Real world IQ difference between 180-600 & 600 PF?

This question is regarding birding lens for my Z8 & Z50ii(as second body)

I600 PF should be a better lens than 180-600 in almost every way optically.

But as I see the images in various posts the IQ difference does not convince me to pay hefty extra price for 600 PF.

Looking for some direct comparison real time images to get me convinced either to get 600 PF or stay with my decision to get 180-600.

If anybody has or know such links to get the real world IQ difference between the two please share.

Photography life has extensive reviews of both lenses with samples, they might also have some direct comparisons if you search for it.

Birder buddy said:

This question is regarding birding lens for my Z8 & Z50ii(as second body)

I600 PF should be a better lens than 180-600 in almost every way optically.

But as I see the images in various posts the IQ difference does not convince me to pay hefty extra price for 600 PF.

Looking for some direct comparison real time images to get me convinced either to get 600 PF or stay with my decision to get 180-600.

If anybody has or know such links to get the real world IQ difference between the two please share.

Click to expand...

The truth is that the 600pf vs. the 180-600 image quality difference is incremental, not revolutionary. If you demand the ultimate image quality, have the money to buy the 600, and also want a lighter and shorter lens, buy the 600pf. But if you are on a budget like me then the 180-600 is a great bargain that will deliver very good image quality.

Really, you don’t need many many comparisons. It comes down to economics.

Given that you already asked pretty much the same question in another thread, I can't help but feeling that you are overthinking this whole thing.

The 180-600 is somewhat weaker in the corners and quite heavy. However, it produces strong IQ and sharp images in the center. The 600 PF is the slightly better lens and much lighter, which is its biggest claim for fame. The price delta is considerable, and there is only ONE person on this planet who can decide whether it is worth it to you: YOU.

Not much else to it, really. Except that both lenses are rather short when you want to shoot small birds in a setting other than a bird feeder.

Well if you've ever shot primes vs zooms then you should have an idea, you'll have that prime edge. It's better wide open and a bit lighter.

I had the 186 and sold it for two reasons. Weight and contrast, in favor of the 600PF.

This is just my opinion, you can look and decide for yourself.

I find the micro contrast on the 600PF to be much better meaning you get a sense of texture in the images, such as the feathers or beak texture.

Sure people like Lance B get amazing images with the 186. I don't have his skills.



YMMV.









--
Thanks for your help, Michael

Birder buddy said:

This question is regarding birding lens for my Z8 & Z50ii(as second body)

I600 PF should be a better lens than 180-600 in almost every way optically.

But as I see the images in various posts the IQ difference does not convince me to pay hefty extra price for 600 PF.

Looking for some direct comparison real time images to get me convinced either to get 600 PF or stay with my decision to get 180-600.

If anybody has or know such links to get the real world IQ difference between the two please share.

Click to expand...

I don't think you should expect to see huge night and day differences if that is what you are looking for in order to make the choice obvious.

Differences will be subtle to the majority of viewers and not even seen by some. Some viewers will consider subtle differences to be big differences and well worth the extra money.

In looking for differences with these two lenses I think you also need to be very controlled in what you compare. Considerations for different lighting conditions, how well do images retain clarity and sharpness after cropping, does one lens take a TC better than the other, etc.

I have no doubt that the 600 PF is the better lens optically. That doesn't mean that it is the best under all conditions, though. The PF element can have negative side effects under certain conditions. The 600 PF is lighter and smaller, but of course, can't zoom.

The title of your posts asks about "Real world IQ difference". I know what that means to me but what does it mean to you? The real world for most amateur shooters is going out, walking around, and shooting hand held. Often times not getting the best exposure and correcting in post. Often times not getting close enough and cropping.

Hang well shot 17"x22" prints from each of these lenses on a wall and I'd wager that most of the time over 95% of viewers couldn't tell the difference. So a $2000 price difference (with the current sale). I'll pay it, in part because of the size and weight savings. Many won't or can't.

