Nikon 600PF First Look Field Review!

[MatthewK]

As a former D500+500PF shooter, this 600PF is certainly enticing, so I pre-ordered one a bit ago. Looking back, some of my most enjoyable times doing bird photography occurred after I ditched my heavy, cumbersome 600 f/4 lens in favor of the 500PF, and since I left F-mount behind last year, things have gotten heavy again. Weight, bulk, and juggling lenses is extremely unenjoyable for me, and I want to get back to a nimble one-lens setup like w/ the D500PF.

With the 600PF, I'll probably shoot it in DX mode. No shame. "Well, that means you need an 800PF"... no it doesn't, I already have one It's sensational, but often times too much lens with a rough 16' MFD. Coming from the D500PF, thought it was the answer to my birding prayers, but alas, it hasn't been as rosy as I thought it was going to be.

The 180-600 make a whole ton of sense too. It answers a lot of questions and ticks a lot of boxes, so much so that if it and the 600PF were offered to me right this minute I don't know which I'd take. I have one on pre-order, so we'll see which one I get first. Since it's about to be 7 months of Winter here in Wisconsin, I have a looooong time to agonize over which to keep (if either ever end up getting delivered).

 

[SNEDDERS6666]

David, I have ordered mine from Park Cameras who quoted me end of October. They’ve been reliable re delivery dates for me on new Nikon products. Recommend…but maybe you have your own favourite source

Thanks for this, I use WEX in Glasgow or London Camera Exchange in Bath and both are excellent but needs must I'll check Park out, cheers mate.

 

[Ivan Rothman]

I assume that the Z600mm f6.3 will take the same foot replacement as the Z100-400mm and the Z400mm f4.5 to make it Arca-Swiss compatible.
Does anybody know if this is the case.

 

[Steve]

I assume that the Z600mm f6.3 will take the same foot replacement as the Z100-400mm and the Z400mm f4.5 to make it Arca-Swiss compatible.
Does anybody know if this is the case.

I believe it is. I didn't have a chance to verify it personally, but it's the same size as the on the 70-200, which is the same as the 100-400.

 

[GlenW]

Sometimes the bokeh looks a little...odd. It's tough to describe and it's something I don't usually see - although others have. Maybe someone has something they can post.

I posted an extreme example of the 500PF bokeh a while ago (https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/lunch-at-murden-cove.8974/) and here's the shot showing the specular highlights again:

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

 

[Larry S.]

I'm curious about comparisons with the 400 f/4.5 + TCs. The 400 f/4.5 + TC14 combo gives you a 560 f/6.3 that is cheaper & lighter than the 600 PF while not having any drawbacks/concerns on PF background rendering, and it is still goddamn sharp. And with a TC20, I feel like 800mm f/9 is much more useful and practical than a 1200mm f/13.

My thoughts were the same in reference to the 400mm 4.5. I have the 400mm and will do some testing of my own, with the 1.4tc (=560mm) and the DX crop mode where I keep the 4.5 aperture and get the 600mm. Of course the 19-20 mps is a bite but still large enough for most applications.

 

[Rookie Roy]

I read, understand and agree with Steve’s thoughts that the 6.3 speed is not a deal breaker. It does seem odd to me, however, that Nikon could make the Z 800mm PF a 6.3 and not make the Z 600mm PF at least a 5.6??

 

[abc123brian]

Thank you Steve for this review on this new lens! You always anticipate and address the questions that most of us have. Even with your information, with all the choices from Nikon it makes the decisions difficult. I’m receiving my order of the Z 180-600mm tomorrow. I love the Z800mm! I need to decide if I want to keep the 180-600mm. With all the people waiting I’m sure someone on this form would want it. I just remember how much happier I was withthe 500mm pf than with the 200-500mm zoom. I’m afraid I’ll feel the same about the Z 180-600mm vs the new 600mm PF.

Once I bought the 500mm PF I rarely used the 200-500mm anymore, but there are quite a few improvements to the 180-600mm over the 200-500mm. Lighter, internal zoom, faster AF, better balanced, way easier to turn from min to max zoom. Unless your only con to the 200-500 was the weight, I think the 180-600mm offers a lot more and the differences between it and the 600mm PF aren‘t as drastic as the previous lenses. I will be honest though and say the 180-600mm is noticeably heavier than my 400mm 4.5 or even the 500mm PF, but that is really the only con I have with it. I plan to keep the 180-600mm and pass on this 600mm for now, but I do have a lighter lens I can use alongside it. I’m more tempted by the 800mm PF now because it would be better at 800mm.

