200-600

[ericbowles]

The non S lens designation of the 200-600 gives me the greatest pause in blindly preordering and/or desiring to have the lens.

I have owned four different S lenses. The 70-200, 100-400 (sold), and 400 f/4.5 all seemed noticeably superior to the 24-70 f/4 “S” kit lens to me. To me that lens is an appropriate kit lens with its ridiculous lock and zoom features. There’s good reason you can buy that S lens for around $300 in like new condition.

I think there’s a good chance the 200-600, being a non S lens, falls short of the 24-70 f/4 S lens in design and user friendly features, or at best equals it. To me no S designation shows the lens will be heavier than wanted, slower than wanted, lack function rings and function buttons, and shift weight balance with the zoom, of which the zoom throw might be longer than desired. If Nikon does the opposite of all I have listed above, making a light, fast, short throw, weather sealed, zoom with function buttons and function rings and have expectedly high IQ then why wouldn’t it too receive the S lens designation when a lesser lens like the 24-70 f/4 got the S designation? Lesser meaning lesser than the mythical full featured high performance 200-600.

I would like to be wrong, but I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed when the lens actually gets here as many seem to expect S line features in a non S lens.

If the lens is equal or worse than the current 200-500, I'm sure someone at Nikon would have said "What's the point?" and just released a 200-500 with a Z mount. We should expect a 200-600 that is a new design, optically very good to excellent, and a solid choice for enthusiasts. For professionals, the 600 f/4, 400 f/2.8, or even 800mm PF are more likely solutions.

The 200-500 is a very good lens with a $1300 price tag, and competes with other lenses in the $900-2000 price range. That's an important segment of the enthusiast market. But every good lens does not need to be an S lens. There are build, design, and performance characteristics that cost money and are not necessarily needed. Look at Sigma - the 150-600 Contemporary is a completely different lens from the 150-600 Sport - and those lenses are nothing like the 180-400 Nikon produced around the same time as the 200-500.

The 24-70 f/4 lens is probably better than any F-mount 24-70 lens from Nikon or others for the Nikon mount. It certainly has better corners and midframe. As a kit lens, it's small, light, and relatively inexpensive - and gives you a chance to experience the Nikon Z as a system. It checks the box if you want a light weight kit. The reason it sells for $350 is because they sold nearly 100,000 of those kit lenses with a big discount off the list price - a net cost of $475 new. Of course, the 24-70 f/2.8 Z lens is a major step up - at a much higher price and for a different market.

 

[michaeladawson]

They probably don’t want to cannibalize sales of the F-mount 500mm PF.

That's ridiculous. The 500mm PF has been out for well over 4 years now. So have the Z mount Z6 and Z7 for all that matters.

Cannibalize sales? I hardly think so .

Hmm. If you are thinking about a 500mm lens, have a Z mount body, suddenly have the choice of a $3,500 F-mount lens requiring the FTZ or a $3,500 Z-mount lens, and you don’t have a compelling reason to buy the F-mount lens, you’re going to buy the Z-mount lens instead. That is the very definition of cannibalizing sales of another product. If you’re Nikon you re going to prioritize other non-competing or more-mainstream products first, as they have to date. Part of the rationale for that is faster adoption, but part is that you want to continue to capitalize on your prior R&D investment.

That’s not ridiculous, it’s a rational product management decision.

Yes it is ridiculous. One is a top-notch prime. The other is a non-S zoom. People are not going to buy the 500mm prime at $3500 unless they want it. They'll switch systems first.

How long does this cannibalization continue for? 5 years? 10 years? So there won't be any other Z camera bodies either because they will cannibalize Z9 sales?

The cannibalization idea exhausts itself when the product is 4+ years old.

God I hate DPR.

 

[PLShutterbug]

They probably don’t want to cannibalize sales of the F-mount 500mm PF.

That's ridiculous. The 500mm PF has been out for well over 4 years now. So have the Z mount Z6 and Z7 for all that matters.

