As a guy that like to travel more than photograph birds.. This thing ticks all the boxes for me.
I cannot even imagine traveling with a 600mm lens smaller , lighter , and cheaper then the 400 DO II.. Wow.
gkinard1952 wrote:
As a guy that like to travel more than photograph birds.. This thing ticks all the boxes for me.
I cannot even imagine traveling with a 600mm lens smaller , lighter , and cheaper then the 400 DO II.. Wow.
Yup .. the size and weight of this lens is what it's all about. Still pricey , but on a long day of hiking the weight savings may be priceless.
“The value proposition isn’t there at $4800” crowd is amusing. Watching Steve’s video comparing 600 at 5.6 and 6.3, the difference in bokeh is nearly meaningless. The difference in light gathering is nearly meaningless.
Feel free to go spend $12,000 on a F4 that is difficult to travel with, difficult to handhold, etc. or feel free to go to another brand that offers such a lens as the 600/6.3…oh wait.
There will be sales. There will be used copies. There will be returbs. Don’t be dramatic.
I am also expecting the bottom to fall out of the used 500 PF market, as folks divest those for this. Lots of good options.
If only I live in Florida…
Perfect traveling lens where you don’t have to think about if your camera bag will fit in the overhead compartment. That’s the headache of my f4 birding lenses.
this is me wrote:
If only I live in Florida…
Perfect traveling lens where you don’t have to think about if your camera bag will fit in the overhead compartment. That’s the headache of my f4 birding lenses.
Yeah, hard to imagine. I could throw this in my backpack, travel to exciting new places ,and when I want to go birding Have a lens that is ready and waiting without even thinking about it. Depending on availability and where I am at the time. I can see this as being the lens that has me dumping Canon for good.
I was waiting for a 500mm PF Z-mount. I've got a 500mm PF that I like a lot, but I still find the adapter to be fiddly, most especially when using a teleconverter. The size, though, is so amazing when traveling.
The fact that this 600mm is essentially the same size (if I include the FTZ), and actually lighter, than the 500mm PF is nuts. Right now the 500pf is doing well enough for me that I'll hold onto it, but I'm going to be awfully tempted to go back on that when bonus time rolls around. Will all of you fine folks do your best to make sure this lens is sold out by then?
Am excited that Nikon came out with another PF lens, the newly announced one is a 600mm 6.3 PF. At first I was surprised that the price was a bit higher than expected, but not a deal breaker. But the 6.3 f stop on a 600mm PF lens is a disappointment, have used the Z800mm 6.3 for 6 months almost exclusively and am very familiar with its low light limitations even with the Z9 attached, the Z600mm 6.3 PF will be the same as the Z800mm 6.3 as far as low light capability. The Z 600mm 6.3 is very light at about 3lbs, very compact at about 11' in length and can take screw on filters, all these are a plus. But it will still have the same low light limitations. Certainly will be easy to carry and pack, easier find a moving subject that a 800mm and a great overall focal length. For example at 20 yards with an 800mm you would need to photograph a Red-shouldered Hawk in portrait with wings at its side. Am certain Nikon could have built the Z 600mm PF with focus on the quality of the image, which is what I expect from Nikon. I was expecting to order this lens immediately and am now balking, but probably will.
Vinnie_VdB wrote:
Yawn. We are talking about a Z mount lens and your argument is a DSLR ... We get it, it doesn't fit.
It's a valid point affecting the value proposition of these two lenses for those users who use both mounts. And given the prices of second hand F-mount equipment currently there will be a lot of users who continue to see value there.
This 600mm PF has piqued my interest in Nikon now. I could easily make the swap without incurring costs with a Z8, 14-24mm, 24-200mm, 100-400mm, and 500mm PF.
Pity Canon didn't take advantage of the DO and the price
robinlee wrote:
This 600mm PF has piqued my interest in Nikon now. I could easily make the swap without incurring costs with a Z8, 14-24mm, 24-200mm, 100-400mm, and 500mm PF.
Pity Canon didn't take advantage of the DO and the price
If Canon had brought this to the market they would have charged 15K up. The " Do we cheat them and how " company in photography.
Regarding price and usability, I think the lens is priced in line with the "mid-level" telephoto primes Nikon offers for the Z-mount.
The 400mm f4.5S is $3300US, the 600 f6.3S is $4700US, and the 800 f6.3S is $6600US. There seems to be a level of great parity, as each lens increases by 200mm w/ increasingly complex formulas and design. For those looking for a $3500 600mm prime lens... what are you thinking?