 

[Rookie Roy]

Once I bought the 500mm PF I rarely used the 200-500mm anymore, but there are quite a few improvements to the 180-600mm over the 200-500mm. Lighter, internal zoom, faster AF, better balanced, way easier to turn from min to max zoom. Unless your only con to the 200-500 was the weight, I think the 180-600mm offers a lot more and the differences between it and the 600mm PF aren‘t as drastic as the previous lenses. I will be honest though and say the 180-600mm is noticeably heavier than my 400mm 4.5 or even the 500mm PF, but that is really the only con I have with it. I plan to keep the 180-600mm and pass on this 600mm for now, but I do have a lighter lens I can use alongside it. I’m more tempted by the 800mm PF now because it would be better at 800mm.

All good points! Thank you for your insights Brian! Makes me more comfortable tomorrow opening the box. Also, I still have my 500mm PF which is a great lens with my Z9. I recommend the 800mm PF. Mine has hardly left my camera since I got it. It is my favorite lens ever!

 

[marlowtravelsoften]

Good luck on the pre-orders, gents and ladies.

Looks like a great lens, although I'm very happy with the 500PF still.

I can appreciate the low weight, but I struggle with the balance of the PF lens when mounted to the Z9. The balance was perfect when mounted to a D850. When the 500PF lens is mounted to the Z9, when you hold it by the collar, the setup is heavily rotated towards the heavy Z9.

Trying to use a strap with the Z9/500PF causes the lens to be angled towards the sky because the weight of the Z9 being so much. Having a lower weight lens would make this even worse.

 

[abc123brian]

All good points! Thank you for your insights Brian! Makes me more comfortable tomorrow opening the box. Also, I still have my 500mm PF which is a great lens with my Z9. I recommend the 800mm PF. Mine has hardly left my camera since I got it. It is my favorite lens ever!

I hear so many good things about the 800mm and appreciate your recommendation of it. My concern is whether or not it’s too much reach for my subjects so my plan is to use the 1.4x on the 180-600 for a while to see what I think.

 

[Rookie Roy]

Steve, I listened with interest on your description of the VR on the 600mm PF. From your description it sounds like I actually get better VR performance with my Z 800mm PF. Since you have used both did you detect a noticable difference?

 

[Rookie Roy]

Good luck on the pre-orders, gents and ladies.

Looks like a great lens, although I'm very happy with the 500PF still.

I can appreciate the low weight, but I struggle with the balance of the PF lens when mounted to the Z9. The balance was perfect when mounted to a D850. When the 500PF lens is mounted to the Z9, when you hold it by the collar, the setup is heavily rotated towards the heavy Z9.

Trying to use a strap with the Z9/500PF causes the lens to be angled towards the sky because the weight of the Z9 being so much. Having a lower weight lens would make this even worse.

Jon, Steve did address this in his video. He demonstrated the balace on a gimbal and noted that it worked well.

 

[marlowtravelsoften]

Jon, Steve did address this in his video. He demonstrated the balace on a gimbal and noted that it worked well.

I hand hold while hiking. After awhile, it becomes very uncomfortable from the uneven distributed weight between the lens (500PF) and the body (Z9). I didn't have this problem at all with the lighter body weight of the D850.

I have a gimbal but have never used it. While hiking in the woods (which is where I do a majority of my bird photography here in Indiana), I need the versatility of carrying hand held.

I'd be interested to hear from others who hand carry this setup for longer periods of time.

I find myself holding the setup by the barrel of the lens near the camera body instead to better distribute the weight in my hand.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Makes one kinda proud of Nikon for making all these awesome lenses for us (let's not refer to the delivering part )
What I do not know is how on earth one is supposed to fit them all in your camera bag.

That's no problem, Elsa... just get a camera truck!

 

[NorthernFocus]

I hand hold while hiking. After awhile, it becomes very uncomfortable from the uneven distributed weight between the lens (500PF) and the body (Z9). I didn't have this problem at all with the lighter body weight of the D850.

I have a gimbal but have never used it. While hiking in the woods (which is where I do a majority of my bird photography here in Indiana), I need the versatility of carrying hand held.

I'd be interested to hear from others who hand carry this setup for longer periods of time.

I find myself holding the setup by the barrel of the lens near the camera body instead to better distribute the weight in my hand.

"Balance" is a very individual thing. Many people laud the improved balance of the 500PF/FTZ/Z9 while others say the balance is completely ruined. For me yes it took some getting used to but ultimately having the overall weight closer to one's body is less fatiguing over long periods. It puts less stress on back/shoulders which have to offset the shift in center of balance when holding the camera/lens in shooting position. As far as walking with the lens on a strap I find it neither here nor there. Regardless of rig I walk with one hand on the lens foot to control swinging/bouncing motion. Plus if the foot has been replaced with a third party foot for balance on a gimbal it can usually also be balanced on the strap. I've now transitioned to the 400 4.5 from the 500PF and all of the same comments apply.

