Libor, Thank you for this detailed and informative review. As a senior citizen, I use the lighter telephotos 400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/6.3 with the z8 for my bird photography. Question: As your sample images do not appear to include a teleconverter, have you used the Nikon 1.4 x teleconverter with the 600mm f/6.3? If so, can you advise any comments. Respectfully, Steven M.
Thank you Steven for your comment. You’re right that I haven’t tested the 600/6.3 with a teleconverter (only the 400/4.5). However, I would only recommend the 1.4x TC for both lenses. With the 400/4.5, the 2x TC causes quite a noticeable degradation in sharpness. With the 600/6.3, 2x TC is out of the question mainly because of the significant degradation in speed. The f/13 aperture is unacceptable to me. The f/9 aperture with the 1.4x TC is not completely out of the question and the 840mm focal length is certainly tempting. However, the problem will often be the mass of warm air between the subject and the camera. I know it’s easy said and harder done, but it’s always better to get as close as possible.
Libor, Thank you. As follow up question, please clarify what you mean by “..The f/9 aperture with the 1.4x TC is not completely out of the question and the 840mm is certainly tempting..”? My understanding is that the central sharpness imatest score between the Nikon 600mm f/6.3 with 1.4x TC (2443 at f/9) vs. Nikon 800mm f/6.3 (2646 at f/6.3) is less than a 10% difference (which according to Spencer Cox) is not noticeable by human eyesight. Libor, given this10% difference is partially offset by the additional 40mm reach of 1.4x TC (840mm vs. 800mm), with careful camera technique and shooting in good light, would you see a real world difference in sharpness between the 600mm plus TC-1.4X (840mm at f/9) vs. 800mm at f/6.3? I enjoy and appreciate your detailed reviews and the beautiful images of the birds! Respectfully, Steven M.
Dear Steven, as far as sharpness is concerned, the combination of 600mm + 1.4x TC is absolutely fine. My only reservation is the f/9 aperture. But that is my point of view influenced by the environment I mostly shoot in. In the woods, every photon that hits the sensor is precious. Many times even an f/4 aperture is too narrow. However, if you shoot in an environment that is more generous in terms of light, then the sharpness of this setup won’t be something that will put wrinkles on your forehead. The 600mm is a really sharp lens, and even a teleconverter won’t knock it down. However, my general experience with teleconverters is that they give better results when used on relatively small subjects and short distances than vice versa. This brings us to the hackneyed “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.” I wish you good light.
Libor, Thank you. Regarding, the f/9 aperture, I fully agree with the need for good light. In the early morning (and early evening before sunset) when the environment is less generous in terms of light, I will use my z8 with the z 400mm f/4.5 and get closer to my subjects (birds) but not too close to spook them off.
I read, enjoy and appreciate all the Photography Life reviews (Spenser, Nasim, Libor,…) but in particular, I am super amazed by your beautiful and sharp images of the little (and not so little) birds.
We should all be grateful to the dinosaurs for their wonderful evolutionary gift of birds, to our rare planet earth.
Have a safe and happy Thanksgiving Holiday. Respectfully, Steven M.
Al Giordano
September 13, 2024 7:42 am
I just want to say I really appreciate the time you took in performing this review as I know its very time intensive. I love crisp, clear, and definitive reviews like this. It really helps with purchase decisions. So simply said; THANK YOU!
Steven Mermelstein
July 12, 2024 4:13 pm
7/12/2024
Libor,
Thank you for this in-depth review and especially your “actual” small bird images (they are beautiful). I enjoy “nature” photography (i.e., birds, flowers, insects on flowers, and landscapes) but my favorite venue is bird photography and I have utilized my Nikon Z8 plus Z 400mm f/4.5 + TC1.4X combination, to reach 560mm focal length (at f/6.3).
I (first) rented the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 to see if I can hand-carry with my Z8 for several hours and had no issues (I use a Black Rapid sling and attach my Z8+telephoto combination via the lens collar / foot).
Based on your review, I (recently) purchased the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 and confirmed your finding that the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 (wide open) is indeed sharper than the combination of the 400 f/4.5+ TC 1.4X (which reaches 560mm at f/6.3).
