fcotterill
Well-known member
There are so many choices across the Greater Nikon Ecosystem!
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Attachments
Last edited:
Nikon one lens for Wildlife?
- Thread starter Ad Astra
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
fcotterill
Well-known member
Telephoto choices are always complex, and a huge commitment in big costs. It's challenging, impossible really, for 1 questionaire to try and cover all the options presented in the modern Nikon Z system, especially if we include F mount options (that include several popular 3rd party telephotos). So it's all the more challenging to settle on just "the One" telephoto for wildlife 
It is essential to scope out one's subjects first and foremost: close ups, animalscapes, BIF, portraits...or combinations of categories. If you have a portfolio taken with a current system, collating the metadata of EXIF fields is useful (to compare use of focal lengths etc).
These answers are the precursors to refine and answer a set of structured questions, out which fall the answers to queries such as "400mm or 600mm?" "f2.8, f4, f5.6?", "Zoom or Prime?", "TC - internal or External?". Feasibility is obviously subject to budget, obviously. I believe it helps to write out a list of questions to answer, which are best pondered over...
1. Primes vs Zooms over ~100-600 - how often do you need to zoom out from 400mm (back to 200mm or wider), or extend beyond 400mm?
Too often photographing African mammals, I need 200mm or wider: so it's useful to pair a 70-200, or 100-400 with the longer prime. This is where the 180-400 TC14 remains one of the best single lenses in this role. This is my primary lens on a D6, paired with Z9 and 800 PF. This versatility with a super Zoom is probably an important reason for the popularity of a Bigma for Africa (the Sigma superzooms)
2. Using 1 or 2 Teleconverters to extend to 800mm: how often do need to tighten the fields of view (from 400 to 800mm) ?
Choices include 1.2kg 400 f4.5S; 400 TC 2.9kg; 600 TC 3.5kg subject to weight, advantage of an integral TC, and obviously weight
3. With a genuine 800mm, how often do you need 1000mm, 1120mm or even 1600mm?
I often needed the TC2 III on my 400 f2.8E FL for the extra reach. Since using a 800 PF, the ZTC14 has yet again proved to be an essential enabler. And so has the ZTC2 on the rarer occasion.
4. Last but not least, consider the weights of Telephoto(s) and the complete Kit(s) - as to feasibility of Handholding, Handling and Transportation:
This is where it's useful to filter options / choices through Brad Hill's categories of Commando (i.e. self-propelled or peripatetic) versus Destination Kits [see his recent overview of his camera and lens and more)
4A. Each telephoto for handholding? Is it feasible and for how long without support?
The answers depend on personal strength and also one's heath etc, besides the actual weights of the options eg 3.5kg 600 TC or 2.4kg 800 PF
4B. Net weight of your system (s) is it feasible for Hiking or fits the Cabin regulations when Flying?
Critical factors include additional weight of the Pro camera(s) of 1-1.5 kg on top of big glass...
4C. How does a Telephoto fit in your 'Commando' Kit versus 'Destination' Kit?
As we know, this is where Nikon has several unique solutions in remarkably light weight and compact telephotos. It's clear Nikon engineers have prioritized lighter more compact. So a complete setup can be extremely light and compact: eg 400 f4.5S + ZTCs, with 14-30 f4S and 24-120 f4S. Some telephotos are versatile My 400 f4.5S and 800 PF straddle both systems, but the 180-400 TC14 and 800 f5.6E FL are Destination Category only.
It is essential to scope out one's subjects first and foremost: close ups, animalscapes, BIF, portraits...or combinations of categories. If you have a portfolio taken with a current system, collating the metadata of EXIF fields is useful (to compare use of focal lengths etc).
These answers are the precursors to refine and answer a set of structured questions, out which fall the answers to queries such as "400mm or 600mm?" "f2.8, f4, f5.6?", "Zoom or Prime?", "TC - internal or External?". Feasibility is obviously subject to budget, obviously. I believe it helps to write out a list of questions to answer, which are best pondered over...
