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

[ilkka_nissila]

1 hour ago, mike_halliwell said:

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

Guess Nikon have got making these PF elements fully viable.

Hmm, was that published somewhere?

 

It seems, looking at the prices of the 800/6.3 PF vs. the 800/5.6 FL (or Canon's RF 800/5.6), PF elements offer a much more economical way of making highly corrected supertelephoto lenses than fluorite. However, Nikon's 800/5.6 FL is still better in terms of MTF than the current f/6.3 PF. But perhaps the difference is less important to many users than the improvement in handling and transportability.

[ilkka_nissila]

Here is a hands-on evaluation:

 

 

[ShunCheung]

Nikon is now distributing this new 600mm PF to camera stores today, 26 October 2023.

[mike_halliwell]

3 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

Here is a hands-on evaluation:

Very nice!

Interesting that most of the final images were cropped from 600mm to very roughly 800mm.

Immensely useful to show the final degree of cropping chosen and the post processing.

But, why not use the 800mm PF? Same aperture, so same available shutter speed etc, but 'only' ~ 2Lbs heavier and 100mm longer?

600mm PF @ £5K (too new for grey!) v 800mm PF @ £6K (£4.5K grey!!) .... Hummmm???

Still think it's interesting that the 180-600mm is no faster/slower at 600mm.

f6.3 is the new black!

Makes the Canon RF100-500mm f7.1 seem stuck in the stone age....but it is 1/2 the price... 🙂

[ShunCheung]

1 hour ago, mike_halliwell said:

But, why not use the 800mm PF? Same aperture, so same available shutter speed etc, but 'only' ~ 2Lbs heavier and 100mm longer?

600mm PF @ £5K (too new for grey!) v 800mm PF @ £6K (£4.5K grey!!) .... Hummmm???

As far as I know, the 800mm PF is 200mm longer than the 600mm PF. 😀  For small birds, the 800mm is probably the better lens, but it can be too long sometimes. When the lens is a little short, you can always crop, but not the other way around.

But I think the main difference is that the 800mm PF is rather heavy, and it does cost more although it probably provides better value.

[mike_halliwell]

278mm v 385mm by Roland's reckoning.....so make that 107mm.

Hood length maybe?

[mike_halliwell]

5 minutes ago, ShunCheung said:

As far as I know, the 800mm PF is 200mm longer than the 600mm PF. 😀

By FL maybe, but...

278mm v 385mm by Roland's reckoning.....so make that 107mm.

😇

[ilkka_nissila]

The 600 PF is smaller and lighter and so it should be less fatiguing to use than the 800. I consider this to be the main attraction of the 600 PF.

 

The 600 PF focuses reportedly about twice as fast from MFD to infinity than the 180-600. Another attractive characteristic.

 

Finding and keeping a bird in flight in the frame during a sequence should also be easier with the slightly shorter and much smaller lens.

 

If you want to carry and cover a range of focal lengths, the size and weight of the largest lens can make a big difference to overall portability of the set. If you carry camping gear as well, even more so.

[mike_halliwell]

10 minutes ago, ilkka_nissila said:

The 600 PF is smaller and lighter and so it should be less fatiguing to use than the 800. I consider this to be the main attraction of the 600 PF.

A kilo is both big and small...!

But, if you're nearly always going to crop the 600mm PF to 800mm PF FOV........... 1000gm is worth it

 

[ShunCheung]

Prior to the 800mm PF, I had never owned any lens longer than 600mm, and I never went beyond 500mm until about 10 years ago when I bought a 600mm/f4. In a lot of ways, 800mm can be an overkill. I am sure that the 600mm/f6.3 PF is much easier to carry. However, that new lens is now immediately in stock at B&H. To me, that is fairly surprising for a PF lens. It looks like Nikon is indeed introducing too many long tele now. E.g. after getting the 800mm PF and then the 400/4.5 within the last 11 months, I don't have much appetite to get yet another long lens. Moreover, used value for the F-mount 500mm/f5.6 PF is now around or below US$2000. That is a lens that was once in really high demand 3, 4 years ago. In a way it is difficult for the $4800 600/6.3 PF to compete against as a used 500 PF is of much much better value.

[roland_vink]

The 500 PF has closer focus relative to the focal length compared to the other compact Z telephotos, giving higher magnification at the close limit. This should be useful for photographing small creatures. I also like that the max aperture is a "whole stop" value (and adding a 1.4x TC will give a very nice 700/8). I know it shouldn't really make a difference but I like "round" numbers 🙂. Lastly, the 500PF is compatible with F mount and Z mount via the FTZ adaptor, so overall is a more versatile lens. If I were to buy telephoto, this would be my first choice.

