Nikon 600 PF Tests & Comparisons: Sharpness! AF Speed! Bokeh! VR! Focus Breathing! And More!

[@michaeljohannsen4872]

I’m a huge long term fan and user of Canon’s lenses and cameras, but Nikon recently have released the ultimate wildlife lens offerings one can only dream of. That 600 PF lens looks incredible!

[@djack4125]

I too shoot Canon and share your opinion.

[@caroaltitudesauvage]

I am a canon user, well I was, because I just sold everything to upgrade to the Z8+600pf combo 😶‍🌫

[@djack4125]

Nikon has really cranked out super lenses. Congrats @@caroaltitudesauvage

[@robertwoods3479]

Nikon is back and climbing Io top

[@larrys6111]

Yeah, I may be joining you! Do you feel good about the switch?​@@caroaltitudesauvage

[@michaelbandeko3519]

I have no intention of switching to mirrorless. But with everyone jumping on the mirrorless bandwagon, the prices for the F-mount 600 f4 have dropped to affordable prices in the JDM.

[@dominiclester3232]

Well, price wise you will be a winner. Personally, I love the Z bodies and Z lenses although I’m in no hurry to trade in my longer F lenses because that would be very expensive.

[@kontrolla1]

Thanks for your excellent and thorough tests and comparisons Steve. I have the 600 TC and am loving it however if I was buying it today I would have to seriously consider the 600 PF instead at such a huge saving in cost and weight. For the price the 600 PF is an amazing lens.

[@cryptographerchris4856]

So much information and time put into this. You are the best.

[@michaeljohannsen4872]

I totally agree!! Wonderful review of a wonderful lens!

[@Bobby-mq8lt]

Exactly.. He’s real

[@thomashecht71]

Great video, thank you, Steve. Some people might be be disappointed to see the slow focus speed of the 100-400. They don‘t take into consideration the much closer minimum focus distance of that lens. Whereas you are - rightfully - measuring the „hunting time“ of the lenses.

[@mohammadamir1830]

Another great review, Steve! 500 PF was my favorite lens for everyday use but I'm so happy to have my 600 PF now and can't wait to take more pictures with it.

[@BowlesImages]

Excellent testing, Steve. Thanks again for another excellent comparison and your unbiased comments. The 600mm PF looks like a remarkably good lens.

[@BudBetz]

I've have dad the 600PF for about a month, and it has been a real pleasure to use. Sold the very fine 500PF for this lens and loving the bit of extra reach. It's light, it's easy to adjust to, and theVR and quick focus render great photos. Thanks for the encouragement and detail on the lens. It's definitely a keeper. As you said, it's more like a baby 600 TC. Thanks Steve for all you do in the Nikon Z World! -Bud

[@tjm3599]

I have had this lens for a year and I love it. Light, hand holdable and the image quality is really good. When I first bought it, I was a little worried that it wouldn't get a lot of use, but I hardly ever take it off the camera.

[@SteveAshPhotos]

Nice job. I think there are a lot of us Nikon shooters (with limited budgets) trying to decide which way to go. This is very helpful.

[@realnikonlover6207]

Fantastic Steve! Having just received the 180-600 and the 800 PF, I really appreciate this review. My challenge is trying to decide which lens to take out and shoot with. Nikon just keeps getting better with each release. Cheers.

[@IamNoOne-001]

Those are my top choices for Wildlife photo/video, when I can afford them. Is it too heavy to carry them both?

[@jurrydevries4006]

Hi Steve, thanks for a great detailed video. I got my 600 pf 2 weeks ago and am absolutely impressed. I borrowed a 180-600 from a friend to compare and can confirm your findings: the 180-600 definitely isn't bad (and great value for money), but when you put the photos next to each other, the 600 pf definitely produces better results. If the difference is worth the extra cash, that's different for every individual. However, I am extremely happy with the 600PF; it feels like it is designed to match the Z8.

[@JimGarrelts]

Steve, thanks so much for doing both videos. I always trust your evaluations and comparisons, since you are unbiased and test rigorously. Based on your first video, I ordered my 600 PF, which is arriving sometime this afternoon...can't wait to get out and use it...

