Subject Distance vs Image Quality

[Robert S]

Until I came across this here web site I was thinking Nikon was a river in Cambodia.

 

[Robert S]

I'm wonderin how I becomes a Nikon user without having any Nikon gear other than a camera bag. Ah well back to my mundane thoughts.

 

[JoPoV]

Apologies if this has already been discussed. I couldn't find anything similar when searching.

Recently I've been comparing some lenses, namely the 300GM, 400TC, and 800PF when shooting at distance.

In my experience (nonscientific tests - so far), I have found that if you can get your subject near a lens' MFD - IQ is all very close. For example in my backyard, a Blue Jay shot at 20' with the 100-400, 180-600, 400TC, 800PF, or 300GM + 2x all look very similar.

But once I go in the field and add more "usual" working distances - some of the lenses IQ falls apart very quickly.

On the FM forums, users are repeatedly seeing that the 600GM/300GM + 2x are almost indistinguishable near MFD, but at further distances the 600GM gives significantly better results. A lot of users have asked why this is. "600mm should be 600mm". That is partly what started me down this rabbit hole.

For example - recently I've been photographing an Osprey nest that is 300' away. The 300GM + 2x resulted in zero keepers, the 800PF + 1.4x was a little soft, the 800PF naked was acceptable, and the 400TC + 2x provided the best IQ. All required some level of cropping. Pictures were taken on the same day, using the same tripod and location, seconds or minutes apart.

I've always expected (and been told) that the longest native focal length would produce the best results, so I thought the 800PF would be significantly better than the 400TC + 2x, not the other way around.

To the questions:

• Is this a standard situation?
• What factors can contribute to this? $6.5K lens vs $13K lens? front element size? specific coatings? other physics?
• Does the build quality of a lens affect how atmospheric distortions are handled?

I went with the 400TC/800PF combo because a lot of people said it was the best of both worlds. f2.8 on the short end, and the 800PF to cover your long range. But I am finding that in all situations, the 400TC + 2x, or even 400TC + 2x + 1.4x produces noticeably better images when shooting subjects that are further away. So the 800PF isn't actually serving as a long range option. It gets great pictures near MFD, but I didn't buy an 800mm lens to shoot subjects at 20' away. Maybe that's my first mistake.

This has me wondering if a 300/600 combo wouldn't be more advantageous. If what I am observing is pretty normal, losing 100mm on the short end would be less critical than 200mm on the long end. if I'm in a situation where I can get "close" (300 - 400mm), the differences between a 35-150, 70-200, 100-400, 300 2.8, or 400 2.8 will be smaller than in situations where I am shooting further subjects and the difference between 400TC, 600TC, 800PF comes into play. The thought being that the 600TC would be much better than the 800PF at distances and focal lengths from 600mm - 1680mm.

Does this make sense? Any thoughts or ramblings are welcome.

I can also post test images from the Osprey nest if desired. I plan to eventually go out in the yard and take some static shots getting each lens as close to "all else equal" as possible, but figured I'd toss this up first. Perhaps someone has an easy answer.

Thank tou for starting this topic ! and with enough gear experience to make objective reactions appear.
I tried a topic about IQ and distance some (long) time ago on this forum - but have not as many lens as you and so less gear experience to present my thoughts and questions, and this topic received more some "that's not a relevant question" responses from the old foxes hiding in these woods.

 

[Thern]

I have no personal experience with the 800PF, but I used the 500PF and loved the portability however used to the more expensive F/4 lenses I eventually passed it on to my youngest daughter, who used it the next couple of years.
As always was the main reason I needed that extra stop but I also noticed the difference in bokeh and yes despite the general consensus somewhat lesser IQ when shot at greater distances.
Personally I see PF lenses like a a bit more budgetfriendly alternative to the real exotics performing like a dream but with some compromises (but also some exclusive to the PF concept very nice props)
Some guys in my photoclub are still shooting the F800 F/5.6 some others are using the 800PF and when out on a trip, we see regularly albeit minor differences between the IQ produced by the two lensconcepts in favor of the old F800. (Everybody is shooting digital with long FLs for at least 20 years now)
Might still be a case of one gets what’s payed for?

 

[David Berry]

I'm wondering how I become a Nikon user without having any Nikon gear other than a camera bag.

Robert, the hardest step is the first… one small step and then the next.

Don’t rush: start with the small glass. (No, the instruction booklet isn't for the loupe.)

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

The magnifying loupe was an essential way of inspecting the quality of transparencies and negatives back in the film days.

Now, back to the serious business of this absorbing thread!