[ilkka_nissila]

9 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

Prior to the 800mm PF, I had never owned any lens longer than 600mm, and I never went beyond 500mm until about 10 years ago when I bought a 600mm/f4. In a lot of ways, 800mm can be an overkill. I am sure that the 600mm/f6.3 PF is much easier to carry. However, that new lens is now immediately in stock at B&H. To me, that is fairly surprising for a PF lens. It looks like Nikon is indeed introducing too many long tele now. E.g. after getting the 800mm PF and then the 400/4.5 within the last 11 months, I don't have much appetite to get yet another long lens. Moreover, used value for the F-mount 500mm/f5.6 PF is now around or below US$2000. That is a lens that was once in really high demand 3, 4 years ago. In a way it is difficult for the $4800 600/6.3 PF to compete against as a used 500 PF is of much much better value.

This time it is the 180-600 which is reported to be in short supply; when the 200-500 came out it was quite quickly available in large quantities but stores seem to only be able to supply the first preorders now. 

I think the 180-600 is getting a lot of orders because it was on the roadmap (initially as 200-600) for a long time and people were ready to buy it, while the 600 PF came as a suprise, and it may take some time for people to get used to the idea. Even though when the 500 PF came to the market there were people who said they wanted a 600 PF but now that there is one, it doesn't seem the demand is as high. I always thought the 500 PF hit a sweet spot of handling.

I got the 100-400 instead of the 180-600 because I prefer the removable tripod foot design (rather than removable collar) and some reviews have been complaining about the smoothness of the 180-600's collar and saying that it is too narrow which matches my visual perception of it based on images. I am happy with the 100-400's mechanical quality, it seems very well made. I plan on doing quite a bit of landscape photography with it and in wintertime especially, stability at slow shutter speeds is essential. Image quality appears to be good as well. The center of gravity shift when zooming is minimal and no rebalancing seems to be needed between focal lengths when using a fluid head. Autofocus of the 100-400 is a bit less snappy than with faster lenses that I have used, but it's not slow, it just seems to hesitate a bit more in low light. Images have been in focus so that hesitation so far didn't translate into any worse results. I set the focus limiter to "3 m to infinity" because it would be unusual that I'd use that lens at shorter distances than 3 m, and it may speed up the focus acquisition a bit. I like the fact that the 100-400 is about the same size as the 70-200 and so it fits in the same bag slot without having to reconfigure the padding to take a larger lens. I think the focal range of 100-400 is a good fit for landscape details but also some outdoor events such as concerts where I may need a whole-band view in addition to close-ups and the 100-400 can do both, while a 180-600 or a 400/4.5 would necessitate lens switching to go from the close-up to the whole-stage view. These considerations led to the lens choice. I guess if I need a longer focal length in the future the 600 PF can nicely complement this lens, but for now my applications do not require it. The 600 PF and 800 PF are clearly bird photographers' lenses and when I was doing that for a few years I found it was so time-consuming it meant I wasn't doing my other subjects justice, and I didn't want that. I guess that's one of the advantages of the 180-600: you can get close-ups of birds etc. but don't have to commit to only getting portraits; it would be easy to zoom out and show the animal in its environment, or a group of animals with that lens. Still, I have no doubt the 600 PF will find its users over time.

Edited October 27, 2023 by ilkka_nissila

[mike_halliwell]

8 hours ago, roland_vink said:

I know it shouldn't really make a difference but I like "round" numbers 🙂

I get the same.....👍

A friend of mine questioned the 400mm f4.5. Was that like f4 and a half, as in four point five or what.... ie half way to the next stop being f5.6?

Decimals of inches is another mess! A surveyor friend of mine once showed me a measuring staff divided into 1/10s of feet. How to make a 'Black Art' out of something simple!

Anyone tried putting their Z8 on shutter speeds to avoid high speed flicker, you get some real weird numbers then!! I thought I'd broken it....🤣

[mike_halliwell]

On 10/24/2023 at 10:25 AM, ilkka_nissila said:

Hmm, was that published somewhere?

