Congrats! Having yourself a 500PF moment, huh?The 600PF just arrived! I’m doing the “Snoopy Dance” on the roof!It’s so small and light!
Nikon Z 400mm/4.5 vs. 600mm/6.3 PF
- Thread starter Larry S.
- 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).
As a matter of fact…yes!
Hejnar makes a great foot too.
MarkB
Member
If budget is not an issue I'd have at least twice the number of lenses that I have now including both the 400 and the 600. But if picking only one I might tend to go with the 400 for a couple of reasons. It's smaller and lighter for hiking and with the 1.4x will go to 560 mm. A big reason for me is that it's more flexible, the 400 can become 560 mm but the 600 cannot become 400 mm. I also have the 800 so do not need a 600 + teleconverter.
arbitrage
Well-known member
If you have the time, could you take a picture of the 400 with 1.4TC attached standing next to the 600? I'd like to see how close they are in size. Also if you could weigh those two combos I'd like to see how close they are in weight. According to B&H weight specs they should be within 50 grams of each other. Hard to use the specs for length as the TC is much longer than what it actually adds as so much sticks into the rear of the lens.
Thanks
glsmith9823
Active member
I have the 600 & the first thing I did was to purchase a Kirk replacement foot. In the next month, I plan on purchasing the TC 1.4, however I believe that once the 600 is attached to it, the minimum F Stop is F/11. Still researching that & unsure if that would be a show stopper for you.
The RRS LCF-21 replacement foot works with the Z 400 f4.5; Z 600 PF; Z 70-200; and Z 100-400. I have two of them and move them around as needed. I suspect the Kirk foot may also work with multiple lenses.You’re right, I need to check out the Kirk replacement foot. This Benro plate works well with my gimbal but it’s “screw in“ to the Nikon foot…
View attachment 76422
Garfield
Well-known member
Well, after watching Ricci's review I drove down to Camera Canada and picked up a 600pf this morning and brought it home. Just playing around in my backyard I'm super impressed for all the reasons outlined in this thread. I haven't put through it's paces yet, but first looks are impressive. BTW the low-profile Henjar foot for the 400/4.5 is perfect for this little guy.
f:6.3 less one stop for the 1.4 TC is f:9 on my Z9.
James C.
Active member
This video by Fabian Fopp, directly comparing the Nikon 180-600mm vs. the 600mm PF lens, just came out on YouTube yesterday. An overall comparison of the pros and cons, including IQ of each.
Lot more reviews have come out in the past couple of days, and most confirm what we already know. Sweet lens. Most interesting though, and I’m going to test myself, the 600PF + 1.4 being sharper than the 800PF?
Marcepan
Well-known member
In my opinion its not possible.
If 800 PF not damaged of course.
Yes, I will do this for you. Probaly later today or tomorrow. I don’t have a scale that would give accurate weights for your comparison. I suggest you go by Nikon’s specs.
Jack McEwan
Well-known member
I love my 600 PF and use it with the 100-400 mm. A portable lightweight combo that covers the frequently used focal ranges. Enjoy your new lens!
ricardo00
Well-known member
I just listened to the talk and didn't see this comment. Can you clarify when he said that?
Here are the comparison photos you asked for… I was surprised how much shorter the 400/+1.4tc is when stood up next to the 600PF…
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Thank you!
It's in the Ricci video on the 600pf at about 17:22. Note that in that video he shows an uncropped shot of the target and it doesn't take up much of the frame so he's only looking at center sharpness. Teleconverters tend to have the least impact on IQ in the center and it's worse in the corners, so his comparison is very limited and doesn't give an overall perspective.
ricardo00
Well-known member
Thanks. To my eyes, I would not have said the 600mm plus 1.4TC is sharper then the 800mm (about the same though bigger as expected?). Also, wonder if he had shot the 800mm at f/9 how they would compare? In any case, the 600mm PF plus TC looks great. However, since I bought the 800mm and 400mm, won't be buying the 600mm until I can no longer handhold the 800mm. If the 600mm had come out before the others, would have definitely bought it. The other advantage of the 800mm is the ability to use it with the 1.4TC at f/9 and get 1140mm. Oh well, will focus on photography and hold off buying more equipment for now (until the next killer piece of equipment comes out).
Calson
Well-known member
As I used the 600mm f/4 much of the time with a 1.4x teleconverter accompanied by a 80-400mm or similar zoom lens, the 600mm PF was not appealing. I instead went for the 800mm PF lens along with the 100-400mm zoom lens and the 1.4x TC. This provides me with 100-400mm, 140-560mm, and 800mm focal lengths.
I also own the 400mm f/4.5 but most of the time I find the 100-400mm zoom lens to be more useful with its ability to increase the view angle depending on the subject's size and distance. The 180-600mm would be an alternative but with 600mm at f/6.3 it does not provide a gain over the 400mm f/4.5 with the 1.4x TC providing 560mm at f/6.3 or the 100-400mm + 1.4x with 560mm at f/8.