Cannibalize sales? I hardly think so .

Hmm. If you are thinking about a 500mm lens, have a Z mount body, suddenly have the choice of a $3,500 F-mount lens requiring the FTZ or a $3,500 Z-mount lens, and you don’t have a compelling reason to buy the F-mount lens, you’re going to buy the Z-mount lens instead. That is the very definition of cannibalizing sales of another product. If you’re Nikon you re going to prioritize other non-competing or more-mainstream products first, as they have to date. Part of the rationale for that is faster adoption, but part is that you want to continue to capitalize on your prior R&D investment.

That’s not ridiculous, it’s a rational product management decision.

Yes it is ridiculous. One is a top-notch prime. The other is a non-S zoom. People are not going to buy the 500mm prime at $3500 unless they want it. They'll switch systems first.

How long does this cannibalization continue for? 5 years? 10 years? So there won't be any other Z camera bodies either because they will cannibalize Z9 sales?

The cannibalization idea exhausts itself when the product is 4+ years old.

God I hate DPR.

Ah, Mike - you misunderstood, or I wasn’t clear enough.

A Z 500PF will cannibalize sales of an F 500PF. A Z 200-600 won’t. And cannibalization occurs against the old product, not the new one. So again, by definition the cannibalized product is “old.”

With your number of posts it’s pretty clear you don’t hate DPR. And I hope you’ve read enough of mine to know I’m not a fool.

 

[Fullframer]

The non S lens designation of the 200-600 gives me the greatest pause in blindly preordering and/or desiring to have the lens.

I have owned four different S lenses. The 70-200, 100-400 (sold), and 400 f/4.5 all seemed noticeably superior to the 24-70 f/4 “S” kit lens to me. To me that lens is an appropriate kit lens with its ridiculous lock and zoom features. There’s good reason you can buy that S lens for around $300 in like new condition.

I think there’s a good chance the 200-600, being a non S lens, falls short of the 24-70 f/4 S lens in design and user friendly features, or at best equals it. To me no S designation shows the lens will be heavier than wanted, slower than wanted, lack function rings and function buttons, and shift weight balance with the zoom, of which the zoom throw might be longer than desired. If Nikon does the opposite of all I have listed above, making a light, fast, short throw, weather sealed, zoom with function buttons and function rings and have expectedly high IQ then why wouldn’t it too receive the S lens designation when a lesser lens like the 24-70 f/4 got the S designation? Lesser meaning lesser than the mythical full featured high performance 200-600.

I would like to be wrong, but I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed when the lens actually gets here as many seem to expect S line features in a non S lens.

If the lens is equal or worse than the current 200-500, I'm sure someone at Nikon would have said "What's the point?" and just released a 200-500 with a Z mount. We should expect a 200-600 that is a new design, optically very good to excellent, and a solid choice for enthusiasts. For professionals, the 600 f/4, 400 f/2.8, or even 800mm PF are more likely solutions.

The 200-500 is a very good lens with a $1300 price tag, and competes with other lenses in the $900-2000 price range.

Agreed, the copy I got was very good for the price.

That's an important segment of the enthusiast market. But every good lens does not need to be an S lens. There are build, design, and performance characteristics that cost money and are not necessarily needed. Look at Sigma - the 150-600 Contemporary is a completely different lens from the 150-600 Sport - and those lenses are nothing like the 180-400 Nikon produced around the same time as the 200-500.

The 24-70 f/4 lens is probably better than any F-mount 24-70 lens from Nikon

Not the 24-70 F2.8 VR which is pro build, the 24-70 F4 Z is not pro build.

or others for the Nikon mount. It certainly has better corners and midframe. As a kit lens, it's small, light, and relatively inexpensive - and gives you a chance to experience the Nikon Z as a system. It checks the box if you want a light weight kit. The reason it sells for $350 is because they sold nearly 100,000 of those kit lenses with a big discount off the list price - a net cost of $475 new. Of course, the 24-70 f/2.8 Z lens is a major step up - at a much higher price and for a different market.

