Nikon Announce Z-Mount 180-600mm VR and 70-180mm/f2.8 Lenses

[ShunCheung]

The 200-600 that has been on the roadmap for 3+ years becomes a 180-600mm/f5.6-6.3 VR. It is a non-S lens and is priced very aggressively at US$1699.95. It is the first Z-mount non-S lens that has optical VR. It is compatible with both the Z 1.4x and 2x TCs (not simultaneously, of course). It is roughly the replacement of the F-mount 200-500mm/f5.6, but the 180-600 is an internal zoom and the rotation required to go from 180 to 600mm is a lot less.

• Preview by Ricci: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0w7BFner10
• Steve Perry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEmBkZsF5VE

The 70-180mm/f2.8 is also a non-S lens and has no optical VR. It is a rebadged Tamron lens. It is light @ 795 grams, 1.75 pounds and $1249.95. It is also compatible with the two teleconverters.

Nikon Japan news pages:

• https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/mirrorless-lenses/nikkor-z-70-180mm-f%2f2.8.html
• https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/mirrorless-lenses/nikkor-z-180-600mm-f%2f5.6-6.3-vr.html

[ilkka_nissila]

It is good to see some more "affordable" telephoto options for the Z system. The 180-600 mm seems to be sharper than the 200-500 F-mount lens as well as the Z 100-400 S with 1.4X TC (according to Ricci Chera's video) and the zooming mechanism is reported to be fast (with 70 degree full range) and require only relatively light forces to operate.  A carrying strap can be attached to the collar; I am not sure it's the right place to put it as many people who are going to hand-hold the lens might remove the collar and then end up with no hooks for a lens strap. They'll probably end up carrying the rig from the camera which could cause some damage. I think the hooks are a great idea to have (not present on the 200-500) but I would have preferred them on the lens barrel. The collar ring seems a bit narrow for a 600mm lens, will have to see how stable the collar really is.

 

Having internal zoom in this range should be great. I imagine it won't be long before these lenses pop up here and there in the field. 🙂

[ilkka_nissila]

The 70-180 also seems interesting for its low weight. It is like the 70-200/4 but one stop faster. 😉 The MTF looks pretty good as well.

[Dieter Schaefer]

7 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

the rotation required to go from 180 to 600mm is a lot less.

Only 70 degrees or thereabouts.

4 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

how stable the collar really is.

The Achilles heel of many Nikon telephotos.

3 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

The 70-180 also seems interesting for its low weight. It is like the 70-200/4 but one stop faster. 😉 The MTF looks pretty good as well.

Available in Sony E-mount for a while already - and highly regarded. If I needed a zoom in that range, I would definitely get that one over Sony's 70-200/4. No such choice to make within the Nikon Z-mount system yet.

Why would the 100-400 cost so much more than the 180-600 when they appear to be optically quite similar (according to what I saw in Ricci's video)? What actually is the difference between S and non-S lenses? From Ricci's video it appears that focus speed isn't all that great - which was also an issue with the F-mount 200-500.

I would need to have the tripod collar mounted to have a handle to carry the combo by - but it appears to be quite short. To mount on a tripod, an Arca-Swiss plate needs to be added - or a surely soon available replacement collar fitted.

I still have the F-mount AF-S 80-400 and the F-mount 200-500 (both sitting in the closet) and hence won't be getting either the 100-400 or the 180-600. Mildly interested in the 400/4.5 but I already have and love the 500PF.

 

Jan Wegener:

 

Jared Polin:

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Dieter Schaefer

[ilkka_nissila]

7 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

Why would the 100-400 cost so much more than the 180-600 when they appear to be optically quite similar (according to what I saw in Ricci's video)? What actually is the difference between S and non-S lenses? From Ricci's video it appears that focus speed isn't all that great - which was also an issue with the F-mount 200-500.

The 180-600 has one stepping motor while the 100-400 has two (what Nikon call Multi-focusing). This should result in faster focusing for the latter.

 

The 100-400 has Super ED, ARNEO coating, nano-coating and dual focusing groups (if I have understood how the two focus motors work together), and although it is an extending zoom, its center of gravity has been designed to have minimal movement as one zooms (basically there is one zooming group that moves forward and another that moves backward to achieve the focal length change, balancing each other). This makes the 100-400mm smaller in the bag as it is more compact at the shortest focal length while having some of the advantages of an internal zooming lens (i.e. weight doesn't shift much). The 180-600 doesn't have nano or ARNEO coatings or Super ED but does have one aspherical element.

