Nikon 600PF First Look Field Review!

[fcotterill]

Question: if I’m shooting a small bird, what would the resulting photo look like:

500mm at ~9ft distance from subject

600mm at ~13ft distance from subject

800mm at ~16ft distance from subject

Trying to wrap my brain around how each lens will work out. Is this getting into the topic of magnification?

This graphic (just updated) may be useful

Edited:

Nikkor Telephotos for Wildlife Photography: Choices for the Optimal Mixed F&Z System....

The pending release of the Z9 and 100-400 S and 200-600 Z zooms has made it unavoidable to decide what Nikon gear one keeps and adapts, invests in or trades in. So I thought it timely to share an image (below), which I've been relying on to plan and scheme, in the persisting quest of how to...

bcgforums.com

Nikon's long lens strategy and the kits that will eventually be available

I hope that Nikon has spent considerable time working through which long lens to create. From what we are seeing on the lens road map (reading between the lines) 100-400 S 400 PF S 800 PF S 400 f2.8 w/ TC S 600 F4 w/ TC S 200-600 non-S a short kit might be 70-200 w/ 1.4 makes the range...

bcgforums.com

"Which Nikon telephoto(s)?" for Wildlife Genres: Updated

This question involves an interesting set of factors. The answer(s) depend on one's personal needs, and budget obviously, besides the diversity of subjects and respective conditions. Here's an attempt to sketch out the challenges, and outline where to find resources to help settling final...

bcgforums.com

 

[SugarDude]

Thank you Steve for another great review. I appreciate your integrity and that Nikon recognizes you the way they do.

I have a 600 on order. I certainly hope you update the next version of your setup guide with your preferred button to program (Disp, Fn1, Fn2 etc) to run drop and fire. I think a lot of us would love to be able to do that too. Heck, some of us might be willing to pay for that update.

 

[Steve]

Hi Steve

The replacement foot looks to be the same as on the 400 F/4.5. Is that correct?


Rich

It seems like it but I wasn't able to personally test it.

 

[Steve]

Thank you Steve for another great review. I appreciate your integrity and that Nikon recognizes you the way they do.

I have a 600 on order. I certainly hope you update the next version of your setup guide with your preferred button to program (Disp, Fn1, Fn2 etc) to run drop and fire. I think a lot of us would love to be able to do that too. Heck, some of us might be willing to pay for that update.

My current setup is in there already - should be a table around page 488 (I've made some adjustments to the book, so give or take a page)

I also have an alternative options for RSF and setting an emergency action button in that same chapter - if I were using that, I'd have on DISP.

 

[JoelKlein]

Some people wonder why Nikon released the 600pf before filing the queue on the 180-600.
I think I know why.
To many early returns of the 180-600, so they decided to release the real deal.

 

[Cameron T]

That's certainly an opinion. The 180-600 is a really nice lens, and doesn't fit the same niche as the 600pf. As far as I'm aware, nobody is really returning the 180-600 either.

 

[JoelKlein]

That's certainly an opinion. The 180-600 is a really nice lens, and doesn't fit the same niche as the 600pf. As far as I'm aware, nobody is really returning the 180-600 either.

I remember reading it here on BCG, more then ones.

 

[flashpixx]

Knowing what I know about both, they'll compete well in AF speed and weight, but the 600PF will be sharper than the 400 with a TC - and 40mm longer too.

This is what I'm thinking. I have the 400 f4.5 and the 600 focal length is attractive.
Yesterday I put the 1.4x TC on the 400 and took lots of images of small birds - it certainly loses some sharpness with the TC.
Also noted some slightly slower AF acquisition compared to the bare lens in challenging situations (tiny birds moving erratically in and out of shade).
I will pre-order the 600 f6.3 from Nikon Aus tomorrow and follow along for further reviews - especially if anyone does a direct comparo between the 600 f6.3 and the 400 f4.5 + 1.4x TC.

 

[DRM]

Some people wonder why Nikon released the 600pf before filing the queue on the 180-600.
I think I know why.
To many early returns of the 180-600, so they decided to release the real deal.

