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).
To get 1/3 stop more light to the sensor the lens area has to increase by 33 percent. Which equates roughly to every lens element being about 15 percent larger diameter. But the amount of glass and therefore the weight is proportional to area (i.e. changes exponentially with diameter). So to go to 5.6 vs 6.3 the lens would only have to be 15 percent larger diameter but would weigh about 30 percent more.
Understood. The 500pf was 5.6. Another 100mm requires a 1/3 stop?
You're trying to compare the two different systems with different flange diameters and therefore different diaphragm sizes.
Size, weight and the associated cost is against the idea to make a lighter lens.
I'd also note that it's not the length of the lens that changes the aperture, but the desire to keep the weight/size/cost down. Nikon could have done a 5.6, or even f4...at a cost to all of those things.
I get it about keeping weight and cost down. What I’m trying to understand is, the reason its so much more expensive from the 500pf AND 1/3 stop. Does 100mm ask for so much more in terms of optical design? Or the difference in price from the 500pf is mainly business revenue
The 500pf was 3600$ at launch. 20% inflation puts that at 4300$. You're 'only' paying 500$ more equivalent for 100 more mm and a third of a stop. Seems fair to me.
Your suggesting 20% inflation.
I'm using the inflation calculator from the government. It's actually 23 according to them from 2018-2023, but I was being lazy and rounding.Your suggesting 20% inflation.
Okay. Thank you Nikon for the Z9 & 8 lower then expected price. I’m paying it back now
Canon?
Why do you care? It is what it is. Buy it or don't. What if it is because they want to make some profit? You going to start a class action for price gouging? If you don't want to pay $4800 for 600mm and f6.3 max aperture then buy the 180-600 for $1700. Or buy a 400 4.5 and put a TC on it. Nikon is offering you three ways to get there at three different prices. What's not to like?
It's really simple. If it's more than you want to pay just don't buy it.Your suggesting 20% inflation.
Okay. Thank you Nikon for the Z9 & 8 lower then expected price. I’m paying it back now
Another one of those annoying people presenting facts to people whose minds are made up...
I don’t like the 180-600 weight. I’m always shooting 600+ for that weight I’m taking along the 800pf
but at least I can narrow it down. 
for 6.3..) made me aware, to stop dreaming (and/or saving) for the 400/2.8 TC. Because I’m not using 400! Unless I’m at the zoo. For those times I can use TC’s on the 70-200.
I use both manual as manual and as M + Auto ISO. When shooting just manual, that's when I use the control ring
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 still maintain that the real world difference between F/5.6 and F/6.3 is there but minimal. However, the difference between F/4 and F/5.6 or F/6.3 is far more noticeable and it's why we pay the big bucks for those lenses. I agree that the contextual rendering (I love that phrase) is absolutely better with the faster glass. Again though, there's a $15K option out there that'll make it happen
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's where I'm at for the 600 6.3. Too much overlap with current gear. Now the 800 6.3 is a different story...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
Thanks for a very condiderate reply!I still maintain that the real world difference between F/5.6 and F/6.3 is there but minimal. However, the difference between F/4 and F/5.6 or F/6.3 is far more noticeable and it's why we pay the big bucks for those lenses. I agree that the contextual rendering (I love that phrase) is absolutely better with the faster glass. Again though, there's a $15K option out there that'll make it happen
As far as the fast primes and the way they render, that's often a result of a number of things - not just the front element (which, I'm not sure the sheer size actually makes any difference). I think that the larger primes tend to have better coatings and use better quality elements all the way around. I'm not an optical engineer though...
And, as I said in the video, I agree 100% that the lens should have been an F/5.6 BUT I also think it's important to try to take the third of a stop difference in the proper context.
From a business POV Nikon would be foolish to price the lens less than the market will bear. It the lens is indeed 'too expensive' the market will tell them in short order. OTOH if they can't keep up with demand we might see the price drift or jump upward.
