Nikon Introduces Yet Another Z-Mount Long Tele: 600mm/f6.3 PF, US$4799.95

[ShunCheung]

Nikon is adding yet another super-tele to their stable. This is their fourth Phase Fresnel (PF) lens, following the F-mount 300mm/f4 AF-S VR, 500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR and the Z-mount 800mm/f6.3 VR. Similar to the recent, $1700 180-600mm/f5.6-6.3,  this new lens is a fixed, 600mm/f6.3 but is smaller, lighter, and about 2.8 times as expensive. (And of course there is no zooming.)

This new lens is approximately 11 inches (278mm) long and weights 3 pounds (1390 grams). It uses 95mm front filters. In comparison to other recent lenses that also accept 95mm front filters:

• The F-mount 500mm/f5.6 PF is 9.3 inches, 237mm long and weights 51.2 ounces, 1460 grams, $3599.95 at introduction, discounts available, but you need to add the FTZ(2) to work with any mirrorless Z body
• The Z-mount 180-600mm/f5.6-6.3: 12.5 inches, 315.2mm long and weights 68.96 ounces, 1955 grams without the tripod collar and much cheaper
• The Z-mount 400mm/f4.5, which is not a PF lens, 9.3 inches, 234.5mm long and weights 41 ounces, 1160 grams without the tripod foot, $4250 $3250 at introduction and recently discounted to $2999.95.

It looks like Nikon is having a bit too many super teles that will inevitably compete against one another. Earlier, I thought Nikon was pricing the 500mm/f5.6 PF ($3600) and 800mm/f6.3 PF ($6500) very aggressively. This new lens at $4800 is more in ling with, at least, my expectations. Back in 2018, I thought the 500mm/f5.6 PF would be 3 to 4 times the $1400 200-500mm/f5.6. This lens is more or less in line with that.

This new lens is scheduled to be available some time in October 2023, i.e. this month. My estimate is that Nikon can produce approximately 900 PF elements a month, and that is some 8, 9-month process. If Nikon can initially sell 5000 copies of this lens, it will probably take six months or so to fulfill the initial demands. Early orders will probably take up to a few months to fill, depending on your NPS status and position on the waiting list.

 

Nikon Japan press release: https://www.nikon.com/company/news/2023/1011_lens_01.html

Steve Perry already has a YouTube preview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-frCJCnVcc

 

New product images, copyright Nikon Inc. Obviously this lens can take the Z 1.4x or 2.0 teleconverters.

 

[mike_halliwell]

Min Focus... 4M....or x0.15. That's no bug chaser...guess tele macros are too hard for them?

Even the 800mm PF is better than that....🤣

£5K...or $4.8K... nothing new there. ☹️

It's a technical marvel, epic MTF graph, but I think I'll give it a miss for now.

[ilkka_nissila]

2 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

Min Focus... 4M....or x0.15. That's no bug chaser...guess tele macros are too hard for them?

It's just that when a lens has a really short minimum focus distance, it can be slower to focus (if it goes way out of focus) and probably they couldn't get it to focus closer without changing the weight and portability is probably a key priority here, to make it nice to use hand-held. 

 

The 600 PF's price in Finland is 5999€ so that's 50% higher than the 500 PF... quite a jump, but not entirely unexpected.

 

It is interesting to see how the sales of this lens goes against the 180-600. A 100-400 could be paired with the 600 PF where both lenses are hand-holdable for a long time. The 180-600 is cheaper but at least for me a long lens weighing 2 kg gets tiring to hand-hold pointed at the target for a longer time. So I would put it on a tripod.

[mike_halliwell]

29 minutes ago, ilkka_nissila said:

It's just that when a lens has a really short minimum focus distance, it can be slower to focus (if it goes way out of focus) and probably they couldn't get it to focus closer without changing the weight and portability is probably a key priority here, to make it nice to use hand-held. 

Guess so.....☹️

I think user defined focus limiters are an aspect that Nikon et al have seriously neglected.  It's always just FULL or Xm > Inf. I always want Min > Xm or 2m > 4m for Dragons or 20m > Inf for Raptors etc.

Things like the Bike shot, you could pre-set so not to go beyond 2m past the apex, kinda thing. You don't want it to go find the trees down the valley or on the horizon. If they crash out, a simple 'push past' override would be easy.

Not sure you'd get that Humming Bird shot at 4M? ZTC1.4 or 2X maybe?

Edited October 11, 2023 by mike_halliwell

[mike_halliwell]

1 hour ago, ilkka_nissila said:

The 600 PF's price in Finland is 5999€ so that's 50% higher than the 500 PF.

