Thanks for a great video. I have been using this lens now for the past 6 months on my Z8 and I am really really happy with it. I compared it with the 180-600 that I used for 2 weeks and (to me) there are 3 noticeable differences: 1) weight 2) focus speed (once locked on both lenses hold focus equally but the 600 prime was much faster in acquiring focus) and 3) weight (yes again). The 180-600 has the alleged higher v versatility but in all fairness, I am willing to gamble that most images shot with the 180-600 are at full 600 mm. The choice also depends on what else you have in your bag already. Since I already had the 100-400, the 180-600 didn't make any sense for me. The biggest biggest plus in my view is that I can handhold this 600 for hours while getting razor sharp images.
I purchased a Kirk Enterprises replacement collar and foot and have had no problems whatsoever with any movement with the Kirk. I have the 180-600 and the 800, but this is my favorite for walk around bird photography. The weight difference is the reason. I did take the 800 to Africa since I was not carrying the lens any great distance there.
I’ve been using the 180-600 for 5 months now exclusively and intensely mostly at 600mm f8 for noticeable improvements in sharpness. I’ve been able to get really nice image quality from that lens. 2 weeks ago i tried the 600mm 6.3. The difference in weight and balance on my z8 is astounding. It might not seem like much but it feels like I’m not even carrying a lens anymore. I feel the cameras weight more. It’s so well balanced though. I was reaching the limit of the sharpness and CA on my 180-600. This solves all of that. Do I feel more locked in at 600mm, yes. But if you plan your shots well you can get habitat shots from a distance and then approach for those portrait shots. I sold my 180-600 because I’m not going to use ever again. It was worth it for me even with the price difference
I'd even go for 800 mm f6.3 for myself. I look at my Sony 200-600 pictures, it's almost now all 60-70% in crop mode (900 mm), so I go down from 33 to 14 mpx almost all the time. Previously I was using A6400, and also, 900 mm was a cropping in lightroom to get the frame. I think it's the time to switch from A7-IV to Z8 and 800 mm f6.3 pf + x1.4 TC, that would be the dream for me. Not kidding. I don't plan to travel all around the world, and my country is mostly small birds.
Great review, as always. I purchased my 600mm pf at my local camera store a couple of weeks ago, and I helped to fund it by reluctantly trading in my beloved 500mm pf and some other F-mount gear as I transtion to Nikon mirrorless. Your observations confirm my experience, and it is becoming my favorite lens for my Z8. It is sharp, has lightning fast focusing, and is well-balanced with my Z8 and very much hand-holdable, even for a 67 yo with shoulder issues like myself. I find that 600mm is the sweet spot in focal length for my purposes, and find using the 1.4TC (840mm) provides almost too narrow of a field of view although it is very sharp. My only criticism relates to the minimum focus distance: Shooting birds off my back deck sometimes requires me to step back a couple of feet from my usual position. Small price to pay for such a superb lens. Overall, it pairs wonderfully as a birding lens with the Z 100-400 S which is perfect for larger animals. Oh, and I also agree about the tripod foot: I immediately replaced it with the compatible Kirk ARCA Swiss foot, which is a bit longer and which I can lock down to eliminate the play.
the foot wiggle comes from the 4 little screws underneath that aren't tightened, i had the problem with my 70-200 f2.8 with the same design. thanks for the great review! Ps receiving the Kirk foot replacement for both lenses today😅 opted for the prime over the 180-600, weight and focus speed were big factors for me
I had same on my 70-200. The advantage of that removable foot is that if you carry multiple lenses all using that same foot, you only have to bring 1 foot which saves a lot of space. I often have the 70-200 + the 100-400 + the 600 in my bag with just one foot.
Great video, Scott. With regard to the lens foot. - if you haven't sent it back to B&H yet, then check the tightness of the 4 screws that are visible when you remove the foot. The Z 70-200mm f2.8 has been notorious for those loosening. You mentioned that this was a loan from B&H. I don't know how they do that, whether everyone they loan a lens out to gets a new one, or if they have a handful that they send out to folks. So, maybe the copy you received had been well used before you got it and those 4 screws have loosened. Or maybe yours was unique. But I'm pretty sure that's the issue. I have a 600mm f6.3 PF and immediately replaced the foot with the Kirk LP-70 foot and it's rock solid. Just checked it while watching your video. And I have had the issue with those 4 screws loosening on my Z 70-200 f2.8. Haven't had the issue on any other lens that uses that foot design.
