fcotterill
Well-known member
Manual is here to download
Good to see 2 sets of L-Fn buttons
Good to see 2 sets of L-Fn buttons
Last edited:
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).
I have a feeling that the 200-600 will be more like that 200-500 than like the 100-400mm lens.I am surprised how well balanced this lens feels. I didn’t notice any shift in weight towards the front when zooming. This lens is very tempting but I’m waiting to see how the 200-600mm turns out.
I am surprised how well balanced this lens feels. I didn’t notice any shift in weight towards the front when zooming.
there’s a video out from nikon which shows the way the glass moves internally preserves center of balance for the most part.
I have a feeling that the 200-600 will be more like that 200-500 than like the 100-400mm lens.
The 200-500 has been the "gateway drug" into longer and more expensive F-mount lenses. It is a lens that enticed nature enthusiasts to buy into Nikon, and is probably more than enough lens for 90% of the nature shooters out there. Those wanting a more refined experience, or look to be professional, looked towards the more expensive glass. However, their remains a small army of 200-500 shooters who probably would never had entered the bird photography arena had Nikon not made an "affordable" $1200-$1500 super tele lens. It would not surprise me if the 200-600 has the same ethos.
Rather than going the Sony route, it is possible that they will produce a $1300-$1600 lens with more plastics in construction, less flair resistant coatings, and only moderate weather sealing. The lens would be less expensive than the Sony and pair well with the inexpensive Z5/Z50, etc...
Like the 200-500 and D7200... a gateway drug that may eventually lead to significant purchases in the future.
bruce
For those who do not frequent FredMiranda.com, this is what I posted yesterday afternoon.
Note, the size and resolution of the files have been downsized compared to FM, as I can't seem to find the optimal image upload dimensions that works best on bcg.com
bruce
Hello,
The following is the first of what will likely be many field reports about the 100-400S lens. I'd like to begin with (1) Background info (2) Lens Info, & close with (3) In the field thoughts.
(1)Background: I am a wildlife and landscape nature photographer. Some years I focus on landscapes more than wildlife, in other years it is the reverse. The focus is often situational. If I have travel that is landscape heavy, or the local light and weather conditions support landscapes, then I do this more than wildlife. The reverse, of course, is true as well. My last two years have been more focused on wildlife.
I began with film in the 1980's and adopted digital late (2004 or so). I am late to embracing a mirrorless only system, but have recently sold my last DSLR, and now have only 2 F-mount lenses remaining. I will not get a Z9 unless I find a way to leverage gear sales to buy one. My wife and I both shoot (me way more than she), and we have a gripped Z7II, gripped Z6II (mine), Z7, and Z6II (hers).
I spent 2014-2021 shooting primarily with the 200-400VR on a D500, Z6, & Z6II and have used the 500PF since its introduction acquiring it in October 2018 via NPS.
I leveraged my NPS membership to pre-order that lens, and did the same for the current 100-400S.
(2)Lens Info: I received notification from NPS that my lens was shipped on Wednesday and picked up my lens from West Photo on Saturday 12/18. They told me that they received 6 lenses. This suggests that Nikon was prepared to send out more than a few, as MN has a relatively small population with 2 brick and mortar stores.
I own the 70-200S w/ ZTC14 and use these two regularly on my Z6II. The 100-400S was purchased to replace my prior 200-400, as well as the 70-200 + 1.4x, as the latter was used as the tweener between my 24-70s and 500PF. I will probably mate the 100-400 to the Z6II and it will do about 50% of my wildlife and landscape photography.
The lens build is outstanding with really nice construction that reminds me of my 70-200S. It has the same fit and finish, and the zoom ring is very smooth. However, you need to apply more pressure to move than zoom ring than with the 70-200S or my now sold 200-400. Unless I am working from a tripod, I will not be able to use one finger to move the zoom. When zooming, the lens does not extent much, and I cannot feel a shift in balance. This is an amazing feature. While the lens feels solid, it does not feel as massive as the 70-200S... it actually has a bit of a hollow feel. My wife commented that it felt light to her.