How much was the 800mm PF there on intro?

They are £4.8K now grey market here..... same as a new 600mm 6.3 PF.

Steve's first video..

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by mike_halliwell

[ilkka_nissila]

The 800/6.3 PF is currently 7499€ in Finland. So there is a good bit of price difference there.

[mike_halliwell]

9 minutes ago, ilkka_nissila said:

good bit of price difference

Ouch! That's Painful on the wallet....😱

[ilkka_nissila]

2 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

Ouch! That's Painful on the wallet....😱

Well, it's not as painful as the 22699€ of the F-mount AF-S VR 800mm f/5.6 E FL. 😉

 

I feel no pain for the pricing of 600mm or 800mm lenses, as the 400/4.5 is reasonably affordable and probably more suitable to my needs.

Edited October 11, 2023 by ilkka_nissila

[mike_halliwell]

19 minutes ago, ilkka_nissila said:

22699€ of the F-mount AF-S VR 800mm f/5.6 E FL

 Funny you should mention that lens.....🙂

There's quite a few mint used examples @ ~ £4.5K.

[ilkka_nissila]

1 hour ago, mike_halliwell said:

 Funny you should mention that lens.....🙂

There's quite a few mint used examples @ ~ £4.5K.

It's a bit surprising as the lens probably works fine with the Z8 and Z9, at least Nikon had people test those combinations in the field. I haven't found any issues with the 200/2 or 300/2.8 regarding Z compatibility, I would argue that in some ways they work better than on DSLR, and in other ways the Z hasn't quite caught up (tendency to focus on background objects when temporarily the primary subject is turned away, also the upside down head problem I mentioned), but there shouldn't be any reason why a user of the 800/5.6 wouldn't be able to successfully use it with Z or DSLR cameras for that matter, into the foreseeable future. The reason of course for the interest in selling that lens is because the 800 PF with its comparatively low price gives price pressure also on the 800 FL's second hand sales. But I think those trying to sell the FL may be trying to rush to get rid of it without gaining other things than portability, probably losing some image quality.

 

In photographylife's comparison the 800 FL really aces it

 

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-800mm-f-6-3-vr-s/3

 

f/6.3 PF's 2646 vs. f/5.6 FL's 3151 MTF50 wide open in the center, 2200 vs. 2693 in the corners wide open. "Clearly, the F-mount 800mm f/5.6E is the sharper lens. At f/5.6 in particular, it is meaningfully sharper than the mirrorless lens at f/6.3. Whether that matters is a different question. At 800mm, lens sharpness is not usually the biggest threat to getting sharp photos. Instead, atmospheric distortion, motion blur, imperfect focus, and image noise are going to cause bigger problems most of the time."

 

In my opinion this is rather misleading as the effect of lens MTF on final image quality is multiplied by other factors and the other factors don't make the lens MTF difference go away.  The better lens will help also in bad conditions to make the images less bad, and the 800 FL is a rarity among long lenses in that it can handle long distances well (according to tests; I don't have this lens!)

[ilkka_nissila]

What's kind of interesting is that Canon also let the MTF drop in their RF 800/5.6 vs. their previous EF 800/5.6, to gain portability and a higher maximum magnification in the new design.

[mike_halliwell]

11 minutes ago, ilkka_nissila said:

The reason of course for the interest in selling that lens is because the 800 PF with its comparatively low price gives price pressure also on the 800 FL's second hand sales. But I think those trying to sell the FL may be trying to rush to get rid of it without gaining other things than portability, probably losing some image quality.

Spot on!

Trying to get an 800mm 5.6 as carry-on luggage might be a squeeze.

As a hide lens for little waders etc, it's unbeatable.

My 400mm 2.8 FL might have to go soon... ☹️

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

5 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

The Z-mount 400mm/f4.5, which is not a PF lens, 9.3 inches, 234.5mm long and weights 41 ounces, 1160 grams without the tripod foot, $4250 at introduction and recently discounted to $2999.95.

The price at introduction was $3250, not $4250.

5 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

This new lens at $4800 is more in ling with, at least, my expectations.

I had expected $4499 - $300 less than the actual asking price.

5 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

It looks like Nikon is having a bit too many super teles that will inevitably compete against one another.

