180-600 or 100-400 to compliment the 600 PF

[SugarDude]

I received my 600 PF on Monday and love it. It's a keeper based on IQ and handling. My problem is now the backordered 180-600 is finally coming Monday. Of course I ordered the 180-600 before I even knew about the 600. Now I'm wondering if I should return the 180-600 and get a 100-400 instead to compliment the 600.
Here is a list of Pros and Cons that came up with of the 100-400 over the 180-600.
Pros

S Lens

Faster (4.5 vs 5.6)

Lighter (1.55 lbs. less)

Better MFD (2.46' vs 4.27')

Shorter in Length (3.7")

Focal Dist Gain-Low (80mm)

Easier to Handhold

More Function Buttons Cons Higher Cost ($800) Focal Dist Loss-High (200mm w/oTC) External Zoom IQ ???? So I would appreciate your thoughts, especially those that have actually used both or have used the 100-400. My biggest concern is am I'm going to lose IQ by going with the 100-400? Based on Steve and Ricci analysis, the 180-600 is slightly better than the 100-400. However, I've seen many post of people loving their 100-400. If it wasn't for potential IQ loss, I'm leaning toward the 100-400. Sorry for the long post but I would appreciate your thoughts.

 

[MatthewK]

Expect many different views and opinions on this, as there’s no right answer. All are great lenses, IQ differences probably won’t manifest themselves in your photos, so choose based on your shooting needs.

If you’re trying to keep things light and small as possible, the 100-400 is a fine choice to compliment the 600PF. It. Travels well, takes a 1.4TC like a champ, and that close MFD is really fun to shoot with. Great IQ to boot. If you shoot mammals and larger stuff, this is the setup I’d go with.

The 186.. It’s the lens we’ve all wanted for a while, and it’s fantastic. If your aim is birds, this is a natural pairing with the 800PF, though your kit size/weight will be quite a bit larger than the aforementioned 100-400/600PF combo. Since you say you are sticking with 600PF, I’d pass on the 186.

Personally, as someone who currently owns the 600PF and 186, and just sold a 100-400, well… I can’t decide between them. Had a thought the other day that, yeah, it could make sense to pair them because you’d have common focal length that you’d get really familiar with. Zoom for when you need flexibility in unknown situations, the prime for light travel and when weight is an issue.

To be perfectly honest though, I would be happy with just the 186 as my sole birding lens, I find it to be that good.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

My experience is that I only plan to use two lenses if I am in a vehicle, boat or blind because wildlife doesn't seem to give me the time to switch lenses very often, particularly when I am standing. Further, if I am in a situation where I can have additional gear handy, I strongly prefer that lens on a separate, equal, body.

I tried but found it impossible for me to carry two lense/camera combination on a walkaround even on a boardwalk with good railings. Therefore, if I expect that the 600pf will be too long for some valuable shots and I am walking a trail or a boardwalk, I would prefer the 180-600 and leave the 600pf home.

 

[Rene]

Here in Europe where we spend a lot of times in hides the combination 180-600 and 600 make much more sense. I had the 100-400 but generally for hide work too short (you always add a 1.4 to get more reach) The 180-600 works much better from that perspective

 

[Kjellis]

For me, the combination 100-400 and 600 makes most sense.
The 100-400 is smaller and lighter than the 180-600 and makes a much better option to bring along with my main lens, the 600 TC.

 

[Len Shepherd]

One plus for the 100-400 is unaided it can cover a 4 inch wide subject - important for near macro if you need it.

With a set of Z mount Meike extension tubes at 400mm it can get 2.5 inches wide - from 2 feet from the front of the lens hood.
This is a useful combination for butterfly, dragonfly and flowers.

Getting 1:1 with the 105 S macro for insects often needs considerable field craft with a of lens (hood removed) distance to subject distance of around 6 inches.

True the 100-400 with tubes is not the optical equal of the 105 S macro - yet waiting for a butterfly to land within a few inches of the macro often takes several minutes.,

 

[Nimi]

Now I'm wondering if I should return the 180-600 and get a 100-400 instead to compliment the 600.

Hands down, yes.

