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

[Dieter Schaefer]

51 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

found I'd consistently used my 500mm PF + TC1.4 e ii, so was pretty sure 800mm wouldn't be overkill

I was so used to having a 500mm lens on a D500 - which equates to a 750mm-equivalent FOV. Using the same lens on a D850/Z9 meant quite a big loss in FOV - which was made up by the higher MP count and thus the ability to crop back to D500 dimensions. Not ideal though - why use expensive FX bodies and the shoot only DX? So the 800mm simply re-established the previous DX FOV now on FX - with a 2.25x higher resolution.

I had hoped for 40MP+ FX sensors ever since the early days of digital - just to eliminate the need to deal with DX bodies.

[ShunCheung]

1 hour ago, mike_halliwell said:

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.

The 2015 300mm/f4 AF-S VR PF is so far the last fixed 300mm lens introduced by Nikon, and that was the first of now four PF lenses from Nikon. I own the first three but most likely will probably skip the 4th one, namely the 600mm/f6.3.

The 120-300mm/f2.8 is the final (at least so far) F-mount lens Nikon introduced, back in January 2020. It is approaching four years since Nikon last introduced any F-mount body (D6 in February 2020) and the 120-300. It would be surprising that Nikon suddenly revives the F-mount, except for perhaps some special, anniversary editions.

The 120-300mm/f2.8 is an FL lens with one FL element, purple color in the cross-section diagram: 

 

[ShunCheung]

2 hours ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

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

Sorry, I started the thread around midnight and tried to proofread it a couple of times, but missed one price.

I waited until Nikon USA discounted the 400mm/f4.5 first the very first time, in April 2023, before I ordered one, at just below $3000, i.e. $250 off the initial $3250 price tag. Since then, that same discount is available on and off, and that is currently available again.

[ShunCheung]

Besides Steve Perry's, there are a few more videos on the new 600mm/f6.3 PF. The Nikon Europe and Nikon USA videos are identical, with Mark Cruz narrating. (I believe Cruz started with Nikon Canada but is now the spokes person in a lot of Nikon USA videos, including the introduction of the Z9 in October 2021 and the Z8 earlier this year, 2023);

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pFQa7vWFHo    Nikon Europe
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjEMrC8xsCk      Nikon USA, again, same video as the one from Nikon Europe above
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03UiIluruXE           Grays of Westminster

The 600mm/f6.3 PF is the eighth lens Nikon has introduced so far in 2023, all Z mount, but some 35mm S perhaps f1.2 from the roadmap is still missing.

1. 26mm/f2.8 "pancake"                       February 7
2. 85mm/f1.2 S                                     February 7
3. 12-28mm/f3.5-5.6 PZ VR DX,           April 18        (PZ is a power zoom.)
4. 24mm/f1.7 DX                                  June 7
5. 70-180mm/f2.8, non-S and no VR   June 21
6. 180-600mm/f5.6-6.3 VR, non-S      June 21
7. 135mm/f1.8 S Plena, no VR              September 27
8. 600mm/f6.3 VR S, PF                      October 11          

[mike_halliwell]

Interesting...

Nikon isn't consistant in it's naming , ie

https://www.nikon.com/company/news/2020/0107_lens_02.html

is actually an FL lens, but nowhere is FL in it's name.

 

[ilkka_nissila]

1 hour ago, mike_halliwell said:

Interesting...

Nikon isn't consistant in it's naming , ie

https://www.nikon.com/company/news/2020/0107_lens_02.html

is actually an FL lens, but nowhere is FL in it's name.

 

The Z lenses use fewer letters. No Z lens has FL, PF, ED, E etc. in the name. Also the decorations are minimal on most Z lenses. I think they realized that the lens names had gotten too long and complicated. TC and VR seem to be still parts of lens names along with the MC for macro and S for premium lenses. 

Edited October 11, 2023 by ilkka_nissila

[ben_hutcherson]

17 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

17 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

 

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.

Back in the ancient past, on some of the earliest long AF lenses, Nikon did actually let you do this.