 

The pricing of both lenses also seems to closely follow competitors i.e. Sony.

[ShunCheung]

This year, 2023, Nikon is really on a roll with new lenses. Previously in the F-mount era, Nikon was introducing about 5 to 6 new lenses a year. For example, in 2017, Nikon introduced the 19mm PC, 10-20mm DX, 28mm/f1.4, 8-15mm fisheye, and 70-300 AF-P. (I am not counting the 100th anniversary special-editions of existing lenses.)

In 2023:

• February 7: 26mm/f2.8 pancake and 85mm/f1.2
• April 18: 12-28mm DX power zoom (PZ)
• June 7: 24mm/f1.7 DX
• June 21: 70-180/2.8 and 180-600

There is six new lenses in the first six months, as we are not quite at mid year yet. In particular, there have been three new lenses this month alone. Perhaps we'll see another 2, 3, 4 new lenses in the second half of the year.

[hapien]

Great to see new lenses on the line. Maybe someday Nikkor designers go wild and make something like autofocusing Trioplan for Z mount.

[mike_halliwell]

Humm, it makes the close focus of the 400mm f4.5 @ 2.5m or repro of 1:6.3 seem pretty poor. 

At 600mm the new lens is 2.4m. 

[roland_vink]

9 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

There is six new lenses in the first six months, as we are not quite at mid year yet. In particular, there have been three new lenses this month alone. Perhaps we'll see another 2, 3, 4 new lenses in the second half of the year.

There are only two unannounced lenses left on the roadmap - a 35mm and 135mm lens, most likely 35/1.2 and 135/1.8. That might be everything announced for the rest of the year, unless Nikon surprises us with something new. The lineup is missing some specialist lenses - fisheye, tilt/shift, wider primes, and also missing an affordable xx-300mm zoom (although the 70-180 goes some way to filling that gap)

The roadmap was useful in the beginning when the lens lineup was small. It gave photographers confidence that Nikon was going to add more lenses and fill out their lineup. Now Nikon has a reasonably complete set of Z lenses, they may abandon the roadmap and release lenses at a slower rate.

[Dieter Schaefer]

11 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

The pricing of both lenses also seems to closely follow competitors i.e. Sony.

Both the Sony 100-400 and the 200-600 are G Master lenses and they are "only" $500 apart - which is half the difference between the Nikon 100-400 and 180-600. Canon's 100-500 comes in at about the same price as Nikon's and Sony's 100-400.

It's a good thing that there's more choices within a similar price range with Nikon teles now. In particular, the 400/4.5 fills a niche that was unoccupied within the F-mount line-up ever since AF was introduced. I seem to be leaning more and more towards using tele prime lenses instead of zooms even though I am giving up quite a bit of flexibility in doing so. On the other hand though, I can possibly count the number of images shot with any other focal length than the maximum of the 200-500 on the fingers of one hand.

[mike_halliwell]

6 hours ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

On the other hand though, I can possibly count the number of images shot with any other focal length than the maximum of the 200-500 on the fingers of one hand.

Yup, same here.

Once i got the 500mm PF, it got a bit side-lined.

Now, I've got the 100-400mm Z, it's just gathering dust. Time to let it go....😢

I suspect it's 2nd hand price is about to plummet.

[ilkka_nissila]

6 hours ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

Both the Sony 100-400 and the 200-600 are G Master lenses and they are "only" $500 apart - which is half the difference between the Nikon 100-400 and 180-600. Canon's 100-500 comes in at about the same price as Nikon's and Sony's 100-400.

(clip)

I seem to be leaning more and more towards using tele prime lenses instead of zooms even though I am giving up quite a bit of flexibility in doing so. On the other hand though, I can possibly count the number of images shot with any other focal length than the maximum of the 200-500 on the fingers of one hand.

The Sony 200-600 is only a G lens, not "G Master" like the 100-400. In my country the price difference between the two Sony lenses is 950€ whereas the two Nikkors are currently a bit closer together with a 800€ difference. There is currently a rebate on the 100-400 Nikkor.

