When comparing the MTF charts on Nikon’s official website, the z 800mm 6.3 seems much sharper than the z 600mm f4 with the 1.4 TC engaged. But the test here shows that it’s the complete opposite. Why might this be the case? Thanks!
I don’t know why. All I know is that I tested a copy of each lens under the same conditions in our lab and got this result. I’ve had people ask me over the years if my 800mm lens may have been a weak copy — I intend to test another when I can. But I will say, mine isn’t the only test online that found the 600mm f/4 with the TC to effectively match the 800mm f/6.3 bare lens.
Dave
March 23, 2025 3:34 am
Spectacular lens. There appears to be some bad copies out there. Bad copies aren’t great with internal TC enaged. Have seen a few myself. Nikon has dropped the ball on QC.
Andreas
July 2, 2024 5:32 am
Brilliant review! Would love to see some more Sony stuff on the site. I would be very interested to see how the Sony 600 F4 GM compare to this lens. The MTF charts you provide is brilliant. Thank you!
Frank Haugwitz
June 26, 2024 3:12 am
Hi Spencer and colleagues. First of all, thank you for this great article. Reflecting on the Pros and Cons, well, there is one con from my end and that is related to heat distortion/haze and air quality. Recently, I used the Z600 f/4 TC VR S in combination with the Z9 in Kazakhstan for a 2,5 week bird photography trip. I shot mainly in semi-desert areas. As soon as the sun is up and you literally can see the heat haze through the viewfinder, at least for me, the images turn out to be useless. Using Fast RAW viewer, in order to select the good from the bad ones in terms of sharpness. I often felt that the Autofocus is struggling to maintain focus, even on a static subjects, becaue in Fast RAW viewer, sharp areas are highlighted in red and these “red areas” are jumping across the images, even if the bird is perching! If that is not enough, one day we had heavy rain and here too, the lens struggled maintaining focus. Overall, heat distortion and bad air quality, is a significant challenge for that lens. Consequently, my keeper rate of images in terms of acceptable image quality, dropped with this lens. I wonder whether that lens is too sensitive (?), anti-flare coating, higher pixel density, etc. I used the D500 + 300 f/2.8 VR S II and can’t recall having generated so many useless images. Thanks and keep up the good work you all are doing! I’m a grateful reader!
That’s not really a con. Every long lens will have this problem. Certainly, this 600mm has no more problems with heat distortion than any other lens that goes to 600mm, and in semi-desert areas, you’ve just got to find the right conditions (such as shooting very early in the morning).
Paul
May 27, 2024 6:15 am
Hello ! Thanks for the test ! Very interesting ! Which 1.4 TC should I use with Z8 and AFS 500 PF +FTZii : AFS TC 1.4 or Z TC 1.4 ? Thanks a lot
Any F-mount TC: TC14e, TC14eII, TC14eIII, the latter being the best optically, but both the former do work (same optical scheme, the difference is barely in the name due to the change from AF-I to AF-S). But also TC17eII and TC20eIII might be considered, to come to a 850mm and 1000mm of equivalent focal length, losing 1.5 and 2 stops of light gathering, a potential issue on Z8 in dark environments. Happy shooting!
FWIW, the Z TC 1.4 can’t be used with the FTZ, so not an option. That said, I have used the AFS TC 1.4 with the 600 f/4e very effectively with the Z9 and FTZii.
Massimo Vignoli
May 21, 2024 12:29 pm
Spencer, your review was very informative. I found great value in the comparison of different lenses. Truly exceptional!
Sure thing! It’s about the same as the most recent version and a bit better than the older ones.
The 600mm f/4 AF-S II (2001) focuses to 18.4 feet (17.7 feet in manual focus)
The 600mm f/4G VR (2007) focuses down to 15.7 feet.
The 600mm f/4E FL (2015) focuses down to 14.4 feet.
colorAZeta.it
May 18, 2024 5:15 am
Hey Nikon! Bring us other TCs to dream more, please! It could be a good way to care to legacy customers. New editions of the previous ones, like a TC17eIII, Z TC1.7x, Z TC1.25x. A variable TCV-1.25x-1.7x would be a dream :-) Also the combo of AF-I/S F-mount TCs to Z-mount are valid options, to limit the play in the stacking: imagine you can use the 600E FL with a F-TC1.7-TZ to reach new performances @1020/6.7, above the 600E FL+TC17eII, but on Z bodies! Same for F-TC1.25-TZ, F-TC1.4-TZ, F-TC2.0-TZ, and the F-TCV-TZ :-) As last cherry, bring us the Z1/Zh/Z9h to exceed D6 in low light, but silently. Thank you, and happy shooting, whatever long lens you use :-)
thank you Spencer for this thorough review of such a gem. not exactly a lens for the many :( invariably happy with my 500PF w/ and w/o TC-14E. my combo is half the weight, then a joy to use handheld. and it’s one quarter of the price, then it pays a lot of sports events and travels with the 12k$ difference. Z primes are out of my league anyway. i think i’ll stick to DSLR for another decade.
