Nikon Z 600 TC VR S review

[Len Shepherd]

Being relatively new to this forum I am unsure of the etiquette for posting links to other test site results.

The UK ephotozine.com often tests new Nikon equipment before other sites - probably because Nikon UK often send them equipment for testing early in the production run.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-z-600mm-f-4-tc-lens-review-36442

A plus for the site is you can raise queries on tests via email and a minus for me is they test edge but not corner performance.

While the results seem good on a first superficial reading the results appear to contradict Steve's recent VR guidance in that slightly higher scores were obtained with VR on on a tripod.

Looking into the testing detail a Manfrotto 055 tripod and a Manfrotto 115 3-way tripod head is the standard test equipment.
I think most would agree that this is not a very secure set up for testing a 600 mm lens.
Steve's additional VR advice to do you own testing with your equipment seems fully justified in this example.

The test does not publish figures at 840mm equivalent with the internal 1.4 x in use.
This is likely (I have not asked) because the site uses an enlarged test target with testing limited to 200mm in the studio - and taken outdoors to test longer focal lengths.
The site does not specify the size of the enlarged test target.
The required focus distance at 840mm might have been around 100 feet - not easily located in a town centre.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Need to correct the title. Unless it was intentional click bait...

 

[Len Shepherd]

Need to correct the title. Unless it was intentional click bait...

Thanks - correction made.

 

[fcotterill]

Another review, by Jan Wegener in case not shared yet

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Here is my review : “IT IS GREAT !!!!”

Only you can judge if the focal length(s) and aperture work best for you.

AND more importantly only you can assess if this lens offers better value for money than other options given the budget you have available.

I do not consider changing camera systems just because a few lenses appear to be better than those in your current system — but not every system have a 600/4 or camera as capable as the Z9 in their line-up.

 

[GrandNagus50]

Let's get real, folks, the price of this lens cannot possibly be "justified" rationally for any of us who is not a professional photographer. What really are the advantages of this lens vs. the previous FL E model, which can be used on a Z body via the FTZ adapter, weighs only around one pound more (plus the 4.5 oz. weight of the adapter plus the 6.7 oz of the TC14eiii), and I would guess autofocuses just fine (this based on the fact that my previous generation G VR model autofocuses just dandy on my Z bodies)? The one truly big advantage is the built-in TC, and yes, that is convenient, but is it worth thousands and thousands of dollars vs. keeping or buying the older lens, which you can now buy used for half the price of the Z lens?

The newest lens is fantastic, I am sure, and there ARE advantages, but the price . . . I think some of the lust for the lens that many of us (including me) feel is that inner glow from knowing we have 'the best'. It's kind of a luxury.

 

[Steve]

Based on the support setup, I think I know why he got better results with VR on

 

[MatthewK]

What is the current order status of this lens? Is it super delayed like the 800PF, with units randomly trickling in?

I occasionally entertain/daydream about getting one, but then I look at the price and realize that if I were to sell my 400 4.5 and 800PF to put towards it, I'd STILL owe nearly $10k It's just not a realistic purchase that I can justify for a hobby; congrats to those that can though!

 

[JoelKlein]

What is the current order status of this lens? Is it super delayed like the 800PF, with units randomly trickling in?

I occasionally entertain/daydream about getting one, but then I look at the price and realize that if I were to sell my 400 4.5 and 800PF to put towards it, I'd STILL owe nearly $10k It's just not a realistic purchase that I can justify for a hobby; congrats to those that can though!

And 400/4.5 & 800pf are handhold-able vs. the 600/TC which requires support

 

[Len Shepherd]

Is it super delayed like the 800PF, with units randomly trickling in?

Are delays on the 800 PF appear to be quite short over the last two months

I occasionally entertain/daydream about getting one, but then I look at the price

Everybody has limited disposable income.

While I could justify getting it if I had more disposable income - not being able to afford it does not prevent it being very good value for money for those who afford can.

Not everyone has enough disposable income to buy Z9. This does not mean that nobody who is not full time pro should buy one.

 

[MatthewK]

Are delays on the 800 PF appear to be quite short over the last two months

Everybody has limited disposable income.

While I could justify getting it if I had more disposable income - not being able to afford it does not prevent it being very good value for money for those who afford can.

Not everyone has enough disposable income to buy Z9. This does not mean that nobody who is not full time pro should buy one.

People are still waiting for their pre-order 800PF from last year, just check the 800PF order thread… just wondering if it’s the same story with the 600TC? Are smaller stores able to get a hold of them more frequently than the big stores? That’s how I got my 800F, I’d still be waiting in line otherwise.

Yep, income disparity is a thing. Didn’t say the 600 (or Z9?) wasn’t worth the price, just that it’s not a price I’m willing to pay. Doesn’t prevent me from running the numbers in my head and weighing my options, as I am within striking distance, but again, can’t really justify it when what I have is serving me well.