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/nikon-designs-new-phase-fresnel-lenses-including-a-1000mm-f8

Although, admittedly the 400mm 4.5 PF and 600mm 5.6 PF were wrong...... 😢

Edited October 27, 2023 by mike_halliwell

[Dieter Schaefer]

4 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

This time it is the 180-600 which is reported to be in short supply; when the 200-500 came out it was quite quickly available in large quantities but stores seem to only be able to supply the first preorders now. 

I think the 180-600 is getting a lot of orders because it was on the roadmap (initially as 200-600) for a long time and people were ready to buy it, while the 600 PF came as a suprise, and it may take some time for people to get used to the idea. Even though when the 500 PF came to the market there were people who said they wanted a 600 PF but now that there is one, it doesn't seem the demand is as high. I always thought the 500 PF hit a sweet spot of handling.

The timing of the 600PF release appears somewhat off to me following so closely to the release of the 180-600.

13 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

In a lot of ways, 800mm can be an overkill.

If I was still at my old stomping grounds in California, I'd agree with that. However, here in Maine, 800mm comes in very handy. While I like the size and weight of both the 400/4.5 and 600PF, I will stick to my 300PF and 500PF for a while longer. Not the least because I can use them on both F-mount and Z-mount bodies and both work quite well using the FTZII on the Z9. The 400 would not quite match some of the applications I use the 300 for now and the 500PF to me seems like a better fit in my lens lineup than the 600PF (which to me feels like too close to the 800).

Before mirrorless and the smaller and lighter teles we can get now, 500/4 was a sweet spot because it was the longest focal length one could comfortably travel with; 600/4 and 800/5.6 were exotic behemoths destined to spend most of their time on tripods and close to home or a car. Nowadays, the price of the latest superteles puts them out of reach for many and I applaud Nikon for finally reading the market right and bring out a very good selection of "relatively affordable" lenses that even many pros will add to their bag when they tire of carrying the 400/2.8 and/or 600/4.

[roland_vink]

On 10/27/2023 at 9:46 PM, mike_halliwell said:

I get the same.....👍

A friend of mine questioned the 400mm f4.5. Was that like f4 and a half, as in four point five or what.... ie half way to the next stop being f5.6?

f4.5 is 1/3 stop slower than f/4. I guess this became a popular aperture because it looks "round" and not too slow.

f/5 is 2/3 stop slower than f/4. I remember Olympus made a 200/5 lens, there might be others but it is not a common speed for lenses.

The true halfway point between F/4 and F/5.6 is F/4.8 (or more accurately, f/4.76). Note that f/5.6 should really be f/5.66, which if rounded correctly would be f/5.7, but f/5.6 looks nicer ... rounder 🙂

[ilkka_nissila]

I suspect the 180-600's demand is so high that it'll take a long time for Nikon to supply all the lenses, and so the 600 PF may have been launched without roadmaps or development announcements to alleviate this demand for the zoom. If the 800 PF demand has been largely satisfied by supply, they probably had extra PF manufacturing capacity which does not take away from the making of the 180-600's but can perhaps reduce the demand on the zoom, even if only slightly.  The price of the zoom is largely set by competitive pressure while the 600 PF doesn't have direct competition from other manufacturers so Nikon could price it higher.

 

I am not convinced that professionals buy the majority of 400/2.8's and 600/4's. It seems a lot of these lenses are purchased by financially well-off amateur photographers who don't have to think twice about the price. Professional photographers working for newspapers could in the past as staff photographers use their employers' lenses and so the costs could be managed because they had so much use for those lenses (used by several staff photographers), but then they let go of most staff photographers and contract them as freelancers who have to own their own lenses, and this probably severely cuts the demand of these expensive lenses as far as the sports photography and photojournalism are concerned. Many of these freelancer sports specialists have moved to other sources of income because the fees from sports images are now so low. What surprises me is how much the built-in TC appears to increase the cost of these lenses, and I have to wonder if including these TCs helps Nikon's bottom line or hurts it. I can see that if the cost is no issue, it can be very convenient, but are there many people to whom the cost is no issue? Canon and Sony did not put TCs on theirs, although Canon has a long history of built-in TCs in their TV lenses and also the 200-400/4.