[@kurtholz2745]

Hi Steve, thanks for another data-rich testing video! I had ordered this lens a few days ago (Friday ETA) and then your video popped up in my feed so I immediately said uh oh, hope it's a good review.

[@petergordon4666]

Thank you for the usual excellent review. Already owning a 500 PF and an amateur, I think that I will stand pat thanks to the information that you provided.

[@JayBlue2U]

Great job, Steve! Nikon has certainly provided attractive options for sports and wildlife shooters who need a 600mm focal length. Thanks for sharing details of the results photographers can expect with each option.

[@Mr09260]

Thank you Steve What a great Video >> I am the Proud Owner of a new 180-600 here in Africa but this lens and the 600 pf or the 400 f4.5 are also as an extra lens for wild Life

[@GeoffCooper]

Awesome video crammed full of info as always. I've mostly been finding the same and the lens is really nice to hold too. Not 100% sure I'll keep it over my 400mm f/4.5 + TCs given the costs involved though! PS. Hejnar make a nice foot for the 400mm f/4.5 which also fits this lens and it extends backwards a little to allow better gimbal balance with the Z9, but without ending up too close to the body...

[@mikedavis1110]

Excellent review and it does seem very impressive for the price and an affordable option for a wider selection of photographers! I bought the 180-600 for Airshows to capture the group passes of the planes and I have been very impressed with the quality.

[@myketripp3838]

Thanks, Steve! Excellent job. My z600pf arrived yesterday and I was impressed ... your video basically validated my feelings on this amazing lens.

[@tc6912]

Thank you for all you do! I traded my 500pf/FTZ2 for the 600PF. So far, so good. Love the more robust feel and balance on the Z8. The extra connection with the FTZ always felt a little loose. I haven't done the detailed comparisons, but the AF certainly feels faster, and the limited shooting that I have done indicates image quality to be at least as good. Still looking into the background rendering. I noticed my version of the 500 seemed to struggle more with vertical lines than horizontal.

[@rjwerntzphotography]

As always, great testing and comparisons. I put my KES LP-70 on mine last week as I had it for other lenses as well. That little cost savings always helps. Removing the circular foam from a Nikon CL-M5 case allows the 600pf to fit in the same case as the 500pf including the reversed hood. For these costs, Nikon should supply the lens with these accessories. Like the gripe, I doubt that will change.

[@arjunsengupta1661]

Awesome video! So much info....kudos! If I am going to part way with the 500pf and decide to go full Z mount, I will probably still go with 400 4.5 and 1.4TC. But Nikon created another winner in the 600pf....

[@KR2photo]

Thanks very much Steve for the detailed and informative review. I really appreciate the level of detail and thoroughness of the evaluation.

[@merkin22]

Thanks Steve. Once again, great video! Your comparisons makes it harder for me to (continue!) to wait for my 600 tc to be delivered. :)

[@sallyleavitt131]

Huge thanks for putting this together Steve! The 500mm PF and D500 have been my workhorse. Looks like it might be time for that setup to go into semi-retirement and give the 600mm PF and Z8 a chance to shine!

[@backcountrygallery]

My 500PF is officially retired after getting this lens :)

[@sallyleavitt131]

@@backcountrygallery Not sure I can go cold turkey!!!

[@backcountrygallery]

@@sallyleavitt131 You'll find that turkey is nice and warm the moment you put the 600PF on your Z8 :)

[@sallyleavitt131]

@@backcountrygallery I’m sure you’re right! I pulled the trigger on the 600! Can’t wait for it to arrive. I have the f mount 600. Looking forward to having a hand-holdable 600 mm!

[@anthonyhurren5613]

Another great review Steve 👍

[@josemirabal1063]

Thanks for your hard work bringing us such useful content. Much appreciated.

[@fjphoto23]

The best lens review as always.

[@sarimento1]

great review, nice puppy. just got mine, initial similar results vs z180-600. steve, looks like you've been hitting the gym! thx!

