Although I read that this lens is meant for those who wants to get close to subjectclose up images of their subject…however the minimum focus distance is 4 meters which is way less than the 180-600mm which stands at 2.4 meters at 600mm. The only advantage of the prime may be the AF performace and a tad sharper image. However both lens being 6.3 do not provide any other advantage. The price of the 600mm f6.3 cannot be justified compared what the 180-600mm offers at the one third the price.
Rob G
January 8, 2024 11:11 am
Libor?
Matt Irwin released a review on this lens. In the review he has direct sun shots which look absolutely stunning. He claims there are no artifacts present in the image, yet I think I see some, but I believe they are completely manageable in post. I purchased the lens yesterday and cancelled my pre-order on the 180-600 which seems to be MIA still.
I have read the review following a period of using Youtube and writings from other reviewers about the Z 600 6.3 and 800 6.3.
I am intending on committing to either of these Lenses now I have been familiarised throughout 2023 with each Focal Length using the Z 1.4 and 2.0 TC’s on a the 100-400.
I have found the 600mm Focal Length to be the very best for the method of Photography, when I am on the move, which the style I most regularly take part in.
The 800mm Focal Length is not equally suitable for the on the move style, but has proven to be quite attractive for when I am plotting up at a set scene.
The 100-400 with the very desirable MFD is the most attractive lens for my overall experiences in the field. I’m usually always on the move and encounter different Nature Based subjects regularly. Using the TC’s do cause issues but also adds something that works very nicely for my purposes with the Z TC 1.4 in use. Being able to frame a Insect or Flower at approx’ 1mtr at Max Zoom and then instantly get focused on to a Hedge Bird approx’ 10 mtrs away at the expense of a little sharpness suits my needs just fine.
I have been waiting for the time to come when affordable equipment become available to enable a return to earlier experiences had in photography. Ones relating to Image Sharpness being present that captures my attention in the way the 400mm F2.8G had done in the past on DSLR Bodies.
It is an ambition (but at a cost) to enable the owned Z9 to show its Image Quality capability further than I am familiar with.
This review has dealt me a curve ball, as all I have read and viewed has left me with the notion the Z 800mm 6.3 is the sharpest of the Z PF Lenses. The 800mm was the Lens I have been seriously considering with the intention to plot up more often for Photography excursions.
If sharpness of other lenses becomes the want as a result of the influence of the prime lens. Using the reports read on the sharpness of the Z180-600 has put this lens in the Spotlight as the model to be used for Zoom Telephoto needs.
The occasional times when Macro is carried out will no linger be ‘of the cuff’ if the 100-400 is no longer owned, it will become more of a planned activity. A different method will be needed for this, maybe one to the retained 50mm F mount lenses used as reverse lens method on the 180-600 will suffice as a temporary method.
Nikon certainly has opened the door to allow for thought on such permutations for their lenses to be pondered. With the Third Party Lens option creeping into the forefront, the permutations for Lenses is growing.
Rob H
December 22, 2023 6:54 am
The industry standard for lens reviews is to shoot a city skyline, or a brick wall. Libor reviews a telephoto, and it’s a huge collection of technically flawless photos of beautiful, exotic birds. Thanks, Libor!
Thank you so much for your kind comment, Rob. You have summed up exactly what we are all trying to do at Photographylife. Whether it’s Nasim, Spencer, Alex, Jason, Nicholas or myself, our goal is to test equipment on real subjects to show what is realistically achievable with the equipment. We love it when our tests have some overlap as well. Whether artistic or, in my case, zoological.
Carl Milliken
December 21, 2023 11:02 am
The 600mm f6.3 is a fantastic lens, but I already have the 500mm f5.6. The increased reach of the 600mm is offset by the 5.6 vs 6.3 and the 3 meter vs 4 meter minimum focus distance, and surprisingly slightly better Imatest score when shot wide open. I’m not willing to spend $5,000 for the 600mm since I have the equal in the 500mm. That said, if I didn’t have the 500mm I would buy the 600mm. Thank you for your review of the 600mm.
