Depends if you're a prime guy or not. The 400 4.5 can be found in stock in the small shops. Couple that with the 1.4X tele and you have 560 @6.3. Then if you need to fill the gap I use it on my 70-200 and get 280mm @f4.@@maldzy
I have the 800 and 600 Pf in use since they hit the shelves.the 600 Pf is at same level as 800 Pf on sharpness , and the 600 pf is fastest autofocus.The 600 pf is definitely the winner here , for its portability and usability!
After handling the 600 PF at a store I really get what the 600 is supposed to do. It's absolutely tiny and extremely light for a 600 prime. Also, if you really wanted a native Z mount 600mm prime the only option was the 600/4 TC... And now, if you can live with the aperture, you can save 11.000 bucks.
I had the 180-600 but returned it - too heavy for daily nature walk - I knew I would leave it behind some days! I now have the 600 prime and am delighted with it. Images do indeed pop, even compared with 500Pf. It’s fast focus, light weight and balance make it a delight to use, too. Reach is good for me and my use case is birds and not mammals and hence zoom not needed. All down to use case!
I've had mine for just about a month, after cancelling my order for the Z180-600 and I've put it in my hands every day since. Definitely feels right and feels like quality. I'm laughing everytime I read a comment about f/5.6 should have been. At the end of the day, it always comes down to money and I could see the value in the additional quality, size and weight.
This review makes me feel even better that I purchased the 800 PF with my Z9. Got some wonderful pictures of Roseate Spoonbill at the Ding Darling NWR in Florida. Even did a great job picking up a Belted Kingfisher at long range in a tree. You always seem to do a review at just the right time for me.
Same here. I kept my 200-500 F mount and bought a FTZ2. Initially I had the 100-400 Z and used it with Z TC2 for about a year. Then the 800 pf arrived and I've not used the 100-400 or 200-500 since. But the TC2 does get used for the Moon and Sun 1600mm for those objects is great.
Excellent review. I own the 800, and would not change it for anything. Birds are far in my area, and 800 gives me the best chance. I wish it was longer more often than finding it is too long. I bought the 800 after finding 72% of my pictures being shot at 600 mm on my old zoom.
Matt a very happy new year to you. I have migrated to Z9 from D850 and slowly adding Z line lenses. I just added the 180-600 and the 800PF and find them to be as you say in the video. I was blown away by some test shots with the 800. The 180-600 is very useful in day to day outdoor shooting where flexible distance is needed. Blessings and success to you always. - Jim
I wish the 600mm PF would be an F5.6 instead of 6.3. All the good stuff happens either in the morning or at dawn where you will suffer with an F6.3 lens. Unless you specifically need something light and small I can't seem to find any real reason to buy this over a faster prime. I know it is a different beast but from the 600's price I would buy an older 600 \ 500mm F4 fl for sure.
Thank you for doing this comparison. I really needed to know if there was a significant difference between these lenses. I’ve seen in the past how detail oriented you can be so I highly value your opinion. I’ve been getting more passionate about detail so this really helps. Thanks again.
First, thanks for what you do. It's nice to get an independent and honest review of products. In this case, I'm a wildlife photographer, have 2 Z9's, and use the 180-400 f/4E TC as my go to lens. Having recently purchased the Z800mm, it was good to know your point of view, which by the way matches my first impressions of the len. Cheers....
I've been wanting the 800mm PF for ages now, but I see that used 800mm f5.6 FL's are available for less or the same kind of price. A long shot I know, but would you be able to do a comparison? I shoot the Z9 too so would be great to hear feedback!
Thanks for this Matt. I already have the Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and the Z 800 f/6.3 PF. I have been wondering whether to get the 180 - 600 but, bearing in mind what i already have, really can't justify the added expenditure even though the latter is, probably, the best value long-reach lens in Nikon's armoury. I recently returned from a two week safari trip to Botswana. I couldn't take the 800 due to wieght restrictions on internal flights so the 100-400 was my go-to lens for wildlife and i was really glad i had the zoom rather than a prime as I regularly needed to zoom out to get subjects in frame - I was a passenger in a safari vehicle and it was impossible to get out or get further back as regulations preclude exiting the vehicles for pretty obvious reasons and the vehicles are restricted to sticking to the trails / tracks. If I had had the 180-600 it actually would have been a disadvantage as I often had to use the 100mm focal length.
