Re-thinking the Z 180-600

[Jeff Klofft]

As I was responding on another 180-600 thread I realized that there is a significant weight penalty of over a half a kilo (575g to be exact) in carrying the 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 vs the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x (equiv. 560 f/6.3).

I think, if, like me, one plans to shoot this lens at 600mm for most of the time, the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x is a much better (albeit more expensive) setup.

In any case, I think I will cancel my order for the 180-600 since I already have both the 400 and the 1.4x tc (and the 100-400) and I don't think I would gain anything by adding this lens to my kit.

The 400 + TC is also supposedly sharper.

I asked above and I am asking again: Based on what?

Your right, we don't know yet, but based on my experience with the 400 & 1.4TC (which is simply amazing), I'd be shocked.

 

[Jeff Klofft]

WRT the 400 (with and without TCs) vs one of the telezooms

If you going to ALWAYS be a the longest end, the weight savings (and in most cases the better IQ) make the 400 (again sometimes with a TC) the better option

If you only VERY occasionally going to need the longest end, having a more zoom on the short end is a benefit so IF you're willing to carry some extra weight the 400 (again sometimes with a TC) is the better option

In ALL OTHER CASES, use the zoom. Also if you can only afford one, get the zoom.

 

[John Ideal]

I may pick up the 180-600 later, but I also have the 400 and the 100-400, plus 1.4 and 2.0 TCs. I think it depends on your shooting style. While the 180-600 gives you much more flexibility, and gets to 600 without a TC, it's bigger and bulkier. I think it also depends on your shooting style. I'm used to using 300 and 400 fixed focal lenses (for sport), and always wind up racked all the way out on a zoom tele. My 400 gets all the use, and my very capable and much more flexible 100-400 just sits. For me, I want to see all the reviews and user reactions, but at least for now I won't get it.

 

[Dennis]

As I was responding on another 180-600 thread I realized that there is a significant weight penalty of over a half a kilo (575g to be exact) in carrying the 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 vs the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x (equiv. 560 f/6.3).

I think, if, like me, one plans to shoot this lens at 600mm for most of the time, the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x is a much better (albeit more expensive) setup.

I was pretty intrigued by the announcement (all along, while it was on the road map). I still have my D7500 and 3rd party 100-400 for backyard wildlife, and a 180-600 is the perfect substitute (I'm betting it's a lot better, optically).

But the more I look at the weight, the more I think it would be a mistake. I tried out the 200-500 and decided at that time that it wouldn't be a great choice. Pretty heavy for my skinny arms Sure, I can take some shots with it, but I'd get tired of holding it up waiting for a shot. So I'd be better off with something lighter. My 3rd party 100-400 is only f/6.3 at the long end, so very light; my Nikon 70-200 VR II (F mount) is a bit heavier, but fine. That points to the 400/4.5 or 100-400. I think I'd initially play with DX crops for wildlife. 10MP sounds low, but it's not like I print my wildlife photos very big. I'd have the option of adding a TC down the road. The big question is which one. The 400 is more intriguing all around - smaller, lighter, sharper. I used a Minolta 400/4.5 APO TC years ago when I shot A mount. But the 100-400 would expand my landscape photography possibilities. (Right now, I use the 24-200 but could eventually add a 24-120 which would pair up with the 100-400 nicely).

Oh well, plenty to think about and plenty of time to think about it, as my D7500 works until I make up my mind.

 

[RudyMerz]

As I was responding on another 180-600 thread I realized that there is a significant weight penalty of over a half a kilo (575g to be exact) in carrying the 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 vs the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x (equiv. 560 f/6.3).

I think, if, like me, one plans to shoot this lens at 600mm for most of the time, the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x is a much better (albeit more expensive) setup.

In any case, I think I will cancel my order for the 180-600 since I already have both the 400 and the 1.4x tc (and the 100-400) and I don't think I would gain anything by adding this lens to my kit.

That is what I did, even before the Z180-600 was announced. I used the Tamron 150-600 before and I was on 600mm 99% of the time Now I am walking around with the 400 4.5 + TC 1.4 on my Z7, which I rarely did with the Tamron

 

[Maranoblet]

Quite a few stating they aren't going for the lens. Suprising, I thought there would have been more universal interest.