I don’t blame you, I think the 500mm f/5.6 PF is an excellent lens. The prices of supertelephotos today are skewed toward paying thousands of extra dollars for small improvements.
You can also take solace in the fact that the 600 f/4 is also partially a lens for different situations. There are certain tight situations where being mobile is much more important than having the fastest lens. I can recall MANY shots where having a 600mm f/4 would mean NOT getting the shto! Whereas using a lighter lens like the 500PF meant I DID get the shot. It’s that simple. There are situations where the 600mm f/4 is superior and where a lightweight 500mm f/5.6 is superior. Simple as that.
If I had to say it in one sentence, the 600mm f/4 will get amazing shots of a subset of species in specific environments, but the 500mm f/5.6 can get great shots of any species. (Of bird).
And why not? I’ve just bought a used D500 and 300/f4 PF for 45% of their list price. (I also have a used 500/5.6 PF bought for about 67% of its list price). Z mount used gear is costing about 85+% of list price. Ouch! I do like my Z5 and 16-30 and 24-200. I regard them as good value as they replaced a D610 and 3 lenses for a similar cost and are lighter on the shoulders.
Now is the perfect time to buy the exact lenses you mention. I’m considering the 300/f PF myself due to the fact that it will slip into the slot in my pack like a standard zoom. It’s optically very good, weighs next to nothing, and takes up even less in my backpack.
I agree with Jason. The one-stop difference is a useful thing when you’re shooting at the edge of the day. You’ll appreciate the lightness and maneuverability of the lightweight 500/5.6 PF from dawn to dusk. And I truly believe that the lightness of a lens like the 500/5.6 will yield more photos than an f/4 aperture. On the other hand, with the Nikon Z 600/4, you get the best of both camps – relative lightness plus an f/4 aperture. With this in mind, it will suck the appropriate amount of money out of your wallet.
I have gone through several super telephotos and over time they just got too heavy for me. I now have the Nikon 600mm f6.3 which is light and small and is 98% the optional quality of the heavy Nikon 600mm f4.0 z lens. Yes a more portable lens will get more shots especially in tight areas. Yes f4.0 is better than f6.3 but can shoot in high iso’s using the proper edit software so noise is not so much of a problem now days.
When comparing the MTF charts on Nikon’s official website, the z 800mm 6.3 seems much sharper than the z 600mm f4 with the 1.4 TC engaged. But the test here shows that it’s the complete opposite. Why might this be the case? Thanks!
I don’t know why. All I know is that I tested a copy of each lens under the same conditions in our lab and got this result. I’ve had people ask me over the years if my 800mm lens may have been a weak copy — I intend to test another when I can. But I will say, mine isn’t the only test online that found the 600mm f/4 with the TC to effectively match the 800mm f/6.3 bare lens.
Spectacular lens. There appears to be some bad copies out there. Bad copies aren’t great with internal TC enaged. Have seen a few myself. Nikon has dropped the ball on QC.
Brilliant review! Would love to see some more Sony stuff on the site. I would be very interested to see how the Sony 600 F4 GM compare to this lens. The MTF charts you provide is brilliant.
Thank you!
Hi Spencer and colleagues. First of all, thank you for this great article. Reflecting on the Pros and Cons, well, there is one con from my end and that is related to heat distortion/haze and air quality. Recently, I used the Z600 f/4 TC VR S in combination with the Z9 in Kazakhstan for a 2,5 week bird photography trip. I shot mainly in semi-desert areas. As soon as the sun is up and you literally can see the heat haze through the viewfinder, at least for me, the images turn out to be useless. Using Fast RAW viewer, in order to select the good from the bad ones in terms of sharpness. I often felt that the Autofocus is struggling to maintain focus, even on a static subjects, becaue in Fast RAW viewer, sharp areas are highlighted in red and these “red areas” are jumping across the images, even if the bird is perching! If that is not enough, one day we had heavy rain and here too, the lens struggled maintaining focus. Overall, heat distortion and bad air quality, is a significant challenge for that lens. Consequently, my keeper rate of images in terms of acceptable image quality, dropped with this lens. I wonder whether that lens is too sensitive (?), anti-flare coating, higher pixel density, etc. I used the D500 + 300 f/2.8 VR S II and can’t recall having generated so many useless images. Thanks and keep up the good work you all are doing! I’m a grateful reader!
That’s not really a con. Every long lens will have this problem. Certainly, this 600mm has no more problems with heat distortion than any other lens that goes to 600mm, and in semi-desert areas, you’ve just got to find the right conditions (such as shooting very early in the morning).
Hello ! Thanks for the test ! Very interesting !
Which 1.4 TC should I use with Z8 and AFS 500 PF +FTZii : AFS TC 1.4 or Z TC 1.4 ?