For birds, aside from cost and a bit more weight, the 800 PF is the one I picked. This lens is certainly an alternate choice…home run Nikon. I have and use the 180-600mm but for serious dedicated bird work the 800mm PF is the lens I’ll always have on my camera. Thanks for all the useful videos! Keep ‘em coming.
When I think of the value of the Nikon Z 400 f/4.5, 180-600 f/5.6-6.3, 600 f/6.3 PF, and the 800 f/6.3 lenses, I compare them to the 400 f/2.8 TC, 600 f/4 TC, and the older 800 f/5.6 lenses that cost more than 2-3 times as much! Maximum aperture aside, the image quality of the PF lenses is so close to the flagship f/2.8 and f/4 lenses, and they are lighter weight and smaller in overall size, which makes them easier to travel with and to hand hold in the field. I agree that the 180-600, 400 f/4.5, and 800 f/6.3 are particularly great values! Paired with the high resolution Z8 and Z9 cameras, the photographic results with these less expensive lenses are spectacular!
Just finished watching a Tom Mason video about the 400 4.5, saw your vid pop up and it was a quick easy click! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this lens.
The removable foot can be a little "fiddly." I find that if I slide it a little back or forwards before tightening, you can crank it down and it will not move. I haven't inspected it closely, but it was NOT the 4 screws on my copy - it was the precise placement of the foot when tightening. While they both have a purpose, I prefer the 600 PF over the 180-600; I feel the images are superior and the weight is nicer on long treks. The 180-600 wins the day, however, when trying to photograph mammals that can be close (e.g., park deer). As you suggest, the 800PF is a great value, but also as you suggest it has to be used for the right purpose. The 600PF has become my go-to songbird/warbler glass. I tried the 800PF just for ha-ha's and I laughed at myself. Super for stationary field birds though including sparrows, bobolinks, meadowlarks, etc.
As others have mentioned, I too had to tighten (and ad Loctite) the four small screws on the plate that the lens foot attaches to. Paired with the Z8, it's an amazing combo!
I have all mentioned tele lenses so I didn't want to buy the 600 PF. But than I made a huge mistake: I went into a shop and they had it on the shelf, I put in on a body - and was sold. The low weight is that incredeable that I had to buy the lens. Now I always have the problem to choose... Live isn't that easy 😏
Love this lens in combination with my Z8 - tempted to get the 400mm f4.5 for when I need less reach - gone are the days of lugging heavy f2.8 or f4.0 monsters!
Adding a bolt on tripod foot will cure the wiggle issue inherent with the stock Nikon quick release foot. There are several bolt on aftermarket feet available; the one from Hejnar Photo out of Illinois extends backwards far enough to balance the Z 600PF on a gimbal head when attached to a heavy body, such as a Z9 or Z8 (with battery pack). The Hejnar Photo foot also has a QD port, Arca Swiss dovetail, and safety screws. One potential disadvantage of the 600mm PF that was not mentioned in Scott Keys' review is lens' rather long, 13.1 foot minimum focus distance; if memory serves, the Z 180-600mm lens focuses about 5 feet closer when zoomed to a 600mm focal length. ` Overall, the Z 600mm PF is a great lens. Optical design, compactness, and lowish weight are its main selling points, differentiating it from other long, f/5.6-ish primes; only the Nikkor AFS 500mm f/5.6PF (for F-mount) and the Sigma 500mm f/5.6 DG DN OS Sports Lens (for Sony E-mount and Leica L-mount are in the same league. The Z 600 PF would be even better if it was a bit faster (f/5.6 not f/6.3) and if its minimum focus was shorter.
In a lab test, optically, they are indistinguishable. On a Z8/Z9, the 600 PF has better AF initial acquisition, better VR, is silent, and slightly better resolving power with subjects at distance (including accounting for the 100mm difference in focal length). The 500 PF is cheaper.
I've had mine since Memorial Weekend, and mine was wobbling with the Kirk foot. I tightened the screws, but will add Blue Loctite. Love this lens! I am selling the 400 4.5 to a friend partly because of this purchase. I also have the 100-400 so all of my bases are covered.
@@marciacooper4662 I never cared for the Z 400 f4.5. It is sharper than the Z 100-400 at 400mm, but the Z 10-400 is nearly as sharp and is a far better lens overall. Unless you really, really like being at 400mm and can't afford a 400 FL or the Z 400 f2.8 TC lens, I just don't see a reason to get it.
