Darrellhar
Well-known member
The Canon 85 f1.2 is huge as well. Once you get to 1.2 you can pretty much assume it going to be huge. Just look at the Z 50mm 1.2. Its a monster as well
Z Roadmap 20Sept 2022, Nikon brochures
- Thread starter fcotterill
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Yes -
Max. diameter x length (mm) 91.5 x 84.0 and Weight (g) 1025
My guess for the Nikon Z-mount version is as follows - the smaller Z-mount flange depth means the z- lens would be longer and heavier than the Canon
| Lens Model | Aperture Range | Sensor | Type | VR | Length (mm) | Diameter (mm) | Weight (g) | Filter Size | MFD (CM) |
| NIKKOR Z 85mm f/1.2 S | 1.2-16 | FX | P | No | 99.0 | 75.00 | 1,090 | 82 | 80 |
Chris K
Well-known member
The roadmap shows it 7.5% wider than the Noct, and as long as a 24-70/2.8S. That puts it at 110mm diameter and 126mm long. Assuming the silhouette ends up being accurate. Not all of them have.
FWIW, the EF 85/1.2 II is 92x84. The RF 85/1.2 is 103x117.
FWIW, the EF 85/1.2 II is 92x84. The RF 85/1.2 is 103x117.
wonder if a 200-600 S would be constant aperture. Could be a replacement for the 180-400 FX lens.
Missing a replacement for the 180-400 F/4 and possibly a 120-300 F/2.8, a favorite among wildlife photographers
Wonder if nikon is holding back announcement until they have produced a couple millionThe number of people, like me, lusting for the 200-600 must be humongous! I reckon to order on the announcement day, you’d be lucky to get it in 2024.
copies of this lens or atleast a goodly number to help meet initial demand
John Navitsky
Well-known member
yah, i'd be interested in a fast zoom that fills in between 200-400.
Chris K
Well-known member
To be honest I'm surprised Nikon hasn't just adapted the lens mount on the 120-300 to Z and sold it as-is. My hypothesis is that engineer's pride is winning over marketer's quarterly results for the reticence to re-pack existing standouts. (The 105/1.4 is another one.)
John Navitsky
Well-known member
personally i'm glad. i don't want a z-mount version unless they take the time to do it right. if i wanted the existing 120-300 i could just use it with the FTZ. when it arrives as a z-mount s-line lens, i want it to be with them taking full advantage of the z-mount and be the best lens they could build... today. and so far, it looks like that's what they've been doing with all the s-line glass.
the wider lens mount and shorter flange distance allows lens designer a lot more opportunity to improve IQ. I would be surprised if Nikon would retrofit an FX lens with a Z mount
Chris K
Well-known member
I agree, I like my new Z lens designs.
I'm still surprised they haven't re-packaged some of their more standout lenses. It's not like a 105/1.4 or 120-300/2.8 wouldn't still be considered fantastic lenses if they were F mount lenses in Z clothing. They're letting money go and make the system look more sparse, and (presumably) produce better lenses, later.
If they wanted to cash in, they could release a Z 120-300/2.8, and turn around in a couple years to produce a "Mk II" model that's a native Z design.
I'm still surprised they haven't re-packaged some of their more standout lenses. It's not like a 105/1.4 or 120-300/2.8 wouldn't still be considered fantastic lenses if they were F mount lenses in Z clothing. They're letting money go and make the system look more sparse, and (presumably) produce better lenses, later.
If they wanted to cash in, they could release a Z 120-300/2.8, and turn around in a couple years to produce a "Mk II" model that's a native Z design.
I'd add the Nikon Investor Relations site as a good source of information for those that are used to reading such reports. The 19 page presentation at the end of May (early June posting) was particularly good at spelling out exactly what Nikon sees in the industry and is planning to do. For example, they clearly state they are exiting the entry camera market by 2025 and will continue to sell DSLR cameras and lenses beyond that point. Furthermore the investment community will hold them accountable for delivering on financial results and government authorities ensure they are truthful in their statements.
Why is the 200-600 so late? Just imagine all the lenses Nikon would not sell if they introduced a 200-600 as good or better than the SONY 200-600 early.
It's pointless to deliver the 200-600 without the enthusiast action camera (expected this fall). I'm not sure how much Covid and supply chain issues have changed the release schedule. Nikon has been very thoughtful about the schedule for cameras and lenses. Everything is being sequenced with intent.