Hello Matt Nice démonstration of the superiority of a prime over a zoom I’m wondering how the 800mm f/5,6 E AFS F mount compares to the 800 f/6,3 PF Z mount Could you give me your thoughts ?
I agree with your findings and read the AF speed is higher in the 600/800 as expected in more expensive lens. I needed the flexibility of a zoom for AirShows/BIF and for the money I would say the center image quality is very good with the 180-600 for the price. Personally, I wish Nikon made an F4 replacement for the 500/600 F mount lineup in a Z lens, without having to buy the 400TC/600TC models for the faster glass. Yes it would be more expensive, but would be between $5k-$16k in price, maybe $6-8k. Yes it’s nice having the TC built in and the prime elements. Having the PRO glass in the middle range would benefit more photographers.
I think 800 is way more useful than a lot of people think. It seems to get pigeon holed as a birding lens but in my experience even with large mammals I tend to reach for the 800 more than my 500pf if I’ve got both on me
About the price of the 600PF compared to the 180-600: I think it's worth remembering that the F-mount 200-500 and 500PF both shared the same aperture as well, and the 500PF was much more expensive. It wasn't quite the ratio of the 180-600 and 600PF, but it was close. I do have to say this: I watched other videos about the 180-600, sometimes comparing it to the 600PF, and although there was a difference in image quality, the samples I see here seem to look worse. And this is not the first time on your channel that I've seen a much stronger difference between a cheaper and more expensive lens, compared to other channels. I'm not sure if maybe the samples you post are 100% crops, or if something else is going on, but I think there is a difference.
"IF" Nikon would ever come out with a pro level APS-C body, then that along with the 800 PF F6.3 could be the ultimate reach monster for the small birds I usually chase. Depending on what happens in the future, I could totally see myself jumping the Canon ship for such a combo. {I'm totally NOT brand loyal}. But maybe Canon will come out with some comparable stuff in the next few years ? Only time will tell. In the mean time, I'll just have to keep shooting with the R7 + 800 F11. For all of the faults with this combo, it is still the best choice available for my shooting at the moment. {short of like maybe a $15K to $25K combo, possibly with the use of TC's} I had to chuckle when you said, "If 800mm is not too long for you" :) On the contrary, its not usually long enough for me, which I why I sold my FF Canon R5.
terrific comparison (i love any super telephoto comparison) and just a friendly request it would be great at the end to see side by side of the same birds taken with the three lenses 😌👍🏻
Great video matt- did you find the lens hat the 800 comes with bothersome or was that just a personal irritation of mine? I ended up returning the 800pf myself. Even though the images it made were amazing, the smaller size of the 600 along with that being a better focal distance for me was the deciding factor.
@@mattgranger Strange, instead of a typical lens cap- mine came with Nikon part 'LC-K106 Lens Cap' and i absolutely hated it. 'Lens hat' maybe wasn't best description 🤣 I'm sure there's a more traditional lens cap for it somewhere, but not happy to have to buy/find accessories after spending what the 800mm costs.
Matt I dont know which camera you were using but with Sony I had a helluva time with softness in some images with a high megapixel camera and Sony's 2-600. It disappeared when i switched to an A9. I think some bodies are too much resolution for some zooms, just spitballing dont know for sure but even when i had critical focus the A7R4 was just too much for the 200-600 and even Sony had it listed as partially compatible with R4
My thoughts is you never do a real-world shoot like going out & seeking wildlife so one can see how the whole system works including the AF. Anyone can get a super in focus photo manually focusing on a still subject. Birds equal moving around & in flight.
Matt, as I am still trying to get used to the weight of my 180-600mm, I have been considering to get a Nikkor Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S lens (I like to take my snapshots using zoom lenses) and use it with a TC-2x. That means I can use it as a 600mm in a DX mode and give my muscle a little break, I hope. Is the 70-200mm good enough to handle what I hope for? I mainly am enjoying going for a walk, taking snapshots, not aiming to win any competitions etc. Please make any suggestions on alternatives without concerning about me budgeting for it, thank you in advance.
180-600 …. Why is that lens not shipping? So frustrated and no word from Nikon. What happened??? Thx - appreciate ANY NEWS!! Thinking of jumping ship!!
Hi Matt, thanks for sharing your views. I am seriously considering the 600mm PF lens after holding it to find out how light it is. Just stumbled on this channel and surprised to find out you are also in HK. Cheers!!
