180-600mm as an addition to the 100-400mm?

Ken Seals said:

BasilG said:

. Also, the weight and size difference is not to be underestimated - when hand holding the lens for hours (I shoot air shows), the lighter weight of the 600 PF will be appreciated.

Click to expand...

I shoot air shows, too. I can't imagine using a fixed prime, way too inflexible. My 180-600 is perfect for most shows on my Z 8 and Z 9.

Click to expand...

For solo jet displays, I am mostly at 600 or 840 (with TC), so the prime is perfect (for me). For team displays or heavies, I have the 100-400 if I need it, which is less restrictive than the 180-600 at the wide end.

Thanks for all the valuable input.

I have just ordered the Z 180-600mm for 1630 Euros. The Z 600/6.3 would have been 4159 Euros.

As a hobbyist I could justify the price difference. I mean others buy a Leica (body only) for twice the price of the 600/6.3. So if you have the money and want it then go for it is my motto.


But in this case I can’t justify the huge price difference because I would only benefit from less size and weight and maybe a little better IQ. If the 180-600mm was significantly inferior in terms of AF speed and precision and image quality I probably would have bitten the bullet and spent my money on the prime lens but since this is not the case I am glad I could save 2500 Euros.

quintana said:

Thanks for all the valuable input.

I have just ordered the Z 180-600mm for 1630 Euros. The Z 600/6.3 would have been 4159 Euros.

....
If the 180-600mm was significantly inferior in terms of AF speed and precision and image quality I probably would have bitten the bullet and spent my money on the prime lens but since this is not the case I am glad I could save 2500 Euros.

Click to expand...

Great choice,
I hope you will be happy with the astounding easy way to use that beast handheld.

Full zoom is less than a quarter of a turn, and the balance will not change, as a fixed lens.
Adding a zTC1.4 will force you to F8 and F9,
but notwithstanding I don't feel to miss much using it in low light with the Zf.

And having @1260mmE on the Z30 is like a candy in a demanding situation.

( The image quality doesn't suffer with the TC and that's a nice plus )


Hand-Held - Around 90-100mt > DX mode @10mp >> @1260mmE

--
___.............................!............................ ___
-------- Mid of French/Italian Alps --------- I Love my Carnivores. >https://eu.zonerama.com/AlainCH2/1191151
.
Photography ... It is about how that thing looks when photographed..
( Avoid boring shots )

I used to own the Panasonic 45-200mm (90-400) and later the 100-300 (200-600) for Micro Four Thirds. I got rid of the former because it didn't have enough reach for general bird photography and I wasn't using it. Just for clarification this is when I started getting into photography as a hobby.

Years later I replaced the 100-300 with the newer Panasonic Leica 100-400 (200-800) for wildlife but I also got the PL50-200 2.8-4 (100-400) a few years later. The reason why because it was a good lens for event and motor racing etc with it focal length.

With Nikon Z and deciding which telephoto lenses to go for. I went with the 180-600mm due to a deal on or otherwise I would've bought the more expensive Nikon 100-400. However, later since I wasn't going skiing this year I decided to buy a second hand 400mm 4.5. Partly because I always wanted a telephoto prime, but also it compact and I can use it for nature walks and sometimes at motor racing.

quintana said:

Thanks for all the valuable input.

I have just ordered the Z 180-600mm for 1630 Euros. The Z 600/6.3 would have been 4159 Euros.

As a hobbyist I could justify the price difference. I mean others buy a Leica (body only) for twice the price of the 600/6.3. So if you have the money and want it then go for it is my motto.

But in this case I can’t justify the huge price difference because I would only benefit from less size and weight and maybe a little better IQ. If the 180-600mm was significantly inferior in terms of AF speed and precision and image quality I probably would have bitten the bullet and spent my money on the prime lens but since this is not the case I am glad I could save 2500 Euros.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you made a good choice for your situation! Enjoy your new lens and let us know how you like it!

quintana said:

Thanks for all the valuable input.

I have just ordered the Z 180-600mm for 1630 Euros. The Z 600/6.3 would have been 4159 Euros.

Click to expand...

Congratulations. Interesting that the price spread between the two is much wider in Europe. The 180-600 is cheaper in Europe than in the US, after the US $200 price hike in August last year.

I like the 180-600/70-200 combination

quintana said:

Thanks for all the valuable input.

I have just ordered the Z 180-600mm for 1630 Euros. The Z 600/6.3 would have been 4159 Euros.

As a hobbyist I could justify the price difference. I mean others buy a Leica (body only) for twice the price of the 600/6.3. So if you have the money and want it then go for it is my motto.

But in this case I can’t justify the huge price difference because I would only benefit from less size and weight and maybe a little better IQ. If the 180-600mm was significantly inferior in terms of AF speed and precision and image quality I probably would have bitten the bullet and spent my money on the prime lens but since this is not the case I am glad I could save 2500 Euros.

Click to expand...

That's a great choice IMO as a hobbyist as well. The 180-600 produces more pleasing bokeh to my eye than my 100-400 with or without a 1.4 TC attached when shooting birds with foliage in the background. That sealed the deal for me to have both. The 100-400 is the better all rounder. The 180-600 is my birding lens. I had the 600mm PF pre-ordered, but decided to just go with the 180-600. Not just for cost, but I like the flexibility of the zoom and can deal with the weight. In the end, we are lucky Nikon has given us so many choices that we have to sit around and debate which of the amazing options we have to pick.