 

Anyway I was getting familiar with my 100-400 Z and noticed on several occasions that while the AF is very solid, silent and quick in bright daylight, in more challenging conditions such as twilight (airplanes taking off from lit runways while there is still some natural light), in overcast conditions it can hunt a bit in situations where I would not see hunting with the 70-200/2.8 or (adapted) 300/2.8. I'm wondering if this happens with the 600 PF as while it has a slightly smaller aperture, it has reported to have faster focusing than the Z long zooms such as the 100-400 and 180-600, and PF lenses are known for excellent correction of LoCA (which can be a source of hunting as the different colors focus in different planes). I recall the 500 PF being a very consistent autofocuser in all conditions where I used it in, though ripples in water could throw off any lens I suppose, if not getting to a low enough angle. I suspect the 600 PF might shine in its autofocus performance because of this. But the smaller maximum aperture does make me wonder if that could be a problem. It'll be interesting to see how first users comment on the autofocus though I suppose relatively few people will own both a 180-600 and 600 PF at the same time.

 

Some have said that they'd buy the 600 PF if it had been f/5.6 and not f/6.3, but I suspect Nikon chose the more practical option with the slightly smaller maximum aperture to keep the width of the lens reasonable. A short and wide fronted 600/5.6 would probably be quite front heavy for a modern lens. But perception that the same specs can be had for 1/3 of the money in the 180-600 may affect sales.

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by ilkka_nissila

[mike_halliwell]

The only issues I've had with the longer, slower Nikon Z lenses, is that if the AF is way off, in dim light, it 'freezes' until I yank it closer to true focus.

The Phase Detect still feels behind that of the D500/D850 bodies.

Regarding the f5.6 v f6.3, that's a 1/3 of a stop, so the difference in shutter speed or ISO to 'remedy' the loss is minimal.

Bokeh/OOF highlights won't be much different. Sure, you can see a whole stop, but 1/3 really?

Regarding Nikon PF lenses in general, I noticed that NXStudio has a tick-box for PF Flair Control under Lens Corrections..... Never noticed it before.

[ilkka_nissila]

15 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

Regarding Nikon PF lenses in general, I noticed that NXStudio has a tick-box for PF Flair Control under Lens Corrections..... Never noticed it before.

PF flare is a specific phenomena where there are colorful rings around a bright spot in the image.

https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000044675&configured=1&lang=fi

[mike_halliwell]

8 minutes ago, ilkka_nissila said:

colorful rings around a bright spot in the image.

Thanks for that. Here's the same article in English..

https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000044675&configured=1&lang=en_GB

🙂

[mike_halliwell]

What I do get sometimes when using a PF lens is strong veiling flare when the sun is low, but out of frame.

Fairly easy to correct in post with the various de-haze, clarity or clearview sliders available in your chosen NEF convertor.

[mike_halliwell]

Steve Perry's latest testing. 

 

[roland_vink]

I just realized a 600mm lens with f/6.3 aperture requires an entrance pupil (at infinity) of 600/6.3 = 95.2mm - that is larger than the filter size! Judging from the photos of the 600 PF and 180-600, there is a retaining ring around the front element inside the filter threads, so the overall diameter can't be more than about 91-92mm.

I think they cheated a bit on the focal length or aperture - either the focal length is either closer to 580mm, or the max aperture is closer to f/6.5, or some combination of both 🙄

[ShunCheung]

4 hours ago, roland_vink said:

I just realized a 600mm lens with f/6.3 aperture requires an entrance pupil (at infinity) of 600/6.3 = 95.2mm - that is larger than the filter size! Judging from the photos of the 600 PF and 180-600, there is a retaining ring around the front element inside the filter threads, so the overall diameter can't be more than about 91-92mm.

I think they cheated a bit on the focal length or aperture - either the focal length is either closer to 580mm, or the max aperture is closer to f/6.5, or some combination of both 🙄

I am sure there are some “round off errors.” But it is close enough.

[ilkka_nissila]

9 hours ago, roland_vink said:

I just realized a 600mm lens with f/6.3 aperture requires an entrance pupil (at infinity) of 600/6.3 = 95.2mm - that is larger than the filter size! Judging from the photos of the 600 PF and 180-600, there is a retaining ring around the front element inside the filter threads, so the overall diameter can't be more than about 91-92mm.

I think they cheated a bit on the focal length or aperture - either the focal length is either closer to 580mm, or the max aperture is closer to f/6.5, or some combination of both 🙄

Right, but the same is true of the 180-600mm and Sony 200-600mm. If Nikon produce a lens and market it with the correct specs without any small rounding errors and stick to the (fairly) practical 95mm filter thread, it will be perceived as inferior to the competitor's product (because the focal length is shorter and aperture smaller). If they increase the filter diameter, people will scream murder. So they decide to play along. It could be 590mm f/6.4 and still pretty close to the marketed specs.