The one that comes to mind for me is the 300mm f/4 AF(not the newer AF-S version), an earli(er) AF lens with the fun arrangement of needing to set manual focus BOTH on the body and on the lens, unlike most other screwdriver lenses.

In any case, this one quite literally has a rotating ring and a couple of set screws that will let you set both a maximum and minimum distance. I have an early push-pull 80-200 2.8 I've not really used but ended up with along the way that I think has a similar system.

On these lenses, it takes a LOT of turns of the in-body focus motor to rack the lens in and out. Even if they don't focus particularly close, especially by current standards, the focus limiters are still your friend if you're trying to do anything moving. That's especially true when you combine them with first generation AF systems that these would have been used on, like the F4 or N8008, that aren't exactly speedy focusing cameras in the best of circumstances and can get "lost" and have to rack the lens through its full range to find focus again.

In the days of no actual physical connection between the focusing ring and the lens focus mechanism(are all Z lenses focus by wire?) it would seem to me as though this would be an easy software thing to implement.

[mike_halliwell]

3 hours ago, ben_hutcherson said:

it would seem to me as though this would be an easy software thing to implement.

Firmware 4.10 introduced Auto Capture in which distance plays a big part of its functionality.

Maybe they're working on it?

Occasionally I've been caught out with setting , say 4m > Inf, on a lens for BIF and wondered why the darn thing wouldn't focus on a nearby flower.... and then realising why.....🤣

[ShunCheung]

11 hours ago, ben_hutcherson said:

Back in the ancient past, on some of the earliest long AF lenses, Nikon did actually let you do this.

The one that comes to mind for me is the 300mm f/4 AF(not the newer AF-S version), an earli(er) AF lens with the fun arrangement of needing to set manual focus BOTH on the body and on the lens, unlike most other screwdriver lenses.

In any case, this one quite literally has a rotating ring and a couple of set screws that will let you set both a maximum and minimum distance. I have an early push-pull 80-200 2.8 I've not really used but ended up with along the way that I think has a similar system.

On these lenses, it takes a LOT of turns of the in-body focus motor to rack the lens in and out. Even if they don't focus particularly close, especially by current standards, the focus limiters are still your friend if you're trying to do anything moving. That's especially true when you combine them with first generation AF systems that these would have been used on, like the F4 or N8008, that aren't exactly speedy focusing cameras in the best of circumstances and can get "lost" and have to rack the lens through its full range to find focus again.

In the days of no actual physical connection between the focusing ring and the lens focus mechanism(are all Z lenses focus by wire?) it would seem to me as though this would be an easy software thing to implement.

Back in 1989, 1990, I bought both of the first-generation 80-200mm/f2.8 AF and that 300mm/f4 AF, both even before AF-D. Back then AF was primitive on my N8008 (F801) and F4. I sold those lenses many years ago.

Except for the 58mm/0.95 Noct, which is manual focus only, all other Z Nikkor lenses are focus by wire. There is no mechanical connection from the manual focus ring to the focus mechanism. The ring merely controls the AF motor.

[joseph_smith3]

Regarding additional lenses, I still have and use two Nikon 300mm lenses: the 300mm f4 pf and the 300mm f2.8 G II. Since I got the 500mm f5.6 pf, I have not used either 300mm lens.  I do use the 300mm f2.8 when I am faced with (bad) backgrounds and/or want the best possible bokeh.  And its AF is fast. However it is big and very heavy so I do not take it on trails or while walking. When I ue it it is on a monopod or a tripod. I use the 300mm f4 when walking and when I need to get close to subjects as it has a pretty short minimum focus distance. And when I add an extension tube to it, it is like having a 200mm macro lens with me. 

Given the above, the 400mm S lens probably has replaced both F mount 300mm lenses, so I am not holding my breath for a S 300mm.  

The next Z mount lens I want from Nikon is a high quality S 70-200 f4. I doubt if they will make it as they already have the 70-200mm f2.8 S. But with the 100-400mm S, there is no way I am buying a 70-200mm f2.8S. For travel, safaris, etc, a 70-200mm f4 should be small and light and easier to use over a 70-200mm f2.8.  