And check out the dedicated image threads for the relevant lenses on BCG

chambeshi said:

https://bcgforums.com/threads/nikon...eed-vr-focus-breathing-more.29386/post-330444

And check out the dedicated image threads for the relevant lenses on BCG

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I briefly read through some of the comments, but will go back and watch the video review.

From just the comments I think I picked up two things.

• The 600 PF f/6.3 is clearly sharper than the 180-600 based on Steve's video. I realize that one person's "clearly" can be another's "barely".
• The AF speed of the 600 PF can be as much as 400-500 milliseconds faster than the 180-600, depending on conditions. That would be a major selling point for me even if the sharpness was identical.

I definitely have to go back and watch the video.

I ran a test in 2023 comparing the 600 f6.3 and the 180-600 at 600mm. Each lens was fitted to a Z9 body and the images taken straight after one another from essentially the same position. Both cameras were handheld. I may have missed my intended focus point with the 180-600 but I think the comparison shows that there isn’t that much difference, with the 600 being slightly better in terms of bokeh.

I haven’t used these lenses for nearly a year after buying the 400TC, but I think most people would be happy with either of these lenses. The 180-600 has the zoom flexibility while the 600 f6.3 is lighter and more easily manageable.





--
Alan

Nabilon said:

https://photographylife.com/lens-reviews

Photography life has extensive reviews of both lenses with samples, they might also have some direct comparisons if you search for it.

Click to expand...

I love the PhotographyLife Lens Reviews, very thorough: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-600mm-f-6-3-vr-s

A 600PF Center MTF that is 960 > than the 180-600 and

a MID MTF that is 1150 > than the 180-600 is significant and leads ME PERSONALLY to want the 600PF rather than the 180-600mm, plus I have some use cases where the lighter/smaller size of the 600PF is really important again TO ME PERSONALLY ;-)

Actually I love the Nikon PFs and have owned them all except the 600PF so far.



--
Best Regards,
SteveK
'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange

ajr images said:

but I think most people would be happy with either of these lenses. The 180-600 has the zoom flexibility while the 600 f6.3 is lighter and more easily manageable.

Click to expand...

Agreed, both are good. To the OP, When I speak to the micro contrast its the area on the nose and mouth. Could be the post processing, but I see more texture in the 600PF bottom image. I get more of a feeling for the subtle textures. Look at the hair at the end of the lip. YMMV

--
Thanks for your help, Michael

ajr images said:

I ran a test in 2023 comparing the 600 f6.3 and the 180-600 at 600mm. Each lens was fitted to a Z9 body and the images taken straight after one another from essentially the same position. Both cameras were handheld. I may have missed my intended focus point with the 180-600 but I think the comparison shows that there isn’t that much difference, with the 600 being slightly better in terms of bokeh.

Click to expand...

I'll have to take your word for it that there isn't much difference. Yes, you missed focus on the face with the 180-600. Just for the purposes of testing this subject looks like a good test may have been to focus on the fur on the head for each lens. Sharp fur detail, and then evaluating the focus falloff as you go to the face and then the other baboon.

Birder buddy said:

This question is regarding birding lens for my Z8 & Z50ii(as second body)

I600 PF should be a better lens than 180-600 in almost every way optically.

But as I see the images in various posts the IQ difference does not convince me to pay hefty extra price for 600 PF.

Looking for some direct comparison real time images to get me convinced either to get 600 PF or stay with my decision to get 180-600.

If anybody has or know such links to get the real world IQ difference between the two please share.

Click to expand...

The only reasons I would get the 600 pf are if the reduced weight and size were super important to me, and if I was going to be making big prints. Neither apply to me at present, so I would choose the 180-600. The variety of focal lengths is nice too. I post on IG, facebook, and the occasional challenge on here.