1. Primes vs Zooms over ~100-600 - how often do you need to zoom out from 400mm (back to 200mm or wider), or extend beyond 400mm?
Too often photographing African mammals, I need 200mm or wider: so it's useful to pair a 70-200, or 100-400 with the longer prime. This is where the 180-400 TC14 remains one of the best single lenses in this role. This is my primary lens on a D6, paired with Z9 and 800 PF. This versatility with a super Zoom is probably an important reason for the popularity of a Bigma for Africa (the Sigma superzooms)
2. Using 1 or 2 Teleconverters to extend to 800mm: how often do need to tighten the fields of view (from 400 to 800mm) ?
Choices include 1.2kg 400 f4.5S; 400 TC 2.9kg; 600 TC 3.5kg subject to weight, advantage of an integral TC, and obviously weight
3. With a genuine 800mm, how often do you need 1000mm, 1120mm or even 1600mm?
I often needed the TC2 III on my 400 f2.8E FL for the extra reach. Since using a 800 PF, the ZTC14 has yet again proved to be an essential enabler. And so has the ZTC2 on the rarer occasion.
4. Last but not least, consider the weights of Telephoto(s) and the complete Kit(s) - as to feasibility of Handholding, Handling and Transportation:
This is where it's useful to filter options / choices through Brad Hill's categories of Commando (i.e. self-propelled or peripatetic) versus Destination Kits [see his recent overview of his camera and lens and more)
4A. Each telephoto for handholding? Is it feasible and for how long without support?
The answers depend on personal strength and also one's heath etc, besides the actual weights of the options eg 3.5kg 600 TC or 2.4kg 800 PF
4B. Net weight of your system (s) is it feasible for Hiking or fits the Cabin regulations when Flying?
Critical factors include additional weight of the Pro camera(s) of 1-1.5 kg on top of big glass...
4C. How does a Telephoto fit in your 'Commando' Kit versus 'Destination' Kit?
As we know, this is where Nikon has several unique solutions in remarkably light weight and compact telephotos. It's clear Nikon engineers have prioritized lighter more compact. So a complete setup can be extremely light and compact: eg 400 f4.5S + ZTCs, with 14-30 f4S and 24-120 f4S. Some telephotos are versatile My 400 f4.5S and 800 PF straddle both systems, but the 180-400 TC14 and 800 f5.6E FL are Destination Category only.
Last edited:
Ad Astra
Well-known member
Thanks for all the replies, true it depends on what I shoot, but that I think that is my challenge as I shoot a broad mixture. I found the 400mm about right for hide work, I recently was able to use a 400/f2.8 in a hide for a day and enjoyed the extra reach with the 1.4x teleconverter. I have the Z 800mm PF for walkabouts as it is hard to get close to small birds. I also have the F-mount 500mm PF but I think it is time to swap that for a Z lens if only for having a consistent set of lens buttons. Then there is travel to consider where I think the 400mm with external 2x teleconvter could be the ideal travel combo when limited to carrying one super telephoto.
Interesting to see how the voting has changed over the last few days, must say I am no closer to deciding which way to go.
Interesting to see how the voting has changed over the last few days, must say I am no closer to deciding which way to go.
There seem to be varying opinions about the use of teleconverters on the 400 TC 2.8. I expect the internal TC is well matched to the lens elements. External TCs might or might not be as well matched depending on your lens and TC. Even pixel peeping, I can see little difference between the internal TC and external TC14 using a Z9 body. I have less time using the TC20 compared to "stacking" the 1.4 TCs. I loose some acuity at 784/800 either way but the center is still sharp enough for prints. Since I am more likely to be photographing a deer, elk or sea lion than a songbird, the 400 TC 2.8 was the right choice for me. I am way too old to carry two lenses in the field. I am way more comfortable using TCs with my Z system cameras than I ever was in the f mount system.
If I had to give a one word answer it would be yes! However.....