Nah. 1) Sales of the 800 PF slowed enough to where it made sense to bring out another super tele PF lens. 2) Nikon wants to make money and they’ll make more money selling the 600 PF lens than the 180-600 lens to someone wanting 600 mm. They probably learned from the 100-400/400 f/4.5 releases that fewer than expected 100-400 buyers also later bought the prime, so they didn’t want too many 600 mm shooters to get fat and happy with the zoom and decide that it was good enough. 3) The 180-600 wasn’t going to sell many (if any) Z bodies to Canon or Sony shooters, but the 600 PF seems to have grabbed a lot of attention from them, from what I’ve read. I bet the 600 PF sells a number of Z8 bodies (and to a lesser extent Z9) to new Z mount users over the fast approaching holiday season. Nikon would miss out on a number of those sales if they waited until 2024 to release the 600 PF because Canon and Sony may then have something new and exciting to take their money instead.

 

[JoelKlein]

Nah. 1) Sales of the 800 PF slowed enough to where it made sense to bring out another super tele PF lens. 2) Nikon wants to make money and they’ll make more money selling the 600 PF lens than the 180-600 lens to someone wanting 600 mm. They probably learned from the 100-400/400 f/4.5 releases that fewer than expected 100-400 buyers also later bought the prime, so they didn’t want too many 600 mm shooters to get fat and happy with the zoom and decide that it was good enough. 3) The 180-600 wasn’t going to sell many (if any) Z bodies to Canon or Sony shooters, but the 600 PF seems to have grabbed a lot of attention from them, from what I’ve read. I bet the 600 PF sells a number of Z8 bodies (and to a lesser extent Z9) to new Z mount users over the fast approaching holiday season. Nikon would miss out on a number of those sales if they waited until 2024 to release the 600 PF because Canon and Sony may then have something new and exciting to take their money instead.

Valid points. That is “IF” the 600pf would be filled in time.
Interesting that Nikon isn’t naming it PF, like they did with the other PF lenses

 

[Nimi]

Valid points. That is “IF” the 600pf would be filled in time.
Interesting that Nikon isn’t naming it PF, like they did with the other PF lenses

Same as the 800. PF is from now on relegated to a detail somewhere low down in the spec sheet, as other lens elements are.

 

[Anjin San]

I was not the winner, so this lens goes on the back burner until I do win. Near term, I need another body - a 2nd Z9 or a Z8. Need to hold a Z8 in my hands before I can make that decision.

I had the same dilemma…well, it wasn’t much of one for me though…because I wanted something more Z9 AF like for my second body over the Z7II. I think the Z8 is a no brainer for this…and in fact would have bought 2 of them if it was a ain’t the same intro time as the Z9 because I don’t shoot portrait much at all and rotating the body for panos or 5he 1 out of 10,000 portrait shots is easy and it’s a much heavier larger body. In fact…I would swap you my Z9 and extra battery straight up for a second Z8.

 

[Anjin San]

I think we're all stuck with a mental block of anything over 5.6 due to so many years of that being the AF limit for DSLR. Since shooting thousands of image with the 800PF and a few hundred with a 1.4x TC on the 400 4.5 I'm finally over it. As discussed above to go from 6.3 to 5.6 would likely have increased the weight by about 30 percent which would be the same weight as the 180-600. Personally I'll take the smaller/lighter lens.

That said... I've decided to pass on this one. Just not seeing $4800 worth of benefit vs the 400+TC or the 180-600

Me too…I considered 2 different 2 lens wildlife kits for down here in FL…I have the 400, 100-400, 24-120 and 70-200 with the 180-600 on order. First kit the 600PF and the 19o-400 with the TC in my pocket…coverage from 10l to 840. Second the 180-600 and 24-120 for coverage from 24-840 albeit with a gap between 120 and 180 that cropping would handle and really the less than 100 range isn’t applicable much to wildlife. The 600PF double saves about 11 ounces over the other one, costs $3K more and IMO is less flexible overall so I’m passing on the PF as well until I win the lottery…but it’s a use case decision for me…price didn’t contribute much to the decision beyond the bang for the buck idea. The jury is still out on whether the 100-400 gets kept or sold once the longer zoom gets here...don’t need to sell it but might if it is essentially unused.

 

[Anjin San]

@Steve you raise an interesting question which has bothered me for a while. Regardless of what people consider to be 'sharp' I've found that images from the top-end f4 lenses (of which my only experience has been the 500f4, 600f4, and 200-400f4) just 'pop' better than those taken with anything else, and it's not just a matter of 'sharpness'. Color contrast, micro-contrast, light transmission... The images just have more punch. It's not something I see discussed much. I don't know what it is but the difference has never seemed subtle to me. The 200-500 didn't have it. I'm not sure the 500PF really has 'it', though it's close. The 300PF doesn't have it. I doubt the 180-600 has it.