 

I think Nikon USA has quite aggressive pricing on both the 180-600 and the Z8. In Finland both cost a bit more (both in absolute terms but also relative to some competitors). But nothing is as much more expensive here than the US as fast memory cards are! 

 

I guess one way to solve the zoom vs. prime dilemma is to own both and use as the situation requires. For me a fixed long lens such as the 500 PF caused problems because I was "thinking" in terms of the narrow FOV of that lens all the time when I had it with me and was ignoring other subjects that might have resulted in better photographs. A zoom like the 100-400 or 180-600 would not have that problem. 

[mike_halliwell]

25 minutes ago, ilkka_nissila said:

I guess one way to solve the zoom vs. prime dilemma is to own both and use as the situation requires. For me a fixed long lens such as the 500 PF caused problems because I was "thinking" in terms of the narrow FOV of that lens all the time when I had it with me and was ignoring other subjects that might have resulted in better photographs. A zoom like the 100-400 or 180-600 would not have that problem. 

I've ended up walking around with either the 500mm or 800mm PF depending on small bird distance AND the 24-120mm f4 in case of anything else. It's near 1:2 macro does OK with flowers etc.... and 24mm is OK for scenery/landscape.

Incidentally,  one special up-vote for the included 800mm PF's soft, but rigid, carry case.

I wonder what the 180-600mm comes with?

[ilkka_nissila]

1 hour ago, mike_halliwell said:

I've ended up walking around with either the 500mm or 800mm PF depending on small bird distance AND the 24-120mm f4 in case of anything else. It's near 1:2 macro does OK with flowers etc.... and 24mm is OK for scenery/landscape.

Incidentally,  one special up-vote for the included 800mm PF's soft, but rigid, carry case.

I wonder what the 180-600mm comes with?

It's not that I cannot carry other lenses with a long prime but simply I don't put in as much time and effort working with the shorter focal lengths when I am carrying a longer prime.  Do you spend as much time shooting with the 24-120 as you do with your long lenses?

 

I think there has been a huge decline in the quality of bags that come with the lenses. There is basically just a soft thin pouch with the Z 70-200/2.8 and not one with paddings that leave space between the lens and bag exterior like in the previous generations (of the 70-200/2.8, similar to the ones with the 24-70/2.8 F-mount and 500 PF. I didn't like the hard cases that came with lenses in the 90s but I am not sure if these thin, soft generic pouches serve any function.

[Dieter Schaefer]

4 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

I guess one way to solve the zoom vs. prime dilemma is to own both and use as the situation requires.

If finances allow. In addition, I rarely walk around with both a prime and a zoom at the same time. Photographing pelicans and cormorants at La Jolla I had the 500PF on the camera most of the time and switched to the 300PF when the distances were shorter (and they can become really short at that particular location). A 100-400 would have been a better choice for some close-up shots but not for longer range ones as 400 isn't long enough when the situation calls for a longer focal length. Versatility increases a lot if one can afford to walk around with two cameras avoiding near constant lens changes. To me a 80/100-400 is a compromise I am willing to make when space in the bag is tight (travel, hiking) but it has very little use to me as a dedicated bird photography lens.

5 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

200-500: I suspect it's 2nd hand price is about to plummet.

keh currently offers $600 for an excellent condition copy - which is a little less than half its original asking prices and a bit more than half of its current price point. Holds its value a lot better than the AF-S 80-400, for which the offer is just under $500 (for a lens that still costs about $2100 new and was around $2700 when announced).

3 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

I've ended up walking around with either the 500mm or 800mm PF depending on small bird distance AND the 24-120mm f4 in case of anything else.

EITHER being the key word here I suppose. Most of the time, I don't bother carrying a shorter focal length lens/zoom as I found - as Ilkka pointed out - that I don't spend much time and effort working with it. I can see myself carrying both the 500PF and 800PF in the field - it just depends on location and circumstances. Most locations in the past (in California) and all I've encountered in Maine so far, don't allow for many opportunities using focal lengths much shorter than 500 for wildlife/birds. Again, the best case scenario is two lenses and two cameras.

Airshows are a different case - here a zoom is very handy. In fact, for some performances, even a 24-105/24-120 comes in handy. Of course, then one again needs to use at least two cameras in order not to miss the shots.

[joseph_smith3]

I think Nikon has a winner with this new 180-600mm Z mount lens. Thank goodness it has internal zoom.