Yeah, I have the 500PF as well. The MFD is the main downside in upgrading for sure. I’ve definitely got some nice shots in the 3-4m range. In strrong light the 600mm will give you a bit extra though. Still, as used 500PFs are going for around 2.5K I guess it’s not a huge upgrade. The 600 f/4 on the other hand….
Personally, if I had a 500/5.6 in my backpack, I’d be thinking about where to go to shoot animals with the money I’ve saved. Yes, the 600/6.3 is a great lens, no doubt. But the 500/5.6 is surprisingly agile, even with the FTZ adapter, and optically it is still a wonderful lens. The MFD is another advantage. And I’ll add another benefit – you can keep your DSLR body as a backup.
Thomas
December 21, 2023 10:59 am
Thanks, Libor, for this once more great and comprehensive review 👍. Beside your sample images I very much love your practical and pragmantic approach to the lab results versus your work experience. If someone like you shares his thoughts and decision path when choosing between two lenses, this is really helpful, since it helps a lot to put or keep the different criteria in context and to avoid getting caught by personal blind spots.
Following your arguments and after I had the chance to go out for a day with the lens of my friend I went for the Z 180-600 myself. Because of WLLW (Wallet Low Level Warning) I will keep my old 500 f4G VR with it’s TC (both of which had the “chance” to go through Nikon service as a team and thus now really fit well together optically), so that I can cover low light situations better with 500 f4 or 700mm f5.6. The challenging lighting conditions I mostly have during stationary work from a blind/hide, so that the wiehgt and size is not that much of an issue, but in the long term I dream of a Z400 2.8 TC, perhaps even with an additional TC. But I have to wait for a WOE (Wallet Overflow Error) 😁.
Dear Thomas, your terms WLLW and WOE really amused me. It also finally explained the constant flashing of the red light on my wallet. Thanks a lot for the explanation :-)
I’m so glad that my and my colleagues’ opinions help to complete the mosaic of your views and as you write “avoid getting caught by personal blind spots.”
Personally, I would definitely keep the 500/4 just for the cases you mention. Sometimes (especially in the rainforest quite often) every photon a lens can pass to the sensor is a gift from the heavens, literally. Not every bird can take a 3 second long exposure time, like… But that would give away the point of my next article. Anyway, if it ever came to WOE, the 400/2.8 + TC2X would save the day.
Frode Numan
December 21, 2023 12:09 am
Thanks for the fine review, as always. Very much like the added photos too. I wonder how much difference this lens would make compared to the z 400mm f4.5 with and without 1.4 TC in focus speed and sharpness. One of my main photography goals in life (🤪 ) is to get the best picture I can of the swifts that nest in my house each summer. A light tele and fast af are a must to track these fast birds in flight. Upgrading to Z8 with 400mm f4.5 really made a noticable improvement to my old D500 with 500mm pf. Sharper and closer shots and higher number of keepers. As I need enough field of view to track the birds, especially when they come close at full speed, and high shutter speeds, very fast af…would the z 600mm f 6.3 help me get better shots of swifts in flight? With the 400mm the birds are sometimes to close and thus to fast to get a nice framed shot. 600mm would give me a bit more distance and maybe better tracking concerning the speed of the birds but les field of view…trade offs…
I think the 600/6.3 might be a better candidate for this task. The focus speed is very comparable to the 400/4.5, but you’ll be able to capture the Swift further away from the nest where it will have a more predictable, smoother flight. In any case, it’s quite a challenge. Alternatively, get ready for nesting season and place a dummy camera with a wide-angle lens near the nest and swap it out for a real camera at the appropriate time. If you have a Z9, a “camera-trap” mode might work. It would make for an interesting photo, including the environment. Just an idea :-)
Allan
December 20, 2023 10:16 pm
This is by far the most thorough Z600 PF lens review I have seen, thanks.
