Nikon 200-600 Lens

[jeffnles1]

If Nikon is smart they will bring in the 200-600 at a cheap launch price like they did with the 200-500.
Sigma glass is impressive as is Tamron.
A off beat question, will Tamron make the 200-600 for Nikon ? makes sense if their outsourcing some lenses to Tamron.

Only an opinion

I have speculated Tamron or Sigma making the 200-600. Unfortunately, some of the "Nikon Faithful" have hammered me on other forums for even suggesting the possibility. You would think I said their dog was ugly or their mother dressed them funny.

Making a 150-600 a 200-600 would be a fairly easy task I would think with a slight adjustment on the starting point of the zoom ring. It may give it a shorter throw from short to long end. I would not object to it assuming the quality was on par with the 200-500.

Given Nikon has already broken the ice with selling a couple Tamron lenses repackaged as Nikon I don't see why it is such an odd question. Sigma is saying they will build Z mount glass probably during 2023. Perhaps Sigma will be the maker of the 200-600 (or whatever the final zoom range will end up being).

It is fun to speculate. I do hope 1) it comes soon, and 2) it is high quality both in build but also in image quality. If it is built well, compatible with Nikon Z mount cameras (for the foreseeable future / receives Nikon firmware updates) and produces images equal to or preferable better than the 200-500, I may well move to the Z system (with the next updates of the Z camera bodies i.e. the iii version of the 6 or 7 or perhaps the mythical Z8).

time will tell and speculation is fun.

Jeff

 

[John Navitsky]

@jeffnles1 don’t you go talkin’ ‘bout my dog!

 

[NorthernFocus]

... Naturally if it can be both on the cheap side and outstanding... Nah. Can't be!

There's an old saying about building things. Out of cheap, fast, and high quality you get to pick two. We're already beyond fast so we should be able to expect cheap and high quality. Maybe the delay has been due to the awesome design and construction they're coming up with.

 

[jeffnles1]

There's an old saying about building things. Out of cheap, fast, and high quality you get to pick two. We're already beyond fast so we should be able to expect cheap and high quality. Maybe the delay has been due to the awesome design and construction they're coming up with.

Dan, hope you're right about which 2 Nikon will pick. If it is not of outstanding build and image quality and a reasonable price, Nikon sure has been leaving a lot of money on the table to be picked up by their competitors (Sony with their excellent 200-600 and Canon with their equally excellent 100-500).

 

[BarkingBeans Coffee]

Hogan speculates could be in three weeks at CES cause why else would Nikon be at CES.

 

[Ken Miracle]

If Tamron is making the Z200-600 for Nikon then I hope they get to release a Tamron branded lens of similar focal length range before or at the same time. I would just as soon have the Tamron their customer service has been excellent over the years and their F mount G2 glass was as good or better than equivalent Nikon glass. Tamron VIP service does not let you get stuff faster like NPS but it does give you a lifetime warranty on purchases, a good annual discount coupon, and some other perks.

 

[DRM]

Hogan speculates could be in three weeks at CES cause why else would Nikon be at CES.

Crafty article. He essentially says he’s not going to speculate because he has insider info on what Nikon is actually going to announce at the show, but then lists three possible levels of success. On the lowest level is that Nikon pays a large sum of money to simply announce two expected lenses, one of which is the 200-600, assuming he incorrectly typed it as a 200-400 in the article. Second level is Nikon releases the lenses along with a Z70, and/or 3rd Gen Z 6 or 7 bodies. Top level is an eye opening Z8 and the new lenses as well.

Looks to me like Nikon is announcing the 200-600 and at least one new Z camera the first week of January.

