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).
Agree. Nikon had this lens on the 'roadmap' for several years. A simple google search would've found sites like this, one and I'm sure there are others, with ongoing discussions repeatedly commenting on the desirability of this lens. Either their marketing research was way off , the people making final decisions on production weren't listening or there is another supply chain/manufacturing problem.
Yes, but I'm going off what Thom said, which is they will struggle (or not be able to meet) nps orders.
No not a typo, it is September 30, 2023 - copy of the notice: Item Will begin shipping 2023-09-30 & I will have mine 2 days shipment
Perhaps 9/30 is their way of sending end of sept???
NPS?
NPS orders are given priority by the retailer through which the order was placed. This retailer expects a first shipment from Nikon USA on or about Aug 31. Their NPS preorders will be fulfilled first from each allotment they receive.
I’ve used the 1.4 TC with a 100-400 Z lens. Other than somewhat slower AF response it worked quite well. I have the same expectation for its performance with the 180-600 lens.
I think that the answer to your question is not a simple one.
Hi Bruce, thank you very much for your input and I know this is not a quick and easy answer. Very appreciate and you are absolutely correct on all these points. Everyone's expectation is different, for me I still want good quality for sure. I understand the down side using TC and I don't expect having TC works every time. But if it works decently well for some scenario, for example a bald eagle getting fish that is a little far for 600mm, if TC can get me the reach while still provide decent good quality at good light condition, I will take it.
Thank you very much for your feedback!
My opinion differs from Bruce’s…but then my output goes almost exclusively to the blog…and at screen downsampled resolution…the difference in IQ for either the 100-400 or the 400/4.5 with or without the 1.4 is indistinguishable. There are some minor differences in bokeh and background depending…but it’s more just different than better or worse. The 2.0 is a little more noticeable…but again f9r screen output it’s more than satisfactory. Is it as good as an 800 or either of the 5 figure exotic telephotos…probably not…but it’s a lot cheaper and there’s that old story about better being the enemy of good enough. So…it all depends on your definition of good enough and how much cash, backpack weight, and lower flex of a prime you are willing to have. For my purposes…the 1.4 is as excellent as the bare lens outside the 1 stop light loss…and the 2.0 is still plenty usable…especially with modern processing software tools we have. If I was a pro making money with it like Steve…i would probably have the primes…but like his video said…he’s keeping his copy because sometimes you just need the flexibility of the zoom lens. I can’t argue one way or the other about the slower AF with the TCs…never tried to measure it but I usually use the focus limit switch anyway to speed things up and if the TC slows it down it doesn’t do it enough for me to notice.
Anjin, I don't think our opinions about the 1.4x are all that different. I think if you look at my list, you'll see that I am pretty clear about when the 1.4x will not impact your images. However, if someone is buying a $1700 180-600 f6.3 to put a 1.4x converter on it and expecting "excellence," then I think they will be disappointed. In my humble opinion, there are better ways to get to the ultra telephoto range without having to convert and f6.3 lens to an f/8.8 lens.
Thank you for saying this!! It drives me crazy when people state they have more focal length in dx mode or with a dx camera!
In reference to one of his points (I agree with him on everything), I think this mindset comes from the days where crop sensors were 20mp (or whatever), but... So were ff sensors. So you got many more pixels on target for a given focal length. Now, the difference is much less in a lot of cases.Thank you for saying this!! It drives me crazy when people state they have more focal length in dx mode or with a dx camera!
Absolutely agree. The comparison which drove me crazy was comparing the Nikon D850 to the Nikon D500 where the pixel density was about the same and that using the D500 gave you more focal length.
I am just curious if you read what I wrote... not once did I state that you have an increased focal length by switching to DX mode... This is lifted from my response:
"If you are using a 47MP camera and you need more focal length" strongly implies that whatever follows is going to be something which will provide increased focal length. In fact, I'd argue that the statement is nonsensical if what follows does not attempt to somehow provide a greater focal length.