 

[ilkka_nissila]

I owned the 70-200/4 for a time and while I liked its rendering, its AF motor even with the best DSLRs couldn't keep up with a walking person approaching the camera. This was completely unacceptable. I also felt its landscape image quality was lacking compared to the f/2.8 versions. I mostly ended up using the f/4 in the studio where it was excellent. I can understand the argument for lighter weight - both the 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 are quite big lenses. But I do believe Nikon's thinking is that the 70-180/2.8 serves the purpose as a lighter weight option for now. Of course, 5 or 10 years from now, they may make more options in this segment. 

 

For me, 300mm is a key focal length and a 400 cannot do its job. Cropping from 70-200/2.8 is not the same as the depth of field is quite different, and the 300mm images can also need to be cropped (but not necessarily as deep as 400mm FOV). Although I may get the 400/4.5 as it has excellent handling and great image quality, and probably half the price of a future Z 300/2.8, it doesn't change the need for the latter. Anyway the 300/2.8 F-mount works fine for me on both F and Z mount cameras, although it is heavy. The main advantage of a Z version would be that the use of an FL element could significantly lighten its weight. A second reason is that the VR on newer lenses tend to be more advanced and quieter. Finally, newer focus motors are also quieter and more precise. To me, images from 300 mm are at an aesthetic sweet spot. 

[ben_hutcherson]

2 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

Back in 1989, 1990, I bought both of the first-generation 80-200mm/f2.8 AF and that 300mm/f4 AF, both even before AF-D. Back then AF was primitive on my N8008 (F801) and F4. I sold those lenses many years ago.

Except for the 58mm/0.95 Noct, which is manual focus only, all other Z Nikkor lenses are focus by wire. There is no mechanical connection from the manual focus ring to the focus mechanism. The ring merely controls the AF motor.

I thought that was the case for Z lenses, but as of now don't have any Z system equipment(we'll see how long that lasts) so didn't know for sure. That certainly seems the way of the future. I've written before on here about using the Fuji X system and my reasons for going with that for now over Nikon mirrorless, but to my knowledge outside 3rd party manual focus lenses nothing has a direct connection. I have limited experience with Nikon AF-P F mount lenses, but my experience dictates that they're quite good and I'm sure Z mount is even better(especially in the better lenses). I normally leave manual focus over-ride on my X-T5 off because even touching the focusing ring and moving it an imperceptible amount kicks it into manual focus and it won't go back to AF unless you stop and restart focus. Some lenses-like my 56mm f/1.2-have fairly heavily damped rings, while the 16-80mm f/4 will move if you breath on it. If the Z mount works like I'm use to the F mount working with AF-S/AF-P, autofocus will resume as soon as you let go of the focus ring if you still have it active. Does this sound correct?

In any case, I think I see where @mike_halliwell is coming from. My 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 and 300mm f/2.8 VR1 are some of my fastest focusing lenses, and in general on my D5 or D850 especially, but really any newer higher end body, they will keep up well but it can still take them a second to re-orient if they lose focus completely(I remember you talking about having a D5, Shun, and I'm guessing you've probably had either these same lenses and or the older/newer variants of them). Both do have limiters on near focus, which can help re-acquire focus faster since you're not dealing with the whole range, but I'm often using them in situations where I need closer than the limiter allows. All my AF Macro lenses(now probably a kind of nutty number-the 60mm f/2.8D, 105mm f/2.8D, 200mm f/4D, and 105mm f/2.8 AF-S VR) have limiters, which of course can be especially helpful if you're doing non-macro work(and really frustrating if you're trying to use them as a macro lens and realize you've either left the limiter on or have bumped it by accident-super easy to do on the AF-D lenses in and out of the bag). That's doubly so on AF-D lenses since it takes a LOT of turns of the focus motor to get them all the way out.

