Nikon 600PF First Look Field Review!

[BillW]

I'd love to see a photo of your setup if you get the chance.

Sorry it's taken me a while to respond. Here's a link to a SmugMug gallery of iPhone snaps I just took of the clamp; the clamp on a Black Rapid strap; the clamp & strap attached to a lens foot; and the clamp & strap attached to a L bracket on a Z8. Normally, there is a lens mounted on the camera and I attach the clamp to the lens foot if there is one and to an L bracket on the camera if not. The foot and L bracket here are also RRS, but this should generally work with other Arca Swiss compatible feet, plates and brackets, especially since the clamp uses a knob not a lever to tighten the connection.

The clamp is an RRS B2-FABN D. There may be other clamps that would work similarly, both from RRS and others. RRS has a thinner micro clamp that works similarly. I preferred this larger clamp for use with larger telephotos. I used blue locktite when screwing the Black Rapid connector into the clamp.

RRS Clamp & Black Rapid Strap - wwelke

This gallery hosted by SmugMug; your photos look better here.

wwelke.smugmug.com

 

[RichF]

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.

Do you think the demand for other products, timing of other product releases, production capability as well as inventory, etc. affects when a lens is released?

 

[RichF]

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.

I think the Nikon long lens will stop people from jumping from Nikon to S/C and might get a few of those who switched to consider returning. Nikon was the last to have a 200-600 (or 100-500 in the case of Canon) but when you look at the lens line up, it is quite impressive.

 

[Steve]

Do you think the demand for other products, timing of other product releases, production capability as well as inventory, etc. affects when a lens is released?

I don't think that demand for other products at any given moment is much of a driver. This is just speculation on my part, of course. Nikon generally contacts me with specifics a few weeks in advance, a month at most. Prior to that, I'm as much in the dark as everyone else. Still, my impression is that these things must be months (years if you include product development) in the making.

 

[RichF]

I don't think that demand for other products at any given moment is much of a driver. This is just speculation on my part, of course. Nikon generally contacts me with specifics a few weeks in advance, a month at most. Prior to that, I'm as much in the dark as everyone else. Still, my impression is that these things must be months (years if you include product development) in the making.

No question that the development cycle is long. From concept, to design, prototyping and then production, it undoubtedly takes years. My only thought is that somewhere along the line marketing, some exec, or ??? decides to introduce 180-600 2-3 months prior to the 600 PF. What leads to this timing. Perhaps the 180-600 was ready to release 6 months earlier but Nikon want to make sure that they had sufficient inventory to avoid complaints that the lens was more ghostware than a real product? I can understand not introducing both lens at the same time, that would reduce the excitement/hype.

And why did Nikon release 400 TC, then the 800 PF (I think this order is correct) and then the 600 TC. I can imaging that (1) the need lots of time between introducing the 400 TC and 600 TC due to manufacturing limitations. And 600 TC and 800 PF are too close to focal length so let 800 sales mature slightly before introducing the 600 TC.

It would be very interesting to be part of the teams that make these decisions. I think Nikon has done a great job giving us a great line up super teles. I am now watching them to see what they do w/ 100-300 and 200-400 TC replacements, PC/TS-E lens, and long macros. Plus fill in their line up of DX lens/bodies and middle FX bodies. Next few years will be very interesting.

 

[Steve]

No question that the development cycle is long. From concept, to design, prototyping and then production, it undoubtedly takes years. My only thought is that somewhere along the line marketing, some exec, or ??? decides to introduce 180-600 2-3 months prior to the 600 PF. What leads to this timing. Perhaps the 180-600 was ready to release 6 months earlier but Nikon want to make sure that they had sufficient inventory to avoid complaints that the lens was more ghostware than a real product? I can understand not introducing both lens at the same time, that would reduce the excitement/hype.

And why did Nikon release 400 TC, then the 800 PF (I think this order is correct) and then the 600 TC. I can imaging that (1) the need lots of time between introducing the 400 TC and 600 TC due to manufacturing limitations. And 600 TC and 800 PF are too close to focal length so let 800 sales mature slightly before introducing the 600 TC.

It would be very interesting to be part of the teams that make these decisions. I think Nikon has done a great job giving us a great line up super teles. I am now watching them to see what they do w/ 100-300 and 200-400 TC replacements, PC/TS-E lens, and long macros. Plus fill in their line up of DX lens/bodies and middle FX bodies. Next few years will be very interesting.