Darrellhar
Well-known member
I don’t agree that it would be pointless now. I’m sure there are a ton of Z9 owners that will be in line for one. I’m one of them. Unlike $6500 flagships of before I think there are a lot that jumped on Z9 at $5500 that wouldn’t have if it was $6500 and aren’t willing or able to spend a lot more for exotic glass. I’m one of them as well.
We are all guessing though so who knows. Nikon isn’t known as a great marketing company though so who knows what their reasons are.
The FL of these is too short for wildlife on an FX body. The much lighter and cheaper Z100-400 and Z70-200 does the job for most folk. I use both handheld for hawks in flight.
Indoor sports/action is probably the target for these - but the Z100-400 is a very popular lens for sports shooters. As is the 300/2.8.
The Z400/2.8TC for pro-shooters for outdoor sports working for desks (who own the gear). The ability to reach 560mm/4.0 almost instantly is cool.
I had the 200-400/4G VRII in 2015/2016, but sold it as I moved on to big primes (400/2.8 and 600/4.0) and so I skipped past the 180-400 when it came out. I never go to try it. I did try the 120-300/2.8 - but it is a monster with a monsterous price - a 7¼ pound beast - that is not a direction of travel I believe Nikon would go towards.
Maybe if they could halve its weight with multiple FL glass elements, but $10-12k would be a low guess for the price. And that is tough. It will be "what are the big sports desks buying in bulk for their shooters"? The world cup 400mm/2.8TC is a perfect choice, together with a 100-400 and wider angle zoom.
The new 600mm/4.0TC seems too long for association football for me. This is the pro-wildlife shooters lens of choice. 600/4 which turns into an 840/5.6 - so cool. AND so not cheap.
That sounds logical. I hope you are correct,.
Eric you are being unusually harsh - I hope all is ok.
Now as to the 200-600 -- I expect this lens to have performance levels close to the 200-500 and NOT the 200-400 or 180-400.
As a result it can be expected to cost a similar amount. For sure the 200-600 as a none s-line lens will be cheaper than is it were built to s-line performance - so it could come in at 100-400 money or less. At $1,2576 the 200-500 was a "steal". The 100-400 is $2,697. I am guessing $1,998 (Sony price) to $2,500 for this lens.
Sure it will get a Z-mount bump/improvement - larger diameter mount, typically slightly better glass, but it is not expected to be an S-line and so will not perform as well as S-line lenses. The 200-600 will therefore probably be an f/5.6-6.3 AND not perform as well as the 100-400 -- it can be expected to be slower to focus, have a variable aperture and be softer on the edges. It probably will use more plastic in its build and have less functions buttons/rings/displays on the body. It certainly will not have a VR on-off switch.
Currently only the NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR and NIKKOR Z 28-75mm f/2.8 are FX Zoom lenses that are are not S-line. And when compared to the NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S, NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S, or NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S the "scale" of these difference can be seen. This is a simple Price -vs- performance equation.
As a result, and as usual I took a line time to get here, the 200-600 is perfect for all Z-mount bodies in the Nikon line-up from the Z30 to the Z9.
You view it is pointless without... is unusually poorly thought through. I woul dhave agreed with you if this was the same build and quality as the 180-400/4.0 - but then it could cost @12k+ and very much be an S-line lens/
I agree an Z8 (being the 61mp gripless pro body D850 replacement) and the Z?0 replacement to the D500 would be most welcome (particularly if it comes with a 30+mp BSI stacked sensor, 30fps RAW, 3 programmable FN buttons and Expeed 7 writing into twin CF Express), as would updates to the smaller and lighter Z6II and Z7II. There is lots of space for every type of enthusiast and pro users and their budgets. Just not rank beginners who struggle with using a Z5/Z50. Thosfolk should buy the new iPhone 14 Max Pro with its 45mp main camera and 8k recording capability -- in good light.
fcotterill
Well-known member
The majority of users will buy the 200-600 as their (relatively) affordable telephoto for sports and wildlife. Obviously, it has the costs and benefits of being a Z-mount only lens. These owners with positive experience of using the 200-500 f5.6E on the D500 will expect similar AF performance on a v1 or v2 Z6 or Z7.
Such Zed combos will not have the customization scope for toggling/fast switching AF modes etc, let alone the Close Focus Priority and other excellent AF features of the D5-D850-D500 triumvirate. A D500 with the 200-500 or almost any of the more affordable F-mount telephotos is still one of the best and most cost effective solutions for wildlife, and other action genres.