I have both the 400/2.8TC and the 800pf since last April (I got both about 3 weeks apart) and wouldn't trade this combo for anything right now anyway! I use the 400mm end maybe 20% of the time, the 600 maybe 40% and 800 about 40%. These are ballpark numbers.
If I had the 600TC I would loose the 400mm images which especially in summer increase to over 20% of my images because I enjoy hummingbirds in my back yard and there are more larger birds at the park instead of small ducks which we have now. With the 400TC I don't loose a thing. Yes I'm sure someone will test it and say it looses some sharpness with converters but you need to look hard for that loss so to me it's more than "good enough".
I'm not saying my choice is good for everyone because it's not. Depending on where you go to shoot your mileage may vary. In some spots in Florida a 400mm can be used much more than perhaps in NY where the birds are much more skittish. In those cases sure the 600TC would be my choice. I say NY because I lived there most of my life and know how close you can get. Here in South Carolina you can get much closer than in NY.
The TC1.4x is always in my pocket when I use the 400TC just in case and to me it works great stacked with the internal TC. If I know I'm going to a spot where the subjects are further away I leave the 400 home (or in the car trunk more likely) and use the 800pf which is a killer lens!! The Z9 + 800pf is like the D500 + 500pf on steroids, light and awesome!
So to sum it up.....it depends!
However I'll keep my kit as is and be a happy camper and even more so when/if Nikon comes out with a D500 mirrorless equivalent which I think is inevitable, the 400TC will be even more awesome.
I have both the 400/2.8TC and the 800pf since last April (I got both about 3 weeks apart) and wouldn't trade this combo for anything right now anyway! I use the 400mm end maybe 20% of the time, the 600 maybe 40% and 800 about 40%. These are ballpark numbers.
If I had the 600TC I would loose the 400mm images which especially in summer increase to over 20% of my images because I enjoy hummingbirds in my back yard and there are more larger birds at the park instead of small ducks which we have now. With the 400TC I don't loose a thing. Yes I'm sure someone will test it and say it looses some sharpness with converters but you need to look hard for that loss so to me it's more than "good enough".
I'm not saying my choice is good for everyone because it's not. Depending on where you go to shoot your mileage may vary. In some spots in Florida a 400mm can be used much more than perhaps in NY where the birds are much more skittish. In those cases sure the 600TC would be my choice. I say NY because I lived there most of my life and know how close you can get. Here in South Carolina you can get much closer than in NY.
The TC1.4x is always in my pocket when I use the 400TC just in case and to me it works great stacked with the internal TC. If I know I'm going to a spot where the subjects are further away I leave the 400 home (or in the car trunk more likely) and use the 800pf which is a killer lens!! The Z9 + 800pf is like the D500 + 500pf on steroids, light and awesome!
So to sum it up.....it depends!
However I'll keep my kit as is and be a happy camper and even more so when/if Nikon comes out with a D500 mirrorless equivalent which I think is inevitable, the 400TC will be even more awesome.
Last edited:
Never just one lens and never just "wildlife" -- far to broad a range of subjects, environments and behaviours.
In order of usefulness and shots used from Safari in Africa on an FX body -- all Nikkor Z-mount S-line:
On occasions I will take a wide bright prime to to be able to shoot night/astro. So not wildlife.
In order of usefulness and shots used from Safari in Africa on an FX body -- all Nikkor Z-mount S-line:
- 600/4 -- now the TC version. 65% of my shots and almost 100% of my action shots were taken with this lens, often with a 1.4 TC on board. Most BIF and Bird portraits too.
- 400/2.8 -- now the TC version also - pre-dawn and close to dusk AND for larger subjects or where I want more environmental shots. If there was only ONE lens with would be it the Internal TC makes it very flexible.
- 100-400 - this is my gap filler lens, I take this over the 70-200 to provide focal length options for when subjects come close
- 24-120/4 - this is my widest/shortest focal length
On occasions I will take a wide bright prime to to be able to shoot night/astro. So not wildlife.