--
Gratitude
https://www.dpreview.com/members/3553666329/challenges

I just checked the focus point in NX Studio. The 600 is focused on the eye while the 180-600 is focused on the light fur to the right of the eye, so not a 100% direct comparison but probably enough to get a feel for each lens.

michaeladawson said:

Birder buddy said:

This question is regarding birding lens for my Z8 & Z50ii(as second body)

I600 PF should be a better lens than 180-600 in almost every way optically.

But as I see the images in various posts the IQ difference does not convince me to pay hefty extra price for 600 PF.

Looking for some direct comparison real time images to get me convinced either to get 600 PF or stay with my decision to get 180-600.

If anybody has or know such links to get the real world IQ difference between the two please share.

Click to expand...

I don't think you should expect to see huge night and day differences if that is what you are looking for in order to make the choice obvious.

Differences will be subtle to the majority of viewers and not even seen by some. Some viewers will consider subtle differences to be big differences and well worth the extra money.

In looking for differences with these two lenses I think you also need to be very controlled in what you compare. Considerations for different lighting conditions, how well do images retain clarity and sharpness after cropping, does one lens take a TC better than the other, etc.

I have no doubt that the 600 PF is the better lens optically. That doesn't mean that it is the best under all conditions, though. The PF element can have negative side effects under certain conditions. The 600 PF is lighter and smaller, but of course, can't zoom.

The title of your posts asks about "Real world IQ difference". I know what that means to me but what does it mean to you? The real world for most amateur shooters is going out, walking around, and shooting hand held. Often times not getting the best exposure and correcting in post. Often times not getting close enough and cropping.

Click to expand...

Exactly... That's why I am looking for some real time comparison images so that I can decide it for my self, as all the comparison tests in YouTube are in very much controlled environment, where the difference is very very marginal, which makes one think 600 PF may not be worth at all for additional price in terms of IQ.

michaeladawson said:

Hang well shot 17"x22" prints from each of these lenses on a wall and I'd wager that most of the time over 95% of viewers couldn't tell the difference. So a $2000 price difference (with the current sale). I'll pay it, in part because of the size and weight savings. Many won't or can't.

Click to expand...

ajr images said:

I ran a test in 2023 comparing the 600 f6.3 and the 180-600 at 600mm. Each lens was fitted to a Z9 body and the images taken straight after one another from essentially the same position. Both cameras were handheld. I may have missed my intended focus point with the 180-600 but I think the comparison shows that there isn’t that much difference, with the 600 being slightly better in terms of bokeh.

I haven’t used these lenses for nearly a year after buying the 400TC, but I think most people would be happy with either of these lenses. The 180-600 has the zoom flexibility while the 600 f6.3 is lighter and more easily manageable.

Click to expand...

Thanks for these comparison images. I am exactly looking for images like this.
A picture is better than thousand words

The more I look at my comparison baboon images, the more I like the 600 f6.3.

The focus point is better and the light improved a little in the minutes it took to swap camera but it's more like the magical images that I can get from the 400TC but for thousands of dollars less.

Glad it helps. I ran this test back in 2023 in response to similar questions about these two lenses.

ajr images said:

I ran a test in 2023 comparing the 600 f6.3 and the 180-600 at 600mm. Each lens was fitted to a Z9 body and the images taken straight after one another from essentially the same position. Both cameras were handheld. I may have missed my intended focus point with the 180-600 but I think the comparison shows that there isn’t that much difference, with the 600 being slightly better in terms of bokeh.

I haven’t used these lenses for nearly a year after buying the 400TC, but I think most people would be happy with either of these lenses. The 180-600 has the zoom flexibility while the 600 f6.3 is lighter and more easily manageable.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the cheek/skin is clearly sharper on one of the images, while the fur is clearly sharper on the other, definitely one missed focus. But both look very sharp in the areas that are in focus.

I'd imagine the 600 PF will retain more detail when shooting subjects far away and cropping in, also corner performance probably is a lot better.