Z 180-600 vs 400 4.5/1.4x TC

[jfwright1955]

Glad you found it useful.

I think the people that will be super happy with this lens are those coming from the 200-500mm who are used to the weight. It's lighter, faster, internal zoom, 90 degree stop to stop zoom, and has the benefits of native Z controls. That particular upgrade is a no brainer other than spending the $$.

On the other hand, I wouldn't sell my 500PF nor 400 4.5. I'd supplement those two with this one for when zoom is needed but certainly don't consider it a replacement.

Although I was happy with the results of the 200-500mm combined with the FTZ II adapter on the Z9, after I received my copy of the 180-600mm and taking it for the proverbial 'spin around the block', for me the 180-600mm demonstrated better performance in every regard. The 200-500mm has since been sold. And, thanks for your initial post and the side-by-side comparison. The differences are subtle, and goes to show just how far zoom technology has come, especially in this focal range.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Although I was happy with the results of the 200-500mm combined with the FTZ II adapter on the Z9, after I received my copy of the 180-600mm and taking it for the proverbial 'spin around the block', for me the 180-600mm demonstrated better performance in every regard. The 200-500mm has since been sold. And, thanks for your initial post and the side-by-side comparison. The differences are subtle, and goes to show just how far zoom technology has come, especially in this focal range.

Yes the technology has come a long way. Looks like Nikon knew what they were doing by going to the larger flange diameter of the Z mount. It's been a painful/expensive transition but proving to be well worth it.

 

[jfwright1955]

Yes the technology has come a long way. Looks like Nikon knew what they were doing by going to the larger flange diameter of the Z mount. It's been a painful/expensive transition but proving to be well worth it.

Same here. I was reluctant to buy all Z lenses, but after experiencing the differences between their DSLR Nikkor counterparts, I've converted completely, bar a couple of lenses I rarely use that I'll keep along with the FTZ II... at least for now. Famous last words.

 

[Calson]

When I am evaluating a lens I always use a three dimensional subject and one where any CA will be apparent. A very sharp lens with high contrast rendition will result in an image that feels like one is looking at the subject first hand and not a two dimensional picture.

When I compared the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 with the Nikon 24-120mm lens the difference was stark in the 24mm to 70mm focal length range and I got rid of the 24-120mm lens (which was an old design meant as a kit lens).

I have been photographing song birds using the 400mm f/4.5 and the 100-400mm lens and the differences without a teleconverter are very minor and the zoom lens is surprisingly sharp.

 

[macwalter]

Thanks for the comparison! Clearly zoom lenses have come a long way. My first long lens was the Sigma 120-400mm and I was not too happy with it, especially after I had bought a prime lens. The 180-600mm clearly wins on ability to accommodate different subjects at different distances. And a much lower price. However it is "substantially" heavier, by slightly over a pound (about 30% more). And the 400mm can be shot when it gets darker at f/4.5 by removing the TC. For me, one of the critical questions is whether you feel that the 180-600mm grabs focus faster, slower or the same as the 400mm plus 1.4TC. This is much harder to test. But based on your tests, it would have been tempting to get the zoom if I hadn't already bought the 400mm lens.

I love the 400 f4.5 and love the better low light capabilities. Also the weight is an issue for me. I’ll stick with the 400 f4.5. Also I have the 100-400 for other things. Good all rounder lens.

 

[JoelKlein]

After watching Steve’s video, I learned that the 180-600 is a very sharp lens in the center. Going out to the corners its not so so…

But when I saw the comparison with the 400/4.5+1.4TC, the 180-600 was better. I was not expecting that. The 400/4.5+1.4TC had artifacts around the text.

 

[NorthernFocus]

...But when I saw the comparison with the 400/4.5+1.4TC, the 180-600 was better. I was not expecting that. The 400/4.5+1.4TC had artifacts around the text.

You discerned that from images on YouTube? Wow.

 

[JoelKlein]

You discerned that from images on YouTube? Wow.

No, not at all, Steve said it

 

[StefanSC]

You discerned that from images on YouTube? Wow.

Using a decent screen (I used my Ipad Pro), clicking on the gear icon on youtube and selecting the highest quality option (2160p) you can actually see the differences, especially chromatic aberations (slight purple fringing on some black on white lines) and the texture of the target (e.g: at 17:02 in the clip).

But the differences are so small that sample variation will definately come into play and also, somebody without perfect eyesight can easily miss them.

 

[JoelKlein]

I feel that those tests at almost MFD, isn’t real world scenarios.
When I put on a 1.4 TC on the 400/4.5 I need more reach, and focus closer to infinity. The performance might be completely different.

Steve wrote he needed a longer warehouse.

 

[Dionigi Colombo]

Good test, but in field use where you use it at longer distances, for example with large mammals at 30/50 meters, the differences are more pronounced