Might be switching back to Nikon. Switched to Canon when Nikon was far behind on mirrorless. Canon can't deliver execute on the delivery of their own products after release date and don't seem they care and don't open their mount to 3rd party. They have a couple of good lenses cameras on the way but they don't have a prime lens comparable to this. A 600mm lens a little over 3 pounds with this sharpness at 6.3 is astounding...some may prefer the Canon 100-500 but it's short for warblers, I may give this a try. Build quality seems higher on this Nikon too.
Dang, these Nikon lenses are making me regret sticking with Canon when I upgraded to mirrorless. I would kill for a Canon lens with these specs and quality! For me to get to this focal length with Canon, I am stuck with very small apertures or I have to shell out $13k! :(
Imo this lens seems awesome, but its biggest weakness is the fact that the 500 F/5.6 PF exists. The 500 PF can be found quite easily for about $1800 used. (I know because that's what I paid for mine and see them frequently around that price and there is one right now in my area listed for that on marketplace). Performance wise in terms of real world results, the two lenses are basically the same. The 600 has a bit more reach, the 500 has a bit more light. The 500 takes a 1.4 TC better because of the slightly better faster aperture. If the two were similar price, then the 600 would make a lot more sense on a Nikon Z but considering we are talking about half the price it becomes really hard to justify the 600 IMO. Just my two cents on it but IMO for almost all photographers the 500 the better choice or if you absolutely insist on being on Nikon Z or only buying new, the 400 4.5 + 1.4TC is cheaper, just as light, and more versatile. Imo if you have 600 PF budget, just keep shooting with what you have and save for the 800 which isn't wildly more expensive. As an aside, one thing I'm curious about, is why has Nikon not made any fast PF lenses? Is this is a physics limitation? I've noticed all PF lenses are slow and ultralight. They are great lenses but how light could a 400 2.8 PF be? A 500 F3.5 PF?
I own the 500 of and rented the 600 of. The new Z mount lens has a few advantages but not enough to switch if you have the 500 (which I am keeping) and not enough if you need to save the $. They both work well with TC; I’ve taken great shots with the 1.7X. They both share the same drawback: at ~850mm they are at f9 or f9.5. I added a used 500mm F4E but this lens is not for shooting handheld
I noticed the play in the foot right away. Actually, I don't like the removable feet that seem like they may remove themselves at the wrong time. I bought a Wimberly foot and as someone else noted it bolts onto the lens, no play at all. Problem solved.
the middle washer on the lens foot is a but too thick preventing proper pinching of the grooves on the lens collar, design/manufacturing flaw, @Nikon -resolve such stupid issues, send replacements ASAP !
Absolutely disagree with “cons” you probably have some used and abused copy. Mine don’t have any movement in the foot. Neither it’s back heavy with z9 when I use it with big shotgun mic and on standard pl100 arca plate on my gimbal.
I dont get it. Why would you buy the 600mm f6.3 if you can buy the 180-600mm which is also f6.3? What am I missing? They are both sharp, the 180-600 is even lower priced, has zoom and the difference in weight is negligible.
no focus breathing, better performance with teleconverters and the weight difference might also mean better balance and overall ergonomics for the size
Rent both and shoot with them for a day, you will figure it out pretty quick. The zoom is obnoxiously heavy, it is slower to focus, the edge sharpness isn't as good, it isn't weather sealed, has worse VR performance,, etc. The 180-600 is amazing value for the price but it has some huge compromises to reach that value.
Thanks for a great video. I have been using this lens now for the past 6 months on my Z8 and I am really really happy with it. I compared it with the 180-600 that I used for 2 weeks and (to me) there are 3 noticeable differences: 1) weight 2) focus speed (once locked on both lenses hold focus equally but the 600 prime was much faster in acquiring focus) and 3) weight (yes again). The 180-600 has the alleged higher v versatility but in all fairness, I am willing to gamble that most images shot with the 180-600 are at full 600 mm. The choice also depends on what else you have in your bag already. Since I already had the 100-400, the 180-600 didn't make any sense for me. The biggest biggest plus in my view is that I can handhold this 600 for hours while getting razor sharp images.
I purchased a Kirk Enterprises replacement collar and foot and have had no problems whatsoever with any movement with the Kirk. I have the 180-600 and the 800, but this is my favorite for walk around bird photography. The weight difference is the reason. I did take the 800 to Africa since I was not carrying the lens any great distance there.