I utilize my Z 400mm f/4.5 (wide open or at f/5.6) when I need more light (late day / early evening) and can get closer to the small birds and still have enough view finder area available to capture sudden flight from a tree branch, marsh or pond. I use my Z 600mm f/6.3 (wide open) in the early morning (just after sunrise) for more reach (e.g., small birds flying across a meadow / field) and I don’t need to be closer than the MFD (4 meters).
Question: As the difference in imatest score center sharpness between the 600mm f/6.3 + TC 1.4 (score of 2443 at f/9) vs. the 800mm f/6.3 (score of 2646 at f/6.3) appears to be 7.7% (i.e. 2646-2443 = 203 and 203/2646 = 7.67% number wise) and my understanding (from reading Spenser Cox’s explanation of imatest numbers) is that an imatest score difference of less than 10% is not noticeable by our (human) eyesight, is using the Nikon Z TC-1.4X teleconverter to reach 840mm focal length with Z 600mm f/6.3, a “good” alternative vs. spending additional $6,000 (max out my wallet) on the heavier (5.2 pounds) Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3. In your reply to this question, please note following: (1) I am a senior citizen and cannot easily hand-hold heavy (9+pounds) of camera + lens combinations. (2) I enjoy being able to hand-hold my Nikon Z8 plus either the 400mm f/4.5 or 600mm f/6.3 (plus TC-1.4X to reach 840mm) for my bird photography; and (3) I understand that I may need to shoot in more light (or use higher ISO) because the Z 600mm f/6.3 + TC 1.4X combination becomes f/9 but the Z8 can handle higher ISO “better” and focus “better” in low light versus my older Nikon DSLRs (D850 and D7200).
I enjoy reading Photography Life and really appreciate both your (and Spenser Cox’s) in-depth reviews of the Nikon Z lenses.
When it comes to the ability to resolve detail at a distance, you also need to consider that the 7.5% MTF advantage of the 800/6.3 is partially offset by the 5% longer focal length of the 600+TC combo (840 vs 800 mm).
Bg5931: Thank you for pointing out the 5% longer focal length advantage of the 600+TC combo (840 vs. 800mm). Based on your reply, it appears that using the Nikon Z TC-1.4X teleconverter to reach 840mm focal length with Z 600mm f/6.3 is a “good” alternative vs. spending additional $6,000 (max out my wallet) on the heavier (5.2 pounds) Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3. Question: As I have not used the 600+TC combo, with careful camera technique and shooting in good light, would you see a real world difference in sharpness between the 600+TC combo (840mm at f/9) vs. 800mm f/6.3? Respectfully, Steve M.
Fred Hood
July 8, 2024 5:20 pm
On the specs list on page one, you list the weight with the collar removed. However, this lens has a non-removeable collar. I assume you meant to say weight with the foot removed?
Gerben
May 24, 2024 1:40 pm
Next question….. Nikon z180-600 at f8 and 600mm has, according to your test, an ima test centre score of 2565. What does that number express? I checked the website imatest.com to find out, but ‘that is all Greek to me’. Is it possible to explain this in proper Dutch, or English? Or advise me an article that does this?
It’s essentially a measure of how many line widths can be resolved across the camera sensor (if extrapolated from that particular point in the image). More is better, of course.
From a practical perspective, a difference of 10% in these numbers is about the maximum that a discerning eye can notice. The highest we’ve ever measured in the image center is about 4100 LW/PH, and the highest we’ve ever measured in the image corner is about 3000 LW/PH. Most lenses at most apertures will not come close to those levels, though.
We have further details in this article, which also describes how we get our Imatest numbers to be comparable across different camera brands: photographylife.com/our-c…e-to-nikon
A key quote is:
“The resolving power test performed at Photography Life is Imatest SFRPlus with LW/PH MTF50 measurements on our 7-foot Imatest chart. This test measures line widths per picture height. Line widths refer to the distance between two adjacent clearly-resolved black lines. This figure describes the total resolving power of a particular camera and lens system. It can also be converted into line pairs per millimeter measurements by dividing LW/PH MTF50 numbers by the width of the camera sensor in millimeters. For example, if a particular camera and lens combination scores 4000 in our charts, it signifies that the particular lens could resolve up to 4000 black lines across the width of the particular sensor (if that area of the frame were extrapolated across the entire image).”
Dear Spencer, thanks for that, very helpful! And very polite to answer me in such a clear way.
