.

As I'm primarily a Wildlife/Mammal photographer, I would never sell my 70-200 and in all cases it's the first lens I pack.

 

[sinewsworn]

I continue to get great shots with the 600pf. Here are a few shots from the last 4 to 5 days.

View attachment 78175View attachment 78176View attachment 78177View attachment 78178View attachment 78179View attachment 78180

Amazing set! This glass delivers every time, including n DX Crop mode!

 

[sinewsworn]

In between snow storms (13" yesterday, 4" last night, another 8-14" predicted tonight), the sun appeared and I decided to venture out for mental health reasons Dead of winter, not much going on aside from the typical feeder birds, and of those, the Dark Eyed Juncos continue to be my ride-or-die winter companions.

This 600PF continues to impress, the shots captured with it are so crisp, clean, and full of detail, almost 3D in nature.
View attachment 78900
View attachment 78901

Great set!

 

[MatthewK]

This is about the time of winter that my patience starts to fray due to how dead it is here. We're still a good 2 months out before summer birds return. It's no exaggeration, but only about 1 out of every 4 times I go out I'll see something worthwhile and return with a photo (only counting actual time in the field away from home, not backyard feeder birds). It's depressing and dismal here in WI, 0/5 stars, would not recommend.

When I do go out, it's pretty much with just the 600 now. 800PF and 180-600 stay home unless I make it a point to take them. I also bring the 1.4 TC along, but haven't used it yet, usually just resorting to DX mode. With each outing, where each lens stands in my lineup becomes more defined; I won't make any final decisions until after Spring Migration in May, but at the present my 800PF may potentially see the Buy & Sell forum.

A rare day where there we had some sun + no wind + a bird... one of those rare days where you get the thin wispy clouds that scrim the sun and create the absolute best light:

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

 

[abc123brian]

This is about the time of winter that my patience starts to fray due to how dead it is here. We're still a good 2 months out before summer birds return. It's no exaggeration, but only about 1 out of every 4 times I go out I'll see something worthwhile and return with a photo (only counting actual time in the field away from home, not backyard feeder birds). It's depressing and dismal here in WI, 0/5 stars, would not recommend.

When I do go out, it's pretty much with just the 600 now. 800PF and 180-600 stay home unless I make it a point to take them. I also bring the 1.4 TC along, but haven't used it yet, usually just resorting to DX mode. With each outing, where each lens stands in my lineup becomes more defined; I won't make any final decisions until after Spring Migration in May, but at the present my 800PF may potentially see the Buy & Sell forum.

A rare day where there we had some sun + no wind + a bird... one of those rare days where you get the thin wispy clouds that scrim the sun and create the absolute best light:
View attachment 81431

Is the reason you’re thinking of getting rid of the 800mm primarily size and weight? It’s a lens I’ve been very interested in but am still trying to figure out how and where it would fit in my photography. I do prefer smaller and lighter lenses, but like the idea of getting to 800mm at 6.3 instead of F/9.

 

[MatthewK]

Is the reason you’re thinking of getting rid of the 800mm primarily size and weight? It’s a lens I’ve been very interested in but am still trying to figure out how and where it would fit in my photography. I do prefer smaller and lighter lenses, but like the idea of getting to 800mm at 6.3 instead of F/9.

For how and what I primarily shoot, more up-close near MFD small birds in woodland environs, the 800 is proving to be a little bit unwieldy due to its narrow FOV and longer MFD. The size and weight are more than manageable, no worries there

 

[Carmel Nikon]

This is about the time of winter ... depressing and dismal here in WI, 0/5 stars, would not recommend.

I laughed out loud at this! I'm an hour east of you, and although it's not a bird heaven these days for sure, I've adapted to the season by dialing up indoor photography in the past month. Highlights include a feast day celebration, a funeral, a basketball game, a public talk, and this Saturday a fundraising Gala. Not the same as bird photography, but it's giving me an opportunity to get better at using my Z6 while brushing up on people photo skills.

By April, I predict Wisconsin will get up to 3 stars, and should rise from there.

 

[abc123brian]

For how and what I primarily shoot, more up-close near MFD small birds in woodland environs, the 800 is proving to be a little bit unwieldy due to its narrow FOV and longer MFD. The size and weight are more than manageable, no worries there

Thanks for the details. The MFD is a concern for me as well. I should probably rent one for a while to test it myself.

 

[MatthewK]

I laughed out loud at this! I'm an hour east of you, and although it's not a bird heaven these days for sure, I've adapted to the season by dialing up indoor photography in the past month A feast day celebration, a funeral, a basketball game, a public talk, and this Saturday a fundraising Gala. Not the same as bird photography, but it's giving me an opportunity to get better at using my Z6 while brushing up on people photo skills.

By April, I predict Wisconsin will get up to 3 stars, will rise from there.

It helps to complain on forums too

I try to do more family photos with the Fuji kit, that’s a good diversion too.

 

[Patty15]

I guess I'm luckier than some in the wintertime. Many times I don't have to leave my house to get interesting bird photos. I've been at this location for 10 years now, and I have just under 1/2 acre in a rural area. I've been cultivating my "space" into a Wildlife/Nature area. My friends tease me about my personal "Nature Park". These are Cedar Waxwings photographed January 24, 2024 in one of my Hawthorn trees. We never started seeing them here until I planted the berry producing Hawthorns. These photos were taken while I was standing on my covered deck.

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.

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

 

[sinewsworn]

I guess I'm luckier than some in the wintertime. Many times I don't have to leave my house to get interesting bird photos. I've been at this location for 10 years now, and I have just under 1/2 acre in a rural area. I've been cultivating my "space" into a Wildlife/Nature area. My friends tease me about my personal "Nature Park". These are Cedar Waxwings photographed January 24, 2024 in one of my Hawthorn trees. We never started seeing them here until I planted the berry producing Hawthorns. These photos were taken while I was standing on my covered deck. View attachment 81500View attachment 81502View attachment 81503View attachment 81504

Wonderful set!

 

[Patty15]

Wonderful set!

Thank you! They came in every morning for a week or so and every chance I could get I photographed them, even sitting on my front porch in my bathrobe!

 

[Carmel Nikon]

Patty, I love how you got expressive images of the Cedar Waxwings. In my images of them, it's not easy to get the lighting right to allow the black eyes to avoid blending into the black headband - that to me is the biggest challenge to get a great images of them. You did a wonderful job - well done!

 

[Patty15]

Patty, I love how you got expressive images of the Cedar Waxwings. In my images of them, it's not easy to get the lighting right to allow the black eyes to avoid blending into the black headband - that to me is the biggest challenge to get a great images of them. You did a wonderful job - well done!

Thank you so much!