Is the new Nikon 600mm f6.3 PF a full 600mm at MDF? It’s my understanding that the Nikon 180-600 is but the Sony 200-600 is not.
Is the Nikon 600 f6.3 a full 600mm?
- Thread starter Matt N
- 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).
According to this reviewer Nikon's 180-600mm has less focus breathing(focal length change with distance including MFD)) than the Sony 200-600mm. I assume you're asking about the 180-600mm and not Nikon's newest 600mm f/6.3 PF lens.
No, I’m asking about the new 600pf. Does that problem not affect primes?
Nikon claims focus breathing is "supressed" which is easier to do with primes than zooms.
Focus breathing can happen with any lens but it's far more common to see excessive focus breathing with zoom lenses. I haven't seen any direct focus breathing tests on the 600mm f/6.3 PF prime lens but I'd be very surprised if it was anywhere close to the amount of focus breathing we've seen in the 200-500mm or 200-600mm zoom lenses as it's much easier to minimize focus breathing in a prime lens.
600/6.3… we wish it were 5.6…
It is not a big deal. F/6.3 allows the front element to accept 95mm filters. Plus every f step increases the maximum diameter of the aperture by a factor of 2 which mean that the weight of the lens goes up (from 1.47 KG for the f/6.3 to 3.26 KG for the F/4 TC or a factor 2.22 - I know a lot of factors beside max aperture come into play - PF vs non-PF, built in TC vs none, ...).
Bottom line the 1/3 stop difference allows a standard filter size and keeps the weight down
Completely agree…but some people (including me on occasion, no slight intended to anyone) want to be contrarian at times. 1/3 of a stop is minimal and as you say 5.6 would have meant fatter, longer maybe, and heavier and probably more expensive as well. I cancelled my 180-600 order and ordered the 600 on Criday myself…but the IQ was irrelevant to the decision. Mine was deciding the weight differential was enough to justify the extra 3K cost and I’ll pair it with the 100-400 on the other body and the TC in my pocket.
We used to have a saying in the Navy…all sailors ***** about something but when it comes down to it they like their jobs.…a happy sailor is a bit hing sailor.
And keeps the light down too…
listen, Nikon has already figured out how to brake the rules, look at the 400/4.5. And there are more.
I’m confident Nikon could figure out how to get more light in for a 95 diameter, or less weight in a 105 diameter.
TCzPhotos
Member
I have to believe anyone paying for a lens like this is shooting in raw format. With the lower light focus systems, higher performing ISO's and improving noise reduction in the aftermarket software, Nikon (the whole industry) has found a way to make better use of less light. There is high praise out there for Sony's 200-600 6.3 and Canon's 100-500 7.1. I know the 600pf is more expensive, but the image quality, size, weight and build appear to be a step above. My order is in. It will replace my 500pf.
Doggone laws of physics keep getting in the way. 
Cameron T
Well-known member
It's still only a third of a stop, which is (in the real world) negligable.
Changing anything about the lens would make it much heavier, much more expensive, or both.
I get wanting better stuff, but nitpicking an excellent lens of a third of a stop is something I'll never understand.
I’m just going to add it to the really long list of things I will never understand.
You can’t break the rules of physics…or of how much metal weighs, but that’s physics too I guess. Yes, they could have made it 105 and gotten 5.6 or whatever that gave them…but it would be bigger, heavier, and more expansive for a really, really tiny improvement…and they were obviously going for light and small over that tiny improvement. The same ratio that gave them the 400/4.5 works out to be 600/5.6 with the same front diameter
I personally think Nikon made all the right tradeoffs. Super happy with this lens and the images it makes. Glad they didn't make it heavier (and even more expensive).
Fact is the 400/4.5 isn’t a 400mm long barrel, and it’s lighter and sharper then expected without a PF element inside.
My point is, Nikon knows some tricks to overcome challenges. Therefore I’m not convinced for 100% that they couldn’t pull off f/5.6 while still being lightweight and compact.
Regarding 5.6 vs. 6.3, it IS a difference when the sun goes down when all the action happens, and the ISO climbs up. 6400 vs. 8000. I don’t agree that its negligible in real world.
I’m still loving the lens! I just like to put things in perspective.
My point is, Nikon knows some tricks to overcome challenges. Therefore I’m not convinced for 100% that they couldn’t pull off f/5.6 while still being lightweight and compact.