[@backcountrygallery]

LOL, I think it's just the camera. My problem is, although I workout regularly, I also snack with that same enthusiasm! (Still, I have been cutting back :) )

[@johnpeterka8355]

Hi Steve, I purchased a Nikon Z 600 f/6.3 PF lens to go with my Z9 to shoot wildlife. It is a great lens in normal lighting conditions. However, it suffers horribly in atmospheric haze. I had previously used the Z 180-600, Tamron Z 150-500, and Sony 200-600. The Z 180-600 and Sony 200-600 performed much better in similar atmospheric haze. I have to wonder if the PF technology sacrifices lens arrangements or number of lenses for lighter weight, which might account for the fall-off in image sharpness. I have tried stopping down my F-stops, increased shutter speed, used with/without filters, used handheld and tripod, got closer to subject, shot in manual and AF. Nothing has helped. Other photographers mentioned starting out earlier in the morning, increasing shutter speed, or getting closer to the subject. I examined the MTF charts. On paper, the 600 f/6.3 PF blows away the other lenses. However, I never found charts that compares atmospheric haze as it impacts image sharpness. I called Nikon. However, the tech was mind-locked on filters. Any ideas or recommendations will be appreciated. Thank you. JP

[@vitaminb4869]

Regarding the backgrounds this can go either way. Too smooth of a background can look too plain and boring, and make the bird look like it's almost pasted into the photo. So having a bit of texture can help.

[@ryancooper3629]

Thanks for this! Super helpful info. Personally I think I'm going to just go with the 500pf when I upgrade because the gap in price is so huge for not a huge gap in performance. (Used 500 is about $5000 less for me than a new 600 pf). Certainly a killer lens though! Just not the cheapest one. I think for me, if I was looking to spend that much I'd just keep saving and pick up the 800 instead.

[@bertraml292]

Thank You Steve! Well done as always. Much and valid information.

[@Hrishi1970]

Dear Steve, Happy new year to you sir! Fantastic video as always. All my Nikon shooter friends are your ardent fans! A quick question: What if you tested lenses at high iso like 8000. That way we can find out where they break on performance. Your views?

[@sheltiemad]

Thanks for your work comparing these and for sharing!

[@backcountrygallery]

Thanks so much!

[@robeson1231]

Awesome video Steve. Still undecided between 600pf and 800pf though!

[@seandavis6458]

Great review as usual. Thanks for your insight. I think the PF is a great option

[@RobLS87]

Hey Steve, love seeing your results from the recent offerings from Nikon, 800pf, 180-600 and now the 600pf. It’s making my head spin on what to settle for. The way the 800 makes that dream like quality of the foreground and background is outstanding, to me stands out above the others. However, can you test these in harsh light conditions. Such as extremely backlight as I’ve heard troubles with this, specifically the 800pf. Keep up the amazing content and information!

[@lancepolcyn3444]

Steve, thank you! Great insight as always!

[@thephotoyak]

I get what you mean by time it takes the lens to search if it misses the lock. But MFD to infinity really makes lenses with a close MFD (like the 100-400) look slow, when in reality it's just that super close range that takes most of the focus travel. If thats a problem there is a focus limiter switch.

[@backcountrygallery]

I agree to an extent, but mostly they appear slow because, from a practical standpoint of initial lock on and hunting, they are. Keep in mind that I can also engage the range limiter on the other lenses too and have the same kind of gaps in performance. (BTW - I do recommend range limiters for most BIF work :) )

[@donminard9949]

Thanks! Super job once again, and very helpful, Steve!

[@backcountrygallery]

Thanks so much!

[@antonoat]

Great stuff Steve, fantastic effort from you so thanks a bunch for sharing these findings! I know my 300 pf is a bit sharper stopped down one stop from wide open, would you say this applies to the others longer pf lenses too? Cheers and all the best! 👏👍😀🦦

[@kuau714]

Another great review Steve, I’m luck as I own both the 600TC and the new 600PF. I realize this would be much harder to do yet on the sharpness comparison I think it would be more beneficial to have the target at a much greater distance as this would be a much more realistic example when shooting g wildlife or in my case sports. I have seen in years past how long telephoto lens perform differently at longer distances

[@backcountrygallery]

The trick is that you need really, really good conditions to do those tests. You can't have any heat distortion, so it has to be a cloudy day. It also has to be a very clear, crisp day with minimal particulates in the air. You also need no breeze, as even temperature variations brought in through the wind can cause issues. You also need to test all of them at once - and any consequent test comparisons all need to be re-done each time since you need the tests done under absolutely identical conditions. That's why I use my indoor setup :)

[@nikon_z9_images]

Thanks for the thorough comparisons. Very enlightening. I own the Z 400/2.8 TC VR S so wondered how this would compare and would assume a fairer comparison would be Z 400 TC (560) v Z 600 TC.