 

[Charles Loy]

I have the 180-600, plan to buy the 600PF too. Selling my very loved 500PF first, then snap up the 600 Z mount

 

[arbitrage]

I would go with the 100-400. I like that type of lens for semi-macro shooing like frogs, bugs, butterflies, flowers etc.
Over in Sony land I used to own 200-600 and 100-400 along with my 600/4. I found I never used the 200-600 and would either go for the best (600/4) or go for maximum compactness and the maximum magnification (100-400). I could see owning the 600PF similar....I'd use the 600PF most of the time and the 100-400 for semi macro or even landscapes etc.

 

[ajrmd]

Wow, what fun, right? Having so many great choices like no other manufacturer offers? I think it comes down to the type of shooting you do, i.e. travel vs. local, and subject matter. So, for example, most of my WL photography is at a distance and consists of birds and smaller mammals. When I owned large 500/600 f/4 primes, they almost always had TC's on them. When I switched to Nikon and the 800 f/6.3 was available, it was the go to long prime for me. Fortunately, it's still small enough and light enough for travel so it is perfect. I've chosen to pair it with a 180-600 to cover larger subjects or those at closer range and skipped the 600 f/6.3. For me, the decision is whether to add a 400 f/4.5 (+- TC) for the aperture, portability, utility, and compactness. In your circumstance where the 600 seems to be your long FL, it seemingly makes sense to complement it with a 100-400 (+-TC).

 

[Bubbahotep]

I think what matters most is your primary use case. Since the 600mm is largely a birding lens, I would choose the 180-600 so I can take pictures of both mammals and birds If I want to take pictures of mammals and landscapes, I would choose the 100-400mm.

 

[Calson]

The 100-400mm can be used alone or with the 1.4x TC to provide 140-560mm f/8 as options. When I owned the 200-500mm lens I always took along the 80-400mm as 200mm was often too long and provided too narrow a view angle. I would see the same issue with the 180-600mm lens.

For me the choice was the 100-400mm along with the 800mm PF. When I have owned a 600mm f/4 lens I used it the majority of the time with a 1.4x teleconverter attached for 840mm at f/5.6. The 800mm PF is more than 3 lbs lighter than my 600mm f/4E lens and the loss of 40mm of focal length and 1/3 f-stop of light is not a problem.

 

[abc123brian]

I have both and plan to keep both as I find the use cases they cover are different. We all shoot different subjects so my recommendation is to determine which would provide you the most given your uses cases. The 180-600 is a fantastic lens and could cover for your 600mm PF in the event it failed better than the 100-400mm if redundancy is key. The 100-400mm is also great and provides lighter weight, smaller footprint.

 

[Anjin San]

I have the 100-400 and cancelled the 180-600 order in favor of the 600PF for weight reasons. The 100-400 is plenty good so that’s my o5er body lens. I would have to review the video again to be sure…but IIRC the differences between the 100-400 and 180-600 were small and that’s looking at 200%…at normal viewing size I’m not sure the difference would be noticeable and lighter is better IMO. Could pop on the TC and get to 560 to help with the FL gap…but a bit of cropping to something bigger than the DX drop gets most of that albeit with the issues added by the crop.

 

[Ivan Rothman]

I have the new 600 PF. And I have the 100-400 and the 180-600. So I asked the same question of which one to keep.
The 100-400 is smaller and lighter and is great for close focusing work.
But the 180-600 gives me such versatility in the field and lets me shoot at 600mm and then without changing lenses go wider.
So the answer for me - I decided to keep both and which zoom lens I use depends on what I am shooting.

 

[Bubbahotep]

I have the new 600 PF. And I have the 100-400 and the 180-600. So I asked the same question of which one to keep.
The 100-400 is smaller and lighter and is great for close focusing work.
But the 180-600 gives me such versatility in the field and lets me shoot at 600mm and then without changing lenses go wider.
So the answer for me - I decided to keep both and which zoom lens I use depends on what I am shooting.

Ultimately, the decision is driven by use case. If you can afford and store it, keep it.

 

[ajrmd]

Ultimately, the decision is driven by use case. If you can afford and store it, keep it.