However Nikon plan to deliver and pitch this 200-600, the company's F mount System has set a high bar on expectations for action genres. Nikon will surely responded to the growth in new high performance APC MILCs (ie Canon and Fuji). The implications of all these factors must be obvious to them. Interesting times....
Given the distance in time these days (for many manufacturers, btw) from announcement, to launch, then to actual delivery to consumer, the roadmap means nothing but building demand for a product (eg marketing and sales competitive advantage). We're racing to the Z9s launch anniversary and it's still not on store shelves. That's nuts. And again not Nikon specific; try buying a Sony PS5, a few years after launch. And I just 'bought' the new Profoto radio trigger on 'launch' day, THEN learned it would 3-5 days until delivery. That's gotta be coming on 2 weeks ago with zero indication from the company when the product will actually ship. I should have bought the f mount 600
Sorry to come across that way. I apologize.
My point is the 200-600 is not an S lens, so it is logically being paired with the enthusiast cameras more than the Z9. If Nikon was to release the 200-600 prematurely with would be paired mainly with the Z6/Z6ii and Z7/Z7ii. The comparison of AF would be negative compared to a Z9 with no alternative, and it would permanently tarnish both the brand and demand for that lens. It would always be the lens with poor AF on the internet. That's in spite of AF performance being largely driven by the camera rather than the lens. Instead, they have delayed the release of the lens to align with the release of a companion high performance camera or cameras. The lens will be used by some Z9 owners as well, but that's not the sweet spot.
I see the competition for this lens being the various 150-600 lenses with adapters, the 200-500, and at the top end the Sony 200-600. That suggests a price around $1500 on the low end to $1999. I'd expect features and performance to be comparable to the 200-600, 100-400, etc. but short of the primes.
Last edited:
I 100% agree. It would be pointless if there were no buyers, but they could sell an awful lot of the 200-600 .... everyone wants one it seems. I do
I agree with what you said but I would also include the Canon 100-500L lens which comes in at about $2900USD. I think that gives some upward scale to Nikon in pricing flexibility and overall quality. That Canon 100-500 lens is really nice (even at F7.1 at the long end).
My thinking is if Nikon produces a lens in the quality range (image quality, build quality) of the crop of 150-600 lenses from Sigma and Tamron, it will be a very bad mistake. To be competitive in today's market they need to produce a lens that is on par or so close to their S-line offerings (in terms of image quality, resolution, contrast, etc.) as to be almost indistinguishable in real-world use. I"m not talking DXO score or the infamous brick wall test or test target displays but real world outdoor photography use.
Maybe I'm way off base here but I think if Nikon came out with a stellar lens in the $2500 to $3000 range that "laid down the gauntlet" for competitors it would be a huge success. If they come out with a lens to compete with lower quality offerings then they will get hammered by photographers. I have been waiting to see what the Nikon 200-600 lens is like before making a decision on which system to go to. Do I stay with Nikon or do I make the jump to a different system? This lens will be a major determining factor. It is more than possible I'm the only one which I'm willing to accept and admit.
Jeff
DRM
Well-known member
Very cool. And I see Nikon is calling it the Z 600 f/4 and not the Z 600 f/4 TC. Yet people still insist it will have an internal TC even though the only evidence for that ever being the case was Thom Hogan in a blog post about five months ago saying how Nikon was surprised at the interest in the 400 f/2.8 TC and was wondering if they should alter the Z 600 f/4 design to make it with an internal TC as well. If the lens is in use now and Nikon is calling it the Z 600 f/4, I highly doubt it has an internal TC.
No Worries as my Aussi friends say.
I believe we are in agreement -- the 200-600 is most likely to be a similar quality/performance to the 200-500. So a more "budget lens".
AND therefore to try to manage expectations it simply will not be as good (however one defines that) as a far more expensive S-line version. I would expect the Nikon Z 200-600 to perform a bit better than the Sony version of this lens -- so good but not spectacular.
The Z600/4.0TC will come and it will most likely be at least 15% more expensive than the Z400/2.8TC.
There are missing guesses in my line up for what the 50 lenses might include - one is the 180-400/4 and possibly a 150-300/2.8 but these will be very expensive AND it is possible that folk who owned these lenses would seek an s-line constant aperture 200-600 - I doubt this would be an f/4 and it would be expensive. Far cheaper than the Prime.