AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4D ED-IF

[Metalstorm77]

Hello to all,

I’m looking to buy a “AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4D ED-IF”. From my research this particular lens was produced around 1997. I can’t find too many reviews on it.

Please see attached pictures for the model I'm referring to. Anyone who has one or have used one, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.

Thank-you in advance.

[Shadowman]

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/6004afi.htm

[oldgreygary]

if you are looking to purchase try Grays of Westminster (London, UK) http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/...secondhand.php. They are a specialist Nikon only supplier who ship worldwide. I believe that they have a couple of those lenses in their secondhand stock at the moment. You could ask them for further information.

[ajohnw]

I don't like the way they test but the more recent 500mm and 600mm are sort of tested here.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon...s-in-the-range

A bit more practical info about the 500mm here. The comment at the end always concerns me about this range of lenses.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/ni...ns-review-4305

John
-

[tclune]

Bjørn Rørslett appears to speak well of it here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_tele.html FWIW

[chauncey]

I might ask about your intended use and camera body...is the camera going to out resolve the lens.

[Polar01]

Nat: this lens is an older model and probably like my 80-400mm ED AF VR, as a very slow auto focus compared to today's newer models. Now my 80-400mm is a great lens, however if anything is moving forget it, it will not track and focus, if the object is not moving it is nice. So if you are thinking of shooting birds in flight or some other fast movers, this is not the lens for that, as I shot mostly landscapes and they really do not move it works for me.

Cheers: Allan

[Dave Humphries]

John's 'KenRock' link (in post #2) was for the old AF-I lens, whereas Nat showed a picture of the AF-S lens.

Nat: this lens is an older model and probably like my 80-400mm VR ASF-S, as a very slow auto focus compared to today's newer models

Are you sure Allan? I thought the old 80-400mm was a "AF-D" (not AF-S) and relied on the camera's body mounted AF motor.

AF-S lenses are usually much quicker to focus, although it may depend on the body and possibly whether it is gripped - better models and gripping both give more battery power which can result in faster AF.

That said, I don't doubt modern AF-S technology is quicker than say, five year old AF-S technology, which may be the distinction you are making (and I'll stand corrected).

[Polar01]

Dave you are correct I made an error I wrote down AF-S it should have been 80-400 ED AF VR, this is what happens when you are looking at two reviews side by side. However it is still sloooooooow, the new one is like lightening I understand.

Cheers: Allan

[NorthernFocus]

What is the purpose of seeking reviews on a lens like this? Consider the following:
1. Apparently you're a Nikon shooter and you've made you mind up to buy long, prime glass. In this catagory of lens, that pretty well locks you in to a Nikon lens.
2. Given that you're commited to Nikon (per above), the decision boils down used or new, and if used is an option then which version of the Nikkor 600mm.
3. If you need fast AF, then any model pre-AF-S is out so that limits the field dramatically.

With the field narrowed to that few models, what are you looking for from reviews? A search for information on any particular reliability problems on a given model is useful. But the quality of the glass is going to be the best that was available in that timeframe. By definition it's a used lens so isn't it more a function of what condition the equipment is in, how much confidence you have in the state of condition, and how much you're willing to pay?

I just don't get the usefulness of reviews on gear like this to anyone other than the guy making a living writing them.

[JR1]

I’m looking to buy a “AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4D ED-IF”


Why ?????

I shoot sports and I would never use a prime, they are far too limiting in my opinion

[Shadowman]

There's more than one type of review found on any given product, the one given by experts in the field and the one given by current or past users. Both can be beneficial but both has to be weighed objectively. I've read negative reviews by users only to find out they were either using the device incorrectly or they had bad past experiences with the brand and the negativity carried forward with the new purchase. And I've also read reviews through forums, after the fact (usually just before the warranty expires) where the exact same issues I was having with a device seems common for almost all users. Two examples where I found the reviews afterward was the purchase of an Acer laptop that had Internet/wifi connectivity issues, resolved only by exchanging the unit and six years ago with a DVD player/burner in which the laser would get jammed and was never resolved. I still have the DVD player which functions; just cannot burn a DVD, and apparently there aren't any models in existence that can successfully burn a movie without experiencing the jam.

[NorthernFocus]

I might ask about your intended use and camera body...is the camera going to out resolve the lens.

And if it does (though I don't agree with the concept) what then? What's a guy to do?

[NorthernFocus]

I understand doing research, goodness sake I myself analyze decisions way beyond useful consideration. When considering getting a long prime lens, I read/studied all of the objective (aka test data) material I could find on the optical qualities of the current 400, 500, and 600mm primes. But once a decision is made on the focal length, what's left to consider? Used or new, older AF or AF-S, VR or not, etc. The optical performance is what it is. One model is ultra sharp, oh but the other one is ultra, ultra sharp. Though, and I'm loathe to bring this up, at one time I did consider switching to the brand that shall not be mentioned because the lens I was considering was of more value than the rest of my kit combined. And at the time a pro body and the focal length prime I wanted could be had for what the Nikon lens alone cost(at the time). Barely escaped a lifetime of regret on that one....

[Shadowman]

I understand doing research, goodness sake I myself analyze decisions way beyond useful consideration. When considering getting a long prime lens, I read/studied all of the objective (aka test data) material I could find on the optical qualities of the current 400, 500, and 600mm primes. But once a decision is made on the focal length, what's left to consider? Used or new, older AF or AF-S, VR or not, etc. The optical performance is what it is. One model is ultra sharp, oh but the other one is ultra, ultra sharp. Though, and I'm loathe to bring this up, at one time I did consider switching to the brand that shall not be mentioned because the lens I was considering was of more value than the rest of my kit combined. And at the time a pro body and the focal length prime I wanted could be had for what the Nikon lens alone cost(at the time). Barely escaped a lifetime of regret on that one....

I see the point of your comments in post #10, the decision maker reaches a point where you either buy it or walk away.

[Metalstorm77]

Thank-you for all disccussions and links. Photography is a fun/relaxing hobby for me and I do enjoy wildlife photography. When I saw this second-hand lens (which appears to be in an excellent condition) at half the price of the latest 600mm lens, wanted to find out more about it's performance as it maybe a "nice to have" lens. Will get the chance to test it anyways before committing to buy. Ofcourse final decision is mine, but always great to hear different opinions.
Appreciated all comments.
Thanks.