You stated that “Using a teleconverter retains more sharpness than cropping.” Can you elaborate on that for the Z 600? Is it possible to convert the sharpness numbers to a 1.4 crop? It is a lot more convenient to switch to DX mode than adding a TC in the field. My preference is to crop in post, making it easier to find and track a subject. Also less likely to clip a wing. The loss in image quality has to be considered though.
Hi Allan, we’ll be posting an article about that soon! The difference is not always drastic, but you do get more detail when using either of the Nikon Z teleconverters, as opposed to cropping.
richard warren
December 20, 2023 12:34 pm
By the way – section 1 is headed “Specifications & Build Quality” – but uncharacteristically, the only comment on buid quality is that this lens is much lighter than the 180-600, at 1.39 Kg. There’s usually some info on the actual build quality, and a note as to where the lens is made.
Dear Richard, I cannot confirm the country of origin as I do not have the lens available at the moment. In any case, its build quality is in line with what one would expect from a gold ring lens. I believe this lens will serve for many years and I certainly wouldn’t be afraid to put it through the hell of the field.
richard warren
December 20, 2023 12:29 pm
Hmm – I bought the 180-600 zoom for precisely the same reasons. Plus one more – I’m older now, I can’t walk as fast (or as far) and I certainly can’t do it as fast! So the zoom gives me back something that old age has taken away from me. And I’m sure you’d understand that’s pretty important, when you’re birding. And in other applications as well – for instance, the local surfing scene lacks pipes at a set distance from the beach – most of the action is on fairly small waves, wind driven much of the time, and moving all over the place. So when I made my buying decision, “better” was ignored, in favour of “more practical”. I’ll just have to envy the results from guys with the S-line Z 600mm and carry an extra half a kilo.
I’m 64 and had the 180-600 on order and the night the Z600pf was announced I canceled and ordered the other. I can’t say enough how happy I am with this amazing prime lens.
The 600/6.3 lens is certainly a great choice. Of course, there are situations where the versatility of the zoom saves the day, but in a direct comparison of the two lenses at 600mm, the winner is clear.
Although I read that this lens is meant for those who wants to get close to subjectclose up images of their subject…however the minimum focus distance is 4 meters which is way less than the 180-600mm which stands at 2.4 meters at 600mm. The only advantage of the prime may be the AF performace and a tad sharper image. However both lens being 6.3 do not provide any other advantage. The price of the 600mm f6.3 cannot be justified compared what the 180-600mm offers at the one third the price.
Libor?
Matt Irwin released a review on this lens. In the review he has direct sun shots which look absolutely stunning. He claims there are no artifacts present in the image, yet I think I see some, but I believe they are completely manageable in post. I purchased the lens yesterday and cancelled my pre-order on the 180-600 which seems to be MIA still.
www.youtube.com/watch…&t=4s
I have read the review following a period of using Youtube and writings from other reviewers about the Z 600 6.3 and 800 6.3.
I am intending on committing to either of these Lenses now I have been familiarised throughout 2023 with each Focal Length using the Z 1.4 and 2.0 TC’s on a the 100-400.
I have found the 600mm Focal Length to be the very best for the method of Photography, when I am on the move, which the style I most regularly take part in.
The 800mm Focal Length is not equally suitable for the on the move style, but has proven to be quite attractive for when I am plotting up at a set scene.
The 100-400 with the very desirable MFD is the most attractive lens for my overall experiences in the field. I’m usually always on the move and encounter different Nature Based subjects regularly.
Using the TC’s do cause issues but also adds something that works very nicely for my purposes with the Z TC 1.4 in use. Being able to frame a Insect or Flower at approx’ 1mtr at Max Zoom and then instantly get focused on to a Hedge Bird approx’
10 mtrs away at the expense of a little sharpness suits my needs just fine.
I have been waiting for the time to come when affordable equipment become available to enable a return to earlier experiences had in photography. Ones relating to Image Sharpness being present that captures my attention in the way the 400mm F2.8G had done in the past on DSLR Bodies.