 

[astirusty]

What they have not released - and is expected - is the camera to go with the 200-600. It could be FX or DX - but an action camera beyond the Z9 is required for the 200-600. It's pointless to announce an enthusiast 200-600 without a camera.

Is this a Nikonian excuse for MIA Z 200-600mm f/nothing lens?

First, having taken pictures with Z7 from 200-400mm, I know a Z7 could be used with 200-600mm. Besides, owners of Z6 & Z7 have been calling for 200-600mm since lens was put on Z lens roadmap. back in 2019.

Secondly, 200-600mm lens was on Z lens roadmap roughly two years prior to Z9. Really think Nikon would put Z 200-600mm lens on roadmap knowing it required a Z9 or better?

Third, there isn't any Nikon advice or suggested restriction that either Z6 or Z7 be used with lens less than 600mm. In fact, Z 600mm & 800mm lens are listed as accessories lens for Z6 & Z7.

Fourth, flip side of "Third", neither Z 600mm or 800mm lens has any warnings about needing to use "an action camera beyond the Z9". Z 800mm lens says the following: "The cameras compatible with this function are the Z 9, Z 7II and Z 6II only at the timing of the product release."

 

[pcgeekesq]

A Z 500PF will cannibalize sales of an F 500PF. A Z 200-600 won’t. And cannibalization occurs against the old product, not the new one. So again, by definition the cannibalized product is “old.”

Steve Jobs said "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will.""
Back when I worked for Intel, Andy Grove told us the same thing.

It's well understood now that the Z-mount provides a better design space for lenses.
So Nikon should IMO focus on cannibalizing the market niches of successful F-mount lenses by introducing new and (in some way) better Z-mount lenses for the same niches.

 

[astirusty]

To me no S designation shows the lens will be heavier than wanted, slower than wanted, lack function rings and function buttons, and shift weight balance with the zoom,

I could live without rings and function buttons. I have yet to find a need for them when weighed against accidentally touching rings or buttons. Which seemed to happen between taking pictures, while carrying. Shift in weight balance with the zoom would depend upon how significant shift was. My concern is Z 200-600mm may be slower than molasses (high f-stops).

 

[BasilG]

Ah, Mike - you misunderstood, or I wasn’t clear enough.

A Z 500PF will cannibalize sales of an F 500PF.

Why would Nikon care? They could stop making the F-mount version immediately (if they haven't done so already).

 

[astirusty]

I love shooting wildlife but my 200-500 is starting to show its age and I'm getting a bit tired lugging it around. I have a Z6 and have been waiting for the Nikon 200-600 to come out. To be honest, I really don't understand Nikon's lens release strategy. Why spend so much effort developing so many short focal prime lenses, some that seem to be redundant?

Anyhow, about to leave Nikon after being a customer for 40 years. Plan a trip to Yellowstone this summer and I know, even if Nikon announces the 200-600 it won't be available for many months. Anyone have experience with e Sony 200-600 or the Canon?

Please note, I love Nikon reliability, function, and quality but this is getting ridiculous.

OR you could just rent a 100-400 with a 1.4TC (in addition to some recommendations above).

Might be worth extra cost of renting camera of brand to go with lens for Yellowstone trip. Killing two birds with one stone. You get lens with mm-mm range for trip and you get to evaluate brand of camera and lens one is thinking about switching too.

However, there is a risk involved. What happens if brand of camera & lens are big disappointments on such an important trip...

 

[pcgeekesq]

Is this a Nikonian excuse for MIA Z 200-600mm f/nothing lens?

Oh who cares? We have the 1.4xTC and 100-400mm VR S, which together do almost everything a 300-600 would do and do things it can't as well. Having that combo and seeing how well it performs, I have no reason to even consider buying a 200-600 lens.

You should consider that the delay of the 200-600mm may be because Nikon thinks the demand for that lens is weak, given how well the 100-400mm and 1.4xTC combo are doing, and given the hollowing out of the lower end of the ILC market by smartphones.