Very interesting revue, with some new points I’d never notice in other revues! 👍
I’ve been using the 180-600 for 5 months now exclusively and intensely mostly at 600mm f8 for noticeable improvements in sharpness.
I’ve been able to get really nice image quality from that lens.
2 weeks ago i tried the 600mm 6.3.
The difference in weight and balance on my z8 is astounding. It might not seem like much but it feels like I’m not even carrying a lens anymore. I feel the cameras weight more. It’s so well balanced though.
I was reaching the limit of the sharpness and CA on my 180-600. This solves all of that. Do I feel more locked in at 600mm, yes.
But if you plan your shots well you can get habitat shots from a distance and then approach for those portrait shots.
I sold my 180-600 because I’m not going to use ever again. It was worth it for me even with the price difference
I'd even go for 800 mm f6.3 for myself. I look at my Sony 200-600 pictures, it's almost now all 60-70% in crop mode (900 mm), so I go down from 33 to 14 mpx almost all the time. Previously I was using A6400, and also, 900 mm was a cropping in lightroom to get the frame. I think it's the time to switch from A7-IV to Z8 and 800 mm f6.3 pf + x1.4 TC, that would be the dream for me. Not kidding. I don't plan to travel all around the world, and my country is mostly small birds.
Great review, as always. I purchased my 600mm pf at my local camera store a couple of weeks ago, and I helped to fund it by reluctantly trading in my beloved 500mm pf and some other F-mount gear as I transtion to Nikon mirrorless. Your observations confirm my experience, and it is becoming my favorite lens for my Z8. It is sharp, has lightning fast focusing, and is well-balanced with my Z8 and very much hand-holdable, even for a 67 yo with shoulder issues like myself. I find that 600mm is the sweet spot in focal length for my purposes, and find using the 1.4TC (840mm) provides almost too narrow of a field of view although it is very sharp. My only criticism relates to the minimum focus distance: Shooting birds off my back deck sometimes requires me to step back a couple of feet from my usual position. Small price to pay for such a superb lens. Overall, it pairs wonderfully as a birding lens with the Z 100-400 S which is perfect for larger animals. Oh, and I also agree about the tripod foot: I immediately replaced it with the compatible Kirk ARCA Swiss foot, which is a bit longer and which I can lock down to eliminate the play.
the foot wiggle comes from the 4 little screws underneath that aren't tightened, i had the problem with my 70-200 f2.8 with the same design. thanks for the great review!
Ps receiving the Kirk foot replacement for both lenses today😅 opted for the prime over the 180-600, weight and focus speed were big factors for me
I agree! I had the same little wiggle with mine. After tightening the small screws, it's rock solid. Very happy with this lens!
I had same on my 70-200. The advantage of that removable foot is that if you carry multiple lenses all using that same foot, you only have to bring 1 foot which saves a lot of space. I often have the 70-200 + the 100-400 + the 600 in my bag with just one foot.
Great video, Scott. With regard to the lens foot. - if you haven't sent it back to B&H yet, then check the tightness of the 4 screws that are visible when you remove the foot. The Z 70-200mm f2.8 has been notorious for those loosening. You mentioned that this was a loan from B&H. I don't know how they do that, whether everyone they loan a lens out to gets a new one, or if they have a handful that they send out to folks. So, maybe the copy you received had been well used before you got it and those 4 screws have loosened. Or maybe yours was unique. But I'm pretty sure that's the issue. I have a 600mm f6.3 PF and immediately replaced the foot with the Kirk LP-70 foot and it's rock solid. Just checked it while watching your video. And I have had the issue with those 4 screws loosening on my Z 70-200 f2.8. Haven't had the issue on any other lens that uses that foot design.
For birds, aside from cost and a bit more weight, the 800 PF is the one I picked. This lens is certainly an alternate choice…home run Nikon. I have and use the 180-600mm but for serious dedicated bird work the 800mm PF is the lens I’ll always have on my camera. Thanks for all the useful videos! Keep ‘em coming.
I think the 800 (or 400) is a better value depending on what your needs are
When I think of the value of the Nikon Z 400 f/4.5, 180-600 f/5.6-6.3, 600 f/6.3 PF, and the 800 f/6.3 lenses, I compare them to the 400 f/2.8 TC, 600 f/4 TC, and the older 800 f/5.6 lenses that cost more than 2-3 times as much! Maximum aperture aside, the image quality of the PF lenses is so close to the flagship f/2.8 and f/4 lenses, and they are lighter weight and smaller in overall size, which makes them easier to travel with and to hand hold in the field. I agree that the 180-600, 400 f/4.5, and 800 f/6.3 are particularly great values! Paired with the high resolution Z8 and Z9 cameras, the photographic results with these less expensive lenses are spectacular!