When I was deciding between the 400mm & 600mm TC lenses I was told to go back through my images & check the focal lengths I’d shot the majority at using my 200-500mm f5.6 & found that most of my images were shot in the 500mm end, so for me it was a no brainier & I went for the 600mm TC.
Being a bird ID photographer and photographing other subjects here in the open expanses of Southern Idaho. I used 600mm for a vast majority of my photography. In the DSLR days I was always wanting more focal length but found the TC's not great on my variable focal length 150-600 and 200-500 lenses. The 1.4 was okay on my 600 f/4 E and actually worked better with it adapted to the Z9. I considered the 800mm but it was to big and cost prohibitive for me.
So when my Z800PF got here 5-1-22 it really hit my sweet spot as expected after watching @Steve sneak peak and release videos. It continues to live on my Z9 90% of the time.
Other most used lenses in order. Z100-400 (with and without the 1.4TC) , Z24-120, Z70-200. I just ordered a refurb Z TC 2.0 from Nikon USA aimed mostly at the Z70-200 and as the weather warms it will get used a bit more when I will shoot some flowers and bugs.
So when my Z800PF got here 5-1-22 it really hit my sweet spot as expected after watching @Steve sneak peak and release videos. It continues to live on my Z9 90% of the time.
Other most used lenses in order. Z100-400 (with and without the 1.4TC) , Z24-120, Z70-200. I just ordered a refurb Z TC 2.0 from Nikon USA aimed mostly at the Z70-200 and as the weather warms it will get used a bit more when I will shoot some flowers and bugs.
mackster
Member
The 600mm f/4 TC would also be of benefit when photographing bears & wolves in Yellowstone, Grand Teton NPs, etc due to the minimum 100-yard distance rule to bears and wolves. Of course that 100-yard rule isn't always enforced due to various factors (no rangers, which rangers are doing the enforcement, etc), but having been around plenty of grizzly bears, I tend to give them a lot of space on my own. The 800 f/6.3 and 400 f/2.8 TC would also work as well. All are great lenses. Don't think you can go too wrong with either one of them.
The 800mm PF has a unique role. There are no compromises - it's a long lens, relatively light, and the optics are very good. For small birds you almost always want as much reach as you can get so the 800mm PF is an easy choice. But there are plenty of times with other subjects that 800mm is too long, and that's where a 400mm lens comes in. I'm using the 400mm f/4.5, and the light weight means I can carry it without much effort. What's interesting is the large size and requirements of the 600mm f/4 has meant I don't use it very often. I need the right subject and location to need 600mm over the 400mm and/or 800mm options.
As good as the 400mm f/2.8 TC is, I don't think I would choose it if my primary use case needed more than 500mm. I was photographing race horses this week and used my 400mm f/4.5. I would have used the TC on the 400mm f/2.8 as a way to quickly change from a full horse to just the rider's head and shoulders. I ended up using the 400mm focal length for rider portraits - not horses running - due to the relatively large size of the subject.
On the other hand, if my interest area was sports, large mammals, or wading birds, the 400mm lens gets the call.
As good as the 400mm f/2.8 TC is, I don't think I would choose it if my primary use case needed more than 500mm. I was photographing race horses this week and used my 400mm f/4.5. I would have used the TC on the 400mm f/2.8 as a way to quickly change from a full horse to just the rider's head and shoulders. I ended up using the 400mm focal length for rider portraits - not horses running - due to the relatively large size of the subject.
On the other hand, if my interest area was sports, large mammals, or wading birds, the 400mm lens gets the call.
Calson
Well-known member
It is fine at 400mm to 800mm for small subects. But for example with bison in Yellowstone the 400mm can be to restrictive in terms of its angle of view.
Example is this picture of bison with the 80-400mm lens and a focal length of 200mm. At 400mm all I would have gotten was his head.
There is also the matter of the weight of the 400mm f/2.8 lens. For me I would be using a tripod 100% of the time and that adds another 8 lbs of gear to haul around. I much prefer to have two cameras and one with a zoom lens mounted and the second with a prime lens. The 80-400mm and the 500mm PF were a great combo for use on land and on the water. Now the 100-400mm and the 400mm f/4.5 with a teleconverter or the 800mm PF lens are what I use.