Wow, no clue at all. I enjoy working with Nikon, but they don't share very well (and I'm not really all that great at speculating, as you're probably noticing LOL)

 

[marlowtravelsoften]

Sorry it's taken me a while to respond. Here's a link to a SmugMug gallery of iPhone snaps I just took of the clamp; the clamp on a Black Rapid strap; the clamp & strap attached to a lens foot; and the clamp & strap attached to a L bracket on a Z8. Normally, there is a lens mounted on the camera and I attach the clamp to the lens foot if there is one and to an L bracket on the camera if not. The foot and L bracket here are also RRS, but this should generally work with other Arca Swiss compatible feet, plates and brackets, especially since the clamp uses a knob not a lever to tighten the connection.

The clamp is an RRS B2-FABN D. There may be other clamps that would work similarly, both from RRS and others. RRS has a thinner micro clamp that works similarly. I preferred this larger clamp for use with larger telephotos. I used blue locktite when screwing the Black Rapid connector into the clamp.

RRS Clamp & Black Rapid Strap - wwelke

This gallery hosted by SmugMug; your photos look better here.

wwelke.smugmug.com

Thanks for this information! I see now. As long as I can shift my arca swiss plate far enough back towards the camera and attach this clamp to it there, I think that would help tremendously with keeping the weight distribution more even when holding it.

 

[AZMyke]

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.

They might not be returning their z180-600s ... but I canceled my order for it as soon as the Z 600pf was announced.

 

[AZMyke]

First off I don't recall anyone saying 600 at 6.3 is "more then OK". My take on this thread is the majority feel it is not okay, especially at $4800.
As to fashioning arguments to fit the bill I don't see that either. I won't speak for others but I'm 'okay' (not more than okay) with this 600/6.3 because of its portability, which greatly appeals to me. I mean, good God this lens is barely larger, and about the same weight, as the 100-400 Z lens. A 600mm 3Lb lens.....amazing! There is no doubt that a 600/5.6 lens would be larger and heavier and maybe more suitable to many but also less portable. I do not plan on using this with the 1.4 tele as 840mm at f/9 lacks appeal. Another reason I'm okay with f/6.3 is my 500/4E which I'm very much leaning towards keeping. Choice is nice especially when you can get exactly what you want, but if not then you either accept what is offered or go without. I chose to not go without...

Yes, the size and weight sealed the deal for me. I'm on the trails with my Jeep (top off) and will appreciate having a long telephoto I can pick up and sling into position at a moment's notice because wildlife will pop up quickly. Additionally, the build quality is important to me as well, which comes with the S-lenses. While the z180-600 can boost comparable sharpness, I'm afraid it might not have the same durability. Some have mentioned z180-600 maybe it's just too heavy to carry all day long. I don't know if this is true, I just know it's heavier just being, approx. 6oz lighter than the f200-500mm. I rarely handheld my f200-500mm

 

[AZMyke]

LOL, I gotta admit, you're not wrong! It does for me, even though it's just a third of a stop. In that case, I'd probably just drop a third of a stop in shutter speed and cross my fingers! Although, I have to admit, most of the time when the light is that low, it's not really all that interesting anymore so I tend to be on my way out anyway!

With today's technology; cameras, lenses, and software ... In your opinion, how much do you believe technology has in its ability to clean up those higher ISO to provide a good image? Say with a Z8/Z9 making 6.3 kind of moot?

 

[Michael Dreese]

With today's technology; cameras, lenses, and software ... In your opinion, how much do you believe technology has in its ability to clean up those higher ISO to provide a good image? Say with a Z8/Z9 making 6.3 kind of moot?

Although I always strive to capture a clean low ISO image, I have found that the Topaz and Adobe products are incredibly effective at noise reduction. Also, I just downloaded the most recent update to Lightroom Classic and the new Lens Blur tool seems very promising. I tested it on one image and really liked the results. Of course, I would love to have the 400 2.8 TC but my wife’s understanding will only go so far!

 

[marlowtravelsoften]

I don't set a limit on ISO. This image is at ISO 32,000. Windy day in the woods during a storm and could only get the shutter speed down to 1/50s without introducing motion blur. This was my first time ever coming across an Eastern Screech-Owl Owlet. I rather get the shot and try to make it work than not. Obviously, you need to know your equipments limitations. If the ISO becomes higher than your personal liking, you can always call it a day and come back out on a better day with more light.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

It looks to me guys, that the last few posts are a bit off topic .

 

[ajrmd]

I think the Nikon long lens will stop people from jumping from Nikon to S/C and might get a few of those who switched to consider returning. Nikon was the last to have a 200-600 (or 100-500 in the case of Canon) but when you look at the lens line up, it is quite impressive.

It's difficult to gauge, though what caused me to move away from Cannon (and to a lesser degree than Sony) was the lens line up though if people get wind that these "great" lenses are not commonly available, they are likely not to switch. I would have made the shift a year earlier though that's how long it took to secure an 800 PF. I had ordered a Z9 and 800 PF the day the lens was announced. I cancelled the Z9 as it was available sooner, though it had little WL utility without the long lens for me and there were questions with the AF capabilities with the early FW. Eventually, 9 months later I was able to secure an 800 and ended up purchasing the Z8 (questionable judgement). So, until Nikon reconciles its production methods, a wholesale switch of WL photographers is less likely.