[@backcountrygallery]

I don't won't eh 400 yet, so I can't say. I'm sure that the 400 2.8 + TC is going to be incredibly close to the 600PF. Probably close enough not to care.

[@ravidevre4997]

Hey mate, thanks again for the video. Do you think stopping down of 180-600 when comparing sharpness with 600 PF would have made any difference? I believe 180-600mm is sharp when stop down. Many thanks

[@saschahamann2283]

Nice job ! Love your reviews. What about the 600pf in comparison to the 600 FL adapted?

[@backcountrygallery]

Thanks - The 600 FL was neck-and-neck with the 600 TC when I tested them - I think the 600 TC only had a very slight edge. So, all three are in the same ballpark.

[@michelebelotti2022]

Hello, after watching those 2 videos about the 600 PF, let's say I have a budget around $5000 - $7000 and I have the option to buy the Z 600 PF or the Z 800 PF or used AF-S 600 F/4E.... the 600 PF is the lighter (and cheaper) one... the 800 is the one with long reach... the 600 F/4 is the one with higher aperture. Which one would you advice? Those will be used mostly for birds

[@randomtalks1988]

Hey Steve ....i have bought ur books from ur website and currently studying them ...i look upto you for all kinds of photography tips and tricks..i was just confused beteeen buying the 600 vs 800 pf ...whihx one to go for ? Which one has better inage quailty and sharpess and af speed and also most usable ?

[@KobusGevelspar]

Steve, thanks for putting in so much effort again! Can I have your opinion on the f mount 500 or 600 f4 with ftz ii vs the z mount lenses? Af performance and so on? I’m thinking of going for an fl 600 f4 f mount, can’t afford the newer ones.

[@edikici]

Hi Steve, thanks for the great video. I have a question, what is the test chart you are using?

[@jeffb.3052]

Given the price, I think I'd rather just keep using my 500PF and 500f/4G and get an 800PF. Why? reach of course and given both are f/6.3 the 800 for a little more makes more sense. Oh, excellent comparison review, thanks for doing it for us!

[@jbilly24]

Great video Steve. Was hoping you could compare sharpness between the 600pf and 800pf. I’m assuming it would be very similar.

[@backcountrygallery]

Yes, neck-and-neck with the bare lenses. I doubt anyone would be able to tell them apart.

[@jbilly24]

Thanks for the confirmation, Steve!@@backcountrygallery

[@MrDtmix]

Excellent well detailed video

[@rachelg7371]

When you said “longer frames”, does that mean MORE of them or Fewer/slower?

[@rolandrickphotography]

Steve, many thanks for that detailed comparison. On YT that at eg around 24:28 can’t be compared. May we please have the raw files for download somewhere?

[@dutchaus5813]

19:22 Hi Steve, where did you get the test sheet from? Great video! 👍🏻

[@georgk255]

Great comparidon Steve. What about 400mm 2.8 tc. With Tc involved you get 560 which is pretty close zo 600mm Is this a reason to compare? I tend to prefer 400mm tc. More versatile I think. Expensive I know.

[@georgk255]

I reconsider my question. Weight. This makes this lens exceptionall. For hand shooting. No sense to compare with 600 f4 tc or 400mm 2.8 tc. Weight more than 3 kilogram vs 1,5 kilogram Will buy this lens

[@tomdearie5165]

Another great chat, Steve. Now I have one more lens in my purchase dilemma 😳🤔 If you could only have one lens between the 400mm 4.5 and the 600mm PF would you go with the 600mm?

