Z 600 pf prime vs 200-500mm f mount- should I return the lens?

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).

cdfturner

cdfturner

New member
Member's gallery
I have just moved to mirrorless and bought the 600 pf 6.3. Combined with the Z8 this is a pleasure to use out in the field birding, especially notably going handheld. One issue though, I tried my old 200-500 on the Z8 (seems like a tank compared with the 600) and am not noticing any appreciable difference in sharpness between the two lens. I realize going handheld to compare sharpness adds a ton of variables but even going around my flower garden with one lens then the other it's hard to see a difference. I really expected the 600mm being an S lens, prime and Z mount should be an improvement over a cheaper F mount zoom on an adapter (although I always liked the 200-500).
Have I received a bad copy of the lens or are my expectations out of whack? Need to decide soon so I can return.

Thoughts/experiences?
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
cdfturner said:
I have just moved to mirrorless and bought the 600 pf 6.3. Combined with the Z8 this is a pleasure to use out in the field birding, especially notably going handheld. One issue though, I tried my old 200-500 on the Z8 (seems like a tank compared with the 600) and am not noticing any appreciable difference in sharpness between the two lens. I realize going handheld to compare sharpness adds a ton of variables but even going around my flower garden with one lens then the other it's hard to see a difference. I really expected the 600mm being an S lens, prime and Z mount should be an improvement over a cheaper F mount zoom on an adapter (although I always liked the 200-500).
Have I received a bad copy of the lens or are my expectations out of whack? Need to decide soon so I can return.

Thoughts/experiences?
Click to expand...
Per MTF charts, the 600 is sharper and resolves far more, especially on the 30 l/mm curves.
 
Member's gallery
As you mentioned it is difficult to do sharpness tests without doing exact comparisons. I haven’t used the 600mm PF but I have heard it is very sharp. I had previously had a 200-500mm and felt like my copy was very sharp. When I switched to the 500mm PF I didn’t really notice much improvement in IQ but it was great having the much lighter lens to carry. You may also have an exceptional copy of the 200-500mm. If so, you would need to determine if it is worthwhile to upgrade to the 600mm PF for reasons other than marginal IQ improvements. I currently have the 180-600 and 400mm 4.5 and a 1.4x TC and haven’t decided whether to get the 600mm myself. I think the 180-600 is a great replacement for the 200-500, lighter internal zoom, faster AF.
 
I think you should do a fair test. Keep as much as possible the same and use a static target. Shoot the zoom at 500 to be as close as possible to the other. Shoot on a tripod from the same distance using the exact settings as much as possible. Process both the same as much as possible. If they are the same keep the lighter one.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks. abc123Brian. Good to know about the comparison with the 500. I feel very much the same about the 600, the weight difference is remarkable and the focus speed notable. There are a couple of things I don't like (longer minimum focus being number one) but the combination with the Z8 is really a nice fit. I would like to keep the pair (although the 180-600 would likely keep me happy) so really my decision is sending this copy of the lens back and trying another one. A waste of time of course if it's just my expectations are wrong. Sounds like your experience with the 500 would suggest maybe it is my expectations that need adjusting.
 
Member's gallery
tclune said:
You like the 200-500 and don't mind the weight. You are disappointed in the 600 pf. You are in the time window when you can return the 600 pf. If this were a syllogism the conclusion would be a gimmie in an intro logic class.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is in many ways I am not disappointed with the 600, weight, focus speed, comfortable for handheld, decent bokeh. Many things that help with keepers.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I think you should do a fair test. Keep as much as possible the same and use a static target. Shoot the zoom at 500 to be as close as possible to the other. Shoot on a tripod from the same distance using the exact settings as much as possible. Process both the same as much as possible. If they are the same keep the lighter one.
Click to expand...
Point taken and I will do this although my reasoning is I usually shoot either handheld (advantage 600) or on a monopod and shooting flowers is not very challenging focuswise. I don't think my choice is about keeping the 200-500 as my main lens. I would likely get the 180-600 or first choice replace the 600 if I thought it was not working properly. If what the 600 is doing is normal I would keep it. Just so many glowing reports I was expecting a bit more.
 
cdfturner said:
Point taken and I will do this although my reasoning is I usually shoot either handheld (advantage 600) or on a monopod and shooting flowers is not very challenging focuswise. I don't think my choice is about keeping the 200-500 as my main lens. I would likely get the 180-600 or first choice replace the 600 if I thought it was not working properly. If what the 600 is doing is normal I would keep it. Just so many glowing reports I was expecting a bit more.
Click to expand...

