Weight says. “ 1,390g excluding the tripod collar and approx. 1,470g including the tripod collar.”
Wait a sec, 100-400mm is listed as 1435 g. What! Is this for real? No typo? If so, quite an amazing accomplishment.
I am not in the market for big lens, so this isn’t my interest for now, but love it when Nikon pushes the limit.
Now that most objective observers would agree that Sony, Nikon and Canon offer similar levels of AF performance, the lead Nikon has taken lens wise for wildlife is just incredible.
Add to that third party lenses support and the ability to adapt Sony glass and the picture is becoming crystal clear. Nikon is obviously the best possible option in the mirrorless world at the moment.
Oof, I was hoping for closer to to $4,000 for a 6.3. Pre-order is in to save a spot but I may have to wait this one out a bit, after taxes the cost is starting to inflate quickly…
BPsmith511 wrote:
Oof, I was hoping for closer to to $4,000 for a 6.3. Pre-order is in to save a spot but I may have to wait this one out a bit, after taxes the cost is starting to inflate quickly…
I feel the same way. The value for money might be a bit off here, considering that the 500mm f/5.6 PF is worth around $1700 used these days. I'm not certain I want to spend that much extra just to make it Mirrorless.
Now that most objective observers would agree that Sony, Nikon and Canon offer similar levels of AF performance, the lead Nikon has taken lens wise for wildlife is just incredible.
Add to that third party lenses support and the ability to adapt Sony glass and the picture is becoming crystal clear. Nikon is obviously the best possible option in the mirrorless world at the moment.
I guess the price is Nikon’s response to the 500/5.6 being sold out for months and months. They could have price it higher…and so now, they do. But there’s more competition this time.
It feels a bit overpriced to me. I thought it would be around $4,000.
johnvanatta wrote:
I guess the price is Nikon’s response to the 500/5.6 being sold out for months and months. They could have price it higher…and so now, they do. But there’s more competition this time.
Nikon1960 wrote:
I feel the same way. The value for money might be a bit off here, considering that the 500mm f/5.6 PF is worth around $1700 used these days. I'm not certain I want to spend that much extra just to make it Mirrorless.
robert_in_ca wrote:
It feels a bit overpriced to me. I thought it would be around $4,000.
That it would not be cheap, with at least a 4 in front, was to be expected.
US price I find still in range, close to 5k was the price I expected for the EU including VAT.
With VAT in the EU, however, it looks quite different.
€ 5799, or the equivalent of $ 6150 is damn hefty, if you consider that a new Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S PF is not much more, at least in the EU.
Surprisingly, it even comes with a gold ring + name plate, which is otherwise only the case with the Z 400/2.8 TC VR S, Z 600/4 TC VR S or the Z 800/6.3 VR S PF.
__
Theoretical MTF performance chart is absolutely impressive.
This also eliminated my consideration of possibly replacing my Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S + Z TC-1.4x at the long end.
That is twice as much as I paid for my Z 400/4.5 VR S including the Z TC-1.4x.
Still, impressive lens, especially since I know from experience with the 400/4.5+TC what a pleasure it is and how liberating it is to handle such a 600mm lightweight solution.
Weighs pretty much exactly the same as a 500PF without FTZ or the combination of Z 400/4.5 + Z TC-1.4x.
Steve Perry is an assuring beakon of down to earth reason when he says that he feels the lens should have been F5.6 instead of F6.3, before he, in good fashion, starts off on the reasoning routine so often seen lately to come up with arguments why F6.3 is too small of a difference to F5.6 to be noticable other than on paper.
But regardless of whether it matters to you, at this price I feel it shóuld have been F5.6. As it is now, it is a véry expensive 500PF replacement (Steve also calls it a 500PF replacement).
Summary: if you are rich on cash, the 600PF is a no brainer that maximizes IQ as long as F6.3 is not a limiting factor, and small and portable are paramount.
If you are not, it is a very expensive addition to the Z lens line to replace the 500PF.
Many people here on this forum were seemingly dying for a 600mm PF when the 500 PF came out, so let's see the images pop up from all your 600 PF's soon.
1/3 stop is really a small difference and this drop was probably necessary to keep the excellent handling of the lens similar to the 500 PF. A 600/5.6 with the physical length of the 600 PF would be quite stubby and wide, and I suspect less pleasant experience to shoot with due to the distribution of mass.
Or you can keep shooting with the 500 PF and realize it had the right spec to begin with. ;-)
