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

[bleirer]

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.

I thought nikon measured theirs. I know Canon doesn't.

 

[bleirer]

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%

I'm not saying there will be or won't be a difference, just suggesting you won't know without giving it a fair test holding as many factors other than the lens constant.

 

[ajrmd]

In some ways this is an important thread as it illustrates how good modern lenses are and how the distinctions in the field are often difficult to distinguish. Unless one mounts the lenses on a tripod and performs objective testing under controlled lighting/targets, it is often difficult to differentiate between perceived sharpness. Let me illustrate with a couple of concrete examples. First, I was on a recent trip to Italy and was walking around with my tamy G2 28-75 f/2.8 rather than the 24-120 f/4. Although the MTF for the former lens is superior, in the field the differences between the lenses diminishes especially when they are stopped down. The greatest distinction when shooting landscapes with the respective lenses is noticed in the corners where the 28-75 is noticeably sharper at every aperture. Another quick example from yesterday when I was hiking with my 800 pf and 180-600. Two of my "best images" from the day were that of an Eastern Kingbird and RBWP (shot with the respective lenses). The later was a vastly superior image in terms of resolution and acutance. Why? Not because the 186 is sharper than the 800 - in fact it's the opposite - however the 186 image (RBWP) was shot at a much closer distance close to MFD, in better light, and with less subject movement.

Provided that it isn't a defective product, the determinant is whether the lens fits with your requirements and shooting style.

 

[wotan1]

In some ways this is an important thread as it illustrates how good modern lenses are and how the distinctions in the field are often difficult to distinguish. Unless one mounts the lenses on a tripod and performs objective testing under controlled lighting/targets, it is often difficult to differentiate between perceived sharpness. Let me illustrate with a couple of concrete examples. First, I was on a recent trip to Italy and was walking around with my tamy G2 28-75 f/2.8 rather than the 24-120 f/4. Although the MTF for the former lens is superior, in the field the differences between the lenses diminishes especially when they are stopped down. The greatest distinction when shooting landscapes with the respective lenses is noticed in the corners where the 28-75 is noticeably sharper at every aperture. Another quick example from yesterday when I was hiking with my 800 pf and 180-600. Two of my "best images" from the day were that of an Eastern Kingbird and RBWP (shot with the respective lenses). The later was a vastly superior image in terms of resolution and acutance. Why? Not because the 186 is sharper than the 800 - in fact it's the opposite - however the 186 image (RBWP) was shot at a much closer distance close to MFD, in better light, and with less subject movement.

Provided that it isn't a defective product, the determinant is whether the lens fits with your requirements and shooting style.

I agree that in a particular circumstance you might get a better result with a lens that is not intrinsically the sharpest lens that might have been used. Part of the reason is that so many factors go into getting the best result. This is particularly the case when shooting long focal lengths on a high megapixel camera. There is so much that can occur to rob an image of sharpness, including distance, atmospheric diffraction, subject movement, photographer skill and blind luck.

This makes it doubly difficult in doing a comparison evaluation of lenses because you don’t know if what you are seeing is due to differences in lens quality or some other factor. I for one thoroughly understand that a customer, dealing perhaps for the first time with evaluating one of these long lenses, might experience results that create doubt and uncertainty.

At the same time it is a fact that prime long focal lenses with high IQ have greater potential than less expensive zooms. Sometimes the potential is not understood until it is actually realized.

As a photographer relatively new to higher quality long focal length lenses and wildlife photography I went through this experience a little while ago when deciding which long lens(es) to purchase. I was at the time comparing the Z 600mm pf with the Z 800mm pf.

My experience with this is that I rented the Z 800mm for a long weekend and shot a lot of images. I concluded at the time that the 800mm was too big for me so I eventually purchased the 600mm pf. Later, on recommendations from people on this site I added the 800 to my inventory. What followed was a few months of using both lenses primarily on birding.