I own the 100-400 and 1.4 tc but have the 180-600 on pre-order. I want a bit more reach and more light but often shoot from hides so need the flexibility of a zoom for when the wildlife gets closer also not bothered about the weight in that scenario. I'm definitely not going to get rid of the 100-400 though as it makes a great landscape lens. I wouldn't want to hike for long with the 180-600.

At £1,799 in the UK it's almost half the cost of the 400 + TC. A lot of photographers can't afford to spend at the same level as a lot of the guys on here.

I'm glad there is a decent budget option out there as the price of photography gear now is starting to get prohibitive for people starting out. (Just need a more capable z6iii option now! fingers and toes crossed for an autumn suprise)

Is the 180-600 the pinacle of optical quality? I guess we don't know for certain yet but I highly doubt it will equal the z primes. I have a feeling it won't be far off though.

Is it good enough for most enthusiast use? Certainly seems so to me.

 

[Berend Botje]

At $1,700 the f/5.6-6.3 180-600mm is a very good deal compared to the $(2,700+550=3250) f/8-9 140-560mm (100-400+1.4x TC).

It is significantly faster for basically half the price. This on the assumption that they are optically comparable, which Ricci's test of a pre-production seems to be an indication of, but which I don't consider conclusive.

The 100-400mm is smaller and lighter, and gives you also 100-180mm which is especially important if you also want to use this lens for landscape and sport, and have no other options in your kit.

The f/4.5 400mm with TC is even more expensive and has no zoom option, but is smaller, lighter, slightly faster at 560mm with slightly less reach.

If you do have or add the 1.4x TC to the 180-600mm you now have an f/8-9 252-840mm option for $2,250. That, too, is a pretty sweet deal, but we know nothing yet about the optical quality.

So this choice really comes down to what your needs are, what you can or want to spent, what you are willing to carry, and what you already have.

IMO, if I had the Z 100-400mm I would not be in the front of the line to get the 180-600mm unless I really wanted more reach. But in the absence of that option, and looking to spent less, I am seriously looking at the 180-600mm.

The price is pretty much the key deciding factor.

I do have reservations, but of a different nature.

I would like to see Nikon bring out an Z6iii with improved AF before getting this lens, and am considering to cancel my pre-order for that reason.

The rumors of a Zf as the (only) other new camera this year, and the absence of news of a Z6iii or of Nikon improving the AF in any camera below the Z8/9 are a turn off for me - at least when it comes to further investing in the Z system at this point in time.

Cameras after registration usually take about 3 to 4 months to come out. The Z8 was registered in early feb and it came out late May. We will see next month how they're going to spec this. If it at least have the updated autofocus, and at $2k, it'll still be a good usable camera for a lot of people even if it's at 24MP. If it's like the Z fc and still has both the front and back dials, then we can still ignore the frivolous stuff and make it work.

I am actually curious to see the new camera. If, at the rumored price point, it is something like the Z6ii (in terms of sensor and EVF) but with an Expeed7 sensor and improved AF, we will begin to see what Nikon tech can do with the AF on the sub Z8/9 bodies and non-stacked sensors.

That still would not want to make me sell my Z6ii and buy it.

However, we may then hopefully look forward to a Z6iii with and Expeed7, updated sensor, and improved AF and video in the not too far of future.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

As I was responding on another 180-600 thread I realized that there is a significant weight penalty of over a half a kilo (575g to be exact) in carrying the 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 vs the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x (equiv. 560 f/6.3).

I think, if, like me, one plans to shoot this lens at 600mm for most of the time, the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x is a much better (albeit more expensive) setup.

In any case, I think I will cancel my order for the 180-600 since I already have both the 400 and the 1.4x tc (and the 100-400) and I don't think I would gain anything by adding this lens to my kit.

If you already have the 100-400 then yes it would probably make sense to just use the TC. But for those who don't, the 180-600 is a great option that costs about half the price of the 100-400 with TC. But the downside is the weight.

I'm still contemplating both setups myself, although not in a rush to buy either of them (or any of them). But I may go for the 100-400 and TC in the end as I would like a setup that is easily handholdable for periods of time (the 180-600, if similar to the older 200-500 is handholdable but only for shorter periods of time for me). If I always had a tripod handy, then I'd get the 180-600 hands down.