Gerben
May 19, 2024 11:00 am
Thanks for this great and very clear comparison of the 600 and 180-600. It prooved my choice for the zoom to be a good one. And leaves me with a question about sharpness. What level of sharpness do you consider to be an absolute bottom line? You do compare a lot. And you praise my z70-200, almost 4000 score, as well as the 180-600, appr. 2500 score. Is there an absolute level indicator or so?
Gerben, it depends on what camera you’ll be using the zoom on and also what your sharpness requirements are. For high resolution sensors like those on the Z7/8/9, 180-600mm sharpness is perfectly adequate, but… By “but” I mean situations where you need to crop more significantly. For those situations, the 600mm f/6.3 will give you more leeway because its resolution is about 40% higher. However, the versatility of use is clearly on the zoom side. So on the scales, sharpness versus versatility are pitted against each other. 100-400mm is sharper (even significantly so up to 300mm), but doesn’t reach 600mm.
Thank you, Libor, for your quick and clear reply. My Z7ii works fine with the 180-600. And leaves money for my next car :-).
Jayanta
February 29, 2024 2:46 am
Although I read that this lens is meant for those who wants to get close to subjectclose up images of their subject…however the minimum focus distance is 4 meters which is way less than the 180-600mm which stands at 2.4 meters at 600mm. The only advantage of the prime may be the AF performace and a tad sharper image. However both lens being 6.3 do not provide any other advantage. The price of the 600mm f6.3 cannot be justified compared what the 180-600mm offers at the one third the price.
Rob G
January 8, 2024 11:11 am
Libor?
Matt Irwin released a review on this lens. In the review he has direct sun shots which look absolutely stunning. He claims there are no artifacts present in the image, yet I think I see some, but I believe they are completely manageable in post. I purchased the lens yesterday and cancelled my pre-order on the 180-600 which seems to be MIA still.
I have read the review following a period of using Youtube and writings from other reviewers about the Z 600 6.3 and 800 6.3.
I am intending on committing to either of these Lenses now I have been familiarised throughout 2023 with each Focal Length using the Z 1.4 and 2.0 TC’s on a the 100-400.
I have found the 600mm Focal Length to be the very best for the method of Photography, when I am on the move, which the style I most regularly take part in.
The 800mm Focal Length is not equally suitable for the on the move style, but has proven to be quite attractive for when I am plotting up at a set scene.
The 100-400 with the very desirable MFD is the most attractive lens for my overall experiences in the field. I’m usually always on the move and encounter different Nature Based subjects regularly. Using the TC’s do cause issues but also adds something that works very nicely for my purposes with the Z TC 1.4 in use. Being able to frame a Insect or Flower at approx’ 1mtr at Max Zoom and then instantly get focused on to a Hedge Bird approx’ 10 mtrs away at the expense of a little sharpness suits my needs just fine.
I have been waiting for the time to come when affordable equipment become available to enable a return to earlier experiences had in photography. Ones relating to Image Sharpness being present that captures my attention in the way the 400mm F2.8G had done in the past on DSLR Bodies.
It is an ambition (but at a cost) to enable the owned Z9 to show its Image Quality capability further than I am familiar with.
This review has dealt me a curve ball, as all I have read and viewed has left me with the notion the Z 800mm 6.3 is the sharpest of the Z PF Lenses. The 800mm was the Lens I have been seriously considering with the intention to plot up more often for Photography excursions.
If sharpness of other lenses becomes the want as a result of the influence of the prime lens. Using the reports read on the sharpness of the Z180-600 has put this lens in the Spotlight as the model to be used for Zoom Telephoto needs.
The occasional times when Macro is carried out will no linger be ‘of the cuff’ if the 100-400 is no longer owned, it will become more of a planned activity. A different method will be needed for this, maybe one to the retained 50mm F mount lenses used as reverse lens method on the 180-600 will suffice as a temporary method.
Nikon certainly has opened the door to allow for thought on such permutations for their lenses to be pondered. With the Third Party Lens option creeping into the forefront, the permutations for Lenses is growing.
Rob H
December 22, 2023 6:54 am
The industry standard for lens reviews is to shoot a city skyline, or a brick wall. Libor reviews a telephoto, and it’s a huge collection of technically flawless photos of beautiful, exotic birds. Thanks, Libor!