Realistically, the F-mount 300/4 and 500/5.6 will go away at some point (if production has not stopped already). I regard the Z-mount 400/4.5 as the 300PF replacement and the new 600/6.3 replaces the 500PF. So compared to the F-mount line-up (excluding $10k+ superteles)): 300PF, 80-400, 200-500, 500PF, the current Z-mount line-up consisting of 400/4.5, 100-400, 180-600, 600/6,3, and 800/6.3 only adds the later. And there isn't a 300/2.8, 120-300/2.8 or 180-400/4 equivalent in Z-mount. Wondering whether Nikon will offer any 300mm prime lens in Z-mount.

The new 600/6.3 looks like an awesome performer - but I doubt I will trade the 500PF for the 600PF any time soon. Having the 300PF, 500PF, and 800PF feels like a good spread in focal lengths.

3 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

Well, it's not as painful as the 22699€ of the F-mount AF-S VR 800mm f/5.6 E FL.

A short while back, Nikon USA offered refurbished ones at a huge discount - can't recall how much exactly but believe the price dropped below the $10k mark. Refurbished 800/6.3 ones were offered for just under $5k.

 

 

[mike_halliwell]

38 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

The Z-mount 400mm/f4.5, which is not a PF lens, 9.3 inches, 234.5mm long and weights 41 ounces, 1160 grams without the tripod foot, $4250 at introduction and recently discounted to $2999.95.

£2420 grey here now. Tempted I am..... 🤣

Walkies with the 400mm 2.8 FL gets a bit much..... 😱

[Dieter Schaefer]

6 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

Tempted I am...

You aiming at getting all of them?

[Rob Davies]

7 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

You aiming at getting all of them?

He can't help himself...... 😀

[Dieter Schaefer]

1 hour ago, mike_halliwell said:

Trying to get an 800mm 5.6 as carry-on luggage might be a squeeze.

I wouldn't want to carry that thing - and much less trying to hand-hold it. No such issue with the 800PF. Though the weight and bulk of the 600PF are substantially less.

I can barely fit the 300PF, 500PF, and 800PF into a backpack - and that's already heavier than I'd like to lug around, even without a 2nd camera body.

[mike_halliwell]

15 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

You aiming at getting all of them?

 

7 minutes ago, Rob Davies said:

He can't help himself...... 😀

I've currently got the 300mm, 500mm and 800 PF. I haven't used the 300mm in ages. It's a bit slow and a bit too long and too short for my normal uses, with naff close focus. The Z100-400mm is it's replacement, kinda.

300mm primes are so yesterday in most makers repertoire.

If you look higher up... (see below!)

6 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

It's a technical marvel, epic MTF graph, but I think I'll give it a miss for now.

Admittedly, the for now is just a little bit weaselly.... 😉

[joseph_smith3]

I just finished watching Steve Perry's video. I love using my 500mm pf lens, For me I probably need the 800mm pf to avoid cropping. However its added size and weight make the 600mm pf a more likely replacement lens if I decide to buy one. With my Z9 and the 100-400mm S, a 600mm or a 800mm pf should cover my needs. 

[ilkka_nissila]

1 hour ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

And there isn't a 300/2.8, 120-300/2.8 or 180-400/4 equivalent in Z-mount. Wondering whether Nikon will offer any 300mm prime lens in Z-mount.

I'm sure they will. Nikon's initial fast tele prime lens releases seem to have been targeted to match and exceed their competitors in some ways (the internal TC); Canon and Sony both introduced 400/2.8 and 600/4 but initially no 300mm or 500mm. So Nikon's entries were also at these focal lengths. Nikon justified the 400/4.5 by saying that their customers reported having used 1.4X's on 300mm primes a lot of the time which is why they went straight to offering 400mm. But at least for me I don't use 1.4X's often on my 300mm lenses and never have; 300mm is just right for many of my applications.

Sony has issued a development announcement on a 300/2.8 and so I would expect Nikon and Canon to produce their own versions to compete with Sony.

 