 

[John Navitsky]

If it is not of outstanding build and image quality and a reasonable price, Nikon sure has been leaving a lot of money on the table to be picked up by their competitors (Sony with their excellent 200-600

they would be daft if it wasn’t surpassing the quality of the sony and none of their z-lenses to date have been daft. my guess is it might be a bit more than the sony, but not a lot more

 

[fcotterill]

There's an old saying about building things. Out of cheap, fast, and high quality you get to pick two. We're already beyond fast so we should be able to expect cheap and high quality. Maybe the delay has been due to the awesome design and construction they're coming up with.

On final release, each recent Z Telephoto has embodied one or more departures from the trend, often coming as a surprise and more:

100-400 S : balancing mechanism and no-creep

400 f4.5S : rear element "heavy" optical design, and Light despite not using phase-fresnel

400 f2.8S TC and 600 f4S TC : Internal Teleconverters at low weight and pair well with the external ZTC's

800 f6.3S PF : only 2.35kg. Relatively low price for a telephoto even compared to previous Nikkors of approx. lens-window dia.

The Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3’s Unusual Price in Context

The consensus seems to be that Nikon’s newly-announced Z 800mm f/6.3 is selling for a good price at $6500. But that assessment only scratches the surface. In fact, for the focal length and aperture it offers, this is the least expensive exotic supertelephoto in Nikon’s recent history, by far.

photographylife.com

 

[jeffnles1]

they would be daft if it wasn’t surpassing the quality of the sony and none of their z-lenses to date have been daft. my guess is it might be a bit more than the sony, but not a lot more

If it was indeed a better lens, I'd pay more than the 2K for the Sony lens. I only own one Sony camera and that is a bridge (RX10-iv) that I use mainly for video work. I've been a Nikon shooter since the early 1980's. The D500 and the F mount glass I currently have are meeting my needs so I'm not in a big hurry to get a new system yet. On the other hand, I'm not getting any younger either.

 

[John Navitsky]

the 100-400 is a good example of how i expect Nikon to act. this lens is very similar in positioning and function to the (very good) sony 100-400, but is better across the board (image quality, balancing, handling, zoom creep). i think that's what we can expect with the 200-600.

 

[Darrellhar]

I didn't realize that Nikon was going to have a large booth at CES this year. I would think that would be good news for the camera end for sure. I just wanted to give my two cents (and trust me thats all it is worth) on a couple of things that were brought up. Some have mentioned that they are concerned that this lens isn't listed as a S line. The Sony version is a G and not a GM and I hear a lot of great things about it so as much as I'd love for this to be a S line lens I'm willing to bet it will still be really good. Others mentioned that it might be a Tamron rebrand now that Nikon has a few lens that are considered rebrands. The 17-28 and 28-75 line up with current Tamron lens just with some Nikon coating magic added (assuming the 70-180 will be the same). The 200-600 doesn't line up this way. They have 150-600 so a 200-600 would be a total redesign so I'm thinking this is more of an updated 200-500 to match Sony than a rebrand of a Tamron 150-600. They didn't redesign the other Tamron lens just added to them. Again I have no insider information so I'm just trying to use logic and reason. It certainly sounds like we might find out very soon which is exciting. I honestly thought we were going to have to wait until March to hear anything. Nikon's fiscal year ends on March 31st so releasing new product in Jan/Feb would help this fiscal year and I'm sure spill over in a big way to next fiscal year. Nikon has to know that they are going to sell a ton of these lens and if they release updated cameras with them that will just add more. Lets all hope that big things come out of CES either way.

 

[RichF]

the 100-400 is a good example of how i expect Nikon to act. this lens is very similar in positioning and function to the (very good) sony 100-400, but is better across the board (image quality, balancing, handling, zoom creep). i think that's what we can expect with the 200-600.

The price of the 100-400 is much higher than I expect the price of the 200-600 to be. The higher price means Nikon can afford to spend more of the production of the lens. The 200-600 price may limit what Nikon can do. They will need a high volume, likely, to meet absolute revenue and profit goals. Of the lens will not have high margins and will not be accretive

 

[O]

I hope it'll be a real contender to the sony 200-600 be it in price, quality and form factor. I'd rather have it around 2k and be a lens i want to hold onto than it be cheap and feel that it's lacking here and there. Naturally if it can be both on the cheap side and outstanding... Nah. Can't be!