It would seem, in my non-software engineer mind, to be able to specify a focus range on a focus by wire lens. In a hypothetical situation of something like a football game, it would make sense to me, for example, to restrict the range to the near and far ends of the field, or in wildlife for the furthest and closest distance you'd anticipate having reasonable framing. I suspect that was the whole idea behind the ring and lock screw on the old slow focusing first gen lenses paired with early AF bodies...

[mike_halliwell]

17 hours ago, ben_hutcherson said:

105mm f/2.8 AF-S VR

The very poor implementation of a focus limiter on a dedicated macro lens.... it's the wrong way around....🤣

... and how about the option of the lens' focus to move to MIN and not infinity if it loses lock! They all seem to go TO infinity... maddening for a macro lens. User defined direction should be easy to implement.

[Dieter Schaefer]

1 hour ago, mike_halliwell said:

The very poor implementation of a focus limiter on a dedicated macro lens.... it's the wrong way around....

Both my Tamron 90mm and my Sigma 150mm macro lens have focus limiters with three settings: just close-up (range from about 1 to 2 ft), from about 2ft to infinity, and finally full.

I don't have the Nikon 105VR pictured above - it's minimum focus distance is about 31cm, not 0.5m as the focus limiter seems to indicate. Isn't a third setting implied: if the focus distance is set to below 0.5m, isn't the AF then restricted to within 31cm and 0.5m?

[mike_halliwell]

11 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

Both my Tamron 90mm and my Sigma 150mm macro lens have focus limiters with three settings: just close-up (range from about 1 to 2 ft), from about 2ft to infinity, and finally full.

Yup, the right way, just like the newer 105mm Z macro..

[mike_halliwell]

13 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

Isn't a third setting implied

Implied, but not implemented AFAIK. There is no third position.

Position 1 (Full) is 0.31m > INF. (So MIN to MAX)

Position 2 INF - 0.5m. ie not BELOW 0.5m. It should read 0.5m > INF, but this format has always been used. Note it's the same on the Z macro... 0.5m-0.29m.

It should be MIN > 0.5m, but it isn't.

18 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

if the focus distance is set to below 0.5m

That's the point, you can't!

I sold mine as it was 'Chromatically' challenged, so can't check..... 🙁

[ben_hutcherson]

5 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

35 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

 

That's the point, you can't!

I sold mine as it was 'Chromatically' challenged, so can't check..... 🙁

I'll play with mine when I get a chance-maybe this evening.

BTW, more and more I seem to go back to older macro lenses. Lately my one of choice, wherever practical, has been the short mount 105mm f/4...which actually is a super useful and versatile lens(and I've mentioned in at least one thread) when used specifically on the PB4 bellows even if it's a bit clunky for non-macro use.

On the AF-D Micro lenses, the focus limiter is mechanical lock. It's a switch hanging off the side of the lens barrel that's also easy to snag going in and out of your bag...and I don't think it can be set if the lens is already focused closer than it would allow if on.

[mike_halliwell]

1 minute ago, ben_hutcherson said:

On the AF-D Micro lenses, the focus limiter is mechanical lock.

I guess there's some kind of electric limit switch to turn off the AF motor?

[ben_hutcherson]

24 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

I guess there's some kind of electric limit switch to turn off the AF motor?

Do you mean on the AF-D lenses?

There's no focus motor in them-they use the one in the body. They all use the "rotating barrel" design(that's what I call it-don't know if there's a better/official term). They have a nice, big, grippy focus ring that runs most of the length of the lens, but when the lens is in AF mode this ring is physically locked and can't be rotated. There's a push-button and collar(doesn't totally unlock the rotating VR switch on my 300 2.8...) that allows you to rotate most of the barrel a few degrees. Doing this does a few things-it decouples the focus mechanism from the in-body motor, couples the focus ring to the focus mechanism(unlocking it) and communicates to the body it's now in manual focus mode. I actually really like this design, and it was used on basically everything but moderately wide to short tele primes, as well as most of the better zooms, but I've also heard reports of people having issues with the ring stopping working or getting stuck.