[@backcountrygallery]

Yes, for me personally the 600 PF makes more sense. Not by a lot, but I tend to be at 600mm far more than 400mm. I like to choose lenses where I can use them without the TC the majority of the time. :)

[@myketripp3838]

My 600pf arrived yesterday ... my plan is to get the Z400f/4.5 next year as a gap lens.

[@ravidevre4997]

Hey mate, thank you for the wonderful video. Do you think Nikon Z6III will be launched any time soon? Thanks

[@backcountrygallery]

No idea at all - Nikon is very tight lipped. It sure seems like it's due though - they really need a stronger mid-range camera IMO.

[@MrModerate_kane]

i am really surprised with the lens so far it feels very fast, the recall functions a step up and the minimum focus distance isnt what i thought it would be, i thought it would be worse, but its ok. in the hand on Z8 the balance is so good too, glad i got it and sold the 500pf, i feel like i wont need to replace this for anything else in future, i wont buy a 15k lens so this or the 800 was the choice and in the end - weight matters more for me and its bag size travelling, its a mix of things that got me to the 600. My 500pf was ok but i was always tapping DX mode, which was the decider in the end. ref sport and normal, i dont like the jump normal gives over sport but normal for animal portraits seems fine.

[@thomastuorto9929]

As always, great review. Any chance to put the new firmware for the Z9 threw its paces yet?

[@backcountrygallery]

I have - and there's a video coming soon :)

[@thomastuorto9929]

@@backcountrygallery thank you!

[@fatcat752]

Thanks, Steve! Pat Cassity

[@stripes_in_raw]

Thanks a lot 🙏🏽 Anyway is there anyway i can download the background rendering & sharpness test images for the 400mm f4.5 with and without the 1.4tc and the Sony 200-600mm pics to compare them side by side ?

[@macmcmillen6282]

With advances in post-processing utilizing AI, I'm guessing that the differences in bokeh will become less pronounced when comparing a $2K - 4K lens versus a $16K lens. That said, the $16K lens will always have a big advantage in its ability to bring in more light when shot wide open.

[@samgabor100]

I am using Nikon Z6II so where I find auto tracking d9, d21, group and 3D tracking settings Was available on dslr d750 Thank you for consideration and help

[@davblec]

What about Nikon 400 mm F 2.8. TC why didin’t you include it? To make it easier to decide which one to buy 600 f4 TC. 400 f2.8 TC. Or 600 F 6.3

[@backcountrygallery]

Mostly because I don't own one :) Yet :)

[@Skye_the_toller]

Do you have in your notes where stands the 800 pf I. Af sped test?

[@mastromini8449]

Steve, when you say “from minimum focal distance to infinity” the focus limiter is set to cut out the closest range or is it set to full range?

[@backcountrygallery]

Full range. Figure those times are probably going to be roughly half with the limiter engaged. The limiter makes a big difference.

[@seantomlinson3320]

Astonishing how a $4800 lens can seem like a bargain. Just like the older sibling the $3300 500 PF before it.

[@nikon70lm]

Hi there. Thanks for your job. What test target did you use? Is it something we can buy or download somewhere out there?

[@backcountrygallery]

It's an old one I got off of eBay - lat I looked I didn't see it anymore.

[@lemiwings100]

whats the focus time for the z800 from min to infinity?

[@BigFoot-w4d]

Do you advise the use of a filter, Nikon NC filter that is?

[@backcountrygallery]

I don't use any filters as a rule. I'd consider one if I was in an environment that might actually harm the front element - like blowing sand on a beach comes to mind. Otherwise, I don't use 'em.

[@phillipveneris8158]

As always, a great informative review. Was looking for something to fill the gap between 400mm F4.5 & the 800mm F6.3, after trying the 400mm F4.5 with the x1.4 TC & not being happy with the results; it appears the 600mm F6.3 is the logical solution.

[@RussandLoz]

These tests show the 400 with the tc is very good, I'm curious to know what you didn't like in your experience? (I looking to buy the 400)😀

[@phillipveneris8158]

@russandloz it's one thing to test a lens with a TC against a test chart & another IRL out in the field. My experience with the 400 4.5 paired with the TC on a Z9/Z8 for BOF has been less than impressive, tracking & keepers when tested. Without the TC, the lens behaves alot differently. Just to make it clear, Steve's review is not testing this; nor what is it about. Buy a lens according to the focal distance you primarily going to shoot at. Slapping glass over more glass trying to achieve similar focal distance for a cheaper price, without taking a hit in AF acquisition & IQ will not happen.