It is an ambition (but at a cost) to enable the owned Z9 to show its Image Quality capability further than I am familiar with.
This review has dealt me a curve ball, as all I have read and viewed has left me with the notion the Z 800mm 6.3 is the sharpest of the Z PF Lenses.
The 800mm was the Lens I have been seriously considering with the intention to plot up more often for Photography excursions.
If sharpness of other lenses becomes the want as a result of the influence of the prime lens. Using the reports read on the sharpness of the Z180-600 has put this lens in the Spotlight as the model to be used for Zoom Telephoto needs.
The occasional times when Macro is carried out will no linger be ‘of the cuff’ if the 100-400 is no longer owned, it will become more of a planned activity.
A different method will be needed for this, maybe one to the retained 50mm F mount lenses used as reverse lens method on the 180-600 will suffice as a temporary method.
Nikon certainly has opened the door to allow for thought on such permutations for their lenses to be pondered.
With the Third Party Lens option creeping into the forefront, the permutations for Lenses is growing.
The industry standard for lens reviews is to shoot a city skyline, or a brick wall. Libor reviews a telephoto, and it’s a huge collection of technically flawless photos of beautiful, exotic birds. Thanks, Libor!
Thank you so much for your kind comment, Rob. You have summed up exactly what we are all trying to do at Photographylife. Whether it’s Nasim, Spencer, Alex, Jason, Nicholas or myself, our goal is to test equipment on real subjects to show what is realistically achievable with the equipment. We love it when our tests have some overlap as well. Whether artistic or, in my case, zoological.
The 600mm f6.3 is a fantastic lens, but I already have the 500mm f5.6. The increased reach of the 600mm is offset by the 5.6 vs 6.3 and the 3 meter vs 4 meter minimum focus distance, and surprisingly slightly better Imatest score when shot wide open. I’m not willing to spend $5,000 for the 600mm since I have the equal in the 500mm. That said, if I didn’t have the 500mm I would buy the 600mm. Thank you for your review of the 600mm.
Yeah, I have the 500PF as well. The MFD is the main downside in upgrading for sure. I’ve definitely got some nice shots in the 3-4m range. In strrong light the 600mm will give you a bit extra though. Still, as used 500PFs are going for around 2.5K I guess it’s not a huge upgrade. The 600 f/4 on the other hand….
Personally, if I had a 500/5.6 in my backpack, I’d be thinking about where to go to shoot animals with the money I’ve saved. Yes, the 600/6.3 is a great lens, no doubt. But the 500/5.6 is surprisingly agile, even with the FTZ adapter, and optically it is still a wonderful lens. The MFD is another advantage. And I’ll add another benefit – you can keep your DSLR body as a backup.
Thanks, Libor, for this once more great and comprehensive review 👍. Beside your sample images I very much love your practical and pragmantic approach to the lab results versus your work experience. If someone like you shares his thoughts and decision path when choosing between two lenses, this is really helpful, since it helps a lot to put or keep the different criteria in context and to avoid getting caught by personal blind spots.
Following your arguments and after I had the chance to go out for a day with the lens of my friend I went for the Z 180-600 myself. Because of WLLW (Wallet Low Level Warning) I will keep my old 500 f4G VR with it’s TC (both of which had the “chance” to go through Nikon service as a team and thus now really fit well together optically), so that I can cover low light situations better with 500 f4 or 700mm f5.6. The challenging lighting conditions I mostly have during stationary work from a blind/hide, so that the wiehgt and size is not that much of an issue, but in the long term I dream of a Z400 2.8 TC, perhaps even with an additional TC. But I have to wait for a WOE (Wallet Overflow Error) 😁.
Best regards
Thomas
Dear Thomas, your terms WLLW and WOE really amused me. It also finally explained the constant flashing of the red light on my wallet. Thanks a lot for the explanation :-)
I’m so glad that my and my colleagues’ opinions help to complete the mosaic of your views and as you write “avoid getting caught by personal blind spots.”