(3) In the field: Today is Sunday and I picked up the lens on Saturday following a call from West. The morning was pure ugly with cold overcast skies. It was 12 degrees F with a cold wind, and I really did not want to shoot, as I recognized that the conditions were bleak. Despite my hesitancy, I went to e regular spot where I knew I'd find trumpeter swans.
I used the Z6II and wide area AF with animal recognition. I found that the AF was snappy on my Z6II, and follow focus was better than I expected. I found the AF to be better than when using my 500PF on my Z7II. I shot the two side-by-side in similar situations. The Z7II + 500PF took longer to lock onto subjects and almost never recognized the animal (that is.. no box within the wide area af rectangle). In contrast, the 100-400 used the second box and even eye-AF from time to time. This was not expected, but as I think about it,... this makes sense. The lens was designed for the mirrorless platform and probably has hardware and software that allows it to communicate with the cameras more efficiently.
Optically, the lens seems to be excellent, but I will reserve my judgement on this for now.
Below are two images from the frigid shoot.
bruce
View attachment 28999View attachment 29000
Nikon needs to do what they can to maximize profitability and recruitment into the Z-system. This does not necessarily translate in matching one manufacturer's offerings item for item. While I would prefer an upscale 200-600mm lens with internal zoom in the $2600-$3000 range, I also see the logic of making a $1200-$1500 lens as a gateway drug into the the Z-system.Nikon must match the Sony 200-600 & not go the 200-500 way. Those looking for an affordable option already have the 200-500.
There is room for lens between the entry level & the pro level, that's the Sony 200-600. Nikon must match that.
You are welcome Woody...Thank you Bruce for priotizing your report!
It is already clear this telephoto is a another winner. I'm having to be patient until new year but I foresee it will definitely become on of core lenses
enjoy
Nikon needs to do what they can to maximize profitability and recruitment into the Z-system. This does not necessarily translate in matching one manufacturer's offerings item for item. While I would prefer an upscale 200-600mm lens with internal zoom in the $2600-$3000 range, I also seen the logic of making a $1200-$1500 lens as a gateway drug into the the Z-system.
When you think about all of the D7XXX series owners who bought the 200-500 because it was affordable, to then upgrade to D500s, 500PFs, and so on, you understand the value of undercutting the competition.
At this point, the Z-system continues to produce premium products below competitive price points or equal to them.
As someone who now owns both a 70-200 f/2.8S and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6S, I can understand why they are so expensive. If Nikon only makes $2000 (+) telephoto optics, they will never recruit people to take the Z50/Z5 seriously.
Until the lens is released, the 200-600 will remain a mystery... however, I would not be surprised if it was co-manufactured with Tamron and costs $500 less than the Sony.
bruce
I agree with your assessment they need something in the price range as the 200-500mm as it is a fantastic bargain and very good for the money. I also agree with @sid_19911991 they need to match the Sony 200-600mm because for $2000, $1800 on sale, this lens is very good and provides a good balance of performance for the money. The Sony lens has been very successful and I think Nikon is going to match it. For example, I don’t want to carry a 600mm F/4 or 400mm F/2.8. The 100-400mm is too short without a TC to fill the gap. Nikon needs a Z option. There are many hoping the 200-600mm matches or beats the Sony and I think the price is reasonable enough to entice people into buying it. Maybe they will release a cheaper lens in the future, maybe based on a Tamron design. Unless something changes, I’ll be ordering the 200-600mm regardless of whether is is the match to the Sony or 200-500 replacement. It’s a focal range I need.Nikon needs to do what they can to maximize profitability and recruitment into the Z-system. This does not necessarily translate in matching one manufacturer's offerings item for item. While I would prefer an upscale 200-600mm lens with internal zoom in the $2600-$3000 range, I also seen the logic of making a $1200-$1500 lens as a gateway drug into the the Z-system.
When you think about all of the D7XXX series owners who bought the 200-500 because it was affordable, to then upgrade to D500s, 500PFs, and so on, you understand the value of undercutting the competition.