As for pricing, the main issue is that Nikon underpriced the Z 800PF. The Z 800PF is easily worth $8000. Its a handholdable (!) 800mm prime with sharpness/IQ that nearly matches its legendary predecessor while only being 1/3 stop slower and beats it in every other aspect including AF, VR, size, weight, and so on. $8000 is cheap, actually, for that lens. To put the Z 600PF in sort of that same conversation, can you say it nearly matches sharpness/IQ of the most recent 600 f4 while being only 1/3 of a stop slower and beating it in every other way. Heck no. Its nowhere close to being that level of lens. I can understand $4800 if it were an f5 or f5.6 at most. A bit bigger and heavier would have been just fine, since it would still be well within the handholdable range. Drop in filters would also have been fine. Also, the Z 600PF does not include the $292 bag that comes with the Z 800PF. I expect the first price drop on the Z 600PF will be $400-$500, and still it will be a bit pricey for what it is and is not. $4000 (with no bag) seems to be the right price.
Love my 400/4.5. The 180-600 is great but I was clamoring for more reach. Ended up selling the 180-600 and purchased the 800PF.
With you there! The 400 4.5 is so fast and sharp. Saving up for the 800…
I love my 800, I have a 70-200 but need something to fill the gap, unsure if I should get the 400 4.5 or 180-600
Depends if you're a prime guy or not. The 400 4.5 can be found in stock in the small shops. Couple that with the 1.4X tele and you have 560 @6.3. Then if you need to fill the gap I use it on my 70-200 and get 280mm @f4.@@maldzy
I have the 800 and 600 Pf in use since they hit the shelves.the 600 Pf is at same level as 800 Pf on sharpness , and the 600 pf is fastest autofocus.The 600 pf is definitely the winner here , for its portability and usability!
After handling the 600 PF at a store I really get what the 600 is supposed to do. It's absolutely tiny and extremely light for a 600 prime.
Also, if you really wanted a native Z mount 600mm prime the only option was the 600/4 TC... And now, if you can live with the aperture, you can save 11.000 bucks.
I had the 180-600 but returned it - too heavy for daily nature walk - I knew I would leave it behind some days! I now have the 600 prime and am delighted with it. Images do indeed pop, even compared with 500Pf. It’s fast focus, light weight and balance make it a delight to use, too. Reach is good for me and my use case is birds and not mammals and hence zoom not needed. All down to use case!
I've had mine for just about a month, after cancelling my order for the Z180-600 and I've put it in my hands every day since. Definitely feels right and feels like quality. I'm laughing everytime I read a comment about f/5.6 should have been. At the end of the day, it always comes down to money and I could see the value in the additional quality, size and weight.
This review makes me feel even better that I purchased the 800 PF with my Z9. Got some wonderful pictures of Roseate Spoonbill at the Ding Darling NWR in Florida. Even did a great job picking up a Belted Kingfisher at long range in a tree. You always seem to do a review at just the right time for me.
Same here. I kept my 200-500 F mount and bought a FTZ2. Initially I had the 100-400 Z and used it with Z TC2 for about a year. Then the 800 pf arrived and I've not used the 100-400 or 200-500 since. But the TC2 does get used for the Moon and Sun 1600mm for those objects is great.
Excellent review. I own the 800, and would not change it for anything. Birds are far in my area, and 800 gives me the best chance. I wish it was longer more often than finding it is too long. I bought the 800 after finding 72% of my pictures being shot at 600 mm on my old zoom.
Two z9 bodies one with the zoom, the other with the 800. Cheers Matt👍
me too
Matt a very happy new year to you. I have migrated to Z9 from D850 and slowly adding Z line lenses. I just added the 180-600 and the 800PF and find them to be as you say in the video. I was blown away by some test shots with the 800. The 180-600 is very useful in day to day outdoor shooting where flexible distance is needed. Blessings and success to you always. - Jim
I wish the 600mm PF would be an F5.6 instead of 6.3. All the good stuff happens either in the morning or at dawn where you will suffer with an F6.3 lens. Unless you specifically need something light and small I can't seem to find any real reason to buy this over a faster prime.
I know it is a different beast but from the 600's price I would buy an older 600 \ 500mm F4 fl for sure.
Thank you for doing this comparison. I really needed to know if there was a significant difference between these lenses. I’ve seen in the past how detail oriented you can be so I highly value your opinion. I’ve been getting more passionate about detail so this really helps. Thanks again.