100-400 is also a good buy quality/weight/versability….
Just finished watching a Tom Mason video about the 400 4.5, saw your vid pop up and it was a quick easy click! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this lens.
The removable foot can be a little "fiddly." I find that if I slide it a little back or forwards before tightening, you can crank it down and it will not move. I haven't inspected it closely, but it was NOT the 4 screws on my copy - it was the precise placement of the foot when tightening. While they both have a purpose, I prefer the 600 PF over the 180-600; I feel the images are superior and the weight is nicer on long treks. The 180-600 wins the day, however, when trying to photograph mammals that can be close (e.g., park deer). As you suggest, the 800PF is a great value, but also as you suggest it has to be used for the right purpose. The 600PF has become my go-to songbird/warbler glass. I tried the 800PF just for ha-ha's and I laughed at myself. Super for stationary field birds though including sparrows, bobolinks, meadowlarks, etc.
As others have mentioned, I too had to tighten (and ad Loctite) the four small screws on the plate that the lens foot attaches to. Paired with the Z8, it's an amazing combo!
its weird the wiggle seemed to come from elsewhere....... glad its working for you now!
I have all mentioned tele lenses so I didn't want to buy the 600 PF. But than I made a huge mistake: I went into a shop and they had it on the shelf, I put in on a body - and was sold. The low weight is that incredeable that I had to buy the lens. Now I always have the problem to choose... Live isn't that easy 😏
Love this lens in combination with my Z8 - tempted to get the 400mm f4.5 for when I need less reach - gone are the days of lugging heavy f2.8 or f4.0 monsters!
the 400 is a great option and a little cheaper to boot
The Wimberly foot bolts on. No wiggle.
that lens foot is the same on several of Nikon's long lenses< eg the z70-200, z400f4.5 etc
Adding a bolt on tripod foot will cure the wiggle issue inherent with the stock Nikon quick release foot. There are several bolt on aftermarket feet available; the one from Hejnar Photo out of Illinois extends backwards far enough to balance the Z 600PF on a gimbal head when attached to a heavy body, such as a Z9 or Z8 (with battery pack). The Hejnar Photo foot also has a QD port, Arca Swiss dovetail, and safety screws.
One potential disadvantage of the 600mm PF that was not mentioned in Scott Keys' review is lens' rather long, 13.1 foot minimum focus distance; if memory serves, the Z 180-600mm lens focuses about 5 feet closer when zoomed to a 600mm focal length. `
Overall, the Z 600mm PF is a great lens. Optical design, compactness, and lowish weight are its main selling points, differentiating it from other long, f/5.6-ish primes; only the Nikkor AFS 500mm f/5.6PF (for F-mount) and the Sigma 500mm f/5.6 DG DN OS Sports Lens (for Sony E-mount and Leica L-mount are in the same league.
The Z 600 PF would be even better if it was a bit faster (f/5.6 not f/6.3) and if its minimum focus was shorter.
I have a comparison video coming out that shows that min focus and magnification difference. stay tuned (8 feet min for the 400 4.5 and 180-600)
You can flip that tripod foot around so it mounts the balance farther back for the Z9.
Are you going to compare the 500pf plus FTZ vs 600pf?
In a lab test, optically, they are indistinguishable. On a Z8/Z9, the 600 PF has better AF initial acquisition, better VR, is silent, and slightly better resolving power with subjects at distance (including accounting for the 100mm difference in focal length). The 500 PF is cheaper.
i will try
Check the 4 screws holding the lens foot dovetail to the lens body. I'd be willing to bet that is where the play is coming from
Add a little drop of Blue Loctite to each screw (blue is not permanent)
That was happening to my 600 PF. Tightened those four little screws and have not have an issue with wobble since.
I've had mine since Memorial Weekend, and mine was wobbling with the Kirk foot. I tightened the screws, but will add Blue Loctite. Love this lens! I am selling the 400 4.5 to a friend partly because of this purchase. I also have the 100-400 so all of my bases are covered.