There are times I wish I hadn't sold the 500f4, for this exact reason, and it's why I've kept the 200-400f4 for times I can justify the weight.

I've never used the 800PF but I would worry if the 600PF had those characteristics or not. Maybe i should buy a used 500f4G

Better coatings and different glass mostly…but PP can add an awful lot of the difference for you when properly used…and for most purposes when not making money doing photography that’s good enough for me but YMMV of course.

 

[Anjin San]

I don't think that's actually possible, but if it was possible, it'd probably be 10k or more.

I don’t see why it couldn’t be done…the fresnel lens is just a way of making the same equivalent lens smaller in front to back dimension…but then I’m not an optical engineer. I agree tha5 it would be pretty expensive though.

 

[arbitrage]

When Steve gets his own copy of the lens I'd really like to see a comparison between the 400/4.5 and 1.4TC and the 400/2.8TC with 1.4TC engaged (Does Steve own the 400TC or just the 600TC these days??). Two other options to get to ~600mm.

I'm considering a switch back to Nikon more so than I ever have in the past 4 years. Before the 600PF was a thing I was leaning towards a 400TC and 800PF combo. Now I'm liking the idea of this 600PF but then I'm also thinking how much cheaper a 400/4.5/1.4TC would be for almost the same thing. On the other hand I've grown to dislike using TCs so that pushes me back towards the 600PF option.

May be leaning towards the 600PF and 400TC combo now. Just so I have a very compact lens when I don't want the big lens. 800PF is compact for what it is but still not a compact walk-around lens when you don't want the attention in more populated areas.

Not sure where I'm headed....will wait to see the details of the A9III if the Nov7-8 announcement rumors are true to see where Sony is heading.

 

[Cameron T]

I don’t see why it couldn’t be done…the fresnel lens is just a way of making the same equivalent lens smaller in front to back dimension…but then I’m not an optical engineer. I agree tha5 it would be pretty expensive though.

To be clear, the part I don't think is possible is the weight part. The hypothetical 180-600 pf zoom is going to be heavier than the 600 prime, end of story.

People need to accept lenses weigh more, or go to smaller sensor formats (and even then you're not saving a lot when you get to longer lenses).

 

[Steve]

Some people wonder why Nikon released the 600pf before filing the queue on the 180-600.
I think I know why.
To many early returns of the 180-600, so they decided to release the real deal.

This lens has been planned and for a long time - as has been its release. These things take years of planning and I don't think they are really subject to sales / performance of other products.

 

[Steve]

When Steve gets his own copy of the lens I'd really like to see a comparison between the 400/4.5 and 1.4TC and the 400/2.8TC with 1.4TC engaged (Does Steve own the 400TC or just the 600TC these days??). Two other options to get to ~600mm.

I'm considering a switch back to Nikon more so than I ever have in the past 4 years. Before the 600PF was a thing I was leaning towards a 400TC and 800PF combo. Now I'm liking the idea of this 600PF but then I'm also thinking how much cheaper a 400/4.5/1.4TC would be for almost the same thing. On the other hand I've grown to dislike using TCs so that pushes me back towards the 600PF option.

May be leaning towards the 600PF and 400TC combo now. Just so I have a very compact lens when I don't want the big lens. 800PF is compact for what it is but still not a compact walk-around lens when you don't want the attention in more populated areas.

Not sure where I'm headed....will wait to see the details of the A9III if the Nov7-8 announcement rumors are true to see where Sony is heading.

I have the 400 4.5, but not the 400 2.8 TC. I want the 400 2.8TC, but I also can't really afford / justify one at the moment.

 

[JAS]

I had the same dilemma…well, it wasn’t much of one for me though…because I wanted something more Z9 AF like for my second body over the Z7II. I think the Z8 is a no brainer for this…and in fact would have bought 2 of them if it was a ain’t the same intro time as the Z9 because I don’t shoot portrait much at all and rotating the body for panos or 5he 1 out of 10,000 portrait shots is easy and it’s a much heavier larger body. In fact…I would swap you my Z9 and extra battery straight up for a second Z8.

I understand the choices we all must make. In my case, I have large hands so the larger size and button spread on the Z9 make for the first truly "comfortable" camera I have owned. I have a D850 and it is OK but not as good as the Z9. I need to hold the Z8 to see if it is "close enough" before the next purchase.