My dilemma is that I own and use the Z mount 100-400mm S lens. I really need more focal length and the 180-600m satisfies that need. And with a price point of under $1700 US?  Buy it? and sell the 100-400mm? And I still use and love the F mount 500mm f5.6 pf on my Z9.    Decisions need to be made one of thee days. 

[ShunCheung]

I believe the Z lens roadmap was needed when the Z system was brand new with very few lenses, initially only three: 24-70/4, 35 and 50mm f1.8, so that Nikon needed to assure everybody the Z system was viable, unlike the Nikon 1 that was cancelled after about five years or so. Now that the Z system is a lot more mature with plenty of lens selections, Nikon will not project future lenses any more, as they used to do with the F mount. Hopefully there will be more wides, fisheye, and PC lenses, plus the 70-200mm/f4 and 70-300 with VR, although I tend to agree that with two 70-200/180 f2.8, no 70-200mm/f4 is likely in the near future.

In a way I kind of wish the 180-600 were a $2500 lens. At $1700, I wonder whether Nikon is cutting some corners, such as the 200-500mm/f5.6, whose AF is not quite sufficient for most birds in flight. I used to have that lens on the D5, but since I have so many long tele now, I sold the 200-500 recently.

[ilkka_nissila]

4 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

In a way I kind of wish the 180-600 were a $2500 lens. At $1700, I wonder whether Nikon is cutting some corners, such as the 200-500mm/f5.6, whose AF is not quite sufficient for most birds in flight. I used to have that lens on the D5, but since I have so many long tele now, I sold the 200-500 recently.

I thought a little bit the same on this release and also when the 200-500 came out. However, I think Nikon has addressed most of the shortcomings of the 200-500 in this new 180-600. What seems clear of both lenses is that they render color a bit differently than nano and ARNEO coated S-line lenses, and there seems to be a bit more flare in backlit situations. I think this is still a very good showing of a lens in this price class and of this type.

What they could do to make a premium version of this lens is

• add nano and ARNEO coatings
• add dual focusing motors (this would likely necessitate redesign of the optics so that there are two focus groups, so not very cost-effective)
• maybe make it with Super ED or fluorite elements to reduce CA (assuming that there is any CA in the lens as it is)
• make a wider tripod collar that is non-removable but perhaps with a removable foot

These could increase the price to more than $2500 though, probably $3500. Sony has the advantage of better AF in lower price classes of cameras (A7 IV, etc.) and so Nikon making the Z8 and 180-400 as affordable as they can be seems like a smart plan to attract customers. The Sony 200-600 is reported to have some issues with AF on the 61 MP bodies though, and users of that lens seem to prefer A9 series or A1 cameras which are quite expensive. So in the end Nikon is probably seen as very competitive with this product (combined with either Z8 or Z9).

 

To really nail it in, Nikon should IMO update the Z6 II with a v. III the soonest. A lot of people don't need 45MP and would benefit from a 24MP camera with better autofocus than currently provided in the Z6 II. In fact I am likely to purchase such a camera as my second Z body if offered. The Z6 II already has excellent high ISO image quality but it doesn't quite nail focus on approaching subjects as reliably as the Z8. I'd really love to see the custom wide-area AF modes in a Z6 series model. If they can make such a camera then I would think Nikon would be on par with Canon and Sony with regards to overall mirrorless lineup. Of course, it may be that Nikon considers it enough to be competitive at the very top end but I think they do have to address the upper mid segment as well.

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by ilkka_nissila

[mike_halliwell]

28 minutes ago, ilkka_nissila said:

A lot of people don't need 45MP and would benefit from a 24MP camera

Bigger pixels will get you about another stop less ISO noise?

Edited June 22, 2023 by mike_halliwell

[ilkka_nissila]

11 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

Bigger pixels will get you about another stop less ISO noise?