Example is this picture of bison with the 80-400mm lens and a focal length of 200mm. At 400mm all I would have gotten was his head.
There is also the matter of the weight of the 400mm f/2.8 lens. For me I would be using a tripod 100% of the time and that adds another 8 lbs of gear to haul around. I much prefer to have two cameras and one with a zoom lens mounted and the second with a prime lens. The 80-400mm and the 500mm PF were a great combo for use on land and on the water. Now the 100-400mm and the 400mm f/4.5 with a teleconverter or the 800mm PF lens are what I use.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Nice Bison shot. I just ordered a second Z9 a refurb from Nikon USA. It means I will double carry the Z800 on my right and the Z100-400 on my left side spring, summer and fall depending on the terrain and habitat the birds I am hunting are in. I have done that with our Z6II but if my wife was using the Z6II that day instead of her Z50 I was out of luck.
O
Well-known member
Would be extremely happy with the 600 mm FL with external Tcs, and use the surplus fortune for other things that matter.
Only an opinion.
Hi Andy
Did you buy both the 400mm Z TC & the 600mm Z TC lenses?
IainD
Well-known member
I currently use my 500pf on my Z9 as my bird lens. I put a 1.4 TC on sometimes, but it is a 1.4ii, so I may lose a bit of quality. I would love to use a native lens and avoid the FTZ, and the 400 f4.5 looks like a great bargain but it is a tiny bit short for what I want. The 400 f2.8 is too heavy and so expensive. The 600 f4 is much too expensive and also too heavy! I really need a 600 pf I think.:(
Is the 1.4 iii noticeably better than the ii?
I
Is the 1.4 iii noticeably better than the ii?
I
No 600 pf on the horizon as far as Nikon's road map.
I replaced the 500pf and 1.4TCiii with the Z100-400 and a Z1.4 TC if needed. I usually just go to dx mode if the 400 is a bit short but I do not use it much since I shoot a lot of small birds and have a Z800pf.
Nothing wrong with the 500pf and I took a lot of good shots mostly without the TC. Once I got the Z100-400 and saw the results with the Z1.4 or just using DX mode and my Z800pf was on the way I sold the 500pf before the price dropped.
I am hoping the Z200-600 get's released soon that would fill my gap between Z70-200, Z100-400 and Z800 without "having" to use a TC unless I wanted to for some other reason such as near macro with a TC 2.0 on the 70-200 but the Z100-400 does quite well in the near macro arena.
IainD
Well-known member
No. I am sad about that!
No 800 for me at this stage. Sad again
The 500pf is great. No doubt. And the FTZii is no real problem I just like the idea of native lenses. But I am coping...
I ticked the box of 400 f2.8 + TC's and I would still adhere to this belief for my shooting if I could afford the new Z400 f2.8 + TC but here in Australia it is over $20,000!!! As it stands, I still have the 400 f2.8E FL VR but also have the 500 PF and Z 800 PF and Z 100-400 and the reasoning is this:
I mostly shoot handheld.
The 500 PF is essential for travel, IMO. It is light and I can use my other travel lenses like the 14-24/14-30, 24-70 and 100-400 and add the 1.4x TCIII to the 500 to get to 700 f8.
A good combo for birding is the 500 + 800 PF and weighs in at just over the weight of the 400 bare! Also, using the 500 or 800 on the Z9 is much easier than the 400 f2.8 E FL VR.
The 400 f2.8E FL VR is heavy and it usually means taking just one lens and the TC's in the backpack if I go out for specific birds. As I age, wielding the 400 f2.8E FL VR is getting more difficult but it this stage is still manageable for short bursts handheld, but that is just going to get harder the older I get. Adding other lenses just makes trekking around just that much harder. However, the results from the 400 f2.8 are exemplary and why I am reluctant to sell it at this stage.
