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

[mike_halliwell]

Maybe PF lenses bend the rules a little, by their very nature?

After all, those elements are a long way from single/simple lens theory...🤔

[joseph_smith3]

I just watched Steve Perry's 600mm pf tests video. I suggest that all users of tele lenses need to watch it as many of the points and comments made about the Nikon 600mm pf and other lenses made by Nikon " to get to 600mm " may also apply to newer lenses made by Sony, Canon and maybe other vendor too. My non tech summary--all are pretty sharp, even the zooms. If background rendering is your most important need, get the prime lens. If money (value for money spent) is your objective, get the zoom. I can see how some might need two 600mm lenses--the zoom for mammals, safaris and general wildlife and the prime for birds, blind shooting and background rendering. 

[mike_halliwell]

8 hours ago, joseph_smith3 said:

600mm pf tests video.

The 400mm 2.8 TC is ~ £10K in the UK.

I have the rather weighty 400mm 2.8 fl..

The 800mm 6.3 PF is ~ £6k, which I have, but it can be dark at times.

600mm PF is interesting.... 🤔

[ilkka_nissila]

22 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

The 400mm 2.8 TC is ~ £10K in the UK.

I have the rather weighty 400mm 2.8 fl..

The 800mm 6.3 PF is ~ £6k, which I have, but it can be dark at times.

600mm PF is interesting.... 🤔

It sounds like you already have an excellent kit. 😉 The 400/2.8 FL is quite a bit lighter than the VR 400/2.8G. 

The 600 PF isn't going to help with the darkness since in the same field of view it collects less light than the 800 PF (if you're going to have to crop, the 800 will produce a better result in terms of lower noise). If you can shoot without cropping by 3/4 or more, then the 600 would do well. If you need more light you need to either get the subject closer and use the 400/2.8 or use a 600/4. 😉 

I think the main reason to get a 600 PF in this case is simply to enjoy the small size and light weight.

I'm following with curiosity how people react to Canon's new 200-800/6.3-9. At 800mm, f/9 makes it a stop slower than the 800/6.3. I can't imagine working with such a small maximum aperture, but cropping 500/5.6 PF images to 800mm equivalent FOV, one is also getting depth of field and noise comparable to an f/9 lens, so it's not that it can't be used. I think it'll be OK for situations where the subject is not far away, small birds on a tree branch etc. At long distances I get the feeling that the results probably wouldn't be all that good.

[Dieter Schaefer]

13 minutes ago, ilkka_nissila said:

At 800mm, f/9 makes it a stop slower than the 800/6.3. I can't imagine working with such a small maximum aperture

f/9 is were one ends up when adding the 1.4x TC to a 600/6.3 or 800/6.3 creating lenses 840/9 and 1120/9, respectively. I have used the 800/1.4x combo and it works OK as long as it isn't too dark out. So attaching a 1.4x to the 600/6.3 or the 180-600/5.6-6.3 evens things out with the Canon zoom at the long end.

[ilkka_nissila]

On 11/4/2023 at 11:04 PM, Dieter Schaefer said:

f/9 is were one ends up when adding the 1.4x TC to a 600/6.3 or 800/6.3 creating lenses 840/9 and 1120/9, respectively. I have used the 800/1.4x combo and it works OK as long as it isn't too dark out. So attaching a 1.4x to the 600/6.3 or the 180-600/5.6-6.3 evens things out with the Canon zoom at the long end.

That's true, at 800mm f/9 is no worse than other lightweight options either with cropping or TC to achieve 800mm FOV, and quite possibly the new lens will be better than using a TC or crop on a shorter lens at least image-quality wise. But still, you need quite a lot of light to photograph a moving subject or one that is capable of moving. I was photographing a blackbird on the forest floor with the 100-400. What's great is the silence of the camera (Z8) so it seems the animals are less afraid to come closer. It was also easy to hold the lens close to the ground. However, at f/5.6 I was at 1/400s and ISO around 2000. When the bird caught a worm, I was trying to shoot but the action always happened so fast that I didn't get any sharp pics of the worm in the bird's beak. They all had motion blur. Now, in order to freeze the motion in this case probably at least 1/2000s would be needed. In that case I would be at ISO 10000 at f/5.6 and with an f/9 lens, ISO 25600. Image quality isn't going to be great at that setting. So, in practice one needs to shoot a lot of frames and hopefully a fairly sharp action shot is captured. Working with a shorter lens one would then likely need a hide to get close enough but then the faster aperture could be used to get the shot at a lower ISO. I'll try that at some point.