Brad Hill's exhaustive tests have begun: 180-600, 600PF, 150-500

[wotan1]

I worked my way up gradually in z prime lenses. My choice of lenses were dictated by what was on the market at the time I was buying.

I now have the 400mm f4.5, 600mm pf and 800mm pf.

I originally wondered whether I was buying lenses too close together and whether I might sell one of them.

I went back and reviewed my shots over the past year and I think I made the best decision and all three of these lenses are keepers.

Each of these lenses is uniquely compact, well-balanced and light for its focal length. Easy to carry and shoot. In fact, it is reasonable to pack all three of these lenses for a day of shooting.

They all work well with teleconverters but I really don't need to use a teleconverter unless I want to get farther out than 800mm.

I grew up in photography shooting primes. I have become indifferent to the convenience of zoom lenses. Rather than pack a zoom I would rather carry two bodies and switch between lenses as needed. I think generally if I know the area I am working I can tell which focal lengths I am likely to want.

So rather than a zoom I prefer to have two camera bodies and two lenses ready to shoot and perhaps a third in a bag or back at the car.

I will post some example images this weekend.

 

[MLB01]

I worked my way up gradually in z prime lenses. My choice of lenses were dictated by what was on the market at the time I was buying.

I now have the 400mm f4.5, 600mm pf and 800mm pf.

I originally wondered whether I was buying lenses too close together and whether I might sell one of them.

I went back and reviewed my shots over the past year and I think I made the best decision and all three of these lenses are keepers.

Each of these lenses is uniquely compact, well-balanced and light for its focal length. Easy to carry and shoot. In fact, it is reasonable to pack all three of these lenses for a day of shooting.

They all work well with teleconverters but I really don't need to use a teleconverter unless I want to get farther out than 800mm.

I grew up in photography shooting primes. I have become indifferent to the convenience of zoom lenses. Rather than pack a zoom I would rather carry two bodies and switch between lenses as needed. I think generally if I know the area I am working I can tell which focal lengths I am likely to want.

So rather than a zoom I prefer to have two camera bodies and two lenses ready to shoot and perhaps a third in a bag or back at the car.

I will post some example images this weekend.

That is where I am trying to decide, first wildlife lens purchase, zoom or prime, deciding on a zoom ( Tamaron 150-500 or Nikon 180-600) or the prime Nikon 400 f4, I have funds available for either lens, unfortunately not both. Currently own Nikon 24-120. Mammals and Animalscapes are primary interest with birds being secondary.

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

Remember that Brad Hill's comment was made in a segment comparing the mirrorless options for shooting at 400 mm, the weakest point for the 100-400 mm zoom. My take away from reading throug all of the In The Field tabs is there are multiple ways to get to 400, 600 and 800 mm in the Z lens universe and each has a different combination of price, sharpness, max aperture and size. It is less clear to me what to do in the 100-400 mm range.

70-200 mm f/2.8 at 100 and 200 mm is the best lens I own at those points, very sharp center and mid frame with very good corners
100 - 400 mm f/4.5-5.6 at 100 and 200 mm is slightly less sharp in the center, is comparable to the 70-200 mm mid frame and corners but starts at f/4.5, more than one full stop of light.
180-600 mm (used for a few hours on a outing with a friend) seemed to be very sharp in the 200 mm range but starts at f/5.6 and was a large, heavy lens.

To get to 280 mm and f/4 I can put a TC14 on the 70-200 mm lens. Both zooms are clearly sharper than the 70-200 + TC, but they give up nearly a stop or more of light. There is no f/2.8 lens at 300 mm in the Z system. I believe Brad Hill is shooting with an adapted F mount lens that gives him 300 mm at f/2.8.

To get to 400 mm and f/5.6 I need to put a TC20 on the 70-200 mm lens. The center is still sharp enough to use but the mid frame and corners have become much softer. I do not use this configuration. Both zooms are clearly sharper than the 70-200 mm + TC20 but they give up nearly a stop or more of light.