I got my 200-500 under $1500 AUD years ago, then it got real popular because its so dam good, the price went up, plus i got a good sample, its a 2.5 to 1 magnification ratio, which really helps.
I modified the lens internally to allow push pull for fast action shots that keep the subject tight in the frame, i don't recommend this practice at all unless you want to take the risks....but gee the benefits WOW, i wish they would bring back push pull lenses.

Here is hoping for a affordable 200-600 mirror less lens

Only an opinion

 

[John Navitsky]

i think you can expect the 200-600 to be about $2300 USD which i guess is about 3400 AUD?

if you expect something in the $1500 AUD area, i think 1) you're going to be disappointed in general, and 2) this is the area you'll probably see 3rd party players, but probably still higher than what you want (consider the existing f-mount tamron 150-600 is about 1800 AUD)

 

[Ken Miracle]

I didn't realize that Nikon was going to have a large booth at CES this year. I would think that would be good news for the camera end for sure. I just wanted to give my two cents (and trust me thats all it is worth) on a couple of things that were brought up. Some have mentioned that they are concerned that this lens isn't listed as a S line. The Sony version is a G and not a GM and I hear a lot of great things about it so as much as I'd love for this to be a S line lens I'm willing to bet it will still be really good. Others mentioned that it might be a Tamron rebrand now that Nikon has a few lens that are considered rebrands. The 17-28 and 28-75 line up with current Tamron lens just with some Nikon coating magic added (assuming the 70-180 will be the same). The 200-600 doesn't line up this way. They have 150-600 so a 200-600 would be a total redesign so I'm thinking this is more of an updated 200-500 to match Sony than a rebrand of a Tamron 150-600. They didn't redesign the other Tamron lens just added to them. Again I have no insider information so I'm just trying to use logic and reason. It certainly sounds like we might find out very soon which is exciting. I honestly thought we were going to have to wait until March to hear anything. Nikon's fiscal year ends on March 31st so releasing new product in Jan/Feb would help this fiscal year and I'm sure spill over in a big way to next fiscal year. Nikon has to know that they are going to sell a ton of these lens and if they release updated cameras with them that will just add more. Lets all hope that big things come out of CES either way.

Tamron only has the one Z mount lens 70-300. Their DSLR offerings are not always lining up related to focal length with the mirrorless they are producing for Sony mounts and they have been doing Sony mirrorless mount glass now for several years and you see some funky variable focal lengths. None are a 150-600 so for Sony a 50-400 but not a 100-400 and a new 150-500 that is close to but not competing directly with the Sony 200-600. Conversations I have had with Tamron rep related to Sony and Nikon have been full of veiled winks with what parts or full lenses they are doing for Sony.

 

[jeffnles1]

Honestly, if the lens is well built and produces quality images and is compatible with Nikon's Z system (read gets firmware updates to keep current) I don't really care if it is made by Sigma or Tamron and branded Nikon or if it is designed 100% by Nikon and manufactured by Tamron or Sigma or if it is a 100% start to finish in-house Nikon product. I think we sometimes get all tied up in knots over brand names when, at least to me, the thing to get tied up in knots over are build quality, glass quality, and functionality with the camera system.

If it is a Tamron or Sigma design that carries the Nikon name then I would feel safe to believe the lens will be compatible for the foreseeable future with Nikon updates and new cameras. If it is a Tamron or Sigma lens carrying their own brand name but licensed technology from Nikon I have no fears about future-proofing the decision unless the contract falls through but that can happen with any supplier.

Bottom line, quality build (including degree of weather sealing and glass coatings, image quality, and functionality with the camera (i.e. no monkey business of limiting how many frames per second the camera can shoot or other intentionally crippling things) then I'd be a happy camper with the lens.