 

[Steve]

With today's technology; cameras, lenses, and software ... In your opinion, how much do you believe technology has in its ability to clean up those higher ISO to provide a good image? Say with a Z8/Z9 making 6.3 kind of moot?

I don't think it makes much of a difference, it's more in my head TBH. I'm used to fast glass and F/5.6 limitations, so I always recoil a bit when I see anything smaller than F/5.6. As I mentioned in the video, from a practical standpoint, it's nothing.

 

[Steve]

It's difficult to gauge, though what caused me to move away from Cannon (and to a lesser degree than Sony) was the lens line up though if people get wind that these "great" lenses are not commonly available, they are likely not to switch. I would have made the shift a year earlier though that's how long it took to secure an 800 PF. I had ordered a Z9 and 800 PF the day the lens was announced. I cancelled the Z9 as it was available sooner, though it had little WL utility without the long lens for me and there were questions with the AF capabilities with the early FW. Eventually, 9 months later I was able to secure an 800 and ended up purchasing the Z8 (questionable judgement). So, until Nikon reconciles its production methods, a wholesale switch of WL photographers is less likely.

It's a temporary problem though. A year from now, I'm guessing that you can get any of these lenses you like - and so on as the years pass. My guess, at that's all it is, is that Nikon has to balance the number of units they are going to ultimately sell against creating multiple extra warehouses / factories for an initial surge in demand.

 

[AZMyke]

Although I always strive to capture a clean low ISO image, I have found that the Topaz and Adobe products are incredibly effective at noise reduction. Also, I just downloaded the most recent update to Lightroom Classic and the new Lens Blur tool seems very promising. I tested it on one image and really liked the results. Of course, I would love to have the 400 2.8 TC but my wife’s understanding will only go so far!

Thank you for your reply and "yes" I believe I've taxed my wife's understanding already after ordering the 600pf. I hate having to owe her, big! (her words) lol.

 

[ajrmd]

It's a temporary problem though. A year from now, I'm guessing that you can get any of these lenses you like - and so on as the years pass. My guess, at that's all it is, is that Nikon has to balance the number of units they are going to ultimately sell against creating multiple extra warehouses / factories for an initial surge in demand.

I appreciate the complexities of a shrinking and ever changing market, however if Nikon is planning on becoming the defacto WL system, they need to perfect their game in production. I applaud them for creating such fantastic lenses and for working and refining the bodies' AF systems though the current state of inventory in this segment is awful.

 

[Michael Dreese]

Thank you for your reply and "yes" I believe I've taxed my wife's understanding already after ordering the 600pf. I hate having to owe her, big! (her words) lol.

I ordered it too and just hope she is not here when it is delivered!

 

[JoelKlein]

What’s the reason Nikon isn’t naming it officially 600pf like the other pf lenses?

 

[Cameron T]

Ask nikon

 

[Steve]

What’s the reason Nikon isn’t naming it officially 600pf like the other pf lenses?

The 800PF isn't called the 800PF either

PF is just a type of lens element, like SWR or ED. "PF" is more of a colloquial way to describe it.

 

[MMoretti]

On f-mount, I appreciate the ‘PF’ tag in the name… makes it easy to scan for one over all of Nikon’s variations on 300mm FL over the years. Not such a big deal, I suppose, at 600 and 800…

 

[arbitrage]

Yet Nikon writes Phase Fresnel in very prominent yellow font on the 600 and 800PF lenses?? Weird marketing decisions...leave it out of the name but blast us with gaudy label on the actual lens??

 

[Mudweasel]

Just had notification that I should receive mine next week (in the UK).

I've thought long and hard about this lens, as I already have the 400/4.5 and the 800PF - and have been more than happy with the results from the 400/4.5 with the 1.4x TC.

My reasoning (ok, clutching at straws to validate the purchase) is that the 600PF 'should' be a touch sharper and quicker than the 400/4.5 + TC (although hard to imagine that this would be a massive difference in the real world)... but I'll have a decent 600mm (that if you'd asked me what my dream Z lens announcement would be a year or two ago, this would have been it, albeit I'd have preferred it at f5.6) and I'll have a faster 400mm to use in lower light.

Tbh, the 800PF hasn't seen much use since I got it (when it first came out)... I don't photograph an awful lot of birds, so my usage for that hasn't been as high as I thought it would be... and that's the one that might be at risk. Ok, who am I kidding, I'm bound to keep all of them!