In a couple of months, once all of the orders are filled, it’s likely that the costs to purchase a new and/or used 186 will drop to the point that it will be attractive to own regardless if one has a 100-400. It’s that much fun to own/use.

 

[fcotterill]

It depends on your subjects and habitats, and equally how you photograph... stalking close, or walkabout, or hides - or a combination. 100-400 is often too short for birds, but ideal for mammals. It is however a S Line lens and ideal for video, wider animalscapes etc. There's also the slightly faster f stop advantage if this might be important.

I'm also a devout believer in Redundancy: for sudden events as well as core reason of failed/lost gear. probabilities are much higher to capture sudden opportunities with a 180-600 than 100-400. This assuming the situation needs 600mm, and there's no time to switch to the 600 PF.

This is one of several priority reasons why the 180-400 TC14 [aka 180-560 f4/5.6] is my core mammal lens, but it can also handle unexpected birds at 560mm (but not into the 600mm realm, obviously). Analyses of my EXIF data revealed images taken at every 10mm that the camera logs for the zoom.

 

[BLev65]

I don't have much to add here, but I'll echo what others have said w/ a bit of nuance.
I think that the 180-600 is the perfect lens to pair with the 800PF for wildlife shooting. This is particularly useful when working from a blind/hide, your vehicle, or some fixed location like the Haden Valley in Yellowstone.
I think the 100-400 is the perfect lens to pair with the 600PF. The combination allows you to work from a smaller bag and travel light. The 100-400 has the bonus of being a good close-focusing lens and a strong landscape lens.
I think that if you had the 180-600 and 600PF, your PF lens will get a lot less use, as you will find the convenience of the zoom to outweigh the optical benefits. Now, this is ok... but you are paying a premium for the 600PF and it makes sense to choose a kit that inspires you to use that premium optic.
To that point... I can tell you that ever since I bought the 180-600, my 400 f4.5 and my 800PF have seen a lot less use. I've found that the 180-600 has been good enough for so much photography, that I tend to pull it out of the bag first. Obviously, when I'm shooting a small target or a distant target, the 800 gets used... it is now just used less.
As Woody (fcotterill) mentions, redundancy is a good thing and it is for this reason that I'm holding on to my 400 f4.5. The 400 is light, sharp, and offers an extra stop of light when I need it.
If I were in your shoes, I'd buy the 100-400, and 24-120... 3 lenses and multiple bodies than can do just about anything.
cheers,
bruce

 

[MJR]

My biggest concern is am I'm going to lose IQ by going with the 100-400? Based on Steve and Ricci analysis, the 180-600 is slightly better than the 100-400. However, I've seen many post of people loving their 100-400. If it wasn't for potential IQ loss, I'm leaning toward the 100-400.

I have 2 Z9's on a Black Rapid dual carry strap. On one is a 600PF the other a 100-400. If your biggest concern is losing IQ on the 100-400 then not to worry, the difference is so slight that you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. If you handhold the 180-600 like the 200-500 , it's too heavy to hold for any length of time. I think the 100-400 is the perfect compliment to the 600 PF if you are carrying 2 lenses at the same time/outing. This image was shot this morning with the 100-400. Keeping in mind this is a RAW downsized to a JPEG I have no faults with Image Quality whatsoever.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Copernicron]

I would go with the 100-400 to complement the 600 PF if I was in the market for that setup. As it is, I already have the 500 PF and just don't see a compelling reason to get rid of it in favour of the 600. I find the 100-400 to be fantastic for all kinds of uses, not just wildlife. It's also much smaller and lighter than the 180-600 which makes it perfect for travel or hiking.

 

[Woodpecker]

I am not sure whether I should raise my voice here, because I am just in the transition process from F to Z, but here are my 2 cents about it.

As I don't know which other lenses you have and what your general prefenrences are, this is basically my story around the Z 100-400.

For me the flexibility versus weight and number of parts to carry is the thing to look at, so I am a fan of using zoom lenses if it's o.k. in terms of IQ.
The thing with the Z 100-400 is that it has really short MFD allowing me to play in the near-macro range with small creatures and have the flexibility in reach in case I can't move forward and backward due to the surrouding and/or the risk of destroying other things around me by doing so.
After looking at the review and comparison that @Steve provided he simply came up with arguments that could be mine .

