Buy the 180-600 and sell the 180-400 TC F mount?

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).

RichF

RichF

Well-known and Infamous Member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
the 180-600 is overlaps the 180-400 very well, though it is about stop slower below 400 and roughly comparable from 400 to 550.

The 180-600 is lighter, no idea if it is sharper (have not seen a test and can not test it until at least August). The 180-400 is probably a better build. Not sure which focuses faster, though it may not matter much.

Anyone planning on selling their 180-400 TC when the 180-600 arrives?
 
Member's gallery
I agree 100%. My 180-400 TC remains my primary wildlife lens, for mammals especially. Perhaps it's possible for pixel peepers to find inferior differences at 560mm but I know my copy delivers excellent quality.
The only reason to opt for the consumer zoom is a different use case, particularly when one has to handhold the rig for long periods..... 1.9kg is a big drop from 3.5kg. This also drops the faster aperture, optics, integral TC as already stated above.

Each one of us has their personal comfort zone for handholding. I could just manage the 3.8 kg 400 f2.8E with a TC on a gripped ILC...so over 5kg net mass. But I found long holds on a subject were not possible.
A longer handholding session needs 1 or 3 legs of support, particularly as the net weight exceeds 4kg (my threshold) but only if well balanced.
It's very noticeable dropping to the 3.5kg 180-400 TC on a gripped ILC. It's much less demanding, for me that is. YMMV. Obviously as we know so well, handholding a PF telephoto is so so much easier.
It is essential to seek a well balanced rig of camera+telephoto, where several of the newer lenses have noticeable advantages. For example, the superb 300 f2.8G is end heavy, which is very obvious when hiking about with it. [EDITED]
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I am also considering the 180-600 vs my 180-400. My rationale is that I will someday have a Z600TC (#1 on local store list) as my primary long lens and it is very difficult to travel by air with both a 600f4 and the 180-400, while the 180-600 will be possible. I already have the 100-400 and 1.4TC, so I think further tests showing the sharpness between these lenses will also weigh into my decision.
 
Member's gallery
lpphototx said:
I am also considering the 180-600 vs my 180-400. My rationale is that I will someday have a Z600TC (#1 on local store list) as my primary long lens and it is very difficult to travel by air with both a 600f4 and the 180-400, while the 180-600 will be possible. I already have the 100-400 and 1.4TC, so I think further tests showing the sharpness between these lenses will also weigh into my decision.
Click to expand...
Similar thought process here. Primary use case is mammals from the truck in Africa. I place sharpness, focus, rendering above all else, really need the zoom to frame properly, yet have to lug my equipment from the States So size and weight a small factor. I am keeping an open mind that the the new 180-600 could be close enough on sharpness and rendering that it MAY make sense to buy it, sell the f 180-400 tc, and (looking to make sure my wife is not around)……..apply that $ recovered to a 600tc.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
600mm provides a 77% larger image than 400mm so that is part of the trade-off. The other is the weight. The 180-400mm is a lens that for me requires the use of a tripod and its gimbal head. For me the 800mm PF at 5.2 lb or 8 lb wiht a Z9 attached, is at the edge of what I can manage hand held for any length of time.

Being able to adjust the view angle and how much around a subject is included in the frame is a very big deal. I often see images that are OK but would have been great if the subject had not been over cropped as a result of using a prime lens with too long a focal length.

I first experienced the much greater mobility of using the 500mm PF instead of my 600mm f/4. The 5 lbs in weight savings meant no need to carry around a 8 lb tripod with gimbal head. It also meant I was moving around a great deal more and adjusting my position relative to the subject(s) and changing my height to be lower to the ground.

Often at places where there is a group of photographers bunched together to photograph something they will plant their tripod and mount their camera and lens and then shoot from that position until the subject leaves or they become bored. The images will all be from the same position with the same background and have the same perspective. That is the downside to using heavy prime lenses.

And for anyone who shoots from a small boat a zoom lens that can be easily hand held is a much have to be effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top