Thank you so much for your kind comment, Rob. You have summed up exactly what we are all trying to do at Photographylife. Whether it’s Nasim, Spencer, Alex, Jason, Nicholas or myself, our goal is to test equipment on real subjects to show what is realistically achievable with the equipment. We love it when our tests have some overlap as well. Whether artistic or, in my case, zoological.
Libor, Thank you for this detailed and informative review. As a senior citizen, I use the lighter telephotos 400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/6.3 with the z8 for my bird photography. Question: As your sample images do not appear to include a teleconverter, have you used the Nikon 1.4 x teleconverter with the 600mm f/6.3? If so, can you advise any comments. Respectfully, Steven M.
Thank you Steven for your comment. You’re right that I haven’t tested the 600/6.3 with a teleconverter (only the 400/4.5). However, I would only recommend the 1.4x TC for both lenses. With the 400/4.5, the 2x TC causes quite a noticeable degradation in sharpness. With the 600/6.3, 2x TC is out of the question mainly because of the significant degradation in speed. The f/13 aperture is unacceptable to me. The f/9 aperture with the 1.4x TC is not completely out of the question and the 840mm focal length is certainly tempting. However, the problem will often be the mass of warm air between the subject and the camera. I know it’s easy said and harder done, but it’s always better to get as close as possible.
Libor, Thank you. As follow up question, please clarify what you mean by “..The f/9 aperture with the 1.4x TC is not completely out of the question and the 840mm is certainly tempting..”? My understanding is that the central sharpness imatest score between the Nikon 600mm f/6.3 with 1.4x TC (2443 at f/9) vs. Nikon 800mm f/6.3 (2646 at f/6.3) is less than a 10% difference (which according to Spencer Cox) is not noticeable by human eyesight. Libor, given this10% difference is partially offset by the additional 40mm reach of 1.4x TC (840mm vs. 800mm), with careful camera technique and shooting in good light, would you see a real world difference in sharpness between the 600mm plus TC-1.4X (840mm at f/9) vs. 800mm at f/6.3?
I enjoy and appreciate your detailed reviews and the beautiful images of the birds! Respectfully, Steven M.
Dear Steven, as far as sharpness is concerned, the combination of 600mm + 1.4x TC is absolutely fine. My only reservation is the f/9 aperture. But that is my point of view influenced by the environment I mostly shoot in. In the woods, every photon that hits the sensor is precious. Many times even an f/4 aperture is too narrow. However, if you shoot in an environment that is more generous in terms of light, then the sharpness of this setup won’t be something that will put wrinkles on your forehead. The 600mm is a really sharp lens, and even a teleconverter won’t knock it down. However, my general experience with teleconverters is that they give better results when used on relatively small subjects and short distances than vice versa. This brings us to the hackneyed “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.” I wish you good light.
Libor, Thank you. Regarding, the f/9 aperture, I fully agree with the need for good light. In the early morning (and early evening before sunset) when the environment is less generous in terms of light, I will use my z8 with the z 400mm f/4.5 and get closer to my subjects (birds) but not too close to spook them off.
I read, enjoy and appreciate all the Photography Life reviews (Spenser, Nasim, Libor,…) but in particular, I am super amazed by your beautiful and sharp images of the little (and not so little) birds.
We should all be grateful to the dinosaurs for their wonderful evolutionary gift of birds, to our rare planet earth.
Have a safe and happy Thanksgiving Holiday. Respectfully, Steven M.
I just want to say I really appreciate the time you took in performing this review as I know its very time intensive. I love crisp, clear, and definitive reviews like this. It really helps with purchase decisions. So simply said; THANK YOU!
7/12/2024
Libor,
Thank you for this in-depth review and especially your “actual” small bird images (they are beautiful). I enjoy “nature” photography (i.e., birds, flowers, insects on flowers, and landscapes) but my favorite venue is bird photography and I have utilized my Nikon Z8 plus Z 400mm f/4.5 + TC1.4X combination, to reach 560mm focal length (at f/6.3).
I (first) rented the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 to see if I can hand-carry with my Z8 for several hours and had no issues (I use a Black Rapid sling and attach my Z8+telephoto combination via the lens collar / foot).
Based on your review, I (recently) purchased the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 and confirmed your finding that the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 (wide open) is indeed sharper than the combination of the 400 f/4.5+ TC 1.4X (which reaches 560mm at f/6.3).