@@marciacooper4662 I never cared for the Z 400 f4.5. It is sharper than the Z 100-400 at 400mm, but the Z 10-400 is nearly as sharp and is a far better lens overall. Unless you really, really like being at 400mm and can't afford a 400 FL or the Z 400 f2.8 TC lens, I just don't see a reason to get it.
Might be switching back to Nikon. Switched to Canon when Nikon was far behind on mirrorless.
Canon can't deliver execute on the delivery of their own products after release date and don't seem they care and don't open their mount to 3rd party.
They have a couple of good lenses cameras on the way but they don't have a prime lens comparable to this. A 600mm lens a little over 3 pounds with this sharpness at 6.3 is astounding...some may prefer the Canon 100-500 but it's short for warblers, I may give this a try. Build quality seems higher on this Nikon too.
I tested 600mm tc with 1.4 on, 800mm of and 600m pf with 1.4, sharpness difference is negligible. I have all three and used this most
Strange, my 600pf has zero play in fhe collar? Wonder if this is a common issie ?
Dang, these Nikon lenses are making me regret sticking with Canon when I upgraded to mirrorless. I would kill for a Canon lens with these specs and quality! For me to get to this focal length with Canon, I am stuck with very small apertures or I have to shell out $13k! :(
Imo this lens seems awesome, but its biggest weakness is the fact that the 500 F/5.6 PF exists. The 500 PF can be found quite easily for about $1800 used. (I know because that's what I paid for mine and see them frequently around that price and there is one right now in my area listed for that on marketplace).
Performance wise in terms of real world results, the two lenses are basically the same. The 600 has a bit more reach, the 500 has a bit more light. The 500 takes a 1.4 TC better because of the slightly better faster aperture.
If the two were similar price, then the 600 would make a lot more sense on a Nikon Z but considering we are talking about half the price it becomes really hard to justify the 600 IMO.
Just my two cents on it but IMO for almost all photographers the 500 the better choice or if you absolutely insist on being on Nikon Z or only buying new, the 400 4.5 + 1.4TC is cheaper, just as light, and more versatile. Imo if you have 600 PF budget, just keep shooting with what you have and save for the 800 which isn't wildly more expensive.
As an aside, one thing I'm curious about, is why has Nikon not made any fast PF lenses? Is this is a physics limitation? I've noticed all PF lenses are slow and ultralight. They are great lenses but how light could a 400 2.8 PF be? A 500 F3.5 PF?
That is a good question, maybe ill poke around and see
I own the 500 of and rented the 600 of. The new Z mount lens has a few advantages but not enough to switch if you have the 500 (which I am keeping) and not enough if you need to save the $. They both work well with TC; I’ve taken great shots with the 1.7X. They both share the same drawback: at ~850mm they are at f9 or f9.5. I added a used 500mm F4E but this lens is not for shooting handheld
I noticed the play in the foot right away. Actually, I don't like the removable feet that seem like they may remove themselves at the wrong time. I bought a Wimberly foot and as someone else noted it bolts onto the lens, no play at all. Problem solved.
There is no play in my copy Scott
Thanks!
At 7:20... I didn't have any 'play' in the tripod collar
My WISH but my Super 180-600does amazing stuff
i really like that lens~!
the middle washer on the lens foot is a but too thick preventing proper pinching of the grooves on the lens collar, design/manufacturing flaw, @Nikon -resolve such stupid issues, send replacements ASAP !
Where are these "gray markets".. asking for a friend.
Absolutely disagree with “cons” you probably have some used and abused copy. Mine don’t have any movement in the foot. Neither it’s back heavy with z9 when I use it with big shotgun mic and on standard pl100 arca plate on my gimbal.
lens was new and out of box. surprised you don't see the weight imbalance like it do..
I dont get it. Why would you buy the 600mm f6.3 if you can buy the 180-600mm which is also f6.3? What am I missing? They are both sharp, the 180-600 is even lower priced, has zoom and the difference in weight is negligible.
no focus breathing, better performance with teleconverters and the weight difference might also mean better balance and overall ergonomics for the size
that being said said id also just buy the 180-600
Weight and focus save/recall make this lens unique for bird in flight, especially for small bird
IQ at 600 is much better with the PF. Also, no comparison when adding TC. For birds, reaching to 800mm can be critical
Rent both and shoot with them for a day, you will figure it out pretty quick. The zoom is obnoxiously heavy, it is slower to focus, the edge sharpness isn't as good, it isn't weather sealed, has worse VR performance,, etc. The 180-600 is amazing value for the price but it has some huge compromises to reach that value.