The wider max aperture is important to me in the perpetual fog bank of Washington State. For now, the best compromise FOR ME is to stick with the 100-400 mm as part of a 3 lens kit when I travel.
24-120 mm f/4,
100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6
400 mm TC f/2.8
TC20

The 180-600 looks like a good travel lens but it overlaps a lot with the 400 TC and would make my whole kit heavier. I doubt Nikon will make a wider aperture, 300 mm mirrorless lens anytime soon, so I am very content with my "poor performing" 100-400 mm lens. When I need more reach than 325 mm or so, I switch to the 400 mm with a very small gap in focal length coverage. I will just invest my camera budget in the best noise reduction software available and enjoy the journey.

When I fly, the 400 mm goes in its soft case as my personal item. The other lenses, TC, batteries and two camera bodies fit into a small backpack that fits under almost any airplane seat. Everything else is checked.

 

[fcotterill]

Brad Hill more than walks his talk. His portfolio extends over many years of progressing through the generations of F-mount to these new Zmounts. It's hard to pick holes in the quality of the succession of images (on his website) that he's captured through the G, E and now S and non-S telephotos.

It's not that long ago, underscoring AIS performance wide open, Brad was lauding his 180-400 f4E TC14, which replaced his 400 f2.8E FL....and since then the 100-400 S replaced his 180-400 Latest, the 100-400 S has slid a couple of notches in his rankings....

So I agree yet again with the clear pattern we see, and many commented on above. All the current telephotos are excellent. You have to get into some strenuous pixel peeping to parse the Z mounts, and equally the E FL's... On Sharpness. IME this includes the 70-200 f2.8E and 180-400 TC.

The primary criteria to pick and choose among all these amazing optics go beyond sharpness. In my book it's rather weight, TC Factor (including Z TCs rather than F TCs) and of course Cost.

 

[Anjin San]

The primary criteria to pick and choose among all these amazing optics go beyond sharpness. In my book it's rather weight, TC Factor (including Z TCs rather than F TCs) and of course Cost.

Yep…I think people in general are spending way too much time at 1:1 or 3:1 parsing minute differences in sharpness of 2 point type and microscopic narrow lines…and not enough time looking at output images and factoring all the other factors in as well. Even the 100-400 or 70-20p both with the 2x TC have produced plenty of good images for me and others on the forum here? Are the primes better? Sure…and I’ve got the 400 and 600 but the output quality, weight, and flexibility of the zooms make them the better choice sometimes. Up at Venice Rookerynfor instance…shooting distances are fixed and there I’m more likely to take the 2 primes. Corkscrew or DeSoto…they’re not and I am likely to choose either the zoom or the 400 depending on the day and neither got excluded from consideration there…the 400 is lighter but less flexible and I’ve used both there. I think choices should be made based on the totality of factors rather than over focusing on 1:1 sharpness (see what I did there )…but I recognize others YMMV.

 

[BLev65]

That is where I am trying to decide, first wildlife lens purchase, zoom or prime, deciding on a zoom ( Tamaron 150-500 or Nikon 180-600) or the prime Nikon 400 f4, I have funds available for either lens, unfortunately not both. Currently own Nikon 24-120. Mammals and Animalscapes are primary interest with birds being secondary.

I've been shooting for more years than I can remember now, and coach people wanting to learn how to use their new complex cameras in nature photography. When asked if they should get a prime or a zoom for their first wildlife lens, I always go with a zoom.
In reality, a prime will discipline you, teach you the limits of optics, and force you to think more critically about composition. Between 1986 and 2014 my longest lens was a 300mm lens. I shot everything from 300mm f4.5 Tele-Tessars, 300 f4.5 EdIf, through 300 f2.8 EF IS lenses. In some cases I added 1.4x and 2x converters, but I cut my teeth with short primes and learned how to approach my subjects. In spite of the latter, I recommend a zoom because most people lack the patience to learn field craft. Heck, most people lack the patience to learn how to properly expose an image, use a light meter, or determine optimum apertures for desired outcomes. In the end, a zoom makes my clients happy because they desire the flexibility to compose without moving their body. Furthermore, zoom lenses will help new wildlife photographers find their subject by beginning on the wide end and narrowing the field of view. When a novice nature photographer struggles to find a relatively large bird like an eagle at 500mm, once they find the bird through the camera, they're left with a butt shot and a fleeing subject.
So... if you are a patient person and value photography knowledge and field craft, go with a prime... on the other hand, if you want to accelerate the time it takes to make increasingly successful images, you may be better off with a zoom.
For the record, I have both... a 400 f2.8S and a 180-600... each has its purpose for me and both get used a lot. cheers,
bruce

 

[robertrear]

I've been shooting for more year than I can remember now and coach people wanting to learn how to use their new complex cameras in nature photography. When asked if they should get a prime or a zoom for their first wildlife lens, I always go with a zoom.
In reality, a prime will discipline you, teach you the limits of optics, and force you to think more critically about composition. Between 1986 and 2014 my longest lens was a 300mm lens. I shot everything from 300mm f4.5 Tele-Tessars, 300 f4.5 EdIf, through 300 f2.8 EF IS lenses. In some cases I added 1.4x and 2x converters, but I cut my teeth with short primes and learned how to approach my subjects. In spite of the latter, I recommend a zoom because most people lack the patience to learn field craft. Heck, most people lack the patience on how to properly expose an image, use a light meter, or determine optimum apertures for desired outcomes. In the end, a zoom makes my clients happy because they desire the flexibility to compose without moving their body. Furthermore, zoom lenses will help new wildlife photographers find their subject by beginning on the wide end and narrowing the field of view. When a novice nature photographer tries to find a relatively large bird like an eagle at 500mm, once they can see the bird through the camera, they're left with a butt shot and a fleeting subject.
So... if you are a patient person and value photography knowledge and field craft, go with a prime... on the other hand, if you want to accelerate the time it takes to make increasingly successful images, you may be better off with a zoom.
For the record, I have both... a 400 f2.8S and a 180-600... each has its purpose for me and both get used a lot. cheers,
bruce

I started out with a Tamaron 150-600 on a Nikon 610 six years ago. I then learned what I needed to at the time then moved pretty much to all Primes with a Nikon D4s and Nikon D850 600mm or 500mmpf no teleconverter. Now I have the Nikon Z9 600mmpf and a 70-200 2.8 S You are spot on about what you are saying. The Prime put me way out of my comfort zone in the beginning but I'm so much better for it now!

 

[MMoretti]

All of my WA glass are primes, though in the past I’ve owned the 16-35 and others. When I went to Namibia last August, I brought a couple of primes, up to my Voigtlander 125/2.5 and my 70-200/2.8 VRII, my only long lens at the time. My buddy and I had rented a bakkie, so we were pretty flexible, as long as we stayed on the roads. In Etosha, you are not allowed to get out of the vehicle, including sitting in the window. While my friend, at times, struggled for shots with his 300/2.8 VR for mammals which were frequently too close to the vehicle, I could easily frame those with my zoom, using a 1.4 TC, when needed. I plan to go back later this year, this time with my 120-300/2.8E and both 1.4 and 2 TC’s on my Z8. That said, I wouldn’t mind being able to afford a 600/4 FL or even the 500 PF that I could swap out as needed with WA Zeiss or CV glass on my D850. I’m not really a birder, but would appreciate the longer reach (600 + 1.4) for the very cool birds to be found there.

EDIT: I don’t agree with the suggestion that being able to use primes over zooms makes you a better photographer. It’s the 6-8 inches behind the camera, as others have said, that does that.

 

[BLev65]

All of my WA glass are primes, though in the past I’ve owned the 16-35 and others. When I went to Namibia last August, I brought a couple of primes, up to my Voigtlander 125/2.5 and my 70-200/2.8 VRII, my only long lens at the time. My buddy and I had rented a bakkie, so we were pretty flexible, as long as we stayed on the roads. In Etosha, you are not allowed to get out of the vehicle, including sitting in the window. While my friend, at times, struggled for shots with his 300/2.8 VR for mammals which were frequently too close to the vehicle, I could easily frame those with my zoom, using a 1.4 TC, when needed. I plan to go back later this year, this time with my 120-300/2.8E and both 1.4 and 2 TC’s on my Z8. That said, I wouldn’t mind being able to afford a 600/4 FL or even the 500 PF that I could swap out as needed with WA Zeiss or CV glass on my D850. I’m not really a birder, but would appreciate the longer reach (600 + 1.4) for the very cool birds to be found there.

EDIT: I don’t agree with the suggestion that being able to use primes over zooms makes you a better photographer. It’s the 6-8 inches behind the camera, as others have said, that does that.

Just want to follow up on your EDIT: "I don't agree with the suggestion that being able to use primes over zooms makes you a better photographer..."

I sincerely hope that this is not what you or anyone else thought I was implying.
Back in the 1980's primes were the way to go because they were just that much better than zooms unless you could get yourself the original Nikon AiS 200-400 ED lens... a magnificent optic that I could neither afford or want to carry in the field.
Primes were the way to go because they were relatively small and much sharper than lenses like the "state of the art" 50-300mm f4.5 EdIf.
While I sincerely believe a person learning how to photograph wildlife will find this pursuit easier with a zoom lens, I also believe that one learns more about photography when they are faced with limits. Neither one (prime or zoom) will make you a better photographer. Furthermore, in this day and age, the optical quality of zooms is so good, that short of depth of field differences, one would be hard pressed to distinguish a shot I can make with my 400 f2.8S @ 400mm from a shot I can make with the 180-600 @400mm.

Regardless of your decision, primes, zooms, or... these are tools that should be leveraged to realize your vision and it is the "vision thing" that distinguishes an average to good photograph from a great photograph.

cheers,
bruce

 

[MMoretti]

I certainly didn’t think so, Bruce, and I should have been more clear on that point. Your post did remind me that there are some, however, who do espouse such a view and I sincerely regret any offense to you. I do agree with your point that zooms make an attractive means for people to get into photography, which is why I started my own two sons with zoom kits. (They’ve independently added primes, since.) There are, of course, some zooms now which exceed primes, including the 120-300 which I have recently come to own... in fact, it easily outstrips my own abilities, so I hope only to grow into it (including physically!). I’ll further admit that I’m one who is impatient to learn the more detailed tradecraft to which you refer, but that‘s a commonality I share with pretty much all of my pursuits.

Best back to you,
Michael

 

[Calson]

One negative aspect with prime lenses is the pronounced tendency to tightly crop a subject and omit most of its environment. OK for a ID shot but never as compelling as images that show the surroundings and can provide a glimpse into the animal's life. I see this especially with the 600mm lens where a 500mm focal length would have been a better choice in many situations. For a place like Yellowstone a zoom is going to be a better choice than any prime lens in terms of overall performance.

Something overlooked is that the Tamron 150-500mm sells for only $1200 and the Nikon 180-600mm is a great value at $1700. The 400mm f/4.5 prime sells for $3,250 and then there is the added cost of the Z teleconverters at $600 apiece.

 

[MatthewK]

One negative aspect with prime lenses is the pronounced tendency to tightly crop a subject and omit most of its environment. OK for a ID shot but never as compelling as images that show the surroundings and can provide a glimpse into the animal's life. I see this especially with the 600mm lens where a 500mm focal length would have been a better choice in many situations. For a place like Yellowstone a zoom is going to be a better choice than any prime lens in terms of overall performance.

Something overlooked is that the Tamron 150-500mm sells for only $1200 and the Nikon 180-600mm is a great value at $1700. The 400mm f/4.5 prime sells for $3,250 and then there is the added cost of the Z teleconverters at $600 apiece.

It’s an interesting conundrum, similar to what I face when picking out which standard lens to use: I’m much more comfortable composing tight with my 50mm, versus environmental shots using a 24mm or other UWA, which for me I feel never turn out very well. It’s just not natural to not fill the frame with a subject; add to that, people are obsessed with seeing fine feather/fur detail captured with these 45MP sensors, whereas a subject can get lost in a loose composition if it isn’t done right. Translated to super tele lenses, my 800PF is a much easier lens to use when trying to make a shot vs. a 600, and then again vs. a 400. Tighter composition is a safety net against bad compositions, but it can also cause all one’s shots to look the same after a while.

So, I feel that adding the 600PF and especially the 180-600 into my mix is a step I wanted to take in order to open up my compositions a bit more. I have more fun using my primes, but deep down I know the 186 should be the lens that gets the most use simply for its sheer versatility. Best part is, I don’t have to worry about IQ from any of them, each of them are amazing performers.

 

[MLB01]

One negative aspect with prime lenses is the pronounced tendency to tightly crop a subject and omit most of its environment. OK for a ID shot but never as compelling as images that show the surroundings and can provide a glimpse into the animal's life. I see this especially with the 600mm lens where a 500mm focal length would have been a better choice in many situations. For a place like Yellowstone a zoom is going to be a better choice than any prime lens in terms of overall performance.

Something overlooked is that the Tamron 150-500mm sells for only $1200 and the Nikon 180-600mm is a great value at $1700. The 400mm f/4.5 prime sells for $3,250 and then there is the added cost of the Z teleconverters at $600 apiece.

Since this will be my first wildife lens purchase, the versatlity, optic performance, cost, and weight of the Tamaron 150-500 makes it a great option, eventhough it is 100mm shorter than the 180-600 and VR is better according to reviews.

 

[wotan1]

As a lifetime prime user I don't feel the urge to go too tight on something.

When shooting primes it is helpful to have a selection of primes and to pre-pick the lenses that will best get what i want. Tend to err in favor of a lens that is wider than I need so I have room to crop. Also when you have a prime on the camera you tend to look for shots that take advantage of the prime's perspective. Typically I have worked extensively with a particular prime and have a good sense of its tendencies and perspective advantages.

In my early days I used to bring a bag with lenses at 20mm, 28, 35, 50, 85-100 and 135. I would pick through them as needed

The tendency when using zoom is to try to frame the image exactly the way you want it framed right in the camera.

Each works in its own way.

The advantage of a zoom is extreme flexibility, you can adjust focal length quickly and easily as the focal length you want is already on the camera. For a prime you have to think it out in advance so you don't have to change lenses to get the shot.

The reward for the zoom is you might get a shot you could not get otherwise. For the prime you as a general rule are working with higher IQ and your shots have a better chance of being keepers. Plus your forethought in choosing the prime hopefully means you have analyzed the situation and have a plan.

It is kind of like driving a stick shift car instead of auto transmission. With manual shift it forces you to watch the road ahead to plan when you have to hit the clutch to shift. it makes you pay closer attention. I always thought I drove safer on with a stick shift because I was forced to plan my shifts.

Ultimately there is no right or wrong here, it is up to the photographer's comfort creativity and skill.

I spent a lot of money this year building my z lens inventory. I am tempted to open my horizons and I may eventually go for the Tamron zoom its price is certainly right.

 

[Calson]

With that logic one should have a 200mm, a 300mm, a 400mm, a 500mm, a 600mm, and a 800mm prime and a porter to haul it around in the field. A a practical matter when I use the 800mm I also have a second camera with a zoom lens attached. At a place like Bosque del Apache this approach is taken by many photographers.

Any focal length shorter than 50mm is going to result in perspective distortion and make anything in the middle ground or background appear to be much smaller than objects in the foreground. This perspective distortion can be used to creative effect but it is more than simply reducing the subject to camera distance.

This shot taken with a tilt shift lens demonstrates this aspect where the height of the barn in the background is less than the height of the fencing in the foreground. We may make a mental adjustment but it still alters the perspective and can turn distant mountains into mole hills.

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