I utilize my Z 400mm f/4.5 (wide open or at f/5.6) when I need more light (late day / early evening) and can get closer to the small birds and still have enough view finder area available to capture sudden flight from a tree branch, marsh or pond. I use my Z 600mm f/6.3 (wide open) in the early morning (just after sunrise) for more reach (e.g., small birds flying across a meadow / field) and I don’t need to be closer than the MFD (4 meters).
Question: As the difference in imatest score center sharpness between the 600mm f/6.3 + TC 1.4 (score of 2443 at f/9) vs. the 800mm f/6.3 (score of 2646 at f/6.3) appears to be 7.7% (i.e. 2646-2443 = 203 and 203/2646 = 7.67% number wise) and my understanding (from reading Spenser Cox’s explanation of imatest numbers) is that an imatest score difference of less than 10% is not noticeable by our (human) eyesight, is using the Nikon Z TC-1.4X teleconverter to reach 840mm focal length with Z 600mm f/6.3, a “good” alternative vs. spending additional $6,000 (max out my wallet) on the heavier (5.2 pounds) Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3. In your reply to this question, please note following: (1) I am a senior citizen and cannot easily hand-hold heavy (9+pounds) of camera + lens combinations. (2) I enjoy being able to hand-hold my Nikon Z8 plus either the 400mm f/4.5 or 600mm f/6.3 (plus TC-1.4X to reach 840mm) for my bird photography; and (3) I understand that I may need to shoot in more light (or use higher ISO) because the Z 600mm f/6.3 + TC 1.4X combination becomes f/9 but the Z8 can handle higher ISO “better” and focus “better” in low light versus my older Nikon DSLRs (D850 and D7200).
I enjoy reading Photography Life and really appreciate both your (and Spenser Cox’s) in-depth reviews of the Nikon Z lenses.
When it comes to the ability to resolve detail at a distance, you also need to consider that the 7.5% MTF advantage of the 800/6.3 is partially offset by the 5% longer focal length of the 600+TC combo (840 vs 800 mm).
Bg5931: Thank you for pointing out the 5% longer focal length advantage of the 600+TC combo (840 vs. 800mm). Based on your reply, it appears that using the Nikon Z TC-1.4X teleconverter to reach 840mm focal length with Z 600mm f/6.3 is a “good” alternative vs. spending additional $6,000 (max out my wallet) on the heavier (5.2 pounds) Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3. Question: As I have not used the 600+TC combo, with careful camera technique and shooting in good light, would you see a real world difference in sharpness between the 600+TC combo (840mm at f/9) vs. 800mm f/6.3? Respectfully, Steve M.
On the specs list on page one, you list the weight with the collar removed. However, this lens has a non-removeable collar. I assume you meant to say weight with the foot removed?
Next question….. Nikon z180-600 at f8 and 600mm has, according to your test, an ima test centre score of 2565. What does that number express? I checked the website imatest.com to find out, but ‘that is all Greek to me’. Is it possible to explain this in proper Dutch, or English? Or advise me an article that does this?
It’s essentially a measure of how many line widths can be resolved across the camera sensor (if extrapolated from that particular point in the image). More is better, of course.
From a practical perspective, a difference of 10% in these numbers is about the maximum that a discerning eye can notice. The highest we’ve ever measured in the image center is about 4100 LW/PH, and the highest we’ve ever measured in the image corner is about 3000 LW/PH. Most lenses at most apertures will not come close to those levels, though.
We have further details in this article, which also describes how we get our Imatest numbers to be comparable across different camera brands: photographylife.com/our-c…e-to-nikon
A key quote is:
“The resolving power test performed at Photography Life is Imatest SFRPlus with LW/PH MTF50 measurements on our 7-foot Imatest chart. This test measures line widths per picture height. Line widths refer to the distance between two adjacent clearly-resolved black lines. This figure describes the total resolving power of a particular camera and lens system. It can also be converted into line pairs per millimeter measurements by dividing LW/PH MTF50 numbers by the width of the camera sensor in millimeters. For example, if a particular camera and lens combination scores 4000 in our charts, it signifies that the particular lens could resolve up to 4000 black lines across the width of the particular sensor (if that area of the frame were extrapolated across the entire image).”
Dear Spencer, thanks for that, very helpful! And very polite to answer me in such a clear way.