 

[fcotterill]

It's hard to make robust generalizations about image quality using telephotos and close versus extreme distances. There are several dominant variables, including

# using a Teleconverter or not,
# Zoom or Prime,
# lens coatings with respect to flare, which in turn...
# depends on time of day relative to the sun, and...
# above all Atmospherics [in capitals]

Whenever possible get as close as you can, unless it's an Animalscape where atmospherics can be leveraged for artistic effects eg backlit dust and fog. In fact on encounters with distant subjects, I've learned technique or rather imagination is as important as gear. The challenge becomes how to tell the story; so opt for an Animalscape if possible and/or exploit other effects for their artistic effect (so dust or fog).

 

[fcotterill]

There is evidence that in the case of lowlight and similarly challenging conditions - extreme subject distances especially - that expensive lens coatings can improve image quality. We discussed this last year wrt the 180-600 Nikkor versus S Line and Gold ring exotic Nikkor telephotos. Canadian pro Brad Hill tests these lenses over different distances

Brad Hill's exhaustive tests have begun: 180-600, 600PF, 150-500

For those who are not aware, Brad Hill, a Canadian wildlife photographer that specializes on North Pacific Coast marine mammals and bears has begun to publish his review/analysis of some of the most recent telephoto Z optics. In this linked first post, Brad lays out his intention for future...

bcgforums.com

Another note on lens quality to circle back to the OP's question about the 800 PF. I've stress tested the superb 800 PF at extreme distances using a ZTC , and it can deliver surprisingly good quality images, but equally often atmospherics trash image quality. I do find the 800 f5.6E FL has a distinct advantage over longer subject distances. However, the ergonomics outweighs the practical advantages of the 800 PF

Comparisons: 800mm f5.6E FL and 800mm f6.3S PF Nikkors

Here follow a selection of images taken over the past several months with both lenses, with/without their respective teleconverters. I have built up a sizeable database since mid 2022, when time and conditions permitted. I took all these primarily with the aim of trying to define the...

bcgforums.com

Nikkor 800mm f6.3S PF with Z-TC's for African mammals and Birds

My 800 PF arrived early May not long before I left on a long (and long awaited) trip into northern Kruger Nat Park. I took many more images with the 800 PF than anticipated, which meant the Z9 was mostly glued to this lens. But in retrospect, a 400 f2.8E FL has been my previous workhorse for...

bcgforums.com

 

[Gov]

I was real happy with my 800PF until I read this thread.

 

[ajrmd]

I was real happy with my 800PF until I read this thread.

I was real happy with my 800 PF until I started shooting subjects at distance, with atmospherics, or with obtuse light and comparing them to my older big white Canon primes. It's still a killer lens for walking in the field and capturing nearby songbirds and other critters in good light, without atmospherics...

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

 

[SCoombs]

While it's definitely true that the most important distinction is always going to be between a single copy of a lens and another single copy of a lens, in my (more limited) personal experience and based on everything I have seen from many others out there on the internet I would say that generally speaking more expensive lenses do seem to hold up at distance better than less expensive lenses even if the difference is not as significant at closer distances.

I was out last night and decided to try to take a few comparisons at different distances. I do think after getting home and looking at the photos that there may have been a small amount of atmospherics to contend with here, but regardless each lens is shooting through the same air. In each of these cases I took the best out of 5-10 shots.

500pf closest: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53839591806_967257003f_o.jpg

180-600 closest: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53838698977_f2b7856bd5_o.jpg

500pf mid: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53839943274_213525e898_o.jpg

180-600 mid: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53839851243_ab1253f76a_o.jpg

500pf far: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53839955614_23d0c19940_o.jpg

180-600 far: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53839851168_cdcc34d7c5_o.jpg

To my eye the 500pf does hold up slightly better in this particular comparison as we move to greater distance, but it is generally not an extreme difference. I would say the greatest difference is in the mid-range shot.

 

[bleirer]

Just conjecture-ing, but I wonder if the multiple flourite elements in the high end glass starts to have an impact as the distances increase.

 

[Thern]

While it's definitely true that the most important distinction is always going to be between a single copy of a lens and another single copy of a lens, in my (more limited) personal experience and based on everything I have seen from many others out there on the internet I would say that generally speaking more expensive lenses do seem to hold up at distance better than less expensive lenses even if the difference is not as significant at closer distances.

I was out last night and decided to try to take a few comparisons at different distances. I do think after getting home and looking at the photos that there may have been a small amount of atmospherics to contend with here, but regardless each lens is shooting through the same air. In each of these cases I took the best out of 5-10 shots.