I'd say eliminate as many variables as possible to see if the lens is at fault. A tripod and a self timer eliminates any chance for wobble so you can compare the lenses fairly.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I'd say eliminate as many variables as possible to see if the lens is at fault. A tripod and a self timer eliminates any chance for wobble so you can compare the lenses fairly.
Click to expand...
I get this and I will but really wondering about real life experience people have. Based on what I am seeing (with my eyes and a hi rez computer screen) there won't be a noticeable difference at 100%
 
Member's gallery
Big MTF differences do, smaller ones are easily over ruled by reality.

Also, sample variability is, with the exception of some extreme outliers, not really thing anymore. And in the past there seems to have been some QA issues that resulted in faulty lenses being shipped. That is not sample variance, that is bad QA and products being shipped despite not meeting specs and quality standards.
 
Member's gallery
hef19898 said:
Big MTF differences do, smaller ones are easily over ruled by reality.

Also, sample variability is, with the exception of some extreme outliers, not really thing anymore. And in the past there seems to have been some QA issues that resulted in faulty lenses being shipped. That is not sample variance, that is bad QA and products being shipped despite not meeting specs and quality standards.
Click to expand...
The most recent expensive lenses have a significant edge (like 20-30%) on the 30 ln/mm curves once you get past the DX circle. And the Z8/9 can actually resolve it in the f/2.8-8 range. But you're 100% correct, hand-held, it's hard to discern.
 
Member's gallery
Even on a tripod, you have things like distance to the subject, usually not a flat surface perfeczly parallel to the sensor, athmospheric effects, wind...

Still, a good lense makes it easier, but is no guarantee whatsoever. And one has to be able to use said lense, especially on a high resolution sensor.

And even then, it says not a lot about the photographic quality of the resulting image.
 
Member's gallery
Nimi said:
The most recent expensive lenses have a significant edge (like 20-30%) on the 30 ln/mm curves once you get past the DX circle. And the Z8/9 can actually resolve it in the f/2.8-8 range. But you're 100% correct, hand-held, it's hard to discern.
Click to expand...
So, are you saying within the DX area I would likely not see a difference, especially handheld (apologies, no real experience with the charts).
 
Member's gallery
As has been stated by many, the 200-500 broke all the rules and produced exceptional images in most cases. Going to the 600 has both pros and cons. Just weigh the differences and decide for yourself which best suits your needs.
 
Member's gallery
Nimi said:
Correct. Sharpness decreases as you get closer to the edge of the image circle. In DX, you're throwing it away.
Click to expand...
Thanks. This would in part explain what I am (or not) seeing then. I was looking at detail in the center portion of my shots. I was aware there would be a difference moving outward but still expected significant change in the center.
 
Member's gallery
cdfturner said:
Thanks. This would in part explain what I am (or not) seeing then. I was looking at detail in the center portion of my shots. I was aware there would be a difference moving outward but still expected significant change in the center.
Click to expand...
They are identical in the center.
 
Member's gallery
cdfturner said:
Thoughts/experiences?
Click to expand...

1) Most manufacturers give MTFs that are theoretical and not measured... i.e: that's what they think the lens should behave not how it actually behaves.

2) PF lenses and the 200-500 f5.6 seem to have a bit higher sample variation than usual. It is possible that you might have gotten lucky with the 200-500 f5.6 and unlucky with the 600mm f6.3.

3) It's been my experience that the worst way to determine the sharpness of a telephoto is to shoot a controlled test :) I know, strange, but there are a number of factors that, if you take out of the shooting, can really skew your results. For example:
a) Most long telehpoto zooms I've used start to breakdown in image quality when your subject is more than 60-70 feet away, compared to similar focal length primes.
b) Plenty of lenses underperform when shot close to their MFD.
c) Plenty of telephoto zooms that output strong results in controlled scenarios struggle when used in tougher lighting situations (contre-jour, weird reflective surfaces around the subject and so on).
d) Prime lenses always seem to behave better with regards to atmospheric haze than zooms...