--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..

 

[ghostfox_1]

As I was responding on another 180-600 thread I realized that there is a significant weight penalty of over a half a kilo (575g to be exact) in carrying the 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 vs the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x (equiv. 560 f/6.3).

I think, if, like me, one plans to shoot this lens at 600mm for most of the time, the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x is a much better (albeit more expensive) setup.

In any case, I think I will cancel my order for the 180-600 since I already have both the 400 and the 1.4x tc (and the 100-400) and I don't think I would gain anything by adding this lens to my kit.

If you already have the 100-400 then yes it would probably make sense to just use the TC. But for those who don't, the 180-600 is a great option that costs about half the price of the 100-400 with TC. But the downside is the weight.

Don't skip arm day you also get 2/3rds a stop of light at 600 vs the 560 (for 100-400 with tc). That's not huge but not nothing either.

 

[ghostfox_1]

I find that wildlife often likes to get closer, or framing is better at different focal lengths. I shoot at the long end most of the time, but with one body only I can't give up the flexibility of a zoom lens for walks/hikes/trips.

 

[Nebido]

If weight and versitility is the goal then the 100-400 with 1.4 tc makes a lot of sense but it seems as though this combo may actually be slightly worse than the 180-600 optically, plus it has a little less reach at the long end.

All depends on your needs I guess.

It probably only has a focal length advantage on paper, at least compared to a prime, like the 400/4.5 + Z TC-1.4x.
Zoom lenses really have huge focus breathing,
even at infinity i bet you will see 560mm at best.
Is something that is very rarely really checked in reviews, but the rule is across manufacturers for such zooms.

A user on the FM forum, owner of a Z 400/4.5 VR S + Z TC-1.4x and a Sony 200-600, did a simple test to measure the actual real focal lengths of the two lenses.

The reason he did run this test, because he noticed right away that the Nikon 400mm f4,5 with the Z 1.4x TC attached seemed to give him greater subject magnification at the resulting 560mm focal length than he was seeing with the Sony lens set to 600mm.

Here are his results

1) The Nikon 400mm f4.5 + 1.4x TC has an actual focal length of 582mm when focused at a distance of 5 meters.

2) The Sony 200-600mm lens, set at 600mm, has an actual focal length of 545mm when focused at 5 meters.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1816165

 

[BasilG]

If weight and versitility is the goal then the 100-400 with 1.4 tc makes a lot of sense but it seems as though this combo may actually be slightly worse than the 180-600 optically, plus it has a little less reach at the long end.

All depends on your needs I guess.

It probably only has a focal length advantage on paper, at least compared to a prime, like the 400/4.5 + Z TC-1.4x.
Zoom lenses really have huge focus breathing,
even at infinity i bet you will see 560mm at best.

Close up, as in your example below, yes; infinity, don't think so (but willing to be convinced if someone shows me the data ).

Is something that is very rarely really checked in reviews, but the rule is across manufacturers for such zooms.

A user on the FM forum, owner of a Z 400/4.5 VR S + Z TC-1.4x and a Sony 200-600, did a simple test to measure the actual real focal lengths of the two lenses.

The reason he did run this test, because he noticed right away that the Nikon 400mm f4,5 with the Z 1.4x TC attached seemed to give him greater subject magnification at the resulting 560mm focal length than he was seeing with the Sony lens set to 600mm.

Here are his results

1) The Nikon 400mm f4.5 + 1.4x TC has an actual focal length of 582mm when focused at a distance of 5 meters.

2) The Sony 200-600mm lens, set at 600mm, has an actual focal length of 545mm when focused at 5 meters.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1816165

For a 600 mm lens, 5 meters is very close focus. These results are likely to be rather different further away.

 

[goactive]

I am still going to buy the Sony RX10 4 that gives a 24-600m F4 built in lens that takes great photos at 600mm.

Will order it next week. Smaller and lighter and covers a wider range.

 

[RWN Photo]

Actually, your odds have increased by two, as I canceled my order for the same reasons. Enjoy, Mike

Add another to the list...

 

[abc123brian]

As I was responding on another 180-600 thread I realized that there is a significant weight penalty of over a half a kilo (575g to be exact) in carrying the 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 vs the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x (equiv. 560 f/6.3).