Jeff

 

[O]

I have speculated Tamron or Sigma making the 200-600. Unfortunately, some of the "Nikon Faithful" have hammered me on other forums for even suggesting the possibility. You would think I said their dog was ugly or their mother dressed them funny.

Making a 150-600 a 200-600 would be a fairly easy task I would think with a slight adjustment on the starting point of the zoom ring. It may give it a shorter throw from short to long end. I would not object to it assuming the quality was on par with the 200-500.

Given Nikon has already broken the ice with selling a couple Tamron lenses repackaged as Nikon I don't see why it is such an odd question. Sigma is saying they will build Z mount glass probably during 2023. Perhaps Sigma will be the maker of the 200-600 (or whatever the final zoom range will end up being).

It is fun to speculate. I do hope 1) it comes soon, and 2) it is high quality both in build but also in image quality. If it is built well, compatible with Nikon Z mount cameras (for the foreseeable future / receives Nikon firmware updates) and produces images equal to or preferable better than the 200-500, I may well move to the Z system (with the next updates of the Z camera bodies i.e. the iii version of the 6 or 7 or perhaps the mythical Z8).

time will tell and speculation is fun.

Jeff

Nikon 200-600....
Hypothesizing - why would it be much different to the 200-500 optically, i mean the 200-500 is a first class value lens at 2.5-1 magnification ratio, the 200-600 is pushing it to 3-1 but because of the larger mount and element diameter making up for a bit more light gathering will deliver a little more light helping corner to corner sharpness complimenting video as well as tolerating another 100mm in reach.

The 200-500 does have the edge on the excellent Tamron and Sigma 150-600 counterparts.
The 200-500 colour synergy on a Nikon sensor/formula seems to sing a little sweeter and should flow through.
I feel Nikon has slightly better and consistent focus accuracy at higher frame rates but lessor VR or IS performance compared to Tamron and Sigma, only an opinion now.

Its hard to get a light small compact 200-600 lens without having to compromise performance somewhere.
That said It would be awesome if Nikon came out with a 200-600 the size and weight of the 100-400...happy days, i feel its technically possible and really should happen, it would be mind blowing done properly..
Nikon is a better lens maker than a body maker...........and i personally feel has the best files in the business of 35mm.

Remember since the beginning of time we are mainly dealing with only time light and speed in many different combinations that in essence make everything the same anyway, the rest is value adding features and marketing a point of difference sold as new and improved technology.

Only an opinion

 

[Ken Miracle]

Nikon 200-600....
Hypothesizing - why would it be much different to the 200-500 optically, i mean the 200-500 is a first class value lens at 2.5-1 magnification ratio, the 200-600 is pushing it to 3-1 but because of the larger mount and element diameter making up for a bit more light gathering will deliver a little more light helping corner to corner sharpness complimenting video as well as tolerating another 100mm in reach.

The 200-500 does have the edge on the excellent Tamron and Sigma 150-600 counterparts.
The 200-500 colour synergy on a Nikon sensor/formula seems to sing a little sweeter and should flow through.
I feel Nikon has slightly better and consistent focus accuracy at higher frame rates but lessor VR or IS performance compared to Tamron and Sigma, only an opinion now.

Its hard to get a light small compact 200-600 lens without having to compromise performance somewhere.
That said It would be awesome if Nikon came out with a 200-600 the size and weight of the 100-400...happy days, i feel its technically possible and really should happen, it would be mind blowing done properly..
Nikon is a better lens maker than a body maker...........and i personally feel has the best files in the business of 35mm.

Remember since the beginning of time we are mainly dealing with only time light and speed in many different combinations that in essence make everything the same anyway, the rest is value adding features and marketing a point of difference sold as new and improved technology.

Only an opinion

There has been a bit of "luck of the draw" about how a particular copy of any lens performed.

I had some interesting adventures and good and bad luck with long variable focal length lenses.