I think the reason for Nikon's focus on longer teles rather than 300mm is because of the popularity of wildlife and bird photography which increased during the pandemic as people needed activities where they wouldn't meet too many other people (that they could get infected from) and so a lot of people picked up or became more active wildlife photography. (I am sure there will be counterarguments to this.) By contrast, sports photography during the pandemic was almost nonexistent at least during the most stringent lockdowns, and so these photographers and applications were de-prioritised at least temporarily. I noticed when I went to see Finlandia Trophy (a figure skating competition) that there was some audience but still not as many as during the pre-pandemic years. People haven't quite returned to live events in such a degree that we couldn't still see the impact of the pandemic. Also ticket prices have increased as the organizers have to cover their costs also for the pandemic years where there was not so much action but the athletes still needed to practice (and during most of the pandemic time there were still events they just had restrictions on audience size etc.). Finally, mirrorless cameras still havent caught up with DSLRs where it comes to reliable AF in sports photography, at least that is my experience comparing the Z8 and D6 during last weekend's event. There were situations where the Z8 would focus on spectators and not stick to the athletes, and they occurred somewhat unexpectedly, and with the D6 this basically never happens when I set it up correctly. I know people will cry foul over me saying this but that's simply my experience. There was no difference in AF performance between native Z 70-200/2.8 vs. 200/2II F-mount; both exhibited extremely high consistency of focus when the subjects were gliding and faces identifiable, and both focused on occasion on background subjects when the athletes were spinning. And there were DSLRs being used in the front row shooters' kits, not exclusively but still they were there, suggesting that others may have noticed the same or simply don't want to spend the money for a new kit. I do believe subject detection will improve and the Z cameras will be able to handle these tricky subjects in the future, and even now the performance is acceptable if not quite as good as with the D6. But I think these factors have influenced the speed of photographers' transition to mirrorless in different branches of photography and the sports photographers could be among the last ones to go over.  I enjoyed shooting the D6 more than the Z8 for this subject and my keeper rate was higher, and so if there was a 300/2.8 Z-mount lens I might not buy it for some years before they fix the remaining issues in the autofocus in the Z cameras.

 

Anyway, I have no doubt that the gaps in the prime lineup will be filled in time; after all the Z system is only a few years old (5?) and probably they'll keep making new lenses for it for the next 50 years.

[mike_halliwell]

2 minutes ago, joseph_smith3 said:

I love using my 500mm pf lens, For me I probably need the 800mm pf to avoid cropping.

I looked at the FL I'd used in a bunch of folders, mainly birding, and found I'd consistently used my 500mm PF + TC1.4 e ii, so was pretty sure 800mm wouldn't be overkill, as it were,... I was right.

However, it can be a bit long as a sole walkies lens, where its min focus is pretty far.

[mike_halliwell]

1 hour ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

Wondering whether Nikon will offer any 300mm prime lens in Z-mount.

2009 was their last 300mm prime, for the 300mm 2.8 VRII, pretty much the same as the 200mm VRII.

The leviathan 120-300mm 2.8 VR (no FL?) was a 2020 lens, and I think, the last F-Mount lens to be introduced.

I'm 'expecting' a Z300mm f4 VR 1:1 macro.... 🤣

[mike_halliwell]

15 minutes ago, ilkka_nissila said:

I think the reason for Nikon's focus on longer teles rather than 300mm is because of the popularity of wildlife and bird photography which increased during the pandemic as people needed activities where they wouldn't meet too many other people

I think there was a delayed reaction to 'using digital, everyone can aspire to nature/macro etc'.

They had the time, and crucially, an inexpensive way to shoot hundreds (Ha!) of frames a day trying for that bird/lizard/butterfly etc pic.  I know digital has been with us over 20 years, but i think Lockdowns provided the impetus and opportunity to go try things that film made prohibitively expensive.

Then they were hooked.....🙂

[Dieter Schaefer]

8 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

2009 was their last 300mm prime

Well, the 300/4 VR was introduced in 2015.

41 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

I haven't used the 300mm in ages.

Last time was in January at La Jolla where it came in very handy. It often isn't long enough but I do enjoy using it every time when the situation warrants it.

22 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

found I'd consistently used my 500mm PF + TC1.4 e ii

I would have found the same had the D850 handled the 500PF/TC-14EII combo better. When we moved from California to Maine and after I got the Z9, it was pretty much 500PF/TC-14EII all the time. So the 800PF was the right decision for me as well. It works quite well with the Z 1.4x too😃

I am very mildly tempted by the 100-400 but can't justify the expense really. I haven't done much close-up work in the past few years - and either the 300PF will have to suffice or I just grab the A7RIII with the 100-400GM.

It appears that I will eventually use Nikon for wildlife and Sony for anything else. Currently, I still have quite a few F-mount lenses and D500 and D850 to mount them on - but eventually those will go away.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Dieter Schaefer

[mike_halliwell]

6 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

Well, the 300/4 VR was introduced in 2015.

Oh, yes! I was probably only thinking of FAST primes....😉

 

8 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

100-400 but can't justify the expense really

Well under £2K grey here....😇

9 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

It works quite well with the Z 1.4x too😃

Yes, it does! The moon looks pretty awesome with that combo... handheld! Even though we don't get the full annular eclipse this weekend, I might see what we do get!