[@cambodiabird]

Thanks for sharing. Would it be good to test 500mm PF + tc vs z600mm PF? :)

[@eesyako]

If you were to advice a buyer between 600/6.3 vs 600/F4 FL second hand, (which are similar in price) what would your choice be?

[@backcountrygallery]

I've made my wildlife photography career with the 600 F/4, so that's my pick. That doesn't mean it's right for everyone though.

[@WestVirginiaWildlife]

Would the canon 200-800 be more viable over the 180-600? And canon has some of the best bird eye af and even in cheaper crop cameras like the r50.

[@backcountrygallery]

It's an interesting lens for sure - it's the maximum F/stops that sort of turn me off on it though. It's F/8 at 500mm and 600mm - 2/3rds of a stop slower than the 180-600 at those F/stops and the 600PF. For me, F/6.3 is about as far as I'll go.

[@daviddouglasuk]

Hi Steve is there a chance you could do a comparison between the Z8+600PF and the A1+Sony 300 F.2 with x2.0? Sony fan boys claim the 300 F2.8 + 2x is much better, I am not convinced. I am looking to step up from my A1+200-600 but not sure what to do. 600 F4 is a bit to big and heavy for me. Do you also agree 180-600 is better than 200-600 for chromatic aberation. Thanks

[@backcountrygallery]

I don't own the Sony 300 2.8. However, I can tell you based on the 400 2.8 + 2X that while it can be really sharp, AF consistency suffers.

[@daviddouglasuk]

@@backcountrygallery Maybe you could get a loner?

[@rolandrickphotography]

Does that Kirk LP-70 also fit the AF-S 500 5.6 PF?

[@vladepast4936]

Good job, good info!

[@nealewatson3937]

Steve any comparisons with the 400 2.8

[@backcountrygallery]

Nope - I don't own one. Working on it, but those buggers are expensive!!

[@jamesnelson1443]

Incredible review Steve!!!! Love the details you give us!!! I am so torn between the 400 4.5 & 600 PF!! My dilemma is being able to shoot night time football under the lights!!! I’m using the Z8 with the current 2.0 software!! Yes I do shoot birds!!! Basically I’m trying to find that one lens that can do it all!! I did rent the 800 pf & was blown away how it rendered!! Images were so bright & vivid compared to D850 with AFS lenses!!!

[@backcountrygallery]

Thanks - though choice for sure. You can add a 1.4 to the 400 and get a 560 6.3, but it's not as sharp as the 600PF. I guess it all comes down to what you shoot the most.

[@jamesnelson1443]

Thx for the reply

[@brentririe9156]

Great video Steve! You have always been the goto and release informative videos in a timely way!! I have loved my 500 PF - it is an excellent lens and incredibly sharp. I just received my 600 PF and I am struggling to get as sharp of images as I get with the 500 PF. The images just seem a little soft. Is anyone else experiencing this. I am working hard with different settings, but still, a bit soft. Anyone suggestions? Thank you!!

[@backcountrygallery]

My first thought is environmental factors. Even the best of lenses can look bad if you're struggling with heat haze, for instance. I'd test it indoors on a tripod for sure. It should be pin sharp and if it's not under controlled conditions, that's a sign to send it back IMO.

[@brentririe9156]

Thank you, Steve. I will continue to test and follow your recommendations. Yes, I am beginning to wonder if I got a bad lens. Everyone so far has been very positive on sharpness, and I just haven't had that experience. Thanks for the encouragement and suggestions!

[@stephencrawford6082]

Excellent review. Your style and presentation could make washing dirty dishes sound interesting.