4) Subject matters when assesing the sharpness of a lens... you need subjects with plenty of detail like fur or feathers rather than leaves and petals.

5) Light also matters when assesing lenses... bright, contrasty light can crush details and nunace in shots.

6) Finally there is the factor of the viewer that is assesing sharpness... I've seen plenty of people claim that their lens was sharp when in fact it was ho-hum at best just because they didn't have the experience to know what to look for.

So all that leads to situations where two lenses might look like they perform the same when shot from a tripod in flat light at a subject 20 feet away but one will constantly provide sharper results when shooting a small bird at 40 feet with a gold/red background in morning light...

P.S: one of the cool reasons to have a brick and mortar store around and maintain a good relationship with them is that you can pop down and ask to check out a lens and compare it with the one you have to make sure it is roughly in spec.
 
Member's gallery
cdfturner said:
I have just moved to mirrorless and bought the 600 pf 6.3. Combined with the Z8 this is a pleasure to use out in the field birding, especially notably going handheld. One issue though, I tried my old 200-500 on the Z8 (seems like a tank compared with the 600) and am not noticing any appreciable difference in sharpness between the two lens. I realize going handheld to compare sharpness adds a ton of variables but even going around my flower garden with one lens then the other it's hard to see a difference. I really expected the 600mm being an S lens, prime and Z mount should be an improvement over a cheaper F mount zoom on an adapter (although I always liked the 200-500).
Have I received a bad copy of the lens or are my expectations out of whack? Need to decide soon so I can return.

Thoughts/experiences?
Click to expand...
If you can't tell the difference in image quality then it's a question of whether the difference in weight and additional focal length is worth the cost. All of the MTF charts etc don't matter if you're not seeing a difference on your computer screen. But I will say that if you're not seeing a difference in those two lenses then improving your technique will likely result in more improvements in sharpness than new equipment.
 
Member's gallery
The old question of what to invest: skill or gear. As with most, for me, my gear is more capable than I am. And has been for decades. New gear makes some things easier, for sure. But if the results aren't there, it is not the gear ( REALY OBVIOUS damage aside).
 
Member's gallery
I don't really put much credence into charts. To me, they're useless when out in the field.

My personal experience is that I don't find the 600PF to be any sharper than the zooms, in the center. Between 180-600 and 600PF images - I find them nearly indistinguishable unless they are right next to each other.

The sharpness value of the 600PF is out to the corners. In case your subject is not perfectly centered.

IMO - the value of the 600PF is in the size and weight, not the IQ. The IQ certainly isn't bad - but it's not a selling point.

All of these modern lenses, from a $1,500 zoom to a $15,000 prime are very comparable in terms of center sharpness - especially if you're able to do minimal sharpening in post.

Another value advantage is the 600PF should take a 1.4x and 2x TC much better than the 200-500. If you're someone who is interested in maximum reach.

I wouldn't have the 200-500 vs 600PF as an either or situation, but an "and" situation. It makes a lot of sense to have the big heavy zoom when shorter MFD or flexibility is needed, and the small and lightweight prime when you want to travel or have fun handholding.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
The problem when you get to the 600-800 range is that there is a lot that can happen that will affect sharpness. I had the 600mm pf and i now have the 800mm pf which is now my favorite lens.

Shooting at 47 mp with that long a focal length it takes ideal technique and ideal conditions to get the best out of these super primes.

to test this properly you need to get it on a tripod, you have to shoot subjects that are physically close and you need to test the edges as well as the center. You also need to put a 1.4x tc on the 600 and see how it does out at 800.

If after all that you are not satisfied the 600 pf is not for you.

the test results and reviews all say the 600 pf is an incredibly sharp lens.

I ended up going for the 800 over the 600. The main consideration to my mind is that I shoot a lot at 800mm because very often the birds are far away. the 600 mm pf when a 1.4x tc is added becomes f9. By contrast the 800mm pf Max shutter is f6,3, That is not an inconsequential difference.

By contrast my photo buddy is a great photographer. He has stuck with the 600mm pf and he uses it with the 1.4x tc. I have seen what he can do with this lens. He gets great results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top