 

[jcgamble]

I'm a 500 f5.6 pf and Z9 guy, and what I like is that my 26L Mindshift Backlight backpack takes the 600 f6.3 where my 500 rests at the same weight. Along with my Z6 II, Z 100-400 and Z 24-70 f4. That is my lightweight travel kit that handles everything I shoot.

 

[ajrmd]

When Steve gets his own copy of the lens I'd really like to see a comparison between the 400/4.5 and 1.4TC and the 400/2.8TC with 1.4TC engaged (Does Steve own the 400TC or just the 600TC these days??). Two other options to get to ~600mm.

I'm considering a switch back to Nikon more so than I ever have in the past 4 years. Before the 600PF was a thing I was leaning towards a 400TC and 800PF combo. Now I'm liking the idea of this 600PF but then I'm also thinking how much cheaper a 400/4.5/1.4TC would be for almost the same thing. On the other hand I've grown to dislike using TCs so that pushes me back towards the 600PF option.

May be leaning towards the 600PF and 400TC combo now. Just so I have a very compact lens when I don't want the big lens. 800PF is compact for what it is but still not a compact walk-around lens when you don't want the attention in more populated areas.

Not sure where I'm headed....will wait to see the details of the A9III if the Nov7-8 announcement rumors are true to see where Sony is heading.

It’s challenging as well as fortuitous to have so many great choices? I think the decision to purchase a 600PF really distills down to the type of animal/WL photography you do. When I owned a 500/600 f/4 they nearly always had TC’s on them with the exception of raptor/animal sanctuaries, safaris, or exotics (Galapagos, etc.). So, for me the 800 PF made more sense. Coming from a long history of big whites, I was surprised how easy it was to carry, acquire the target with a smaller FOV and track subjects. Surprisingly, it doesn’t attract a lot of unwanted attention. As Steve observed, hand holding the 800 PF for prolonged periods is really tiring and I suspect the 600 PF will shine in this regard. I had the 400 f/4.5 for a while as as much as I liked the extreme compactness, it just wasn’t a useful FL for me. Again, your situation may be different though I find tremendous utility in the zooms (Sony 200-600, Canon 100-500, Nikon 180-600) which can’t be replaced by an intermediate prime telephoto. If you’re really thinking of coming back to Nikon (did that last year) not being an NPS member is a real drag. As a CPS member, I never had difficulty acquiring gear and that extended to being a regular Sony consumer. Sadly, that hasn’t been the case with Nikon and their production model has been really troubling.

 

[fcotterill]

A bit more about the 600 f6.3S PF in this new video by Jan Wegener, although it's mainly about other products, although a mention of the Bird S-R Mode in FW v4.10

 

[jcgamble]

I really think you can classify wildlife photographers into two general categories, and some may be both. Low mobility folks with tripods and heavy lenses, and high mobility folks that walk miles with lighter gear. I personally am a high mobility guy, starting my digital experience with a D90 with a 300 f4 D with TC 14II. I upgraded to a D7000, then a D7200. When the 300 f4 pf came out, I replaced the older 300. I bought the D500 before retirement and matched that with the 300 f4 pf. When the 500 f5.6 pf came out it replaced the 300 TC14 II combination. I upgraded to mirrorless with the Z6 II and the 500 pf. Mostly because of the noise of the D500, scaring birds. When the Z9 came out it checked all the boxes for my type of photography, although a little heavier than I'd like. My current kayak kit is the Z6II with the 300 f4 pf and TC14 III on it in a waterproof bag. You can see that the 600 f6.3 is a natural progression for my type of photography. If 600 mm won't handle it, I'll shoot in DX mode for 900 mm equivalent or zoom with my legs. When I shoot big animals, Kodiak bears and moose for example, my other tool is the Z 100-400. The zoom is not 500 pf quality, although it is as good or better than the 300 f4 pf combinations. I could not be happier with the Nikon choices that we have for wildlife photographers.

 

[Mr. Meows]

I think Nikon hit the jackpot with this category:

Disappointed Canon / Sony people that are not provided with mid range choices for wildlife.
These people are definitely not few and they are usually attacked by the fanboys (usually Canon ones) on forums.
They are already considering making the switch to Nikon.
The 600mm PF entices them even more.
Nikon simply has much more choices for them.

Nikon is killing it with lenses.
Time will tell.