To be clear, Nikon now has multiple ways of getting to 600mm at a very wide range of pricing... 180-600 (lowest), used 500PF w/ 1.4x... (the best bargain price), 400 f4.5 w/1.4x, 600PF, and 600 f4. All of these options are capable.
As the owner of a Z8, Z9, 400 f4.5, 800PF, 1.4x who still needs to crop for many compositions, a $4500 600mm lens makes little sense to me... however, were I to be entering the Nikon Z system today, I would have saved a $hit ton of money... I think a pair of Z8s, 24-120 f4, 100-400S, and 600PF would be an amazing Nature photographer kit that could fit in a relatively small camera bag!
Kudos to Nikon for listening to their consumers and looking for ways to compete and expand their market. As of this point, neither Sony nor Canon come close when it comes to the price to performance ratio.
regards,
bruce
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.
It's hard for me because I already have the 100-400 and 1.x4 TC, so if I went 500 PF I'd have to also get an F-Mount Tc which seems bit much for me.
The main problem I have is the number of large purchases coming up; A Z8 is definitely next to come as soon as I get back from next trip. Realistically a Z8 and 600PF would settle my kit for quite some time, however with several large trips coming up in the next 12 months I'm debating if it's wise to hold off on a $5000 after tax lens purchase until next year or so, and make due/hone my skills with the the 100-400.
The 500 PF made a ton of sense on the D500. Not so much on a full frame Z by time you add an FTZ and an F mount 1.4x TC (which are seemingly worse IQ than the Z models).
If you're budget constrained it's still a great option to get to 700mm on full frame.
RoamingScott wrote:
The 500 PF made a ton of sense on the D500. Not so much on a full frame Z by time you add an FTZ and an F mount 1.4x TC (which are seemingly worse IQ than the Z models).
If you're budget constrained it's still a great option to get to 700mm on full frame.
Today, I'll post images on FM that prove that images from the Z8/FTZ/TC14II(not III) and 500PF are tack sharp.
Edit: Here is the link from the Z8/Z9 thread about 6 weeks ago. imo, the performance is remarkable.
This 600 PF is a very exciting lens! It starts with the lack of weight.
I've come to value a very light supertele more than I do the versatility of a zoom.
These PF's are in a class by themselves. Still do not understand why other manufacturers have not started developing/offering them.
This lens checks ALL the boxes for professional grade.
Regarding the 6.3, who cares? If it was 5.6 it would be too heavy. And with these mirrorless bodies I'll bet that even with a 1.4 it will be tack sharp.
Robert
Edit: If I did not already have the 500PF and know its performance with a TC14 on the Z8/Z9 I would order this 600PF now. Exciting lens !
Good points Bruce. With the amount of traveling I am doing I am considering the 600 PF but I am not sure.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Regarding price and usability, I think the lens is priced in line with the "mid-level" telephoto primes Nikon offers for the Z-mount.
The 400mm f4.5S is $3300US, the 600 f6.3S is $4700US, and the 800 f6.3S is $6600US. There seems to be a level of great parity, as each lens increases by 200mm w/ increasingly complex formulas and design. For those looking for a $3500 600mm prime lens... what are you thinking?
To be clear, Nikon now has multiple ways of getting to 600mm at a very wide range of pricing... 180-600 (lowest), used 500PF w/ 1.4x... (the best bargain price), 400 f4.5 w/1.4x, 600PF, and 600 f4. All of these options are capable.
As the owner of a Z8, Z9, 400 f4.5, 800PF, 1.4x who still needs to crop for many compositions, a $4500 600mm lens makes little sense to me... however, were I to be entering the Nikon Z system today, I would have saved a $hit ton of money... I think a pair of Z8s, 24-120 f4, 100-400S, and 600PF would be an amazing Nature photographer kit that could fit in a relatively small camera bag!
Kudos to Nikon for listening to their consumers and looking for ways to compete and expand their market. As of this point, neither Sony nor Canon come close when it comes to the price to performance ratio.
regards,
bruce ...Show more →
bs kite wrote:
This 600 PF is a very exciting lens! It starts with the lack of weight.
I've come to value a very light supertele more than I do the versatility of a zoom.
These PF's are in a class by themselves. Still do not understand why other manufacturers have not started developing/offering them.
This lens checks ALL the boxes for professional grade.
Regarding the 6.3, who cares? If it was 5.6 it would be too heavy. And with these mirrorless bodies I'll bet that even with a 1.4 it will be tack sharp.
Robert
Depends what too heavy is. I would have liked a 600 F5 at 1900-2000 grams a lot more than this, but that is just me. If you already have a 500 5.6 or the 400 4.5 I just struggle to understand how this lens is worth spending 4800 on as it does not differentiate from existing lenses much.