After that long experience my opinion changed. The 800mm has produced wonderful results and it is now my favorite lens for long photography. That is not to say there is anything wrong with the 600mm pf, and my comparison was made on only two samples of the lenses. My photo buddy continues to work with the 600mm pf and I have seen his results and they are excellent.

My first long Z lens was the 400mm f4.5 and I found that lens much easier to evaluate. Because of the nature of this lens most of my subjects were closer and 400mm is less prone to the conditions that can rob images shot at 600mm and 800mm of sharpness. I found that lens to be very satisfactory, although its reach was limited for many of the subjects I sought to photograph.

I think I learned a lot from advice and experiences I got from this site and I am grateful to all of you for being part of this place. I also thank specifically Steve Perry for his excellent and thoughtful advice.

 

[Calson]

600mm provides an image size that is 44% larger than a 500mm lens. The smaller the subject the more noticeable this will be. With songbirds my 800mm PF is my first choice for this reason.

Weight is important to me and I tend to grab the 100-400mm with the 1.4x teleconverter instead of the 180-600mm for that reason alone. I lose 40mm of focal length and 2/3 of a stop of light and save only 0.6 lb of weight but it feels easier to manage for some reason. I also like that it uses 77mm size filters.

There is something to be said for replacing the 200-500mm with the 180-600mm lens. The 180-600mm is lighter as well as providing 44% more image magnification. It uses the same 95mm size filters as your 200-500mm lens.

 

[Rogereh]

The biggest difference, to me, is carry & shooting with the 200-500 I need to also carry a tripod as I can't hold that weight steady. When the 500pf came out and it was almost ideal for me as I could carry with ease and could shoot hand-held. I did a lot of research on the 600pf vs the 800 pf and went with the 600 pf and a Z 1.4X TC. To me it is great, easy to carry and sharp colorful photos. I do occasionally whine about the long 8ft focus point. I still have my 200-500mm and my 500mm pf but I no longer use them at all. I actually bought the more expensive 600pf because I have been unable to buy a US Z 180-600 after many tries and thinking 600pf is lighter than the 180-600 and the fact that I mostly shoot at 600mm. I am not sorry about my choice. I actually returned my first Z600pf because we had a lot of medical bills at the time, but re-purchased another one as soon as I could.

 

[Rassie]

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?

I used the 200-500mm lens for years on a number of DSLRs and later on my Z6II as well. Putting that lens on my Z6II was like giving it a new life. Because of the superior autofocus of the Z6II compared to a DSLR, the lens was sharper and focus was consistently more accurate than on the DSLR, plus I did not need to fine tune autofocus on the Z6II. I eventually traded that lens for a 500mm PF because I was fed up with the weight of the zoom lens. The PF prime lens is so much lighter and easier to hand-hold, and the same would be true for the 600mm PF. The 500mm PF is slightly sharper than the 200-500mm.

The 200-500mm has a couple of things in its favour: It zooms, a handy feature to have sometimes. Secondly, its minimum focus distance (MFD) is much closer than the 600mm PF lens (2.2m vs 4m). Those differences are real and have to be considered for your use case.

Besides its weight, in my opinion the single biggest detracting feature of the 200-500mm lens is the fact that it focuses significantly slower than the prime lenses. Its slow focus frustrated the heck out of me when I was shooting little birds in the foliage. They keep moving and many times the lens could not lock focus before the bird was off again. I lost many shots because of that. It was not so much of an issue when shooting larger, slower moving wildlife.

You are not comparing apples to apples here, so you need to decide a few things:
Can you live without the ability to zoom, and can you live with the MFD on the 600mm PF compared to the much closer MFD on the zoom lens? If yes, I would opt for the prime lens every time. If not, then buy the Nikon Z 180-600mm lens. It makes a more than worthy replacement for the 200-500mm lens.