It's definitely a big improvement over how it was done on the 180mm f/2.8 ED AF and 300mm f/4 AF(probably others, but just the two I have experience with). On those, you have to move a switch on the lens to engage the manual focus ring, and then use the body switch to turn off manual focus. If you just flip the body switch, you're left without any way to focus the lens, and if you use the lens switch you're either dragging the focus motor along(one of those screwdriver lens no-nos, although it's probably harder on the lens than the body) or if you activate AF the motor has to deal with the additional drag of moving the focus ring. That's not so good either since these have big, beefy focus rings normally and I'd be afraid it would burn out the AF motor if you did it for long.

BTW, too, on all of the "rotating barrel" lenses I've used that have a focus lock(at least one of the 80-200s I've had has it) the lock still works in manual focus.

I'm curious tonight to go home and try my 105 AF-S racked out to 1:1 and see what the lock switch does.

Did I mention though that I like the 105mm f/2.8 AF-D better, though? 🙂 Not only do I feel like it performs better, but I also feel like manual focus, which is super important to me on a macro lens, just feels better and I perceive it as more precise(whether it is or not). I'm not sure if the AF-S version uses a ring motor or not, but it honestly doesn't really feel like it to me. About its only redeeming quality for me to keep it is that I can do automated focus stacking with it on the D850.

[mike_halliwell]

20 minutes ago, ben_hutcherson said:

Do you mean on the AF-D lenses?

Yup, the in body motor.

There was always a view the mono bodies used much higher torque motors.

[ilkka_nissila]

The 105 AF Micro is a bit better in the macro/close-up range where the 105 VR displays excessive CA in the outer areas and doensn't feel quite as clean and crisp as one might hope for. But the 105 AF Micro is really hard to focus at portrait distances where the 105 VR is very good (both manual and AF). I found it impossible to get consistent focus from the older lens in applications involving human subjects (head shot to full body). The bokeh is nicer on the VR version. It just lacks the critical sharpness in the macro range that one would hope for. Opinions were mixed on the VR Micro at the time. The Z 105 MC I find to be excellent in every way. Bokeh, sharpness, CA, focus accuracy. But picking up initial focus can be challenging with mirrorless cameras if the initial focus is way off, so manual focus is often needed to get the system started. Then refine focus with AF. The Z MC has more precise focus shift stepping and maintains exposure more consistently across the series than the 105 VR in my experience. If you have the 105/2.8D AF Micro and use it in situations where it excels, there is no reason to not continue using it. 😉 

 

[ben_hutcherson]

On 10/13/2023 at 7:53 AM, mike_halliwell said:

Implied, but not implemented AFAIK. There is no third position.

Position 1 (Full) is 0.31m > INF. (So MIN to MAX)

Position 2 INF - 0.5m. ie not BELOW 0.5m. It should read 0.5m > INF, but this format has always been used. Note it's the same on the Z macro... 0.5m-0.29m.

It should be MIN > 0.5m, but it isn't.

Just for the sake of seeing what would happen, I racked mine(105 f/2.8G) out to 1:1 in-focus on a key on my keyboard then set the limiter switch. When I activated AF, it pretty quickly popped out of focus and drew back to the minimum distance.

[mike_halliwell]

1 hour ago, ben_hutcherson said:

popped out of focus and drew back to the minimum distance.

Really, the lens came 'back' to MIN?

[ben_hutcherson]

On 10/14/2023 at 1:12 PM, mike_halliwell said:

Really, the lens came 'back' to MIN?

Hopefully my phrasing conveyed what I was trying to say:

The focus limit switch on the lens is .5m-infinity.

On my D800, which is what I was using it on(actually used the set-up again yesterday to take some photos for a sales listing elsewhere-my 105 Bellows-Nikkor still looks better 🙂 ) I racked it out to 1:1 manually and put a keyboard key in focus. When I hit AF on, it actually popped out of focus and pulled back to the .5 meter setting.

[mike_halliwell]

There was 'gossip' of a 1000mm f8 PF.... 😉

Guess Nikon have got making these PF elements fully viable.