Personally, I would definitely keep the 500/4 just for the cases you mention. Sometimes (especially in the rainforest quite often) every photon a lens can pass to the sensor is a gift from the heavens, literally. Not every bird can take a 3 second long exposure time, like… But that would give away the point of my next article. Anyway, if it ever came to WOE, the 400/2.8 + TC2X would save the day.
Thanks for the fine review, as always. Very much like the added photos too.
I wonder how much difference this lens would make compared to the z 400mm f4.5 with and without 1.4 TC in focus speed and sharpness.
One of my main photography goals in life (🤪 ) is to get the best picture I can of the swifts that nest in my house each summer. A light tele and fast af are a must to track these fast birds in flight.
Upgrading to Z8 with 400mm f4.5 really made a noticable improvement to my old D500 with 500mm pf. Sharper and closer shots and higher number of keepers.
As I need enough field of view to track the birds, especially when they come close at full speed, and high shutter speeds, very fast af…would the z 600mm f 6.3 help me get better shots of swifts in flight?
With the 400mm the birds are sometimes to close and thus to fast to get a nice framed shot. 600mm would give me a bit more distance and maybe better tracking concerning the speed of the birds but les field of view…trade offs…
We need a 400/4.5 review (yeah, I know, this is not a very subtle hint ;) )!
I think the 600/6.3 might be a better candidate for this task. The focus speed is very comparable to the 400/4.5, but you’ll be able to capture the Swift further away from the nest where it will have a more predictable, smoother flight. In any case, it’s quite a challenge. Alternatively, get ready for nesting season and place a dummy camera with a wide-angle lens near the nest and swap it out for a real camera at the appropriate time. If you have a Z9, a “camera-trap” mode might work. It would make for an interesting photo, including the environment. Just an idea :-)
This is by far the most thorough Z600 PF lens review I have seen, thanks.
You stated that “Using a teleconverter retains more sharpness than cropping.” Can you elaborate on that for the Z 600? Is it possible to convert the sharpness numbers to a 1.4 crop? It is a lot more convenient to switch to DX mode than adding a TC in the field. My preference is to crop in post, making it easier to find and track a subject. Also less likely to clip a wing. The loss in image quality has to be considered though.
Hi Allan, we’ll be posting an article about that soon! The difference is not always drastic, but you do get more detail when using either of the Nikon Z teleconverters, as opposed to cropping.
By the way – section 1 is headed “Specifications & Build Quality” – but uncharacteristically, the only comment on buid quality is that this lens is much lighter than the 180-600, at 1.39 Kg. There’s usually some info on the actual build quality, and a note as to where the lens is made.
Dear Richard, I cannot confirm the country of origin as I do not have the lens available at the moment. In any case, its build quality is in line with what one would expect from a gold ring lens. I believe this lens will serve for many years and I certainly wouldn’t be afraid to put it through the hell of the field.
Hmm – I bought the 180-600 zoom for precisely the same reasons. Plus one more – I’m older now, I can’t walk as fast (or as far) and I certainly can’t do it as fast! So the zoom gives me back something that old age has taken away from me. And I’m sure you’d understand that’s pretty important, when you’re birding. And in other applications as well – for instance, the local surfing scene lacks pipes at a set distance from the beach – most of the action is on fairly small waves, wind driven much of the time, and moving all over the place. So when I made my buying decision, “better” was ignored, in favour of “more practical”. I’ll just have to envy the results from guys with the S-line Z 600mm and carry an extra half a kilo.
I’m 64 and had the 180-600 on order and the night the Z600pf was announced I canceled and ordered the other. I can’t say enough how happy I am with this amazing prime lens.
The 600/6.3 lens is certainly a great choice. Of course, there are situations where the versatility of the zoom saves the day, but in a direct comparison of the two lenses at 600mm, the winner is clear.