500pf closest: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53839591806_967257003f_o.jpg

180-600 closest: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53838698977_f2b7856bd5_o.jpg

500pf mid: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53839943274_213525e898_o.jpg

180-600 mid: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53839851243_ab1253f76a_o.jpg

500pf far: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53839955614_23d0c19940_o.jpg

180-600 far: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53839851168_cdcc34d7c5_o.jpg

To my eye the 500pf does hold up slightly better in this particular comparison as we move to greater distance, but it is generally not an extreme difference. I would say the greatest difference is in the mid-range shot.

You’re comparing a “low budget” zoom lens with a 250% more expensive fixed focal length lens.
So to my eyes the outcome of your “test” isn’t that surprising.
Nonetheless one can certainly see why the 180-600 is this popular amongst a lot of Nikonians.

 

[Robert S]

I am not all that up on lenses. One question regarding the price of a lens that I think might be interesting is how many are made. Lots and lots of people buy zoom lenses but not many buy exotic primes. Maybe the price of the zooms is low because they sell a lot. I'm suggesting a good zoom not a plastic bit of junk.

 

[Thern]

Salesvolumes will certainly impact the price, because massproduction is cheaper.
Looking back at the price we had to pay for the 180-400 F/4 TC I’m certain that the price is also the result of the more expensive lenselements, build, weathersealing, stronger/faster focusmotors aso.
Then not to forget the strategic choices a manufacturer makes while trying to leapfrog its contenders.
I assume, they earn their living with the massproduction of well performing more budgetfriendly products not so much with their toptier expensive exotics.
Last statement is a wild guess, back in the days one would selden see a non professional shooter with an exotic, nowadays it’s a pretty common sight to see a hobbyist with professional gear so that may be untrue.

 

[Cameron T]

You’re comparing a “low budget” zoom lens with a 250% more expensive fixed focal length lens.
So to my eyes the outcome of your “test” isn’t that surprising.
Nonetheless one can certainly see why the 180-600 is this popular amongst a lot of Nikonians.

The reality that we can compare a consumer zoom and say "you know, it actually holds up pretty well" compared to lenses 3x the price says a lot about how good modern lenses are.

 

[SCoombs]

You’re comparing a “low budget” zoom lens with a 250% more expensive fixed focal length lens.
So to my eyes the outcome of your “test” isn’t that surprising.
Nonetheless one can certainly see why the 180-600 is this popular amongst a lot of Nikonians.

Yes, I'm making that comparison, as it's literally the topic of the thread - and most people commenting have expressed genuine uncertainty as to how the "tier" of the lens would factor into differences in quality over distance while some have very vehemently rejected the thesis that more expensive lenses would handle distance better than lower budget ones. In this context I don't understand why my "test" should be viewed as something unfair or unreasonable.

 

[JoPoV]

Yes, I'm making that comparison, as it's literally the topic of the thread - and most people commenting have expressed genuine uncertainty as to how the "tier" of the lens would factor into differences in quality over distance while some have very vehemently rejected the thesis that more expensive lenses would handle distance better than lower budget ones. In this context I don't understand why my "test" should be viewed as something unfair or unreasonable.

And what we see here (of topic, I know), even if there no comparison image here to show this, is that bokey quality is probably one of the most important differences between thoses kind of lenses and expensive and heavy long focal lenses.

 

[SCoombs]

And what we see here (of topic, I know), even if there no comparison image here to show this, is that bokey quality is probably one of the most important differences between thoses kind of lenses and expensive and heavy long focal lenses.

True, but I am not clear on whether you are comparing the bokeh of my 500pf vs 180-600 shots to one another, or the bokeh of these two lenses to that of the expensive f4s?

 

[JoPoV]

the bokeh of these two lenses to that of the expensive f4s?

this (E serie maybe more). but it is off topic.

 

[Thern]

In this context I don't understand why my "test" should be viewed as something unfair or unreasonable.

I didn’t say that.
I said you’re comparing a relatively cheap ZOOM lens with a (lot) more expensive PRIME lens.

Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR review | Cameralabs

www.cameralabs.com

Nikon 500mm f5.6E PF VR review | Cameralabs

www.cameralabs.com

Nevertheless I didn’t mean to offend you, sorry when I did.
Like I said the 180-600 holds its ground, price/performance makes it a winner.

 

[SCoombs]

I didn’t say that.
I said you’re comparing a relatively cheap ZOOM lens with a (lot) more expensive PRIME lens.

Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR review | Cameralabs

www.cameralabs.com

Nikon 500mm f5.6E PF VR review | Cameralabs

www.cameralabs.com

Nevertheless I didn’t mean to offend you, sorry when I did.
Like I said the 180-600 holds its ground, price/performance makes it a winner.

Fair enough... I didn't take offense really so much as I just thought you were intending to criticize the comparison because usually when I have seen comments of that sort in the past they have usually been accompanied by a deriding over making such an unfair comparison.