I think, if, like me, one plans to shoot this lens at 600mm for most of the time, the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x is a much better (albeit more expensive) setup.

In any case, I think I will cancel my order for the 180-600 since I already have both the 400 and the 1.4x tc (and the 100-400) and I don't think I would gain anything by adding this lens to my kit.

I think that makes sense in most cases. I also have the 100-400mm, 400mm 4.5, and 1.4x and was thinking I may not order the 180-600. I also had the 500mm PF which I have now sold. I was hesitant on the 400mm since I had the 500mm, but decided thae 400mm offered a little more flexibility being a 400mm and 560mm with the 1.4x. I like the 100-400mm but I think the 180-600 is going to be a better option for wildlife on the second body and as my wildlife video lens over the 100-400mm so I am buying it.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

Actually, your odds have increased by two, as I canceled my order for the same reasons. Enjoy, Mike

Add another to the list...

I've been thinking the very same about dropping my order, so I canceled mine just a short while ago for the same reasons. For me, my Z100-400mm with the TC 1.4 is enough and lighter (and stellar). Not only will my cancellation add +1, to the stock, but I'm NPS so it will be more like a 1+



--
The one thing everyone can agree on is that film photography has its negatives. It even has its positives and internegatives.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

As I was responding on another 180-600 thread I realized that there is a significant weight penalty of over a half a kilo (575g to be exact) in carrying the 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 vs the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x (equiv. 560 f/6.3).

I think, if, like me, one plans to shoot this lens at 600mm for most of the time, the 400 f/4.5 + TC-1.4x is a much better (albeit more expensive) setup.

In any case, I think I will cancel my order for the 180-600 since I already have both the 400 and the 1.4x tc (and the 100-400) and I don't think I would gain anything by adding this lens to my kit.

If you already have the 100-400 then yes it would probably make sense to just use the TC. But for those who don't, the 180-600 is a great option that costs about half the price of the 100-400 with TC. But the downside is the weight.

Don't skip arm day you also get 2/3rds a stop of light at 600 vs the 560 (for 100-400 with tc). That's not huge but not nothing either.

Well, I'm also looking at cost. Is that extra 2/3 of a stop worth another $1200?

 

[astirusty]

Actually, your odds have increased by two, as I canceled my order for the same reasons. Enjoy, Mike

Add another to the list...

I've been thinking the very same about dropping my order, so I canceled mine just a short while ago for the same reasons. For me, my Z100-400mm with the TC 1.4 is enough and lighter (and stellar). Not only will my cancellation add +1, to the stock, but I'm NPS so it will be more like a 1+

You guys are so kind, Thank you! At this drop rate, I might move into first round picks.

:-D

 

[LTheWafflePWN]

At first I was surprised to hear so many people cancelling their 180-600mm orders, but as I read on, it seemed to be because they already have the 100-400mm.

If I were in that same boat, I'd likely do the same. However, I do not have a 100-400mm as I could never justify its cost on a 'for-fun' lens. The 180-600mm is significantly cheaper though, and I appreciate that this one is internal zoom unlike potential 3rd party (Tamron) equivalent additions to the Z mount.

I was initially hesitant because $1700 is still a fair bit for a 'for-fun' lens, but in the long run, I think this would save me from buying any other super-telephotos. This will also be the only non-S-Line lens I've ever purchased, but from all indications of every preview I've seen and read, the lens looks to be weather-sealed, sharp, and generally well built. Whenever I get my hands on it, I'll post back on here what I think of it -coming from the perspective of someone who's never owned a lens that goes past 300mm. Who knows, maybe it'll convince you to reinstate your order? ;-)

 

[jimdelves]

Ernie Misner wrote

I think the 100-400 is not it's sharpest at 400mm. I'm hoping the 180-600 is optimized more for the long end, as it will be used for small birds, distant wildlife, etc. When shooting small birds, the moon, etc., I want to get as many pixels on the subject as possible, and the 180-600 should take the 1.4TC nicely, and help even further with that

--
Ernie Misner

Correct. This drives me nuts. 600mm lenses should always be optimised for the long end. If I want a lens that’s great at 300mm I’ll buy a 300mm lens.
See also F1.4 lenses that ‘aren’t great at 1.4’. Yeah that’s literally what I paid for