600 mm prime

B

Bengt Nyman

Senior Member
I am considering investing in a 600 mm prime for birding. Since birding is only a small part of my photography I can not justify the price of the latest 600 mm VR. Also, since I will use it primarily for exposures under 1/1000 I am leaning toward a used 600 mm f/4 D ED-IF (I or II) AF-S without VR.
I am aware of the popular Tamron and Sigma 150-600 mm zooms. Unfortunately their resolution at 600 mm is only about 37 LP/mm compared to 45-50 LP/mm for a good 600 mm prime. The same comparison holds true for a 300 mm prime with a TC 20.
I would be grateful for ideas or comments in regards to the above.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
Wouldn't it be better to get a used 400mm f/2.8 + TC1.4?

You'd be at 560mm at about the same aperture wide open but having better quality. And you can shoot it at 400mm if you desire.
 
1

10 Gauge

Senior Member
This all depends on how deep your pockets are.... I just spent the $1000 on a Tamron 150-600, and I am blow away by it @ the long end (the only end I ever plan on using it). If these images aren't going to be cover shots for National Geographic, I'd say save your money and go with the Tamron/Sigma. Go ahead and pixel peep these couple of squirrel shots I've taken @ 600mm on the Tamzooka, you can split hairs on the clarity, couldn't ask for much more.

Squirrel Day by Matthew Krei, on Flickr

Squirrel Day by Matthew Krei, on Flickr
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
The Tamron is a nice lens for its money but at 600mm she isn't fantastic.

On itself the shots are good but the moment you shoot a better lens and compare them, it becomes obvious why there are price differences among lenses.
 
1

10 Gauge

Senior Member
We're talking about a lens that costs 1/10 the price of it's NIKKOR Prime counterpart. Does it's counterpart produce 10x better imagery? Doubtful.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
10 Gauge said:
We're talking about a lens that costs 1/10 the price of it's NIKKOR Prime counterpart. Does it's counterpart produce 10x better imagery? Doubtful.
Click to expand...

Nope but quality and sharpness are addictive. I got the Tamron since end of last year and loved shooting her but these days she hardly sees the light. The reason is simple; I bought other lenses that perform better and it becomes hard to take a step back after that.

Each of us has to decide how much we are willing to spend at quality but once you go down the rabbit hole of sharpness, the only direction is deeper.
 
1

10 Gauge

Senior Member
J-see said:
Nope but quality and sharpness are addictive. I got the Tamron since end of last year and loved shooting her but these days she hardly sees the light. The reason is simple; I bought other lenses that perform better and it becomes hard to take a step back after that.

Each of us has to decide how much we are willing to spend at quality but once you go down the rabbit hole of sharpness, the only direction is deeper.
Click to expand...

What did you end up replacing it with?
 
E

Elliot87

Senior Member
J-see said:
Nope but quality and sharpness are addictive. I got the Tamron since end of last year and loved shooting her but these days she hardly sees the light. The reason is simple; I bought other lenses that perform better and it becomes hard to take a step back after that.

Each of us has to decide how much we are willing to spend at quality but once you go down the rabbit hole of sharpness, the only direction is deeper.
Click to expand...

I have a question for you J-see, as I believe you use the latest 300mm f/4 with a TC X1.4 as well as the Tamron. I can't afford the newest 300mm but I am looking at the previous D version with a TC X1.4 or the Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm as an upgrade for birding/general wildlife. If you could go with just one of those options, which would you go with? I wish that longer primes were an option for me but they're not.
 
B

Bengt Nyman

Senior Member
J-see said:
... a used 400mm f/2.8 + TC1.4 ... but having better quality
Click to expand...
According to DxO, yes, according to LenScore, no.
I might be wrong, but I would lean toward the LenScore data which suggests that I am better of with the 600 without a TC.
Which one do you think would be more easily available used, a 400 or a 600?
 
