Nikon 180-600mm lens ship 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).

Status
Not open for further replies.
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
That's a more interesting question for me than for most.

The first copy of the 200-500 I got was downright awful and I sent it back. The second was clearly better, but still made me think something was wrong... until I took the UV filter off. I always used to put UV filters on lenses and never noticed and issue, but with that lens I found that with the filter on it was really very poor. I've since tried several filters with the same results. This got me to take filters off of all my lenses. I've also read some people saying that telephoto lenses don't handle filters as well.

However, when I ordered my 70-180 from B&H it came with a filter included for free so I tried it just for the heck of it and have found that it has no noticeable effect on the image quality even at the long end. I've also more and more begun to wonder if something is off with my 200-500 as especially past a certain (closer than I'd expect) distance the IQ seems to drop considerably. I've started wondering whether the way the filter impacts that lens might be associated with some kind of problem with the lens itself, but I don't know enough about the physics of it to theorize, so I'm interested to try the same filters on a new 180-600 and see if they have the same kind of impact or if they don't. The answer may help me finally get an idea of whether there is something funky with my 200-500 or if the filters are just all poor.
Click to expand...
I had an issue with my 200-500. I don't think filters caused the problem, it was just that my new D850 wouldn't play nice with it. I nearly cried when every photo I took was blurred. Terrible. Then I read up on checking focus. I did that and discovered that with my D850 I needed to set the Fine Tune to +10. Then photos were sharp and I was happy. I moved on from the 200-500 to the 500 PF and never had an issue with it. Why was my 200-500 so bad with the D850? I'd used it with a D7200 and never had a problem. Sometimes, I think equipment can be quirky. I think that's why they give us adjustment options.
 
Member's gallery
Patty15 said:
I had an issue with my 200-500. I don't think filters caused the problem, it was just that my new D850 wouldn't play nice with it. I nearly cried when every photo I took was blurred. Terrible. Then I read up on checking focus. I did that and discovered that with my D850 I needed to set the Fine Tune to +10. Then photos were sharp and I was happy. I moved on from the 200-500 to the 500 PF and never had an issue with it. Why was my 200-500 so bad with the D850? I'd used it with a D7200 and never had a problem. Sometimes, I think equipment can be quirky. I think that's why they give us adjustment options.
Click to expand...

Yes, I eventually found that with my second copy that I had to fine tune my D500 to +8 to get sharp images and even that felt like it wasn't quite right, like the fine tuning needed to be +7.5 or +8.5 or something in between which couldn't be done. It's part of why I moved on to a Z8. My first copy was just flat out bad such that even manual focusing couldn't get anything remotely sharp at 5.6. At f/8 it was okay, but at f/5.6 it was really, really bad and as I said it wasn't the AF. I spent a very long time testing that in all sorts of ways before returning it for a new copy, which has been much, much better but still feels like it is at times giving more problems than it should.
 
Member's gallery
Kenny88 said:
For those that have their lens, or those that are waiting on it, do you plan to put a UV filter on it? This is probably a generic thread that belongs elsewhere, but just wanted to see how others feel about this. I think it's the new 'toy' syndrome - it's brand new, and want to ensure it stays new :)
Click to expand...

I am surprised there has not been 400 responses to this question. @Steve did an excellent video on this topic testing a ton of filters and determined that they were of no benefit - either for optics or protection because the filter glass quality pales in comparison to the lens glass. Do a search and i am certain it will pop up!

Edit - here is the link <<https://backcountrygallery.com/all-about-uv-filters/>>
 
Member's gallery
Patty15 said:
I'm wondering if the biggest advantage of the 180-600 to some folks is the price. $3,000 more for the PF lens, even though it's a little shorter and lighter than the 180-600. I'm waffling right now, I love the features of the 600 PF and the size and weight, yet that $3,000 could easily pay for that 105 Macro I've looked at. I don't shoot Macro a lot, but sometimes... so, at both lenses being 6.3 at 600mm, would getting an additional lens and still saving money be worth it? I guess if I were a professional photographer, the extra money for the PF wouldn't be as big a deal and as a professional photographer you could claim it on your business taxes. But, for someone like me, who takes photographs mostly for something to do in retirement, and sells an occasional one or two, the price savings might be well worth any loss in IQ.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are many folks trying to decide between the 180-600 and 600pf right now but really the only advantage of the 600pf is it's size and weight. The zoom is more versatile, has shorter MFD/larger reproduction ratio and is much less expensive. To me, the zoom is an essential piece of kit and because it's relatively cheap is an easy purchase decision. The 600pf is more problematic due to its cost, the fact it's no faster than the zoom, and has a rather large MFD of 13+ feet which is not ideal for small birds like warblers, hummingbirds and garden critters. I'm also still waiting to see if the 600pf exhibits the same weird OOF artifacts like the 500pf did. The 180-600 exhibits surprisingly pleasing bokeh (for a zoom). Because I value a light-weight rig for opportunity shoots while hiking I'll likely end up buying the 600pf as well, but for planned shoots I'll always reach for the zoom. YMMV.
 
