Nikon has announced the latest PF lens. Weighs the same as the 500mm f/5.6 PF at 1.47 kg without hood. Its minimum focus distance is longer at 4m. 95mm thread. It will be a winner for Nikon among birders and wild life photographers. Not cheap at £5000/$4800. Pity it doesn’t have the 3m mfd of the 500mm PF.
Nikon Z 600mm f6.3 VR S Lens Announced
- Thread starter AlanF
- Start date
Weight of the f/6.3 Z super tele primes
- 600mm: 1390g
- 800mm: 2385g
vs Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 1070g
If I was retired I'd go with these Z primes.
- 600mm: 1390g
- 800mm: 2385g
vs Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 1070g
If I was retired I'd go with these Z primes.
Upvote
0
I think it’s a question of the lensmakers equation relating focal length to image and object distance. As the object gets closer to a fixed lens, the image gets projected further and further back. When it approaches the focal length away from the lens, the image gets close to infinity. The focal length of a lens has to decrease to for close focussing using the focus mechanism. So, the longer the prime, the longer the minimum focal distance. You can get a shorter mfd by having a powerful mechanism for shortening the focal length. That’s easy for a zoom but difficult for a prime. Also, the mfd is measured from the sensor, not the end of the lens.
Upvote
0
Looks like Nikon have a clearly defined target: wildlife and sports photographers.Nikon has announced the latest PF lens. Weighs the same as the 500mm f/5.6 PF at 1.47 kg without hood. Its minimum focus distance is longer at 4m. 95mm thread. It will be a winner for Nikon among birders and wild life photographers. Not cheap at £5000/$4800. Pity it doesn’t have the 3m mfd of the 500mm PF.
Intelligent strategy!
Upvote
0
I spent a year or two with the Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF, the predecessor of the new Z 600 f/6.3, and loved it. But I now love the RF 100-500mm even more because of its zoom capabilities and nearly 3x shorter mfd, although a tad less sharp. I think I would really enjoy the Z 600 f/6.3 but would be frustrated at the lack of zoom and its long mfd. That's purely personal as there are many pros and enthusiasts who delight in their 600/4 primes. On the other hand, the RF 100-400mm is so light and small, I could hike and travel with it and a really light Canon prime.
Upvote
0
Even though I'm no longer into birding
,I still need a longer focal for landscapes or the odd bird/animal. No tele prime offers the same versatility as a tele-zoom, in my case the EF 100-400. Especially when hiking in the Alps, I really appreciate not having to change lenses, often not even for a macro. If I didn't have (and love) the EF, I'd sure buy the RF 100-500, an even better lens according to your testing.I believe Canon are right when replacing or completing their big whites with zoom "equivalents".
PS: The EF 100-400 and the TSE 24mm II were for me the reason to go Canon, and not Nikon...no regrets!
Upvote
0
For hiking for an old guy like me, it has to be either the RF 100-500mm on the R5 or I must admit increasingly the RF 100-400mm on the R7. If I were to go on a safari or where I didn't need to walk, a 200-800 would be my choice, and I will get one if Canon brings it out. On my best safari ever, in Tanzania, I missed some really good too-close shots by being taken by surprise in the Jeep with 800mm on the 5DIV (400mm DO II + 2xTc) but fortunately my wife had the EF 100-400mm II on the 5DSR which frankly was more useful (with the 1.4xTC it had at least as good resolution). I think, although I don't have the sales figures, that Nikon is producing very fine products for a niche community and Canon knows what it is doing.Even though I'm no longer into birding
I believe Canon are right when replacing or completing their big whites with zoom "equivalents".
PS: The EF 100-400 and the TSE 24mm II were for me the reason to go Canon, and not Nikon...no regrets!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