Along with that, as @JoelKlein mentioned, don’t think I want to put up with the weight of another 600f4, but the amazing versatility of this 600TC has me questioning that too.

 

[JoelKlein]

The 400/2.8 TC is only 1 pound heavier. I took the 800pf and added another pound (about) to it by pilling on a bag of beans; I think I could handle it. I have to try it in real life.
Ther price is still a factor....

 

[Marcus]

A question if I may. The MFD on the 600TC is 4.3m and remains the same at 840mm, the MFD on the 400TC is 2.5m. still @560mm. So assuming you have a small song bird that is at MFD on each, and the magnification of each. Which gives you the bird with more pixels? I know this isn't a typical use case scenario with most (if not all) song birds, but there are some that are less wary/care less. I guess the MFD on the 400TC would only be more useful in this particular scenario?

 

[Steve]

A question if I may. The MFD on the 600TC is 4.3m and remains the same at 840mm, the MFD on the 400TC is 2.5m. still @560mm. So assuming you have a small song bird that is at MFD on each, and the magnification of each. Which gives you the bird with more pixels? I know this isn't a typical use case scenario with most (if not all) song birds, but there are some that are less wary/care less. I guess the MFD on the 400TC would only be more useful in this particular scenario?

The Nikon 400 2.8 has a bit better magnification ratio at MFD. (0.17X vs 0.14X for the 600 without TCs). In practical terms, the bird is going to be about the same size, with the 400 having a small advantage. The big difference is that 600mm gives you more working distance vs. the 400mm that allows you to work at closer range in tighter spaces (like if you're back is to a tree/ boardwalk, etc).

If you engage the TC it'll increase the magnification ratio for each, but again, they are close. (0.23x vs 0.2x)

From a practical standpoint, I think it comes down to what's more important - close range focus flexibility or longer working distance. If I am doing songbirds in the open, I'll take working distance of the 600 every time (too close often means the bird takes off). However, if I'm on a boardwalk with limited options for mobility, then the 400 for sure.

 

[DRwyoming]

A question if I may. The MFD on the 600TC is 4.3m and remains the same at 840mm, the MFD on the 400TC is 2.5m. still @560mm. So assuming you have a small song bird that is at MFD on each, and the magnification of each. Which gives you the bird with more pixels? I know this isn't a typical use case scenario with most (if not all) song birds, but there are some that are less wary/care less. I guess the MFD on the 400TC would only be more useful in this particular scenario?

That's a fairly special use case for songbirds as you say but it's exactly the question folks who shoot macro or near macro with longer lenses often ask. You can get that from the spec sheet for a lens by looking at maximum magnification which is basically reproduction ratio relative to the size of a full size sensor(36x24mm) at minimum focusing distance.

400mm f/2.8 TC Z mount: without internal TC engaged, 0.17x, with internal TC engaged, 0.23x. MFD=2.5m
600mm f/4 TC Z mount: without internal TC engaged, 0.14x, with internal TC engaged, 0.2x. MFD=4.3m

So if you could get to the minimum focusing distance with each lens (which isn't the same) the 400mm would give you more magnification and hence more pixels on the subject for a given camera than the 600mm but you'd also have to get almost 6 feet closer with the 400mm to be working at that MFD. If you do pseudo macro work with critters you can reliably get very close to this can be a consideration but for most birding work the magnification at MFD isn't usually the highest priority as it's tough to get so close most of the time.

[edit]looks like I doubled with Steve... what he said

 

[Marcus]

Thank-you both for your replies, and it mirrors what i had thought. It was going to have to be one or the other, so the 600 it will be, but not this year lol!

 

[Anjin San]

just that it’s not a price I’m willing to pay. Doesn’t prevent me from running the numbers in my head and weighing my options, as I am within striking distance, but again, can’t really justify it when what I have is serving me well.

Me too…I could actually afford one as well as another Z9 to dedicate to it and the probably $1,500 to $2,000 worth of tripod and gimbal it really needs…but I look at these things on the bang for the buck spectrum. Given the weight of the lens and tripod and my willingness to carry that into the field and leaving the other lenses behind, add in the how much would it get used criteria, the fact that I'm an amateur and my output goes to the blog/screen spending that kind of money just doesn't make sense…but TBH it's really the weight of it and the tripod more than any of the other other reasons. I could conceivably see the 800PF…but haven't really decided yet whether it would get used for a large enough portion of my shots to make it worthwhile…especially as I've got a 400/4.5 arriving today and that's 560 with the 1.4TC and all reviews and indications tell me that combo is better than the 100-400 and TC which I've found to be more than adequate. I'm doing some evaluations this spring/summer/fall on whether 800 would actually be worth the price and weight and am ready to be surprised if I decide it would be…but at this point I'm leaning slightly against it being so.

Now if my bride would agree to be my sherpa then the weight issue goes away…but she's pretty adamant about not doing that…she will agree to be my tripod on occasion and get things out of my backpack without me taking it off and putting it down…but she keeps telling me there's a reason she sticks to the 2 lens Z50 kit and after going on 50 years I don't think she's gonna change her mind.