 

[pcgeekesq]

Might be worth extra cost of renting camera of brand to go with lens for Yellowstone trip. Killing two birds with one stone. You get lens with mm-mm range for trip and you get to evaluate brand of camera and lens one is thinking about switching too.

If the user interfaces between brands were similar enough, that might be a good idea.

But because they often aren't, you might miss a shot you really wanted out of lack of familiarity with the other-brand camera's controls.

I admire people who use their cameras enough to become adept at using more than one of the multiple different UI paradigms the different brands offer, but I'm not one of them, and the OP may not be either.

 

[astirusty]

Is this a Nikonian excuse for MIA Z 200-600mm f/nothing lens?

Oh who cares? We have the 1.4xTC and 100-400mm VR S, which together do almost everything a 300-600 would do and do things it can't as well.

1.4xTx & 100-400mm for cost of $549.95 & $2,699.95 ~ $3,249.90 for those not already owning both. More $$ than what most believe Z 200-600mm lens will be.

What if 200-600mm lens could be used with TC 1.4x / 2.0x?

 

[ghostfox_1]

Is this a Nikonian excuse for MIA Z 200-600mm f/nothing lens?

Oh who cares?

A lot of people?

We have the 1.4xTC and 100-400mm VR S, which together do almost everything a 300-600 would do and do things it can't as well.

And a 200-600 5-6.3 would be (with a 1.4x tc) f9 at 840 vs f11 at 800 (100-400 with 2x).

Having that combo and seeing how well it performs, I have no reason to even consider buying a 200-600 lens.

cool.

You should consider that the delay of the 200-600mm may be because Nikon thinks the demand for that lens is weak,

Yeah, because the 200-500 sold terribly right? nobody bought that lens ever.

 

[Vince P]

Is this a Nikonian excuse for MIA Z 200-600mm f/nothing lens?

Oh who cares? We have the 1.4xTC and 100-400mm VR S, which together do almost everything a 300-600 would do and do things it can't as well. Having that combo and seeing how well it performs, I have no reason to even consider buying a 200-600 lens.

You should consider that the delay of the 200-600mm may be because Nikon thinks the demand for that lens is weak, given how well the 100-400mm and 1.4xTC combo are doing, and given the hollowing out of the lower end of the ILC market by smartphones.

I think it's the opposite. Nikon at every opportunity tell us they are prioritising low volume high margin products going forwards. So when they are releasing the S line long tele lenses first, it's because they are following their business plan and doing what they promised.

I am sure that the 200-600 will sell like hot cakes but if they have been making the same money, with less resources, then they have probably been happy to wait

 

[aniltulsi]

I love shooting wildlife but my 200-500 is starting to show its age and I'm getting a bit tired lugging it around. I have a Z6 and have been waiting for the Nikon 200-600 to come out. To be honest, I really don't understand Nikon's lens release strategy. Why spend so much effort developing so many short focal prime lenses, some that seem to be redundant?

Anyhow, about to leave Nikon after being a customer for 40 years. Plan a trip to Yellowstone this summer and I know, even if Nikon announces the 200-600 it won't be available for many months. Anyone have experience with e Sony 200-600 or the Canon?

Please note, I love Nikon reliability, function, and quality but this is getting ridiculous.

The problem with 200-500 is that it is heavy and has slow AF. Expecting 200-600 to be faster and lighter, I too have been waiting for it for years. However, I realised I may be expecting too much from 200-600 lens. Looking at the Sony version, the Nikon version of 200-600 may not be considerably lighter and faster than 200-500.

I then started looking for alternatives. I need this lens for Wildlife, which include birds and mamals. I found that the 400 f/2.8 TC, 600mm and 800mm lenses were beyond my budget, and the 100-400 and 400 f/4.5 were short for birding, and not that cheap either. However, after reading a lot about the performance of 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4, i decided to give it a try, as it now becomes 560mm f/6.3 lens.

