Nikon Z800 f6.3.. vs. Nikon 600F4g + tc1.4x. background blur.

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).

ninog

ninog

Active member
Member's gallery
.. simply to see the background blur, which for me is an important part when photographing nature and how much it competes with the foreground, or standing out .. I am not comparing quality, detail, color, or other virtues or defects of both lenses , which both have their own.. The files are without touching anything at all, just shrinking the raw to 1960 pix on the larger side. I hope someone helps you when deciding on a purchase. I had doubts how much the F6.3 aperture of the z800 would affect against the Nikon 600 mm F4 that I had been using. There is a small advantage of the 600 but nothing that bothers me in the z800... I mean... it was a good purchase for me
Nikon-600--TC1.4-850-mm-F6.3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
z800f6.3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Nikon-600-+TC1.4-850-mm-F6.3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
z800-f6.3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for a good comparison. I can understand why you think the differences in the background are minimal for your use, but to my eyes the 600 has a pretty definite edge in bokeh. Since I'm not in the market for either lens (well, I'm considering the 800... someday..) it's academic for me, but it's there.
 
Member's gallery
eaj101 said:
Thanks for a good comparison. I can understand why you think the differences in the background are minimal for your use, but to my eyes the 600 has a pretty definite edge in bokeh. Since I'm not in the market for either lens (well, I'm considering the 800... someday..) it's academic for me, but it's there.
Click to expand...
I agree, the advantage is in favor of 600 in this area... Thanks for responding. Greetings
 
Member's gallery
I'm considering adding an 800mm 6.3 to my 600mm fl f/4. I can hand-hold the latter well enough, and I would hate to see any quality degradation for the sake of weight saving alone. However, what about autofocus performance? Any good advice here supporting the idea that AF will be greatly improved over adapted 600mm f/4 AF-S with TC 1.4?
 
Member's gallery
foxysport said:
I'm considering adding an 800mm 6.3 to my 600mm fl f/4. I can hand-hold the latter well enough, and I would hate to see any quality degradation for the sake of weight saving alone. However, what about autofocus performance? Any good advice here supporting the idea that AF will be greatly improved over adapted 600mm f/4 AF-S with TC 1.4?
Click to expand...
In AF speed it is excellent, possibly the 600 reacts faster but it is not something that I can measure... just an appreciation for now... and with the ZTC 1.4x it works very well in quality and in AF speed it is enough for almost everything.. and that is an advantage of the Z800, having a perfectly usable 1160 mm can be interesting.. regards
 
Member's gallery
ninog said:
In AF speed it is excellent, possibly the 600 reacts faster but it is not something that I can measure... just an appreciation for now... and with the ZTC 1.4x it works very well in quality and in AF speed it is enough for almost everything.. and that is an advantage of the Z800, having a perfectly usable 1160 mm can be interesting.. regards
Click to expand...
Thanks, much appreciated. Certainly, food for thought.
 
Member's gallery
I also wonder how much of the difference is the extra 50? 40mm and how much is the optics of the lens?
Certainly the 600G/TC is looking noticeably better. I didn't expect to see such a difference before I scrolled through the photos.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I had the Z800mm and loved it. But I traded it in for the 600mm f4 TC. The disadvantages of the 600mm are the very high price and the weight of the lens would have made me think hard about whether I wanted it over the 800mm, despite some advantage in having a faster lens with better backgrounds. But having the built it teleconverter which makes it so easy to switch from 600mm to 840mm was what completely sold me on the lens. When I was using the 800mm, I would often find I was too close to the subject and had to either back up or switch lenses. Now with a simple click of the switch I can go back and forth between 600 and 840mm. And it is a lens which produces images of incredible quality, even with the TC engaged.
 
Member's gallery
For me it came down to needing a tripod to use the 600mm TC lens and that greatly reduces my mobility in the field. I get shots with the 800mm PF much as I did with the 500mm PF lens that I would have missed if I had to first set up a tripod and mount the lens and camera and then take the shot.

For me bokeh is less important than selecting the best background for a subject and this is far easier to do when not encumbered with a tripod and gimbal head.
 
Member's gallery
Calson said:
For me it came down to needing a tripod to use the 600mm TC lens and that greatly reduces my mobility in the field. I get shots with the 800mm PF much as I did with the 500mm PF lens that I would have missed if I had to first set up a tripod and mount the lens and camera and then take the shot.

For me bokeh is less important than selecting the best background for a subject and this is far easier to do when not encumbered with a tripod and gimbal head.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with you about the advantage of mobility. When I'm shooting in a blind, no reason not to have the 600 f4 on a tripod. Otherwise, when I need the mobility, I would put the 600mm f4 aside and then use the new 180-600mm that I was just fortunate enough to receive, with a 1.4X TC if necessary.
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
Ignorance is truly bliss. I've been very content with the bokeh in the 800 6.3 images. But now.... maybe not.
Thanks a lot. You've ruined it for me :mad:
Click to expand...
I don't think you should worry about that... the z800 is capable of providing very clean backgrounds, if you see only the photos taken with the z800 without comparing, I wouldn't say that the background ruins the image... at least that's what it seems to me my.
 
Member's gallery
I haven't tested this and I can't at the moment (currently on the road) but if those are both frame-filling shots, you were probably at kinda close range. I think the 800PF might exhibit a bit of focus breathing if I recall.

Looking at the images, the birds in the 600 + TC shots look bigger, but is that just the result of the extra 40mm or at that range is the effective focal length of the 800 PF more like 780 or 750?

Again, I may be saying more than I know, but it would explain the difference in bokeh. Just a thought, I may be off base here.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
I haven't tested this and I can't at the moment (currently on the road) but if those are both frame-filling shots, you were probably at kinda close range. I think the 800PF might exhibit a bit of focus breathing if I recall.

Looking at the images, the birds in the 600 + TC shots look bigger, but is that just the result of the extra 40mm or at that range is the effective focal length of the 800 PF more like 780 or 750?

Again, I may be saying more than I know, but it would explain the difference in bokeh. Just a thought, I may be off base here.
Click to expand...
Thank you Steve for answering... the images were taken on a tripod, I changed the lens and shot again... the background is 10 meters from the innkeeper... the difference in size between one image and another I have no idea, but I do know stacks in PS there is not so much difference.. obviously the image taken with the 600 + tc is bigger. It may be that when changing the lens there is some unwanted movement that changes the perspective. My test was not scientific at all... just curious for me how one lens behaves and another. Thank you very much for participating.
 
Member's gallery
Another thing that I wanted to observe is an image taken at 600 mm and then cropped to the size as if it had been taken with the 800... and here in the comparison it seems to me that the background is quite similar... shoot with the 600 mm and then crop It is something quite common when we are in the field... at least for me.
600mm-f5.6.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
ninog said:
I don't think you should worry about that... the z800 is capable of providing very clean backgrounds, if you see only the photos taken with the z800 without comparing, I wouldn't say that the background ruins the image... at least that's what it seems to me my.
Click to expand...
I've been pretty content with the results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top