Glad it was helpful!
First, thanks for what you do. It's nice to get an independent and honest review of products. In this case, I'm a wildlife photographer, have 2 Z9's, and use the 180-400 f/4E TC as my go to lens. Having recently purchased the Z800mm, it was good to know your point of view, which by the way matches my first impressions of the len.
Cheers....
I've been wanting the 800mm PF for ages now, but I see that used 800mm f5.6 FL's are available for less or the same kind of price. A long shot I know, but would you be able to do a comparison? I shoot the Z9 too so would be great to hear feedback!
Thanks for this Matt. I already have the Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and the Z 800 f/6.3 PF. I have been wondering whether to get the 180 - 600 but, bearing in mind what i already have, really can't justify the added expenditure even though the latter is, probably, the best value long-reach lens in Nikon's armoury. I recently returned from a two week safari trip to Botswana. I couldn't take the 800 due to wieght restrictions on internal flights so the 100-400 was my go-to lens for wildlife and i was really glad i had the zoom rather than a prime as I regularly needed to zoom out to get subjects in frame - I was a passenger in a safari vehicle and it was impossible to get out or get further back as regulations preclude exiting the vehicles for pretty obvious reasons and the vehicles are restricted to sticking to the trails / tracks. If I had had the 180-600 it actually would have been a disadvantage as I often had to use the 100mm focal length.
Oh how i would like the 180-600 -- great video!
Thanks Matt, this is exactly the comparison I was hoping for.
Oh man…the 800mm is badass.
180-600 for versatility and price, the primes for performance(and in the case of the 600 - size). The story of lens use.
Hello Matt
Nice démonstration of the superiority of a prime over a zoom
I’m wondering how the 800mm f/5,6 E AFS F mount compares to the 800 f/6,3 PF Z mount
Could you give me your thoughts ?
I’m mostly interested in the 180-600 because that’s about the only I could afford. If money wasn’t an issue I woulf probably get the 400mm F/2.8
Wow those 800 shots, just awesome
I agree with your findings and read the AF speed is higher in the 600/800 as expected in more expensive lens. I needed the flexibility of a zoom for AirShows/BIF and for the money I would say the center image quality is very good with the 180-600 for the price.
Personally, I wish Nikon made an F4 replacement for the 500/600 F mount lineup in a Z lens, without having to buy the 400TC/600TC models for the faster glass. Yes it would be more expensive, but would be between $5k-$16k in price, maybe $6-8k. Yes it’s nice having the TC built in and the prime elements. Having the PRO glass in the middle range would benefit more photographers.
I think 800 is way more useful than a lot of people think. It seems to get pigeon holed as a birding lens but in my experience even with large mammals I tend to reach for the 800 more than my 500pf if I’ve got both on me
About the price of the 600PF compared to the 180-600: I think it's worth remembering that the F-mount 200-500 and 500PF both shared the same aperture as well, and the 500PF was much more expensive. It wasn't quite the ratio of the 180-600 and 600PF, but it was close.
I do have to say this: I watched other videos about the 180-600, sometimes comparing it to the 600PF, and although there was a difference in image quality, the samples I see here seem to look worse. And this is not the first time on your channel that I've seen a much stronger difference between a cheaper and more expensive lens, compared to other channels. I'm not sure if maybe the samples you post are 100% crops, or if something else is going on, but I think there is a difference.
"IF" Nikon would ever come out with a pro level APS-C body, then that along with the 800 PF F6.3 could be the ultimate reach monster for the small birds I usually chase. Depending on what happens in the future, I could totally see myself jumping the Canon ship for such a combo. {I'm totally NOT brand loyal}. But maybe Canon will come out with some comparable stuff in the next few years ? Only time will tell.
In the mean time, I'll just have to keep shooting with the R7 + 800 F11. For all of the faults with this combo, it is still the best choice available for my shooting at the moment. {short of like maybe a $15K to $25K combo, possibly with the use of TC's}
I had to chuckle when you said, "If 800mm is not too long for you" :) On the contrary, its not usually long enough for me, which I why I sold my FF Canon R5.
I really love my 800
terrific comparison (i love any super telephoto comparison) and just a friendly request it would be great at the end to see side by side of the same birds taken with the three lenses 😌👍🏻
The thing with birds, they don’t stand still as long as human models :)
Great video matt- did you find the lens hat the 800 comes with bothersome or was that just a personal irritation of mine?