Last edited:
J

J-see

Senior Member
Elliot87 said:
I have a question for you J-see, as I believe you use the latest 300mm f/4 with a TC X1.4 as well as the Tamron. I can't afford the newest 300mm but I am looking at the previous D version with a TC X1.4 or the Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm as an upgrade for birding/general wildlife. If you could go with just one of those options, which would you go with? I wish that longer primes were an option for me but they're not.
Click to expand...

There isn't a drastic difference between the new 300mm and the previous version. At least not in terms of quality. The new is slightly better but the main advantage is being short and light. And the VR allows me to shoot her as slow as 1/20s and still get a decent amount of good shots in.

But for birding they should both do as well.

I prefer the 300mm over the Tamron not only because of quality but because she's faster at focus which makes all the difference for BiF, or anything moving fast for that matter. If you use a TC1.4 she's a bit slower but you should lose very little quality.

I find the Tamron good up to around the 420mm lock. After that she starts to suffer. But like I said; my standard of sharpness isn't necessarily the same as anyone else's.

Which of both depends entirely upon what you find most important and either option comes with advantages and disadvantages.

To add; what makes a difference too is where you live and how much light you have at your disposal during the seasons. I don't live in Sunnyland and shooting a 300mm prime at f/4 or f/5.6 or the Tamron at f/8-f/10 to get the best quality makes a whole difference.
 
Last edited:
J

J-see

Senior Member
Bengt Nyman said:
According to DxO, yes, according to LenScore, no.
I might be wrong , but I would lean toward the LenScore data which suggests that I am better of with the 600 without a TC.
Which one do you think would be more easily available used, a 400 or a 600?
Click to expand...

I'd not put much faith in lensscore. Until now all my lenses and cams perform exactly as DxO their data shows.

Here I quite regularly see 400mm f/2.8 for sale, usually around 5k. A 600mm I close to never see on the market. It might be different elsewhere.
 
B

Bengt Nyman

Senior Member
Elliot87 said:
... the previous D version with a TC X1.4 ...
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that if you get a TC 14 III is does not have a mechanical aperture linkage, compromising its compatibility with the older 300 mm D lens.
I am using exactly that setup and it works, but you are limited to shooting in M or A and at f/5.6.
 
1

10 Gauge

Senior Member
Bengt Nyman said:
Great pics 10 Gauge. But I have to agree with J-see, side by side with 600 prime shots you will see a difference.
Click to expand...
I never said you wouldn't see a difference. Primes are the Kings of all lenses. The point I was trying to make is that if you don't absolutely need the kind of imagery a $10k lens provides, you can do very well spending 1/10th the money.

I'd love to shoot the 300mm prime but I already feel like my 600mm doesn't reach far enough. The 300mm f4 only being a few hundred more than the Tamron, it's about as much as I'm personally willing to spend on a lens for something I only enjoy as a hobby. I feel like the 300mm has unparalleled value if being shot on DX figuring the crop multiplier.

If I were making money off images, I'd have no problem laying out $10-20k for the super tele primes.

Sent from my HTC One M8 using Tapatalk
 
B

Bengt Nyman

Senior Member
J-see said:
... exactly as DxO their data shows...
Click to expand...
Agreed. DxO has been my go-to source for test data. However, it can take DxO a long time to test e new lens, often forcing me to go elsewhere. I actually think that LensTip offers the most complete data presentation including resolution at different focal lengths and lens radii. However, their data library is not as complete as that of DxO.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
Bengt Nyman said:
Agreed. DxO has been my go-to source for test data. However, it can take DxO a long time to test e new lens, often forcing me to go elsewhere. I actually think that LensTip offers the most complete data presentation including resolution at different focal lengths and lens radii. However, their data library is not as complete as that of DxO.
Click to expand...

Yeah DxO has become lazy it seems. Last time I checked there still was no lens data for the D750.

The problem I have with lenscore is that their data is meaningless. The performance of a lens depends entirely upon the cam used. They test it on an independent sensor which provides data but none I can use.

If I buy a lens I want to know how it will perform on the cam I am shooting or on the cam I will be upgrading to.
 
Top