Thanks a lot
Any F-mount TC: TC14e, TC14eII, TC14eIII, the latter being the best optically, but both the former do work (same optical scheme, the difference is barely in the name due to the change from AF-I to AF-S). But also TC17eII and TC20eIII might be considered, to come to a 850mm and 1000mm of equivalent focal length, losing 1.5 and 2 stops of light gathering, a potential issue on Z8 in dark environments.
Happy shooting!
I’ve been very satisfied with the performance of my 500 F5.6E PF with TC EIII 1.4x and FTZII on my Z9. I do look forward to upgrading to native glass.
FWIW, the Z TC 1.4 can’t be used with the FTZ, so not an option. That said, I have used the AFS TC 1.4 with the 600 f/4e very effectively with the Z9 and FTZii.
Spencer, your review was very informative. I found great value in the comparison of different lenses. Truly exceptional!
Thank you, Massimo – your photos really elevated it!
How does its minimum focusing distance (of 14.1 feet) compare to older f-mount Nikkor 600mm lenses?
Thank You – great review!
Sure thing! It’s about the same as the most recent version and a bit better than the older ones.
The 600mm f/4 AF-S II (2001) focuses to 18.4 feet (17.7 feet in manual focus)
The 600mm f/4G VR (2007) focuses down to 15.7 feet.
The 600mm f/4E FL (2015) focuses down to 14.4 feet.
Hey Nikon! Bring us other TCs to dream more, please! It could be a good way to care to legacy customers.
New editions of the previous ones, like a TC17eIII, Z TC1.7x, Z TC1.25x. A variable TCV-1.25x-1.7x would be a dream :-)
Also the combo of AF-I/S F-mount TCs to Z-mount are valid options, to limit the play in the stacking: imagine you can use the 600E FL with a F-TC1.7-TZ to reach new performances @1020/6.7, above the 600E FL+TC17eII, but on Z bodies! Same for F-TC1.25-TZ, F-TC1.4-TZ, F-TC2.0-TZ, and the F-TCV-TZ :-)
As last cherry, bring us the Z1/Zh/Z9h to exceed D6 in low light, but silently.
Thank you, and happy shooting, whatever long lens you use :-)
The variable teleconverter idea is awesome! Whether built-in or external, it would be a very exciting product.
I ma wedding photography
A perfect lens for this style. You can rest quietly in the woods while the guests noisily party away.
Superb!
thank you Spencer for this thorough review of such a gem.
not exactly a lens for the many :(
invariably happy with my 500PF w/ and w/o TC-14E.
my combo is half the weight, then a joy to use handheld.
and it’s one quarter of the price, then it pays a lot of sports events and travels with the 12k$ difference.
Z primes are out of my league anyway. i think i’ll stick to DSLR for another decade.
I don’t blame you, I think the 500mm f/5.6 PF is an excellent lens. The prices of supertelephotos today are skewed toward paying thousands of extra dollars for small improvements.
You can also take solace in the fact that the 600 f/4 is also partially a lens for different situations. There are certain tight situations where being mobile is much more important than having the fastest lens. I can recall MANY shots where having a 600mm f/4 would mean NOT getting the shto! Whereas using a lighter lens like the 500PF meant I DID get the shot. It’s that simple. There are situations where the 600mm f/4 is superior and where a lightweight 500mm f/5.6 is superior. Simple as that.
If I had to say it in one sentence, the 600mm f/4 will get amazing shots of a subset of species in specific environments, but the 500mm f/5.6 can get great shots of any species. (Of bird).
And why not?
I’ve just bought a used D500 and 300/f4 PF for 45% of their list price. (I also have a used 500/5.6 PF bought for about 67% of its list price).
Z mount used gear is costing about 85+% of list price. Ouch!
I do like my Z5 and 16-30 and 24-200. I regard them as good value as they replaced a D610 and 3 lenses for a similar cost and are lighter on the shoulders.
Now is the perfect time to buy the exact lenses you mention. I’m considering the 300/f PF myself due to the fact that it will slip into the slot in my pack like a standard zoom. It’s optically very good, weighs next to nothing, and takes up even less in my backpack.
I agree with Jason. The one-stop difference is a useful thing when you’re shooting at the edge of the day. You’ll appreciate the lightness and maneuverability of the lightweight 500/5.6 PF from dawn to dusk. And I truly believe that the lightness of a lens like the 500/5.6 will yield more photos than an f/4 aperture. On the other hand, with the Nikon Z 600/4, you get the best of both camps – relative lightness plus an f/4 aperture. With this in mind, it will suck the appropriate amount of money out of your wallet.
I have gone through several super telephotos and over time they just got too heavy for me. I now have the Nikon 600mm f6.3 which is light and small and is 98% the optional quality of the heavy Nikon 600mm f4.0 z lens. Yes a more portable lens will get more shots especially in tight areas. Yes f4.0 is better than f6.3 but can shoot in high iso’s using the proper edit software so noise is not so much of a problem now days.