My other option is to sell the 400 f2.8E FL VR and the 800 PF and combine the funds to pay for most of the Z 400 f2.8 + TC. I won't sell the 500 PF at this stage as it is great for travel.
The Z 600 f4 + TC is also starting to get a bit heavy, IMO.
I mostly shoot handheld.
The 500 PF is essential for travel, IMO. It is light and I can use my other travel lenses like the 14-24/14-30, 24-70 and 100-400 and add the 1.4x TCIII to the 500 to get to 700 f8.
A good combo for birding is the 500 + 800 PF and weighs in at just over the weight of the 400 bare! Also, using the 500 or 800 on the Z9 is much easier than the 400 f2.8 E FL VR.
The 400 f2.8E FL VR is heavy and it usually means taking just one lens and the TC's in the backpack if I go out for specific birds. As I age, wielding the 400 f2.8E FL VR is getting more difficult but it this stage is still manageable for short bursts handheld, but that is just going to get harder the older I get. Adding other lenses just makes trekking around just that much harder. However, the results from the 400 f2.8 are exemplary and why I am reluctant to sell it at this stage.
My other option is to sell the 400 f2.8E FL VR and the 800 PF and combine the funds to pay for most of the Z 400 f2.8 + TC. I won't sell the 500 PF at this stage as it is great for travel.
The Z 600 f4 + TC is also starting to get a bit heavy, IMO.
ccyeung
Active member
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
The telephoto options in the Z System have expanded by 3 since early this year
[70-180 f2.8, 180-600 f5.6/6.3, 600 f6.3S PF)
[70-180 f2.8, 180-600 f5.6/6.3, 600 f6.3S PF)
Telephoto Today | Thom Hogan
The current state of Nikon Z-mount telephoto options
www.zsystemuser.com
What are your thoughts on swapping the 500mm PF for the new Z 600mm PF? It's a lot of modest upgrades, but positioned you well for the next 8-10 years. It also checks the boxes on light weight, excellent optics, small size, etc. The 400mm f/4.5 is also an option to replace the 500mm PF.
It's a tough one. As I have the 500 pf and the 180-600, the 600 pf is probably not quite as urgently attractive. But there are some compelling reasons for it to be in my kit in the future after selling the 500 pf. It is a native Z mount, it has features that the 500 pf does not like AF recall on Fn buttons, and is 600mm over 500mm which would be a better fit with the 100-400 for travel. However, I do have the 180-600 and that can also serve as a one lens travel lens for birds and wildlife and it covers as much territory as the 100-400 and 600. As usual, it always comes down to use cases. It might be better to have a 70-200 f2.8 VR S + a 1.4x TC and the 600 in the travel kit, the 70-200 serving as a low light, shallow DOF lens.
What Nikon has essentially done has given us infinite possibilities but on the flipside also option paralysis. Interesting times and should heed well for Nikon's future as it has a camera and lens array that looks very attractive for all aspects of photography.
Last edited:
O
Well-known member
MY self
I rent or borrow anything expensive before buying.
As already mentioned see what overall focal length you mostly use,
mine is 400-500mm 70% or 275 325 25% - 600-700 5% if i need more than 600-700 i always crop.
For me used properly a 45 (Nikon) or 60mp (Sony) sensor tolerate cropping brilliantly and easily provides more than enough added length in everything i shoot.
I mean some people i know spend $60,000 on lenses and gear to showcase their triumphs on the internet that strips colour and detail when transmitted, or in a platform like face book Instagram or a web site that the viewer looks at the esoteric shot on their phone or Dell desktop laptop or workstation monitor.............then possibly emails the images to friends, hey and all that is fine.
I have always preferred F2.8 F4 glass at all times where possible for the purpose of gathering light, i will tolerate only some F5.6 glass.
Note - for myself light is your best friend regardless of focal length, the better the light the more detail information the more cropping is beneficial.
Size and weight of the tool also makes a huge difference.
Ask your self what is it you may want to do in the future.