Member's gallery
French Avocado said:
I am surprised there has not been 400 responses to this question. @Steve did an excellent video on this topic testing a ton of filters and determined that they were of no benefit - either for optics or protection because the filter glass quality pales in comparison to the lens glass. Do a search and i am certain it will pop up!

Edit - here is the link <<https://backcountrygallery.com/all-about-uv-filters/>>
Click to expand...
Thank you for this - I would have never known about.
 
Member's gallery
Garfield said:
I'm sure there are many folks trying to decide between the 180-600 and 600pf right now but really the only advantage of the 600pf is it's size and weight. The zoom is more versatile, has shorter MFD/larger reproduction ratio and is much less expensive. To me, the zoom is an essential piece of kit and because it's relatively cheap is an easy purchase decision. The 600pf is more problematic due to its cost, the fact it's no faster than the zoom, and has a rather large MFD of 13+ feet which is not ideal for small birds like warblers, hummingbirds and garden critters. I'm also still waiting to see if the 600pf exhibits the same weird OOF artifacts like the 500pf did. The 180-600 exhibits surprisingly pleasing bokeh (for a zoom). Because I value a light-weight rig for opportunity shoots while hiking I'll likely end up buying the 600pf as well, but for planned shoots I'll always reach for the zoom. YMMV.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's where I am. There are plusses and minuses to each lens. However, I won't buy both. I've used a 500 PF first with my D850 for years and now with the FTZ on my Z9. I've been happy with it. I've just come to the conclusion that if I opt for the 180-600, I'll just get off my lazy butt and start lifting weights again to strengthen my upper body. 😁
 
Member's gallery
I've used the trusty 200-500mm, and there have been many times when I had to zoom out as 500mm is way too close for the subject and composition, so for me, I prefer the zoom at the sacrifice of potential sharpness.
 
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
That's my view of it too. Wildlife moves, and I can't always move in response. Granted, I use the 1.4x tc, but still. I have from ~260 to 840, which works for me.
Click to expand...
As a bonus, the short turn throw from 600mm to 180mm is an absolute welcome! I remember having lose some subjects because of the large amount of turns that I'd have to take on the 200-500mm.

Oh, I wish so much that Nikon really releases a pro grade crop sensor camera with focusing like the Z8 - especially with the new lens out in the market now. I know many will say just get a Z8, but I don't want a full frame or pay for it when I'm only wanting a crop sensor.
 
Member's gallery
Great discussion and also following it on other forums. I have opted for the 100-400 and 600PF. The zoom has great close focusing ability and that is an advantage. I am not sure I would use a TC but it’s available. I think in the next year or two a DX camera will be out and hopefully above 30MP. In the meantime I can switch to DX or crop. The only question I have is should I keep the 70-200 since I have the 24-120. The 70-200 is excellent and a zoom range I have used for years. Decisions.
 
Member's gallery
Patty15 said:
yet I'm hearing from some they've recently gone to Nikon online and got shipment in a couple days. Something stinks, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
How many "first batch" items a retailer receives seems related to the size of their account with Nikon, and possibly their credit rating with Nikon.

Any reasonable retailer can tell you how many they have received (if they want to) and how many are in front of you in the queue.

One Leeds retailer I occasionally visited was not getting much "new" from Nikon - and has since closed down - apparently for financial reasons.

My view is that if you have a good buying relationship with the right small retailer you are far more likely to get newly launched products quickly.
 
Member's gallery
I received mine from B & H (non NPS) last Thursday. It was the day after the z600mm announcement. I’m thinking that I’m going to return it in favor of the z 600mm pf. I thought about putting it on this forum marketplace as it appears that members on this thread are having trouble getting one, but there is one on there already that no one has purchased.
 
Member's gallery
I'd buy it off of you, if you aren't looking to price gouge ;)

Edit: belay that order, I just responded to the marketplace listing here.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
On serial numbers - has anybody got a 34*** number yet - which would be 9,000 sold starting from 25000 since first delivery on 31st July.

Roland Vink lists 19,650 100-400 known - from a Nov 21 date - which is probably the announcement date rather than first delivery date possibly in Jan 22.

8330 180-600 (the last number on Roland's site) in under 3 months could be a faster production rate than for the 100-400.
 
Member's gallery
I'm really wondering what Nikon's corporate strategy is given they appear to announce a new lens every couple of weeks and apart from seeing them in the hands of a few influencers and NPS members, the lenses aren't readily available. My camera dealers are just as frustrated as the consumers are.
 
Member's gallery
Personally, I'm tired of this. Nikon announces a new lens. Dealers take hundreds, maybe thousands, of pre-orders and then Nikon announces another new lens, or a couple new lenses, but I'm specifically speaking about the 180-600 and the 600 PF. If they don't have the ability to fulfill all the orders they already have, why would they take time out of production to make another lens? Yeah I know, totally different production models, but when they have had customers waiting since June, why would they announce another new lens they won't be able to produce in a timely manner?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top