[@backcountrygallery]

That's very kind of you to say, thank you :)

[@Seafyrefly]

Hi Steve, thanks as always for your detailed and informative videos. I'm curious what your thoughts are of how the Z 600mm F6.3 PF compares to the F-mount 600mm F4 E. Used prices for the 600mm F4 have dropped significantly (between $5k-6k!) and I've been thinking about which 600mm option I would I get, were I to upgrade. Do you think the ~$200-1,200 difference is worth the step up from F6.3 to F4 and the significant increase in weight? Are they even in the same group of consideration (e.g. handhold-able vs. tripod-required)? Thanks so much!

[@backcountrygallery]

It's tough to say as we all have different priorities. For me, I look at the 600 PF as a lightweight alternative to the 600 F/4, but there's no way I'd be without the 600 F/4 :) So, my choice would be the F mount 600mm in your scenario. However, there are a LOT of people who would prefer the 600PF due to size and weight and I'd venture to say that for more casual shooters the 600PF is really the better choice. You have to really want F/4 (which I do) to justify the big glass :)

[@Seafyrefly]

@@backcountrygallery Excellent points. Thank you very much for your insight, I will take it into consideration! Also, thank you for always taking the time to reply to comments, I really appreciate you and your work!

[@aser75]

great vid thx!

[@ralfpassing]

Thanks for your work - like always no bullshit-guessing-review

[@raysanders332]

Does there have to be a difference between a 600 zoom and a 600 prime?

[@backcountrygallery]

I suppose if you put enough money into a zoom, then maybe not. Zooms like the 180-400 F/4 are very prime-like with their rendering and sharpness.

[@raysanders332]

Thanks.@@backcountrygallery

[@daviddouglasuk]

How do you accurately measure focus speed?

[@backcountrygallery]

Sorry, I forgot to pop in that slide. Basically, I hook the system to an ATOMOS and record minimum focus distance to infinity focus in the viewfinder with eh video at 60FPS. Then, I count frames between when AF starts and when it locks on. It's not perfect, but I think it's good enough for relative comparisons.

[@IamNoOne-001]

I'd still go with the Zoom 180-600mm. The image quality difference is too small, the Zoom wins in versatility.

[@victorlim5077]

It's good to have choices. As a birder, more reach is better due to cropping.

[@Skye_the_toller]

Semis something wrong with the development of the 100-400… it seems that the following lenses were more performer… sharpness, speed, etc.. when I look to your test, it is not seemed to be my copy!

[@backcountrygallery]

The reason for the slower AF speed with that lens is the closer focusing ability. It still hurts it when hunting, but on the flip side it gives you closer AF abilities - almost macro like.

[@Skye_the_toller]

@@backcountrygallerythanks… never realized it! You are doing a real good job.

[@uhoh7541]

Great video, but I'm actually torn between the 600 pf and 800 pf. I bought them both with intentions of returning one. The 800 is about to go back unless the 600 is considerably less sharp (taking 600 out tomorrow for final comparison). I think I've seen reviews claiming 600/800 pf have near identical image quality (without the 1.4 tc of course).

[@backcountrygallery]

Yeah... the 600 isn't going to be less sharp :) If anything, the bare 600 might be just a hir sharper.

[@lukakoprivica]

All that doing, hunting, focusing, "does" the camera... lens only limits the speed or simply lets the camera see more or less clear.

[@brianlemke6017]

Comparing the backgrounds between the two 600s is good for understanding but the massive difference in cost means I’m going to be happy living with whatever the 600 pf (if I get it) or my 500 pf give me. More important for me is the low light capability. One thing I’m beginning to develop some skills with is subject/foreground masking in Photoshop (I haven’t tried the new LR module yet but will be interested to see the results). I’ve found that so long as I use a relatively gentle touch with the sliders, the blur effects are impressive. They may not quite rival the 600 f4 SOOC but I’m guessing few can tell the difference. And since I’m already subscribed to Adobe, the incremental cost to me is nothing more than a few minutes of my personal time. I’ll take it and keep the money, thanks. However, given that I already own the 500 pf, the 800 pf might be the one I gravitate to. Great job as always Steve.

[@backcountrygallery]

Post processing background blur can help, but as you say, it requires a gentle touch. When shooting smaller aperture lenses, I tend to pay more attention to things like subject to background distance in the field - sort of trying to play within the limitations of the glass.