Regarding 5.6 vs. 6.3, it IS a difference when the sun goes down when all the action happens, and the ISO climbs up. 6400 vs. 8000. I don’t agree that its negligible in real world.
I’m still loving the lens! I just like to put things in perspective.
Every time!Doggone laws of physics keep getting in the way.
Let's repeal all the laws of physics, starting with gravity. That will help me lose weight
They couldn’t do 5.6 without a larger front diameter…and that would be bigger, heavier, and more expensive. And even at sundown…1/3 less aperture means a little more ISO and in 2023 that’s negligible…although YMMV. I completely agree with Geoff…they made all the right compromises for the lens…and it really doesn’t matter a whit whether you or we agree with that…because we didn’t get a vote on the lens. If you think it’s too slow or overpriced…don’t buy one. Even the difference between 64p0 and 8000…with todays noise software…won’t be visible at anything less pixel peeped than 1:1.Fact is the 400/4.5 isn’t a 400mm long barrel, and it’s lighter and sharper then expected without a PF element inside.
My point is, Nikon knows some tricks to overcome challenges. Therefore I’m not convinced for 100% that they couldn’t pull off f/5.6 while still being lightweight and compact.
Regarding 5.6 vs. 6.3, it IS a difference when the sun goes down when all the action happens, and the ISO climbs up. 6400 vs. 8000. I don’t agree that its negligible in real world.
I’m still loving the lens! I just like to put things in perspective.
craneo007
New member
Yes, raw is key. This bald eagle is an example with the new lens. After using it last 2 days, it’s a keeper.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Mal Paso
Active member
Or at least keep gravity the same. Everything is heavier now than it was a few years ago.Let's repeal all the laws of physics, starting with gravity. That will help me lose weight
fcotterill
Well-known member
Nikon's engineers probably considered many options, including use of fluorite elements to reduce weight with or without Phase Fresnel. FL elements have a history of adding an extra digit to the final price of a super telephoto.
A f5.6 600mm lens must be 107.1mm wide versus 95.2mm for f6.3, which allowed for significant savings of a lighter lens barrel.
Overall, albeit guessing at these tradeoffs.... the engineers prioritized minimum weight, relatively affordable, but S Line quality. So it seems this 600 PF is positioned primarily to complement Nikon's very successful 800 f6.3S PF.
A f4.5 or f5.6 or f8 or f9 telephoto - equally a f6.3 - focuses seamlessly on the world-leading MILC Autofocus systems (the AF limit = f22). For those tricky I.D. images, as an example...this is when birders will find it useful to extend this compact 600 f6.3 to 1200mm f13 (ZTC2) or 840mm f9 (ZTC14).
The f5.6 versus f6.3 - the f8 threshold especially - is a mind-worm propagated by the penalties of DSLR Autofocus systems: with their inherent constraints on available AF points even in the most modern D6. As we know, mirrorless leaves this behind....
A f5.6 600mm lens must be 107.1mm wide versus 95.2mm for f6.3, which allowed for significant savings of a lighter lens barrel.
Overall, albeit guessing at these tradeoffs.... the engineers prioritized minimum weight, relatively affordable, but S Line quality. So it seems this 600 PF is positioned primarily to complement Nikon's very successful 800 f6.3S PF.
A f4.5 or f5.6 or f8 or f9 telephoto - equally a f6.3 - focuses seamlessly on the world-leading MILC Autofocus systems (the AF limit = f22). For those tricky I.D. images, as an example...this is when birders will find it useful to extend this compact 600 f6.3 to 1200mm f13 (ZTC2) or 840mm f9 (ZTC14).
The f5.6 versus f6.3 - the f8 threshold especially - is a mind-worm propagated by the penalties of DSLR Autofocus systems: with their inherent constraints on available AF points even in the most modern D6. As we know, mirrorless leaves this behind....
Last edited:
You could always switch to Canon or Sony - hold it they don't make anything close to this lens .. I guess you are stuck with the crappy NIkon PF lens. If you are unhappy with it, I'll take it off your hands (assuming no damage) for, let's say, a $1000. Do we have a deal?
I gotta say though…gravity isn’t the worst thing…it is that the floor keeps getting farther and farther away the older I get.
Or we could just change the definition of a pound... Either way, not only would you weigh less, but so would you camera gear!!Let's repeal all the laws of physics, starting with gravity. That will help me lose weight