My Nikon 200-500 went back to Nikon 3 times under warranty and was much better when it got back the third time. At the same time I had a Sigma 150-600 Sport and my copy was optically equal to my repaired copy of the 200-500 and had that extra reach but was heavier.

Then the Tamron 150-600 G2 came out and I tried the first 2 copies our now closed local camera store got in. One copy was very noticeably better in both IQ and focus speed and I bought it.

After using all 3 for a while I preferred the Tamron 150-600 G2 to both the Sigma and the Nikon. I sold the Sigma to a member of my camera club who had one on order for several months and he wanted it to shoot an air show that weekend, he made me a great offer that I gladly accepted.

I kept the Nikon 200-500 until I replaced it with a Sigma 60-600 Sport that was the personal lens of a camera store owner with a bad back who kept his Tamron 150-600 G2 and newly arrived Nikon 500 PF and sold me the heavier Sigma at a price I could not refuse. I ordered a Nikon 500pf from the dealer and he sold my 200-500 to one of his customers and waived the normal consignment fee. I used the Sigma 60-600 on my D850 and the Tamron on my D500 during the long wait for the 500pf I had ordered from him to arrive. After using it for a month Sigma had a mother board fail and Sigma replaced the lens.

When the 500pf arrived I got a great offer from a camera club member who wanted the Sigma 60-600 sport to use at an air show he was going to with the guy who bought my Sigma 150-600 Sport ... I actually sold the 60-600 for a little more than I paid for the one that Sigma replaced.

I had a friend who tried my Tamron 150-600 G2 and loved it so she bought one. Her copy was hit and miss on AF focus speed and IQ reminded me of the one I did not buy. She sent it to Tamron and they replaced the lens but in the meantime she bought a Nikon 200-500 that was a superb copy. When the new Tamron 150-600 G2 arrived she gave it to her son who loves it. Her husband bought a Tamron 150-600 G2 at the same time his wife did from the same dealer and his copy was a great one.

My Tamron 150-600 G2 was in the last batch of f mount lenses that I sold when I went to all Z mount lenses.

 

[jeffnles1]

There has been a bit of "luck of the draw" about how a particular copy of any lens performed.

I had some interesting adventures and good and bad luck with long variable focal length lenses.

My Nikon 200-500 went back to Nikon 3 times under warranty and was much better when it got back the third time. At the same time I had a Sigma 150-600 Sport and my copy was optically equal to my repaired copy of the 200-500 and had that extra reach but was heavier.

Then the Tamron 150-600 G2 came out and I tried the first 2 copies our now closed local camera store got in. One copy was very noticeably better in both IQ and focus speed and I bought it.

After using all 3 for a while I preferred the Tamron 150-600 G2 to both the Sigma and the Nikon. I sold the Sigma to a member of my camera club who had one on order for several months and he wanted it to shoot an air show that weekend, he made me a great offer that I gladly accepted.

I kept the Nikon 200-500 until I replaced it with a Sigma 60-600 Sport that was the personal lens of a camera store owner with a bad back who kept his Tamron 150-600 G2 and newly arrived Nikon 500 PF and sold me the heavier Sigma at a price I could not refuse. I ordered a Nikon 500pf from the dealer and he sold my 200-500 to one of his customers and waived the normal consignment fee. I used the Sigma 60-600 on my D850 and the Tamron on my D500 during the long wait for the 500pf I had ordered from him to arrive. After using it for a month Sigma had a mother board fail and Sigma replaced the lens.

When the 500pf arrived I got a great offer from a camera club member who wanted the Sigma 60-600 sport to use at an air show he was going to with the guy who bought my Sigma 150-600 Sport ... I actually sold the 60-600 for a little more than I paid for the one that Sigma replaced.

