Nikon 600PF: I Shouldn’t Have Rushed My Tests

This week, I test my brand new 600PF. While I am giving my first impressions this week, I will absolutely be posting a full review some time later. Stay tuned!
ORDER PRINTS
alanyoungphoto...
MY CAMERA GEAR
Nikon Z9 - amzn.to/44OC2x6
Nixon Z8 - amzn.to/3DTffas
Nikon 400mm - amzn.to/3xvgoST
Nikon 800mm PF - amzn.to/4e2671c
LINKS AND SOCIAL MEDIA
My Website: www.alanyoung....
Follow me on Instagram: @alanyoung.wildlife
#photography #birding #nikon #nikonz9

[@Ben_Stewart]

I can't say enough how much I love my 400 4.5 with or without the 1.4 tele. When I got my 800PF I was blown away at the power and accuracy of the lens despite being 6.3, I didn't feel like it was overly dark and I don't think f6.3 is the same for all lenses. After picking up the 180-600 I contemplated selling my 400 4.5 but it low light conditions or where I don't need all that reach the 400 4.5 is a winner. It's almost half the weight of 180-600/800PF and this something you can't ignore on those long hikes.

[@deanelliot4127]

Two words - shutter speed! Your sharp image capture rate would increase significantly if you use higher shutter speeds. Since you weren’t using a tripod, I respectfully suggest that you would have been much happier with your images had you used 1/2000 - yes, your noise would have been greater but that’s easy to remedy in post. But, you can’t fix unsharp images shot at the 1/1250 or slower speeds you were using.

[@eurogael]

I have a 300 f4 PF lens and I absolutely love it. It is sharp and you can hand hold and carry around all day, what's not to love. I do only backyard or places with easy access for birding since I have mobility issues and its perfect for my needs.

[@alanyoungphoto]

One of my favorite lenses!

[@jfphotography69]

Just got mine "which was on sale" paired with the Z9. It's one fantastic lens. If you want a lens for low light "and 1/3 stop makes no difference when it comes to low light conditions" , you need to get an f4 or f2.8 lens if you want to take photos during low light overcast or early morning/evening conditions. It's the reason I have been using the fantastic Sigma 500mm f4 sports for five years now, and will continue to do so.

[@Quinn4124]

Great initial impressions review, looking forward to hearing more about this lens. I’m currently migrating my F-mount 2.8 trio of zooms to the new Z-mount and with a 2x TC on the 70-200 f/2.8 yielding a 400mm 5.6 I can’t justify the 400mm prime 4.5 lens. I’m leaning towards the 600 over the 800 due to size and weight considerations. Of course if money was no object I would forego size/weight concerns and buy the 600mm f/4 TC! Great video!

[@jackjericho]

The comparison between the 400 4.5, 500PF, 600PF is a little flawed because you cropped in to make them the same aspect, resulting in a loss of resolution in the final images. Also, it's a fallacy to think that 400 4.5 being faster = better photos in low light; this advantage only matters if you can shoot it from closer distance and have the subject fill the frame to the same ratio as the 600. It's the same mistake people make when thinking that if they get a 400 2.8 over a 600 f4 it will result in better shots low light... yeah, your ISO will be lower, but you're also going from 600mm to 400mm, and when you crop in to enlarge the subject in frame, it also enlarges the noise, and in the end it's a wash. Steve Perry recently did a video about this exact comparison, and he demonstrates it better than I can explain it here.

[@alanyoungphoto]

I totally agree with this. The point of my comparison wasn’t to compare sharpness with detail, though - I just wanted to demonstrate my relief that in better light the lens was on par with the others. I do plan to take some controlled tests in a later video, though. I also agree that the advantage only matters if you can get close - in this case Mechayla could get close enough and as a result she got meaningfully better results.

[@SwanSycorax]

Good response.

[@Ben_Stewart]

But the real question is if you have the 400 4.5 but need that little extra reach would it be that much difference to slap the 1.4 tele on vs upgrading to the 600PF.

[@UncleLarry59]

Always like your drone video shots. Beautiful scenery even in the dead of winter. All the technical talk is Greek to me but your pictures are awesome.

[@alanyoungphoto]

Thank you so much! Really the pictures are what it’s all about, so that is the highest compliment!

[@sklett68]

First love your energy in the vid and you two are cute and fun together. Second... lots of potential misinformation and strange assumptions in this video. I just got the 600PF a few days ago, having only shot wildlife with big, heavy, 500f4 for years. The 600PF is hands down one of the sharpests lenses you can buy. It has fantastic, sticky AF. It is super packable, hikeable and all around a joy to handle and use. Yes it's min focus isn't as good as the 500pf's but why would it be? It's better than my 500f4's though. Also, your settings for most of the test images you showed were really not great - you can' expect a 6.3 lens with longer min focus and smaller mag ratio to stay with a 4.5 in low light at the SAME settings. Your shutter was far too low and your iso far too low in most of what you showed. I was shooting hummingirds near dusk yesterday at ISOs up to 10,000 and got super clean images - if you nail exposure in camera the z8 can handle relatively high ISOs. You also didn't appear to be using exposure comp at all in the lower light images. And, if you work to achieve a bit of subject isolation the 600PF can render really beautiful and uniform backgrounds. I get that moving from a 500PF to a 600PF wouldn't feel that amazing, as they are very similar. I have not shot the 800PF but it's min focus must be longer, and the narrow field of focus a challenge for close, small subjects. I already know the 600PF is my new main and my 500f4 will be retired to early morning, late evening, shoots. Theh 600PF and z8 are a match made in heaven for wildlife shooters that put a lot of miles on their boots. The lens would "feel" more comfortable in the bag a f5.6 though, lol, I get that. I expect that to go away over time with use though.