 

[JoelKlein]

400/4.5+TC, IS a lens that would change your mind about 560mm capabilities. Add in DX, and your set.

Heavy crop with the combo

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

 

[Len Shepherd]

People are still waiting for their pre-order 800PF from last year, just check the 800PF order thread…

The 800 is recently advertised as a few in stock and available for delivery (if you have the money) in the UK by some UK retailers.
The 800 seems also moderately regularly in stock at some European retailers.

 

[DRM]

I disagree with the sentiment that the lens, because of its price, cannot be justified unless it is used to make money. People think nothing of spending $15,000-$20,000 on ATVs, motorcycles and the like for purely recreational purposes. People think nothing of spending $20,000 + on boats and RVs for purely recreational purposes. The base models of vehicles work just fine, but plenty spend tens of thousands of dollars more for comfort or appearance related upgrades. The benefits of recreation and achieving a proper work/life balance easily justify such expenditures if they help people relieve stress, make memories, and enjoy their lives more fully. And it’s not like the lens is a bar of chocolate that will quickly be consumed. I bet the 600 TC offers as many years of service to those who own it as the ATVs, motorcycles, boats, RVs etc… do to those who own those items. If you want it and can afford it, get it.

 

[pnbarne]

I disagree with the sentiment that the lens, because of its price, cannot be justified unless it is used to make money. People think nothing of spending $15,000-$20,000 on ATVs, motorcycles and the like for purely recreational purposes. People think nothing of spending $20,000 + on boats and RVs for purely recreational purposes. The base models of vehicles work just fine, but plenty spend tens of thousands of dollars more for comfort or appearance related upgrades. The benefits of recreation and achieving a proper work/life balance easily justify such expenditures if they help people relieve stress, make memories, and enjoy their lives more fully. And it’s not like the lens is a bar of chocolate that will quickly be consumed. I bet the 600 TC offers as many years of service to those who own it as the ATVs, motorcycles, boats, RVs etc… do to those who own those items. If you want it and can afford it, get it.

Have you seen the price of a long arm sewing machine? They make the most expensive lenses look positively affordable.

 

[Len Shepherd]

I disagree with the sentiment that the lens, because of its price, cannot be justified unless it is used to make money.

I agree.

Only a few photographers make "serious money" from selling wildlife or sports images likely to be taken with a 600 S or similar lens.

This does not mean those who do not make "serious money" should be precluded from talking these types of images with this type of equipment.

Going further there would be few wildlife trips to East or South Africa if all the participants had to earn a living from their photo gear.

People think nothing of spending $15,000-$20,000 on ATVs, motorcycles and the like for purely recreational purposes. People think nothing of spending $20,000 + on boats and RVs for purely recreational purposes.

Some with sufficient income do - though possibly no more than 25% of the population in relatively affluent countries and communities have sufficient disposable income to do this.

At somewhat lower price points lenses like the 100-400S, 400 f4.5 and 800 PF are expanding what equipment is viable.

Possibly 50% will not have sufficient disposable income for even the 200-600 when it arrives.
More will be able to afford a 200-500 and D850 - possibly both second hand - and if they develop there photo skill they can take many good photos.

 

[ChrisM]

Have you seen the price of a long arm sewing machine? They make the most expensive lenses look positively affordable.

Not to mention high end turntables, and those are not going to to make you any money, they are just for pleasure:

The 10 most expensive Turntables money can buy - Decoded Magazine

What do you do when you are a true audiophile and just have to have the best?

www.decodedmagazine.com

And an even much smaller (mass) return for your money are phono cartridges:

Editors’ Choice: Phono Cartridges $5000 and Up - The Absolute Sound

Editors’ Choice: Phono Cartridges $5000 and Up - Our editors have evaluated phono cartridges over the past several years (newer isn’t always better!) and discussed which products stand out as having merit for likely applications, including room size and ancillary equipment. Here are our...

www.theabsolutesound.com

Only meant to illustrate that there are many and much more extravagant ways to "waste" your money.
One of the very benign aspects of spending a lot of cash on a 400/600mm high end super telephoto lens to me, is the very small environmental impact and the fact that it tends to increase your bond with the natural environment, which is very welcome.

So I applaud everyone who spends 14.000 on a lens and not on one of the many objects that are less benign when it comes to their impact on the natural environment. Perhaps this is all for "obsessed men", but some women change their entire wardrobe each season, now go figure what that means to our environment....

 

[Anjin San]

400/4.5+TC, IS a lens that would change your mind about 560mm capabilities. Add in DX, and your set.

Heavy crop with the combo
View attachment 59508

Yep…mine got here yesterday afternoon nd a few shots today with the 1.4…and yeah, it’s as good as my 500PF and at 560 to boot. I’m completely out of the F mount now.