Z600 f6.3 with 1.4TC

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).

R

Richwrob

New member
Member's gallery
Keen amateur bird photographer with a Z8 and I have been very pleased with the sharpness and overall IQ of the Z400 f4.5 with the Z1.4 TC. Recently got the Z600 f 6.3 and find both the sharpness and IQ excellent and similar to the Z400...however when I use the same Z1.4 TC on the Z600 I see a big drop off in both sharpness and IQ...appreciate others experience of the Z600 with the 1.4TC combo...thanks
 
Member's gallery
From the reports I’ve read, there’s almost no degradation in IQ from the z1.4 teleconverter while the z2x is reported to soften the IQ. I used the 2x on the z400 f4.5 and was quite impressed with the quality.
If you’re experiencing an issue with the z600/6.3, how it it’s sharpness without the tc? Maybe a bad copy of the lens.
 
Member's gallery
II have worked with both of those lenses as well as the 800mm pf.

My photo buddy shoots with the 600 and frequently uses the 1.4 tc. He is very happy with his setup.

My problem with the 600 is that I also have the 800 pf. The 800 is simply a better lens at 800 and above in my experience. So I would much rather shoot with the 800 than the 600 with a tc.

The 800 at 800 is sharper at 800 than the 600 with 1.4 tc. In addition you can shoot at f6.3 while the 600mm with tc is already at f9. You really don't want to use a 2x tc with that because you are now out at f13. With the 800mm I don't have to bother with a tc, I can use cropping or dx mode to get more reach. The 800 pf also does a better job at rendering background.

The thing is the combination of 400mm f4.5 and 800mm pf is in my opinion magical. The 400 is incredibly sharp and it works well with both 1.4 and 2x tc's. No it is not sharper at 600mm with tc than the 600mm pf at 600 but it is plenty good enough even there. About the time you start running out of reach with the 400mm the 800mm takes over. Nothing does long better than the 800mm pf.

The reality is we are dealing with three optical giants here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 600mm pf and 600 is a good focal length for birding.
 
Member's gallery
Are you filling the frame or not. That's going to matter. I posted some comparisons. Since it works well on your 400, shouldn't be a bad copy.

Z600 PF - A far off test

First can you find the Red Tail. Since I figured he/she (can anyone tell me) would sit a while, I decided to take images in FX and DX mode with and without the 1.4. TC. Just curious what they would look at with a similar perspective - no exactness or precise testing- when posted to this site...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
 
Member's gallery
Patrick M said:
From the reports I’ve read, there’s almost no degradation in IQ from the z1.4 teleconverter while the z2x is reported to soften the IQ. I used the 2x on the z400 f4.5 and was quite impressed with the quality.
If you’re experiencing an issue with the z600/6.3, how it it’s sharpness without the tc? Maybe a bad copy of the lens.
Click to expand...
Thanks...the lens on its own is great.
 
Member's gallery
BarkingBeans Coffee said:
Are you filling the frame or not. That's going to matter. I posted some comparisons. Since it works well on your 400, shouldn't be a bad copy.

Z600 PF - A far off test

First can you find the Red Tail. Since I figured he/she (can anyone tell me) would sit a while, I decided to take images in FX and DX mode with and without the 1.4. TC. Just curious what they would look at with a similar perspective - no exactness or precise testing- when posted to this site...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
Click to expand...
Thanks - appreciate the input, I am going to do some testing on a focus chart rather than birding in the field, which is where I have had the issues...I never rule out "operator error"!
 
Member's gallery
I’m with Patrick…with the 1.4 it’s essentially indistinguishable from bare at output resolution…which is what counts. Might be a little bokeh difference because of aperture and typically longer range than at 600…but that’s not necessarily ‘better’…just a bit different at output. It’s also fine with the 2.0 in good light. With all 3 shots and the subject the same size in the frame…after a little PP I see no significant differences outside of potential DoF.

It remains my opinion that all of us spend way too much time obsessing over minor differences on a 45MP image at 2:1 in LR when it’s going to be downsampled to 1024 or 1280 pixels wide for screen resolution…or for printing large and then based on printer resolution and normal viewing distance ignore the reality that nobody looks at images at 2:1 after PP is complete.