[@alanyoungphoto]

Thank you for your comment! For context, on my first day of testing the lens, I took over 3000 shots, with shutter speeds ranging from 1/60s to 1/3000s - both on a tripod and off and both with and without VR enabled. What you saw in the video were examples of the BEST images that the lens produced that day, hence the seemingly-strange settings. I am currently struggling a bit even in good light, controlled conditions, and higher shutter speeds to get sharp images of even stationary subjects (and I'm not when I compare to the 500 PF and 800 PF), so I am exploring whether I have something wrong with my copy of the lens. More to come. Either way I have a lot more testing to do with the lens before I put out a fully-fleshed out review, and I will consider these points when I do the write-up. When I am getting sharp images, I'm finding that the lens is producing really fantastic results and is a joy to use, so I'm hoping to resolve this issue soon. Thanks again for the thoughts!

[@sklett68]

@ I never was able to get consistently sharp images from my only other pf lens - the 300. I now suspect I had a bad copy, could be worth swapping yours if you can as the work you sound like you are putting in should be yielding much better results 🤷‍♂️👍

[@scarface1961]

How did you get the 600pf on the drone in the opening sequence?

[@darrend5489]

Just a quick question, why is he referring to this as a PF lens, yes the F mount 500PF is a PF lens but I don't see that designation anywhere online in reference to the Z mount 600 6.3 lens. Thanks!

[@alanyoungphoto]

From Nikon: “With the lightest body in its class*, realized by the employment of a Phase Fresnel (PF) lens element, as well as superior weight balance, agile shooting for capturing decisive moments of distant subjects is enabled, even handheld.” It’s legit!

[@aniquewaseem6259]

I like Makaela's gear more because I got a Z8 too. 😂

[@woodymallory9058]

If Nikon ever comes out with the Z90 to replace my D500,I would get the 180-600 and use my 500pf that I already have. Good video today.Thanks Alan

[@SwanSycorax]

For me, the real question is "what differences are there between the Z 600PF at f/6.3 and the Z 180-600 f/6.3 at 600mm f/6.3? Is it really worth spending almost two and a half times as much money as the 180-600 as the latter offers incredible sharpness and versatility at such a competitive price?

[@Quinn4124]

The 180-600 is 1955g vs the 600 at 1470 grams so about 1lb lighter and also is an S lens which is supposed to be superior. That being said I have a friend that owns the 180-600 and absolutely loves it.

[@SwanSycorax]

@@Quinn4124 Yes, I am well aware of the weight difference and the fact that the 180-600 is not an S-Line lens - I have one myself. I actually believe that the 180-600 is virtually and S-Line in everything but name. I believe Nikon have built it to S-Line quality but that it was a marketing decision to put it out at the price point it has as they wanted a competitively priced "every-man" lens, especially with the need to replace the F-mount 200-500. I haven't had a chance to try the 600PF and am interested to see examples of images showing back to back comparisons and hear what other users have to say when comparing the image quality of these two excellent lenses.

[@alanyoungphoto]

I would also love to get my hands on a 180-600 to compare the two. I personally chose the 600PF because I wanted a lighter-weight option - I used to own and love the 200-500 for the F-mount, but found myself mostly shooting at 500mm for birds and found the lighter 500PF to be a better fit for me. Similar reasoning here. I think that a comparison between the 180-600 and the 600PF would make for an excellent and helpful video that answers this question and I'd love to make that video some day. I think that for most, the 180-600 is probably the better value.

[@SwanSycorax]

@@alanyoungphoto Thanks. Here in the UK, most of my wildlife photography is birds so, as you say, most of the time I am at the full range of the zoom. In fact, in many of the local reserves I frequent, even 600 is not enough as the subjects are often some distance from the hide. This is why I have the Z 800PF - a tremendous lens. However, in 2022 and 2023 I enjoyed safari holidays in Africa and found that a long-reach prime lens was actually a massive disadvantage. Fortunately I took the Z 100-400 and often found i had to zoom out to 200 or even 100 as the subjects - which were large!, were very close to the vehicle. We are going again in September and there are severe weight limits on luggage but I hope to take the 180-600 as I believe flexibility is essential and so far, I have been extremely impressed by the image quality this lens gives. I also like the fact that the zoom is internal so there is no danger of the lens ingesting dust. I am still very keen to see if the 600PF offers any genuine image benefit over the 180-600 as I may downsize my 800PF. I am approaching 76 and I am beginning to notice the weight!!!!

[@jackjericho]

Having owned both simultaneously: the 180-600 is stellar, results are nearly equal to the 600PF, but the 600PF is slightly better in the areas of micro contrast and sharpness, especially as you go towards the edges of the frame, and holds together noticeably better when you get farther away from your subject. The biggest differentiator though is the weight (obviously), and it's not until you lug both out into the field that you appreciate this advantage. I have side-by-side comparison shots which highlight the IQ differences. To be completely honest, the differences aren't all that, and I wouldn't pick the 600PF over the 180-600 because of them. I sold the 180-600 purely because of the weight, but I wouldn't hesitate to own one again if a need presented itself.

[@cliftonwhittaker260]

Hope she didn't eat any yellow snow.

[@cameraprepper7938]

Nikon has made Lenses since 1932, so I think Nikon should had designed Lenses without the PF element, which Sigma have done with their Sigma 500mm DG DN OS Sport Lens and Fuji has also done it with a 500mm 5.6 Lens for both the GF and X series Cameras without PF element. Sigma has only made Lenses since 1961, Fuji has made Lenses since 1940, so it it amazing that Sigma can produce a compact and light weight 500mm that do not need a PF element ! If I used Nikon, I would have a Nikon Z7 II Camera and a Nikkor Z 400 mm 4.5 VR S Lens.