The Z 100-400 has a bit of overlap wth my Z 24-120, provides excellent IQ with a slight drop from about 350 to 400 mm. But looking at the measurement in the review of Photographylife and doing a comparison showed that the Z 100-400 is better than a 300PF + TC14 (this is what I had to use to get around 400mm with my F equipmen) and it still better at 400mm than the Z 70-200 with a Z TC x 2. That was enough argument for me to go with the Z 100-400 and the plan is to combine it with the Z 180-600.
After @Steve 's review I think I'll be well-equipped with this combo using the Z 100-400 up to 350mm and the Z 180-600 from there to 600mm, if I carry the complete bag and the last bit of IQ matters, otherwise I'd be happy to use the Z 100-400 up to 400mm, if I have to go light.

For the stationary work in hide/blind I don't have a big issue with weight and then I prefer long primes on the primary camera (currently my 500 f/4G with or without giving me 500 f/4 or 700 f/5.6 with excellent IQ and really fast AF even on the Z8).

However, all these thoughts were made before we knew about the Z 600PF, but from what I know so far I would take the Z 180-600 nevertheless and the main reason @Steve stated in his first impressions about the Z 180-600: The big advantage is flexibility plus the small MFD of the zoom compared to 600mm primes.

This is the second argument for me, because in the past I often had two bodies with me, one being on the big prime (500 or 700 on the tripod, ready and adjusted for the primary target in the expected location, the other one sitting on my lap with something shorter (300 or 420mm) in case something else comes along or the pirmary target decides to come too close for the long gun). All this would be possible to cover with the Z 180-600 with one body and one lens.

As I currently work "Bottom-Up" I will start with Z 24-120, Z 100-400 and Z 180-600 and if I get the chance - and the money - to get something better at the long end, my favourite replacement my good old 500 f/4 would be the Z 400 f/2.8 with an additonal external TC, beacuse IF I have a really long prime for stationary work I also want the light.

If I were you, I would take the 180-600 and use it like the people @Steve was talking about in his first impressions video. They had two bodies, one with a (fast) prime), the other one with a zoom, just to prepared. And if an excuse is needed: The Z 180-600 plus the Z 600PF are still less than half of a Z 600 f/4 TC .

 

[Anjin San]

I kept my 100-400 and had originally ordered the 180-600 with a view towards selling the shorter zoom as I also have the 400/4.5. Ended up cancelling the 180-600 and ordering the 600 to go along with the 100-400 and TCs and it was almost exclusively a weight/size decision as any of them are more than good enough IQ wise for my needs. The 100-400 is plenty fine at any normal output regimen either print or (in my case) digital almost exclusively. There are some differences as Steve and others have noted at 1:1 or 2:1…but 'better' at pixel peeping zooms doesn't necessarily translate to 'better' at normal output zooms…especially when the differences even at high zoom levels are very small.

 

[jcgamble]

Remember that if you shoot Z 100-400 with a Z9/Z9 in DX mode, you have an equivalent of 150-600 mm in a 19.5 mpix image. It wasn't too long ago that a 20 mpix image on a D5, D6 or D500 was just great.

 

[joe43]

I bought the 100-400mm S lens and the Z mount 1.4x tc when I got my Z9. I already had the 500mm f5.6 pf that I planned on using on my Z9. I got the 100-400mm instead of the 70-200mm S as it focused very close and it had a longer focal length than the 70-200mm.

I will likely get the 600mm pf one of these days so my system will be the 100-400mm and the 600pf and the 1.4x tc.

I do not like the lens hood that comes with the 100-400mm. It is too thin and flimsy and the locking mechanism when I first got it was so tight I was afraid I might break it. It now is much easier to attach and detach. This is a minor point. And I do not know anything about the hood that comes with the 180-600mm .

If I do need a 70-200mm I will likely get the 70-180mm.

And my walk around lens is the 24-120mm S lens.

If I were a blind or hide photographer the 180-600mm might win out over the 100-400mm. When I used to do a lot of blind shooting, I usually used three bodies with these lenses on them: 300mm f4; 70-200mm and 500mm f4. Most of the images were taken with the 500mm f4.