Dragonophile

Sony & Nikon & Canon put out 600mm prime lenses in the $13,000 range. I can get a Fujifilm or Tamron or Sigma 150-600 mm lens for $2000 or less. I would love to see the same distant object taken at 600mm with one of the primes and one of the lesser telephotos at differing levels of cropping to see the difference in detail/sharpness. Any website show this or does someone here have such photos? I am not expecting a dramatic difference as I understand you pay a high premium for incremental improvements generally. I am not planning on any $13K purchase (unless I win Mega Millions lottery), but just curious.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Ohh, your talking about lenses.
I was about to say 13,000 can get one a new wife life

Dragonophile

But you would go in the hole once you paid for either the wedding or the fake passport/drivers license.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

That would be just a hole to another

Kidding aside, I have a Sigma 150-600 sports. Brought it to supplement my shooting as i've reached the limits of the 200mm.
I could not vouch for the Nikon, Canon & Sony equivalent if such exists nor their primes, as I'm much frugal than most

Hence, Me saying the Sigma is good is saying it without comparison to the others and only saying it delivers the goods I wanted.

The main reason I bought the 600mm is not to crop or crop as little as possible. I wanted to use as much of the pixels as I can.
Below is some of my older posts/photo where the sigma was used.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-757095-1.html
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-731282-1.html







A disclaimer on the quality of the images, good as they are originally but I also did some post on them.
I'm showing this example below to give an idea how much i sometimes play with images.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Marriage is grand

Divorce is a hundred grand

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Up to millions, i've heard, but those grands would still be better than a garand

Dragonophile

Nice pictures Wallen. I have the Fujifilm 150-600mm and I am very pleased with it. But it is $2000. My guess is that it is at least 90-95% as good as a 600mm prime, but I just wanted to see if my guess was accurate or wildly inaccurate.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Thanks.
Without any experience on the other lenses, I just can't tell or guess how good they are.
One thing I feel that matters just as much as image quality is the focus speed and to a lesser degree, the stabilization. I think that part may also depend on the body as much as the lens itself.

I'll be following your thread for someone who knows.
Cheers and happy shooting!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Aperture allowing for a faster shutter speed.
IQ, from reading reviews in the past, is considerably better.
For wildlife you are relatively close so atmospheric conditions are not an issue and the quality is demonstrable.
Otherwise those who make a living at it would use the zoom you suggest and be done with it.
On distant subjects atmospheric conditions are at play and that is a different matter.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

It's not so much that the final image is that much better, especially at f8 or so. What you are paying for is the larger aperture, better stabilization, better AF, and much better build quality. If you don't need those, the cheaper option will serve.

ELNikkor

Prefer tidy & light-weight; rather than paying $11,000 for an f-stop, I'd just bump up the ISO & use Denoise if necessary.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

PS, f4 to f6.3 is greater than 1 stop.

Canisdirus

Yawn....there are tons of examples on the internet...no one need prove anything.

Incremental...lol.

Bill_de Loc: US

If you are really curious, you can use Google to find comparisons of the various lenses.

If you are just bored and have nothing better to do this early in the morning, like me, I hope you get at least a dozen pages of .... whatever pops up,

----

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

I have always been of the belief that one should put their money into their glass, especially now that the cameras are pretty much all good. I am also guilty of spending the money for the pro long lenses. Here is my rationale:

IQ is extremely important. Fast glass is very important, focusing speed, and resolving power is critical. Without these qualities, you are compromising your ability to eliminate marginal. The difference between a marginal shot and a great shot is make or break. Yes, you can bump up your iso to get the speed you want. There is software that can clean up a dirty image, but there is a reason that camera and lens companies build these lenses and people buy and carry them. They are huge, heavy and expensive.

I used to love my Nikkor 180-400 f/4. Paid $13,000 for it. Magnificent lens, until I upgraded my camera
To the Z9. I found that the resolving power of the 180-400 did not match the capabilities of the camera. I noticed the difference and became unsatisfied. Still a great lens and the guy I sold it to got a great deal on a wonderful lens.

One important thing I have noticed, is that each of these lenses comes with a learning curve. Don’t expect that just because you invest tons of money on piece of equipment, it will instantaneously solve the problems and make you a great photographer. While it certainly does greatly enhance the output and ability to capture those great images, knowing how to use them is a critical part of the equation. I have a beautiful set of golf clubs, and I still can’t break 100! (On 18 holes, I’m not that pathetic 😂)

Of course, having said all of this, it ultimately comes down to three things, what you are going to use it for, your commitment to photography and how deep your pockets are.

On another note, I used to shoot JPEG. Captured a bunch of images that were quite good, then I discovered the differences between JPEG and RAW. (Not trying to lead this conversation into that age old debate) Most of the time, if your exposure is ok, JPEGs are fine, but when they are not, that’s when you really wish you had all of the extra information that RAW provides. My point is, why limit your potential when you can arm yourself with everything you can to capture exceptional images?