If you go with the 400 you want more if you go with the 600 you want less, companies want you to buy both lenses LOL, they will never give you the one does all lens so we need to embrace compromise.
Myself my sweet spot is 500 just the spot they wont give to us in a F2.8 LOL.
Only an opinion
I rent or borrow anything expensive before buying.
As already mentioned see what overall focal length you mostly use,
mine is 400-500mm 70% or 275 325 25% - 600-700 5% if i need more than 600-700 i always crop.
For me used properly a 45 (Nikon) or 60mp (Sony) sensor tolerate cropping brilliantly and easily provides more than enough added length in everything i shoot.
I mean some people i know spend $60,000 on lenses and gear to showcase their triumphs on the internet that strips colour and detail when transmitted, or in a platform like face book Instagram or a web site that the viewer looks at the esoteric shot on their phone or Dell desktop laptop or workstation monitor.............then possibly emails the images to friends, hey and all that is fine.
I have always preferred F2.8 F4 glass at all times where possible for the purpose of gathering light, i will tolerate only some F5.6 glass.
Note - for myself light is your best friend regardless of focal length, the better the light the more detail information the more cropping is beneficial.
Size and weight of the tool also makes a huge difference.
Ask your self what is it you may want to do in the future.
If you go with the 400 you want more if you go with the 600 you want less, companies want you to buy both lenses LOL, they will never give you the one does all lens so we need to embrace compromise.
Myself my sweet spot is 500 just the spot they wont give to us in a F2.8 LOL.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
For me the closest thing now to 1 lens for wildlife is Z180-600 on Z9. Heralds back to my last one lens for wildlife option in DSLR days was Tamron 150-600 G2 or a Sigma 60-600 sport. These on D500, D850. At the end of my DSLR days I also used a 600 f/4E on D6, D850 and D500, it was a fantastic lenes and used primarily for birding. But it was a logistics headache and still less focal length than I wanted.
For a run and gun bird ID photographer who hand holds 100% of the time and who does not travel by air anymore the Z180-600 is now my back up and used if there is no doubt that I will want the flexibility of variable focal length and Z80mm to long and minimum focal distance of 16.5 feet to long. That situation of rare and I expect that the Z800 will continue to get used for bird ID photography at least 80% of the time.
While I have Z70-200 f/2.8, Z24-120 f/4 and Z100-400 f/4.5-5.6 I just ordered a Tamron Zmount 35-150 f/2-2.8 for use as an all around lens when photographing people, events and objects indoors and in low light for my church and some other non profits.
Before the Z180-600 and after getting the Z800 5-1-22 I would frequently head for a day in the field with the Z800, Z100-400 and Z24-120. Most of the time the only lens used was the Z800. Now it has become the Z800 and the Z180-600 and occasionally the the 24-120. After I get the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 it may or may not supplant the Z24-120.
For a run and gun bird ID photographer who hand holds 100% of the time and who does not travel by air anymore the Z180-600 is now my back up and used if there is no doubt that I will want the flexibility of variable focal length and Z80mm to long and minimum focal distance of 16.5 feet to long. That situation of rare and I expect that the Z800 will continue to get used for bird ID photography at least 80% of the time.
While I have Z70-200 f/2.8, Z24-120 f/4 and Z100-400 f/4.5-5.6 I just ordered a Tamron Zmount 35-150 f/2-2.8 for use as an all around lens when photographing people, events and objects indoors and in low light for my church and some other non profits.
Before the Z180-600 and after getting the Z800 5-1-22 I would frequently head for a day in the field with the Z800, Z100-400 and Z24-120. Most of the time the only lens used was the Z800. Now it has become the Z800 and the Z180-600 and occasionally the the 24-120. After I get the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 it may or may not supplant the Z24-120.
Ken, like you, the Z800 and 180-600 are the lenses in my bag for wildlife and birds. I don't have the 24-120 f4 yet, but I may just get it for my travels and along with the 180-600 and 14-24 or 14-30 could be the perfect travel lens system - for me anyway.