At equal ISOs across the range the Z6 II is about 2/3-1 stops ahead of the Z9/8 in dynamic range. However, this doesn't necessarily come from "bigger pixels" but different sensor design and color filter areay. The Nikon 45 MP cameras have more flat / less peaky CFA and my guess is that this is where they lose a bit of quantum efficiency and DR. Better colours, a bit more noise (but still because of the base ISO of 64, image quality overall is really good). It's a tradeoff. Still, I would like to have a camera which is optimized for high ISO image quality for low light situations. The Z6 II sensor in my opinion does it nicely and is a good general purpose sensor. For a lot of situations such as events, apart from group shots the 45 MP is excessive and slows down editing. It seems that my computer spins up the CPU fan when editing HE* compressed images in LR while I don't remember it doing that for D850 shots. The spinning fan noise is very irritating. (But the computer has other merits.) I'll try to see if lossless compression is lighter on the CPU.

 

Today I am going to see if I can get photos of midsummer outdoor dancing and that is a fairly extreme low-light situation especially towards the end (around midnight or 1 am). Getting photos at 11pm is still fairly doable but it gets worse from there. (I recall ISOs going up to 51200 before I figured it was best to give up in the past years). I'm curious to see how well the Z8 can cope in such a situation.

[mike_halliwell]

4 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

It seems that my computer spins up the CPU fan when editing HE* compressed images

What hardware are you running?

I've often wondered if I could find a desktop freezer to put the PC in and just have a very small door port for all the cabling.

Cooling and silencing in one go... 👍

I suspect with a peak power draw of 400w, all turning to heat, the freezer couldn't keep up!

[Rob Davies]

25 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

What hardware are you running?

I've often wondered if I could find a desktop freezer to put the PC in and just have a very small door port for all the cabling.

Cooling and silencing in one go... 👍

I suspect with a peak power draw of 400w, all turning to heat, the freezer couldn't keep up!

Z9 files regularly turned my MBP into a helicopter, I've just upgraded to a M2 Max Studio.... not heard the fan yet! 👍😀

[bgelfand]

18 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

I've often wondered if I could find a desktop freezer to put the PC in and just have a very small door port for all the cabling.

Cooling and silencing in one go.

Or simply don a pair of good noise cancelling earphones and enjoy your favorite music as you edit. 

[ilkka_nissila]

20 hours ago, Rob Davies said:

Z9 files regularly turned my MBP into a helicopter, I've just upgraded to a M2 Max Studio.... not heard the fan yet! 👍😀

Right, but a Mac Studio with similar internal drive capacity costs about twice of what I paid for my PC and probably would be impossible to get the mac to talk to my LS-9000 scanner. If I ever finish scanning then it might become a possibility. 😉

 

Noise-cancelling earphones sound like a good idea in my current situation. 

[bgelfand]

If your computer is always running the CPU fan and/or Graphics Card or case fans at high speed, you might wish to investigate why before just ignoring the situation.

 

I would suggest using HWMonitor, a free software package as a starting point to see just how hot the CPU and various components are and how fast the fans are turning both under light loads and heavy loads. Here is a link to the HWMonitor software:

LINK: HWMONITOR | Softwares | CPUID

If the computer is running hot under normal load, it may be time for a thorough cleaning. Before you start it helps to have all your cables labeled and a diagram showing where they plug in to the case. The house vacuum cleaner with the crevice attachment is usually sufficient for many of the cleaning tasks along with some clean rags and a can of "compressed air". 

Unplug the computer. Remove the case air filters and vacuum them removing the accumulated dust, then wash the  filters and dry them with warm (not hot) air from a hair dryer. Many cases have separate filters for the air drawn into the case to cool the motherboard and components and a separate filter for the power supply.

Open the case and carefully vacuum inside to remove dust and detritus such as animal hair. When using the vacuum near fan blades such as case fans, CPU fan, Graphic card fans, immobilize the fan blades with your finger. The vacuum can cause the blades to spin faster than the fan is rated and may cause damage to the fan.

Clean the all fan blades and housing with a damp cloth.  

Clean the CPU and Graphic Card heats sinks with the "canned air". Once again be sure to immobilize the fan blades with a finger. The compressed air may cause the fan blades to spin with excessive speed and damage the fan. 

Close the case, replace the filters, hook up you peripherals, and start the computer. Start HWMonitor and see if the operating temperatures are lower.

If you are and "old guy" like me, remember newer CPUs and GPUs normally run at higher temperatures than the older versions. At the present time with an ambient temperature of approximately 24.2 C, my Ryzen 7- 3800x is running at 41 C with the CPU fan running at 1500 RPM. That is normal. Under heavy load it will approach 70 C and the fan will be just under 3000 RPM.