At this point, the Z-system continues to produce premium products below competitive price points or equal to them.
As someone who now owns both a 70-200 f/2.8S and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6S, I can understand why they are so expensive. If Nikon only makes $2000 (+) telephoto optics, they will never recruit people to take the Z50/Z5 seriously.
Until the lens is released, the 200-600 will remain a mystery... however, I would not be surprised if it was co-manufactured with Tamron and costs $500 less than the Sony.
bruce
Congrats. Are you NPS? Curious to see if there are any non-NPS recipients.I've received mine, unfortunately I won't have much time to test it out until after Christmas or even New Years. I will mention, as already reported by others, that the lens does balance really well even when zoomed to 400. It also fits perfectly with my Z6 attached in a Think Tank Digital Holster 30 bag.
No, I'm not a NPS member. I was just early on the list at a local camera shop.Congrats. Are you NPS? Curious to see if there are any non-NPS recipients.
I agree with your assessment they need something in the price range as the 200-500mm as it is a fantastic bargain and very good for the money. I also agree with @sid_19911991 they need to match the Sony 200-600mm because for $2000, $1800 on sale, this lens is very good and provides a good balance of performance for the money. The Sony lens has been very successful and I think Nikon is going to match it. For example, I don’t want to carry a 600mm F/4 or 400mm F/2.8. The 100-400mm is too short without a TC to fill the gap. Nikon needs a Z option. There are many hoping the 200-600mm matches or beats the Sony and I think the price is reasonable enough to entice people into buying it. Maybe they will release a cheaper lens in the future, maybe based on a Tamron design. Unless something changes, I’ll be ordering the 200-600mm regardless of whether is is the match to the Sony or 200-500 replacement. It’s a focal range I need.
I have no special insights into Nikon’s strategy but the 200-600 is NOT an S lens which makes it hard to imagine it will be a top tier zoom around $3k. But the question remains whether it will be around $2k and with the Sony qualities, or below $1500, closer to the Tamron, Sony or EF 200-500. I believe the latter, as a lens like the Sony would come too close to deserving the S badge (it is a G lens in Sony line, not G master but not base either).
i just hope for Nikon users that they don’t get tempted by the trend of making lenses with smaller apertures, f:6.3 is ok, f:7.1 is workable but they could be tempted to go after those canon f:11 primes with an f:8 or heaven forbid an f:11 zoom… i mean, canon is proving that those f:11 primes are better starter drugs than any of us believed so why not? We know the z6/z7ii handles f:8 lenses better than any DSLR ever has, but not sure about f;11. The good news is that so far Nikon is batting 100% on Z lenses, so there is no reason why it should change.
I doubt people will be happy with an inexpensive Nikon Z 200-600 mm 1300-1600 lens compared to Sony's 200-600 specially when it is giving outstanding results & not being pricey at all.I have a feeling that the 200-600 will be more like that 200-500 than like the 100-400mm lens.
The 200-500 has been the "gateway drug" into longer and more expensive F-mount lenses. It is a lens that enticed nature enthusiasts to buy into Nikon, and is probably more than enough lens for 90% of the nature shooters out there. Those wanting a more refined experience, or look to be professional, looked towards the more expensive glass. However, their remains a small army of 200-500 shooters who probably would never had entered the bird photography arena had Nikon not made an "affordable" $1200-$1500 super tele lens. It would not surprise me if the 200-600 has the same ethos.
Rather than going the Sony route, it is possible that they will produce a $1300-$1600 lens with more plastics in construction, less flair resistant coatings, and only moderate weather sealing. The lens would be less expensive than the Sony and pair well with the inexpensive Z5/Z50, etc...
Like the 200-500 and D7200... a gateway drug that may eventually lead to significant purchases in the future.
bruce
I doubt people will be happy with an inexpensive Nikon Z 200-600 mm 1300-1600 lens compared to Sony's 200-600 specially when it is giving outstanding results & not being pricey at all.
Lot of water has flown since 200-500 days under the Mirrorless bridge