Jeff Klofft
Senior Member
Cost aside would you opt for the 100-400 or the 180-600 for wildlife. Does your decision change if you also own either the 500PF or 800PF?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
180-600 or 100-400
- Thread starter Jeff Klofft
- Start date
or search 
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67100620
The 500PF and 800PF speak for themselves. It all depends if the flexibility of the zoom will benefit you more than the reach, speed, weight, simplicity, and clarity the primes offer.
--
SkyRunR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
TIPS: Be kind, RT#M, use gear not signature, limit/shorten replies with quotes!
'The first casualty, when war comes, is truth' - Hiram Johnson (1866-1945)
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67100620
The 500PF and 800PF speak for themselves. It all depends if the flexibility of the zoom will benefit you more than the reach, speed, weight, simplicity, and clarity the primes offer.
--
SkyRunR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
TIPS: Be kind, RT#M, use gear not signature, limit/shorten replies with quotes!
'The first casualty, when war comes, is truth' - Hiram Johnson (1866-1945)
Last edited:
Jeff Klofft
Senior Member
or search
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67100620
The 500PF and 800PF speak for themselves. It all depends if the flexibility of the zoom will benefit you more than the reach, speed, weight, simplicity, and clarity the primes offer.
ghostfox_1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,134
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 6,168
The answer is always going to be it depends.
Plenty of other threads have been started on this. It depends on budget, what you're shooting, what you're willing to carry, etc.
Plenty of other threads have been started on this. It depends on budget, what you're shooting, what you're willing to carry, etc.
Oh, who cares about an old thread if you can get responses without surfing? :-D
I own both the 500 and 800pf and have the 180-600 on order. Now, full disclosure, I've been wanting to sell my 500 pf for over a year (I want to go all native Z lenses). I just haven't gotten around to it.
IMO, the two lenses have different purposes, and I suspect many photogs will own both. I don't like the 100-400 focal length for wildlife, but I think that it's a great outdoors sports camera and can be used as a "compact" travel long lens when space is tight.
If the 180-600 IQ is as good or close to that of the shorter zoom, it will be my preferred "short" and casual wildlife lens. I believe that 500mm is the minimum for a wildlife lens (which is why I like the Canon 100-500 so much), and 600mm is optimal. However, the ability to zoom down to 180 when you are unexpectedly close to a critter--or the critter gets close to you--is a marvelous benefit.
Thus, if the 180-600mm has excellent IQ at 600mm as expected (early reviews suggest that it does), then I want one. The only negative is that it is a bit bigger than I prefer, but not so big that I'd be willing to sacrifice IQ to go smaller.
PHXAZCRAIG
Forum Pro
I have the 100-400 and the 500pf. I also no longer have the wildlife nearby I used to, before development moved in, thus my wildlife needs are low. I also have the 200-500.
For wildlife, I would definitely get the 180-600, and then I would worry about the weight, and the wide end. Not a lot, but some.
For travel, I already use the 100-400, and it simply replaces the old 80-400g while my Z9 replaces my D850. It's a general purpose lens the size of a 70-200F2.8 that can do some wildlife. But it's not primarily a wildlife lens.
And yes, the 500pf does make it a lot harder to get a 180-600. Especially after dragging a 200-500 around a while and appreciating the smaller size of the 500pf a lot more. I know the 180-600 fixed a lot of 200-500 flaws, but I haven't carried it yet to see if the lower weight is lower enough. Sure looks like a great lens though. I've seen several comparison tests where it excels.
What I really want is a 600 F5.6 pf. The 800 is a bit long for me, and I can't justify the 400F4.5. It's the only thing that makes much sense when I already have the 500pf.
exRhodesian
Leading Member
- Messages
- 725
- Reaction score
- 175
I have both the 80-400mm and the 600mmFL. When going to the reserves with only one lens I find the 400mm in general a bit too short of reach, and the 600mm often with too much reach when, for instance, Giraffe or Elephant approach the vehicle.
I solved this by getting a 1.4IIIx converter calibrated with the 80-400mm giving me a reach almost equivalent to the 600mm of 540mm and still catering for game approaching close.
If I can only take the one lens then I go with the 80-400mm + 1.4x.
Out of your selection I would go for the 180-600mm.
I solved this by getting a 1.4IIIx converter calibrated with the 80-400mm giving me a reach almost equivalent to the 600mm of 540mm and still catering for game approaching close.
If I can only take the one lens then I go with the 80-400mm + 1.4x.
Out of your selection I would go for the 180-600mm.
Fredrik Glckner
Senior Member
It depends a lot on what you mean with wildlife. For birds, especially small birds, 400mm is just too short.
For mammals, perhaps 400mm is sufficient.
I'm thinking that the 180-600mm, being larger and heavier than the 500mm PF, will be better suited for sitting on a tripod in a wildlife blind, while the 500mm PF is better for opportunistically walking around.
For mammals, perhaps 400mm is sufficient.
I'm thinking that the 180-600mm, being larger and heavier than the 500mm PF, will be better suited for sitting on a tripod in a wildlife blind, while the 500mm PF is better for opportunistically walking around.
Jeff Klofft
Senior Member
Thanks! We've got a busy year coming up Antarctica and Patagonia as well as Uganda and Madagascar. Looking forward to it.