I had a friend who tried my Tamron 150-600 G2 and loved it so she bought one. Her copy was hit and miss on AF focus speed and IQ reminded me of the one I did not buy. She sent it to Tamron and they replaced the lens but in the meantime she bought a Nikon 200-500 that was a superb copy. When the new Tamron 150-600 G2 arrived she gave it to her son who loves it. Her husband bought a Tamron 150-600 G2 at the same time his wife did from the same dealer and his copy was a great one.

My Tamron 150-600 G2 was in the last batch of f mount lenses that I sold when I went to all Z mount lenses.

Interesting write up Ken.
I have a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. It actually is a pretty decent lens. No significant complaints. It rolled off of a kitchen counter onto a tile floor and hit with a very disturbing sound. I sent it back to Sigma and they fixed it (under warranty by the way even though my note clearly said I dropped it). While it was in the shop, I bought a Nikon 200-500. It is sharper than the sigma but not by a lot. It is heavier and focus speed is about the same. The 200-500 is my primary wildlife telephoto on my D500. I also have a Sigma 100-400 which is also a great lens. Not sure if there is a lot of variation one to the next but the 100-400 I have is really nice.

I like to read of others' experiences.

Jeff

 

[Nimi]

Nikon 200-600....
Hypothesizing - why would it be much different to the 200-500 optically, i mean the 200-500 is a first class value lens at 2.5-1 magnification ratio, the 200-600 is pushing it to 3-1 but because of the larger mount and element diameter making up for a bit more light gathering will deliver a little more light helping corner to corner sharpness complimenting video as well as tolerating another 100mm in reach.

The 200-500 does have the edge on the excellent Tamron and Sigma 150-600 counterparts.
The 200-500 colour synergy on a Nikon sensor/formula seems to sing a little sweeter and should flow through.
I feel Nikon has slightly better and consistent focus accuracy at higher frame rates but lessor VR or IS performance compared to Tamron and Sigma, only an opinion now.

Its hard to get a light small compact 200-600 lens without having to compromise performance somewhere.
That said It would be awesome if Nikon came out with a 200-600 the size and weight of the 100-400...happy days, i feel its technically possible and really should happen, it would be mind blowing done properly..
Nikon is a better lens maker than a body maker...........and i personally feel has the best files in the business of 35mm.

Remember since the beginning of time we are mainly dealing with only time light and speed in many different combinations that in essence make everything the same anyway, the rest is value adding features and marketing a point of difference sold as new and improved technology.

Only an opinion

Why the fixation of magnification ratio? The most expensive lens on the market is an 8-1000mm (125x) extended to 2000mm with an f1.7 for a good portion of it (US$250,000).

You can throw away everything you know about pre-Z lenses. The Z, specifically the Z9 has the smallest flange focal distance and largest mount diameter of anything FF on the market, plus no mechanical shutter. Any reputable lens company should be able to produce better lenses for it than anything else available for any other camera with the help of plain physics. The Z lenses introduced thus far are early proofs of that.

Marketing dicates features/price point, hence the S designation. A 200-600, $2,500 non-S will be a great lens, probably enough, but not as good or as featured as a similar S if there is one.

 

[O]

There has been a bit of "luck of the draw" about how a particular copy of any lens performed.

I had some interesting adventures and good and bad luck with long variable focal length lenses.

My Nikon 200-500 went back to Nikon 3 times under warranty and was much better when it got back the third time. At the same time I had a Sigma 150-600 Sport and my copy was optically equal to my repaired copy of the 200-500 and had that extra reach but was heavier.

Then the Tamron 150-600 G2 came out and I tried the first 2 copies our now closed local camera store got in. One copy was very noticeably better in both IQ and focus speed and I bought it.

After using all 3 for a while I preferred the Tamron 150-600 G2 to both the Sigma and the Nikon. I sold the Sigma to a member of my camera club who had one on order for several months and he wanted it to shoot an air show that weekend, he made me a great offer that I gladly accepted.

I kept the Nikon 200-500 until I replaced it with a Sigma 60-600 Sport that was the personal lens of a camera store owner with a bad back who kept his Tamron 150-600 G2 and newly arrived Nikon 500 PF and sold me the heavier Sigma at a price I could not refuse. I ordered a Nikon 500pf from the dealer and he sold my 200-500 to one of his customers and waived the normal consignment fee. I used the Sigma 60-600 on my D850 and the Tamron on my D500 during the long wait for the 500pf I had ordered from him to arrive. After using it for a month Sigma had a mother board fail and Sigma replaced the lens.

When the 500pf arrived I got a great offer from a camera club member who wanted the Sigma 60-600 sport to use at an air show he was going to with the guy who bought my Sigma 150-600 Sport ... I actually sold the 60-600 for a little more than I paid for the one that Sigma replaced.

I had a friend who tried my Tamron 150-600 G2 and loved it so she bought one. Her copy was hit and miss on AF focus speed and IQ reminded me of the one I did not buy. She sent it to Tamron and they replaced the lens but in the meantime she bought a Nikon 200-500 that was a superb copy. When the new Tamron 150-600 G2 arrived she gave it to her son who loves it. Her husband bought a Tamron 150-600 G2 at the same time his wife did from the same dealer and his copy was a great one.

My Tamron 150-600 G2 was in the last batch of f mount lenses that I sold when I went to all Z mount lenses.

WOW Ken you have been around LOL, my friend she has the Tamron 150-600 G2 and uses it on the D850 and D4s, mostly for birding and she is blown away with it, i hear lots of good reports about it from other club members as well.

I think its what ever makes you happy and works is all that matters, there isn't a lot in it overall.

When buying my 70-200 FL i found that the Tamron had better VR than the Nikon the Nikon had more accurate or consistent focus.

If ever your curious to find out whats inside some lenses as well as build quality chat with and watch a friendly independent technician, of course buy them some lunch etc, its surprising what some of the lenses have inside. I spent a little time also watching the calibration process of a variety of prime Leica and Ziess lenses, its amazing some of the tolerance levels set compared to other brands. i had the technician run the gear over some of my lenses, about $50 each.
Mostly primes, the 200-500 was much more stable to adjust than the 28-300.

Yes defiantly lens sample variation can be a real frustration at times, hence my hobby horse of really serving it up to manufacturers, they take your money you should respectfully give you what you pay for.

I believe pressure on manufacturing volume output sometimes is the cause of the variation in samples, time is money, in cases depending on the product its more profitable to punch out volume and replace faulty units back from the filed, i call this marginally outsourcing QC or cost cutting in exchange for increased volume output, i mean this doesn't apply to everything made or exotic items and i am NOT saying this is the case with Nikon.

Z glass when on a Z camera has clear attributes, we have always known that, the 200-600 should in this case have a advantage over the 200-500 how much, we will have to wait and see.

The 70-200 F2.8 Fl versus the Z version seem so close to one another in performance its not worth investing into the Z version, this has been the coalface feed back by some shooters, while unique and telling its not the case with every lens.
I would like the 200-600 to be like the 100-400 or at least the size and weight of the 500 pf.


Only an opinion

 

[O]

Just received notice of update 3.01 ?

 

[John Navitsky]

The 70-200 F2.8 Fl versus the Z version seem so close to one another in performance its not worth investing into the Z version, this has been the coalface feed back by some shooters, while unique and telling its not the case with every lens.

while there are incremental improvements in image quality, tbh, it’s amazing they were able to improve on the 70-200 2.8e. also, don’t forget the benefits of the syncro vr and the benefit of not needing the ftz

 

[Ken Miracle]

Just received notice of update 3.01 ?

I just did the update to 3.01 ... of course it is almost midnight here so will have to test more in the daylight but hand off to 3D and auto area af with subject detection on animal and tracking on. Seemed to work faster and better on the bird eye photographs I play with indoors.