The note that the 800 is better than the 600 and TC…again, it is true at 2:1 arguably…but at 1280 wide not so much and the size, weight, lack of flexibility, and what it would force me to not take on an outing have me glad I cancelled my order in favor of the 600.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
The note that the 800 is better than the 600 and TC…again, it is true at 2:1 arguably…but at 1280 wide not so much and the size, weight, lack of flexibility, and what it would force me to not take on an outing have me glad I cancelled my order in favor of the 600.
Click to expand...

It is rather funny cause when I pick up the 600 on a Z9, I think - did Nikon forget to put the glass in?:unsure:
 
Member's gallery
My recent testing has my 600PF + 1.4TC coming in just as sharp as my 800PF. It's at a level that I'd use either one and not care. It's also miles sharper than my 400 4.5 + 1.4TC was. That was just my experience though, others have found that combo exemplary. In the end though, I sold the 400 4.5 because if I'm needing to use it at 560mm all the time, it means I really need a 600+, and I'm much more happy with the 600PF than I was with the 400 4.5 + 1.4TC.
 
Member's gallery
To me the whole point of a high resolution camera coupled with a super IQ lens is the ability to crop and sometimes crop significantly.

I crop or dx a lot when shooting at 800mm. Many of the subjects I pursue require more reach even at 800mm.

In working with my copy of the 600mm pf and my copy of the 800mm pf I have found the 800 gives me obviously better crop results than with the 600. This has actually gotten me more keepers.
 
Member's gallery
Patrick M said:
From the reports I’ve read, there’s almost no degradation in IQ from the z1.4 teleconverter while the z2x is reported to soften the IQ. I used the 2x on the z400 f4.5 and was quite impressed with the quality.
If you’re experiencing an issue with the z600/6.3, how it it’s sharpness without the tc? Maybe a bad copy of the lens.
Click to expand...
I agree. Upon reading reviews about how poor the 2x tc on the 400f4.5 I was pleased to discover that in fact it can actually work pretty well if you are careful and in good conditions. The reviews Ive seen of the 600pf with 1.4tc are noticeably better on paper at least. But 840mm is a long lens especially at f9. At home I’ve been doing comparisons not in scientific way but handholding my 500pf with 1.4tc at 700mm f8 vs my 400z f4.5 with the 2xTC at 800mm at f9 which on paper is weaker. What I found was that I was getting actually slightly better results with the 400-2xTC even though this should not be the case. I wonder if the improved overall IBIS of the z glass may factor in. The light was not great so I was shooting at fairly slow shutte speeds at times. I would think the 600pf with the 1.4 would be better but you are still at f9!
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
To me the whole point of a high resolution camera coupled with a super IQ lens is the ability to crop and sometimes crop significantly.

I crop or dx a lot when shooting at 800mm. Many of the subjects I pursue require more reach even at 800mm.

In working with my copy of the 600mm pf and my copy of the 800mm pf I have found the 800 gives me obviously better crop results than with the 600. This has actually gotten me more keepers.
Click to expand...
I would think this would be the case the 800pf is a big lens with no tc needed and shooting at f6.3 vs f9. Size does matter.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for the comments - I went out today and used the same combination of 600Z plus 1.4Z and am very pleased with the results...my conclusion is that it was heat haze that was causing my issues last week....very different climatic conditions today here in CO!
 
Member's gallery
Richwrob said:
Thanks for the comments - I went out today and used the same combination of 600Z plus 1.4Z and am very pleased with the results...my conclusion is that it was heat haze that was causing my issues last week....very different climatic conditions today here in CO!
Click to expand...
That is a combo I am hoping to eventually have. I do like the 400 f4.5 with both TCs. It is a very compact and versatile setup and looking at photos from Ecuador in low light I was glad for the f4.5 option. Anyway to reduce excessive iso is welcome. That being said 400mm is often not enough reach for small birds. I didn’t have the 2x for that trip but I used the 1.4 a lot. I realize the advantage of bare glass but the big f4 lenses are simply beyond my means both money wise and weight. I like to be mobile and a tripod is not my thing nor a monopod although I don’t doubt their value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top