---
Jeff
Jeff Klofft
Senior Member
Thanks. I suspect I'll likely be one of those that ends up with both
. That said, I doubt I'd take both on any given trip and my concern with the 180-600 is will 180 be too long on the short end? I typically carry the 24-120 on a second body (mostly for landscapes and animalscapes), but I'd hate to be doing a lot of switching between cameras in the heat of the moment.Jeff Klofft
Senior Member
That's why I travel to the wildlife
.Weight a bit of a concern (mostly for getting gear onto small planes. I'm a big guy so I don't mind carrying heavier gear into the field. Like you, the short end is my primary concern (Will 180 be too long?)
I'm starting to think the same way. That said, with the high rez Z9, the 100-400 worked great on a recent Amazon trip. Although I would have loved to have an 800 on another body as well.
When I pre-order my 800, I sold my 500 and got the 400 f/4.5 because I wanted something that pair better with the 70-200 for times when I needed short/faster glass that didn't weigh a ton. And the 400 with the 1.4 effectively replaced my 500.
Jeff Klofft
Senior Member
I did try the converters on the 100-400 and I wasn't thrilled with the results. The 1.4 is OK (not great) and the 2.0 is a complete no go for me.
Jeff Klofft
Senior Member
Like I mentioned earlier, I'm a big guy 6' 6" (about 2M) about 215Lbs (almost 100kg). I've recently been carrying and handholding my new 800 on some local bird walks LOL.
dasams
Senior Member
A lot of people, including me, want a Z 600 pf. I hope there's one in development.
Fullframer
Senior Member
I think the 1.4x works very well on the 100-400 in decent lighting, hard to tell unless you start to pixel peep. Also, the 100-400 much lighter, less bulky lens. nearly 2 full pounds lighter matters when hand holding for a sporting event for 1 to 2 hours.
Last edited:
FrankG
Senior Member
I usually have resorted to adding my 70-300mm AF-P lens to cover the shorter tele focal lengths. Very lightweight and capable of excellent results at least within most of the range, especially for shots of animals at medium close range. However the question of what to use to complement the 800PF is becoming a bit tricky: not sure I could accomodate something as big as the 180-600 on a trip along with the 800!That's why I travel to the wildlife
Weight a bit of a concern (mostly for getting gear onto small planes. I'm a big guy so I don't mind carrying heavier gear into the field. Like you, the short end is my primary concern (Will 180 be too long?)
That is a combo that I have considered, reasonably lightweight and could work well on some kinds of tours bit it does leave a bit of a gap in the 400 to 800 range and adding a converter pushing the 100-400 lens to F8 is going to be of more marginal use I think.
I noticed, having had a look at your gear list, that you have (or had) a 300mm f/4 PF in your collection. A lens that I also have and I use quite a lot, previously mainly with the older TC14EII converter and now with the improved TC14EIII converter (I got many great results with the older converter and now feel i am getting even better results with the new one). It's great as a general 420mm f/5.6 and also focusses down to about 1.3 metres making it very useful for grab shots of insects etc.
I also have the 800PF which is currently my main birding lens.
So I was wondering: how do you feel the new 400mm f/4.5 compares for sharpness with the old 300mm PF? I would have to believe that this new lens is really something very special to justify getting one, especially as it only focusses down to about 2.4 metres or so although I could hope to still get great results with at least the Z 1.4 converter I suppose. I am seriously considering using just the 800PF and the 300PF (+ converters), (plus probably the Z 24-120) for some travel options.
Frank
Really, that's interesting, since there hasn't been any in depth comparisons using production models.
All we have seen is the usual Nikon ambassadors, or favoured YouTubers, using a pre-production model, for short periods, and giving their impressions.
Yep, we had Ricci give his views, and some basic comparisons, but these were well caveated, by it being a non in-depth review, using a pre-production example.
I'm very much looking forward to seeing some real comparison tests. I will definitely be purchasing one of these, but I'm on the fence with which one to go for. But I'm prepared to wait until the production models get some real in-depth, and extensive testing.
Last edited:
Jeff Klofft
Senior Member
"So I was wondering: how do you feel the new 400mm f/4.5 compares for sharpness with the old 300mm PF? I would have to believe that this new lens is really something very special to justify getting one, especially as it only focusses down to about 2.4 metres or so although I could hope to still get great results with at least the Z 1.4 converter I suppose. I am seriously considering using just the 800PF and the 300PF (+ converters), (plus probably the Z 24-120) for some travel options."
First off, I really need to update my gear list as I haven't done that in a while. To your question, I love my 400 f/4.5 but for me it's a second lens that I pair with a zoom (I have 2 Z9 bodies). With the 70-200 f/2.8 I use the 400 bare as a 4.5. With the 100-400, I add the 1.4TC for a 560 f/6.3 and am thinking that I might use it with the 180-600 as an 800 f/9 with the TC2. The 400 is better than my old 300 and works really well with both TCs. It's the only lens that I own that I'll use with the TC2.
Like you I like using the 24-120 as my animalscape lens with any of these combinations.
First off, I really need to update my gear list as I haven't done that in a while. To your question, I love my 400 f/4.5 but for me it's a second lens that I pair with a zoom (I have 2 Z9 bodies). With the 70-200 f/2.8 I use the 400 bare as a 4.5. With the 100-400, I add the 1.4TC for a 560 f/6.3 and am thinking that I might use it with the 180-600 as an 800 f/9 with the TC2. The 400 is better than my old 300 and works really well with both TCs. It's the only lens that I own that I'll use with the TC2.
Like you I like using the 24-120 as my animalscape lens with any of these combinations.
Jeff Klofft
Senior Member
I know this is not an inexpensive option, but the 400 f/4.5 with the 1.4TC is a very light 560 f/6.3.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum