180-600mm vs 600mm PF

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).

McStamp

McStamp

Member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I used the 180-600mm to some extent by now. I cannot complain about this lens as it is worth its price and gives a lot of flexibility. In bad light conditions it is not my fav, of course, with the possible maximal openings, but is is sharp enough. As I am used to the fast AF of my 400mm 2,8 TC, I am a bit taken back by the slower AF of this zoom.

I checked Steve's video on the comparison with the 600 PF, and as probably some of you I am wondering: should I buy the 600 PF and keep the 180-600mm (... eating dry breadcrumbs for the rest of the year to cope with the expenses ...) or sell the 180-600 and exchange it with the 600 PF. What are your thoughts about this?
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
You're saying your Ferrari is faster than your Civic, and asking if you should upgrade the Civic to a M5... Those are all very different tools for very different problems. What sort of subjects do you like shooting, what conditions are you typically in?

I personally like the 180-600mm (once I can find one in stock, I have the equivalent in another system) because when I go birding I have ranges of big birds to super tiny ones, and they range from very close to me to very far away. I'm not looking for the perfect shot with perfect bokeh, and I'm willing to forego the low-light performance and rather make sure I'm positioned in areas with the best lighting at golden hour. In the future those may change, maybe I want the most professional photos and will prefer a prime, foregoing some opportunities in the field that don't match whatever focal length is on my camera.

Something I don't consider at all is the weight, at 6lbs I personally don't mind it, so I'd never take a 600mm PF over the 400mm TC, but that's another consideration that greatly varies from person to person.
 
Member's gallery
Sounds like you have already decided to buy the 600 PF and are wondering what you should do with the zoom that you already have. I may be reading too much into your words, but it doesn’t seem like you enjoyed shooting with the zoom. If that’s the case then I would sell it now while you can still get a healthy share of the price you paid. If you didn’t enjoy shooting with it when it was brand new, you likely won’t take it out in the future.

Cut your loss, if any, and move on. Besides, even if you sell it for a $200 loss now but later decide that you miss it, you can make up for that $200 loss in the future by buying it during a sale or picking up a refurbished copy.
 
Member's gallery
DRM said:
Sounds like you have already decided to buy the 600 PF and are wondering what you should do with the zoom that you already have. I may be reading too much into your words, but it doesn’t seem like you enjoyed shooting with the zoom. If that’s the case then I would sell it now while you can still get a healthy share of the price you paid. If you didn’t enjoy shooting with it when it was brand new, you likely won’t take it out in the future.

Cut your loss, if any, and move on. Besides, even if you sell it for a $200 loss now but later decide that you miss it, you can make up for that $200 loss in the future by buying it during a sale or picking up a refurbished copy.
Click to expand...
you precisely read in my lines what I tried to put down with the intention to not offend anybody.
 
Member's gallery
Keep the one you need and want to lug around and that meets your needs. I think as Steve said in the video that the AF speed isn't as big a limitation as it seems…especially if you use the limiter switch unless the subject gets close. Yeah…the cheaper lenses still focus slower but not so much as to really affect things.
 
Member's gallery
I just received word that my dealer has a 600pf available should I want it. I already have the 180-600 and I am conflicted on what to do. I'd say most of images are taken at the long end but it's always nice to have zoom to work with as well. I still own and love the 500pf but have already decided to get rid of all my DSLR gear and pick up a z8 to go with my z9 so I'm not carrying two systems. If you were in my position what would you do regarding the 600mm options?
 
Member's gallery
I had the same conundrum. I have the 180-600 and it is a great lens. I also have the 600 f4 TC which I love but because of its size and weight I often leave it at home. I’ll take it when I will be in relatively stable location such as shooting birds from a blind. But when I don’t want to carry it around and maybe not use a tripod and not limit my mobility then the 180-600 is a good substitute and in addition gives me the versatility of a zoom lens
But now out of nowhere comes the new 600. It is lighter than the 180-600 for easier handholding. It is a higher quality lens with S rating and being a prime lens should work even better with TC. So I decided to get this lens
In a few months when I go to Africa and would like to keep my camera load not too heavy, I plan to take the 24-120, 180-600, 600 f6.3 and 1.4 TC
 
Member's gallery
@Ivan Rothman

Having already the 180-600, you are well covered up to 600mm.

I'd rather jump to the 800PF and get those extra 200mm (I don't feel the need to have each and every mm covered) and delete the TC from the equation.

If you were not covered anywhere near the 600mm, then the 600PF would be a great (more than great!) choice.

IMO, weight and size aside, I'd rather take a couple of steps back than miss all the time the extra reach.

On my last trip to Kenya I used the 800PF as much as the 180-400 TC (and much, much less the 24-120mm on a third body).

Going back in Dec/Jan as well, will take the exact same equipment.
 
Member's gallery
If your good with the image quality in the center then I'm sure the 180-600mm will be fine - as noted by Steve, the 600pf and other primes, the edges of the frame and having sharp image quality is what you pay for mostly for prime lenses.
 
Member's gallery
McStamp said:
I used the 180-600mm to some extent by now. I cannot complain about this lens as it is worth its price and gives a lot of flexibility. In bad light conditions it is not my fav, of course, with the possible maximal openings, but is is sharp enough. As I am used to the fast AF of my 400mm 2,8 TC, I am a bit taken back by the slower AF of this zoom.

I checked Steve's video on the comparison with the 600 PF, and as probably some of you I am wondering: should I buy the 600 PF and keep the 180-600mm (... eating dry breadcrumbs for the rest of the year to cope with the expenses ...) or sell the 180-600 and exchange it with the 600 PF. What are your thoughts about this?
Click to expand...
Probably depends on what is really your biggest gripe with the 180-600? Is it the f/6.3 or is it the slower AF and maybe lesser IQ? If it is the 6.3 then no point spending on the 600PF as you will always go for your 400TC. If it is the slower AF and/or IQ than I think the 600PF would make you happier. Of course it also depends if you value the zoom ability or not?
 
Member's gallery
Shot both of these lenses back-to-back today in atrocious, flat lighting (we haven't had any sun in 4 days, and it'll be another 3 until we see it again). Both lenses perform, I honestly can't find fault with either one, aside from the obvious that we already know:

600PF = faster + more sure-footed AF, much easier to hand-hold for extended periods, quicker to maneuver. Slightly better IQ, but not enough to matter.
180-600 = obviously more versatile, slower AF but still obtains focus with confidence.

Needless to say, both are just top quality through and through. If I had to pick one to keep, I don't think I could, they're both so damn good.
NIKON Z 8untitled_20231028_53-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

NIKON Z 8untitled_20231028_19-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Thought about it…a lot…like a real lot…and cancelled my 180-600 order for the 600PF. IQ had nothing to do with it…for me I decided the weight was more important and since I carry 2 bodies on wildlife outings the 100-400 will be on the other body with the TC in my pocket…
lighter kit makes happier Anjin San😀😀
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
That’ll be a very small and lightweight kit, think you’ll be very happy with your decision, Anjin.
Click to expand...
Yep…woulda been happy either way because if I had stayed with the zoom I could have an even lighter single lens walkabout rig…but then I thought to myself how often do I go for a shot with only 1 body anyway and the answer was almost none. So with Z8 and Z9 and me being almost 70 that whole weight things comes into play.
 
Member's gallery
I think you’ve gone with one of the best setups, it’s highly versatile and compact, allows you to photograph from near-macro to small birds, landscapes, large mammals, etc. the 1.4TC is there in a pinch. You make a good point though: running an extra body is a really good idea, changing lenses is a bother in the field.

The other similar kit for the longer end is the 180-600 + 800PF, and that’s how I’ll probably roll. Problem is, it’s very heavy, and I have to carry a big backpack too (I only have a single Z8). So, for times when I want to be as nimble as possible: 600PF and no backpack.

So far, being strict in assessing my lineup, the 600PF makes least sense, especially because the 180-600 is so good, but once I pick that 600 up and feel how easy it is to handle compared to the others, then it makes total sense :)
 
Member's gallery
Just a quick test in my kitchen to highlight one of the biggest capabilities with these two: MFD. Huge advantage to the zoom.
DSC_0209.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

DSC_0210.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
Thought about it…a lot…like a real lot…and cancelled my 180-600 order for the 600PF. IQ had nothing to do with it…for me I decided the weight was more important and since I carry 2 bodies on wildlife outings the 100-400 will be on the other body with the TC in my pocket…
lighter kit makes happier Anjin San😀😀
Click to expand...
I got the 180-600, did some test shots, and realized that it was a heavy lens, too heavy for me, so I sold it. My 600PF arrives tomorrow. I really wish that camera gear could be made lighter somehow, like you weight at my age is an issue.
 
Member's gallery
I would tend to value the versatility of the zoom over whatever positive characteristics a prime would have. If you are almost always shooting at 600mm and constantly find the zoom’s AF to be too slow and the zoom too bulky then the prime would likely make more sense. Otherwise, consider saving some money and get to really really know how to get the best of your 180-600mm lens.
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
Shot both of these lenses back-to-back today in atrocious, flat lighting (we haven't had any sun in 4 days, and it'll be another 3 until we see it again). Both lenses perform, I honestly can't find fault with either one, aside from the obvious that we already know:

600PF = Slightly better IQ, but not enough to matter.
Click to expand...

What obout sharpness - the center and the border of frame.
Really comparable?
 
Member's gallery
On my way back to Nikon (because of the great Z8 and a variety of new lenses) I ordered the new Z 600 6.3. I already have the Z400 2.8 TC but wanted a more compact and lighter lens for walking, biking, etc.
Took a few shots today, weather far from great. But I am very pleased with the first results, this lens will bring a lot of fun and good results. Very happy with it.

Boomklever (Nuthatch).jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
180-600 has a Maximum Reproduction Ratio of 0.25x compared to 0.38x of the 100-400 S, among the best available

photographylife.com

Nikon's Secret Macro Lens

I love using macro lenses, but that isn’t the only way to focus up close. Plenty of non-macro lenses, too, have enough magnification for small subjects like flowers or dragonflies. In fact, one Nikon lens can reach 1:1 macro capabilities without any third-party accessories, even though "macro"...
photographylife.com photographylife.com

0.27× (up to 0.54×) Magnification: Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D

0.32× Magnification: Nikon AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

0.38× Magnification: Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S

0.39× Magnification: Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S

0.5× (up to 1×) Magnification: Nikon Z 70-180mm f/2.8

​

MatthewK said:
Just a quick test in my kitchen to highlight one of the biggest capabilities with these two: MFD. Huge advantage to the zoom.
View attachment 73084
View attachment 73086
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top