[@brianlemke6017]

@@backcountrygallery yup I’ve heard you give the advice on distant backgrounds and spend a lot more time looking for that these days. Thanks.

[@RussandLoz]

Fantastic analysis, this is gold for many people. I just don't get why people would get this lens over the 400 4.5 or 180-600 for much less? (180-600 is fantastic if you don't mind the weight)

[@2906rick]

600pf is much lighter then the 180-600mm, has 2x faster af speed and is sharp across the whole frame vs only in the center vs 180-600mm. Someone I know has the 180-600mm and he did order the 600mm pf for the reason listed above.

[@RussandLoz]

Fair enough, but what about the 400 4.5 advantages, and not much different with tc. Saves money too@@2906rick

[@backcountrygallery]

Everyone has different needs and wants for their images. I don't think there's one "perfect" lens for every wildlife shooter. For some, the 180-600 makes more sense, for others the 400 4.5, and some the 600PF (and for some, a combo of lenses). No "right" or "wrong" choice IMO.

[@RussandLoz]

Sure, great we have a choice, I wish they made the 600pf a 5.6, I think that would sure it for a lot of people@@backcountrygallery

[@myketripp3838]

Size and weight ... got mine yesterday and it's everything I hoped for with how I'm going to use it on the Jeep trails, so it's worth it. Many have told me their 180-600 is heavier than expected (30% more than the 600pf) and I don't want to feel like I'm doing curls throughout the day. For me it's not about the money, it's the functionality and quality. I know I wouldn't buy anything in the $10-16k range. So, if people don't want to go to $5k, I get it.

[@paul-webster]

Ah but now with Lightrooms lens blur up to batt now if done correctly definitely makes lens that are cheaper look like pro lens. I'll send a link to my Flickr shot of moose

[@backcountrygallery]

It can help - but keep in mind you can also apply it to pro lenses too :)

[@paul-webster]

@@backcountrygallery true but just saying technology is getting so good now days the only reason to have a pro lens is for the lighting. Image quality plus Topaz and now Lightroom lens blur makes pro lenses less needed and people are finding out now. That's why you have these companies making these smaller lenses because that's where the market is going. I guess KZbin doesn't let me share flickr links. Anyway sure you could do it with pro but my point is that these zooms are freaking scary good and plus I went to an airshow and I was taking all my images on 200-600 and my girlfriend was missing shots because of the 500mm pf being too long. Also happened while taking elk photos as well. I love my zoom lenses and will never go to pro Plus I can shoot 1/30 of a second and still pull images just fine. Do I get birds in flight at that speed (no) but neither does F4 lenses because they aren't getting that much more light, may only a few minutes more depending. All and all point is technology is getting crazy and making it better for smaller lens users.

[@HokKan]

Your 500PF may have been dropped, or just a bad copy. The top left is noticeably softer than the top right corner. At least one of the elements are decentered.

[@AMGOSUK]

Good job Steve - Focus breathing is irrelevant to me and no the pf does not have an edge over either mine or your 600TC

[@backcountrygallery]

Thanks :) Th only place I thought it had a very slight edge was in focus breathing - and the reproduction rates match it - 0.14 for the 600TC vs 0.15 for the PF - too close to care IMO. (Although, I suppose the PF also has the edge in size and weight :) )

[@JoelRiveraMD]

Wow I don’t think for that extra corner sharpness of the 600Pf over the 180-600mm we should pay over 3100$ difference. I think I would save up my pennies and buy the 600TC because of the versatility , light gathering ability and extra focal length you get with the more expensive lens. Unless you see an image side by side , I don’t think any human in this world can tell the difference between the 180-600 and 600Pf

[@backcountrygallery]

That's likely true. However, keep in mind it's more than just sharpness. The 600PF is lighter, has better performing elements (less lens aberrations), if faster focusing, is smaller, and has far more controls. So, I do see why there is a difference in price between the 600PF and the 180-600 (although I think the price of the 600PF is at least a few hundred high at the moment). Although, that 600TC really is the way to go if you can afford and handle it (it's too heavy for some).

[@JoelRiveraMD]

Agree!

[@stevep927]

Not much different than the 400mm 4.5 with 1.4x