 

[marlowtravelsoften]

"Balance" is a very individual thing. Many people laud the improved balance of the 500PF/FTZ/Z9 while others say the balance is completely ruined. For me yes it took some getting used to but ultimately having the overall weight closer to one's body is less fatiguing over long periods. It puts less stress on back/shoulders which have to offset the shift in center of balance when holding the camera/lens in shooting position. As far as walking with the lens on a strap I find it neither here nor there. Regardless of rig I walk with one hand on the lens foot to control swinging/bouncing motion. Plus if the foot has been replaced with a third party foot for balance on a gimbal it can usually also be balanced on the strap. I've now transitioned to the 400 4.5 from the 500PF and all of the same comments apply.

I hear what you're saying. To me, as an engineer, if you were to put 1 finger under the lens foot, and the system as a whole stayed perfectly level (horizontal) that would be "balanced". I have to use my hand/finger/thumb to resist the setup from wanting to rotate downward all the time. That is very stressful on my hand over time. I am hiking for periods of 4+ hours several times a week, which is probably way more than most people. I bought a BlackRapid strap recently, and will need to just try it out more - keeping my hand on the foot while hiking with the strap sounds like it might be a very good alternative for me.

Back to the main topic. Sorry for getting the thread side-tracked.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Nikon problem would, but I don't allow it. They want to pay my travel expenses and such, but I think that sends a bad message, so I pay my own way - both for the reviews and when I order the lenses.

If they only had you do their lens' reviews during another part of the year. Compared to Ohio, Florida weather is much more plesant in late-Fall through early-Spring! BTW, did you do the reviews for both the 600 PF and the 180-600 during the same trip?

No matter, this is a great review, as your others are. Thank you, Steve.

 

[Dave Stargazer]

I posted an extreme example of the 500PF bokeh a while ago (https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/lunch-at-murden-cove.8974/) and here's the shot showing the specular highlights again:View attachment 71517

Thanks for posting that Glen - bokeh was actually a pretty strong reason why I went for the 400mm f/4.5 when it first went on sale last spring and I did a rent-to-buy test (along with size, weight, stellar IQ, aperture, AF speed, etc.).

Looking forward (I think!) to comparisons with the 600mm PF vs 400mm f/4.5 + TC 1.4x - I do expect the 400mm to suffer a bit there (IQ some, and maybe AF speed? not sure), but my experience is that it's very solid with that TC - my 200-500mm is lonely now. And as I've posted multiple times on Steve's forums, it's decent+ with the TC 2.0x (imo of course). Will be interesting to see bokeh tests with the 600mm PF - I can see that the Nikon official images are def staying away from challenging bokeh situations.

Thanks again, for the great first look, @Steve - Cheers!

 

[Dave Stargazer]

"Balance" is a very individual thing. Many people laud the improved balance of the 500PF/FTZ/Z9 while others say the balance is completely ruined. For me yes it took some getting used to but ultimately having the overall weight closer to one's body is less fatiguing over long periods. It puts less stress on back/shoulders which have to offset the shift in center of balance when holding the camera/lens in shooting position. As far as walking with the lens on a strap I find it neither here nor there. Regardless of rig I walk with one hand on the lens foot to control swinging/bouncing motion. Plus if the foot has been replaced with a third party foot for balance on a gimbal it can usually also be balanced on the strap. I've now transitioned to the 400 4.5 from the 500PF and all of the same comments apply.

In terms of balance for the 400mm f/4.5 on a Z9, it looks to me like the 3rd party tripod feet will not actually balance for gimbal use if you put on a TC - esp the TC 2.0x. I have the long Kirk plate on the original Nikon tripod foot, and it's mounted close to as far back as it can be - then balance is possible without a TC or with the TC 1.4x. When using the TC 2.0x on a gimbal, I have to slide that plate even further back, but it can get to the balance point. I'm sure a Z8 wouldn't have nearly the same problem.

Cheers!

 

[Steve]

Steve, I listened with interest on your description of the VR on the 600mm PF. From your description it sounds like I actually get better VR performance with my Z 800mm PF. Since you have used both did you detect a noticable difference?

Too tough to say. When I was testing VR it was at the end of a very tiring day. They are probably about the same.

 

[Steve]

If they only had you do their lens' reviews during another part of the year. Compared to Ohio, Florida weather is much more plesant in late-Fall through early-Spring! BTW, did you do the reviews for both the 600 PF and the 180-600 during the same trip?

No matter, this is a great review, as your others are. Thank you, Steve.

Separate trips - the 180-600 was out on Colorado

 

[MatthewK]

Thinking the 600PF was sitting just off-camera during your Z9 4.10 firmware review

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

That's no problem, Elsa... just get a camera truck!

I already did... I kid you not.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Separate trips - the 180-600 was out on Colorado

I had to go and look, I was thinking about the Z9 Firmware update you released recently. One of these days when you're in Florida, maybe some of us members can meet you for dinner or supper. (We used to have fairly good sized "meet-n-greets" every year when I was active on another photography forum.)