 

[cdfturner]

Thanks everyone for your comments I found many of them helpful. You can take it easy on suggestions about my technique, my talent is the same for both lens. I'm trying to figure out if I got a bad copy of the lens. As far as that goes I think I am good. I was out shooting for about 8 hours yesterday in a variety of lighting, distances and all handheld. I loved using this lens (I did find I bumped the focus ring at some less than opportune times, I know, technique ) Hard to put a value on how comfortable this is, "priceless". I was amazed how long I could hold a shot (even shot some video) and focus was very fast (camera is pretty good too). I still have a lot of pictures to sort through (and analyze to death no doubt) but my first impression of the results is very favourable. The only possible negative first impression was the noise in lower light shooting DX but then it is f6.3. Anyway just a first impression. Overall I'm pretty happy with this lens.

 

[cdfturner]

I used the 200-500mm lens for years on a number of DSLRs and later on my Z6II as well. Putting that lens on my Z6II was like giving it a new life. Because of the superior autofocus of the Z6II compared to a DSLR, the lens was sharper and focus was consistently more accurate than on the DSLR, plus I did not need to fine tune autofocus on the Z6II. I eventually traded that lens for a 500mm PF because I was fed up with the weight of the zoom lens. The PF prime lens is so much lighter and easier to hand-hold, and the same would be true for the 600mm PF. The 500mm PF is slightly sharper than the 200-500mm.

The 200-500mm has a couple of things in its favour: It zooms, a handy feature to have sometimes. Secondly, its minimum focus distance (MFD) is much closer than the 600mm PF lens (2.2m vs 4m). Those differences are real and have to be considered for your use case.

Besides its weight, in my opinion the single biggest detracting feature of the 200-500mm lens is the fact that it focuses significantly slower than the prime lenses. Its slow focus frustrated the heck out of me when I was shooting little birds in the foliage. They keep moving and many times the lens could not lock focus before the bird was off again. I lost many shots because of that. It was not so much of an issue when shooting larger, slower moving wildlife.

You are not comparing apples to apples here, so you need to decide a few things:
Can you live without the ability to zoom, and can you live with the MFD on the 600mm PF compared to the much closer MFD on the zoom lens? If yes, I would opt for the prime lens every time. If not, then buy the Nikon Z 180-600mm lens. It makes a more than worthy replacement for the 200-500mm lens.

I am hanging on to my 200-500 for now but it likely won't see much use. The long MFD on the 600 is without a doubt a disadvantage and will cost shots. The zoom no problem, I shot 98% at 500. The focus speed on the 600 is just a pleasure, I felt your pain on the 200-500 especially on a DSLR. And the weight difference while on paper isn't much but when you're trying to hold a shot, wow, what a difference.

 

[macwalter]

Personally I have never owned the 200-500 but I did use it for a day and found it to be sharp enough and could handle BIF on larger birds but after a couple hours I found the lens to be too heavy for me. So I bought the 500pf when it came out. The first thing I noticed was how sharp it was. Like you I handhold and in so doing you will never be able to get the absolute pinnacle of sharpness and most modern glass will give you sharp images with good technique. When I went mirrorless I over time sold all of my dslr gear with the last thing being my beloved 500pf. I had just bought the 600pf and found it to be every bit as sharp as the 500pf with an extra 100mm of reach and no added weight penalty. However these lenses are not good for close subjects. The minimum distance is 13ft on the 600pf and 10ft on the 500pf. Where these lenses shine is on subject a bit further out and the AF speed allows you to more easily capture fast smaller subjects. I have the 100-400z for close subjects and things like flowers and insects as you can get to about 3ft. I also have the 24-120mm where you can get to close to 1foot. I would think you may prefer the 180-600mm as I hear this lens is better than the older 200-500 with more reach and a bit lighter and much less expensive Than the 600pf. Personally I love the 600pf and use it the most often.

 

[Roy]

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?

The 200-500 is a great lens especially at the price.
But the 600 PF is on another level.
You may notice the difference if you shoot mostly wide open ...