I ended up returning the 800pf myself. Even though the images it made were amazing, the smaller size of the 600 along with that being a better focal distance for me was the deciding factor.
Didn’t notice anything about 800 hood 🤷
@@mattgranger Strange, instead of a typical lens cap- mine came with Nikon part 'LC-K106 Lens Cap' and i absolutely hated it. 'Lens hat' maybe wasn't best description 🤣
I'm sure there's a more traditional lens cap for it somewhere, but not happy to have to buy/find accessories after spending what the 800mm costs.
Matt I dont know which camera you were using but with Sony I had a helluva time with softness in some images with a high megapixel camera and Sony's 2-600. It disappeared when i switched to an A9. I think some bodies are too much resolution for some zooms, just spitballing dont know for sure but even when i had critical focus the A7R4 was just too much for the 200-600 and even Sony had it listed as partially compatible with R4
I was using z9
The video I’ve been waiting for
My thoughts is you never do a real-world shoot like going out & seeking wildlife so one can see how the whole system works including the AF. Anyone can get a super in focus photo manually focusing on a still subject. Birds equal moving around & in flight.
BIF performance is more a reflection of the camera body.
@@harvey6864 Some lens focus faster than others & have a better hit rate with one camera or another.
I know but if you are using one body - like the Z9, then the focusing speed differences will be in fraction of a second. @@thomastuorto9929
If I can't get the shot, what will I do with a sharper image?
I’ll get the 180-600mm when I can find it.
Matt, as I am still trying to get used to the weight of my 180-600mm, I have been considering to get a Nikkor Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S lens (I like to take my snapshots using zoom lenses) and use it with a TC-2x. That means I can use it as a 600mm in a DX mode and give my muscle a little break, I hope.
Is the 70-200mm good enough to handle what I hope for?
I mainly am enjoying going for a walk, taking snapshots, not aiming to win any competitions etc.
Please make any suggestions on alternatives without concerning about me budgeting for it, thank you in advance.
The 70-200 is outstanding!
Great, I loved all of above
Great video. Thanks 🙏
Sounds like if I do jump to a Z9 from my D850 I'll be getting the 800 PF and be adapting my 150-600 G2 to justify the cost. ;-D
Good plan
Let’s see what Canon has in RF…oh, right…EF lenses with a built-in adapter bolted on. Such innovation.
180-600 …. Why is that lens not shipping?
So frustrated and no word from Nikon. What happened???
Thx - appreciate ANY NEWS!!
Thinking of jumping ship!!
Do you have your order in? Hope it comes soon.
Hi Matt, thanks for sharing your views. I am seriously considering the 600mm PF lens after holding it to find out how light it is.
Just stumbled on this channel and surprised to find out you are also in HK. Cheers!!
Cheers 👍🏼
Beg the question: assume what you are asking is true (you can look it up).
I’m still waiting for my 800mm …
It's worth the wait. It took forever to get mine.
@@gregwilsonnaturephotographyThanks, and I eagerly look forward to use it when it finally arrives (it’s been almost a year).
@@aljawad yep, mine took 13 months.... crazy wait time. Greg
@@gregwilsonnaturephotography WoW, your patience is that of a hermit! Thank you and enjoy! 🙏
@@photobunny Thank you, and I’m sure the lens will offer a very rewarding experience!!
As for pricing, the main issue is that Nikon underpriced the Z 800PF. The Z 800PF is easily worth $8000. Its a handholdable (!) 800mm prime with sharpness/IQ that nearly matches its legendary predecessor while only being 1/3 stop slower and beats it in every other aspect including AF, VR, size, weight, and so on. $8000 is cheap, actually, for that lens. To put the Z 600PF in sort of that same conversation, can you say it nearly matches sharpness/IQ of the most recent 600 f4 while being only 1/3 of a stop slower and beating it in every other way. Heck no. Its nowhere close to being that level of lens. I can understand $4800 if it were an f5 or f5.6 at most. A bit bigger and heavier would have been just fine, since it would still be well within the handholdable range. Drop in filters would also have been fine. Also, the Z 600PF does not include the $292 bag that comes with the Z 800PF. I expect the first price drop on the Z 600PF will be $400-$500, and still it will be a bit pricey for what it is and is not. $4000 (with no bag) seems to be the right price.
Yeah. Your whatsapp friend is pretty smart.
He is… but in this case, I think wrong.