I was amazed by this 560 mm lens. It is real light, sharp and fast, everything I wanted. I went for a birding trip, and was thrilled to see i didn't have to use any tripod or monopod with my lens, and was much easier to handle. However, my Z6 camera was not able to take full advantage of the lens, as i found the AF not that fast. But the same lens works blazingly fast on Z9. So i decided to return the lens and buy the Z9 camera instead. With the Z9 camera, even my 200-500 lens starts performing much faster.

But when I went to the shop and tried the 200-500 lens on the Z9, the weight of the combination shocked me. After using the 400 f/4.5 lens, i was in no way going to carry this weight again. So i decided to keep the 400 f/4.5 lens, and wait for the Z8 camera instead, that could make the lens perform at its best.

So if lugging around the 200-500 lens is your problem, buy the 400 + TC-1.4 instead. You will be much happier. I have kept the 200-500 lens for mammals, and no longer interested in the 200-600 lens.

 

[BackToNature1]

So if lugging around the 200-500 lens is your problem, buy the 400 + TC-1.4 instead. You will be much happier. I have kept the 200-500 lens for mammals, and no longer interested in the 200-600 lens.

More than a few folks with their Wildlife Kits, don't won't to be stuck at one Focal Length. More than a few folks can't pony up for that 400mm 4.5 much less plus the TC-1.4.

So The longer folks like you or Nikon refuses to get that, the more at Risk for them in the long haul. Since this seem to be a ongoing issue across the board for them. The Z9 and those longer higher cost lens won't carry them for ever. Not when those other brands are set to release their latest and greatest.

Time stands still for no One.

 

[pcgeekesq]

BackToNature1 wrote:
... More than a few folks can't pony up for that 400mm 4.5 much less plus the TC-1.4.
... The Z9 and those longer higher cost lens won't carry them for ever.

And the proof you could be wrong: Leica.

Smartphones are turning ILCs into a luxury product. Makers of luxury products don't care about people who can't afford luxury products.

It's an iron-clad rule of the market:
there's no money to be made selling to people with no money.

 

[BackToNature1]

BackToNature1 wrote:
... More than a few folks can't pony up for that 400mm 4.5 much less plus the TC-1.4.
... The Z9 and those longer higher cost lens won't carry them for ever.

And the proof you could be wrong: Leica.

Smartphones are turning ILCs into a luxury product. Makers of luxury products don't care about people who can't afford luxury products.

It's an iron-clad rule of the market:
there's no money to be made selling to people with no money.

There is no money to made when the working Poor no longer have any Jobs. Because I assure you at that point, whether or not somebody can buy a Leica or not will be they least of their worries for those whom once could, because most won't be able to, after that happens.

The only Rule of the Market, the Global Gov't bailing out Mega Corporations. Which if not had happened, companies like Lecia would not even exist. So the sooner Nikon get's of their You Know What, the better off they will be in the Long Haul.

The Nikon Z9 has been is stock for well over 2 months now. That has peaked, so it's time to deliver to the of majority current owners and or potential future owners of their camera gear. Because the Markets are so fickle.

 

[ghostfox_1]

BackToNature1 wrote:
... More than a few folks can't pony up for that 400mm 4.5 much less plus the TC-1.4.
... The Z9 and those longer higher cost lens won't carry them for ever.

And the proof you could be wrong: Leica.

What's their market percentage again?

 

[fotosean]

For me, if Nikon doesn't come up with a competitive wildlife body, I may pick up an R6 and a long lens for wildlife purposes (but still keep my Z system for everything else)

I'm at that point right now. I'm going to pull the trigger on either an XH2S or an R7 this week.

Watch - with my luck and impeccable timing, Nikon will announce the mythical Z500 and the Z 200-600mm next week

although I have considered a D500 and the 200-500 (despite the 200-500 being a "old" lens but still one that many people use and love).

Trust me - you can't go wrong with that combo.