Thanks for this great and very clear comparison of the 600 and 180-600. It prooved my choice for the zoom to be a good one. And leaves me with a question about sharpness. What level of sharpness do you consider to be an absolute bottom line? You do compare a lot. And you praise my z70-200, almost 4000 score, as well as the 180-600, appr. 2500 score. Is there an absolute level indicator or so?
Gerben, it depends on what camera you’ll be using the zoom on and also what your sharpness requirements are. For high resolution sensors like those on the Z7/8/9, 180-600mm sharpness is perfectly adequate, but… By “but” I mean situations where you need to crop more significantly. For those situations, the 600mm f/6.3 will give you more leeway because its resolution is about 40% higher. However, the versatility of use is clearly on the zoom side. So on the scales, sharpness versus versatility are pitted against each other. 100-400mm is sharper (even significantly so up to 300mm), but doesn’t reach 600mm.
Thank you, Libor, for your quick and clear reply. My Z7ii works fine with the 180-600. And leaves money for my next car :-).
Although I read that this lens is meant for those who wants to get close to subjectclose up images of their subject…however the minimum focus distance is 4 meters which is way less than the 180-600mm which stands at 2.4 meters at 600mm. The only advantage of the prime may be the AF performace and a tad sharper image. However both lens being 6.3 do not provide any other advantage. The price of the 600mm f6.3 cannot be justified compared what the 180-600mm offers at the one third the price.
Libor?
Matt Irwin released a review on this lens. In the review he has direct sun shots which look absolutely stunning. He claims there are no artifacts present in the image, yet I think I see some, but I believe they are completely manageable in post. I purchased the lens yesterday and cancelled my pre-order on the 180-600 which seems to be MIA still.
www.youtube.com/watch…&t=4s
I have read the review following a period of using Youtube and writings from other reviewers about the Z 600 6.3 and 800 6.3.
I am intending on committing to either of these Lenses now I have been familiarised throughout 2023 with each Focal Length using the Z 1.4 and 2.0 TC’s on a the 100-400.
I have found the 600mm Focal Length to be the very best for the method of Photography, when I am on the move, which the style I most regularly take part in.
The 800mm Focal Length is not equally suitable for the on the move style, but has proven to be quite attractive for when I am plotting up at a set scene.
The 100-400 with the very desirable MFD is the most attractive lens for my overall experiences in the field. I’m usually always on the move and encounter different Nature Based subjects regularly.
Using the TC’s do cause issues but also adds something that works very nicely for my purposes with the Z TC 1.4 in use. Being able to frame a Insect or Flower at approx’ 1mtr at Max Zoom and then instantly get focused on to a Hedge Bird approx’
10 mtrs away at the expense of a little sharpness suits my needs just fine.
I have been waiting for the time to come when affordable equipment become available to enable a return to earlier experiences had in photography. Ones relating to Image Sharpness being present that captures my attention in the way the 400mm F2.8G had done in the past on DSLR Bodies.
It is an ambition (but at a cost) to enable the owned Z9 to show its Image Quality capability further than I am familiar with.
This review has dealt me a curve ball, as all I have read and viewed has left me with the notion the Z 800mm 6.3 is the sharpest of the Z PF Lenses.
The 800mm was the Lens I have been seriously considering with the intention to plot up more often for Photography excursions.
If sharpness of other lenses becomes the want as a result of the influence of the prime lens. Using the reports read on the sharpness of the Z180-600 has put this lens in the Spotlight as the model to be used for Zoom Telephoto needs.
The occasional times when Macro is carried out will no linger be ‘of the cuff’ if the 100-400 is no longer owned, it will become more of a planned activity.
A different method will be needed for this, maybe one to the retained 50mm F mount lenses used as reverse lens method on the 180-600 will suffice as a temporary method.
Nikon certainly has opened the door to allow for thought on such permutations for their lenses to be pondered.
With the Third Party Lens option creeping into the forefront, the permutations for Lenses is growing.
The industry standard for lens reviews is to shoot a city skyline, or a brick wall. Libor reviews a telephoto, and it’s a huge collection of technically flawless photos of beautiful, exotic birds. Thanks, Libor!
Thank you so much for your kind comment, Rob. You have summed up exactly what we are all trying to do at Photographylife. Whether it’s Nasim, Spencer, Alex, Jason, Nicholas or myself, our goal is to test equipment on real subjects to show what is realistically achievable with the equipment. We love it when our tests have some overlap as well. Whether artistic or, in my case, zoological.