The 800mm PF that provides a 77% larger image size than a 600mm focal length lens is a big deal. Its weight of 5.2 lbs makes it a lens I can use for extended periods of time shooting hand held with the Z9. For me it is the exceptional image recognition and autofocus performance of the Z9 that makes it practical to use the 800mm PF without a tripod. For fast moving subject the camera can lock focus on the eyes in an instant and I get shots that would not otherwise be possible.
A longer focal length is not necessarily better in all situations. Often with the 500mm PF I would grab the 80-400mm lens instead as I needed a wider view angle to include the subject's environment in the shot. Cropping in the field with a zoom lens is far superior to either an over-cropped image of a subject with a long prime lens. I see this all the time with postings of the eagles in Haines that are shot with a 600mm lens that is too long and has too narrow a view angle for these large birds and the pictures become ID shots.
I also own the 400mm f/4.5 but most of the time I find the 100-400mm zoom lens to be more useful with its ability to increase the view angle depending on the subject's size and distance. The 180-600mm would be an alternative but with 600mm at f/6.3 it does not provide a gain over the 400mm f/4.5 with the 1.4x TC providing 560mm at f/6.3 or the 100-400mm + 1.4x with 560mm at f/8.
The 800mm PF that provides a 77% larger image size than a 600mm focal length lens is a big deal. Its weight of 5.2 lbs makes it a lens I can use for extended periods of time shooting hand held with the Z9. For me it is the exceptional image recognition and autofocus performance of the Z9 that makes it practical to use the 800mm PF without a tripod. For fast moving subject the camera can lock focus on the eyes in an instant and I get shots that would not otherwise be possible.
A longer focal length is not necessarily better in all situations. Often with the 500mm PF I would grab the 80-400mm lens instead as I needed a wider view angle to include the subject's environment in the shot. Cropping in the field with a zoom lens is far superior to either an over-cropped image of a subject with a long prime lens. I see this all the time with postings of the eagles in Haines that are shot with a 600mm lens that is too long and has too narrow a view angle for these large birds and the pictures become ID shots.
Garfield
Well-known member
I was very surprised to read this from Ricci...and tend to agree that it seems very unlikely to be the case, but I will also have to test.
Marcepan
Well-known member
For me comparision betwen 600 F/4E and 600 PF is so strange too.
its almost impossible for me (if 600 was not damaged) - 600 F/4E had top notch, the best two fluorite glass (600 PF had not) and this is Hi End of nikon supertelephoto.
I tested 600 PF - this is very sharp tele, but no chance do get lenses like 400 FL, 500 FL, 600 FL, 400 TC, 600 TC.
Geoff Cooper also posted an interesting comparison between the 600PF and the two 400mm Z-mount offerings.
O
Well-known member
Buy or Rent the 600, play with it for a while side by side to the 400 and you can either sell the 600 or the 400 if the outcome dictates, at least you have a real world coal face experience in your specific application, easy peazy mate.I’m considering the purchase of the 600PF. I have the 400 and really like this lens. I occasionally use the 1.4TC which bumps it to 560mm which also brings max aperture to f/6.3. Not sure the hefty price tag of the 600mm is worth the extra 40mm…I’m aware that with the 600+1.4TC=840MM which would really extend reach.. Opinions please as to expectations of performance.
My self i see the 600 as a no brainier for size and weight and 200mm to me on 45 MP is nor here or there or that much of a big difference, yet others may be horrified for the difference.
The mirror less Tcs work very well despite them being a outrageous gouge on price.
I guess its about looking at what you do and want to do, often a new lens may modify your style and even what you do.
If the majority of all your shots are 400mm end with a Tc added at times and your cropping heavily then hello......
If often your shots are feasting in the upper ISO range and you need to Topaz often back to civilization then as a base F6.3 is clearly a consideration in compounding this demand.
Main stream consumers are often fair weather shooters.
Serious nature wild life shooters tend to go in more challenging conditions.
My self i see both lenses as just tools for a purpose...........
One offers light gathering capacity, the other reach with slightly more light gathering compromise and dependent more on ISO, it really depends on your application, 200mm reach often can be obtained easily with cropping, light can with ISO but at a compromise and challenge.
The camera industry sells us tools that simply operate in hundreds of different formulas or combinations of what is all simply related to in foundation of TIME LIGHT and SPEED.
For me Light is and has always been my most important friend, is 25% more reach obtainable or important or achievable in other ways, ie: a few steps closer, a little cropping ? and do you need a 600 or want it......... happy days.
RENT ONE see what it does for you.............the decision will be made for you.
I am a F2.8 and F4 prime user and lover for good reason, i get killer money shots that are often different when others have packed up or left.
Only an opinion
Last edited: